Light Rail Progress (Houston, Richmond, West: contractor, assess, estimated)

[mikey713]

Post Oak from one end close to I-10 to the other end, not sure where.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by mikey713

Post Oak from one end close to I-10 to the other end, not sure where.

I'm not too familiar with Post Oak but it seems like a bad location, not really as busy as other roads in uptown. What about down Kirby from Reliant, or no?

[mikey713]

I dont know. But that is what I see when I go to the METRO website. It seems they want to connect galleria to that University Line.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by Houston Native

So METRO wants to scale back on the SE side. Is METRO's view also short sighted?

My mistake, I meant to say "Technically you are true. It all depends on the money received from the Feds, as METRO has stated it will scale back the plans for the SE and N lines if the funds are less than initially thought."

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by TDAlmighty

The point is that it appears that the outer suburbs grew faster than the core. That is to be expected in a city with unlimited land resources on its outer boundaries and a (mostly) excellent freeway system. In my opinion, however, it is not conducive to the rail system as designed.

Look no further than the planned Exxon Mobil campus and the continued suburban hospital construction as examples of large movements of jobs to areas that will not be served by the rail (but instead by the Grand Parkway). These type of job movements have a profound effect on where people live.

Someone mentioned a few posts ago that rail-naysayers always use buses as the alternative argument to the rail. There is a very good reason for that--the current rail is no more convenient than a bus system but costs a heck of a lot more to build and operate. In addition it is less flexible to changing demands on the transportation system. Lastly, buses can share the road with cars and have very minimal impacts on traffic flow, the rail takes up real estate that is only used once every seven minutes or so.

The light rail system is designed to connect the Inner Loop areas. Simple. Commuter rail is then going to bring in those from the suburbs to the city. How will those in the suburbs move around once they get off the commuter rail if there is not a urban rail plan in place? You can't build this all at once and it takes time. Look at our freeway system for example. You think that was built all at once?

This is just typical growth you see in a growing metro area. Yes, there are a ton of new suburban hospitals going up, but the TMC is under a boom also. I also think it's very telling that Exxon is keeping their Downtown jobs. Only jobs in the Energy Corridor, Greenspoint, and other buildings scattered around town (plus jobs from Denver and the entire Fairfax division) will be coming down. Downtown is safe though. There has been a ton of development in the Inner Loop and it isn't declining.

As far as using buses, they are higher maintenance and costs in the long run are more than light rail (this was stated when Metro decided to switch the lines from BRT back to LRT, like they were voted to be by the citizens). Not to mention buses break down the road and are not as reliable/on-time as well. Much better to spend more now on rail, as they are more durable, reliable, and last longer. And buses have more than just "minimal impact" on traffic flow. Especially at their stops. Bus drivers also drive as fast or slow as they want. Depends on how long their break was, or if they had one, etc. You don't get that with rail.

Originally Posted by Spade

I would say yes. The next line easily should have been the University line. The Southeast line could have waited.

But the University Line had much opposition, mainly from the Afton Oaks residents. They successfully steered the line from going down Richmond to the Galleria, to instead crossing over 59 after Greenway Plaza and going down Westpark, hitting up a lot of apartments (which is a good thing). They are waiting on funding for the University Line, so I don't think the "Southeast could have waited". They were suppose to go at once, but the University is more controversial and has had a lot more obstacles to overcome.

Originally Posted by annie_himself

I'm not too familiar with Post Oak but it seems like a bad location, not really as busy as other roads in uptown. What about down Kirby from Reliant, or no?

How would this work, exactly?

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by TDAlmighty

The point is that it appears that the outer suburbs grew faster than the core. That is to be expected in a city with unlimited land resources on its outer boundaries and a (mostly) excellent freeway system. In my opinion, however, it is not conducive to the rail system as designed.

Why not? The LRT will be the core of the system, like how the Uptown, TMC, and Downtown areas form our core. Our excellent freeway system and HOV system are set up to deliver commuters into the core. Therefore we connect this commuter system already in place with the proposed light rail and we have ourselves the beginning of a system. Let me expand on this by using your example.

Look no further than the planned Exxon Mobil campus and the continued suburban hospital construction as examples of large movements of jobs to areas that will not be served by the rail (but instead by the Grand Parkway). These type of job movements have a profound effect on where people live.

We should be well underway in constructing the light rail but the now ousted corrupt and/or incompetent leaders did their damage and set us back. In a perfect world we would be setting in motion plans for more park&rides and commuter rail in these outer employment centers to connect to the core. There is no easy way to adequately implement a public transit system and freeway system in our current times, especially with how spread out Houston is. Therefore, you focus on where the greatest density is, residential and employment. You set up the backbone and connect the other activity centers.

Someone mentioned a few posts ago that rail-naysayers always use buses as the alternative argument to the rail. There is a very good reason for that--the current rail is no more convenient than a bus system but costs a heck of a lot more to build and operate. In addition it is less flexible to changing demands on the transportation system. Lastly, buses can share the road with cars and have very minimal impacts on traffic flow, the rail takes up real estate that is only used once every seven minutes or so.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand that light rail is an upgraded form of a bus? It carries a lot more people, operates more frequently, operates at higher speeds, and operates with much greater punctuality.

[Houston Native]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Where will the uptown line go?

It was supposed to go north/south from University line, through the Galleria and up to transit station at I-10. METRO put this on indefinite hiatus because of lack of funding for Richmond line.

[Houston Native]

Originally Posted by Spade

I would say yes. The next line easily should have been the University line. The Southeast line could have waited.

Remember that METRO was depending on federal funding for the Richmond line in particular. They did not have the funding to even come close to finishing this project which is why no real work has been done. Plus their revenues have also declined putting them in a worse situation. The east/southeast and north lines ridership projections were too low for federal funding and they decided to attempt to do this themselves.

[Houston Native]

Originally Posted by Spade

You say LRT runs every seven minutes or so, well buses run every 30 minutes, sometimes an hour, or so on it's lines. Rail is more efficient on getting people around the city than buses in most cases. Not to mention they are more comfortable and does not get crowded as quickly. But I personally think they should elevate the lines instead of running it in the street.

Spade are you aware of how many buses were eliminated so that riders were forced to use METRO rail. Many buses on Main were eliminated but many along parallel routes were also eliminated so comparing the rail to 1 bus is disingenuous. Trying to use "comfort" as a real excuse for rail is quite comical. The park and ride buses are much more comfortable than any vehicle METRO uses.

As for rail being more efficient, you have to account for the traffic changes as the result of light rail. Are you aware of just how many cross streets were closed, causing other streets to be more congested? A transportation system that interrupts routes is inefficient.

[Houston Native]

Originally Posted by dv1033

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand that light rail is an upgraded form of a bus? It carries a lot more people, operates more frequently, operates at higher speeds, and operates with much greater punctuality.

Are you aware that city council passed an ordinance that states that the remaining rail lines will not have priority over vehicular traffic and therefore will have to stop at red lines just as buses do now?