METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion

[mfastx]

the new Costco big box at Richmond and Weslayan reached the same conclusion resulting in the absurdity of forcing the Univ Line to go south on Cummins and elevate over the SW Fwy and Westpark and make a tight turn while elevated to drop into the Westapark ROW before reaching the Weslayan intersection (last time this was discussed publicly, METRO engineers couldn't make a turn that tight w/o submerging Centerpoint transmission lines - to which Centerpoint said no - kinda like TxDOT saying no to the elevated section over 59).

Wait what? Why would they say no to that? Did they give any reason?

Pass the referendum and we'll take the .25% and cease payments to member municipalities.

Defeat the referendum and we will also cease payments to the member municipalities, and hold the .25% in escrow in perpetuity or until voters agree to let us spend it.

heads we win, tails we eventually win. nice

Mr. Spieler has learned his political role well

Actually, if his version of the referendum is passed, the member municipalities would keep their "fair" share of 25% until 2019. I think it's a great solution to put rail expansion along side the GM funds. Most suburbs want the GM funds, fine. The city of Houston still gets to move forward with the METROSolutions plan. What's wrong with that?

And if the referendum passes the COH will pay for building the Univ Line from its GM funds - so Houstonians are voting for a tax increase even if the other voters aren't.

Actually, the GM funds would only go to utilities and street reconstruction, not towards light rail itself. Seems pretty fair to me.

EDIT: The proposal to cease GM payments if the referendum does not pass it is perfectly fair IMO. GM payments were extended with the promise of rail. If rail expansion halts, so should GM payments.

[IHB2]

Wait what? Why would they say no to that? Did they give any reason?

I believe it has to do with support structures interfering with 59's HOV and regular lanes - somebody on here will post the info, I'm too lazy to look back that many yrs.

Actually, if his version of the referendum is passed, the member municipalities would keep their "fair" share of 25% until 2019. I think it's a great solution to put rail expansion along side the GM funds. Most suburbs want the GM funds, fine. The city of Houston still gets to move forward with the METROSolutions plan. What's wrong with that?

Result is a tax increase for Houston taxpayers b/c COH plans to spend the GM money on the Univ Line, which means that money will have to be replaced in order to pay for the projects it was budgeted for prior to tis referendum.

Any truthful discussion of the referendum by the City or METRO should make clear that Houston residents will be voting a tax increase on themselves whether the referendum passes or fails

Actually, the GM funds would only go to utilities and street reconstruction, not towards light rail itself. Seems pretty fair to me.

EDIT: The proposal to cease GM payments if the referendum does not pass it is perfectly fair IMO. GM payments were extended with the promise of rail. If rail expansion halts, so should GM payments.

uh, "light rail itself" is useless w/o the utility and street reconstruction of the route promised by using the COH GM funds - the language says plainly that COH will spend its GM funds building the Univ Line

[Slick Vik]

sorry that's not their conclusion.

the new Costco big box at Richmond and Weslayan reached the same conclusion resulting in the absurdity of forcing the Univ Line to go south on Cummins and elevate over the SW Fwy and Westpark and make a tight turn while elevated to drop into the Westapark ROW before reaching the Weslayan intersection (last time this was discussed publicly, METRO engineers couldn't make a turn that tight w/o submerging Centerpoint transmission lines - to which Centerpoint said no - kinda like TxDOT saying no to the elevated section over 59).

These decisions by both HV and Costco have nothing to do with any potential increase in rail-riding HV customers and everything to do with limited left turns, and ease of ingress/egress from parking lots. By their cost/benefit analysis there is no benefit.

(you may remember the Costco site was originally supposed to be mixed-use, walkable, TOD and that development presumably would have not forced the route change- oh well)

Rail should go down Richmond and/or Westheimer. Going down a deserted Westpark does nothing for anyone.

[mfastx]

Result is a tax increase for Houston taxpayers b/c COH plans to spend the GM money on the Univ Line, which means that money will have to be replaced in order to pay for the projects it was budgeted for prior to tis referendum.

Any truthful discussion of the referendum by the City or METRO should make clear that Houston residents will be voting a tax increase on themselves whether the referendum passes or fails

Not necessarily. Just because portion of GM paymets are taken from the city of Houston for a couple of years doesn't mean there will be a tax increase. Why not just postpone projects that relied on GM payments for a couple of years? Building the light rail will take a few years. After that, 100% of GM payments will return to the city of Houston.

uh, "light rail itself" is useless w/o the utility and street reconstruction of the route promised by using the COH GM funds - the language says plainly that COH will spend its GM funds building the Univ Line

Not entirely. METRO could just tear up the center portion of the street and not make improvements to the surrounding area (sidewalks, pavement, etc.) when building the line. And would't GM payments help re-do Richmond at some point anyway? That street is God-awful. Using the GM payments to improve the street for autos and to build sidewalks.. something GM payments do already... isn't a fair solution?

It plainly says that the GM funds will be used for street reconstruction and utilities.. NOT rail, stations, overhead caternary, etc. I still fail to see why you don't like this specific language (which I'm sure won't make it to the final referendum, which means we are basically arguing over nothing lol).

[IHB2]

Rail should go down Richmond and/or Westheimer. Going down a deserted Westpark does nothing for anyone.

You're about 3 or 4 years too late to that fight Slick

I'll go you one better - no proposed route for the Univ Line should ever cross Hwy 59, it should stay north of 59 past Fountainview and then follow the curve of the fwy directly to the Hillcroft TC.

But that's all water under the bridge. politics, economic muscle, and a combination of incompetence and corruption have yielded the Univ Line route that taxpayers are now stuck with.

[LTAWACS]

There has to be something we can do.

[LarryDierker]

There has to be something we can do.

I'm running for mayor and the first issue on my agenda is an Afton Oaks 'Trail of Tears'. If they want to live like they are in Katy, then we shall move them to Katy.

I will even build them a nice reservation where they can all have a home and a yard thats not quite big enough to play catch in.

[IHB2]

I'm running for mayor and the first issue on my agenda is an Afton Oaks 'Trail of Tears'. If they want to live like they are in Katy, then we shall move them to Katy.

I will even build them a nice reservation where they can all have a home and a yard thats not quite big enough to play catch in.

the jumbo McMansions of Afton Oaks that replaced the original 1 storys from the 50s already deleted yards big enough to play catch in, so the transition shouldn't be that jarring. suggest you carve the rez land from Cinco Ranch to retain a smidge of that AO atmosphere of entitlement.

head 'em up Larry...

[Houston19514]

don't forget to thank the merchants of Highland Village who squashed the original METRO design that had the Univ Line on Richmond then north on Timmons to Westheimer, west on Westheimer through Highland Village to the Galleria...

Culberson's political games came later, the HV merchants made a business decision.

Where did you hear that about a supposed Westheimer Route objected to be Highland Village?

[IHB2]

Where did you hear that about a supposed Westheimer Route objected to be Highland Village?

I heard it from Frank Wilson, probably in 05 or 06, but I saw the plan earlier than that. I had lots of conversations with Mr. Wilson and his staff before he got run out of town.

Wilson and METRO changed the story over time to argue that there was no way to get through the 610/Westheimer intersection (same claim later made about 610/Richmond when pacifying the Afton Oaks people). It's kind of counterintuitive b/c you'd think trains could bring more customers to the stores, but ultimately makes sense that in a car town like Houston retailers don't like the restriction on auto traffic that a fixed guideway requires. Especially upscale retailers whose customers will never arrive on public transportation.

The original METRO plan I saw that had the Univ Line running on Timmons to Westheimer to go through the heart of HV and Uptown made perfect sense to me as a taxpayer and potential rider before years of attending METRO LRT meetings "educated" me about how and why rail lines are built where they are - it has little to do with common sense.

Example: In 2006 the former lead METRO engineer for the Univ Line told me he had no idea how they will time lights to coordinate the existing clusterf*** that is the Weslayan, Westpark, 59 service road intersection if the Univ Line crosses Weslayan at grade with 3 minute headways during rush hrs. I wrote elsewhere about how the planned elevation over 59 at Cummins yields a turn too tight for the train to drop to grade in the Westpark ROW, and TxDOT's concerns with the el's effect on 59.

So a sensible person might ask, why go through there at all...

[Slick Vik]

I heard it from Frank Wilson, probably in 05 or 06, but I saw the plan earlier than that. I had lots of conversations with Mr. Wilson and his staff before he got run out of town.

Wilson and METRO changed the story over time to argue that there was no way to get through the 610/Westheimer intersection (same claim later made about 610/Richmond when pacifying the Afton Oaks people). It's kind of counterintuitive b/c you'd think trains could bring more customers to the stores, but ultimately makes sense that in a car town like Houston retailers don't like the restriction on auto traffic that a fixed guideway requires. Especially upscale retailers whose customers will never arrive on public transportation.

The original METRO plan I saw that had the Univ Line running on Timmons to Westheimer to go through the heart of HV and Uptown made perfect sense to me as a taxpayer and potential rider before years of attending METRO LRT meetings "educated" me about how and why rail lines are built where they are - it has little to do with common sense.

Example: In 2006 the former lead METRO engineer for the Univ Line told me he had no idea how they will time lights to coordinate the existing clusterf*** that is the Weslayan, Westpark, 59 service road intersection if the Univ Line crosses Weslayan at grade with 3 minute headways during rush hrs. I wrote elsewhere about how the planned elevation over 59 at Cummins yields a turn too tight for the train to drop to grade in the Westpark ROW, and TxDOT's concerns with the el's effect on 59.

So a sensible person might ask, why go through there at all...

So they can elevate rail but only when they want to

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

people who shop at Highland Village are NOT going to use rail to get there- it's inconvenient to get to the train, it stops too often, and a train station in the middle of HV would disrupt traffic flow in the area.

this is not New York, we don't all live on top of each other in densely packed commie blocks (says the guy who currently lives in a commie block...lol)

[IHB2]

So they can elevate rail but only when they want to

I would say only when it's politically necessary. Especially on the Univ Line.

Example: after descending from the 59 elevated section in time to drop to grade far enough from the at-grade Weslayan crossing (a station is planned but probably on the west side of Weslayan given the space constraints on the more logical - for walkup riders - east side), the line will proceed west about 2/10 mile to the UPRR where the plan is to build a bridge just like the Wpark auto bridge next to it only with a longer rise on each side to accomodate the lesser angle requirements for the LRT

So elevate ~2/10 mi over the fwy, drop to grade in less than 1/10 mi across 1 of only 4 n/s arterials between 610 and Montrose, then immediately climb a grade over a bridge and drop to at-grade for the remainder of the distance to the Hillcroft TC. And do all this at 1 of the most complex street intersections in sw Houston. And make a turn the engineers say can't be made w/o alterations of Centerpoint's ROW that Centerpoint declines to allow.

No competent engineer would offer this design given the purpose of the LRT to link population, work, and commercial centers, and given the performance characteristics of the train itself. So what explains this kind of illogical behavior by a taxpayer-funded organization?

I could give several more examples for the Univ Line but maybe I've made my point about why taxpayers like me that are not anti-rail are vehemently anti-spending billions on a halfassed design.

[IHB2]

people who shop at Highland Village are NOT going to use rail to get there- it's inconvenient to get to the train, it stops too often, and a train station in the middle of HV would disrupt traffic flow in the area.

this is not New York, we don't all live on top of each other in densely packed commie blocks (says the guy who currently lives in a commie block...lol)

yeah, just imagine shopping 4 or 5 stores in HV and climbing aboard the train with hands full of bags boldly labeled with the upscale retailers names. those Tanglewood trophy wives may all have CCL, but you can bet they never thought they might have to draw down on some perp who figured out rich people are riding the train with bags of valuable stuff.

[mfastx]

Example: In 2006 the former lead METRO engineer for the Univ Line told me he had no idea how they will time lights to coordinate the existing clusterf*** that is the Weslayan, Westpark, 59 service road intersection if the Univ Line crosses Weslayan at grade with 3 minute headways during rush hrs. I wrote elsewhere about how the planned elevation over 59 at Cummins yields a turn too tight for the train to drop to grade in the Westpark ROW, and TxDOT's concerns with the el's effect on 59.

I think a bigger issue is the 59/610/Westpark area where the University Line is supposed to split off to the Uptown Line going up Post Oak. How the f*** are they going to do that?? I say just bury it. Of course that would drive the cost up massively, but as a taxpayer I'm willing to do that. Unfortunately you can't say the same about most Houston taxpayers. Which is why we are stuck with at grade light rail (which I still am vehemently in favor of, given that it's miles better than what we have now.

[LarryDierker]

yeah, just imagine shopping 4 or 5 stores in HV and climbing aboard the train with hands full of bags boldly labeled with the upscale retailers names. those Tanglewood trophy wives may all have CCL, but you can bet they never thought they might have to draw down on some perp who figured out rich people are riding the train with bags of valuable stuff.

As a a career criminal, I can honestly say that I'd much rather follow a luxury shopper home in a vehicle and jack them at just the right moment (stop light, driveway, private gate) while I have a get away vehicle, rahter than be trapped on a train without a proper escape route, and forced to flee by foot.

And a concealed handgun is useless if a perp already has the draw on you.

[Slick Vik]

yeah, just imagine shopping 4 or 5 stores in HV and climbing aboard the train with hands full of bags boldly labeled with the upscale retailers names. those Tanglewood trophy wives may all have CCL, but you can bet they never thought they might have to draw down on some perp who figured out rich people are riding the train with bags of valuable stuff.

I disagree. There is power in numbers on a train. You have a better chance of being pickpocketed than having bags of stuff being taken.

I would say only when it's politically necessary. Especially on the Univ Line.

Example: after descending from the 59 elevated section in time to drop to grade far enough from the at-grade Weslayan crossing (a station is planned but probably on the west side of Weslayan given the space constraints on the more logical - for walkup riders - east side), the line will proceed west about 2/10 mile to the UPRR where the plan is to build a bridge just like the Wpark auto bridge next to it only with a longer rise on each side to accomodate the lesser angle requirements for the LRT

So elevate ~2/10 mi over the fwy, drop to grade in less than 1/10 mi across 1 of only 4 n/s arterials between 610 and Montrose, then immediately climb a grade over a bridge and drop to at-grade for the remainder of the distance to the Hillcroft TC. And do all this at 1 of the most complex street intersections in sw Houston. And make a turn the engineers say can't be made w/o alterations of Centerpoint's ROW that Centerpoint declines to allow.

No competent engineer would offer this design given the purpose of the LRT to link population, work, and commercial centers, and given the performance characteristics of the train itself. So what explains this kind of illogical behavior by a taxpayer-funded organization?

I could give several more examples for the Univ Line but maybe I've made my point about why taxpayers like me that are not anti-rail are vehemently anti-spending billions on a halfassed design.

Why not just have it built properly in the first place if a lot of money is going to be spent regardless?

Gulfton having only one stop is criminal

[IHB2]

I think a bigger issue is the 59/610/Westpark area where the University Line is supposed to split off to the Uptown Line going up Post Oak. How the f*** are they going to do that??

you're correct. that intersection is a much worse clusterf*** than the Weslayan clusterf***, but I said I had made my point. there are even worse places further east on the line...

[kdog08]

I could give several more examples for the Univ Line but maybe I've made my point about why taxpayers like me that are not anti-rail are vehemently anti-spending billions on a halfassed design.

Ok let's spend and build a not half-assed design... Do you agree?

[TheNiche]

Ok let's spend and build a not half-assed design... Do you agree?

Absolutely. But only you agree that we should build it only once we really need it and can afford it, perhaps in fifteen or twenty years.

[IHB2]

Ok let's spend and build a not half-assed design... Do you agree?

yes. if the design is not halfassed, but in the specific case of the Univ Line halfassed has proven to be the only design politically feasible. do you see a scenario where that could change? I don't.

and yes if the money is available w/o big tax increases on Houstonians during these tough economic times. right now there is a pretty serious question about the availability of federal money during METRO's current Univ Line buildout timeline even if METRO gets its .25% local increase.

METRO is on the record that it cannot build Univ and/or Uptown before 2030 w/o fed $$$.

[Slick Vik]

Absolutely. But only you agree that we should build it only once we really need it and can afford it, perhaps in fifteen or twenty years.

We need it NOW

[kdog08]

Absolutely. But only you agree that we should build it only once we really need it and can afford it, perhaps in fifteen or twenty years.

Nah son. Why would any person want to wait until "we really need it" (how subjective) when then longer you wait the more expensive it will be. How many hundreds of thousands of people do we need to move to this city per decade until we need this? We could afford it now if we wanted to. You have this all backwards.

yes. if the design is not halfassed, but in the specific case of the Univ Line halfassed has proven to be the only design politically feasible. do you see a scenario where that could change? I don't.

and yes if the money is available w/o big tax increases on Houstonians during these tough economic times. right now there is a pretty serious question about the availability of federal money during METRO's current Univ Line buildout timeline even if METRO gets its .25% local increase.

Just because these are tough economic doesn't mean you have to go cheap on our infrastructure. Especially since our metro has been adding ~ million people a decade. We have to decide how much of our cost living are we willing to increase to get better transit options. If we don't want increase taxes then I'd expect Houston to have LA style issues if Houston continues to add people at this rate or close to it.

[IHB2]

Just because these are tough economic doesn't mean you have to go cheap on our infrastructure. Especially since our metro has been adding ~ million people a decade. We have to decide how much of our cost living are we willing to increase to get better transit options. If we don't want increase taxes then I'd expect Houston to have LA style issues if Houston continues to add people at this rate or close to it.

nothing I said implied I support "going cheap" on infrastructure. we need to build and maintain the very best infrastructure that we can afford. it is not really possible to "go cheap" on LRT construction, so the only question is can we afford it at this time.

there are serious questions about future availability of federal dollars in an amount sufficient to guarantee that METRO will receive enough matching money to build out the rail system and complete the Solutions plan (including more buses).

this is not my invention, the feds are saying we don't know and it is what METRO says it needs in addition to the .25% local tax $.

without that guarantee, asking the taxpayers to accept a tax increase by voting to give up the .25% is just asking for more money to not complete the plan.

METRO had finally won that guarantee by 2007 but screwed the pooch, then the economy crashed and the feds started crawfishing on what's available for what.

the $900 million METRO wants for rail is not available at this time, yet we are being asked to vote anyway for some vague future completion date (start 2019 or 2020 or 2030, complete by? who the hell knows? METRO says all 3 depending I guess on the current moon phase or oracle bones or something).

[kylejack]

Absolutely. But only you agree that we should build it only once we really need it and can afford it, perhaps in fifteen or twenty years.

Great, let's just wait until the need for it is absolutely dire and then the construction of it gridlocks movement in the city horribly, like the I-10 expansion did for five years.

If we win federal money for it, affording it should be little problem. If not, I guess it will probably wait.

[kylejack]

without that guarantee, asking the taxpayers to accept a tax increase by voting to give up the .25% is just asking for more money to not complete the plan.

Giving Metro back the 25% is not a tax increase. That money is already collected. You might say that it will result in tax increases, but that may or may not happen. They can do budget cuts, issue bonds, or use existing surpluses.

[IHB2]

or use existing surpluses.

please...

[TheNiche]

Nah son. Why would any person want to wait until "we really need it" (how subjective) when then longer you wait the more expensive it will be. How many hundreds of thousands of people do we need to move to this city per decade until we need this? We could afford it now if we wanted to. You have this all backwards.

Just because these are tough economic doesn't mean you have to go cheap on our infrastructure. Especially since our metro has been adding ~ million people a decade. We have to decide how much of our cost living are we willing to increase to get better transit options. If we don't want increase taxes then I'd expect Houston to have LA style issues if Houston continues to add people at this rate or close to it.

You are grossly misinformed.

1. With public concern over peak oil apparently abated and with structurally low natural gas prices possibly providing an economical alternative to gasoline in the long term, the affordability aspect of mass transit as experienced by consumers is threatened. (Never mind that transit is actually more expensive than private automotive transport and that the only economic justification for transit is to make make private automotive transport more efficient by taking some drivers off the road.) Meanwhile, as much growth is occurring inside the loop, there does not appear to be unavoidable gridlock in most places. It's still easier to get around by car. People are not clamoring to get to transit. And moreover, Houston can't grow quickly enough to achieve NYC, Chicago, or LA densities just overnight. So yeah, we don't need it yet.

2. All goods and services (including labor) are more expensive in the long term. It's called inflation. However, as sales taxes are based on a percentage of expenditures and expenditures will have to increase, that means that METRO's revenues will also increase as a function of inflation (in addition to local economic growth). Therefore, in developing a cost-benefit analysis, we have two options. We can either project for inflation of both the sources and uses of capital or we can ignore it completely; it actually does not matter at all in the scope of such a long-term project so long as it is accounted for consistently.

3. We cannot afford more light rail now. Even METRO's backers that are wanting their GM payments back have indicated that they are not in a position to fund the University or Uptown line immediately. And from the sound of it, they probably won't even be asking for the entire GM payment back. State law prevents METRO from tapping funds over and beyond their one-cent sales tax. True, state law could be changed willy nilly if there were broader support for it. There does not appear to be that support, however, and so our hands are tied.

Just because these are tough economic doesn't mean you have to go cheap on our infrastructure. Especially since our metro has been adding ~ million people a decade. We have to decide how much of our cost living are we willing to increase to get better transit options. If we don't want increase taxes then I'd expect Houston to have LA style issues if Houston continues to add people at this rate or close to it.

When Houston has LA-style issues, then Houston should implement LA-style solutions. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Houston needs light rail like Brenham needs a subway.

[TheNiche]

Great, let's just wait until the need for it is absolutely dire and then the construction of it gridlocks movement in the city horribly, like the I-10 expansion did for five years.

The I-10 expansion was incredibly well-handled. I drove on it as a commuter both before and during construction and was amazed that traffic flow seemed to actually improve as a result of construction as compared to what it had been previously. You should've used the 610/290 interchange as an example. TXDoT apparently forgot how to build big things unobtrusively after the I-10 project.

Be that as it may, construction in all forms is going to be a constant in this city. Our streets are not in good shape and we can't just afford to re-do everything we've got (freeways, streets, drainage, water mains, transit) all in the span of a few years. Even if we did, it'd be dooming ourselves to a total replacement cycle 40 or 50 years later. You can look forward to more gridlock and more construction, not less. It's a negative externality that comes with living in a big city, no matter what.

[Slick Vik]

You are grossly misinformed.

1. With public concern over peak oil apparently abated and with structurally low natural gas prices possibly providing an economical alternative to gasoline in the long term, the affordability aspect of mass transit as experienced by consumers is threatened. (Never mind that transit is actually more expensive than private automotive transport and that the only economic justification for transit is to make make private automotive transport more efficient by taking some drivers off the road.) Meanwhile, as much growth is occurring inside the loop, there does not appear to be unavoidable gridlock in most places. It's still easier to get around by car. People are not clamoring to get to transit. And moreover, Houston can't grow quickly enough to achieve NYC, Chicago, or LA densities just overnight. So yeah, we don't need it yet.

Totally false. You're a good spin doctor though.