Metro moving toward $3B bond vote for 20-year transit plan

[Amlaham]

I don't understand the opponents' point of view? This would literally be federal money going into our streets and our infrastructure. What's their plan? Reject it and wait another 10-15 years until they decide we should expand 1 highway by 1 lane that will take 10+ years of more congestion & construction? Has anyone else noticed how beautiful Post Oak is coming out; I see a lot more people walking on the streets and busses haven't even delivered yet. In Midtown, ESPECIALLY along the rail, is becoming unrecognizable with all the new developments and residential high rises. Imagine this change occurring along Richmond and Washington ave and other parts of the city. The whole "ridership is low" theory is soo.....dumb. The areas the red line originally serves isn't very dense, we've been excited about the ~10,000 people living in the downtown area as of recently. Do you guys expect everyone around Houston to drive to the Downtown/TMC to ride it for a couple of miles? Opponents BLOCKED Metro's bond to expand to denser parts of the city previously. So why are you complaining about low ridership when opponents single handedly caused this low rider-ship?! This decision literally affects my generation, we're the ones going to be stuck with this congestion issue NOT my parents/ grandparents. None of the money is coming out of your pockets that isn't already coming out with this bond, stop being selfish. 

 

-End rant 

[BeerNut]

7 hours ago, Amlaham said:

I don't understand the opponents' point of view?

 

something something small government, something something socialism.   

[mfastx]

Obviously not surprising.  LOL at pointing to weak ridership of the new light rail lines as evidence that the system shouldn't be expanded after essentially being responsible for the 2003 vision never being completed, which crippled potential ridership.  Obviously the University line was by far the highest ridership and most rail worthy corridor in Houston after the original Red Line.  

 

This plan isn't perfect and it's a bummer that they gave up on rail on the west side of town, where it actually makes sense on some level.  But there's lots of good things in the plan and Houston's transit could definitely stand to see major improvements.  

 

Unfortunately I probably see something similar happening to this plan as what happened in 2003, only a couple of projects end up happening in the end. 

[Texasota]

I think there's more local support across the board for transit now, especially in city agencies like Planning and Public Works. Plus, booting Culberson out of office last year doesn't hurt. 

 

I'm actually somewhat hopeful about this being implemented mostly as presented. One thing I like about this plan is that it takes the existing network and just improves everything. It's funny that the county Republicans are whining about this not addressing maintenance or existing bus lines, because that's exactly what almost the entire plan does. It improves service on every high frequency bus line, every park and ride, and many of the lower frequency lines. 

[BeerNut]

2 minutes ago, Toopicky said:

My personal wish is that Metro (if the bond is passed) would build out the light rail segments first and delay the BRT for years on years.... the west side DESERVES bus service (for obstructing rail for decades), but light rail has proven to be a major catalyst for redevelopment.  BRT, in my opinion, will not attract the same intensity or quality along it's route.

 

Yeah even METRO has admitted as much in meetings that LRT's biggest advantage is increasing development which increases tax base which justifies higher cost. 

[cspwal]

I'd like to know how much their estimate is for all the BRT on the plan to be light rail

 

I'd also be curious how much a grade separated rail on Westheimer would be - it is the highest ridership line

[crock]

I feel like the Courthouse station, as the first western stop will be a gamechanger.   

[X.R.]

1 hour ago, Toopicky said:

My personal wish is that Metro (if the bond is passed) would build out the light rail segments first and delay the BRT for years on years.... the west side DESERVES bus service (for obstructing rail for decades), but light rail has proven to be a major catalyst for redevelopment.  BRT, in my opinion, will not attract the same intensity or quality along it's route.

 

If they install BRT, it has to be to the same level as Uptown's improvements. Its funny, because its the only one in town, but everyone will hold the BRT to that standard, not understanding that the Uptown organization poured mooooney into making that route look great (it's actually amazing, I walked to lunch for the first time yesterday with minor sweating because of the trees). So if you get Uptown-style street development along with BRT...gamechanger. Walkability increases and general aesthetics improve. Uptown spent money to basically convince well-to-do people that taking a bus isn't ghetto. No Uptown-style and its a fancy bus that one will use, and no walkability.

[j_cuevas713]

Based on the latest poll the Metro bond is getting support

[102IAHexpress]

2 hours ago, Toopicky said:

but light rail has proven to be a major catalyst for redevelopment.  

 

That's false. Whatever our opinions about the bond vote, lets try to stay in reality.

 

Analysis of parcel-level land-use data from 2005–2014 revealed a spike in commercial development along the original light rail corridor, approximately 4 to 10 years after its opening. Land-use development along the newer light rail corridors was more modest and not considerably different than the control corridors. Small changes in the levels of high-density residential housing and land-use mix near light rail stations indicated that efforts to encourage transit-oriented development have not yet had much effect.

Source: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/926/885

 

Do you have any proof that light rail has proven to be a major catalyst for development (other than Metro's own biased opinions)? 

[j_cuevas713]

1 minute ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

That's false. Whatever our opinions about the bond vote, lets try to stay in reality.

 

Analysis of parcel-level land-use data from 2005–2014 revealed a spike in commercial development along the original light rail corridor, approximately 4 to 10 years after its opening. Land-use development along the newer light rail corridors was more modest and not considerably different than the control corridors. Small changes in the levels of high-density residential housing and land-use mix near light rail stations indicated that efforts to encourage transit-oriented development have not yet had much effect.

Source: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/926/885

 

Do you have any proof that light rail has proven to be a major catalyst for development (other than Metro's own biased opinions)? 

Go read a leasing brochure. 

[wilcal]

4 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

That's false. Whatever our opinions about the bond vote, lets try to stay in reality.

 

Analysis of parcel-level land-use data from 2005–2014 revealed a spike in commercial development along the original light rail corridor, approximately 4 to 10 years after its opening. Land-use development along the newer light rail corridors was more modest and not considerably different than the control corridors. Small changes in the levels of high-density residential housing and land-use mix near light rail stations indicated that efforts to encourage transit-oriented development have not yet had much effect.

Source: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/926/885

 

Do you have any proof that light rail has proven to be a major catalyst for development (other than Metro's own biased opinions)? 

 

Have you seen this?  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/03081060.2012.739311?scroll=top&needAccess=true

 

Net property value went up, but immediate proximity to the stations was initially down. I think that's been likely mostly corrected since then with the new residential/mixed use development opening in the last 5 years since the article you linked was completed. 

 

 

[BeerNut]

10 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Go read a leasing brochure. 

 

This right here.  Laneways said that proximity to light rail station was instrumental in their development as it provided a lifestyle amenity.  

[102IAHexpress]

9 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

Have you seen this?  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/03081060.2012.739311?scroll=top&needAccess=true

 

Net property value went up, but immediate proximity to the stations was initially down. I think that's been likely mostly corrected since then with the new residential/mixed use development opening in the last 5 years since the article you linked was completed. 

 

 

 

Your article is interesting. But it has nothing to do with -development-. The claim (a few posts above) was made about development.

[102IAHexpress]

20 minutes ago, Toopicky said:

 

Look at Midtown

 

Then I rest my case. Midtown is filled with properties with mega parking garages. 

[wilcal]

2 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

Then I rest my case. Midtown is filled with properties with mega parking garages. 

 

*required parking garages. Well, were required until July 23 this past summer. 

[102IAHexpress]

23 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

*required parking garages. Well, were required until July 23 this past summer. 

 

Fair enough. I'm sure you're right about the date. But both can be true, required parking spaces + demand for the spaces. -If- there is no demand then the parking garages must be empty and under utilized, even if required by ordinance, because the tenants moved there (without automobiles) only because of the light rail? 

[Houston19514]

19 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

Then, according to your logic, the parking garages must be empty and under utilized, even if required by ordinance, because the tenants moved there (without automobiles) only because of the light rail? 

 

One can choose a location because of proximity to light rail and still have a car.

[cspwal]

Also until the light rail network reaches everywhere in the city, you'll probably still want to go somewhere not reachable via train

[102IAHexpress]

3 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

One can choose a location because of proximity to light rail and still have a car.

 

The same could be said about buses. One can choose a location because of proximity to a bus route and still have a car. Then, if true, lets get more bang for our buck and invest in more bus routes. That will spur a development bonanza! 

 

The suggestion, if not outright claim by many is that -light rail- is spurring development. Show me the evidence. Wasn't' the red line corridor already popular because of the buses that heavily traveled the route prior to light rail? Have newish light rail lines lived up to the development hype?

[bobruss]

Republicans and Bob Lanier, have been responsible for transportation failure in Harris County.

Delay, Culberson and now the Rep. party saying vote no. Yet there only solutions are build more 25 -30 lane freeways just like I-10, which is now just about as crowded as it was before reconstruction. Metro even asked For room before construction and Culberson said hell no.

[X.R.]

1 hour ago, bobruss said:

Republicans and Bob Lanier, have been responsible for transportation failure in Harris County.

Delay, Culberson and now the Rep. party saying vote no. Yet there only solutions are build more 25 -30 lane freeways just like I-10, which is now just about as crowded as it was before reconstruction. Metro even asked For room before construction and Culberson said hell no.

 

Lanier's Wiki page had this as one of this core philosophies: "That his administration had to improve the city’s infrastructure, particularly the inner city, and bring it to the level of the more affluent suburbs."

 

I was too young to remember him at all. But that is funny. Downtown musta been real rough in the early to mid 90s. 

[Amlaham]

2 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

That's false. Whatever our opinions about the bond vote, lets try to stay in reality.

 

Analysis of parcel-level land-use data from 2005–2014 revealed a spike in commercial development along the original light rail corridor, approximately 4 to 10 years after its opening. Land-use development along the newer light rail corridors was more modest and not considerably different than the control corridors. Small changes in the levels of high-density residential housing and land-use mix near light rail stations indicated that efforts to encourage transit-oriented development have not yet had much effect.

Source: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/926/885

 

Do you have any proof that light rail has proven to be a major catalyst for development (other than Metro's own biased opinions)? 

Maybe.......just maybe, it has to do with the new rail being in an undeveloped/ unsafe area 😮, I'm not sure though. When the light right got expanded to third ward, I expected them to start building sky scrappers right off of Scott 😓, you're so right. Omg, I didn't even think about the parking garages in midtown, because living near the light rail should not require a car! If you want to go to the galleria, the airport, literally anywhere in Houston, just take the rail! oh.....wait. 

[102IAHexpress]

1 hour ago, bobruss said:

Republicans and Bob Lanier, have been responsible for transportation failure in Harris County.

 

 

If the topic is transportation generally in Harris County, then I have no idea what you are talking about. What is the failure? That Houston outperforms other big cities when it comes to our relatively low time spent in congested transit? How is the congestion in non-Republican metros? NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC, Boston, etc.. Here, I'll give you the data. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf

7 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

Maybe.......just maybe, it has to do with the new rail being in an undeveloped/ unsafe area 😮, I'm not sure though. 

 

I see, so it sounds like that in order for light rail to be successful in Houston, it has to replace an already developed/safe/successful bus route(s). 

[Amlaham]

These are just ~9 year difference from one intersection. Google maps doesn't let you go back further, but im sure most of you guys have seen this in person rather than referencing articles

4 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

If the topic is transportation generally in Harris County, then I have no idea what you are talking about. What is the failure? That Houston outperforms other big cities when it comes to our relatively low time spent in congested transit? How is the congestion in non-Republican metros? NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC, Boston, etc.. Here, I'll give you the data. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf

 

I see, so it sounds like that in order for light rail to be successful in Houston, it has to replace an already developed/safe/successful bus route(s). 

 

I mean, do you expect rail/ public transportation to be popular along areas with......no public...

[august948]

22 hours ago, gmac said:

 

What does Atlanta have to do with the statement I referred to?

 

The argument is still being made more recently.

[august948]

3 hours ago, bobruss said:

Republicans and Bob Lanier, have been responsible for transportation failure in Harris County.

Delay, Culberson and now the Rep. party saying vote no. Yet there only solutions are build more 25 -30 lane freeways just like I-10, which is now just about as crowded as it was before reconstruction. Metro even asked For room before construction and Culberson said hell no.

 

25-30 lane freeways like I10 are exactly what we need if they're built to fully connect to each other with HOT/HOV lanes in both directions that seamlessly merge from one highway to the next, including the beltway and the loop.  Then you could run p&r express buses between major points in the city (say for instance Pearland to Sugarland) and have local connections take riders the final few miles.

[august948]

2 hours ago, X.R. said:

 

Lanier's Wiki page had this as one of this core philosophies: "That his administration had to improve the city’s infrastructure, particularly the inner city, and bring it to the level of the more affluent suburbs."

 

I was too young to remember him at all. But that is funny. Downtown musta been real rough in the early to mid 90s. 

 

I don't know about the early 90's but in the late 90's downtown and midtown weren't nearly as developed for non-9to5 business use as they are today.

5 hours ago, Toopicky said:

 

I hope you are missing a "no" between 'that' and 'one' ..... but then again, "one" is a ridership possibility

 

If no or one is your ridership prediction, then it's safe to assume you'll vote against the plan?

[Amlaham]

22 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

25-30 lane freeways like I10 are exactly what we need if they're built to fully connect to each other with HOT/HOV lanes in both directions that seamlessly merge from one highway to the next, including the beltway and the loop.  Then you could run p&r express buses between major points in the city (say for instance Pearland to Sugarland) and have local connections take riders the final few miles.

You know what, lets just cut down all the trees/ left over nature we have left and pour cement all over the city! YOU KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD DO?!? Lets tear down buffalo bayou and build an HOV lane from downtown to 610 to Belt 8 🤯. 

[august948]

2 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

You know what, lets just cut down all the trees/ left over nature we have left and pour cement all over the city! YOU KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD DO?!? Lets tear down buffalo bayou and build an HOV lane from downtown to 610 to Belt 8 🤯. 

 

I don't know what you have against trees and buffalo bayou, but that won't be necessary.  We already have the freeway routes.  Those routes are already fairly well concreted in with the feeder roads, adjacent parking and other infrastructure so we'll be adding about .00000000000001% to the existing concrete surface of the city.  For that we'd get maximum mobility for the residents of the greater Houston area.  You could drive to a P&R in Katy and take an express bus (or maybe eventually trains running in the middle of the HOV) to major points in the city, and then switch over to a local bus/light rail/bikeshare/uber/whatever for the final mile.

1 minute ago, Toopicky said:

 

I am for light rail .... I've ridden on BRT before and it s*cked, and once installed will never be upgraded for at least 40 years

 

I haven't ridden brt yet.   I'll drive to the galleria to try it out when they get it done.

 

Where did you ride the brt that s*cked so bad it hadn't been upgraded in 40 years?