Mayor Says 2 Rail Lines In Doubt

[august948]

With a bus as the high volume areas of Houston change or the needs change, so can the routes...with a train, as the high volume as the areas change, your screwed. You still have a train running to the same places.

Except that they won't. When you make a permanent investment in a transportation corridor, businesses will make corresponding investments along the route because they know it won't change. That leads to greater, not lesser demand. When new high volume areas arise, you just extend the rail line to those areas. Frankly, though, we've got enough high volume areas around Houston that we could extend rail to right now that we won't even be able to deal with new developments for quite some time.

[gto250us]

It is perplexing that the lines that are least tied to our LRT's success have secured funding, while the lines that will be the most important are uncertain and haven't broken ground. I support the LRT expansion in its concept, but this has definitely confused in the priority of funding. Perhaps someone could explain this financial dubiousness.

The financial dubiousness can be explained by one word - DEMOCRATS.

[august948]

Last survey I looked at showed that the train ridership was identical to the bus ridership along that route. The buses no longer run along the rail route. The ridership did not increase or decrease...it remained constant.

They simply canceled the buses along the trains route. Ridership was unaffected.

Because its incredibly cheaper and more efficient to run buses that people wont ride than it is to buy up the land, build a train track, disrupt the businesses and taxes along the route, and then run a train that people still dont ride.

Ok...I'm confused. Do the surveys show no one was riding the buses and now no one is riding the rail? Or were people in fact riding the bus and people are now in fact riding the rail?

[kylejack]

Last survey I looked at showed that the train ridership was identical to the bus ridership along that route. The buses no longer run along the rail route. The ridership did not increase or decrease...it remained constant.

They simply canceled the buses along the trains route. Ridership was unaffected.

Hmm, what figures are you using? I'm looking at 1-Hospital route right now, and it was 5915 per day in 2003. Since then, it has never fallen below 5700 (5741 in 2009). Meanwhile, the Metrorail is running every 6 minutes (compared to 18 minute frequency on 1-Hospital in 2003 before rail). I ride rail from downtown to the Med Center M-F and I can tell you that most during my commute hours are standing room only or so. So let's say during commute hours its conservatively moving 100 people southbound every 6 minutes, or 300 people per 18 minutes.

Now you'll have to bear with me and my anecdotes, because I'll tell you that during the morning southbound commute, most of the passengers are boarding in downtown and deboarding at Houston Zoo/Hermann Hospital and Dryden/TMC, largely Med Center employees. If you don't believe me, feel free to board at Main Street Square at 7:30 on a weekday heading southbound.

Now, if a 1-Hospital bus has 50 seats or so (not sure how many...is this about right?) and was running every 18 minutes how could it have been keeping up with what rail is moving every 6 minutes now, especially considering that round trip it has only lost about 150 riders a day?

I understand there's other routes involved, and that, for example, 25-Richmond's route was changed from terminating in downtown to terminating at Wheeler Station, but focusing just on the movement to the Med Center, how could it be that buses were carrying the same number of people? Is there another route that was operating to the Med Center in 2003 that I'm not thinking of?

[Marksmu]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by Marksmu are the personal opinions of Marksmu and should not be considered the opinion of all conservative Haifers

As someone who has grown weary of the green movement and a pro-rail conservative, I'm tired of your generalizations. You make conservatives look bad so stop watering down the argument with labels and dragging the rest of us down.

The fact that the 03 referendum passed means a majority of voters wanted it to pass. If you and your anti-rail friends wanted to be left alone, didnt want rail, yet were too busy going about your lives to vote it down, then you have only yourselves to blame.

As for evacuating -

You act like it is getting on rail and evacuating to a point 7 miles away at the end of the line, vs getting on any Metro bus and promptly being escorted ( past car evacuating traffic) to points 100s of miles outside the city and out of harm's way.

Guess what dude, had you chosen to evacuate by Metro during IKE, you would have ended up at the end of that bus line... which could have been downtown, could have been a crosstown, and if you had chosen to get on one that goes out to a park and ride, then you would have taken 6 hours to get there due to all the cars evacuating and you'd then be stuck at a point only 20-30 miles outside of town, still in harm's way.

What evacuating MEtro did do, was to use the smaller busses to pick up invalids and take them downtown to the convention center.

MEtro Busses didnt safely get tens of thousands out of the city, and even if they had been used in that capacity, they would have been stuck on freeways with all the cars hoping not to run out of gas. Ultimately Metro can't do squat to truly evacuate the city. Until we have a Texas rail system, everyone is stuck evacuating by freeway. When we Do have a Texas rail system as a alternative to fleeing the city... would you rather be in a bus in a traffic jam of cars trying to get to that rail station, or skirting by the road traffic on metrorail?

Correct me if I am wrong here - but being conservative is not about republican/democrat - its about making wise use of taxpayer money, and less government intrusion.

The rail requires the taking of private property without consent for public use...Condemnation compensates ONLY for the property taken, and for the damages done to the remainder. It does not compensate for lost revenue. So the business along the rail, who go bankrupt are just SOL. The company who leases then building takes a huge hit for the property that they cant lease. The county taxes a huge property tax hit as the market value plummets during construction...all that is lost money. There is no compensation for that. The jobs lost, the tax revenue lost, its all gone. The business is out of money and the property sits there until the rail is complete...

So is the rail more efficient use of money?

If you look at the national transit database, (www.ntdprogram.gov) it shows you the costs of the Harris County Mass Transit Authority.

If you look at the service efficiency section of the rail and bus you will see the following statistics:

Operating Expense Per Vehicle Revenue Mile : Rail $17.94 Bus :$7.35

Operating Expense Per Vehicle Revenue Hour: Rail: $224.85 Bus: $106.13

Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile: Rail: $0.53 Bus: $0.56

So the Bus with its infinity variable routes costs $.03 per passenger mile more than the train, but less than half of the cost to run otherwise. And these numbers do not count the initial costs to buy/build/maintain the rail.

If you look at that category systems and guideways (infrastructure), buses run only $65,788,060 per yr, while the train, moving 1/17 the number of passengers costs $155,942,517, or a little more than twice the bus cost.

The total capital cost of the single train line that we have now is $45,000,000 more than all the buses, serve 1/17 the number of people, and in terms of efficiency is 50% as efficient.

How in the world can it be a good use of taxpayer money?

The hurricane was just an added benefit...it was by no means supposed to be the main argument.

[JamesL]

Marksmu, you are wasting everyone's time with completely false statements. If you believe they are not false then find evidence to back them up, like this:

Regarding "They simply canceled the buses along the trains route. Ridership was unaffected":

A 2004 survey revealed that 37% of METRORail riders were new to transit. That number seemed unusually high based on experiences in other cities. METRO thought the question may have been misleading, so they rephrased it in 2007. This time they found that 41% of riders were new to transit, i.e. they didn't ride METRO before the light rail opened.

Source: http://www.hdrinc.com/Assets/documents/Publications/transitline/september2008/MetroRail.pdf

Regarding "The light rail in Houston does not qualify for the federal money because the cost to benefit is too low.":

The FTA has indicated it will fund roughly half of the cost of the North and Southeast lines. METRO is building the East End line with its own money. It is anticipated the University line will be funded in half by the FTA as well. 50% funding is outstanding these days given how much competition there is for transit funding.

http://ridemetro.org/News/Releases/2009/08172009.aspx

http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Releases/2009/12162009.aspx

[TheNiche]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by Marksmu are the personal opinions of Marksmu and should not be considered the opinion of all conservative Haifers

Yeah, I've wondered for some time whether Marksmu is a double agent. His arguments are just so extraordinarily WEAK and TRANSPARENT, yet seem genuine. I can't imagine that anybody but an exceptionally skilled and highly-motivated satirist could possibly come up with them. And maybe its just me, but I tend to prefer to think that the people that I interact with on a regular basis are rational and cunning than, well...the alternative.

[totheskies]

So KINDA back on topic....

The East End and Southeast Lines are farther ahead in construction AND funding b/c they are being built in minority areas. Less expensive property for METRO to buy up, more government incentive because it's viewed as a "service" instead of a "novelty" and oh yeah... less people filing lawsuits against METRO for wanting to take their land. It also helps that groups like the East End Management district did half of METRO's job for them to get the Harrisburg business communities in agreement that the line was needed.

NONE of this happened with the University line. It's been a publicity and lawsuit nightmare from day one. Of course much of this blame has to be shared by METRO, and their poor planning and levels of notification on how they chose to implement the line. People don't see that the East End Line got built thanks to a very powerful lobby within the neighborhood (perhaps too powerful), but the U-Line was forged from a see of controversy and piecemeal allowances.

I had the distinguished opportunity to talk to Mayor Parker about this virtually one-on-one at UofH a few weeks ago (it was a class of 30 people). She wants to get these lines built, but is not willing to put them ahead of the budget concerns of this fiscal year. She has a team that is "scrubbing" METRO from top to bottom. Once that is done, she is committed to finding funding sources for these lines. But (save for some direct government help) it ain't gonna be easy.

In terms of our current fiscal situation, I agree with her... we should not throw money at METRO for the lines that aren't funded yet, and we need to get the ones that are DONE. But I do hope that these lines get built soon, because we desperately need them for the continued growth and development of our city.

[Marksmu]

Marksmu, you are wasting everyone's time with completely false statements. If you believe they are not false then find evidence to back them up, like this:

Regarding "They simply canceled the buses along the trains route. Ridership was unaffected":

A 2004 survey revealed that 37% of METRORail riders were new to transit. That number seemed unusually high based on experiences in other cities. METRO thought the question may have been misleading, so they rephrased it in 2007. This time they found that 41% of riders were new to transit, i.e. they didn't ride METRO before the light rail opened.

Source: http://www.hdrinc.co...8/MetroRail.pdf

Regarding "The light rail in Houston does not qualify for the federal money because the cost to benefit is too low.":

The FTA has indicated it will fund roughly half of the cost of the North and Southeast lines. METRO is building the East End line with its own money. It is anticipated the University line will be funded in half by the FTA as well. 50% funding is outstanding these days given how much competition there is for transit funding.

http://ridemetro.org...9/08172009.aspx

http://www.ridemetro...9/12162009.aspx

Regarding denail of federal funds:

1. http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/002397.html

2. 1: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-mar-rail-without-the-fta-houston-metrorail (scroll down to the timeline)

Everything changed with the current administration and the current congress.

Regarding cost to run the line see my post above yours. It cost more to run the train the bus. Its not an argument, its metros own books

Regarding new riders. I dont believe that it is fair to count in the ridership averages Rodeo, Trade Shows, and other huge forums because they drastically cut the number of buses running to reliant, and force you to get onto a train instead. Forced ridership should not be "new riders" people used to park off site and ride a bus into the rodeo...now they have to take a train or park in one of the satellite lots if they dont have parking passes.

[ricco67]

Regarding denail of federal funds:

1. http://www.offthekuf...ves/002397.html

2. 1: http://www.metrojack...uston-metrorail (scroll down to the timeline)

Everything changed with the current administration and the current congress.

Regarding cost to run the line see my post above yours. It cost more to run the train the bus. Its not an argument, its metros own books

Regarding new riders. I dont believe that it is fair to count in the ridership averages Rodeo, Trade Shows, and other huge forums because they drastically cut the number of buses running to reliant, and force you to get onto a train instead. Forced ridership should not be "new riders" people used to park off site and ride a bus into the rodeo...now they have to take a train or park in one of the satellite lots if they dont have parking passes.

Just so you know, Metro still has the park and ride option. One of my friends came in parking at the Aramco Parking lot. Additionally, he said there were more than a few buses at East side of the Reliant complex.

[Marksmu]

Just so you know, Metro still has the park and ride option. One of my friends came in parking at the Aramco Parking lot. Additionally, he said there were more than a few buses at East side of the Reliant complex.

The Park and Ride are the satellite lots that I referred to. Aramco, Reed rd. west loop, and OST.

[ricco67]

No one is being "Forced" to ride Metro Buses or Rail. There is cash or prepaid parking.

Thank god for the public transit available to major events there, can you imagine the total chaos it would be? It's practically a gridlock as it currently is.

If anything, there should be better access to it.

[kylejack]

Regarding new riders. I dont believe that it is fair to count in the ridership averages Rodeo, Trade Shows, and other huge forums because they drastically cut the number of buses running to reliant, and force you to get onto a train instead. Forced ridership should not be "new riders" people used to park off site and ride a bus into the rodeo...now they have to take a train or park in one of the satellite lots if they dont have parking passes.

Reading his link, none of those surveys were conducted during the rodeo. One in October, one in November, and one sometime in Spring.

[citykid09]

Houston mayor says 2 rail lines in doubt

"Mayor Annise Parker cast doubt Wednesday on whether the Metropolitan Transit Authority has the money to pay for two planned light-rail lines that proponents say are critical to the success of the agency's plans."

Of all the major cities in the World Houston why does Houston have to be probably the only one that will never have a a true rail system? While I don't support light rail in the form that METRO is doing it, its better than nothing for the 4th largest city in America. There needs to be a meeting called, construction should be stopped and the people of Houston needs to come to together (no matter the cost) and build a transit system that will work for a city of Houston's size.

One other thing. TheNiche, you sound like you know a lot about urban planning or maybe have went to school for it. Tell me this is in an urban design class, is Houston looked at as the way not to develop cities? Because I would have to say that Houston has to be the most dysfunctional major city I have ever seen. Its that damn bad.

[august948]

Of all the major cities in the World Houston why does Houston have to be probably the only one that will never have a a true rail system? While I don't support light rail in the form that METRO is doing it, its better than nothing for the 4th largest city in America. There needs to be a meeting called, construction should be stopped and the people of Houston needs to come to together (no matter the cost) and build a transit system that will work for a city of Houston's size.

One other thing. TheNiche, you sound like you know a lot about urban planning or maybe have went to school for it. Tell me this is in an urban design class, is Houston looked at as the way not to develop cities? Because I would have to say that Houston has to be the most dysfunctional major city I have ever seen. Its that damn bad.

What makes you think we will NEVER have whatever you term as a "true rail" system? Sooner or later gas prices will go back up and the public will demand better options. The question is only whether we will be ahead of the curve or behind it. My guess is we'll be behind it.

I'm not sure what you mean by Houston being the most dysfunctional city you've ever seen. Are you just talking about light rail here? Overall, Houston is very functional, maybe too much so. Try living in Atlanta. There they have dozens of local governments that rarely see eye-to-eye on things.

[kylejack]

Of all the major cities in the World Houston why does Houston have to be probably the only one that will never have a a true rail system? While I don't support light rail in the form that METRO is doing it, its better than nothing for the 4th largest city in America. There needs to be a meeting called, construction should be stopped and the people of Houston needs to come to together (no matter the cost) and build a transit system that will work for a city of Houston's size.

One other thing. TheNiche, you sound like you know a lot about urban planning or maybe have went to school for it. Tell me this is in an urban design class, is Houston looked at as the way not to develop cities? Because I would have to say that Houston has to be the most dysfunctional major city I have ever seen. Its that damn bad.

I don't think you've ever been to Detroit, but anyway, many of Houston's statistics are good and it seems to have weathered the recession better than most major American cities, so it must be doing a few things right.

[gto250us]

Of all the major cities in the World Houston why does Houston have to be probably the only one that will never have a a true rail system? ... Houston has to be the most dysfunctional major city I have ever seen. Its that damn bad.

I agree - Houston grew the way that it did because there was/is almost no planning or control and the developers loved it that way. They still do. If you look at who the big movers and shakers of Houston were you will see most of the big developers.

I remember a few years ago when the Zoning issue was last raised and one argument being made against zoning was that your taxes would go up. Well, of course they will go up because with zoning your property will be more valuable. But folks didn't want to have more valuable property they just wanted cheap.

Same with rail. The developers fought tooth and nail against it because they wanted folks to stay in their cars and drive to all the damn strip malls that line every thoroughfare. The unbridled growth has resulted in cheap housing costs but also led to one of the ugliest cities around. The drive down 59 and 45 from IAH is an embarrassment when I have out of town guests. Just compare that drive to what you see in a planned and controlled area such as the Woodlands or Sugarland.

[mfastx]

I know plenty of people who already avoid the galleria area like the plague because of traffic. If you can imagine the traffic during construction it will be unbearable. Fast forward past completion, and think about how wonderful the traffic is going to flow with the lights all turning red while the stupid empty train rolls past every 10-15 minutes...now imagine it during the holidays. Its an awful plan. A much more efficient use of money would be to put parking lots in un-used but populated areas and bus the people to and from the mall from those places.

What makes you think it will be empty?

Cost of a light rail route - $300,000,000

Cost of Katy Freeway expansion: $2,800,000,000. Your point?

Do not say that it is payed for by the gasoline tax. Federal dollars play a key role in building freeways.

[citykid09]

What makes you think we will NEVER have whatever you term as a "true rail" system? Sooner or later gas prices will go back up and the public will demand better options. The question is only whether we will be ahead of the curve or behind it. My guess is we'll be behind it.

I'm not sure what you mean by Houston being the most dysfunctional city you've ever seen. Are you just talking about light rail here? Overall, Houston is very functional, maybe too much so. Try living in Atlanta. There they have dozens of local governments that rarely see eye-to-eye on things.

Obviously Atlanta is running much better than in Houston. Development their is much more appealing, than it is in Houston. Walkable shopping districts and all. They are even developing a street from scratch that will be their on version of the Magnificent Mile, you will never see Houston develop anything like this. You can ride MARTA to their uptown area (Buckhead) and are able to walk to destinations from their. Its not as walkable as a downtown, but its much more walkable than uptown Houston. Go a head and say how well Houston is doing compared to other cities in this economy, but its really official, Houston has lost the edge on innovation in had in years past. Its just a large mediocre rural/suburban/semi-urban city. And people wonder why the city can't be taken serious, its a huge mess.

[Highway6]

And people wonder why the city can't be taken serious, its a huge mess.

But hopefully You don't wonder why it is we don't take you serious...

[TheNiche]

Of all the major cities in the World Houston why does Houston have to be probably the only one that will never have a a true rail system? While I don't support light rail in the form that METRO is doing it, its better than nothing for the 4th largest city in America. There needs to be a meeting called, construction should be stopped and the people of Houston needs to come to together (no matter the cost) and build a transit system that will work for a city of Houston's size.

For the record, I agree with you that light rail, as implemented, is inadequate. I agree that a greater degree of grade separation is called for and that METRO is not adequately addressing regional mobility. However, I also recognize that there are financial constraints. METRO is ultimately dependent upon fares, it's one-cent sales tax, and FTA funding to cover its operating costs...and that has to be covered before it can even begin to talk about increasing the capital budget. Short of receiving special attention in the state legislature, the only realistic option is for the City to give back the quarter cent share that they currently demand as tribute...but the City has it's own budget crisis to address and that property tax rates already look poised to increase, so that's unlikely. And if there is a shortfall in sales tax revenues, for whatever reason...well that certainly doesn't help their cause.

Even given these financial constraints, I'd rather see METRO build its infrastructure to a higher standard at a slower rate, so again, like yourself, I have misgivings about their strategic direction. But at the same time, they're so far along in the process at this point that I'm not sure that canceling construction contracts is a reasonable option. I hope it is (or wish it were). However, I have no faith in the ability of anybody to "come together" and resolve to accomplish anything worthwhile.

One other thing. TheNiche, you sound like you know a lot about urban planning or maybe have went to school for it. Tell me this is in an urban design class, is Houston looked at as the way not to develop cities? Because I would have to say that Houston has to be the most dysfunctional major city I have ever seen. Its that damn bad.

I took a number of classes that directly address the subject matter and formerly provided consulting on transit-oriented development (TOD) and related urban issues. The coursework I took at UH was divided about equally between economics (my major) and architecture (which I started to make my minor but later dropped), and let me tell you...it was a divide! UH architecture is taught in an art school format. Consideration is primarily given to aesthetic form, and students are counseled to sell a vision to their future clients if budgetary objections are raised. There wasn't as much emphasis on client-focused or user-focused design as I would've liked. And urban planning was addressed as a subset of architecture, rather than as a multidisciplinary field of study. I couldn't stand it, personally. The economics side of things was far more thoughtful. Various urban development paradigms and theoretical frameworks were reviewed and criticized on the basis of objective outcomes and empirical research. Political organizations were discussed, as were the means by way of which projects were financed. And the culmination of all of my economics training was a rigorous cost-benefit analysis course taught by Bart Smith. Most people think of economics as being basically the same as finance, where it's just about dealing with money; that's not even close. In the normative sense, it's about determining how to optimize social welfare given a far-reaching universe of alternatives...and realistic constraints.

In the context of all of this, I've come to find that Houston is an anomaly in many respects. It lacks zoning (obviously), the central city is gigantic and actively prevents encroachment by suburban municipalities (which means that there isn't as much regional in-fighting), and it relies on special taxing entities like MUDs and Management Districts far more than any other city in the country to pay for infrastructure down to the neighborhood level, according to the preference of small and relatively homogeneous groups of residents. There are literally thousands of different combinations of taxing districts that any given property in our region might be subject to, and all of them are subject to restrictions provided by state law. Urban economists recognize that Houston's circumstances cannot be replicated anywhere else, so it is often studied as a comparison case to determine the validity of a theory under various conditions. We're viewed as something of an experimental city, viewed with fascination. To that end, one of the things that comes up time and time again is how much bang for the buck we get with our P&R system, which is probably the most developed system int he U.S. if not the world. And we've also had successful experiments with toll roads and HOV/HOT managed lanes, also implemented by METRO. HCTRA comes up with some frequency, as an organization that has had success implementing contracts tied to incentives for construction work completed on time. And TXDoT gets praise for Transtar as a traffic management and emergency response system initially rolled out in Houston.

Where transit is concerned, the light rail vs. BRT vs. bus debate is ongoing. However, heavy rail and commuter rail are largely dismissed as not being feasible except in very narrow circumstances, such as the Northeast corridor and sometimes Chicago. Systems such as BART and MARTA are not considered cost-effective and do a poor job at enhancing regional mobility, as implemented; very few cities continue to pursue that model of developing fixed-guideway transit. Interestingly, Dallas doesn't get talked about too much...and that's unfortunate because they have a hybrid/multimodal system that I'd have liked to have seen more thoroughly picked apart.

[august948]

Obviously Atlanta is running much better than in Houston. Development their is much more appealing, than it is in Houston. Walkable shopping districts and all. They are even developing a street from scratch that will be their on version of the Magnificent Mile, you will never see Houston develop anything like this. You can ride MARTA to their uptown area (Buckhead) and are able to walk to destinations from their. Its not as walkable as a downtown, but its much more walkable than uptown Houston. Go a head and say how well Houston is doing compared to other cities in this economy, but its really official, Houston has lost the edge on innovation in had in years past. Its just a large mediocre rural/suburban/semi-urban city. And people wonder why the city can't be taken serious, its a huge mess.

There's nothing obvious about it. Have you ever lived in Atlanta? I love the city, but unless you live in a narrow corridor along Peachtree or within walking distance of a MARTA train station it's no different than Houston, except that it's much harder to drive and has a far worse bus system. Plus the food there doesn't hold a candle to Houston. Plus we've got a much more diverse and international population.

[JLWM8609]

The drive down 59 and 45 from IAH is an embarrassment when I have out of town guests. Just compare that drive to what you see in a planned and controlled area such as the Woodlands or Sugarland.

I see the same strip centers and business that I see going down 59 or 45 from IAH, just newer and gussied up.

[Marksmu]

What makes you think it will be empty?

Cost of Katy Freeway expansion: $2,800,000,000. Your point?

Do not say that it is payed for by the gasoline tax. Federal dollars play a key role in building freeways.

That 2,800,000,000 capital improvement services more people in a week than the rail ever will. Buses (ignoring car traffic) currently move 17x more people than rail. 17x 300,000,000 =5,100,000,000 is much much more than 2.8 Trillion... The number of cars greatly exceeds the number of buses and I did not even include them. And that Katy Freeway expansion is paid for partly by the toll road portion, though I do think they wasted a tremendous amount of freeway having so much dead space.

The rail is expensive, plain and simple. A bus is a much more economical and less disrputive way to achieve the same goal of moving people cheaply.

[N Judah]

Obviously Atlanta is running much better than in Houston. Development their is much more appealing, than it is in Houston. Walkable shopping districts and all. They are even developing a street from scratch that will be their on version of the Magnificent Mile, you will never see Houston develop anything like this. You can ride MARTA to their uptown area (Buckhead) and are able to walk to destinations from their. Its not as walkable as a downtown, but its much more walkable than uptown Houston. Go a head and say how well Houston is doing compared to other cities in this economy, but its really official, Houston has lost the edge on innovation in had in years past. Its just a large mediocre rural/suburban/semi-urban city. And people wonder why the city can't be taken serious, its a huge mess.

This is just zoning in action. I think Houston could have something as nice by changing its setback, parking, variance, etc. requirements without delving into the whole zoning mess.

I am interested to see where you got the idea that Houston ever really had an edge in innovation. It's just a boomtown...the "home of easy credit" nothing more.

[citykid09]

I am interested to see where you got the idea that Houston ever really had an edge in innovation. It's just a boomtown...the "home of easy credit" nothing more.

The Astrodome...............I can't think of anything else right now. But the city did approve plans for a monorail until that mayor used that money extra cops.

[Houston19514]

Widely known that when Rail originally applied for Federal Funds Tom Delay shut it down by changing the rules to require federal transit money meet a separate set of rules. Thats being undone now.

Didnt search long found this:

In 2000, the congressman killed $65 million appropriated by Congress for the now-planned Main Street line and proceeded to write language into the federal transportation bill effectively making it impossible for Houston to receive money for light rail from Washington. The Houston Chronicle quoted congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) in reaction: “I will not tolerate, no matter whether he is in the leadership or not, some Texas congressperson blocking federal funds coming into the 18th District. I’ve never heard of such a thing.” Ms. Jackson-Lee, far less powerful in Congress at the time, actually represents Houston.

Are you serious? THAT is what you were talking about? For some odd reason I thought you were talking about current light-rail plans... you know, the topic of the thread. And I thought you were talking about applications being denied by the federal agency, not by a congressional budget action. Quite a different sort of animal there, and not at all what your statement suggested.

[JamesL]

That 2,800,000,000 capital improvement services more people in a week than the rail ever will. Buses (ignoring car traffic) currently move 17x more people than rail. 17x 300,000,000 =5,100,000,000 is much much more than 2.8 Trillion... The number of cars greatly exceeds the number of buses and I did not even include them. And that Katy Freeway expansion is paid for partly by the toll road portion, though I do think they wasted a tremendous amount of freeway having so much dead space.

The rail is expensive, plain and simple. A bus is a much more economical and less disrputive way to achieve the same goal of moving people cheaply.

I haven't the foggiest what you are trying to show with those numbers (and how 5.1 billion is more than 2.8 trillion) but the facts are as follows:

The Katy Freeway project cost about 3 billion dollars and added capacity for 30,000 cars per day. Our existing METRORail line cost in the vicinity of $400 million (including streetscape improvements) and averages over 40,000 boardings per day.

[Porchman]

The rail line is a joke, its Houston's attempt to look green and fancy because professionals do not want to ride a bus because it still has a stigma of being low class.

That's the crux of the transportation problem. Most of our congestion isn't caused by the poor driving to and from their jobs. They tend to use the bus much more. The problem is getting mostly white, mostly middle-class, mostly suburban drivers to use public transport rather than driving. To do that you have to have modes of transportation that are appealing to that demographic and you have to run to the places they live and to the places they want to go. That's why the University and Uptown lines are so important as well as getting rail solutions pushed out beyond the loop.

Except that they won't. When you make a permanent investment in a transportation corridor, businesses will make corresponding investments along the route because they know it won't change. That leads to greater, not lesser demand. When new high volume areas arise, you just extend the rail line to those areas. Frankly, though, we've got enough high volume areas around Houston that we could extend rail to right now that we won't even be able to deal with new developments for quite some time.

In short, it's not just about transportation dollars. (1) It's about readapting the middle class to mass transit and (2) It's taking that synergy and creating development. So, bus-to-rail is not apples-to-apples.

I have some qualms about MetroRail.

• We paid a chuck-a-change to build a 7-mile rail line in a 600-square-mile city. Shouldn't we be focusing on hub-to-hub, commuter rail (Cypress-Galleria-Downtown or Sugarland-TMC-Downtown...not to mention IAH-Dowtown-Galleria)?
• Argument: Rail is supposed to support growth in more densely (and efficiently) populated areas like the Inner Loop .

• It runs down the middle of the street (and hits cars)
• On previous argument: If you are to serve Downtown, Midtown, Museum, TMC, and Reliant, where are you going to put it? (Also, white men in SUV's need to get off their phones).

• LRT is cheaper than BRT
• Argument: ??? I hear "fuel" and "pavement" as issues. I would like to see long-term studies for similar corridors.

I support Metro. Their mission to get car-centric, sprawl Houston off its current mojo is admirable. However, they need to better quantify the value of LRT. The bond issue barely passed. The University Line has been mired in AWP meetings. Clearly, there is more than bond and construction work to do.

And [back on topic] the financial costs of this should be seriously weighed. If Mayor Parker has concerns about this, we need to be concerned, too. Whomever she appoints to the Metro Board has to assume reponsibility for the current strategies, so she has some serious ownership.

[AtticaFlinch]

Why not just not post Attica? You said nothing, added nothing, and without a doubt the users comment that I was 100% wrong was 100% wrong. When the main street line was put in, and up until January 15, Houston Rail did NOT qualify for federal funding.

As of January 15, they could reapply. I have not heard if the aid was granted.

So again, you said nothing, added nothing, but did waste everyone's time.

If you say so. I'm very nearly at the point where I just don't read your posts. You can try that with mine if you're so terribly concerned about your time being wasted.