While I am really hesitant to use Metro bus to get to work, I would consider using the light rail, especially if it were a lot faster. With Metro buses you still run the risk of getting stuck in traffic, and I can do that myself thank you very much.
one significant problem is that it won't be faster. top speeds are not very impressive for light rail. it would take a long time, with stops, to make it all the way from Katy to downtown using light rail. in addition, light rail does interact with traffic as it runs on the surface...right among the traffic. monorail!!! monorail!!! monorail!!! but what you're talking about is called "rail bias." it means that people who would never step foot on a bus would gladly take a train. hard to measure that...but it better be true, because metro park and ride has seen a DECREASE in ridership, even as gridlock has gotten worse. they're actually closing park and ride facilities...which is essentially the same concept of driving to the train station to get to work. just that it's a train...not a bus.
Q: How can you tell this picture is an artist rendering and not a real photograph? A: There are people actually using the train.
The initial line is in the absolute perfect location, it hits all of the significant parts of Houston. Let's be honest, what we know & sell as Houston is that exact stretch of land the initial line runs through: Med Center, Reliant Park, the museums, Rice U, Downtown & its amenities. All you need is for NASA to be along Main, and you've pretty much covered all of Houston's major attractions. I'm just anxiously awaiting & hoping for positive results on this Fall's expansion vote.
Well, I was going to say, "Because there are trees and grass in the background", but your statement is plausible, also...
I thought the idea was to reduce traffic, not impress people from out of town. MadMax is right, I keep forgetting that this is a light rail, not a monorail. Big difference. Replacing all HOV lanes with Monorail would have been ideal IMO. I know, easier said than done, but hey...we're Houston!
Texas is a joke in general. Despite rapid population growth in the cities, the infrastructure has not grown along with it. The quick fix is to build more freeways, but this does not alleviate traffic congestion or pollution. The ideal solution is to build a monorail going between north and southbound 59, 45, and 610. Imagine stops at West Airport, Beltway 8, Bissonet, Chimney Rock, 610, and Kirby - that would be badass. Problem is that Texas is still stuck in the 1950's when it comes to transportation infrastructure. Austin is also in desperate need of a similar monorail between north and south I-35. Stops here would include: Slaughter, William Cannon, Ben White, Riverside, 1st St, 6th St, MLK, Airport, St. John's, 183, Braker, Parmer, 1825, 1325, and Round Rock.
i'm for rail...serious rail!!! rail that would likely be so expensive that we'd never do it. monorail in particular. i do NOT like the idea of putting rail at grade level. i think that is a bad, bad, bad idea. there is a reason that cities pulled their streetcar tracks up years ago. we should have invested in monorail back in the late 50's when the inventor brought it to us...we didn't. now the city has sprawled. unlike boston, new york and chicago, we lost the opportunity to grow around rail...now we want to throw it down on top of what we've got...the second largest city in area in the country...with the 4th largest population. that's a tall order. i don't think the current system plus the proposed extensions do anything to alleviate the real concerns of most houstonians...namely, the freeways. taking tourists from site to site is great..but it does little to nothing for the average houstonian. and yes, i know it's the most heavily used bus corridor in town...but moving the same passengers from bus to rail is no solution...that's a zero sum game.
Let me clarify. If the choice for an initial line is running it through the active nodes of the city vs. running a line from, say, Sugar Land to Downtown for example, which makes more sense? And more importantly, imagine the uproar citywide if yet another suburb (filled with residents who don't fully utilize Metro, BTW) was being subsidized with transit $$\projects. Main St, however, is the main thoroughfare. Its one of the few streets in the city that really "connects" various areas. The fact that few people live along it shows that little favoritism (suburbs vs. inner-city) was given in its planning. The real solution was for Metro to make its "Phase 2" plan part of the intial line. Despite its flaws, "Phase 2" is much more comprehensive, it represents a true rail system. But then again, even with the investment we've already made in the initial line, people are still gripping about the expansion plan. Given the trouble it took to get the initial line going, could you imagine if Metro had presented this plan & price tag initially? It would have been D.O.A. (BTW, I have far more faith in Metro building an effecient rail system than in Houstonians utilizing it properly. I have a greater fear that Metro is wasting time & $$ on a system no one will use. Metro has one of the most efficient, most comprehensive bus systems in the world, and its both over-worked (covers WAY too much area) & under-utilized. But if you build a rail line, all these car-lovers will suddenly use mass transit? We'll see.) Is the initial line "touristy"? Yes. IMHO, the initial line is a very expensive "Model Home" for a regional transit plan. Does it solve congestion problems? No, one rail line shouldn't be expected to relieve traffic\congestion, regardless of where it originates. Is the initial line a good start for the system? Absolutely, both in function & politically.
Couple of thoughts on the points above: 1. Phase 2 is not comprehensive. More buses for park and ride down the i-10 corridor?? that's a joke. ridership is decreasing. that's not a solution. Phase 2 hits the next big tourist attraction...the Galleria. Important, no doubt. But that's not an ease for commuters. That doesn't address the real problem of getting around the city. 2. Boston has comprehensive rail...and I'm still hearing it's a b**** to get around town. Interesting. 3. Isn't it Metro's job to get people on these trains?? Isn't it Metro's job to provide such compelling reasons to take the bus/train to get me out of my car? Make it economical...make it easy...etc. People will always choose their best interests...the lesson of the marketplace is you have to give them a reason to act. Ease their burden in some way, and you'll have riders. But just indiscriminately laying down rail or throwing out new buses will not attract new riders...and that's not anyone's fault but Metro's.
Man...Are you blind? Normally, the lanes are so packed with traffic, you can't even see the pavement. But look now in the picture, there are hardly ANY cars on that highway. You think that's just some strange coincidence?.
1. Under "Phase 2", you can essentially go North-South, East-West. Yes, it does hit the Galleria area, but it also connects to the airports. Its far from perfect, but once again it's a start. I don't think of "Phase 2" as the ideal or comprehensive rail plan, but it's obviously more comprehensive than the single line we'll have. And it is a true rail system, now whether it's a good rail system is subjective. (BTW, the line through the Galleria doesn't bother me nearly as much as the segment that runs along Washington\I-10. Sounds like somebody owns some property that they want developed. Why not turn that line to the NW and serivce the people in the 290 corridor, especially since that's the next corridor to see significant population gain? I live in the Galleria area, and I'd like to see a lot more expansion into the North side. I guess there's still hope for "Phase 3".) 2. And its interesting that you point out Boston, which has one of the best rail systems in the country. Even with rail, its still tough to get around, as is Chicago. The thing is, a city with the population of Boston will always be somewhat hard to get around, congestion will always be a problem. That's just the nature of living amongst a large group of people. So this notion of solving congestion via rail is, admittedly, a myth; a city of 5+ million people will always be congested. Its all about providing options. 3. Who says that Metro doesn't try to attract riders? They offer shuttle services to events, discount specials, they build HOV lanes, transit centers, etc. And what else can Metro do to make riding the bus more economical, let people ride for free?! People don't ride the bus because a.) why sit in traffic on the bus when you can sit in traffic in your car, b.) flexibility, c.) the stigma, and d.) Houston is a sprawling, car-friendly city with over-extended bus lines. Metro can be just as incompetent & half-assed as every other local agency, but I have to cut them some slack on this one. All they can do is provide their services.
This is why a larger rail plan wasn't introduced. 1st, White comes out with a plan to cut what is already a small plan in half in order to make nice with the suburbs. Now, here comes Sanchez with a "plan" to extend rail, but not by as much as "Phase 2." How much, no one knows because, in all likelihood, "Lil' Lanier's" plan is to put rail on the back burner. Oh, and no one knows what "alternative funds" he's talking about since they probably don't exist. Berry tries too hard to distinguish himself. Turner just instigates. The #1 thing holding Houston back as a city: A GREAT MAYOR! Looks like another 2 years of Houston "being held back."
Is anyone the least bit concerned that the Metro will be cutting its general mobility fund....cutting funding to roads/streets which the other 95% of us will still be using to get around???
You make a good point, Max. Until a regional rail plan is in effect, I have no problem with surrounding communities still receiving some general mobility $$ for roads. But then again, people want a plan, but no one wants to pay additional taxes. And the federal gov't will provide a significant amount of funding, but they certainly won't foot the entire bill. So how is Metro supposed to pay for it? And what's wrong with surrounding communities, as well as Houston, expanding their public works depts. to address road construction? If I'm not mistaken, Metro is the only transit agency in the country that's involved with road repair & maintenance.
those are excellent points...this debate isn't going away soon. why shouldn't the local entities take care of their own roads?? i think they're going to say that they signed an agreement with Metro to do that, and, as such, have paid money to Metro for years and years, expecting that service. Now, their local money will still be taken by Metro, but will be used on other areas of town for projects that may or may not directly benefit those people. I don't know if that argument holds water or not. another argument says now is not the time for this....while we're cutting back on bare-bone services, why are we spending this kind of money on rail...of course, the counter sees the need for long-term investment in the community.
Good points again. (FYI, we are definitely on the same page on this issue, I hope you're not taking this as an attack or anything.) The thing about the "...we signed an agreement..." argument, that agreement expires in 2009. In actuality, the Nov. vote is for Metro to not be obligated to renew that agreement, as well as using that $$ on transit projects. Of course, surrounding communities could try to vote themselves out of Metro. But if (BIG if) Metro is politically savvy, Phase 3 (or 4) will have already been proposed, i.e. rail would be coming their way & no way they would vote themselves out of Metro then. But I'd rather Metro just continue to give other areas a smaller amount of mobility $ until the rail comes out to them vs. playing any political games.
