Houston19514

What am I missing about this intersection design that supposedly makes them so much more efficient? I'm just seeing a different location for the traffic light.

Question: Did a lot of people go all out and actually wear white linen?

I don't believe i'm stumbling. My statements have been consistent. I still stand by my last post "you have to minimize travel times with the maximum number of riders so that monies spent will provide the most benefit." It is fairly obvious that you've never taken an industrial engineering class. There is an entire science to optimization and remember there are always tradeoffs.

Yes, indeed; there are tradeoffs. That is precisely what I have been telling you. (And you're telling me that it's obvious I have not taken an industrial engineering class? It is to laugh.)

Your position has very cleverly evolved to where you are now emphasizing the balancing act of "minimizing travel times with the maximum number of riders." That is decidedly NOT what you were your promoting in your earlier posts, in which you repeatedly told us that the ONLY thing that matters is the time spent on the trains. The "maximum number of riders" is in part a function of the convenience of stations not only to where people live, but also to their work and leisure destinations (i.e., in part, the number of stations). As I said earlier, if the only factor were time on the train, the best system would be a very short one with two stops, one on each end. But of course, that would not attract many riders, hence the balancing act I have been suggesting all along. It's nice to see you have now finally abandoned your earlier insistence on the "time on the train" being the only important measure.

To have two stations is preposterous. that is NOT efficient because then you will minimize the number of riders. you have to minimize travel times with the maximum number of riders so that monies spent will provide the most benefit. This is what I am striving for and i'm sorry if i wasn't clear previously.

Again the only commonality IS the time spent on the train and that is what we should strive to optimize. The quickest travel time with the most number of riders.

LOL I know having two stations would be preposterous. But that is exactly where your logic would lead us (ie, if the only consideration is time spent on the train.) In fact, by your logic, the best train system would have two stops, about one block apart. "Hey, look at our efficient train system. Our riders only have to spend 1 minute on the train!" :-) (and before you tell me that's preposterous, I already know that it is.)

You seem to perhaps be slowly stumbling to the truth, when you admit that having two stations would be inefficient because that would minimize the number of riders. Why do you suppose having just two stations would minimize the number of riders? Could it be because the stations would be too far from where people live and/or workd and therefore the total trip time was too long for too many people? But if that's the case, then it cannot be that the only important fact is the time spent on the train... hmmmm...

You do indeed have to minimize the travel times for the maximum number of riders. But the travel time that must be considered is the full trip - origin to destination - not just train station to train station. It's a balancing act for rail planners, to plan enough stops to minimize the walking times to and from stations without slowing the train down too much with too many stops. It is IN FACT ALL ABOUT THE TOTAL TRIP TIME, and the time spent on the train is only one part of the calculation, along with the time getting to the station, the time waiting for a train (hence the importance of frequent service), the time on the train, and the time walking to the final destination.

We're comparing different technologies now....

You repeatedly mention METRO but are combining technologies.

The first METRO is Park and Ride. correct?

The second METRO is light rail. correct?

Your logic is unclear to me. You're saying METRO Park and Ride is more efficient and that is why METRO light rail spaces the stations every half-mile apart. I don't see the connection.

Remember I didn't say we need to place stations every 1.32 miles....we need to optimize where we place them.

He's saying that Metro Park and Ride is more efficient than DART's suburban light rail service.

You can't take an egocentric view here. You have to consider all users' time. The commonality being time on the LRT. If the train itself runs quickly then everyone who uses it benefits. If the train runs slowly because of too many stops, then everyone is hurt. Ultimately, a quicker LRT travel time will save everyone who uses it time.

That is preposterous. If that were the sole way to judge, then the most efficient LRT would have two stops: one on each end. Yes, you have to consider all users' time, but you have to consider their entire trip time, not just their time on the train. If a rider has to spend 30 minutes walking to the station, rather than 15, that is part of their trip time. A rail planner would be foolish not to consider the walking time as part of the trip time, because the potential riders most assuredly will consider the walking time when they decide whether to patronize the rail system.

There is more than one measure of a successful project than ridership per mile. The bottom line is how much time did you save various people and how valuable was the peoples' time that you saved. Remember...though the concept isn't politically kosher, wealthy peoples' time is worth more than poor peoples' time. It's all about opportunity cost.

If so, approximately 40,000 riders are determining for themselves every day that MetroRail saves them enough time to make it worthwhile. Not bad. And, as RedScare pointed out earlier, that's a lot more people per mile of trackage than have made that same determination for themselves regarding the Dallas rail system, whatever speed it may achieve.

And further to RedScare's post immediatly preceding this one, taking the DART red line from the Convention Center downtown to the Park Lane station covers approximately the same distance as Houston's red line. The trip on DART takes 25 minutes. In Houston, the trip from Fannin South to UHD is 32 minutes. Not a bad differential, especially when one considers the additional walking time many people would have to take to get to the more widely-spaced stations on DART (there are 10 stations in this stretch vs. 16 on Metro's red line), and the additional wait at the station because DART only runs trains every 10 minutes during rush hour and every 20 minutes the rest of the day, compared to every 6 minutes and 12 minutes for Metro.

It is amusing to see Houstonians fall for the bad weather propaganda, since they live here. Anyone who has lived in Northeastern and Midwestern cities can attest that our heat is 10 times better than their cold. Even when I lived in Fort Worth, on those days when the temperature was in the 20s with the wind blowing, I thought I would die. But, the perception continues.

Bravo!! Another excellent post RedScare. You are on a roll! The part you forgot to mention is that it is also significantly hotter (both nominal temperature and heat index) in many cities in the summer than in Houston (e.g., D-FW, OKC, Tulsa, St. Louis...). Houstonians (especially the Houston media) whine too much about the weather.

Busses, actually. Either that or they'd be driving to their final destination instead of the Fannin-South station.

So I guess then that it HAS taken cars AND Buses off the roads, and has surely saved gas. The University line will surely take cars (and possibly busses as well) off the freeways and roads.

Perhaps that explains why DART has 1311 riders per mile (59,000 daily riders) and METRORail has 5,333 riders per mile (40,000 daily riders)?

BTW, METRO will have the N. Main extension, Intermodal, Harrisburg, Southeast, Uptown and U-Line by 2012. I consider that good progress, considering the concerted opposition to everything METRO does.

Considering it has only hit 98 degrees ONCE all year, I expect a few people will walk a quarter mile.

Speak for yourself. I walk everywhere in Downtown every day...in a suit. And, I am not alone. There are not many unwalkable days in Houston...and when there are, only parts of the day are unwalkable. It is a myth that one cannot walk in Houston.

Excellent post, RedScare. Thank you for bringing a few facts to the discussion that might be inconvenient for some. I tire of the constant raving about the Atlanta and Dallas transit systems when they in fact perform not all that well compared to Houston's.

Here! Here! City kid - the whole point is to take cars off the freeways, save gas etc, etc, ad nauseum - and light rail just does not accomplish that goal. One Difference between MARTA, DART, and METRO is that the RT in MARTA and DART stands for Rapid Transit - METRO is not capable of thinking in those terms.

Metro rail is not taking cars off the freeways or saving gas, etc etc. etc.??? I guess those 35,000-40,000 riders per day would otherwise be walking or riding their bicycles?

My bottom line is this: I'm willing to spend many hundreds of millions of more dollars to make the system more complete and effective, and to do it NOW instead of later. If this is nothing more than a marginally-more-effective bus-replacement system for people who can't stand 'uncool' forms of transit, then I say screw it.

And yet you promote commuter rail to the suburbs. Note to The Niche: Houston has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in HOV lanes and Park & Ride lots and buses and as a result already has a relatively efficient, effective and popular transit system to the suburbs. It seems like building commuter rail would indeed be little (or nothing) more than a "marginally-more-effective bus-replacement system for people who can't stand 'uncool' forms of transit."

Thus it is quite clear that Metro and the ballot language were about general corridors, with those corridors extending beyond any namesake and being defined as at least a mile either side of the centerline of its namesake (since Northline Mall is more than a mile from the centerline of the N. Hardy Tollroad, which parallels and continues past it.) Since Richmond is within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of any road or rail ROW being claimed as the namesake, clearly its use is not precluded based on any ballot language.

Well said dp2! Great post! You should send that to every reporter for that sorry excuse for a newspaper, the Chronicle. I've noticed they routinely and mindlessly repeat the idiotic "argument" about the ballot language without any challenge or explanation.

Yeah, "Every 6 minutes" is such a difficult concept to grasp...

LOL Exactly what I was thinking.

And the Rockets have their practice gym below the main court.

No they don't. Their practice gym is inside the large windows along the west side of the building.

Interesting to read this thread. The Gaylord Texan in Grapevine is doing great business. Many in Dallas don't exactly love the concept, but its just another attraction to add to North Texas tourism. The place itself is excellent and is doing big time convention business. If this happens, worry about your downtown convention center.

Has the Gaylord Texan hurt the Dallas Convention Center?

Until you have been in meetings with TxDOT or The Grand Parkway Association do not doubt anything Pineda says. I have been in numerous meeting where they have spoke and I have watched the story change. I have seen them ask questions like does anyone have a problem with the concept of the grand parkway and the next day report that they took a vote and the residents of Spring are in favor of the Grand Parkway in their area. I too heard that there are no planned direct connectors at 249 and no connectors at I45 directly from TxDOT

Obviously I have stumbled onto a chat room that has its favorites. Not a problem for me. I also note by some of the responses that from the letters Ag at the end of my tag it was ass/u/med that I must be a Texas Aggie. I am smiling at some of the comments that were made, and disappointed in some.

My purpose in posting was to attempt to give non-Afton Oaks residents my perspective and that of some of my neighbors. Read you did an equisite job of dissecting my "logic". Poor fellow, that was just a few random thoughts that I cobbled together over lunch. Sitting at my desk having a salad. I note from the times of your postings that you needed all of lunch "on Main Street", "Yes that Main Street" to partake of a meal and get your thoughts together.

The bottom line to me and most of my neighbors is property value. Plain and simple. Yep its all about the money. I purchased my current dwelling in the late 70's for 85K, the current tax appraisal is 400K+. I won't be exact as a matter of decorum, and because it really isn't anyone else's business.

I was accused of making a slanderous comment regarding the businesses that went bankrupt along Main while Metro was building that line. I was also requested to provide a list of the businesses that went bankrupt or were properties that were sold on the court house steps. Guess what I don't have the energy for it.

I will admit that I was naive in posting to what I thought was a friendly discussion regarding the Metro "Railroading of Richmond". But I am a little surprised at the that others might be so naive when it comes to the political end of it.

You are likely too young to remember the scandal under "Mayor Bob" and the Grand Parkway - look it up I am not going into it. For the record I met Mayor Bob before he was mayor and in fact his was at one time a very close friend of one of his children. To most of the respondents I would just say this, " Rice is a very tough school - get back to studying or mommy and daddy may not be happy next time you come home.

So I plead guilty, guilty to being wealthy, and apparently that is a crime on this forum. I have not seen any posting's that have changed my mind. Perhaps in the next round someone will be able to persuade me. Just for background I have traveled all over the world and utilized mass transit in Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, and many other cities. I am not against mass transit - I think it is a good idea, I just don't want on Richmond. The Paris rail transit system is easy to use, reasonably clean, and reasonably reliable when the operators aren't on strike.

To touch on the Aggie comment - I have a child at The University of Texas, a child at Texas A&M, and my youngest will be attending Harvard this fall. You figure it out.

Well, aren't you something? To be able to cobble together a bunch of slanderous crap off the top of your head and then plead lack of energy when challenged to provide support for your statements. Are you through now? Do you even have any support for your proposition that a rail line running on Richmond through Afton Oaks will lower the property value you are so proud of? I presume you don't have the energy to gather those fact either. Do you have the energy to explain what exactly your ranting about suburban road ragers have to do with light rail?

This is, in fact, generally a friendly board where people exchange ideas and facts and are, for the most part prepared to back up their statements. Try to come up with some facts to support your opinions and statements; we'll look forward to seeing them.

I agree with AftonOaksAggy.

Rail is bad. It kills trees. It rapes pets. Forces kids into a life of porn. Metro cronies and leftist transportation whackjobs will seize your land and take away your guns!

God save Afton Oaks from clean, reliable transportation. Let Afton Oaks keep her majestic neighbors; the Budget Rent-a-Car, a drive thru Burger King, a tire discounter, a lighting store in a strip mall, kolache factory, a highway, a freight railroad track, the Rajun Cajun, gas stations, and more.

Keep Afton Oaks scenic!

ROFL Not to mention the 3000 foot wide swath of property Metro will take by eminent domain around each of their stations. ;-)

Yes, OF COURSE, I will!

Thanks for your interest in this topic. It's been fun debating you, Houston 19514. Obviously, my interests in protecting my neighborhood are different from your own. I will go on opposing the Grand Parkway Segment F-2 into the Spring area, just as I and my neighbors have done for the past five years, using my "cheap and common scare tactics", as you put it, or any other means that I deem necessary to oppose it. BTW, if you read the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, and you read the part where the study repeatedly concludes that traffic congestion relief IS indeed needed in the Northern Alignment area, perhaps you will notice the part where it also mentions that the studies authors do not believe that the Northern Alignment will generate the toll revenue needed to fund the project, whereas the alignment in Spring will generate the funds necessary. Some wise person on this board mentioned one time that money was the real determining factor for where the Grand Parkway route would go. It's been my experience that this is usually true!

Wow. Talk about stepping all over your argument... ;-)

Isn't that just the sort of traffic study you have been complaining about not being provided? Thanks for confirming that they have in fact been provided.

And is there really a better way to determine demand or need for a tollway than by how much toll revenue it will generate? But anyway, thanks for confirming that the Northern Alignment Study in fact shows that the Northern Alignment is in fact not feasible.

I know you are so clouded by your passion that nothing the Grand Parkway people or their consultants say or do can be accepted as anything less than evil, but there really is nothing at all wrong with routing a toll road based in part on whether the tolls will pay for the road. If you want the Grand Parkway people or the Texas DOT people to take you seriously, you need to get serious.

OK, Ag, can you name any of the businesses that closed on Main Street SOLELY because of rail construction? I can't think of one...and I office on Main Street. I know there were some nightclubs that changed hands and formats before the construction even started. Do you blame METRO for that? I know of one ill advised restaurant that closed during construction...but they were doing poorly BEFORE the construction. Interestingly, the owners of that closed restaurant are still running their successful restaurant half a block away, to this day. And another small businessman opened a restaurant successfully in the old space.

I am unaware of a single business that went bankrupt and was sold on the courthouse steps...but I know of plenty on Main that opened after the rail began operation.

I am confident that you did not hang out on Main prior to the rail. Only derelicts and 1400 busses daily did. Now, Main is a rebuilt pedestrian friendly street, filling up with restaurants, bars and shops. I know. I walk it daily. So do thousands of others, including parents bringing their kids (as if that means something). Now, that is not what the rail is supposed to do...it's job is transit...but your post is so inaccurate as to be embarrassing.

A little advice. Give verifiable facts in your arguments. Hold your kids' hand when you walk on Richmond. And, keep your dog on a leash. The suburbanite road rager? Not METRO's problem, call the police.

Thanks RedScare. I was thinking the exact same thing. I look forward to Ag's list of businesses ruined by Metro Rail construction, and sold on the court house steps to Metro cronies. I want names! I'm sure Ag has a long list of names or he/she surely would not have posted such slanderous statements.

Man, talk about incoherent! I would think that when one says regional transportation needs, that one is indeed saying that it's a project in the region.

What a nice way of saying that because the Grand Parkway Association doesn't want to build F-2 in Montgomery County that it doesn't serve THEIR needs! Again, I go back to what I keep repeating, if the project is truly intended to serve REGIONAL needs, (not just the needs intended to be addressed by the GPA), then the REGIONAL need would appear to be much greater in the Montgomery County area. Why do I say "would appear to be"? Because no matter how many times they're asked to release them, the Grand Parkway Association will not release any traffic studies conducted in the Montgomery County area.

Again with the misunderstanding / misreading . . . or is it just misrepresenting?

Go back and read what I wrote. "It is not JUST saying that it's a project in the region." Let me try to explain it for you. That means that it is more than JUST a project IN the region. It is indeed in the regions, but it also serves some broader "REGIONAL" transportation needs or goals. As I've said before and as you would see if you looked at The Northern Alignment Study, southern Montgomery County may well need a new east-west highway in that area, but such a highway would serve local transportation needs only, and not the regional needs being addressed by the Grand Parkway.

You have clearly made up your mind, the facts and studies be damned. And those evil Grand Parkway people, refusing to hand-deliver traffic studies to you, Pineda, of all people. Have you bothered to look at the Northern Alignment study? (Again, it's on the Grand Parkway website; if they are trying to keep it secret, well, let's just say I'm glad they aren't in charge of national security secrets.) There are traffic counts and projections all over the place, as I believe they are in the DEIS as well. For that matter, have you even looked at the routing for the Northern alignment? It's ridiculous. Come around the northwest edge of the city and when you get close to Pineda's house, take a hard left, go north 10 miles or so past The Woodlands, take a hard right, go east until you're well-clear of Pineda's neighborhood and then another hard right south for ten miles to rejoin the loop around the city. That's more ridiculous than the idea of jogging the University rail line off of Richmond over to Westpark just to avoid Afton Oaks and the few businesses etc along Richmond objecting to the rail line (in a similar way, both Richmond and Westpark alignments would be in the "region." But one cannot say that both options serve regional transportation needs equally well.

As a wise member of this board said in another thread: "Scare tactics are cheap and common and often win out over logic and common sence in this city." I hope your 1200 foot r-o-w, no connection to I-45, sound barrier walls are ineffective, etc etc. scare tactics fail. It is my experience that one is likely to have more influence on the results and the final design if one avoids hysterical scare tactics. But you of course will do as you wish.

I love the above statement! (That is one sentence, isn't it?) If I were with the Grand Parkway Association, I think I would have written it JUST LIKE THAT! This must have been the part they told us they had to "tweak" before presenting it sight unseen at the Public Hearing. If it's a REGIONAL project, meant to serve REGIONAL needs, and the Spring community is so upset over the placement of the project in the Spring area, why can't the project be located elsewhere in the REGION, such as Montgomery County, where their traffic problems already far exceed that of the Spring area?

Now you're really being incoherent. Heck, why not build segment F-2 in Chambers County?... that's part of the region too. It should go without saying that when one says "regional transportation needs" one is not just saying that it's a project in the region.

But to answer your question... they aren't going to build F-2 in Montgomery County because the northern alignment does not serve the regional needs that are intended to be addressed by the Grand Parkway project (just as I said earlier and just as the study concluded).... (BTW, that was very clear in my earlier post; this is why I am little skeptical about so much of what you have "heard" from the Grand Parkway representatives. You seem to have a habit of mis-reading or misunderstanding.)

On this topic, I have found it to be un-wise in discounting pineda. No where on this forum has there been anyone more passionate and up on their facts then pineda. I also recall being told it would be for local use.

No doubt Pineda is passionate. But "up on their facts?" Is it a fact that the Grand Parkway is planned or seriously likely to have 800-1200-1500 foot R-O-W's, as Pineda has told us on several occasions? Is it a fact that there will be no connection between the end of Segment F-2 and I-45 ("No exits, no ramps, no nothing" in Pineda's words). Is it a fact that the Grand Parkway project east of US 59 is "dead", as Pineda once told us? I could go on, but those examples should make the point. Pineda's presentations of "facts" have been about as reliable as are those of the opponents of rail on Richmond.

His (and your) confusion about the purpose of Grand Parkway is mystifying. It could not be more obvious that the primary purpose of the Grand Parkway (and therefore of every segment of the Grand Parkway) is to serve regional transportation needs. Each segment will obviously also serve local transportation needs within that context. They need to locate the segments to adequately and appropriately serve both. Why is that so difficult to understand? I would imagine the evil Grand Parkway people may have said at various times something along the lines of "we are planning/designing segment F-2 to serve local transportation needs." Well, yeah. I would hope they would. Does that mean it is not also (and primarily) planned/designed to serve regional transportation needs? No.

The Northern Alignment Feasibility Study concluded very clearly that another new road may be needed in the southern Montgomery County area to serve local transportation needs, but that running Grand Parkway Segment F-2 in that alignment would not serve the regional transportation needs intended to be served by the Grand Parkway project, nor the local transportation needs of the currently-planned alignment. No, I was not at the meeting, so I cannot say for certain how they reported the results of the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, but I have looked over the study and those are the facts.

i thought that was the reliant building...

You are correct it was the Reliant building. But then Reliant split itself into two separate companies and moved the part named Reliant into the new tower at 1000 Main. The part left in the former Reliant building is CenterPoint, hence it is now the CenterPoint building, or CenterPoint Plaza, or CenterPoint Tower... I don't know what the official name is.

Just FYI, as I type this, the temperature in Tulsa is 101, "feels like" 106.

For comparison purposes, the temp in Houston: 91, "feels like" 98.

By the way, if anyone wants to see the Houston equivalent of the NCTCOG numbers that data is here:

http://www.houston.org/blackfenders/09AW015.pdf

That is not the equivalent to NCTCOG. The Greater Houston Partnership is the equivalent of a chamber of commerce. And the numbers on the page you linked are strictly US Census Bureau numbers.

Made my case that the NCTCOG watches the numbers more closely then the U.S. Census Bureau. Umm, just to the link and read up on the NCTCOG. It works at a local level and only has to track what is going on here in the North Texas Region. Much more closely then the U.S. Census could do since it performs at a national level. NCTCOG on their site somewhere talks how it tracks the numbers and how it defers from the U.S. Census bureau which relies heavly on mail-ins (every 10 years), trying to count the homeless, etc. Both agencies do have different methods.

The only thing you've proven is that you haven't read the NCTCOG website very carefully (recall your confusion about the number of counties included in their estimates).

Yes, indeed, NCTCOG has a methodology for their estimates. Guess what, so does the US Census Bureau, and you can find it on THEIR website. To state that they have a methodology does not even suggest, let alone "make the case", that their estimates are ipso facto better than another set of estimates based on another methodology.

Likewise, just having estimates done locally by local people proves nothing. I'm just guessing here, but I think the Census Bureau probably has more resources and more people assigned to the task of population estimates than does the NCTCOG (as well as a good deal more experience). And they also collect information from many of the same sources as does NCTCOG.