METRORail University Line

[musicman]

But if you go to the medical center during rush hour, you will see that it actually does roll by FASTER than the individual cars that are there.

there has been many times that i've had to drive into the med center and traffic is clogged because people are trying to get into Scurlock, Smith towers, TCH, or Methodist. I've sat in traffic (I actually timed this) for 30 minutes while I counted 6 trains pass by.

You've made an assumption that a driver would be going down Fannin. When i go to Scurlock tower from Gulfgate area. I can make it in 15 mins if i take freeway to fannin exit off of 59 and then cross over to main in front of the Warwick. Main has 3 lanes of traffic and goes right to the Scurlock. Parking usually takes 10 mins since the garage is large. All i know is i avoid Fannin in the med center like the plague and i always have. I will say that if you only compare a SMALL segment of the light rail vs car travel times they are comparable but any longer route, a car will be quicker because there are more ways to travel that will avoid traffic.

Edited August 5, 2006 by musicman

[Trae]

^^And time will add up taking those routes

[RedScare]

How can you compare travel times from Main@Preston to Post Oak by bus to travel times from Wheeler to Post Oak by rail? The entire Downtown to Wheeler leg seems to have disappeared as well as the transfer time. I personally haven't seen a light rail schedule for the Richmond route yet. If you can, please PM me with the info. That would be helpful.

I'm curious how you have been making claims about the speed, or lack of it, of LRT if you have not done the math.

However, here's how it works. The Red Line is 7.5 miles long. It takes 32 minutes for one run. Divide 32 into 60 minutes and it can make 1.875 runs an hour. 1.875 times 7.5 equals an average speed of 14.1 mph. The U-Line from Wheeler to Post Oak is 4.7 miles. At 14.1 mph, the trip is completed in 20 minutes. A quick look at the METRORail schedule shows the trip from Preston to Wheeler is 12 minutes. Total 32 minutes. Average wait for the transfer is 3 minutes, so total is 35 minutes.

While the LRT supposedly takes up no auto lanes, it definitely will be affected by them because so many streets will be crossing the line. Our system is NOT separated from traffic as many imply here. A dedicated route would be best, but we don't have truely dedicated lanes as traffic mixes with the rail. This definitely increases travel times.

The LRT can override the traffic signals, getting it through the corridor quicker than the busses. While not as good as a dedicated line, it is much cheaper, and allows the LRT to operate where the transit riders are.

What is missing from your equation is that most people would NOT be driving out Richmond to go from Main/Preston to Richmond/Post Oak. I would NEVER take Richmond during rush hour or ANYtime because it is too slow. I would either do Memorial or go out the newly completed 59 to bypass all the lights. It is a time factor that is most important to me. Saying that travel time via car is a couple of minutes better than rail is not accurate in this instance.

In actuality, I office right in front of the Preston Station, and often eat at Dimassi's, so I drive that route often. However, the LRT route is not designed only to take people from one end to the other. Riders enter and depart all up and down the two lines. Using the Preston to Post Oak route allowed me to show some numbers that contradict the prevailing view. Your statement that you would take a longer route to avoid congested Richmond Ave. actually adds credence to my point that the LRT is quicker than is given credit. And, you still ignore the viewpoint of a transit rider. We WANT to take the train. All we ask is that it get us there comfortably and reasonably on time. You can drive wherever you like. We'd rather take the train.

Edited August 5, 2006 by RedScare

[musicman]

Are you talking about rush hour times? I've been to St. Lukes, Scurlock, and smith towers and there are times when there are no spots to be found on some days. I can just as easily spend that 10 minutes looking for a parking spot taking a train from sears!

i usually make my appointments for 3 to 4 in the afternoon so i dont have to make up time from work. My doctor and dentist are both in scurlock and so far i've always found a parking space. Like i said for a short distance, the travel times are comparable to a car if you're going to an area near a stop. Remember i'm thinking about traveling from Gulfgate to the med center, not a small trip from sears. Overall travel time is what a commuter is thinking about.

Edited August 5, 2006 by musicman

[ssullivan]

But if you go to the medical center during rush hour, you will see that it actually does roll by FASTER than the individual cars that are there.

there has been many times that i've had to drive into the med center and traffic is clogged because people are trying to get into Scurlock, Smith towers, TCH, or Methodist. I've sat in traffic (I actually timed this) for 30 minutes while I counted 6 trains pass by.

I live in the area and have witnessed this countless times. The train often makes better time through Medical Center than the cars do as well. And because of the signal priority of MetroRail over cars in Midtown, I have many times been passed up by a train on Main St. and not caught back up with it unless I sped down Main at an unsafe speed or ran a red light.

I posted an example earlier in this thread of a side-by-side comparison of bus versus rail transit times between downtown and the Texas Medical Center. If you pick any two places along the current MetroRail line as origin and destination points, and look at the schedules posted on Metro's website and the Metro online route planner, MetroRail is always faster than the bus, and often involves less waiting time. Yes, I know for some people there was no commute time reduction when their bus line was truncated and they were forced to transfer to MetroRail to get downtown. But there are many people who both live AND work along the current rail line who, before light rail was built, had choices of driving or taking the bus. For those who took the bus, MetroRail IS faster. For those who drove, MetroRail may come out about the same, depending on the amount of time it took to find a parking space downtown or in the Medical Center.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Faster, slower, doesnt matter to me. Simple fact of the matter is, i will park my car and ride a train....thats something i would not do to ride a bus. I know i dont live on an island and therefore there are many that share my same view on this.

[AftonAg]

I called that # to Culberson office and like a few others posted, She said Culberson is not against rail but is against rail on Richmond. She said that over 2,000 people contacted him and 97% of them complained about Rail on Richmond.

I kept asking questions and i could tell the lady was starting to get an attitude in her voice. She was trying to rush me off the phone and interupting me before i would ask another question.

I finally cut her off and i said " YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS TRULY ALL ABOUT! HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO RISK HIS SEAT IN OFFICE!" And i hung up. I heard her about to say something else before i disconnected her but it did make me feel better at least having the last word!

tierwestah jones

from: tierwester street 3rd WARD Houston!!!

Very mature of you, and quite brave.

[musicman]

However, here's how it works. The Red Line is 7.5 miles long. It takes 32 minutes for one run. Divide 32 into 60 minutes and it can make 1.875 runs an hour. 1.875 times 7.5 equals an average speed of 14.1 mph. The U-Line from Wheeler to Post Oak is 4.7 miles. At 14.1 mph, the trip is completed in 20 minutes. A quick look at the METRORail schedule shows the trip from Preston to Wheeler is 12 minutes. Total 32 minutes. Average wait for the transfer is 3 minutes, so total is 35 minutes.

If you can leap to the assumption that speed is identical then I can agree with your times. As an engineer, I can't make that assumption particularly since this line will have more streets that cross than the Red line.

The LRT can override the traffic signals, getting it through the corridor quicker than the busses. While not as good as a dedicated line, it is much cheaper, and allows the LRT to operate where the transit riders are.

In actuality, I office right in front of the Preston Station, and often eat at Dimassi's, so I drive that route often. However, the LRT route is not designed only to take people from one end to the other. Riders enter and depart all up and down the two lines. Using the Preston to Post Oak route allowed me to show some numbers that contradict the prevailing view. Your statement that you would take a longer route to avoid congested Richmond Ave. actually adds credence to my point that the LRT is quicker than is given credit. And, you still ignore the viewpoint of a transit rider. We WANT to take the train. All we ask is that it get us there comfortably and reasonably on time. You can drive wherever you like. We'd rather take the train.

NOTE....the LRT is supposed to override signals however in actuality it doesn't otherwise you wouldn't stop when you go through downtown and in other areas. EVERY ride i've taken has stopped at various intersections because there are cars currently going through the intersection. If it worked liked you said then the train would only be stopping at actual stations. It also stops at some intersections depending on light cycling EVERY time i've ridden it.

I would say most drivers are concerned about travel times. If i'm driving to the galleria from downtown, yes i could take westheimer from downtown. However I want to get there as quickly as possible so i'll take the freeway. My best friend lives in oak forest and works in clr lake.. he takes 610 around to 45south to avoid the downtown traffic and makes it to work more quickly that way. It is a longer route, but a quicker drive time.

I"m not avoiding the viewpoint of the transit rider. the reason most people take the mass transit is to save time. You can get there comfortably and reasonably on time...on a bus too. Park and Ride bus service is a perfect example of a success. I'd like to take the train from my house too. But there are MANY ways the money could be used to improve traffic flow than to build a train to my house. That is where the dilemma occurs. Will spending a relatively large amount of money on a system that only a relatively few people will use justify building it?

Your Preston to Post Oak example didn't add creedence that LRT is quicker. Most drivers would purposely avoid driving in the most congested areas and take the quickest route, even if it is longer. LRT is quicker for CERTAIN ROUTES for instance if you're going to the continental club from downtown making the assumption that the train is at the stop waiting for you. But for instance on the weekend and at night it takes longer cause frequency of the trains is less. You could already be at the continental club on saturday night by car and still be at the station waiting for a train. Light rail really only benefits those who live right by a station and most Houstonians don't. I definitely support anything that will provide relief to the most commuters.

[ssullivan]

I read the article on the Chronicle website last night about the new proposed route down the Southwest Freeway. I agree with some of you that this is absolutely the dumbest idea that has been put up yet. Supposedly the whole reason for not putting the rail line down Richmond is the perceived negative affects it will have during the TEMPORARY construction period, as well as a few businesses losing a few parking spaces. Oh and the loss of some trees, which I hate as well, but trees can be moved and/or replaced. But every map of the proposed Richmond routing has clearly shown that NO houses or business buildings would have to be condemned through Metro's imminent domain powers because the street would have to be only slightly widened. And most of the loss would happen east of Shepherd, with some losses between Kirby and Shepherd.

Now, this new plan comes up. It obviously is much more disruptive to residential properties, requiring the loss of numerous houses and apartments, and possibly the loss of a portion of a neighborhood park. And, after truly splitting and destroying a neighborhood (remember - no houses in Afton Oaks would be touched, but this proposal takes out a dozen or so homes, maybe more), the rail line ends up in a location that is inconvenient and not close to places where people work, shop, and eat along Richmond. And, the line is STILL ON RICHMOND BETWEEN MAIN AND MANDELL/DUNLAVY! That's the majority of the very section of Richmond that has the most legitimate reasons to be upset over putting the line down Richmond, because that's the area that does stand to lose some property because the current street is so narrow. THIS PROPOSAL SOLVES NOTHING! All it does is placate Afton Oaks, but Metro already had a very viable proposed route to avoid that neighborhood that many pro-Richmond rail supporters thought was perfectly acceptable. This proposal also places the line on the outer fringe of Greenway Plaza, one of the city's biggest employment centers, instead of in the center of it. And many smaller office buildings along Richmond, as well as shops, restaurants, and several large apartment complexes, are no longer conveniently served by the rail line in this proposal.

Oh, and then there's Culberson, who publicly stated more than once that much of his opposition to rail on Richmond was to protect property values and the homes of his constituents in Afton Oaks. This is the same Afton Oaks where Metro has repeatedly stated no condemnation or imminent domain proceedings were necessary. Well, Mr. Culberson, what about the interests of the homeowners in Castle Court and other neighborhoods that will have houses condemned and destroyed to put the line on this route? Are you going to come to their rescue as well? Or are you not interested, since this is part of the Montrose area, which used to not be your district and for the most part doesn't really like you anyway. Or are you going to support this proposal, knowing that it would probably never pass the federal funding tests because it will suffer from many of the same lack of riders issues that an all-Westpark routing would have?

I can only hope that Metro is studying this routing only to further demonstrate why Richmond is the best choice. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time, because this proposal does very little to help out the property owners along the stretch of Richmond that would be most negatively affected by the rail line.

[musicman]

But there are many people who both live AND work along the current rail line who, before light rail was built, had choices of driving or taking the bus. For those who took the bus, MetroRail IS faster. For those who drove, MetroRail may come out about the same, depending on the amount of time it took to find a parking space downtown or in the Medical Center.

Again......you're talking specific routes and some very short. But MOST Houstonians don't live on these routes therefore travel times will be LONGER cause they have to drive to the train first. Yes if i have to go from Hermann Memorial to Scurlock Tower the train will be fastest I can agree.

Edited August 5, 2006 by musicman

[ssullivan]

NOTE....the LRT is supposed to override signals however in actuality it doesn't otherwise you wouldn't stop when you go through downtown and in other areas. EVERY ride i've taken has stopped at various intersections because there are cars currently going through the intersection. If it worked liked you said then the train would only be stopping at actual stations. It also stops at some intersections depending on light cycling EVERY time i've ridden it.

The signal priority for MetroRail is not perfect, but it does work. If you ride in the very front of the car, on the right side, where you can see into the operator's cab and out the front windows, you can see the lights changing up ahead of you as the train is proceeding. Yes, it is true, that it does not work every time but it does work. And when the train does get stopped at a red light, it almost always shortens that red light duration, so the cross-street gets a reduced green time. Many times I have made it from downtown to the Museum District with the only stops being for MetroRail stations, not traffic lights. Some of it also depends on the train operator running the train at the correct speed to hit the lights properly without having to stop, and the operator using the light override function properly. Additionally, at times I've seen one train get delayed at a station stop due to a large number of passengers getting on or off, or delayed due to a traffic signal issue, and the next train behind it intentionally slow down and not override traffic signals to avoid getting bunched up with the train ahead of it.

The area where signal priority works worst seems to be in the Medical Center, and a lot of it is due to the shared left turn lanes that are on the MetroRail tracks.

[AftonAg]

Gee, his statement says 90% of the "2000 letters, emails, phone calls and petition signatures" opposed rail on Richmond. So which is it? Have they recieved yet another 2000 contacts and dissaproval is now 97%?

They can't even keep their lies straight. Sounds like they need a coordination meeting to keep on the same page.

Reread tierwestas post. "She said he had recived over 2,000 letters and 97% were against rail. When the count was 2,000 it was 90% against, the count is now over 2,000. That statement is how many weeks old now? You jumped to the conclusion about Culberson's office "they can't even keep their lies straight." That he has received more responses since the 2,000 in the old statement can't be debated - look through the posts and see how many HAIF posters have called or written letters - so obviously it is over 2,000. It sounds to me like of the new responses he has received there have been even more anti rail on Richmond than pro Railroad Richmond responses.

[ssullivan]

Again......you're talking specific routes and some very short. But MOST Houstonians don't live on these routes therefore travel times will be LONGER cause they have to drive to the train first. Yes if i have to go from Hermann Memorial to Scurlock Tower the train will be fastest I can agree.

But let's also consider that there are many people out there who are willing to trade a slightly longer travel time for not having to drive! There have already been multiple posts in this thread by individuals who stated they would walk or drive to a light rail line to take it the rest of the way on their trip, some of whom also stated that they would not do this to take a bus.

And your example of going from Memorial Hermann Hospital to Scurlock Tower is ridiculous. Most able-bodied people with half a brain would just walk. And my example was between Downtown and the TMC, not between two TMC hospitals that are a couple of blocks from each other.

Let's talk about real commutes, like people who live in Midtown and work in the TMC or Downtown. Or people who live along the rail line south of the TMC who work in the TMC or Downtown. Or people who live near the current MetroRail line who can transfer to it with a 5-10 minute bus ride or short walk. Or people who live near the Fannin South Park and Ride and work Downtown. For many of these individuals MetroRail works because it gets them to their destination in a reasonable amount of time with less hassle than driving. I know this for a fact. I live near the MetroRail line and can reach it in less than 10 minutes using a Metro bus that stops right by my front door. Taking Metro downtown with this routing takes me about 30-40 minutes. This is maybe 10 minutes longer than what it would take for me to drive downtown and find a parking place. However, I'm willing to trade 10 minutes of my time for what is usually a more relaxing and pleasant trip, and also a trip that is cheaper than driving.

[RedScare]

If you can leap to the assumption that speed is identical then I can agree with your times. As an engineer, I can't make that assumption particularly since this line will have more streets that cross than the Red line.

As an engineering student prior to attending law school, I learned to analyze a situation. Assumptions can be made when the variables are the same. In this case, you make the assumption that a 4.7 mile non-downtown street will somehow have more cross streets than the downtown line. I came to the opposite conclusion, meaning, at best, the speed would be the same, but in all likelihood, would be faster.

The best course is not to assume at all. Looking at MapQuest, I see 50 intersections along the 4.7 mile Richmond line. On the Red Line, there are 50 intersections in the first 3 miles, from Commerce to Wichita. Given the fact that the Red Line has MORE intersections to navigate, combined with the traffic signal override that always seems to work in front of my office, I believe my numbers to have a firm basis.

[musicman]

The best course is not to assume at all. Looking at MapQuest, I see 50 intersections along the 4.7 mile Richmond line. On the Red Line, there are 50 intersections in the first 3 miles, from Commerce to Wichita. Given the fact that the Red Line has MORE intersections to navigate, combined with the traffic signal override that always seems to work in front of my office, I believe my numbers to have a firm basis.

There are not 50 streets that cross the line from Commerce to Wichita. I count 30. Remember many in midtown are now closed therefore those aren't crossing the line. In downtown proper you have 20, then gray, webster, Mc Gowen, Elgin, Holman, Alabama, Wheeler, Blodgett....and i think the last two are the ones by the flower shops, wentworth and arbor. I would definitely offer up a couple more at most

"traffic signal override that always seems to work" and "traffic signal override that works" are not the same.

"i believe my numbers to have a firm basis" and "my numbers have a firm basis" are not same either.

I would have used the more definitive of each statement if I was trying to convince someone.

Does the 747 always work or does it always seem to work? I know i'd use the airline where it always worked myself.

Edited August 5, 2006 by musicman

[RedScare]

There are not 50 streets that cross the line from Commerce to Wichita. I count 30. Remember many in midtown are now closed therefore those aren't crossing the line. In downtown proper you have 20, then gray, webster, Mc Gowen, Elgin, Holman, Alabama, Wheeler, Blodgett....and i think the last two are the ones by the flower shops, wentworth and arbor. I would definitely offer up a couple at most

"traffic signal override that always seems to work" and "traffic signal override that works" are not the same.

"i believe my numbers to have a firm basis" and "my numbers have a firm basis" are not same either.

Good point. I'm sure you also noticed that I included non-cross streets in my Richmond count as well. Taking those out leaves the Richmond line with 30 cross streets, also. So, yes, my numbers still "have a firm basis", either way you wish to count them.

Note: "every time I ride the train" and "the LRT in front of my office" are probably not the same either...unless you ride the train 10 or 12 times a day.

I'm really not trying to convince you or AftonAg of anything. This is a discussion board, not METRO's boardroom. However, I do feel the urge to correct misstatements when I see them...not for your benefit, but for others on the board who may be reading. Further, I posted the results of my math equation because I thought others might enjoy the results. I'm sorry if you took that as a confrontation. You are more than welcome to look for errors some more.

Edited August 5, 2006 by RedScare

[musicman]

Good point. I'm sure you also noticed that I included non-cross streets in my Richmond count as well. Taking those out leaves the Richmond line with 30 cross streets, also. So, yes, my numbers still "have a firm basis", either way you wish to count them.

For the University line i don't have enough data to determine which streets will be closed. All i know is METRO VP John Sedlak said 85% will remain open along the line. Are these all on richmond or on another part of the line? i just don't have definitive data to determine how many streets will cross Richmond.

Note: "every time I ride the train" and "the LRT in front of my office" are probably not the same either...unless you ride the train 10 or 12 times a day.

?

I'm really not trying to convince you or AftonAg of anything. This is a discussion board, not METRO's boardroom. However, I do feel the urge to correct misstatements when I see them...not for your benefit, but for others on the board who may be reading. Further, I posted the results of my math equation because I thought others might enjoy the results. I'm sorry if you took that as a confrontation. You are more than welcome to look for errors some more.

I agree that this is only a forum and that I also feel the urge to correct misstatements. I agree that this definitely isn't a confrontation but a discussion. I am just one of those that needs rationale based on fact.

[ricco67]

The main problem with that argument is that we're all dealing with theory comparing it with the experience and data we currently have with the Red Line.

Engineers in groups and individually will look at th same raw data and will come up with different results unless they're working to towards a consensus in the final numbers.

[musicman]

Let's talk about real commutes, like people who live in Midtown and work in the TMC or Downtown. Or people who live along the rail line south of the TMC who work in the TMC or Downtown. Or people who live near the current MetroRail line who can transfer to it with a 5-10 minute bus ride or short walk. Or people who live near the Fannin South Park and Ride and work Downtown. For many of these individuals MetroRail works because it gets them to their destination in a reasonable amount of time with less hassle than driving. I know this for a fact. I live near the MetroRail line and can reach it in less than 10 minutes using a Metro bus that stops right by my front door. Taking Metro downtown with this routing takes me about 30-40 minutes. This is maybe 10 minutes longer than what it would take for me to drive downtown and find a parking place. However, I'm willing to trade 10 minutes of my time for what is usually a more relaxing and pleasant trip, and also a trip that is cheaper than driving.

I agree and like i said earlier, the rail does service some commuters. But does it justify spending such a large amount for relatively few people? Ultimately that is the question for me. I actually am for spending MORE money if we're going to get a system that will actually gain NEW riders that DON"T LIVE NEAR OR ALONG the line.

[nmainguy]

Reread tierwestas post. "She said he had received over 2,000 letters and 97% were against rail. When the count was 2,000 it was 90% against, the count is now over 2,000.

I left the word "over" out of the quote from Culberson's letter. It should have read "over 2000 letters, emails, phone calls and petition signatures" opposed rail on Richmond.

That statement is how many weeks old now?

The statement is dated August 1, 2006. It is 4 days old. You clearly have not read it. Aren't you the slightest bit curious what the statement says?

You jumped to the conclusion about Culberson's office "they can't even keep their lies straight."

As you can see, I jumped to no conclusion. Culberson's statement quotes one set of numbers and the person at the other end of tierwestah's phone call quoted different numbers. Is it so hard for Culberson's people to have a copy of the statement in front of them so at least they keep their lies straight?

[VelvetJ]

I agree and like i said earlier, the rail does service some commuters. But does it justify spending such a large amount for relatively few people? Ultimately that is the question for me. I actually am for spending MORE money if we're going to get a system that will actually gain NEW riders that DON"T LIVE NEAR OR ALONG the line.

Musicman, this actually has nothing to do with your conversation with ssullivan, I just have a couple of questions stemming from your above words.

Does the wants of a relatively few amount of people justify the abandonment of the most logistical cost effective route for Metro to take? Are the residents of AO and a Congressman who has placed his own political agenda ahead of what is best for the entire region justified in blocking that route, basically in a nutshell, because they don't want to be inconvenienced?

I also find it interesting that you are actually willing to spend more money for what makes the most sense for Houston in terms of gaining riders. I'm not sure if you are a overall rail supporter or not but one of the major factors in rail opponents being against rail in Houston from the very start was due to the cost. Years ago there were many rail proponents that wanted to spend the money to do what was best for Houston instead of doing was the cheapest or what was the most convenient to them personally. There were many citizens who wanted a aggressive rail plan but were shot down due to cost. Now I read you are willing to pay for a effective system.

Today I also read in the editorial section of the Chronicle a reader expressing support for John Culberson for "having a spine" by opposing a flawed Metropolitian Transit Authority program because it does not have any long term plans to move people from one side of the city to the other, from the airports to the central city, and to able to move people from their homes to reduce congestion and pollution. What the reader did not know was many Houstonians wanted those things but again, they were deemed too expensive and one of the people that blocked such routes was the very man he is giving kudos to in the Chronicle. Even on my very first ride on the Metro Train, there was a woman behind me complaining that the train was a waste of tax payer money because "it doesn't even go to the airport". and she seemed to have no idea that the reason it doesn't and won't anytime soon is basically because of 2 local politicians with their own personal agendas.

Musicman I must say you are a interesting Houstonian. You want what is best for Houston but most importantly, you are actually willing to pay for what is best for Houston. Interesting.

Edited August 5, 2006 by VelvetJ

[ssullivan]

I agree and like i said earlier, the rail does service some commuters. But does it justify spending such a large amount for relatively few people? Ultimately that is the question for me. I actually am for spending MORE money if we're going to get a system that will actually gain NEW riders that DON"T LIVE NEAR OR ALONG the line.

Then give an example of a system that mostly serves people who don't live near or along it. I can't think of one. Even Metro's current Park and Ride service primarily serves people who live near the park and ride lots.

And why are new riders who don't live near or along the line so important? What about new riders who do live near and along the line? Don't they count for something as well?

[musicman]

Does the wants of a relatively few amount of people justify the abandonment of the most logistical cost effective route for Metro to take? Are the residents of AO and a Congressman who has placed his own political agenda ahead of what is best for the entire region justified in blocking that route, basically in a nutshell, because they don't want to be inconvenienced?

Unfortunately, most people in Houston don't care about local issues. This forum is one place where people do care and that is why we are all here. I've learned many things on this forum as have you. There are approximately as many people who are for the METRO Solutions projects as are against. That is why the 2nd vote was 52 to 48. So to say that relatively few people are against METRO solutions is wrong. The residents of afton oaks and congressman culbertson aren't the only ones against the project. They have been the most vocal however. Your first question regarding most cost effective route is hard to answer because rail isn't the most cost effective use of monies in my opinion. Our population density is one thing that is working against us.

I also find it interesting that you are actually willing to spend more money for what makes the most sense for Houston in terms of gaining riders. I'm not sure if you are a overall rail supporter or not but one of the major factors in rail opponents being against rail in Houston from the very start was due to the cost. Years ago there were many rail proponents that wanted to spend the money to do what was best for Houston instead of doing was the cheapest or what was the most convenient to them personally. There were many citizens who wanted a aggressive rail plan but were shot down due to cost. Now I read you are willing to pay for a effective system.

I agree that costs for rail are high but I feel that a well designed system can benefit the City. In my personal life i will spend more as well if I feel I"m getting or making a better product. I am definitely not a Walmart shopper. i don't automatically buy the cheapest thing at the store but there are many people who do. I actually do use the METRO system several times a week when i have extra time....including the bus system.

I'm assuming that years ago you're talking the late 80's Kathy Whitmire era. For the last week i've read how the Republicans are against mass transit, etc. I guess everyone forgets that Democrat, ex-Mayor Bob Lanier was just as against light rail as Tom DeLay. Ms. Whitmire was a popular Mayor and when she brought up the building of a rail system that ended up being her downfall. I believe Bob was head of METRO at the time and Kathy ousted him from the position for siding against rail. Bob then retailiated and ultimatedly won the Mayor position himself and Kathy disappeared from town. Then Mayor Bob spent much of METRO's cash on hand to fix city streets so that METRO couldn't not build the rail system outright. He was just as detrimental to light rail as Tom Delay. Don't forget Walter Mischer either. He was probably Houston's most powerful developer,banker,etc and was against rail and supported candidates who were also against it.

I"ve ALWAYS been willing to pay for an effective system. That isn't a recent change in my beliefs. At the same time, having no waste is just as important.

Today I also read in the editorial section of the Chronicle a reader expressing support for John Culberson for "having a spine" by opposing a flawed Metropolitian Transit Authority program because it does not have any long term plans to move people from one side of the city to the other, from the airports to the central city, and to able to move people from their homes to reduce congestion and pollution. What the reader did not know was many Houstonians wanted those things but again, they were deemed too expensive and one of the people that blocked such routes was the very man he is giving kudos to in the Chronicle. Even on my very first ride on the Metro Train, there was a woman behind me complaining that the train was a waste of tax payer money because "it doesn't even go to the airport". and she seemed to have no idea that the reason it doesn't and won't anytime soon is basically because of 2 local politicians with their own personal agendas.

I read the same editorial this morning and kind of chuckled. I heard the same comment this past Tuesday at a National Night Out. He said, it should at least get you to the airport. I've known him for at least 15 yrs. He's a really quiet person and isn't vocal like we are here, but when it's time to vote, he will vote early and in this instance he did vote against the system for the simple reason that it didn't go the the airport. Then you mentioned a lady you met during the inaugural train ride who said the same thing. Believe it or not there are many people who also think like this. Go work an election sometime. I was a precinct chair for 3 or 4 yrs and was always appalled at how people voted. They had no idea who or what they were voting for but they had the right to vote so they did. THIS KILLS ME! We need educated voters otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to vote!

Musicman I must say you are a interesting Houstonian. You want what is best for Houston but most importantly, you are actually willing to pay for what is best for Houston. Interesting.

I definitely want what is best for Houston, my hometown. I've lived here 39 yrs, won't move and will be buried here. I get involved with City issues as well. Many Councilmembers know me by my first name because i am vocal and regularly speak before Council. I volunteer for many civic organizations as well. I do this because i believe so strongly in Houston and various causes.

Edited August 6, 2006 by musicman

[templehouston]

Unfortunately, most people in Houston don't care about local issues. This forum is one place where people do care and that is why we are all here. I've learned many things on this forum as have you. There are approximately as many people who are for the METRO Solutions projects as are against. That is why the 2nd vote was 52 to 48. So to say that relatively few people are against METRO solutions is wrong. The residents of afton oaks and congressman culbertson aren't the only ones against the project. They have been the most vocal however. Your first question regarding most cost effective route is hard to answer because rail isn't the most cost effective use of monies in my opinion. Our population density is one thing that is working against us.

I agree that costs for rail are high but I feel that a well designed system can benefit the City. In my personal life i will spend more as well if I feel I"m getting or making a better product. I am definitely not a Walmart shopper. i don't automatically buy the cheapest thing at the store but there are many people who do. I actually do use the METRO system several times a week when i have extra time....including the bus system.

I'm assuming that years ago you're talking the late 80's Kathy Whitmire era. For the last week i've read how the Republicans are against mass transit, etc. I guess everyone forgets that Democrat, ex-Mayor Bob Lanier was just as against light rail as Tom DeLay. Ms. Whitmire was a popular Mayor and when she brought up the building of a rail system that ended up being her downfall. I believe Bob was head of METRO at the time and Kathy ousted him from the position for siding against rail. Bob then retailiated and ultimatedly won the Mayor position himself and Kathy disappeared from town. Then Mayor Bob spent much of METRO's cash on hand to fix city streets so that METRO couldn't not build the rail system outright. He was just as detrimental to light rail as Tom Delay. Don't forget Walter Mischer either. He was probably Houston's most powerful developer,banker,etc and was against rail and supported candidates who were also against it.

I"ve ALWAYS been willing to pay for an effective system. That isn't a recent change in my beliefs. At the same time, having no waste is just as important.

I read the same editorial this morning and kind of chuckled. I heard the same comment this past Tuesday at a National Night Out. He said, it should at least get you to the airport. I've known him for at least 15 yrs. He's a really quiet person and isn't vocal like we are here, but when it's time to vote, he will vote early and in this instance he did vote against the system for the simple reason that it didn't go the the airport. Then you mentioned a lady you met during the inaugural train ride who said the same thing. Believe it or not there are many people who also think like this. Go work an election sometime. I was a precinct chair for 3 or 4 yrs and was always appalled at how people voted. They had no idea who or what they were voting for but they had the right to vote so they did. THIS KILLS ME! We need educated voters otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to vote!

I definitely want what is best for Houston, my hometown. I've lived here 39 yrs, won't move and will be buried here. I get involved with City issues as well. Many Councilmembers know me by my first name because i am vocal and regularly speak before Council. I volunteer for many civic organizations as well. I do this because i believe so strongly in Houston and various causes.

Forgive me for asking what may prove to be an ignorant question, but what would be the impact on Culberson's "input" on Metro funding if the Republicans lose control of the House in the next election? Am I correct that he has been able to inject himself into Metro planning because he sits on the Appropriations Committee and the Republicans control the committee (and the House)?

[musicman]

Then give an example of a system that mostly serves people who don't live near or along it. I can't think of one. Even Metro's current Park and Ride service primarily serves people who live near the park and ride lots.

And why are new riders who don't live near or along the line so important? What about new riders who do live near and along the line? Don't they count for something as well?

When I used the word near, i meant within walking distance. The bus stop is about a block from my house now so i'm more apt to utilize the bus when i can because it is within walking distance. I don't have bus-phobia either. Similarly for a train station, I would be more apt to use it if it was within walking distance. Park and ride is more for those who live in the general area not within walking distance.

For me, new riders who don't live near or along the line are important because my goal is to get people out of their cars for at least part of their commute if at all possible (they don't have easy access to METRO services now either). This is would be a new rider in my book and would be justification for building a new line. I believe you said you took the bus to work before and after the train was built, you took the bus and transferred to the train to get to your final destination. I wouldn't consider you a new rider. There are many that could use the current bus service now (with only a minimal increase in travel time) but quite frankly are afraid to ride the bus or be seen riding the bus. It is this bus-phobia mentality that hurts us and METRO. Building the light rail system to get someone with bus-phobia to ride METRO is not enough justification in my book when accessible service already exists nearby.

As an aside, I think METRO could gain additional riders by adding bike racks to buses sooner. I know i would utilize this.

Edited August 6, 2006 by musicman

[GovernorAggie]

Just a couple things to say about issues that kinda irritate me when people complain about LRT.

1. The Airports. It's my understanding that airport lines don't work to well numberwise, and are hardly ever the first lines to be built. They did it in Minneapolis, but the airport in en route between Downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America. Also, those who feel so strongly about airport connecting rail service must be current bus riders to the airport? At least that's what I would assume. If people don't really take the bus to the airports, then what would suddenly get them to take a train.

Musicman, your comments about educated voters and the person you know who voted against METRO Solutions b/c of no airport access is interesting...because the same Red Line downtown is supposed to be eventually extended to IAH, and the Southeast Line would eventually be connected to Hobby. Granted, those connections won't be in operation until 2020 or so, but hey, all of the Grand Parkway won't be done until about that time, but those who know about it don't seem to mind the 14-year wait--in fact they eagerly await it.

Let's also not forget that (IIRC) heavily transit-friendly San Francisco just relatively recently opened a BART extension to their airport. This was not BART's first or second line.

2. Speed of travel. Can a pvt. car go faster that LRT? Sure. But then pvt. cars have other issue to deal with, such as reliability of travel routes, etc. People continue to want rail service to the suburbs, and that's great, but you need a beefed-up inner core system before you do that. Otherwise, you would have a situation like a freeway that went downtown and had one exit with no other street connected to it. What are you gonna do there? You need a base framework.

Would it be better to have a great subway system here? Definitely. A system that would get you from Katy to downtown in 15-20 minutes would be great, but Houston is kinda building what it can. And that, IMHO, goes back to the Chicken Little Syndrome that so many in Houston have. I think that the local great visionaries such as Hofheinz would give this project, as a civic project, a great shot in the arm.

If it helps, take the "L" in LRT and let it stand for "local" instead of "light", and then maybe the notion that it has to make a trip in 1/2 the time of a car can fade some.

Edited August 6, 2006 by GovernorAggie

[musicman]

Just a couple things to say about issues that kinda irritate me when people complain about LRT.

1. The Airports. It's my understanding that airport lines don't work to well numberwise, and are hardly ever the first lines to be built. They did it in Minneapolis, but the airport in en route between Downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America. Also, those who feel so strongly about airport connecting rail service must be current bus riders to the airport? At least that's what I would assume. If people don't really take the bus to the airports, then what would suddenly get them to take a train.

Musicman, your comments about educated voters and the person you know who voted against METRO Solutions b/c of no airport access is interesting...because the same Red Line downtown is supposed to be eventually extended to IAH, and the Southeast Line would eventually be connected to Hobby. Granted, those connections won't be in operation until 2020 or so, but hey, all of the Grand Parkway won't be done until about that time, but those who know about it don't seem to mind the 14-year wait--in fact they eagerly await it.

I know people here who use the bus regularly to the airport. As a result, i've actually used it twice in the past 6 months or so. I took the bus from my house and then caught the bus downtown. I would say that it was about 80% full as it left downtown during afternoon hrs. I must add though that stops were taken from the Greenspoint area to IAH to maximize ridership.

I do hope that METRO does built light rail in se houston. But I'm concerned that METRO itself is changing its tune. When they made the announcement that the east side rail will be BRT instead I definitely was surprised and irritated. It just made me think less of the organization. Then they came out with the portion from UH to Wheeler. I don't believe that segment was on the ballot. It just makes me think, why have the election if METRO's going to propose different things than were voted on. Yes, I believe METRO called the routes rapid transit corridors, but METRO spokespersons were sure using the phrase light rail when I attended the METRO info sessions prior to the election.

Let's also not forget that (IIRC) heavily transit-friendly San Francisco just relatively recently opened a BART extension to their airport. This was not BART's first or second line.

2. Speed of travel. Can a pvt. car go faster that LRT? Sure. But then pvt. cars have other issue to deal with, such as reliability of travel routes, etc. People continue to want rail service to the suburbs, and that's great, but you need a beefed-up inner core system before you do that. Otherwise, you would have a situation like a freeway that went downtown and had one exit with no other street connected to it. What are you gonna do there? You need a base framework.

Comparing BART vs. our system is difficult for me to do. BART to me is something that I prefer because it is commuter oriented vs. providing local service. BART connects with buses, cable cars, etc which provide the local service. To be honest, I haven't ridden BART since the mid-90's but that's how i remember it operating.

Yes people continue to want service to the burbs and ultimately that is what i want as well....BUT with a reasonable travel time so that people would be inclined to use it. I personally am against having as many stops in order to lessen travel times. For instance, I personally wouldn't have included the Bell Station in our system to cut down on travel time. I rode St. Louis' system a few yrs ago and I thought it was too slow to provide real commuter relief because of the number of stops.

Would it be better to have a great subway system here? Definitely. A system that would get you from Katy to downtown in 15-20 minutes would be great, but Houston is kinda building what it can. And that, IMHO, goes back to the Chicken Little Syndrome that so many in Houston have. I think that the local great visionaries such as Hofheinz would give this project, as a civic project, a great shot in the arm.

If it helps, take the "L" in LRT and let it stand for "local" instead of "light", and then maybe the notion that it has to make a trip in 1/2 the time of a car can fade some.

I think the phrase "Houston is kinda building what it can" is what i have the most heartache over. For me, it implies a 2nd rate system with little thought behind it. I personally don't want to spend a large amount of money on a 2nd rate system. I would be ecstatic if the trip from the fannin south station to UHD was 20 minutes because there would be a clear advantage over the buses that served the route prior to LRT construction. This clear advantage is what I would like to see along the University route as well. I'm for leaving the L as "light" vs. "local" cause "local" just results in an expensive bus route that doesn't save much travel time over the buses it replaced. If I were head of METRO, I would shoot for a 20 min travel time from the loop to Downtown which I feel is a realistic goal.

Edited August 6, 2006 by musicman

[Houstonian in Iraq]

I was thinking. How hard would it be to put the Richmond rail to a city wide vote? Now that we have specific routes in mind, why not let the city (the people who are paying for it and will use it) vote on the best route? This way there is no confusion on what the people want and what Metro will do

[nmainguy]

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4097233.html

Houston City Councilwoman Ada Edwards said Saturday she was angered to hear of a suggestion that Metro explore a new route to the University light rail line that would mean the elimination of 50-75 homes in her district.

What a relief it must be for AO that their pristine environment might finally be preserved at the expense of their lessers. Champagne and caviar all around!

I was thinking. How hard would it be to put the Richmond rail to a city wide vote? Now that we have specific routes in mind, why not let the city (the people who are paying for it and will use it) vote on the best route? This way there is no confusion on what the people want and what Metro will do

We've already voted for an E-W line. Some are just confused what they voted against. How long do these people need coddling?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I was thinking. How hard would it be to put the Richmond rail to a city wide vote? Now that we have specific routes in mind, why not let the city (the people who are paying for it and will use it) vote on the best route? This way there is no confusion on what the people want and what Metro will do

That was already done when the rail voting took place. I see no need to further hold up progress trying to belay the stupid and backward jackassed, BS fears of a small group of whiners. Put the rail on Richmond and get on with the positive progress of mobility of the system. If the AO people dont like it, tough. Non of them will be losing thier homes and property. Those in the AO crowd that cant get exceedingly excited about rail on Richmond should try pissing on a spark plug. That may be the catalist to kill thier "me and my" method of thinking and move onto the "greater good" for the city as a whole.