HtownWxBoy Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6247307.htmlHouston WASHINGTON — Houston Metro is due to receive as much as $180 million over the next 12 months from a huge economic stimulus bill to help jump-start construction of two light rail lines, a House committee chairman said Wednesday.The long-delayed rail lines on the city’s north and southeast sides are a “very high-rated project,” said Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who heads the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The project, he said, is ready to go and has cleared all but one step of a federal review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Unfortunately, that money isn't ours yet.http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...ocal-interests/However, it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Unfortunately, that money isn't ours yet.http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...ocal-interests/Is there any indication that we have folks up there lobbying for transportation funding other than for mass transit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJVilla Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6247307.htmlHouston WASHINGTON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It's still not a done deal but it's baffling that our former "representatives" refused to do this for our city and area. Instead they (or he "Delayed us over" to be more precise) by building a crappy, ineffecient toll road to prevent commutter rail to the southwest. It seems that new one doesn't has much more brains either. Will be glad when these idiots are pushed out or towards extinction. You are grossly misinformed. And your grammar is atrocious. Delay did not seek any kind of Federal funding for the Westpark Toll Road. It is an HCTRA project paid for by user fees and financed by bonds backed by Harris County. METRO still owns a right-of-way adjacent to HCTRA's facilities that is more than enough to accommodate light rail, and in fact part of that will be used for the University Line. Delay did block funding to the University Line, however that had nothing to do with any toll roads and had everything to do with 1) his predisposition against light rail, and 2) the cover story that METRO misled voters during the light rail referendum. As far as the Interstate 10 reconstruction was concerned (which may be what you were referring to, even though it isn't in the southwest part of town), Delay did play a large part in securing Federal funding for that project. However, funding for Interstate 10 was not mutually exclusive with funding for light rail. Funding for the Katy Toll Road was arranged by HCTRA, just like Westpark; the Katy Toll Road was also not a project that was mutually exclusive to commuter rail along that same route. METRO participated in the Interstate 10 reconstruction plans from the beginning and had originally been alloted a path for commuter rail; however, METRO was unable to finalize plans or commit to financing as project deadlines came due. The project had to move forward without them. There are a lot of things you can hold against Tom Delay, there's no doubt about that. But get your facts straight. And the next time you accuse someone of being an idiot, avoid using the phrase "doesn't has much more brains". Spell check would also be advisable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Only $12 billion for transit? That number is too low. This thing is shaping up to be a pork-fest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALMSP Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 5 lines by 2012??!!! that is fricken hilarious!!! Mark my words right now..............we wont have 1 single additional line up and running fully by 2012.........thats how pathetically slow METRO is working at really moving forward with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 5 lines by 2012??!!! that is fricken hilarious!!! Mark my words right now..............we wont have 1 single additional line up and running fully by 2012.........thats how pathetically slow METRO is working at really moving forward with this.Considering that one of them is currently under construction, I beg to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Considering that one of them is currently under construction, I beg to differ.They're making no progress on it. Even if they were making progress, it wouldn't matter because the East End line has to hook into the Southeast line in order to go anywhere. And the start of the Southeast line has been delayed along with everything else.I have to agree with CALMSP. No new light rail until 2013 at the very earliest, and that's being optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 They're making no progress on it. Even if they were making progress, it wouldn't matter because the East End line has to hook into the Southeast line in order to go anywhere. And the start of the Southeast line has been delayed along with everything else.Oh. Poop ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 They're making no progress on it. Even if they were making progress, it wouldn't matter because the East End line has to hook into the Southeast line in order to go anywhere. And the start of the Southeast line has been delayed along with everything else.It matters to the people who live in the East End and who would like faster and more frequent access to downtown and the Red Line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It matters to the people who live in the East End and who would like faster and more frequent access to downtown and the Red Line!The East End line does not go downtown or to the Red Line; it terminates as it merges with the Southeast line just east of downtown. If the Southeast line is not already operational, the completion of the East End line won't matter to East End residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It matters to the people who live in the East End and who would like faster and more frequent access to downtown and the Red Line! In the meantime, buses run frequently down Leeland and Harrisburg, ready and waiting to carry you those 3 blocks into downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citykid09 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 So are the new lines still running on the streets with the cars? What a waste if it is. Those rails stop traffic and do nothing that a bus couldn't do. If you are going to build rail first take a look at other cities that have done it right. BART in the Bay Area runs all over the San Fransisco area, Hayward, Oakland, SF, etc. DART in Dallas is nice and MARTA in Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 In the meantime, buses run frequently down Leeland and Harrisburg, ready and waiting to carry you those 3 blocks into downtown. I ought to know, I ride them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I ought to know, I ride them.Don't get me wrong, I wish the rail was moving more quickly,too, since I'm a block and half from the proposed Lockwood/Harrisburg station. But I just don't see 2012. I'm on the bus too if I don't want to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 So are the new lines still running on the streets with the cars? What a waste if it is. Those rails stop traffic and do nothing that a bus couldn't do. If you are going to build rail first take a look at other cities that have done it right. BART in the Bay Area runs all over the San Fransisco area, Hayward, Oakland, SF, etc. DART in Dallas is nice and MARTA in Atlanta.I don't think this has been brought up yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citykid09 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I don't think this has been brought up yet.I don't understand. They know from the first line that having rail that runs on the street with cars is not a good idea. It slows the trains, and the cars and causes accidents. I could have told them that before they built it. If your going to do it, do it right. But I think its to late for that now because they already started on a new line. Why build something that's no different then buses? Build the light rail either, elevated, grade seperate, below ground or a combanation of the 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I don't understand. They know from the first line that having rail that runs on the street with cars is not a good idea. It slows the trains, and the cars and causes accidents. I could have told them that before they built it. If your going to do it, do it right. But I think its to late for that now because they already started on a new line. Why build something that's no different then buses? Build the light rail either, elevated, grade seperate, below ground or a combanation of the 3.He was being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citykid09 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 He was being sarcastic.Well being stuck with a crappy rail system in a city the size of Houston is nothing to e sarcastic about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesL Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Build the light rail either, elevated, grade seperate, below ground or a combanation of the 3.This argument has been hashed out a million times before. In reality, it's all about the money. Houston only has a finite amount to spend on transportation and can only get a finite amount from the federal government, so we have to do the best with what we have. See: http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...w-me-the-money/I know it's from before they decided on all LRT, but the idea is the same.Why build something that's no different then buses?On the contrary, light rail, even at grade, is far superior to buses in most ways. It can carry 200 people per vehicle, or 400 people per train. The traffic prioritization system makes it so they rarely have to stop between stations (except in the TMC with those shared turn lanes; I don't think they plan to build any of the new lines like that). Accidents are few and far between now that drivers get the idea that left turns are illegal on Main St. The streets on which new lines will run will have signalized left turns, likely reducing the possibility of accidents further.In short, you're right; there are ways to build a faster, more convenient rail system. In Houston, though, light rail - at grade, in its own reservation - will give us the best approximation of true rapid transit and allow us to get the most extensive system out of a limited budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Houston is an auto-centric city... there's no precedent with which to support grade-separated rail here, and there's just barely enough public support for the current light rail plans. You have to view MetroRail as a "transitional system". Grade separation may come, but only when we've put up some ridership numbers to prove that system will be worth building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALMSP Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 is there a reason why METRO doesn't build stops at a station in both directions?? why have 2 different platforms?? This is a simple little thing that can be done to save money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transit Nut Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 is there a reason why METRO doesn't build stops at a station in both directions?? why have 2 different platforms?? This is a simple little thing that can be done to save money.Platforms have to be a certain minimum width; those serving one direction only are narrower than those serving both directions. It depends on how much space is available and/or can be acquired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 is there a reason why METRO doesn't build stops at a station in both directions?? why have 2 different platforms?? This is a simple little thing that can be done to save money.along the southern end of the line, some are single platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citykid09 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Houston is an auto-centric city... there's no precedent with which to support grade-separated rail here, and there's just barely enough public support for the current light rail plans. You have to view MetroRail as a "transitional system". Grade separation may come, but only when we've put up some ridership numbers to prove that system will be worth building.The reason Houston is an auto-centric city is because there is no other choice available. You people just aren't giving a real transit a chance and settling for what METRO gives you. If the rail had run along the freeway like it was supposed to, the system could have been much faster, and carried more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 The reason Houston is an auto-centric city is because there is no other choice available.what is your definition of auto centric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 The reason Houston is an auto-centric city is because there is no other choice available.Yes, but I think there are other key reasons. I would suggest the primary reason is the decentralization of the city due to relatively cheap and plentiful land. And it's cheaper (initially) to build more roads than to build rail. Another reason is that people don't seek out mass transit until traffic congestion or fuel prices becomes too much to deal with. And then there's the lack of political will from key representatives who were just predisposed against light rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 This argument has been hashed out a million times before. In reality, it's all about the money. Houston only has a finite amount to spend on transportation and can only get a finite amount from the federal government, so we have to do the best with what we have. See: http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...w-me-the-money/I know it's from before they decided on all LRT, but the idea is the same.You might want to read that article more closely. For the purpose of illustrating the different levels of transit service that the same amount of money can buy, Christof assumes that the amount available is fixed. That's only an assumption, though. It doesn't have to work that way. In the last three paragraphs he promotes the idea that funding could be expanded if there were the political will to. He closes the article with the commandment: "So stop complaining. And do something." This indicates that he would prefer having more funding so as to be able to build a better system and that he believes that something can be done to that effect.So in fact, we do not have to do the best with what we have because we could get more.On the contrary, light rail, even at grade, is far superior to buses in most ways. It can carry 200 people per vehicle, or 400 people per train. The traffic prioritization system makes it so they rarely have to stop between stations (except in the TMC with those shared turn lanes; I don't think they plan to build any of the new lines like that). Accidents are few and far between now that drivers get the idea that left turns are illegal on Main St. The streets on which new lines will run will have signalized left turns, likely reducing the possibility of accidents further.In short, you're right; there are ways to build a faster, more convenient rail system. In Houston, though, light rail - at grade, in its own reservation - will give us the best approximation of true rapid transit and allow us to get the most extensive system out of a limited budget.The ability to carry large numbers of people at one time is only relevant when that many people want to travel somewhere at the same time. Do that many people really want to commute at an average of 17mph from downtown to Magnolia Park...every five minutes or so...along a street that isn't all that congested to begin with? I really don't think so.Lines such as the East End simply don't have that kind of demand, they won't for a good long while, and really would have been best suited for BRT. BRT wouldn't cost as much to build or to maintain (and I don't think that the Feds are even offering a 50% match on the East End or North lines), construction wouldn't be as disruptive, the vehicles wouldn't have as much unused capacity, and a traffic prioritization system could still be made to work with them just the same as LRT. And I'm saying that as someone who owns commercial property in that area which isn't going to have to endure eminent domain, restricted access, or long periods of construction characteristic of properties along the Red Line--and I will also enjoy a higher traffic count. Without even accounting for the availability of the transit but just the adverse effects of it on properties I'm competing with, LRT benefits me personally much more than would BRT...and I still think that it was a bad move on the part of METRO.If METRO saved money by using BRT on routes that are better-suited for it, they could apply the savings (along with matching Federal funds) to an area with higher ridership and worse congestion to eliminate the signal prioritization problems altogether, such as at Greenway Plaza or in Uptown.This brings up another point, and it is a problem created by the FTA. They do not evaluate the costs or benefits of the effect of proposed transit on highway congestion. If they did, grade-level light rail wouldn't perform as well because it not only reduces the number of lane miles and restricts the availability of turns, but because signal prioritization often results in traffic being held up (the way it is in downtown or midtown, for instance). In fact, problems with signal prioritization sometimes cause the light rail vehicle to stop at signals. Grade separation solves it. And it is expensive, but doing so allows commuters of all sort to enjoy faster travel. This is why I think that elevated rail is well worth the marginal increase in costs; in contrast, grade-level light rail creates so many problems in places that I'm often tempted to think that its benefits and adverse effects more or less nullify one another. I definitely do not think that it is worth the capital outlay as METRO has proposed it be implemented.Houston is an auto-centric city... there's no precedent with which to support grade-separated rail here, and there's just barely enough public support for the current light rail plans. You have to view MetroRail as a "transitional system". Grade separation may come, but only when we've put up some ridership numbers to prove that system will be worth building.If we're an auto-centric city then we should be concerned about the traffic jams that grade-level light rail causes in already-congested areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 If we're an auto-centric city then we should be concerned about the traffic jams that grade-level light rail causes in already-congested areas.That would be an improvement. We're still in the phase of getting motorists to acknowledge that LRT exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.