People are opposed to it because the studies say rail lines don't cut down on traffic or pollution. So, the taxpayers spend billions of dollars on something that won't make any difference in the things you cite as being the reasons you want rail. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Ahh this is my kind of thread. Ok I love this stuff. as far as the debate about weather there should be a light rail or not, I am up inthe air. as far as weather there should be any time of rail I am Adament. There should be hard lines. ITS CALLED A SUBWAY!! sure it costs more than light rail, but it dosnt interfere with the current roads. it dosnt take up any space inthe city it actually makes aditional space under ground. In the down town area where alot of people work there should be a few statins as well as the major destinations. like arenas, major universities, and the airport. from this basic framework you than connect each of the major suburbs. the stations in the suburbs should be close to their respective "downtowns" as to allow patrons to go shoping in neihgbouring towns and do so by rail. also this centers the station near the largest possible number of that suburbs population. the further away from down town houston you go, you can bring the tracks back above ground in the median of major highways. this cuts cost, and since the subway goes in the same path as the roads it keeps ridership up. Also this serves the purpose of letting the people in their cars see the rail every day to remind them it is there as well as let them see it whizzing by at 100mph while they put along in gridlock, or even slowed traffic. closer to the downtown area the tracks can go back underground, or be breifly eleved to avoid major obsticles. Is this expensive??? sure it is, but it is more expensive for the city not to do this. Every option costs money PERIOD. not every option is adequit. slowing traffic slows the prodictivity of the city. stores dont get shipments, shipments cost more. highway maintenance is a budgetary nightmare. Subway allows the city to build vertically and will slow down the horizontal sprawl. living downtown is already becoming more invogue and will only become more popular. as far as the cost is concerned, drilling technology has made bajor leaps forward in recent years. drilling is much cheaper than ever before. there in now technology that allows engieers to "photograph"(its actually alot like an MRI) the soil compiosition and avoid rocks. this new information speeds the process which makes it safer and cheaper. my problemwith the light rail is that it seems to be Half assed. if you are gonna do something do it right. light rail is lke a bandaid. Subway is more like a hospital. look at NY our system is almost 100yrs old, and is still quite efficient. as far as the comment that northern cities are not as spread out all i gotta say id HA. I can drive from my house for 2.5 hours and just be leaving the metro area in NJ, or 3 hours and leave the metro area in westchester. and Im not talking about during traffic. well I hope Houston gets on it, because the more you wait the more it will end up costing you the citizens, as well as your children. If life were perfect we would all ride San Francisco's BART system. can I get an A-men from the congragation? peace ------------------ Hanta-Force Paintball http://www.hanta-force.com
Also if you want to check out how major civil transportation construction projects can make "you" wealthier while costing you an arm and a leg check out future Boston. this is a city that waithd too long so did LA. check the sight there is alot of info here, and alot of it is about buildinroads in the right place, which also reduces traffic. http://www.futureboston.org/index.htm oh and here is a thing about cities building subways(poorly built site, but tons of info) http://www.apsco.co.jp/abe/TeaRoom/future.htm ------------------ Hanta-Force Paintball http://www.hanta-force.com [This message has been edited by The Voice of Reason (edited January 23, 2001).]
I wanted to start this thread so I could gauge everyone's feelings about Light Rail here in Houston. As most of you probably already know, the proposal that is on the table calls for a line to be built from the Dome to U of H. Many people, including Councilman Rob Todd, have voiced stringent opposition: My questions to you are as such: Do you support the current proposal? Do you support the concept of light rail mass transit in Houston? Why or why not? How should the city solve it's increasing traffic problem? My take is as follows: Houston needs light rail. If the only way we solve traffic problems is to build more roads, we might as well put a noose around the neck of the city of Houston. Our air will never get better, and gridlock will continue. I do not agree with the location of the first light rail line, but we have to start somewhere, and once this line is built, I would expect to see branches built off of it that would enable workers who live in Sugarland, Katy, Kingwood & other outlying areas to take light rail to work everyday. We need mass transit that people will use. Our city's survival depends on it. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited January 23, 2001).]
Excellent take. That did not suck, IMO. I did not agree with the original route, but like you said, we have to start somewhere. Hell, we need to start anywhere. Houston needs this. Personally, I would like to see an elevated rail system to keep the roads that much more open, but beggars can't be choosers. I can't believe that some people sctually think the solution is to build more freakin' roads. How short-sighted is that? ------------------ "Salt Lake City, Utah. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany." --Olaju-Won Kenobi, to young jedi Steve (Fran)'chiseWalker [This message has been edited by Lynus302 (edited January 23, 2001).]
Couldn't have said it better Tex. I don't have a problem with the downtown to dome line because I know we need to move people for large events like the Olympics and the Super Bowl. I wish we'd have gotten it 20 years ago. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
1st get the d*mn Rail off the ground. It is idiotic to have it at street level. 2nd I for using the HOV lanes They only used during certain hours of the day and are only ONE WAY. Traveling downTown in a Car is more than just gas/insurance/etc it is PARKING [which can be upward of 100$ a month] I always though they should start the d*mn thing on the outskirts and work in [Or at least a pinwheel like situation] The problem is that this would be for Po' Folx and the Richies have the politicians' ear Rocket River ------------------
I dont think a motorized scooter thats not gonna tip will solve Houston's traffic problem. But, anyway, Metro is pretty good during rush hour. A bus every five minutes or so from downtown to the burbs. ------------------ We will ball.
I'd buy a subway system or even an elevated rail system (like in Chicago) before I spent money on a ground-level light rail project. Tenchi, do you take Metro from downtown? I'm just curious to hear from someone who actually has had the experience lately. It's been more than 3 years since I lived in Houston and I'll tell you that it never was anywhere close to as fast as you say. Sure there are alot of buses downtown, but they are going to alot of different places. Still it was easier getting downtown-to-burbs than getting cross-town. ------------------ I am Jack's utter lack of surprise. www.clutchtown.com
They estimated that an elevated train or monorail would be 5-10 times more expensive, and would incur a much higher ongoing expense. (also, consider all of the cross-walks / skybridges that would have to be relocated. Subway would be even more expensive, especially considering all of the downtown tunnels, water mains, sewer lines, storm drains, power lines, fiber optic cable, and everything else that would have to be re-located. A subway probably isn't feasable in Houston anyway because of the flat, low elevation, high water table, and high rainfall -- the thing would stay flooded. Anyone concerned about the plan should take a look at Metro's website for information. I was very skeptical, but became very impressed after looking over the plan -- especially having experienced the Medical Center shuttle system for four years. The two big questions seem to be the choice of the Main Street line, and why it doesn't go into the suburbs from the start. 1) They chose the main street line because it is one of the heaviest used bus and traffic corridors in the city. Hundreds of busses use it every day, and make up a good bit of the traffic during rush hour. The line would eliminate these busses, using one frequent, dependable line that would tie in with several transit centers. The fact that Houston isn't densely packed has been noted several times, but look at everything that is concentrated on this corridor: The (soon to be) South Park&Ride lot, Astroworld, Reliant Park -- with the Astrodome, Astrohall, Astroarena, Convention Center, and Stadium, the Texas Medical Center -- incuding Baylor College of Medicine and UT Health Science Center, Rice University, Hermann Park, The Zoo, Houston Museum of Natural Science (and all of the other adjacent museums and stuff), Downtown, the City administration buildings, Enron Field, Brown Convention Center, soon to be Convention Center Hotel, our Approved arena, HCC main campus, University of Houston, and the Downtown Transit Center. There's not much you could add to that list. The line will assist bus traffic through this area, and help provide parking to all of the sports venues, etc. It replaces shuttle bus service for something like 10,000 people in the Medical Center. It also will assist with park and ride service to all of these things, all of which lack parking. 2) They aren't starting with a line to the suburbs because they need the connectivity of this starter line to give a destination. If you ran a line from Sugarland, for example, it has to go somewhere people want to go -- yet people seem to think you could build a line from the suburbs straight to their work. Later lines will connect to this, so you can go from say Sugarland to any of the places on the list. It also gives relief immediately because of the extensive network of park&ride lines and HOV lanes. All of the park&rides will connect to the transit center, which takes people the rest of the way. They can then replace the suburban park&ride routes one at a time, as the budget allows. I hear what you are saying about connections, but there is no way to avoid that beyond having hundreds of bus routes. In other cities, people use connections (Remember, even in the World Series, people had to change trains to go from Yankee to Shea stadium). Having frequent trains which go to major hubs will make it not so bad -- especially since it will probably be one change. Check it out further. It's a good deal. ------------------ Stay Cool...
dc: Glad you looked at that. When I talked to Miller and Tollet, they sold me on it almost immediately. When they started rolling out the facts and figures and explaining the mobility issues, I was really blown away. It is much more complex and forward thinking than most of us would think. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Speaking of rail systems, I remembered seeing this article in Forbes about an elevated mass transit system and thought I would add it to the discussion: http://www.forbes.com/global/2000/1211/0325054a.html;$sessionid$KIBOKZQAAKHXDQFIAGWCFFQ I hope the link works (if not, go to Forbes.com and do a search for "monorail" and the story will come up). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
On that note. underground boring macheinery not only digs 24/7, but alsm now makes a continuous pour of slurry(the concrete like substance which strengthens tunnel wals and keeps water out. immediately after that the tubing sections are welded in, or poured in depending on the method chosen. you know half of Londons tube is under an old swamp, and nearly all of its lines are under the water table. as far as having to move all those different utilities, that is also not necessary. just dig deeper. most of that stuff lies less than 20' downSubways usueally dont start untill 50' down. As far as the cost, well 5-10 times would put it near the cost of new highways. new highways that dont need to be re-paved later, or widened. also the vehicles are not in the way of people or cars, and travel nearly twice as fast as the light rail. Its o, because Im not trying to take away from what you are saying, but rather more concerned that subways are overlooked. go on Houston, get onwith your mass transit self later ------------------ Hanta-Force Paintball http://www.hanta-force.com
Living in Houston for almost all of my life, I think mass transit is needed. Rail is now the only option left and it needs to be high speed. Other than the people that use buses now the only drawing point I see to get people to abandon their cars is if the rail gets Joe Schmoe from point A to B faster than his car can. Also, the rail lines would have to complement, not replace the current roads, and go to all of the major points in the Houston Metroplex. Maybe 30 years from now there could be High Speed lines connecting Houston, to DFW, SA, Austin, Galveston, Corpus, Waco, & College-Station. Imagine a summer weekend in the Houston Metro area. Living in The Woodlands a group of people could get on the rail and in half the time get to Galveston, spend the day having fun at the beach, and then get back on the rail at 9 O'clock to get back home an hour or so later. Rob ------------------ Producer at SportsRadio 1340 KKAM visit me online at www.robertsnyder.net 2000 Sportscaster of the Year @ KTXT-FM, Lubbock
Well unless you going right up the street I always account 2 hours travel time to whereever I'm going. [Esp if you have to change busses] Rocket River ------------------
Finally, an editorial in the Houston Chronicle that I can agree with. Check it out...rmt Backtracking: Lawsuit to thwart rail line is costly and wrong How ironic that, like two trains passing in the night, the little Luddite league of opponents of a light-rail line in Houston are suing to derail the plan at the very moment that more than 300 mayors of cities across the country are in Washington lobbying President Bush to make passenger rail a top national priority to relieve traffic congestion and spur economic development. Cities like Nashville, of all places, are mapping out strategies to combine light rail and commuter rail lines into their mobility mix. It's astonishing. Locally, the train going backward is a lawsuit filed by City Councilman Rob Todd, in cahoots with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation. Todd won a temporary restraining order against the city of Houston's agreement to let the Metropolitan Transit Authority lay a $300 million, 7.5-mile light-rail line down Main Street from downtown to the Reliant Astrodome. First things first. State District Judge Tony Lindsay, who issued the restraining order, should grant a motion filed by Metro and recuse herself from the case. Todd, a plaintiff in the case, once worked as Lindsay's law clerk. The judge, who has said she regards Todd as a family member, issued the restraining order without valid proof of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. Aside from the questionable legal logic behind her order, Lindsay is married to state Sen. Jon Lindsay, who has been a high-powered, high-profile opponent of the rail plan and has filed legislation to wrest control of the transit agency from the city. This is not a question of Judge Lindsay's integrity or ability to form political opinions independent from those of her spouse. It is a question of placing judicial impartiality above even the remote suspicion or appearance of a conflict of interest. The law says grounds for recusal are constituted when a judge's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Questions in this instance are not unreasonable. Whether Lindsay keeps the case or it is passed to another judge, a swift ruling on behalf of the transit agency is in order. Todd claims Metro should be treated like any other franchise holder using city real estate and rights of way. He further claims that the city charter requires a referendum if a petition is submitted with at least 500 voters' signatures. Leave aside that not one of Todd's colleagues on City Council has joined in his interpretations. A major weakness of his case can be seen in his own press release, which quotes his lawyer, Clayton Trotter: "The government cannot allow the use of public property for indefinite periods without a vote by the people." Really? Did anyone vote on whether freeways could cross city rights of way? Did voters approve the use of city streets by Metro buses? Would Trotter's objections be satisfied if council granted Metro permission to use the Main Street Corridor for a definite time period, like 99 years? What about the major construction Metro is performing on city streets all over Houston? What about the many bus shelters erected by Metro? Do we need to stop and vote on each of those projects? And, if the judge rules that is the law, would that not require cities such as Dallas and San Antonio and their transit agencies to comply with this new interpretation of law? Metro is neither a railroad nor a trolley "company" seeking a commercial franchise. It is a government agency. If this region's government agencies cannot work together to enhance mobility without having every agreement and cooperative project subject to a vote, then state law is in a bind. Councilman Todd says he's not against rail per se. He says he sees more value in a commuter rail line into his Clear Lake council district. We take him at his word, though it is hard to understand his failure to see the light-rail line as a start on a broader system that should include commuter rail into many segments of the Metro service area, including Clear Lake. Meanwhile, the lawsuit will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in unwanted delays to the light-rail project. And investors and developers who are trying to make decisions about economic development projects along the rail line -- one of the main justifications for the rail -- are left in an expensive lurch while the case is decided. Questions also arise concerning mobility in the Texas Medical Center and Reliant Park area, where officials had hoped to have the rail line operating in time for Houston's hosting of the Super Bowl in 2004. One Metro board member has called the lawsuit "frivolous and somewhat manipulative." It seems a fair estimation. If Todd's interpretation of the law turns out to be faulty and his suit to have no merit before impartial judges, Todd -- and his San Antonio-based cohorts -- will have much to answer for. At least Todd has promised to end his opposition to the project if his lawsuit fails or if the city holds a vote. Houstonians need to hold Todd to his word. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
I absolutely detest Rob Todd. That guy is a scourge on the city council. I don't care about his conservative views or the fact he attempted to once ban Marilyn Manson from playing at the Aerial Theater. I've actually agreed with some of his opinions on things like cable deregulation. But, this guy just kills me. He is staunchly anti-tax yet he bills the taxpayers for his $1,000 per month cell phone bill of which most are personal calls. Oh, and did I mention that the vast majority of those calls went to his best friend and fellow city councilman Bert Keller's wife who Todd is having an affair with? The two began their affair long before she and Keller were separated and Todd still campaigns on his "family values" platform. This is the same guy that once got pulled over for suspicion of DUI with Keller in the car. They were both wearing togas and had just pulled out of a local "gentleman's club". ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
