Just ELEVATE the rails already!

[DrLan34]

Well thinking about how that car slammed into the pedestrian and shoved him UNDER THE TRAIN today, I think I have more reason to raise the rails.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7904977 the article says he was not thrown under the train but I can understand your concern

[RedScare]

Besides, I think I have the right to get angry since Im stuck in the Southwest Parking Lot everyday, and just to think we could have avoided the parking lot of freeways we have now around this town if we could have just passed the heavy rail in the 80s

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you weren't around in 1983 when this heavy rail boondoggle was proposed. No one around at that time thought it was even remotely a decent deal...including me...and I'm a rail fan. I voted against it, as did everyone else.

Oh, and it ran up the North Freeway. I fail to see how it would help motorists on the Southwest Freeway.

[mfastx]

Oh, and it ran up the North Freeway. I fail to see how it would help motorists on the Southwest Freeway.

Wasn't there plans to extend it to the Galleria area via the Southwest Freeway?

[Jrnavid]

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you weren't around in 1983 when this heavy rail boondoggle was proposed. No one around at that time thought it was even remotely a decent deal...including me...and I'm a rail fan. I voted against it, as did everyone else.

Oh, and it ran up the North Freeway. I fail to see how it would help motorists on the Southwest Freeway.

Ok it was a bad deal, why wasn't another plan thought of? There really is always going to be an excuse to not be productive enough, shifting money into a mass transit system instead of widening and widening the freeways would have been a great idea. If the money used in these concrete oceans was just possibly moved towards rail many decades ago, there would be NO NEED to expand ANY freeways. By now, people would have adapted to the transit system. and we wouldnt have had all this traffic chaos.

And now, it doesnt matter what freeway, southwest, north, gulf, katy, eastex, ALL of them are congested, because we have not came up with something to fix this problem! I dont know who to blame, you could blame past mayors for appointing the wrong person to become CEO of Metro, Frank Wilson, whatever! The point is not to blame, we cant change the past anymore, we have to look ahead and make sure we stay on track to get rid of these rolling boxes on the freeways and adapt people to the system.

[samagon]

Ok it was a bad deal, why wasn't another plan thought of? There really is always going to be an excuse to not be productive enough, shifting money into a mass transit system instead of widening and widening the freeways would have been a great idea. If the money used in these concrete oceans was just possibly moved towards rail many decades ago, there would be NO NEED to expand ANY freeways. By now, people would have adapted to the transit system. and we wouldnt have had all this traffic chaos.

And now, it doesnt matter what freeway, southwest, north, gulf, katy, eastex, ALL of them are congested, because we have not came up with something to fix this problem! I dont know who to blame, you could blame past mayors for appointing the wrong person to become CEO of Metro, Frank Wilson, whatever! The point is not to blame, we cant change the past anymore, we have to look ahead and make sure we stay on track to get rid of these rolling boxes on the freeways and adapt people to the system.

it is important to not spend a lot of time laying blame for past failures, but it is very important to look at the past and figure out why the previous attempts were failures. Not only so adjustments can be made, but so the people who have to vote for the change can see that it is better than previous attempts.

[JLWM8609]

Ok it was a bad deal, why wasn't another plan thought of? There really is always going to be an excuse to not be productive enough, shifting money into a mass transit system instead of widening and widening the freeways would have been a great idea. If the money used in these concrete oceans was just possibly moved towards rail many decades ago, there would be NO NEED to expand ANY freeways. By now, people would have adapted to the transit system. and we wouldnt have had all this traffic chaos.

Your logic is faulty. Heavy rail alone won't alleviate freeway traffic to the point of freeways never needing to be expanded. Even if Houston had heavy rail, the freeways still would have needed expansion. Look at cities like San Francisco, Chicago, L.A. and NYC, home of subways and commuter rail. With heavy rail, their freeways should be clear of traffic, smooth sailing all the time, no freeway expansions needed, right? Wrong! I've been on Houston's freeways during rush hour and the congestion isn't all that bad when you go to one of the aforementioned cities and sit on a narrow, congested freeway during non-rush hour times. Rail may help take cars off of the freeway, but it is NOT the magic, solves all problems solution that people make it out to be.

[RedScare]

There was another plan 5 years later, but it was just as poorly thought out as the first one. It consisted of a circulator plan to all of the business centers, but was widely considered just a developer's playtoy. However, voters passed it, since it included many street upgrades, along with expanded HOV lanes. In 1992, Mayor Bob Lanier fulfilled a campaign promise and killed the rail in order to use METRO money to fund more cops. It is important to remember that during this time, Houston's murder rate was about triple what it is today.

The current plan is the most well thought out system, despite the drawbacks that many claim. High gas prices and a population twice what it was in the 80s have also softened attitudes toward rail and mass transit. There will always be detractors to mass transit. The best way to quiet them is a well run transit authority, something that Houston has often not had. Expansion of the system is inevitable, but we must vote down the bad ideas, even if it causes delay. I think the current group has the right idea. But, they have a lot of garbage to clean up. Patience is a virtue.

[Highway6]

HAIF - "Having the same conversation for 5 years running"

new year

new thread

same complaints

same conversation

same arguments

....meanwhile Metro stays their course.

To the Anti rail folk... HAIF isn't Metro. You're complaints here accomplish nothing.

To the Pro Rail folk... We won. After 5 years, we aren't going to change our opponent's minds. Why try?

[JLWM8609]

He's getting better.. at least Atlanta hasn't been mentioned yet.

I think I beat him to the punch, but I cited Atlanta as an example of a city that didn't have its freeway congestion problems solved by heavy rail. In fact, Atlanta had a freeway expansion project during and after the same time the heavy rail was being built. Most of their freeways were widened during the 80s.

[Jrnavid]

HAIF - "Having the same conversation for 5 years running"

new year

new thread

same complaints

same conversation

same arguments

....meanwhile Metro stays their course.

To the Anti rail folk... HAIF isn't Metro. You're complaints here accomplish nothing.

To the Pro Rail folk... We won. After 5 years, we aren't going to change our opponent's minds. Why try?

Well we cant just sit around and do nothing. But Metro seems to be taking better steps to progress. Grenias seems to be the best person with the right mind. He knows what he's doing, but we will see how the monthly board meeting goes next week. I actually might go on purpose to see whats going on. I will not sit here and just type away.

[Jrnavid]

But, they have a lot of garbage to clean up. Patience is a virtue.

Yes I really do hope that the new board and clean up pretty well. They seem to doing very well so far, responding to customers and suggestions

[Subdude]

HAIF - "Having the same conversation for 5 years running"

new year

new thread

same complaints

same conversation

same arguments

Well so what? It's a discussion board! Are new members not supposed to post because something has been discussed in the past? Sheeesshh.....

[Highway6]

Well we cant just sit around and do nothing.

You're on your couch, on your laptop, complaining to an internet forum. I would say sitting around and doing (accomplishing) nothing is spot on correct.

But hey.. I mostly support Metro's LRT attempts as is, so by all means, keep up your current form of activism.

Well so what? It's a discussion board! Are new members not supposed to post because something has been discussed in the past? Sheeesshh.....

We could also discuss why building a baseball stadium for the Astros downtown would be a bad idea.

The decision has been made, the process has started. Metro isn't going throw away years of planning, millions of dollars, time slicing through federal red tape, etc.

The " Let's discuss Phase II transit in Houston" train left the station years ago. Last time I checked, Metro didn't have any new neighborhood or rail line meetings scheduled with the people. Not all discussions are worth having.

If new developments arise or new decisions need to be made.. sure, by all means, let's discuss. But until then, complaining that decisions made years ago are the wrong ones, and not even directing your complaints to those that made those decisions.... Pointless.

[mfastx]

San Francisco, Chicago, L.A. and NYC, home of subways and commuter rail.

Notice how small San Francisco, Chiacago, and NYC's freewas are compared to ours. They obviously haven't needed to investe nearly as much money in their freeways as we have. The one exception is LA, but they only have one heavy rail line (not enough to make much of a difference).

And knock on Atlanta all you want, but it doesnt change the fact that their transit ridership is about twice as much as ours.

[editor]

Well thinking about how that car slammed into the pedestrian and shoved him UNDER THE TRAIN today, I think I have more reason to raise the rails.

The pedestrian could have just as easily been shoved under an SUV, or a mailbox. I don't think anyone wants to elevate the mailboxes.

But grade-separating pedestrians and SUVs certainly is an interesting thought.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you weren't around in 1983 when this heavy rail boondoggle was proposed. No one around at that time thought it was even remotely a decent deal...including me...and I'm a rail fan. I voted against it, as did everyone else.

Oh, and it ran up the North Freeway. I fail to see how it would help motorists on the Southwest Freeway.

For those of us who weren't around at the time, can you recap why it was a bad idea?

[editor]

Your logic is faulty. Heavy rail alone won't alleviate freeway traffic to the point of freeways never needing to be expanded. Even if Houston had heavy rail, the freeways still would have needed expansion. Look at cities like San Francisco, Chicago, L.A. and NYC, home of subways and commuter rail. With heavy rail, their freeways should be clear of traffic, smooth sailing all the time, no freeway expansions needed, right? Wrong! I've been on Houston's freeways during rush hour and the congestion isn't all that bad when you go to one of the aforementioned cities and sit on a narrow, congested freeway during non-rush hour times. Rail may help take cars off of the freeway, but it is NOT the magic, solves all problems solution that people make it out to be.

You can't really compare NY and Chicago's road/rail situation to Houston. The freeways in those cities were built to supplement commuter rail, not the other way around as is being discussed in Houston. Also, there are geographic restrictions in New York that make rail construction a more compelling option than it is in Houston.

[editor]

Notice how small San Francisco, Chiacago, and NYC's freewas are compared to ours. They obviously haven't needed to investe nearly as much money in their freeways as we have. The one exception is LA, but they only have one heavy rail line (not enough to make much of a difference).

And knock on Atlanta all you want, but it doesnt change the fact that their transit ridership is about twice as much as ours.

I've been to Atlanta a few times on business, and always found its subway system to be excellent. Maybe not as modern as the ones in Asia, but it's clean and reliable, and goes to the places I care about (Airport <--> Downtown <--> Midtown). No need to rent a car and sit in traffic.

[citykid09]

I've been to Atlanta a few times on business, and always found its subway system to be excellent. Maybe not as modern as the ones in Asia, but it's clean and reliable, and goes to the places I care about (Airport <--> Downtown <--> Midtown). No need to rent a car and sit in traffic.

I have always felt the same way, but you will get beat up on here for saying that. And to think the first plan Houston had for heavy rail was just like this one. Metro was also under the same leadership that built the MARTA system at the time. Makes me mad just thinking about it.

[JamesL]

Fact: Money for transit expansion is limited (not METRO's fault).

Consequence: See: http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/04/26/show-me-the-money/

[Jrnavid]

You're on your couch, on your laptop, complaining to an internet forum. I would say sitting around and doing (accomplishing) nothing is spot on correct.

But hey.. I mostly support Metro's LRT attempts as is, so by all means, keep up your current form of activism

Excuse me, im going to school for architecture and urban planning to try and fix these problems. This is a great city, with a great set of people, and as our home we need to, or at least some of us, have to take the inactive to try to help the rest of the population move efficiently and smoothly. Right?

[Jrnavid]

Fact: Money for transit expansion is limited (not METRO's fault).

Consequence: See: http://www.ctchousto...w-me-the-money/

are private donations even allowed to be given to Metro?

[editor]

are private donations even allowed to be given to Metro?

Likely not. It could be construed as a bribe.

[TheNiche]

So TheNiche, considering the climate at the time of the referendum, is it your opinion that if METRO would have just been "up-front" with regard to cost, etc., with the public, it would have passed? I've observed that practically anything with a large dollar amount attached to it in Houston, with the exception of Freeways, is met with vocal organized opposition to the point of Houstonians blindly voting against it or it is scaled back to the point of simple basic functionality. What is best for the city or what makes the most sense for the city more times than not, seem to take a back seat to how cheaply something can be done. That's why I ask you if a larger dollar amount revealed by METRO would have helped or hindered the passage of the referendum.

I believe incompetence has been a factor in the past for some of the things METRO has done, but I have not forgotten the INCREDIBLE and POWERFUL opposition METRO has faced over the years and how that could have influenced some of the bad decisions they have made.

You notice that freeways are an exception. The additional cost of a few strategic grade separations would very directly and intuitively alleviate traffic congestion, just as would a wider freeway. I would expect that the marginal cost of adding that feature to a light rail system would be well-received by voters. Either that, or the voters would realize that there are non-pecuniary costs related to at-grade light rail that must be mitigated or else endured, and that consideration may cause them to re-think the technology altogether. Either way, I'm happier with those outcomes that with the current plan, which is already (as you describe it) at the point of simple basic functionality.

I believe incompetence has been a factor in the past for some of the things METRO has done, but I have not forgotten the INCREDIBLE and POWERFUL opposition METRO has faced over the years and how that could have influenced some of the bad decisions they have made.

The METRO Solutions referendum did place any limits on cost or physical design. That has been borne out in every lawsuit that has come up against them. Once the politicking was complete and the funding was in place, METRO did not have to worry about a constituent backlash, really at all. The only voter accountability was indirect, through the Mayoral position, and METRO was a peripheral issue. The only thing that METRO had to do in order to build pretty much whatever it had in mind was to remain financially solvent. Oops.

[TheNiche]

Well. if only some places should be elevated, and METRO already plans some elevated portions, what is the point of the angry post?

Let us be intellectually honest in this discussion. The elevated portions are elevated to get over freight railroad tracks, not to prevent the congestion of some of the most highly-trafficked intersections in the city, which is the subject of debate in this thread.

[TheNiche]

You're on your couch, on your laptop, complaining to an internet forum. I would say sitting around and doing (accomplishing) nothing is spot on correct.

But hey.. I mostly support Metro's LRT attempts as is, so by all means, keep up your current form of activism.

We could also discuss why building a baseball stadium for the Astros downtown would be a bad idea.

The decision has been made, the process has started. Metro isn't going throw away years of planning, millions of dollars, time slicing through federal red tape, etc.

The " Let's discuss Phase II transit in Houston" train left the station years ago. Last time I checked, Metro didn't have any new neighborhood or rail line meetings scheduled with the people. Not all discussions are worth having.

If new developments arise or new decisions need to be made.. sure, by all means, let's discuss. But until then, complaining that decisions made years ago are the wrong ones, and not even directing your complaints to those that made those decisions.... Pointless.

What you just said seems like it should make sense, however it seemed like the East End line was going to be built without the half-mile grade separation over the UP tracks near old downtown Magnolia Park. They even had a groundbreaking and started construction. And then they stopped construction and re-engineered it.

I think that citizens should talk about what they would like to see. With Grenias at the helm, someone might even be listening.

[TheNiche]

I've been to Atlanta a few times on business, and always found its subway system to be excellent. Maybe not as modern as the ones in Asia, but it's clean and reliable, and goes to the places I care about (Airport <--> Downtown <--> Midtown). No need to rent a car and sit in traffic.

...unless you live there.

[TheNiche]

are private donations even allowed to be given to Metro?

Yes. I want to say that this has occurred with respect to some public art projects.

[GovernorAggie]

Why? There are plenty of cities the size of Houston and even larger that have at-grade rail. Are pedestrians in Houston extra-stupid and try to lick the train as it passes? I thought only SUV drivers did that.

And since the notion of "heavy rail" (commuter rail) keeps coming up here, I was recently surprised to learn that Minneapolis has commuter rail. This is a city with less than 1/10th of Houston's population. And even Seattle (1/7th Houston's population) has commuter rail.

I wonder what other small cities have commuter rail that for some reason people think Houston isn't large enough to support.

Nashville

San Diego

Salt Lake City

Cleveland

Austin

Albuquerque

Portland

[Highway6]

What you just said seems like it should make sense, however it seemed like the East End line was going to be built without the half-mile grade separation over the UP tracks near old downtown Magnolia Park. They even had a groundbreaking and started construction. And then they stopped construction and re-engineered it.

I think that citizens should talk about what they would like to see. With Grenias at the helm, someone might even be listening.

Grenias is a heckuva lot more likely to listen to a citizen if that citizen phones or writes him or Metro directly.

I'm pretty sure Metro doesn't have a Haif Monitoring Division.