METRORail University Line

[TheNiche]

I was just thinking about things being discussed in this thread, one of them the oppostion that some of our political representatives have. People talk about them being against LRT or just this line, I'm not sure.

But what do they support in terms of transportation? It's obvious we need to head in the direction METRO is taking.

Well look at Culberson's history as an example. He cites the Katy Freeway expansion as one of the key successes of his political career...and he'd be right that it is quite an accomplishment. The project is among the most expensive transportation projects in Texas history and will definitely do a lot of good. And there are literally dozens of big road-building projects planned for the next decade. Check out H-GAC's transportation GIS program for details.

For the time being, we can build our way out of congestion with new roads. And one of the big pushes is to create more miles of HOV or HOT lanes and more P&R service. If we can keep those two working efficiently, there really isn't any immediate need for commuter rail. That won't always be possible, but we should definitely be going with these less expensive (and more flexible) options before spending the big bucks on fixed-guideway transit options.

I think that in time, even the conservative suburbs will see the need for extensive mass transit, both inside the city and as commuter routes. Otherwise, the usefulness of the freeways will be entirely negated by massive congestion. But that time has not yet come for most people, and politicians' interests seem to reflect that.

[lockmat]

Well look at Culberson's history as an example...

I think that in time, even the conservative suburbs will see the need for extensive mass transit, both inside the city and as commuter routes. Otherwise, the usefulness of the freeways will be entirely negated by massive congestion. But that time has not yet come for most people, and politicians' interests seem to reflect that...

Just seems like environmental issues always take a far backseat. Of course they can be biased, but I'm sure there are studies out there that show the very harmful effects of the pollution we're creating. At the same time, I guess cars are being made to help curve that as well.

[musicman]

But what do they support in terms of transportation? It's obvious we need to head in the direction METRO is taking.

That is the problem, noone can figure out what direction METRO is taking.

Just seems like environmental issues always take a far backseat. Of course they can be biased, but I'm sure there are studies out there that show the very harmful effects of the pollution we're creating. At the same time, I guess cars are being made to help curve that as well.

Environmentally do you understand that keeping traffic moving helps the pollution problem? So increasing the capacity of our freeway is helping the environment.

[lockmat]

I'm reading TxDot's Strategic Plan 2007-2011 and came across this interesting fact. I think it could be helpful in future discussions about cost effectivness in comparing roads to LRT and other means of transportation.

"For example, an asphalt overlay, which is applied every 10-12 years on less traveled highways, costs up to $35,000 per lane mile compared to the total rebuilding of a roadway that can cost up to half a million dollars per lane mile."

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/...ic_plan2005.pdf p. 14

That is the problem, noone can figure out what direction METRO is taking.

Environmentally do you understand that keeping traffic moving helps the pollution problem? So increasing the capacity of our freeway is helping the environment.

Yes, I understand that. But it's only a short-term solution to a growing population. Plus, we all know that it also encourages more drivers to drive.

--------------------------------------------

Another interesting fact while reading TxDot's plan:

"Statewide Preservation Program – In May 2004, the Texas Transportation Commission approved the Statewide Preservation Program. This will distribute $7.5 billion to maintain highways and right of way; $1 billion will be used for bridge replacement and rehabilitation; $377 million for grade separations at highway/ rail crossings; and $5.5 million for rail. Overall spending on maintenance and preservation of the state’s system will increase by three percent from the 2004 program."

I know I highlighted selected pieces of information, but all the money distribution is there. I also know that I'm sure we have many more miles of highways than rail. Regardless, even if we did add rail across the state, I'm not sure it would translate into the amount of money highway maintinance needs. Rail requires a few million while highways require several billion.

[musicman]

Yes, I understand that. But it's only a short-term solution to a growing population. Plus, we all know that it also encourages more drivers to drive.

Lockmat we have to do as much as we can within our means to solve our problems. Solutions that help the most people are the ones that should be prioritized IMO.

Making statements like "we all know that it also encourages more drivers to drive." is idiotic. That is like saying building airports only encourages people to fly. it adds nothing to the discussion but gives us a clue about you.

building light rail in cities spread out such as Houston really doesn't do much to help congestion as a whole. It mainly helps those that live around it and many years from now, most houstonians still won't live around it because it is too cost prohibitive to implement everywhere.

If you would like to provide technical info to the discussion please do so. If you would like to learn, please do so. But all i ask is that you remember everything you've learned here. I just still think you don't see the big picture.

[musicman]

Another interesting fact while reading TxDot's plan:

"Statewide Preservation Program

[lockmat]

Lockmat we have to do as much as we can within our means to solve our problems. Solutions that help the most people are the ones that should be prioritized IMO.

Making statements like "we all know that it also encourages more drivers to drive." is idiotic. That is like saying building airports only encourages people to fly. it adds nothing to the discussion but gives us a clue about you.

building light rail in cities spread out such as Houston really doesn't do much to help congestion as a whole. It mainly helps those that live around it and many years from now, most houstonians still won't live around it because it is too cost prohibitive to implement everywhere.

If you would like to provide technical info to the discussion please do so. If you would like to learn, please do so. But all i ask is that you remember everything you've learned here. I just still think you don't see the big picture.

musicman. I have several reasons in coming to HAIF. One of them you mentioned, is to learn, or at least gather different perspectives. Last time I checked, membership wasn't limited to experts only. Many of us are at different places in our lives and our understanding about things, such as transportation. Maybe I don't know everything. I kind of see myself as a poor man's devils advocate. Some of us aren't engineers or planners. My suggestion would be to take this advantage to educate since teaching is one of the best ways to stay sharp and retain information. I think the best example who does this in a respectul way is Niche. He knows some of the statments me and others make are out of are butts because we may be ignorant to the situation, yet he still explains in a gracious tone what is most likely correct. I don't mind being corrected because I know I don't know it all.

I don't know if you understood my point about more drivers being put on highways if more lanes are built. To clarify it, this is what TxDot says. I would say they qualify in giving techincal information:

The traditional response to congestion has been to add additional capacity to highways. However, this makes it a more appealing travel route, often increasing VMT on a roadway; this effect is called

[musicman]

musicman. I have several reasons in coming to HAIF. One of them you mentioned, is to learn, or at least gather different perspectives. Last time I checked, membership wasn't limited to experts only. Many of us are at different places in our lives and our understanding about things, such as transportation. Maybe I don't know everything. I kind of see myself as a poor man's devils advocate. Some of us aren't engineers or planners. My suggestion would be to take this advantage to educate since teaching is one of the best ways to stay sharp and retain information. I think the best example who does this in a respectul way is Niche. He knows some of the statments me and others make are out of are butts because we may be ignorant to the situation, yet he still explains in a gracious tone what is most likely correct. I don't mind being corrected because I know I don't know it all.

I don't know if you understood my point about more drivers being put on highways if more lanes are built. To clarify it, this is what TxDot says. I would say they qualify in giving techincal information:

The traditional response to congestion has been to add additional capacity to highways. However, this makes it a more appealing travel route, often increasing VMT on a roadway; this effect is called “latent travel demand.”

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/...ic_plan2005.pdf

p. 9

You can't be an advocate if you don't know the subject at hand.

do you understand that cars are not going away in our near future? and that no radical changes in modes of transportation are on the horizon?

Roads will be needed and need to be maintained. Do you understand that not maintaining our infrastructure hurts economically? Businesses won't relocate if infrastructure is poor. Pollution increases if infrastructure is poor.

You are still not seeing the big picture. You've got to consider all transportation modes and which ones are the most cost effective and provide the most benefit. If you spend 1 billion to build a train system or spend 1 billion in road maintenance which one affects more people?

Please educate us with your solution to "latent travel demand" dilemma so as not to hurt our economy.

[ricco67]

You can't be an advocate if you don't know the subject at hand.

do you understand that cars are not going away in our near future? and that no radical changes in modes of transportation are on the horizon?

Roads will be needed and need to be maintained. Do you understand that not maintaining our infrastructure hurts economically? Businesses won't relocate if infrastructure is poor. Pollution increases if infrastructure is poor.

You are still not seeing the big picture. You've got to consider all transportation modes and which ones are the most cost effective and provide the most benefit. If you spend 1 billion to build a train system or spend 1 billion in road maintenance which one affects more people?

Please educate us with your solution to "latent travel demand" dilemma so as not to hurt our economy.

musicman. look, I have to step in on Lockmat's behalf on this:

Each of us have a particular knowledge of certain topics. Not all of us are highly trained engineers in any particular field, nor are most of us even engineers!

Most of us are on this system because we have a need to learn and share our particular fascination with this city and each of us have a particular perspective and knowledge of a city that collectively can be combined and cross referenced.

It's the knowledge we have that allows us to share information because there are things that I know that you may enlighten me about as I may know some bits other knowledge that may help you.

While your knowledge in some things may be more complete in some matters, it is quite uncouth to berate someone who simply doesn't understand or may have overlooked a bit of information.

I'm just sayin'.

So I'm saying to you as I've said to Aoaks and several others, be civil.

[Guest Marty]

This thread has been around for a while i'm going with musicman on this one, Post the most accurate facts as possible.

[musicman]

Most of us are on this system because we have a need to learn and share our particular fascination with this city and each of us have a particular perspective and knowledge of a city that collectively can be combined and cross referenced.

It's the knowledge we have that allows us to share information because there are things that I know that you may enlighten me about as I may know some bits other knowledge that may help you.

While your knowledge in some things may be more complete in some matters, it is quite uncouth to berate someone who simply doesn't understand or may have overlooked a bit of information.

I'm just sayin'.

So I'm saying to you as I've said to Aoaks and several others, be civil.

my frustration level with him reached the boiling point. When he attempted to somehow make comparison between the state's maintenance of its right of ways and how rail is cheaper, i couldn't believe it. then he says "And one thing I don't get is that Houstonians seem to think that they're the only city that is sprawled out." followed by "Can I say most people in Houston use the LRT daily? Of course not, that'd be silly to say. We only have 8 miles. They have over 40." Very flippant IMHO. I do believe it is uncouth to berate soemone who doesn't understand or may have overlooked something. The statement "And one thing I don't get is that Houstonians seem to think that they're the only city that is sprawled out" is IMHO more than someone who doesn't understand or may have overlooked something.

In actuality I was way more civilized than I thought. I held back BIG time. But point well taken Ricco.

[AftonAg]

I see that I was quoted in your post. I apologize. I was obviously making an uncorroborated sweeping generalization about a few homes directly on Richmond.

My intention was merely to suggest that having the rail from Midtown to the Galleria via Richmond would have more utility than having it zigzag all over Houston

[JJxvi]

For the time being, we can build our way out of congestion with new roads.

My problem with just building above congestion (this applies for both car and commuter train first options that people seem to like) to and from the suburbs with no corresponding infrastructure built to improve mobility in the inner city means that you will basically just be providing incentive for development in the suburbs. You would be improving traffic flow (in the short term) and opening up new routes in the suburbs making the suburbs the primary points of growth. Growth that then leads to your new suburban routes back on the fast track to congestion.

[TheNiche]

My problem with just building above congestion (this applies for both car and commuter train first options that people seem to like) to and from the suburbs with no corresponding infrastructure built to improve mobility in the inner city means that you will basically just be providing incentive for development in the suburbs. You would be improving traffic flow (in the short term) and opening up new routes in the suburbs making the suburbs the primary points of growth. Growth that then leads to your new suburban routes back on the fast track to congestion.

Yep. Well then you've got a larger tax base to draw from to build out the roads all over again and eventually add commuter rail as necessary. Problem solved.

[musicman]

My problem with just building above congestion (this applies for both car and commuter train first options that people seem to like) to and from the suburbs with no corresponding infrastructure built to improve mobility in the inner city means that you will basically just be providing incentive for development in the suburbs. You would be improving traffic flow (in the short term) and opening up new routes in the suburbs making the suburbs the primary points of growth. Growth that then leads to your new suburban routes back on the fast track to congestion.

If there is no transit system in the suburbs how does NOT adding another rail line in the inner city result in people wanting to move to the burbs? Traffic is just as bad in the burbs as in inner city IMO. Many of the burbs are not expanding their own infrastructure so now they are seeing more traffic problems.

The main reason people go to the burbs in economics. They get more for their money due to cheap land prices.

[JJxvi]

If there is no transit system in the suburbs how does NOT adding another rail line in the inner city result in people wanting to move to the burbs?

I wouldnt expect that simply not building inner city rail line = more demand in the suburbs. I would expect that concentrating on mostly suburban commuter transportation would provide greater incentives for an increased suburban commuter population.

[bkjones98]

Musicman, I've never seen so many posts from one person in the same thread. I mean, it's pictures of "The Beav" all the way down the post.

Don't you work or are you a lobbyist paid for by the Afton Oaks residents?

[musicman]

I would expect that concentrating on mostly suburban commuter transportation would provide greater incentives for an increased suburban commuter population.

Concur but our suburbs really aren't providing options. I know Clear Lake got rid of a local taxi service a few yrs ago. Since there's less poor in the burbs, most have cars so suburban commuter transporation isn't needed.

[musicman]

Musicman, I've never seen so many posts from one person in the same thread. I mean, it's pictures of "The Beav" all the way down the post.

Don't you work or are you a lobbyist paid for by the Afton Oaks residents?

I was thinking of changing it to Speed Racer but have just been too lazy.

Luckily I am currently working my own hrs therefore I work when i want to. That can't last forever though! As for being a lobbyist, I'm not but am involved in many political races as a volunteer. Since i'm a native as well, I just know a lot of people here.

[infinite_jim]

After a nice trip to San Francisco, i can see why now light rail maybe a bit too much for Houston. I want METRO to streamline, improve the existing bus systems, get them off of oil, make it easy to understand the routes, provide shelters at more stops (along with a map). As a tourist, I would not want to be without a car in this town.

[musicman]

After a nice trip to San Francisco, i can see why now light rail maybe a bit too much for Houston. I want METRO to streamline, improve the existing bus systems, get them off of oil, make it easy to understand the routes, provide shelters at more stops (along with a map). As a tourist, I would not want to be without a car in this town.

Their BART rail is designed with less stops (for longer distances) and their localized trips are taken by bus or trolley. Their rail isn't setup to replace buses but rather augment them. Which is my preference.

[Ethanra]

Metro has couple of corridors eviroment study and chosen routes finished. I believe by the end of the year we will have all new corridors and the University Line studies finished and will know what Federal money the city gets and when and/or where construction wil start. Metro Solutions Link

[C2H]

Was the last sentence necessary? Please leave the us vs them mentality out of the thread.

For me cost is an issue but how it affects underground infrastructure would be even MORE costly because things would have to be rerouted. The city didn't even know where certain services were while building the current line.

I was only asking... musicman. It's you who's trying to make this a city VS city thing. I was just curious how Dallas was able to pull off the cost of running a line underground and Houston has all these cost issues. Both cities are supposed to have the same access to the same resources.

[WesternGulf]

There's already a platform that was built under the 59/610 interchange to accomodate future LRT from Westpark.

Huh? Part of my question was couldn't they extend the Post Oak Boulevard BRT to wherever the LRT turns away from Richmond, so that area will not be abandoned by public transportation for the folks who want to get off in Greenway and the Galleria except for Westpark? Atleast they won't be "railroading Richmond" which the AO crowd seems to be worried about.

[TheNiche]

Huh? Part of my question was couldn't they extend the Post Oak Boulevard BRT to wherever the LRT turns away from Richmond, so that area will not be abandoned by public transportation for the folks who want to get off in Greenway and the Galleria except for Westpark? Atleast they won't be "railroading Richmond" which the AO crowd seems to be worried about.

Oh, so you mean run BRT down Richmond between 610 and Cummins/Greenway/Montrose (as the case may be)? Well as I already mentioned, there's already a platform in place between Westpark and Post Oak where the connection is supposed to be made, and running a fixed-guideway line under the 610 Loop at Richmond seemed to have some technical and political problems associated with it, so I'm going to say that the answer is probably a pretty resounding no.

[musicman]

I was only asking... musicman. It's you who's trying to make this a city VS city thing. I was just curious how Dallas was able to pull off the cost of running a line underground and Houston has all these cost issues. Both cities are supposed to have the same access to the same resources.

"I mean if Dallas could do it, what is the problem with Houston?" is confrontational.

I have to ask how both cities have access to the same resources? That is just not true IMO.

[C2H]

"I mean if Dallas could do it, what is the problem with Houston?" is confrontational.

Right, if Dallas can do it, why Can't Houston. Simple Question. That's not confrontational at all. I neither live in Houston or Dallas so i have no reason to start any battle. You're being hell of ridiculous by trying to make a simple question become a war. I think you're paranoid as hell. That's mainly because of the flamewars that go on between Dal and Hou. If you read my posts, you see that i rarely, if ever participate in those battles. So don't bring that crap over my way... BUD!

I have to ask how both cities have access to the same resources? That is just not true IMO.

What i mean is Dallas and Houston have access to the same funds that TXDOT allows. Forgive me if i'm not as educated as you but it only makes sense .

[feufoma]

I was only asking... musicman. It's you who's trying to make this a city VS city thing. I was just curious how Dallas was able to pull off the cost of running a line underground and Houston has all these cost issues. Both cities are supposed to have the same access to the same resources.

I think it has alot to do with the quality of the transit agencies in Dallas (DART) and Houston (METRO). METRO is apparently a company full of feckless morons. Couple that strong possibility with the equally incompetent local government and you have your answer. I hate to say it, but Dallas is better able to get these projects done. Period.

[west20th]

What i mean is Dallas and Houston have access to the same funds that TXDOT allows. Forgive me is i'm not as educated as you but it only makes sense .

What MM may have meant Tom Delay (there may have been others I'm not aware of) would approve federal funding for Dallas mass transit but not for Houston. Now it looks like Culberson is picking up the ball and standing in the way of federal funding for mass transit in Houston. That is, if he and a small vocal minority in Afton Oaks get their way.

[musicman]

What i mean is Dallas and Houston have access to the same funds that TXDOT allows. Forgive me if i'm not as educated as you but it only makes sense .

TxDOT doesn't fund light rail. I forgive you.

I think it has alot to do with the quality of the transit agencies in Dallas (DART) and Houston (METRO). METRO is apparently a company full of feckless morons.

Yeah i'd have to agree as well.