Well, if you ignore all the little red dashy line looking things (labelled as "future rail extensions" in the map legend) then he's absolutely correct.
The rail extension plan does not extend to Pearland, Sugarland, Katy, Jersey Village, Tomball, The Woodlands, or Kingwood (our primary sources of traffic congestion). You'll notice on the map that some of those areas are only listed as "future rail extensions". If we were to create a plan today to extend to those subdivisions, it would be at least ten years before we would even begin construction on those lines. -- droxford
Yeah, that was my point. And you're right about the ground Houston lies on. I don't know what it is, but its very soft and it shifts around. That's why homes here have foundation problems.
you want rail to spring from the ground overnight? this wouldn't be an issue today if city managers and voters had any foresight 20-50 years ago of course it is going to take time to build the complete system when it is complete, there will be lines running from Tomball, Woodlands, Kingwood, Katy etc etc..I still don't understand your point, that the rail to those areas won't be done til the future? well duh...that is why the rail bill also included expanding the existing bus system
My point is... The light rail should not have been created. The extension plan should not have passed. Instead, we should have created a plan that started with one line moving from a suburb to downtown. Then do it with another suburb, and so forth. Such a plan would immediately begin to address Houston's primary traffic problems. Yes, it will drop people off downtown without a car or downtown rail. But we have downtown trollies (free), an underground tunnel system, and our downtown just isn't big enough to need a train to move from one side to the other. The current rail does not address our primary traffic needs. The extension plan doesn't either. Those dashed lines on the map going out to the suburbs indicate nothing more than "maybe we'll come up with a plan to build a rail out there someday." That means nothing. That's not a plan. We've been able to make that blank statement for the past 100 years. -- droxford
droxford, I'm pretty sure the red lines, dots or sans, means that rail will be built there. The yellow lines are the ones that are still in question. Therefore, in the future, there definitely will be rail to the Woodlands, Katy, Kingwood, Tomball, Clear Lake and Westpark.
Choose a suburb. Now watch as all the other suburbs revolt and VOTE DOWN THE PLAN. That would clearly happen. In fact, I believe your idea was discussed and there was no consensus on which one to start with. You may be able to walk 15 minutes across downtown, but I know many people who won't even walk 3 blocks. The same is true of people I know in NYC. And the dashed lines, I believe, are part of the Metro Plan which details the 25 year plan. I think the funding that passed is for THIS plan.
Thanks. I just seemed that since they separated them out into different colors, then the red dotted lines had been voted on and the yellow had not. The "pending feasibility" threw me off.
We did. The A&M study looked at our system and only made minor suggestions. They didn't have any major recommendations. At the same time, it would be silly to ignore other systems that are already in place. Sorry if I made a gramatical error. My point is that downtown would be torn up regardless of light rail. We were reconstructing all our streets. Right now we are rebuilding Smith St. (I beleive) but that doesn't have anything to do w/ rail. So it doesn't hold much water to blame light-rail for the construction woes. I know. In fact it was your statement jarred me. But many critics often take that stance as demonstration of one of the problems. I was just reiterating your point. Thanks for reminding me. Regardless, taking such a stance is classic spin. What is your point? They are building more lines. You can't do it all at once. You want to talk suburbs? Sugar Land: The City of Sugarland is actively working to faciliate a commuter line out there. That is likely to happen relatively quick because planning for this began several years ago. Jersey Village: There is another proposed commuter line that Bill White endorses and even Judge Eckles. It falls outside of normal Metro funding channels, I beleive, so I expect it to be escalated by White. Katy: It was suggested to planners to include a Light Rail corridor in the plan. Remember, Tom Delay was a proponant of the Katy freeway plan. That was rejected because they would rather push through their existing plan. Also, somebody decided to rip up the existing normal tracks out that way. It isn't for lack of effort on Metro's behalf so no love loss. Sorry. Don't vote for Delay next time. But it'll happen in time anyway because there is a need. Woodlands & Tomball: One of the first lines are going up I-45 which they can utilize. But I'm sorry, they are way the hell out there. The big sell for these places are...you can get away from the city. Well congrats...mission accomplished. I'm not interested in spending my tax money to serve people whose objective it was to get away from me. Kingwood: They are getting shafted. But w/ enough money, we could service I-59 too and we eventually will. But again, these people elected to move far far away from the city. As the light-rail gets built, there will be more viable options to live closer to the city. Development will happen and there will be more desirable and diverse choices closer in. If you chose to live way outside the city, then you have the benfits & burdons of doing so. They will eventually build options to distant suburbs but that can't happen overnight. You have to build the system inside out. Besides, you already have bus service out to these places. Why don't you use that?
One the map.,, The solid red line with black outline inidcates the Rail that has already been built. The other solid red lines indicated the rail lines that are going to be built under the current extension plan which was passed. The dashed red lines indicated areas where rail may be built sometime in the distant future (if we decide to). That means nothing. There is no plan in place to build rail to those suburbs. Do not be deceived by the map. Just because they put dashed lines on the map does not mean that we have created a plan to build rail there - no such plan exists. And, by distant future, I mean we won't even begin to talk about building a plan to develop a rail to those areas until at least 2020. How did I come up with that number? let's look at the current extension calendar. As you can see construction on these four future rail extension segments will begin one each year (North begins in 2006, Southeast begins in 2007, Harrissburg begins in 2008, and Westpark begins in 2009. Well, that only covers about 57% of the rail for that plan. Following that timeframe, the final phases of the current rail extenation won't begin construction until around 2013 (and that's being very conservative - the extension plan is currently slated to finish in 2020). Then, maybe, we might discuss creating a plan, voting on it and making it happen. That'll be decades from now (if it happens at all). -- droxford
So Droxford, I'm not hearing that you are complaining that you don't want it...just that it will take too long. I happen to agree with you. I don't understand why it takes so long. The politics of the matter where that it is too expensive. We could build it faster if Tom Delay wasn't so bent out of shape about the whole thing. So Metro had to scale back to make the figures look better. Politics is a b****. And often the compromise sucks for both sides. I still think we need it though. Honesty, I live near the existing line and I'm happy about it. I think it is perfect for me. It doesn't serve your suburb but it serves mine. And there are lots of other people like me.
This brings us full circle to my original statement which I will now modify : "It's evident that there was an extreme lack of forethought for safety concerns by those who designed the system." Ok - I understand you now. We agree on this. I'm not gonna use this excuse for my anti-light-rail beliefs. That's a cop-out. I have real reasons for being against the light rail. I'm glad to hear of those plans. My point (again) is that Houston/Metro should have placed a suburban rail plan as a much higher, immediate priority than a light rail plan which does not meet (and may never meet) our suburban traffic problems. (Ok, is that clear enough for you? Will you please stop asking "what's your point" ?!?!) Actually I live inner loop and work downtown. I drive 8 miles to work. My feelings about the rail aren't based on what's good for me. They're based on what's good for the city. -- droxford
I disagree. I have found that there are at least 17 other cities world-wide (8 in North America) that have similar systems. I have yet to hear what sets us apart from theirs. But I agree that an over-the-street solution would be better...also because it doesn't have to stop for lights. But I don't konw if that adds to the expense, I'm sure it would...which is why such a system was defeated under Kathy Whitemire. I can't disagree with you on that. Only thing I can say is that we were contrained by politics. Metro did their best to get something on the table that the voters could stomach. If they released figures for a city-wide comprehensive plan, it would have been defeated before we had a chance to vote on it. Then we would be left w/ nothing.
If you want to speed up the plan, please vote against Tom DeLay. Even though his special little suburb (pre-redistricting) voted for the plan, he was adamantly against it. I wonder if he's going for federal funds with 100% of his effort since he's opposed to the concept itself.
I think that, though other cities may have similar systems, we should have done a better job of assessing Houstion's safety needs. We're a different city and culture than Boston, etc. and we should have recognized some of the safety needs that are just now coming in to light. One of the first things I said, when I saw the downtown rail plan, was, "That's crazy - do you know how many idiots turn illegally left off Main? That train's gonna cream 'em." I made a similar statement about the Main St. swerve that exists at the base of the bridge that goes to UofH. And now, let me make another statement: prediction: we are a VERY short time away from the first fatality that will result from the train passing too close to pedestrian walk areas with no guardrails in place. This isn't a jab at the light rail. It's a jab at the poor safety standards we currently have. What bothers me isn't that the rail extension will take too long. hoestly, I think they've got an adequate timetable for that plan. What bothers be is the priority structure. Even if they were to cut the extension time frame in half... a suburban system should have been our first plan. -- droxford
droxford.. that is one thing that surprised me a little. when after hearing about people reaching out and touching the train during superbowl weekend... the no rail thing is a concern. I know cars etc pass by too and not that many people get ran over, but the thing is I'm worried about the little kids who may try and reach out to touch it. Grown adults should be smart enough not to. As for the car accidents. I can't blame the city for that because it's the drivers who are breaking the laws, but I guess we should have figured they would. I support the rail and I think it helps the cities image. The thing I kept hearing superbowl weekened was that is was neat by visitors and they all talked about wow i can't believe they just have an honor system (with regards to tickets).. they seemed to think it was cool that we trusted people somewhat
I tell ya what, buddy. If you walk up that bridge to UofH, the train passes 5 inches away from you with no rail of any kind. That's scary. There's no doubt the drivers are idiots, and I'm not saying that the city is entirely to blame. But they're just now figuring out that they should make 4-way red lights when the train goes through an intersections. They shoulda thought of that a long time ago. The "no left turn" signs should stand out a LOT more and maybe be illuminated. They should put one-way reflectors on the pavement on Main that reflect bright red when people are driving the wrong way. They should keep bright, clear, reflective paint on the street indicating where your lane moves as it swerves (to prevent people from accidentally driving out of their lane). I'm not even a safety pro and I can come up with simple ideas like this stuff (and more). I honestly believe that the current light rail does its job very well (and will be even better after safety tweaks). But it should not have been built. -- droxford
FYI, I just discovered where the alternate funding streams come from. The Houston-Galveston Area Council. On their website, they say that are actively working on commuter lines down 90 (Sugarland), 290 (Jersey Village) and 249 (Tomball). I have not heard a time table but I'd imagine Bill White is gonna push that plan. Metro is responsible for Harris County ONLY. If it crosses county lines, then they have to defer to HGAC. That explains why the plan doesn't encompass the suburbs. Regarding safty, it is a problem. But as Ventura once said, "you can't legislate stupidity." In reference to people suggesting to outlaw driving snow mobile's on thin ice after two guys drowned. It is really mean to say, but it is Darwinism at its finest. If you can't notice a gigantic train, maybe you shouldn't be on the road. I'm not suggesting anybody deserves to die but this country spends too much time blaming other people for their own problems. If everybody would take responsibility for your own actions, many things wouldn't be so damn expensive...like insurance...to cover people who don't see gigantic trains. The one elderly pedestrian man that was hit by Reliant last month blamed himself. He said it was a stupid thing to do to run accross the tracks. I'm glad he didn't die and I bet he won't do it again.
