Mayor Says 2 Rail Lines In Doubt

[Coaster]

Ugh poor people, who the hell do they think they are? Only high paying executive types matter.

I meant no disrespect to po-folks. Po-folk matter to me a lot more than high-paying executive types. But it is what it is. I'm all for trains, but I see no need in over-romanticizing DART. When it comes down to it, most people in Dallas who have a choice take cars.

[samagon]

I meant no disrespect to po-folks. Po-folk matter to me a lot more than high-paying executive types. But it is what it is. I'm all for trains, but I see no need in over-romanticizing DART. When it comes down to it, most people in Dallas who have a choice take cars.

which is sad really, they should park their cars and ride a bike.

sorry, I just see so much arguing in here, I figured getting bikes in on the argument would help?

seriously though, I think Houston is going in the right direction with the limited budget for rail. As Hwy6 says, our system is starting out with a specific goal in mind, and as it continues to expand, it should expand upon the short term goals to include everything we need, such as connections to katy, sugarland, clear lake, the woodlands, kingwood and any other surrounding areas I've missed. when things like that happen, and are integrated together with our current and expanded system, then we'll be closer to what we need. But it takes time.

[citykid09]

which is sad really, they should park their cars and ride a bike.

sorry, I just see so much arguing in here, I figured getting bikes in on the argument would help?

seriously though, I think Houston is going in the right direction with the limited budget for rail. As Hwy6 says, our system is starting out with a specific goal in mind, and as it continues to expand, it should expand upon the short term goals to include everything we need, such as connections to katy, sugarland, clear lake, the woodlands, kingwood and any other surrounding areas I've missed. when things like that happen, and are integrated together with our current and expanded system, then we'll be closer to what we need. But it takes time.

Do you know how long it would take to ride a system designed the way that is from Katy, Sugarland or even the big airport? It wont work, people wont ride it because it will take far to long to get to downtown that way. Go a head and come back with "thats what commuter rail is for," well commuter rail doesn't run as often and cost more to ride. its not the same. But whatever, well see when the time comes.

Maybe the current plan can be seen as a street car, and then they can eventually build the type of system I'm talking about in addition to commuter rail.

Edited March 17, 2010 by citykid09

[mfastx]

It is very entertaining to watch people battle on here.

On topic, the mayor has said that she is "confident that there is funding" for the University/Uptown lines, and says that "Houston is committed to buildings these lines," so I think it is stil probable that these lines will get built.

[Subdude]

A number of posts with personal attacks and flaming have been deleted.

[RedScare]

Do you know how long it would take to ride a system designed the way that is from Katy, Sugarland or even the big airport? It wont work, people wont ride it because it will take far to long to get to downtown that way. Go a head and come back with "thats what commuter rail is for," well commuter rail doesn't run as often and cost more to ride. its not the same. But whatever, well see when the time comes.

Maybe the current plan can be seen as a street car, and then they can eventually build the type of system I'm talking about in addition to commuter rail.

Yeah, you can see how little ridership it would get by looking at DART Rail, because that is exactly what they have designed and built...light rail that runs all the way to the suburbs.

Edited March 18, 2010 by RedScare

[livincinco]

A number of posts with personal attacks and flaming have been deleted.

To recap those comments for those who missed them. People in Dallas think that Dallas is better than Houston. People in Houston think that Houston is better than Dallas. I know that this is shocking to hear.

[samagon]

Do you know how long it would take to ride a system designed the way that is from Katy, Sugarland or even the big airport? It wont work, people wont ride it because it will take far to long to get to downtown that way. Go a head and come back with "thats what commuter rail is for," well commuter rail doesn't run as often and cost more to ride. its not the same. But whatever, well see when the time comes.

Maybe the current plan can be seen as a street car, and then they can eventually build the type of system I'm talking about in addition to commuter rail.

Call it whatever you want, but it's going to cost more. That's a very silly argument to make.

Also by virtue of having higher capacities and speed, you'll probably have to wait longer than you do for our current light rail system.

But it will be quicker than any of the current systems that Houston offers to commuters, it may turn out to cost more to ride than Park and Ride, but it will be cheaper in most cases than driving your car, when you factor in gas, parking and wear items (brakes, fluids, etc).

Take it easy man, you don't have to jump on everything that isn't in agreement with your vision. The system we have today, and the system we will have tomorrow is based on compromise. One day the compromise won't be made on the part of METRO, but on the part of car drivers in the city that are willing to compromise by letting an entire street be replaced with a rail line. We are a far cry from that right now.

What you shouldn't be doing, that you are doing, is crying about how the current system sucks. Yeah, it can be better. But you have to remember back to 5 years ago when we didn't have diddly. Today rail has a foot in the door in Houston, it's been more than 30 years in the making for just that foot to be gotten through that door. It isn't perfect, but when you only have a small window of opportunity, you get what you can when it is offered. You may not realize it, but you're doing the forward progress more harm than anything else, you should be clinging to the positives that the rail has given Houston, and when someone asks for ways to improve it, offer those at that time.

Your current modus operandi is to just hammer the system and say it sucks, you aren't realizing the big picture reality of the situation that it will take time for a city like Houston to come around to accepting anything other than a car as their mode of transit and if you want to see more, you have to compromise your goals and accept the current system for the improvement it is.

and yes, going from nothing to anything is an improvement.

Edited March 18, 2010 by samagon

[TheNiche]

Take it easy man, you don't have to jump on everything that isn't in agreement with your vision. The system we have today, and the system we will have tomorrow is based on compromise. One day the compromise won't be made on the part of METRO, but on the part of car drivers in the city that are willing to compromise by letting an entire street be replaced with a rail line. We are a far cry from that right now.

I take it you haven't attempted to drive down Main Street through Downtown or Midtown in the past several years. It's aggravating as all hell, and you end up stopping at almost every light. The street that exists there serves mostly as a driveway for parcels that would otherwise be landlocked.

And further down the line at Fannin and the South Loop, light rail contributes to horrible congestion. There are a few other hot spots on the line, but that one was a travesty. There should've been a light rail grade separation there, but METRO compromised its mission, to enhance regional mobility.

What you shouldn't be doing, that you are doing, is crying about how the current system sucks. Yeah, it can be better. But you have to remember back to 5 years ago when we didn't have diddly. Today rail has a foot in the door in Houston, it's been more than 30 years in the making for just that foot to be gotten through that door. It isn't perfect, but when you only have a small window of opportunity, you get what you can when it is offered. You may not realize it, but you're doing the forward progress more harm than anything else, you should be clinging to the positives that the rail has given Houston, and when someone asks for ways to improve it, offer those at that time.

Your current modus operandi is to just hammer the system and say it sucks, you aren't realizing the big picture reality of the situation that it will take time for a city like Houston to come around to accepting anything other than a car as their mode of transit and if you want to see more, you have to compromise your goals and accept the current system for the improvement it is.

The Red Line was intended as a proof of concept for the FTA, not quite so much for constituents. What ought to have been proven to constituents is that FTA funding was (and still is, even though the rules have changed) tied to vastly inadequate criteria that cannot begin to allow for resource allocation optimization.

And unfortunately, the design and implementation of the Red Line looks to be vastly superior by virtue only of the geography of the neighborhoods that it traverses than will be many of the new lines, particularly the Uptown Line, the University Line, and the Southeast Line.

It seems that you're trying to argue that the Red Line's problem areas should be forgiven so that METRO can be allowed to create even more and more serious problem areas. Citykid and I disagree on a lot of things, but we both genuinely want what we believe is a better system for Houston, even if that means that we have to spend more money, even if we have to arrange some creative public financing. Regional mobility is key to Houston's future, and it matters less how people are moved and more that they are able to get where they need to and that they can accomplish that efficiently, safely, and affordably.

and yes, going from nothing to anything is an improvement.

From nothing to anything? Seriously!? You make it sound as though we were but a crossroads in the vast prairie. And then METRO said, "Let there be light rail!" And there was. And thusly, Houston was born. And it was good. METRO said so.

[citykid09]

I take it you haven't attempted to drive down Main Street through Downtown or Midtown in the past several years. It's aggravating as all hell, and you end up stopping at almost every light. The street that exists there serves mostly as a driveway for parcels that would otherwise be landlocked.

And further down the line at Fannin and the South Loop, light rail contributes to horrible congestion. There are a few other hot spots on the line, but that one was a travesty. There should've been a light rail grade separation there, but METRO compromised its mission, to enhance regional mobility.

The Red Line was intended as a proof of concept for the FTA, not quite so much for constituents. What ought to have been proven to constituents is that FTA funding was (and still is, even though the rules have changed) tied to vastly inadequate criteria that cannot begin to allow for resource allocation optimization.

And unfortunately, the design and implementation of the Red Line looks to be vastly superior by virtue only of the geography of the neighborhoods that it traverses than will be many of the new lines, particularly the Uptown Line, the University Line, and the Southeast Line.

It seems that you're trying to argue that the Red Line's problem areas should be forgiven so that METRO can be allowed to create even more and more serious problem areas. Citykid and I disagree on a lot of things, but we both genuinely want what we believe is a better system for Houston, even if that means that we have to spend more money, even if we have to arrange some creative public financing. Regional mobility is key to Houston's future, and it matters less how people are moved and more that they are able to get where they need to and that they can accomplish that efficiently, safely, and affordably.

From nothing to anything? Seriously!? You make it sound as though we were but a crossroads in the vast prairie. And then METRO said, "Let there be light rail!" And there was. And thusly, Houston was born. And it was good. METRO said so.

Thanks!

[samagon]

I take it you haven't attempted to drive down Main Street through Downtown or Midtown in the past several years. It's aggravating as all hell, and you end up stopping at almost every light. The street that exists there serves mostly as a driveway for parcels that would otherwise be landlocked.

And further down the line at Fannin and the South Loop, light rail contributes to horrible congestion. There are a few other hot spots on the line, but that one was a travesty. There should've been a light rail grade separation there, but METRO compromised its mission, to enhance regional mobility.

I avoid main street, same as I always have. there are other streets, such as Louisiana that have always been better timed anyway.

The Red Line was intended as a proof of concept for the FTA, not quite so much for constituents. What ought to have been proven to constituents is that FTA funding was (and still is, even though the rules have changed) tied to vastly inadequate criteria that cannot begin to allow for resource allocation optimization.

And unfortunately, the design and implementation of the Red Line looks to be vastly superior by virtue only of the geography of the neighborhoods that it traverses than will be many of the new lines, particularly the Uptown Line, the University Line, and the Southeast Line.

It seems that you're trying to argue that the Red Line's problem areas should be forgiven so that METRO can be allowed to create even more and more serious problem areas. Citykid and I disagree on a lot of things, but we both genuinely want what we believe is a better system for Houston, even if that means that we have to spend more money, even if we have to arrange some creative public financing. Regional mobility is key to Houston's future, and it matters less how people are moved and more that they are able to get where they need to and that they can accomplish that efficiently, safely, and affordably.

From nothing to anything? Seriously!? You make it sound as though we were but a crossroads in the vast prairie. And then METRO said, "Let there be light rail!" And there was. And thusly, Houston was born. And it was good. METRO said so.

I'm not saying Metro is omnipotent, I'm saying we had no rail option, now we do, it isn't great, there are things that fail about it, but I'd rather have something we can and should improve upon than say it is horrible and that we should have nothing until we can get everything.

[TheNiche]

I avoid main street, same as I always have. there are other streets, such as Louisiana that have always been better timed anyway.

Irrelevant.

I'm not saying Metro is omnipotent, I'm saying we had no rail option, now we do, it isn't great, there are things that fail about it, but I'd rather have something we can and should improve upon than say it is horrible and that we should have nothing until we can get everything.

The mission of a transit agency is not merely to provide an option. It is to enhance regional mobility.

And don't forget that fixed-guideway transportation infrastructure requires a major long-term capital outlay. There is no botching major aspects of it and then going back and reconstructing things correctly once money is raised. Paying for things twice limits the rate at which new lines can be built, so even YOU shouldn't want that for Houston.

[Highway6]

I take it you haven't attempted to drive down Main Street through Downtown or Midtown in the past several years. It's aggravating as all hell, and you end up stopping at almost every light. The street that exists there serves mostly as a driveway for parcels that would otherwise be landlocked.

I think your description of Main St as a driveway for the parcels that need it is accurate. But it that really a problem?

You still have 9 (3-4 lane) streets that run N-S, uninterrupted through downtown

You still have 5 (3-4 lane) streets that run N-S, uninterrupted through the entire length of Midtown, not including the additional 6 that connect downtown to and from the spur.

It really just isn't the end of the world to lose one street over to rail when you have so many other options within the same 1/2 mile section.

I don't think avoiding Main St is irrelevant. Rail had to enter downtown somehow.

You're the costs benefits guy. So really, Would the cost of elevating or submerging the rail along Main for the length of downtown and midtown really have been worth NOT losing 1 street when you still have so many other options?

As you said... It's now a driveway. Why would you choose to take a driveway all the way through midtown and downtown when you could take one of many streets instead?

Edited March 19, 2010 by Highway6

[editor]

As you said... It's now a driveway. Why would you choose to take a driveway all the way through midtown and downtown when you could take one of many streets instead?

It's a good point. In a lot of cities the "Main" street is "main" in name alone. It's an antiquated notion to think of it as a thoroughfare.

Modern mobility design allows for the "local" and "though" streets at intervals. This is what Houston has now. Main is a "local." Louisiana and Smith are "through." Same thing in Chicago's CBD where Wabash is "local" and LaSalle is "through." And in Seattle where 1st and 4th are "local" and 2nd/3rd are "though."

Just because it's a street doesn't mean it is intended to be used as a raceway. It's a means of getting from point A to point B. Sometimes point B isn't that far away.

[samagon]

Irrelevant.

The mission of a transit agency is not merely to provide an option. It is to enhance regional mobility.

And don't forget that fixed-guideway transportation infrastructure requires a major long-term capital outlay. There is no botching major aspects of it and then going back and reconstructing things correctly once money is raised. Paying for things twice limits the rate at which new lines can be built, so even YOU shouldn't want that for Houston.

Not irrelevant at all. It is very pertinent to the discussion at hand. Your argument is that Main St. is not navigable as a roadway, and just a mere token of a roadway, where it was formerly a highly traveled conduit of this city. Correct on both accounts. However, if you are in a car, and you are driving through downtown, lets say from the 59 spur exit to the I-10 entry on San Jacinto. I submit it takes no longer at all than it did previous to light rail being added. If your choice of roads was Main St. prior to the rail being added, I'd have told you there were quicker routes through downtown. Now, with rail, if you want to drive down main again, it will take longer than it did to take main before, but there are still quicker routes. Those routes do not take any longer to drive than they did before.

Once, when trying to get from Montrose to San Jacinto on the south side of 59 (I was feeling adventurous and didn't want to go up to Richmond) I had problems running into streets that were no longer through streets because of the rail, that was annoying, but now I know they exist, so I go around. If I lived in that residential area, I wouldn't like having to do that every day. That, imo, is the biggest failing, in a semi residential area, that it is harder for me to get from one side to the other than it was previously, and there aren't alternative routes that are as easy as it was before the implementation. But, if this were a reason to call the rail a failure, we could call every freeway in Houston a failure as it cut neighborhoods in two, and it made it harder to get from one side to the other.

I'm not saying they need to go back and reconstruct the light rail, as I don't see it as a failed experiment, or failed proof of concept. I see it as a success. I drive and ride my bike across the rail line multiple times a week, and I drive parallel to the rail through downtown many times a week, and I am not negatively impacted by it at all. I only ride the rail on weekends, and evenings if I ride it, so I am not a commuter, however I have many friends who ride buses, connect to the rail and ride it to the med center. Vs driving they say it is faster, if you include the time to park, they also say it is cheaper if you include the cost to park.

Anyway, from my point of view, I see more people being positively impacted by rail, than those that are negatively impacted, that is as successful as the freeways imo.

I can see easily that the number of people negatively impacted by the light rail is smaller than the number of people that get benefit from it, and while I agree 100% that it could have been done so that it would impact less people negatively, I just don't see how that makes it a failure without saying that everything built in this town is a failure.

I'm gonna rant now, so you can ignore the rest if you don't want to read about me ranting.

So long as this town is lived in by a car centric society, anything other than a road built for cars is going to be an inconvenience in some way, and we will benevolently overlook the inconveniences that roads cutting through our neighborhoods cause, or caused in the past, and how things could have been done better to keep people from being inconvenienced in that way by making every freeway a tunnel, or 100% elevated so that everyone could be impacted minimally.

God forbid we take away a few lanes of traffic for bicycles, or pedestrians, or rail though.

One thing I know for certain, as with freeways that cut neighborhoods in two, and dissected communities, and threw some neighborhoods into economic turmoil, this town will adapt. You and others will learn to drive up Louisiana, or San Jacinto when traveling through downtown, or midtown, and you and others will learn to cross the rail at different intersections that slow you down.

okay, I'm calm now.

I think I am so critical of this subject because of my mom, she never drives downtown, she never interacts with the rail at all, she never has been impacted in any way, negative or positive by the rail, but she has been blindly against any form of rail so staunchly and that is just so frustrating.

Edited March 19, 2010 by samagon

[editor]

Not irrelevant at all. It is very pertinent to the discussion at hand. Your argument is that Main St. is not navigable as a roadway, and just a mere token of a roadway, where it was formerly a highly traveled conduit of this city. Correct on both accounts. However, if you are in a car, and you are driving through downtown, lets say from the 59 spur exit to the I-10 entry on San Jacinto. I submit it takes no longer at all than it did previous to light rail being added. If your choice of roads was Main St. prior to the rail being added, I'd have told you there were quicker routes through downtown. Now, with rail, if you want to drive down main again, it will take longer than it did to take main before, but there are still quicker routes. Those routes do not take any longer to drive than they did before.

Once, when trying to get from Montrose to San Jacinto on the south side of 59 (I was feeling adventurous and didn't want to go up to Richmond) I had problems running into streets that were no longer through streets because of the rail, that was annoying, but now I know they exist, so I go around. If I lived in that residential area, I wouldn't like having to do that every day. That, imo, is the biggest failing, in a semi residential area, that it is harder for me to get from one side to the other than it was previously, and there aren't alternative routes that are as easy as it was before the implementation. But, if this were a reason to call the rail a failure, we could call every freeway in Houston a failure as it cut neighborhoods in two, and it made it harder to get from one side to the other.

I'm not saying they need to go back and reconstruct the light rail, as I don't see it as a failed experiment, or failed proof of concept. I see it as a success. I drive and ride my bike across the rail line multiple times a week, and I drive parallel to the rail through downtown many times a week, and I am not negatively impacted by it at all. I only ride the rail on weekends, and evenings if I ride it, so I am not a commuter, however I have many friends who ride buses, connect to the rail and ride it to the med center. Vs driving they say it is faster, if you include the time to park, they also say it is cheaper if you include the cost to park.

Anyway, from my point of view, I see more people being positively impacted by rail, than those that are negatively impacted, that is as successful as the freeways imo.

I can see easily that the number of people negatively impacted by the light rail is smaller than the number of people that get benefit from it, and while I agree 100% that it could have been done so that it would impact less people negatively, I just don't see how that makes it a failure without saying that everything built in this town is a failure.

I'm gonna rant now, so you can ignore the rest if you don't want to read about me ranting.

So long as this town is lived in by a car centric society, anything other than a road built for cars is going to be an inconvenience in some way, and we will benevolently overlook the inconveniences that roads cutting through our neighborhoods cause, or caused in the past, and how things could have been done better to keep people from being inconvenienced in that way by making every freeway a tunnel, or 100% elevated so that everyone could be impacted minimally.

God forbid we take away a few lanes of traffic for bicycles, or pedestrians, or rail though.

One thing I know for certain, as with freeways that cut neighborhoods in two, and dissected communities, and threw some neighborhoods into economic turmoil, this town will adapt. You and others will learn to drive up Louisiana, or San Jacinto when traveling through downtown, or midtown, and you and others will learn to cross the rail at different intersections that slow you down.

okay, I'm calm now.

I think I am so critical of this subject because of my mom, she never drives downtown, she never interacts with the rail at all, she never has been impacted in any way, negative or positive by the rail, but she has been blindly against any form of rail so staunchly and that is just so frustrating.

tl;dr

[kylejack]

That's not very nice.

[samagon]

tl;dr

the cliffs notes version is:

That if we are going to say that light rail is a failure because it inconveniences a few in an effort to make life more convenient for others, we have to consider every freeway in Houston a failure as well.

and

That if a road has become slower to navigate as a result of light rail, it is easy to adapt and use a different road, and it will likely be quicker than Main St. was before the rail.

and

Then I ranted about Houston being so car centric and how if something is done for a road/freeway it's okay to be inconvenienced, but if something is done for pedestrian, bike or rail it is an inconvenience for cars and therefor a failure.

and

I agreed it could have been done better, but that this is no reason to call it a failure.

[ricco67]

For grins and giggles, I decided drive from Main @ Dallas to just Greenbriar and I was surprised by how well it moved, at some points, I was doing 40mph (Pierce to Richmond and Richmond to the Rice Station) with green lights the majority of the way. I only stopped twice for lights and only briefly encountered traffic at the medical center, but that is to be expected.

I was quite surprised how quickly I made it through.

Would I use main to take the same route? No. Does it hinder someone's way to a business? Hardly.

For those that are interested, it was at about 7pm, I think.

[kylejack]

Here’s a little handy graphic from Mayor Parker’s Metro transition task force, identifying what the team considers “major unresolved design issues” in the planned East End, Southeast, University, and Uptown light-rail lines. Attempts to resolve all 6 of them appear to be “bogged down” at the Metro staff level, according to the task force committee. Each problem might delay construction or increase cost, and each has already been “actively discussed” for at least a year.

[...]

http://swamplot.com/where-the-new-light-rail-lines-are-stuck/2010-03-19/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+swamplot+%28Swamplot%3A+Houston%27s+Real+Estate+Landscape%29&utm_content=Twitter

[musicman]

I think your description of Main St as a driveway for the parcels that need it is accurate. But it that really a problem?

You still have 9 (3-4 lane) streets that run N-S, uninterrupted through downtown

You still have 5 (3-4 lane) streets that run N-S, uninterrupted through the entire length of Midtown, not including the additional 6 that connect downtown to and from the spur.

It really just isn't the end of the world to lose one street over to rail when you have so many other options within the same 1/2 mile section.

I don't think avoiding Main St is irrelevant. Rail had to enter downtown somehow.

You're the costs benefits guy. So really, Would the cost of elevating or submerging the rail along Main for the length of downtown and midtown really have been worth NOT losing 1 street when you still have so many other options?

As you said... It's now a driveway. Why would you choose to take a driveway all the way through midtown and downtown when you could take one of many streets instead?

the east/west traffic has been hurt more than the north/south. the closure of main at main st square adds to drive time on that particular street but the east/west closures of numerous streetx has forced more traffic onto limited streets which results in longer drive times (no mention of the med center drive times). as has been mentioned here numerous times, METRO has closed many streets south of the pierce elevated and north of binz perpendicular to the rail.

[TheNiche]

I think your description of Main St as a driveway for the parcels that need it is accurate. But it that really a problem?

You still have 9 (3-4 lane) streets that run N-S, uninterrupted through downtown

You still have 5 (3-4 lane) streets that run N-S, uninterrupted through the entire length of Midtown, not including the additional 6 that connect downtown to and from the spur.

It really just isn't the end of the world to lose one street over to rail when you have so many other options within the same 1/2 mile section.

In the context of my counterpoints to samagon's remarks, I stand by what I said. I also agree with you that it doesn't especially matter that light rail ate Main Street in the Downtown and Midtown neighborhoods.

You're the costs benefits guy. So really, Would the cost of elevating or submerging the rail along Main for the length of downtown and midtown really have been worth NOT losing 1 street when you still have so many other options?

As you said... It's now a driveway. Why would you choose to take a driveway all the way through midtown and downtown when you could take one of many streets instead?

To be clear, I have made no such argument.

But since you ask...I think that it would have been beneficial for light rail to have been implemented as a subway, but only Downtown. And I am only so adamant about that for two reasons: 1) METRO signal prioritization screws up the City's attempts at signal timing, and 2) light rail ridership is sufficient at present to justify doubled-up trains with standing room only at three-minute intervals, but as the system is expanded and ridership along the Red Line continues to increase, either the frequency of trains will have to increase, geometrically compounding the signal prioritization problem...OR there will be a need to run trains that are longer than the standard-sized downtown block. The way I see it, downtown-area subways are a mid-term eventuality that should be addressed proactively rather than reactively.

You will notice that the above rationale does not include opening up Main Street to drivers as a justification. As you point out, the Red Line has so few adverse north/south impacts on account of that there are many convenient alternatives. (I hope that you and everyone else realizes that this is a circumstance that will be unique to the Red Line.) In fact, were a subway to be developed, I'd prefer to see that Main Street be closed off as well as possible, allowing only for driveways where necessary and otherwise creating a pedestrian/cyclist-oriented thoroughfare.

[TheNiche]

That if we are going to say that light rail is a failure because it inconveniences a few in an effort to make life more convenient for others, we have to consider every freeway in Houston a failure as well.

I don't disagree. However, I have not made any argument of the sort, nor do I intend to. What I am doing is arguing that METRO has chosen to implement light rail in a sub-optimal way. I am not making a claim that light rail has been a success or failure because such definitions are inherently subjective. Instead, I am making objective observations as to how METRO could have more effectively enhanced regional mobility for transit users and automobile users, alike, avoiding long-run operational problems, and accomplishing these aims at an additional cost that is not beyond the realm of reason.

That if a road has become slower to navigate as a result of light rail, it is easy to adapt and use a different road, and it will likely be quicker than Main St. was before the rail.

You said earlier that Houstonians weren't prepared to make such a dramatic move as to effectively eliminate a street in favor of at-grade transit; I disagreed on the basis that Main Street is effectively an example of this. And then I got dogpiled by HAIFers that apparently lack reading comprehension. Reference my response to Highway6 if further clarification is required.

Then I ranted about Houston being so car centric and how if something is done for a road/freeway it's okay to be inconvenienced, but if something is done for pedestrian, bike or rail it is an inconvenience for cars and therefor a failure.

Inconveniences are always unfortunate. Our transportation agencies ought to evaluate and mitigate adverse impacts according to their severity.

Although there has been tremendous progress over the last couple of decades to that end, I would concur that the adverse effects of freeways on adjacent neighborhoods are not always adequately addressed; and as the burying of US 59 suggests, sometimes such impacts are mitigated excessively. Either case is not acceptable. Just as we as constituents ought to hold TXDoT's feet to the fire, so should we hold any other transportation agency accountable for its decisions, regardless of the mode of transportation that they are attempting to implement.

I agreed it could have been done better, but that this is no reason to call it a failure.

Nor is it any better reason to call it a success.

My business partner and his wife ganged up on me a couple of months ago and told me that I needed to be more of a 'cup half-full' kind of guy. But I'm not. I told them that the x milliliter cup has y milliliters of z fluid in it, given that the temperature is a Celsius and that the atmospheric pressure is b millibars...and that since the temperature is trending downward, so too will the volume of fluid--provided of course that it does not freeze. I went on to provide a number of courses of action so as to optimize the "volume of fluid" as well as likely scenarios. Nobody walked away from that conversation very happily...nor should they have been. Apologism just is not a very useful perspective.

[TheNiche]

For grins and giggles, I decided drive from Main @ Dallas to just Greenbriar and I was surprised by how well it moved, at some points, I was doing 40mph (Pierce to Richmond and Richmond to the Rice Station) with green lights the majority of the way. I only stopped twice for lights and only briefly encountered traffic at the medical center, but that is to be expected.

I was quite surprised how quickly I made it through.

Would I use main to take the same route? No. Does it hinder someone's way to a business? Hardly.

For those that are interested, it was at about 7pm, I think.

Yeah, Main Street is just fine south of US 59, and to be clear, I was only being critical of the Downtown and Midtown sections. But the last time I tried it was in the downtown area en route to our last HAIF Happy Hour (also around 7PM-ish), and it was a slow crawl from about St. Joseph Pkwy. to wherever the pedestrian plaza starts.

[citykid09]

Houstonians drive themselves more than anybody. Is this because people are more willing to commute in trains rather than buses? Something to think about.

http://blogs.chron.com/primeproperty/2010/03/post_34.html#comments

Edited March 23, 2010 by citykid09

[ricco67]

Houstonians drive themselves more than anybody. Is this because people are more willing to commute in trains rather than buses? Something to think about.

http://blogs.chron.c...4.html#comments

This may be crazy talk, but don't you think it's because the OTHER cities have more transit options like LIGHT RAIL?

[kylejack]

I think that's what he's saying.

[AtticaFlinch]

Houstonians drive themselves more than anybody. Is this because people are more willing to commute in trains rather than buses? Something to think about.

http://blogs.chron.c...4.html#comments

On a positive note, it looks like we have the highest percentage of carpoolers.

[citykid09]

This may be crazy talk, but don't you think it's because the OTHER cities have more transit options like LIGHT RAIL?

I think that's what he's saying.

Thats exactly what I was trying to say. My first sentence didn't come out the way I want it to though, I missed a few words.

But I do believe that if rail in Houston was as plentiful as it is in these other cities that more people would ride public transportation. Buses routes are complicated, with rail you know where you are going. If I fly somewhere that doesn't have rail, I would rent a car. Who rides buses when they are out of town? If I fly to a city with rail (access to airport included), I ride the rail and don't deal with a car. Its kind of hard to explain but that is the way it is. People prefer rail.

Edited March 23, 2010 by citykid09

[AtticaFlinch]

Who rides buses when they are out of town?

I do.

But you're right. I do prefer to ride rail - unless I'm in a third world country. There, buses are generally much nicer and/or more interesting.