Congressman Ted Poe wants to know if you want the Richmond Rail built

No they shouldn't... especially when the land value goes up when the construction is finally done. And as I said before, there will be inevitable construction along all these streets eventually one day (for road improvements)... and they can't completely shut down these streets like they did with the original line, so traffic/businesses will still be frequented.

A highland-village/galleria combo would certainly be attractive to pedestrians... and alleviate some of the parking concerns currently at HV.

The inner loop is the only possible "walkable" area of Houston, and deserves some sort of easy mobility option.

 

And for those who say that light rail in Houston is a "waste of money," Houston has actually saved money by building the Main Street line. METRO is paying less to transport the 40,000 daily riders than they would if they traveled by bus, and even if you include the $300 million in capital costs, they have spent less over the 9+ years its been in operation.

When placed strategically, light rail and other forms of rail will save the transit agency lots of money to transport more passengers at a cheaper price per passenger.

However, if built in the wrong areas, the transit agency loses money. Such examples are some of the Dallas lines, and the Austin, TX commuter rail line. Those are poor examples of rail and should not be followed.

 

Houston should at least implement some commuter lines from downtown to Clear lake to Galveston. The track is already there.

Pretty sure people would make use of it, especially the thousands who make their commute between those three locations.

Being on the island, I'd much rather train it to see an Astros/Rockets game, vs. sitting in endless I-45 traffic both ways, which always bottlenecks every day no matter what the time, accidents or not.

 

I would LOVE to see this analysis.

Buses used to service where the main st rain line goes today. What I would like to see is:
1) Incremental passengers along this corridor vs. the number of bus riders previously
2) The total cost of construction of the rail line
3) The total construction cost per incremental rider on the rail vs. the bus (ideally plus all the pain the businesses along the rail line endured due to the construction period)
4) The operational cost difference between transporting a passenger on rail vs. a bus

With that information we can really understand whether this was a good financial decision.

 

I'd like to know what the value of the land alongside the rail is now compared to what it was before it was built.

 

Not so much the value of the land, as that would only benefit the land owners (unless you're into subsidizing those folks), but rather the increased tax revenues coming from any increase in value or increased business activity along the corridor leading to increased city taxes received. That is a fair point.

 

Well property value going up as a whole is good for the economy... and all those business owners who suffered temporarily should be benefiting from the way things are now.

 

The rail will take a chunk of property from owners through imminent domain, I'd also like to see a study that shows property value before and after the rail along main street

 

Ted Poe sucks.

that is all

 

Some... not as bad as some of the stadium deals over the years.

Also didn't hear much about the homes torn down for the latest line... but heard plenty about businesses along main that had a set-back or 6 months during construction, but are now doing quite well if not better.

 

Sweet that the exact same issues - Ashby Highrise, Richmond rail line - that had signs all over the streets 7 years ago when I left the area are still being debated.

 

Well, I don't have time to do it now but a few months ago I did do something like this for many rail projects in different cities.

If you go to the NTD (National Transit Database) there you can go and find different data tables detailing "cost per rider" numbers.

For example, in Houston, METRO pays over $4 every time a rider gets on a bus. On the contrary, they only pay a little over $1 when someone gets on the rail. Of course, you'd have to take individual routes (preferably the Main Street route before the rail went in) and analyze those numbers. Plus you have to factor in the added riders on the corridor (around 20,000 of the boardings are new transit riders) and go from there. It's an interesting analysis.

 

I have never understood some people's wet-dream about rail, and fortunately never will. Commuter rail, I think, could work in areas where rail lines already exist, like Clear Lake.