METRORail Green Line

[Slick Vik]

Suit yourself, Slick, but your message is not effective at all because of your incessant whining about the meanies that allegedly killed streetcars. It's sort of like the guy that keeps talking about the touchdown he scored in high school 50 years ago. No one cares but him.

Such whining that 60 minutes did a story on it, books have been written, movies have been made. And I find it interesting you ignored my final remark. But then again not surprising. I'm sure you wish for the good old days with your fellow good old boys.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Slick Vik

[102IAHexpress]

I'm sure you wish for the good old days with your fellow good old boys.

 

Good old boys? Are you referring to Bob Lanier? Bob Lanier was a wheeler and dealer sure. But he wasn't some political crony. In the Cathy Whitmiere days Metro made a deal with Lanier, agreeing to spend more of Metro's  funds on streets and roads. Metro could have said FU Lanier but they didn't. NO money was stolen. Metro made a political deal. When Lanier campaigned for mayor he campaigned on the promise to increase the number of police and to kill a monorail proposal that most citizens were skeptical about. The PEOPLE elected him. The PEOPLE told us what they wanted. This was not some crime of the century.

[IronTiger]

I'm not anti rail per se. A well planned light rail is not a bad thing.

 

But lets not get carried away. The Red Line replaced busses that were the most frequently commuted in the city. Which makes sense, those busses connected the two major economic centers of the city, Downtown and the Med Center. The Red Line is heavily used today in 2015 because well, that route has always been heavily used. But how's the north line extension doing? What about the green/purple?

 

Houston is a city without zoning. Population centers may pop up one day and disappear the next. Probably the worst kind of city for fixed guide way transit. Busses are more flexible and can adjust more easily as the populations of the city adjust. etc, etc, I'm sure I could keep going but what's the point? You're just going to ignore all the reasons why Houston is a bus city...

Population centers never really "disappear". Greenspoint is far from the trendy place it was, but it's still a populated place to live and work. If whole population centers "disappeared", then mass transit is going to be the least of the city's concerns.

 

But to be fair, Lanier wasn't a "good ol' boy".

[Slick Vik]

Good old boys? Are you referring to Bob Lanier? Bob Lanier was a wheeler and dealer sure. But he wasn't some political crony. In the Cathy Whitmiere days Metro made a deal with Lanier, agreeing to spend more of Metro's funds on streets and roads. Metro could have said FU Lanier but they didn't. NO money was stolen. Metro made a political deal. When Lanier campaigned for mayor he campaigned on the promise to increase the number of police and to kill a monorail proposal that most citizens were skeptical about. The PEOPLE elected him. The PEOPLE told us what they wanted. This was not some crime of the century.

Buying land as a highway commissioner knowing highways will be built there due to your influence isn't cronyism? If you really believe that you're just dumb. And taking money that was already voted on and handing it over for something else is corruption and morally wrong.

[102IAHexpress]

And taking money that was already voted on and handing it over for something else is corruption and morally wrong.

 

In 1988, voters in Metro's jurisdiction approved a long-range mobility plan that proposed to spend half of metro's tax revenues on bus service, 25 percent on road and general mobility improvements, and 25 percent on some fixed-guideway transit system.

 

Later on the Metro board chose to pursue the monorail plan. However Lanier campaigned on his desire to kill the monorail proposal and instead use that money for road projects and police patrols. He won.

 

His election win was basically a second referendum on monorail. The people voted. And they rejected monorail and instead voted to use that money for something else.

 

Cronyism? No, just political hard ball.

 

Lanier was honest in what he wanted to do. It was put to a vote. He won. End of story.

[mfastx]

Lanier probably set Houston back a couple decades, but most people went along with it and were none the wiser. 

 

People generally don't start seeing the importance of public transit until it's too late and traffic is utter shit around the entire city (an example is LA, they were already at 14,000,000 people in the area by the time their first rail line opened).  

 

It takes a hell of a campaign and cooperation to get rail going before it's required (Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas).  

 

Houston is trying but still too many politicians not on the same page and not enough of a majority to do something about it with voting. 

[102IAHexpress]

Lanier probably set Houston back a couple decades, but most people went along with it and were none the wiser. 

 

 

 

Pretty bold statement. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you saying Houston did NOT have amazing growth in the last 25 years? The stories of Houston leading the country in jobs were lies? All the new airline routes from IAH did not happen? Tons of new home owners? etc, etc,.

 

From what I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong. But Houston is hot and muggy most of the year and flat and ugly all of the year? Houston has no natural beauty. But for some reason people flock here? Often times people flock here from heavy rail cities that have failed them.

 

No Lanier did not set us back at all. More police, better roads are what people wanted and got. Houston has thrived ever since.

[IronTiger]

In 1988, voters in Metro's jurisdiction approved a long-range mobility plan that proposed to spend half of metro's tax revenues on bus service, 25 percent on road and general mobility improvements, and 25 percent on some fixed-guideway transit system.

Later on the Metro board chose to pursue the monorail plan. However Lanier campaigned on his desire to kill the monorail proposal and instead use that money for road projects and police patrols. He won.

His election win was basically a second referendum on monorail. The people voted. And they rejected monorail and instead voted to use that money for something else.

Cronyism? No, just political hard ball.

Lanier was honest in what he wanted to do. It was put to a vote. He won. End of story.

I did do research, and there was no people's vote on a monorail/people mover system. I can pull up the posts on it with cited articles, but Slick's narrative doesn't like pesky things like facts.

[BigFootsSocks]

Pretty bold statement. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you saying Houston did NOT have amazing growth in the last 25 years? The stories of Houston leading the country in jobs were lies? All the new airline routes from IAH did not happen? Tons of new home owners? etc, etc,.

From what I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong. But Houston is hot and muggy most of the year and flat and ugly all of the year? Houston has no natural beauty. But for some reason people flock here? Often times people flock here from heavy rail cities that have failed them.

No Lanier did not set us back at all. More police, better roads are what people wanted and got. Houston has thrived ever since.

Weird, it's like you took everything he wrote, erased all of it, placed in your own words, and accused him of saying everything you said.

It's like you're arguing with yourself.

[Slick Vik]

I did do research, and there was no people's vote on a monorail/people mover system. I can pull up the posts on it with cited articles, but Slick's narrative doesn't like pesky things like facts.

There was a referendum during whitmire's term. Look it up.

Pretty bold statement. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you saying Houston did NOT have amazing growth in the last 25 years? The stories of Houston leading the country in jobs were lies? All the new airline routes from IAH did not happen? Tons of new home owners? etc, etc,.

From what I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong. But Houston is hot and muggy most of the year and flat and ugly all of the year? Houston has no natural beauty. But for some reason people flock here? Often times people flock here from heavy rail cities that have failed them.

No Lanier did not set us back at all. More police, better roads are what people wanted and got. Houston has thrived ever since.

Lanier won because of a false report by Wayne delcefino that cost Sylvester turner the election.

[cspwal]

I found a New York time article on the referendum vote in 1988

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/18/us/rail-system-plan-backed-by-houston-voters.html

 

 

 

The $1.04 billion light-rail line, for instance, which would link Houston's downtown with the Astrodome, the Texas Medical Center and the Galleria shopping area, is contingent on Federal grants and private-sector contributions for 70 percent of its financing.

 

It looks like the Metro board changed their mind to build a monorail and that's what Bob Lanier killed

http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Why-no-monorail-For-city-s-transit-riders-two-1970501.php

 

 

 

The Metro board subsequently chose to pursue a monorail system. Before the system could be built, however, Houston voters elected Bob Lanier mayor. Lanier campaigned on his desire to kill the monorail plan and use the money put aside for it for road projects and, indirectly, police patrols. After the voters elected Lanier in what was to a large degree a second referendum on monorail, Lanier killed monorail and transferred millions of dollars in Metro savings to Houston and other entities.

 

City lab did a write up of old Houston Metro plans, with a few old maps, but I couldn't find one of the original 1988 plan (or where the monorail would have gone).

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/10/what-old-transit-maps-can-teach-us-about-a-citys-future/381149/

 

Also, why does it seem like Houston referendums usually don't mean anything when it comes to rail projects?

[august948]

There was a referendum during whitmire's term. Look it up.

 

 

Are you talking about this referendum?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/18/us/rail-system-plan-backed-by-houston-voters.html

 

I don't see any reference to a monorail in the article.  And at any rate, a whopping 9% of voters polled in that election and 60% voted in favor for a whole package.  That makes 5.4% of all voters bothering to vote in favor.  No wonder it was easy to not implement that portion of the package.  That's a case where even though technically voters approved, there wasn't really any political will to get it done.

[august948]

Also, why does it seem like Houston referendums usually don't mean anything when it comes to rail projects?

 

Because when only 5.4% of eligible voters actually vote in favor, it's pretty easy for officials to ignore.  That's a disconnect between how things work in theory (an election decides it once and for all) and the reality that without real support ideas/bills/referendums can be killed pretty easily.  So you can't really say that a vote is unequivocal evidence that the polity wants a particular policy implemented.

Edited June 30, 2015 by august948

[cspwal]

It looks like one of the problems is poor participation in the governing of our own city - 9% turn out is horrid

[Slick Vik]

I found a New York time article on the referendum vote in 1988

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/18/us/rail-system-plan-backed-by-houston-voters.html

It looks like the Metro board changed their mind to build a monorail and that's what Bob Lanier killed

http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Why-no-monorail-For-city-s-transit-riders-two-1970501.php

City lab did a write up of old Houston Metro plans, with a few old maps, but I couldn't find one of the original 1988 plan (or where the monorail would have gone).

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/10/what-old-transit-maps-can-teach-us-about-a-citys-future/381149/

Also, why does it seem like Houston referendums usually don't mean anything when it comes to rail projects?

He would've killed it anyway

Because when only 5.4% of eligible voters actually vote in favor, it's pretty easy for officials to ignore. That's a disconnect between how things work in theory (an election decides it once and for all) and the reality that without real support ideas/bills/referendums can be killed pretty easily. So you can't really say that a vote is unequivocal evidence that the polity wants a particular policy implemented.

Great so let's disenfranchise those who actually take the time to vote, because we can. You're an enabler for corrupt politicians.

[august948]

Great so let's disenfranchise those who actually take the time to vote, because we can. You're an enabler for corrupt politicians.

 

No one's been disenfranchised.  If anything, implementing policy only actively approved by 5.4% of eligible voters seems like tyranny of the minority.  We're all collectively enablers for corrupt politicians as long as there isn't a backlash.  Don't be so naive to believe what your 4th grade social studies book said about how democracy works.

 

 

[102IAHexpress]

Lanier won because of a false report by Wayne delcefino that cost Sylvester turner the election.

 

That's another thread entirely. The report aired twice. The day after Thanksgiving i think. The 5:30pm broadcast and the 10:00pm broadcast. Tough to say how much impact it had just being aired twice but I could see how a viewer may think Turner was involved in some insurance scam after watching it. I get that. But the channel 13 story never said that. never. The story was more about what did Turner know and when did he know it. A legitimate question to ask from the press to a public official. Public officials are not immune from inquiries from the press. Long story short, after many legal battles, Turners lawsuit against channel 13 was overturned on appeal. And the overturned appeal was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court.

[mfastx]

Pretty bold statement. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you saying Houston did NOT have amazing growth in the last 25 years? The stories of Houston leading the country in jobs were lies? All the new airline routes from IAH did not happen? Tons of new home owners? etc, etc,.

 

From what I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong. But Houston is hot and muggy most of the year and flat and ugly all of the year? Houston has no natural beauty. But for some reason people flock here? Often times people flock here from heavy rail cities that have failed them.

 

No Lanier did not set us back at all. More police, better roads are what people wanted and got. Houston has thrived ever since.

 

I was talking about from a public transit perspective.  We would have been more advanced and had more ridership by this point if the late 80's light rail plan had been built.  

 

But that pales in comparison to the early 80s heavy rail plan which would have been better than anything proposed since. 

 

EDIT: Oh yea and Houston has the worst roads of any city I've ever been to, they just put that money towards cheaply patching roads, the did a shitty job.  So roads are not any better at this point. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by mfastx

[Slick Vik]

That's another thread entirely. The report aired twice. The day after Thanksgiving i think. The 5:30pm broadcast and the 10:00pm broadcast. Tough to say how much impact it had just being aired twice but I could see how a viewer may think Turner was involved in some insurance scam after watching it. I get that. But the channel 13 story never said that. never. The story was more about what did Turner know and when did he know it. A legitimate question to ask from the press to a public official. Public officials are not immune from inquiries from the press. Long story short, after many legal battles, Turners lawsuit against channel 13 was overturned on appeal. And the overturned appeal was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court.

Did you see what happened in the polls as soon as the report was released? That was a god send for Lanier. It was a bogus report, and the appeal and Texas Supreme Court played partisan politics.

No one's been disenfranchised. If anything, implementing policy only actively approved by 5.4% of eligible voters seems like tyranny of the minority. We're all collectively enablers for corrupt politicians as long as there isn't a backlash. Don't be so naive to believe what your 4th grade social studies book said about how democracy works.

If the majority is too lazy to vote then they deal with the results. You can't punish the ones that make the effort.

[Ross]

I was talking about from a public transit perspective.  We would have been more advanced and had more ridership by this point if the late 80's light rail plan had been built.  

 

But that pales in comparison to the early 80s heavy rail plan which would have been better than anything proposed since. 

 

EDIT: Oh yea and Houston has the worst roads of any city I've ever been to, they just put that money towards cheaply patching roads, the did a shitty job.  So roads are not any better at this point. 

 

In general, the roads are better than they were before Lanier came along. The Downtown streets were torn out completely, and properly engineered for the first time. Those projects took longer than expected due to the amount of crap buried beneath the streets. I recall Louisiana had telephone poles and rails buried in the ROW. You could see how poorly built the prior streets were by seeing the layers, with dirt at the bottom, topped by oyster shell, then brick, then many layers of asphalt.

 

West U really did it right. They voted in a tax increase, and redid just about every street in the city.

 

Houston wasn't ready for transit in the 80's. No one had a real clue as to what to do, and hte majority of growth was in the suburbs, with very few people interested in anything inside the Loop.

 

[august948]

Did you see what happened in the polls as soon as the report was released? That was a god send for Lanier. It was a bogus report, and the appeal and Texas Supreme Court played partisan politics.

If the majority is too lazy to vote then they deal with the results. You can't punish the ones that make the effort.

 

If the majority is too lazy to vote then the politicians do what they and their donors want.  And the majority is too lazy to vote and thus here we are.  it cuts both ways. 

 

[mfastx]

In general, the roads are better than they were before Lanier came along. The Downtown streets were torn out completely, and properly engineered for the first time. Those projects took longer than expected due to the amount of crap buried beneath the streets. I recall Louisiana had telephone poles and rails buried in the ROW. You could see how poorly built the prior streets were by seeing the layers, with dirt at the bottom, topped by oyster shell, then brick, then many layers of asphalt.

 

West U really did it right. They voted in a tax increase, and redid just about every street in the city.

 

Houston wasn't ready for transit in the 80's. No one had a real clue as to what to do, and hte majority of growth was in the suburbs, with very few people interested in anything inside the Loop.

 

 

I agree with this, downtown has the best infrastructure in the inner loop for sure.  I was mostly talking about the Montrose, Midtown and other inner loop areas. 

 

Also I thought that most of those downtown streets were redone in the late 90s/early 00s as opposed to early 90s.  And what you described as "poorly built streets" is a pretty accurate description of many streets in the inner loop. 

 

And I agree that in the 80s Houston wasn't ready for transit.  One could even argue that even now it is not as required as it is in other cities.  But it's a shame that the proposal in the 80s didn't go through for a number of reasons: 1) the amount of federal dollars available for transit construction was much higher than it is now or will probably be at any point in the future, cities like Atlanta, Miami, DC and SF all took advantage of the availability of these monies - unfortunately we did not and 2) heavy rail was proposed which carries many more people than light rail and is generally more cost effective in terms of operating cost per rider than light rail and buses.  

Edited July 1, 2015 by mfastx

[HoustonMidtown]

Does anyone know when construction is expected to start on the bridge across the Pacific Rail line?

 

Work has started....a couple warehouses/factories have been demolished on the north side....sidewalks have been removed on the south side..

 

[BigFootsSocks]

They were demolishing part of that shopping center in the foreground a few weeks back

[BigFootsSocks]

Well it's only been two days but there are so many more people on the purple line now.

[j_cuevas713]

Well it's only been two days but there are so many more people on the purple line now.

A lot of it is people going back to school. That's what Metro had hoped for, which is a good thing.

[BigFootsSocks]

Yeah that's what I meant to say, I saw a few metro officers counting riders yesterday so I'm curious how much of an increase the purple line has got.

[KinkaidAlum]

The stations at UH always seem to have people waiting... which is a good thing. My daughter is a sophomore there in a dorm and she said the kids all use it to get to downtown/midtown as it saves them so much $$$ on parking and uber. 

[jackie21love]

Uptown will surely more fun for college students. So bad the University line and uptown lines cannot being built. Houston needs to get more density to make people realize the importance of public transportation like light rail and subway.

 

The stations at UH always seem to have people waiting... which is a good thing. My daughter is a sophomore there in a dorm and she said the kids all use it to get to downtown/midtown as it saves them so much $$$ on parking and uber. 

 

[astros148]

The stations at UH always seem to have people waiting... which is a good thing. My daughter is a sophomore there in a dorm and she said the kids all use it to get to downtown/midtown as it saves them so much $$$ on parking and uber. 

 

good luck walking to the connecting station on the red line at 10pm. Bunch of homeless people and I have a HPD friend who works that street and says theres tons of street theft on that block