METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion

[TheNiche]

Niche, you can pick apart anything. I'm sure that you could look at any city in the world and list "x" amount of things wrong with their system, their policies, etc. I just want to improve transit in Houston and I am wondering why we can't seem to do it. While you're criticisms of Los Angeles are valid, that does not change the fact that ~20 million live in the area and most of those people think it's a great place to live. Anyway, that's besides the point.

Obviously good transit comes at a price, and you must know I am in favor of more funding towards mass transit. I think it's a little closed minded to ignore good things about other cities. There's something we can take from many cities and improve our own.

You seem to be against giving additional funding to METRO/public transit.

I take it as a complement that you believe that I am prone to consider the benefits along with the costs of various options. I'm not sure why you think that I'm against transit, however. It serves a purpose in large cities; I may as well be against replacing and upgrading sewer lines as that I should be against transit. (I am not in favor of mandates for low-flow toilets or bidets in public restrooms, however nice some people may think those amenities to be. These things come at a price, after all. When the money is spent toward that purpose, it cannot be spent on other purposes.)

Let me ask you this. If there were a mechanism for you to donate money to METRO, would you do it? Don't tell me whether we should do it. Tell me whether you would do it. Would you write them a check for $500 with no strings attached? You could buy stuff instead, you know. Or you could buy me a beer...lots of beer. I'd like that. You could give it to a charity of your choosing. You could buy a round-trip ticket to Vegas and blow it playing slots at the aiport. There are a lot of options, though. Which is the best option for your $500?

How can public transit improve in Houston without additional funding? Would you rather just not build the University/Uptown lines and keep the status quo?

I find the University line to be rational enough. A core light rail line connecting two large empolyment centers (and a direct connection to two more) seems pretty good to me. I'd invest even more money to grade seperate it a little. On the face of it, the MetroSolutions plans seemed pretty good. Good enough for me to favor investment in it.

Which MetroSolutions plan? I thought that the one with all the BRT would've been perfectly reasonable, provided a few grade separations along Richmond. But even then, perhaps not immediately. Wait another five to ten years, at least. Let the city build up and out a little more first so that there's more congestion on local streets...a problem worth having a solution to.

[mfastx]

I take it as a complement that you believe that I am prone to consider the benefits along with the costs of various options. I'm not sure why you think that I'm against transit, however. It serves a purpose in large cities; I may as well be against replacing and upgrading sewer lines as that I should be against transit. (I am not in favor of mandates for low-flow toilets or bidets in public restrooms, however nice some people may think those amenities to be. These things come at a price, after all. When the money is spent toward that purpose, it cannot be spent on other purposes.)

I never thought you were against transit in general, I just get the feeling that you see no need to make METRO better. You'd rather invest money in other things besides public transit. It's just where we disagree.

Let me ask you this. If there were a mechanism for you to donate money to METRO, would you do it? Don't tell me whether we should do it. Tell me whether you would do it. Would you write them a check for $500 with no strings attached? You could buy stuff instead, you know. Or you could buy me a beer...lots of beer. I'd like that. You could give it to a charity of your choosing. You could buy a round-trip ticket to Vegas and blow it playing slots at the aiport. There are a lot of options, though. Which is the best option for your $500?

It really depends. I wouldn't write them a check with no strings attached. But I would donate money if I knew where it was going to (the University line, a BRT line along Westhiemer, new buses, better bus stops, etc.). If I were a rich man, I'd donate much more than $500 to that cause. But that's because I just have a passion for improving city infrastructure.

I know there are few who share my thoughts on that. Most people think that would be a waste of their money. But if a majority of people agree to give METRO their whole tax, that would be great.

Which MetroSolutions plan? I thought that the one with all the BRT would've been perfectly reasonable, provided a few grade separations along Richmond. But even then, perhaps not immediately. Wait another five to ten years, at least. Let the city build up and out a little more first so that there's more congestion on local streets...a problem worth having a solution to.

I believe the 2003 plan voters voted on called for 4 or 5 rail lines. They changed them to BRT but the people wanted rail so they changed it back.

Well not only would I like to enjoy better public transit in my youthful years, I'd also rather build it before we have problems. It will be easier and cheaper to build before it's needed. That way, the city can grow around it, etc. Guess we have to agree to disagree once again lol.

[TheNiche]

I never thought you were against transit in general, I just get the feeling that you see no need to make METRO better. You'd rather invest money in other things besides public transit. It's just where we disagree.

What don't you understand about this? If I am willing to spend money on sewers but not bidets in public restrooms and I am willing to spend money on transit, then what transit-related expenditure do you think I might not approve of? It's a shame that a $750,000 plaza dedicated to Martin Luther King in an adjoining park should be an option actualized by the transit agency that you want to give more funding to...but it is. And its the mere tip of an iceberg.

It really depends. I wouldn't write them a check with no strings attached.

Nor would I. But if METRO recaptures its GM payments by referendum vote then there are no strings attached.

And this will be the case regardless of any preconditions set out in the referendum language because there is nothing preventing METRO from re-allocating the monies already being spent from its general fund to this special fund so as to free up its general fund to do whatever it wants to do and without restrictions.

Given that, and because neither of us apparently trust METRO with our money, I think that you and I should probably be able to agree that legislative reforms to the way we administer transit are desirable and necessary.

I believe the 2003 plan voters voted on called for 4 or 5 rail lines. They changed them to BRT but the people wanted rail so they changed it back.

What the people want has nothing to do with METRO decisions. You should know that by now. METRO yields only to financial constraints and the legal issues brought about by neighborhoods that have effectively no financial constraints.

Well not only would I like to enjoy better public transit in my youthful years, I'd also rather build it before we have problems. It will be easier and cheaper to build before it's needed. That way, the city can grow around it, etc. Guess we have to agree to disagree once again lol.

The city will grow (and is growing!) with or without "transit" (as you define it, which I think means things on fixed guideways), and the geographic patterns of its growth are pretty much defined by that configuration of contiguous parcels or blocks of land under the same ownership that can add up to at least two acres. It'll have vastly more with the way that Houston was platted outward from downtown in the early 1900's than with modern transit.

I also disagree that the cost is higher to build something before we need it. Here's some educational material that addresses the time value of money.

[mfastx]

What don't you understand about this? If I am willing to spend money on sewers but not bidets in public restrooms and I am willing to spend money on transit, then what transit-related expenditure do you think I might not approve of? It's a shame that a $750,000 plaza dedicated to Martin Luther King in an adjoining park should be an option actualized by the transit agency that you want to give more funding to...but it is. And its the mere tip of an iceberg.

It seems you don't approve of constructing the University Line, for example. The University Line is not on the same level as the MLK plaza you refer to. I agree that that is wasteful spending. But it's all political. Which goes back to what I was saying about this city's politics. There's always going to be wasteful spending and stuff like that.

Nor would I. But if METRO recaptures its GM payments by referendum vote then there are no strings attached.

And this will be the case regardless of any preconditions set out in the referendum language because there is nothing preventing METRO from re-allocating the monies already being spent from its general fund to this special fund so as to free up its general fund to do whatever it wants to do and without restrictions.

Given that, and because neither of us apparently trust METRO with our money, I think that you and I should probably be able to agree that legislative reforms to the way we administer transit are desirable and necessary.

Right, but I am sure that METRO would use those additional funds to construct the University Line, which I am in favor if. And METRO also has plans to improve bus stops and replace aging buses. While those aren't necessarily "strings attached," METRO has made their plans clear and will likely move forward with those projects if they get more funding.

I do agree to some extent. But I don't think it's realistic to expect something like that to happen. The two choices presented at this time are 1) continue GM payments and rail expansion/bus improvement is delayed or 2) give METRO more funding and rail expansion moves forward in addition to bus improvements. Of course there will be a degree of wasteful spending, political deals, etc. But I trust that METRO's goal is to continue with the improvement of our transit.

I think giving METRO $500 dollars along with everyone else is different than giving them a donation by myself. If everyone gives METRO more money, strings don't need to be attached. From what I can see, METRO is following their plan to the extent that they can.

What the people want has nothing to do with METRO decisions. You should know that by now. METRO yields only to financial constraints and the legal issues brought about by neighborhoods that have effectively no financial constraints.

That's one way to look at it. The people vote on the master plan, but the factors you listed obviously affect whether the plan get's implemented or not.

The city will grow (and is growing!) with or without "transit" (as you define it, which I think means things on fixed guideways), and the geographic patterns of its growth are pretty much defined by that configuration of contiguous parcels or blocks of land under the same ownership that can add up to at least two acres. It'll have vastly more with the way that Houston was platted outward from downtown in the early 1900's than with modern transit.

I also disagree that the cost is higher to build something before we need it. Here's some educational material that addresses the time value of money.

Of course Houston will grow with or without fixed guideway transit. But it's possible that if we build a rail line now, the city's growth pattern will change over time to take advantage of the rail line. Much like Uptown grew around 610. It would certainly be an improvement, whether we need it or not. It's the same reason we built so many highways in the area. They weren't needed, but they were an improvement.

Well, you have to factor in the costs of inflation, political climate, etc. when determining the cost to build something in the future.

[TheNiche]

It seems you don't approve of constructing the University Line, for example. The University Line is not on the same level as the MLK plaza you refer to. I agree that that is wasteful spending. But it's all political. Which goes back to what I was saying about this city's politics. There's always going to be wasteful spending and stuff like that.

Where have I stated that I do not approve of constructing the University Line? You're making things up. I don't like it because there aren't grade separations planned at major intersections, the same as you, but also because I have sincere doubts that the project will be managed responsibly by METRO as an organization. I will not simply excuse them, as though 'boys will be boys'.

Right, but I am sure that METRO would use those additional funds to construct the University Line, which I am in favor if. And METRO also has plans to improve bus stops and replace aging buses. While those aren't necessarily "strings attached," METRO has made their plans clear and will likely move forward with those projects if they get more funding.

I do agree to some extent. But I don't think it's realistic to expect something like that to happen. The two choices presented at this time are 1) continue GM payments and rail expansion/bus improvement is delayed or 2) give METRO more funding and rail expansion moves forward in addition to bus improvements. Of course there will be a degree of wasteful spending, political deals, etc. But I trust that METRO's goal is to continue with the improvement of our transit.

I think giving METRO $500 dollars along with everyone else is different than giving them a donation by myself. If everyone gives METRO more money, strings don't need to be attached. From what I can see, METRO is following their plan to the extent that they can.

For reasons that I've gone over with you extensively to date, I believe that your trust in METRO is misplaced.

That's one way to look at it. The people vote on the master plan, but the factors you listed obviously affect whether the plan get's implemented or not.

The people voted on the referendum language, and only that. They were only led to believe that they were voting on a specific master plan, but that obviously was not the case.

Of course Houston will grow with or without fixed guideway transit. But it's possible that if we build a rail line now, the city's growth pattern will change over time to take advantage of the rail line. Much like Uptown grew around 610. It would certainly be an improvement, whether we need it or not. It's the same reason we built so many highways in the area. They weren't needed, but they were an improvement.

I don't think that you even bothered to read what I wrote.

Well, you have to factor in the costs of inflation, political climate, etc. when determining the cost to build something in the future.

Inflation affects all prices, including the price of labor and consumer goods and services. Since the sales tax is a percentage, when prices go up due to inflation, so does the amount of revenue to METRO.

Given the abysmal state of financial and political literacy of the American public and a total inattentiveness to that situation, which I would term a crisis, I speculate that the political climate can only possibly become more favorable to METRO. The demography of our new residents will probably help, too. At the federal level, any circumstance is better than the present for obtaining outside funding.

[mfastx]

Where have I stated that I do not approve of constructing the University Line? You're making things up. I don't like it because there aren't grade separations planned at major intersections, the same as you, but also because I have sincere doubts that the project will be managed responsibly by METRO as an organization. I will not simply excuse them, as though 'boys will be boys'.

You're right, you haven't outright said "I oppose the University Line," but you have argued extensively against it in it's current form and have suggested numerous times that BRT would be better for the corridor. And you just said that we should essentially wait until gridlock is achieved before construction. I do agree that the line would be much better with more grade separation. But at this point that is simply not a realistic possibility, unless there is a large funding increase.

The Red Line is managed pretty well IMO. In terms of construction, METRO's construction of the North, East, and Southeast Lines is far better than the construction of the Red Line, and I think that will correlate to the University Line.

I think you are exaggerating METRO's incompetence. They leave some things to be desired, but I believe that, given the resources, they will be able to run an effective transit system, much like most other cities in America.

We agree on many things, but I don't think we will ever agree on this, so there's no sense arguing.

I don't think that you even bothered to read what I wrote.

I did read, we just have different views on how a city should operate.

Given the abysmal state of financial and political literacy of the American public and a total inattentiveness to that situation, which I would term a crisis, I speculate that the political climate can only possibly become more favorable to METRO. The demography of our new residents will probably help, too. At the federal level, any circumstance is better than the present for obtaining outside funding.

Maybe in the long term. And I completely agree with that last statement.

[IHB2]

You're right, you haven't outright said "I oppose the University Line," but you have argued extensively against it in it's current form and have suggested numerous times that BRT would be better for the corridor.

the University Line as currently planned is a disaster waiting to happen on its western end.

perhaps you didn't notice that METRO's discussion of the GM referendum stated that METRO now hopes to build ONLY the segment west of the Main St station (Wheeler Station), thereby linking only U St. Thomas to the "University" Line, with the eastern link to UH, TSU, SE Line all coming at some unknowabkle future date

how many times is the correct number to buy the same pig in the same poke before you demand to see an actual pig?

[Trae]

the University Line as currently planned is a disaster waiting to happen on its western end.

perhaps you didn't notice that METRO's discussion of the GM referendum stated that METRO now hopes to build ONLY the segment west of the Main St station (Wheeler Station), thereby linking only U St. Thomas to the "University" Line, with the eastern link to UH, TSU, SE Line all coming at some unknowabkle future date

how many times is the correct number to buy the same pig in the same poke before you demand to see an actual pig?

Well that is what happens when funding is blocked, NIMBYs are running rampant, and the start date keeps getting pushed further back because of those things. I imagine what transit would be like in Houston today if the heavy rail plan was implemented. I remember reading that the plan had Westchase-Uptown-Downtown-Hobby as one line. Southwest-TMC-Downtown-IAH as another. Would likely have been expanded upon if it was built. Settling for light rail in these economic times are okay, but taking away rail funding from Metro will only give Houston the bare minimum for a line (what's there now). All of the proposed inner loop rail lines should really be done now (including Inner Katy).

It's sad.

[IHB2]

Well that is what happens when funding is blocked, NIMBYs are running rampant, and the start date keeps getting pushed further back because of those things. I imagine what transit would be like in Houston today if the heavy rail plan was implemented. I remember reading that the plan had Westchase-Uptown-Downtown-Hobby as one line. Southwest-TMC-Downtown-IAH as another. Would likely have been expanded upon if it was built. Settling for light rail in these economic times are okay, but taking away rail funding from Metro will only give Houston the bare minimum for a line (what's there now). All of the proposed inner loop rail lines should really be done now (including Inner Katy).

It's sad.

what is sad is the Groundhog Day actions of METRO.

the Board refuses to show taxpayers the actual pig in the poke this go-round just like every other time since the 2003 Solutions vote, and a sizeable # of taxpayers seem to have faith that this time it will be different, this time it will be done right, if we just give METRO more money...

[TheNiche]

You're right, you haven't outright said "I oppose the University Line," but you have argued extensively against it in it's current form [and so have you, and you want what I want] and have suggested numerous times that BRT would be better for the corridor [i cannot recall having said that. You are inventing a quarrel. Quote me saying that, please.]. And you just said that we should essentially wait until gridlock is achieved before construction. I do agree that the line would be much better with more grade separation. But at this point that is simply not a realistic possibility, unless there is a large funding increase. [if we wait for gridlock and save up funds, then the money will be there when gridlock is a problem worth solving and can be done without creating even more gridlock by removing lanes and screwing up the signal timing at-grade.]

The Red Line is managed pretty well IMO. [The Red Line still has stray current problems; at least two grade separations should have happened but cause traffic snarls instead; METRO promised silent trains but they are very noisy; the accident rate has been high; the expensive landscaping that was installed has not been maintained well; the TMC and Wheeler transit centers remain underdeveloped and off the tax rolls; the TMC transit center's pilings were accidentally under-engineered, so the entire facility would have to be replaced to be developed intensively. Guys, am I forgetting anything?] In terms of construction, METRO's construction of the North, East, and Southeast Lines is far better than the construction of the Red Line, and I think that will correlate to the University Line. [We don't know that yet, except that there were fiascos at the Harrisburg underpass, in dealing with UH, and with respect to the MLK plaza. Other problems will become apparent upon completion, although I suspect that they will operate with fewer problems because they traverse low-traffic areas. OTOH, they don't do very much good. The projects were kind of wasteful on their face.]

I think you are exaggerating METRO's incompetence. [i think that perhaps your memory is impaired.] They leave some things to be desired, but I believe that, given the resources, they will be able to run an effective transit system, much like most other cities in America. [Provided the resources, Woodlanders could employ a water taxi to deliver them unto work. Oh, wait...]

We agree on many things, but I don't think we will ever agree on this, so there's no sense arguing. [For as long as you issue intellectually dishonest statements of transit apologism, I shall advocate for level-headed reason.]

I did read, we just have different views on how a city should operate. [i'm just pointing out that a subdivision platted in the 1920's is unlikely to transform into Parisian density, regardless of the mode of transit that is available nearby. You choose to ignore real and obvious constraints on urban development.]

[mfastx]

the University Line as currently planned is a disaster waiting to happen on its western end.

perhaps you didn't notice that METRO's discussion of the GM referendum stated that METRO now hopes to build ONLY the segment west of the Main St station (Wheeler Station), thereby linking only U St. Thomas to the "University" Line, with the eastern link to UH, TSU, SE Line all coming at some unknowabkle future date

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. They want to complete the whole line, they just want to build that segment first, due to funding issues. That segment is the most important segment. It will have more ridership than the other lines, and it won't be close.

what is sad is the Groundhog Day actions of METRO.

the Board refuses to show taxpayers the actual pig in the poke this go-round just like every other time since the 2003 Solutions vote, and a sizeable # of taxpayers seem to have faith that this time it will be different, this time it will be done right, if we just give METRO more money...

You are saying that as if giving METRO more money has been done already. The fact is that throughout it's history less money has been given to METRO. We aren't giving METRO more money if the referendum fails, we are returning the amount of funds to what they once were. It's clear that the current leadership at METRO is far more transparent and "by the book" than the previous administration. You can fault them for many things, but you can't fault them for going about things the wrong way.

I cannot recall having said that. You are inventing a quarrel. Quote me saying that, please.

Alright, Niche. I don't want to quarrel, lol. Maybe you didn't say it. I just remember debating extensively with you why rail was better than BRT for the proposed corridors. I assumed you thought that BRT would work better than light rail for the University corridor.

If we wait for gridlock and save up funds, then the money will be there when gridlock is a problem worth solving and can be done without creating even more gridlock by removing lanes and screwing up the signal timing at-grade.

Good idea. But I'd like to point out that the University Line in it's current form wouldn't remove any lanes IIRC. I just don't have faith that residents will support a vastly more expesive University Line even if there is gridlock. We're just speculating now though, so who knows.

The Red Line still has stray current problems;

Still? I thought they fixed that. Hmm.

at least two grade separations should have happened but cause traffic snarls instead;

You can thank Tom Delay for that. Honestly I think the Red Line should have been in a subway for much of it's route.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1345159390' post='407740']

METRO promised silent trains but they are very noisy;

They seem pretty quiet to me. Much quieter than a bus actually. Not sure why this is a valid complaint to you.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1345159390' post='407740']

the accident rate has been high;

And 100% of those accidents have been driver error (yes, I know that in a couple of those cases, METRO driver error, oh the irony lol.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1345159390' post='407740']

the expensive landscaping that was installed has not been maintained well;

Expensive? Not maintained well? I'd say that the landscaping was a moderate cost at most. And recently when I rode the rail it was maintained pretty well, at least I didn't notice any lack of maintinence.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1345159390' post='407740']

the TMC and Wheeler transit centers remain underdeveloped and off the tax rolls; the TMC transit center's pilings were accidentally under-engineered, so the entire facility would have to be replaced to be developed intensively. Guys, am I forgetting anything?

TMC transit center is underdeveloped? There are numerious high rises coming up quite close to it. And the Wheeler transit center is incomplete. Can't comment on that last bit as I don't know about that.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1345159390' post='407740']

We don't know that yet, except that there were fiascos at the Harrisburg underpass, in dealing with UH, and with respect to the MLK plaza. Other problems will become apparent upon completion, although I suspect that they will operate with fewer problems because they traverse low-traffic areas. OTOH, they don't do very much good. The projects were kind of wasteful on their face.

We've discussed that before so I won't get into them again. I'll just say that with any type of large scale construction project, stuff like that will happen.

Without the University/Uptown line, I don't think they do much good either. If we just complete the three lines now, it will be an incomplete system. That's why I want the University Line completed ASAP. It will complete the system.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1345159390' post='407740']

I think that perhaps your memory is impaired.

The New Metro does not equal the Old Metro.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1345159390' post='407740']

I'm just pointing out that a subdivision platted in the 1920's is unlikely to transform into Parisian density, regardless of the mode of transit that is available nearby. You choose to ignore real and obvious constraints on urban development.

I'm not suggesting that type of density. It doesn't need to be Parisian density to justify light rail. Now heavy rail might need a little more density to be justified. That's a whole 'nother agrument though.

[TheNiche]

Alright, Niche. I don't want to quarrel, lol. Maybe you didn't say it. I just remember debating extensively with you why rail was better than BRT for the proposed corridors. I assumed you thought that BRT would work better than light rail for the University corridor.

Different mobility technologies work better in some places than others. This is why I am an advocate of analysis, not dogma.

Good idea. But I'd like to point out that the University Line in it's current form wouldn't remove any lanes IIRC. I just don't have faith that residents will support a vastly more expesive University Line even if there is gridlock. We're just speculating now though, so who knows.

Go look at the engineering specs. They were available at one time. If the "new" METRO is transparent, then they might still be and you should know how to find them.

You can thank Tom Delay for that. Honestly I think the Red Line should have been in a subway for much of it's route.

Prove it! Show me an early proposal that was made infeasible by Tom Delay.

They seem pretty quiet to me. Much quieter than a bus actually. Not sure why this is a valid complaint to you.

Buses rarely honk their horns or bells or whatever, bus stations do not talk loudly in multiple languages, and they do not shake the earth.

Expensive? Not maintained well? I'd say that the landscaping was a moderate cost at most. And recently when I rode the rail it was maintained pretty well, at least I didn't notice any lack of maintinence.

You probably wouldn't notice anything other than sunshine and lollypops.

TMC transit center is underdeveloped? There are numerious high rises coming up quite close to it. And the Wheeler transit center is incomplete. Can't comment on that last bit as I don't know about that.

Yes, METRO built the TMC transit center (presently a canopy) with piers that were supposed to have been designed to accommodate a highrise. In 2005, they invited various firms to compete for a public-private partnership with them in order to develop a mixed-use facility above the transit center. They narrowed the list to four finalists, each of which spent gobs of money pitching their proposals. (I worked on one of those.) Transwestern was selected. In due diligence, it was revealed that the piers were only able to accommodate five or six stories, killing the proposals. It also became apparent that METRO had failed to involve TMC, Inc. in any portion of the process; they had been left totally in the dark. TMC, Inc. had veto power over the project and exercised it. I've told you this before, but you have selective memory.

We've discussed that before so I won't get into them again. I'll just say that with any type of large scale construction project, stuff like that will happen.

I'll just say that I want to be able to elect the board members that run my transit agency.

Without the University/Uptown line, I don't think they do much good either. If we just complete the three lines now, it will be an incomplete system. That's why I want the University Line completed ASAP. It will complete the system.

There is no such thing as a completed system. There is Present, Plan A (Plan A +1yr, +2yrs, etc.), Plan B (Plan B +1yr, +2yrs, etc.), and so on and so forth. There are only competing futures.

The New Metro does not equal the Old Metro.

It still operates under the same charter. Also, many of the executives have been there for too long. The old guard still handles the day-to-day bungling of things, even if they have little media contact.

I'm not suggesting that type of density. It doesn't need to be Parisian density to justify light rail. Now heavy rail might need a little more density to be justified. That's a whole 'nother agrument though.

You haven't suggested anything with specificity.

[mfastx]

Go look at the engineering specs. They were available at one time. If the "new" METRO is transparent, then they might still be and you should know how to find them.

I have seen them and I specifically remember that throughout Richmond at least there are still the original number of lanes. However I can't speak for the eastern segment of the route. I'll look again.

Prove it! Show me an early proposal that was made infeasible by Tom Delay.

Not sure if there was any formal proposal. But I can show you multiple other proposals that involved grade separation that were killed by disingenuous politicians.

Yes, METRO built the TMC transit center (presently a canopy) with piers that were supposed to have been designed to accommodate a highrise. In 2005, they invited various firms to compete for a public-private partnership with them in order to develop a mixed-use facility above the transit center. They narrowed the list to four finalists, each of which spent gobs of money pitching their proposals. (I worked on one of those.) Transwestern was selected. In due diligence, it was revealed that the piers were only able to accommodate five or six stories, killing the proposals. It also became apparent that METRO had failed to involve TMC, Inc. in any portion of the process; they had been left totally in the dark. TMC, Inc. had veto power over the project and exercised it. I've told you this before, but you have selective memory.

Wow that's very interesting. I did not know about that, and I don't recall you saying anything about that to me before. I wonder if a project like that could be revived?

There is no such thing as a completed system. There is Present, Plan A (Plan A +1yr, +2yrs, etc.), Plan B (Plan B +1yr, +2yrs, etc.), and so on and so forth. There are only competing futures.

Right, but there's such thing as a completed phase. The rail portion of the plan was supposed to be built together. Since two of the lines (the two most important lines of course) are delayed, the rail lines aren't nearly as effective as they could/should have been.

Oh, btw, I decided to take the bus to work today (I am working in Houston for the summer). I walked to the bus stop (81/82) and waited. And waited. No bus. So finally I walked back to my car and drove since I would have been late had I waited for the bus. Oh well.

[IHB2]

Oh, btw, I decided to take the bus to work today (I am working in Houston for the summer). I walked to the bus stop (81/82) and waited. And waited. No bus. So finally I walked back to my car and drove since I would have been late had I waited for the bus. Oh well.

more compelling evidence that if METRO just had more money...

[mfastx]

more compelling evidence that if METRO just had more money...

LOL, well to be fair I missed the 7:44 bus. I got there at 7:45 or so. There was supposed to be a bus at 7:59. But at around 8:10 I just couldn't wait longer. So partly my fault.

Maybe if METRO had more money they could hire better drivers, smh.

[Slick Vik]

LOL, well to be fair I missed the 7:44 bus. I got there at 7:45 or so. There was supposed to be a bus at 7:59. But at around 8:10 I just couldn't wait longer. So partly my fault.

Maybe if METRO had more money they could hire better drivers, smh.

Buses are notoriously inconsistent. They come early or late but not on time very often. That's one advantage of trains.

[The Pragmatist]

Well, it looks like METRO's referendum has easily passed. I figured I'd post it here since people seemed to have a lot of interest in this referendum.

____

Metro Referendum (use up to 25% of sales tax for street improvements)

Winner

For 436045 78.4%

Against 119845 21.6 %

[mfastx]

Houstonians can look forward to absolutely no transit improvements in the next decade.

At most a couple hundred new buses. Nice.

[TheNiche]

Commuter rail and BRT were not specifically excluded. Hopefully we'll get plenty of BRT.

[mfastx]

Commuter rail and BRT were not specifically excluded. Hopefully we'll get plenty of BRT.

I hope so too, but METRO is only getting $400 million additional funds over the next eleven years.

That's not even close to an amount of money needed for significant improvements in bus, BRT, or rail.

[TheNiche]

I hope so too, but METRO is only getting $400 million additional funds over the next eleven years.

That's not even close to an amount of money needed for significant improvements in bus, BRT, or rail.

That's only because you're used to budgeting for things in terms of light rail, which is stupid expensive, requiring stupid leverage and stupid federal funding. It'll all work out, stupidly...because METRO shall remain intact, and stupid is the only way they know how.

[Slick Vik]

BRT is starting in San Antonio. It's a stopgap solution but better than nothing. Light rail itself is a stop gap to heavy rail.