Please check out our new Local News Headlines page.

10 March 2010

Klein: More trains + short blocks -- The coming downtown mobility mess

This is another of our occasional series of guest posts/essays on local topics of interest to us and our readers. Feel free to submit topical posts/essays for our consideration to bloggers-at-bloghouston.net. As with our usual blog posts, the views expressed are those of the author.

MORE TRAINS + SHORT BLOCKS: THE COMING DOWNTOWN MOBILITY MESS

by Barry Klein

Metro has not studied how its system will work after the five new rail lines are operational, or the sixth (Washington Avenue) to come later. On June 4, 2009 I submitted a Texas Public Information Act request to Metro in which I asked for documentation to show future rail operations after the East-West segment going through downtown is completed, to wit:

2. The documents showing projected volumes of passenger transfers from buses to rail cars, rail cars to buses, and rail cars to rail cars at each Metro rail station as rail extensions are built and operating including Washington Avenue (Inner Katy)

3. The board minutes showing the decision by the board to drop the Intermodal Terminal from Metro's plans, and the planning documents showing how bus and rail operations will change with the Intermodal Terminal removed from the plan

4. The documents showing how Metro plans to coordinate rail operations at the intersection of the "north-south" Main Street rail line and the "east-west" rail line that connects to the Harrisburg and Southeast lines.

The response from Metro dated June 17, 2009 stated that “regarding items 2-4, please be advised that no responsive information was located.”

This is worrisome in light of the information I have received from transportation consultant Tom Rubin.

Below are the comments of Mr. Rubin on the drawbacks of adding an East-West (E-W) light rail line in downtown Houston. Mr. Rubin is one of the experts I rely on to help me understand transit issues and transportation in general. He was the expert witness relied on by the Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles when it went to court in the 1990s to stop expansion of of the rail program in that city. Mr. Rubin is associated with the American Dream Coalition, a group critical of new urban rail systems, and is well acquainted with the Houston Metro rail system. He can be found on You Tube and in web searches, including his professional experience. He does not have a website. This quote from an email he sent in 2006 sums up Mr. Rubin's background...

I have been in the public transit business, including a fair amount of time in other governmental transportation and related matters, for over thirty years and have been the chief financial officer of two of the largest transit agencies in the U.S., including the Southern California Rapid Transit District in Los Angeles (now LA Co. MTA) when we started service on the Long Beach to Los Angeles Blue Line light rail line and Red Line heavy rail line. As a consultant and auditor, I worked on dozens of light rail projects and have made well over a hundred presentations at industry meetings and presented dozens of papers on transit and related topics.

May 8, 2008 email from Tom Rubin discussing rail operations in downtown Houston after completion of the five new lines

Here is one part of the posting [by a Houston transportation blogger discussing the planned East-West line] that I find astonishing:

"Another compromise: the Main Street line is relatively fast and very reliable because the trains have their own lanes and have traffic signal priority. That won't be true for this line. Like buses do now, the trains will share the curb lanes with cars, both turns and through traffic. [update, prompted by a question from Highway6 in the forums: the track will be on the south side of each street, that is, in the left lane of Capitol and the right lane of Rusk] And the signals will be operated as they are on Capitol and Rusk today: trains will find the lights are sometimes green and sometimes red, and they will stop or go accordingly."

The first sentence says, "... the Main Street line is relatively fast ..." Evidently, the author is simply not very knowledgeable on such topics. The Main Street toy trolley is one of the slowest light rail lines in the U.S. The end-to-end run time, from Metro schedules, is 31 minutes, to go 7.4 miles -- that's 14.3 mph, which is very slow by modern light rail standards. Of course, this "downtown" section of the line is the slowest portion, even slower than the 14.3 mph overall average. (The plan, as posted, would add a station, would, most likely, add another minute to the end-to-end time, slowing it further to 13.9 mph.)

If the E-W lines are going to be slower still through the CBD, well, wow. If what is described in the posting -- sharing lanes with "rubber tire" traffic -- is actually how this will operate, this will be incredibly slow. What people need to realize is that the reason that light rail operates in dedicated lanes, even when it is running on the street, is because the trains need to have the FULL LENGTH of the lane between blocks. In most cases, if there is as much as one car stopped at a red light, a two-car train cannot enter that block because it would block traffic from crossing the cross street "upstream" from the intersection where that car is stopped. Houston has fairly small city blocks in its downtown, with most being roughly square in shape, so any attempt at street running would pose huge problems in trying to operate light rail trains vs. auto's and trucks -- and pedestrians -- in the same space. Frankly, I am very surprised that that any set of transportation professionals -- by which, I mean the type of people who should be running both Metro and the City of Houston streets and roads -- would even consider such a proposal. I just don't see how this could work; if it was actually tried, I see it causing just great problems that the end result would be to banish autos from the "light rail" traffic lanes -- but, even if this were to be done, we still have various types of crossing/merging movements that would still be problematic.

What we have here is an agency, and agency leadership, that has set their priorities to build as much rail as fast as possible, as opposed to, build the best possible transit system. Even if one accepts that light rail is the best transit corridor methodology for these alignments, this is just plain very poor light rail. It is built to be as cheap as possible, in order to allow as much as possible to be built as fast as possible.

To build a "good" light rail system, you go for more separation particularly in the CBD. To go all the way, you have elevated and subway configurations. Well, in Houston, a subway configuration would often result in the electric bill for the sump pumps being more than that for propulsion power (or a switch to DMU propulsion -- with snorkels), as well as being VERY expensive to build, taking a long time, and totally tearing up large portions of the downtown while screwing up surface traffic. The elevated option would also be expensive (although nowhere near as expensive as subway), would also tear up the CBD during construction, and produce an ugly vertical eyesore, as well as taking up a lot of sidewalk space with the supports for this.

If you don't vertically separate, you are left with two possibilities, dedicated streets -- where the only vehicular movement is light rail - and dedicated lanes. We actually do have one example of the former on Main Street, that idiotic block where the train is running through a moat -- one of the dumbest ideas I've ever run into -- but the general answer is the latter. The tradeoffs to spending the amount of money are speed, carrying capacity of both the light rail line and the road network, and safety. All of these issues have occurred in Houston.

As I pointed out above, the Main Street Toy Trolley is very slow by light rail standards. It is also limited to two-car consists, rather than the three cars operated by some agencies or even four car trains operated, or planned to be operated, by a few (for a variety of reasons, four-car consists are not common in light rail and would be unlikely to be workable in Houston for a variety of reasons). Moreover, the street-running alignment for the Main Street Toy Trolley means that there is a limit on how close you can run the headways; probably not more than one train every five minutes without beginning to cause even more rubber tire traffic issues than exist now.

What this means is that the current level of service on the Main Street Toy Trolley is about as high as it is ever going to get, slow two-car trains eventually getting down to five minute headways. The problem, however, is that Metro plans on extending the Main Street Toy Trolley line in both directions -- with, one might presume, the intention of carrying more passengers than are now carried. But, if there is no way to run longer trains, and there is not much room to run trains more frequently, there is a real limit to the amount of capacity that can be added. Fortunately, the slow speed of the trains will limit demand for light rail trips -- well, that is, until Metro forces riders to use light rail by discontinuing the more faster and more convenient bus service.

By dedicating lanes on Main Street and other roads, the Main Street Toy Trolley has had a negative impact on the overall carrying capacity of Main Street, and the various types of restrictions on traffic movements, the various safety "fixes" (such as the 15-second "all reds" prior to the trains going through at certain of the most dangerous intersections) have further reduced the overall passenger/freight capacity of the CBD transportation network.

By "going cheap" -- building the downtown section of the N-S lines for street running -- the result is a slow, low capacity line that is somehow supposed to be the backbone of the system; simply not a workable idea.

Now, this same design mistake appears to be repeated for the E-W line. Not a good idea.

These people are doing very serious damage to the transportation system in the name of improving it, while wasting a whole lot of the taxpayers' dollars that could have been used far better -- including by leaving the money in the taxpayer pockets.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 03/10/10 07:44 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (0)

26 September 2009

KPRC's Dean reports on Park-and-Pillage failures; METRO tries to shield data from public

KPRC-2's Stephen Dean reports that METRO's ongoing experiment with camera surveillance as a replacement for live security officers at the Park-and-Pillage lots is still going poorly:

The Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority reported that 271 camera failure reports have been filed since January 2008, with 10 instances of entire Park & Ride lots being offline and invisible to police officers who are supposed to watch the cameras for crime.

Some METRO police officers told Local 2 Investigates the problem is much more widespread than those numbers suggest. Those officers said they are being posted at Park & Ride lots nearly every day in response to crimes that were never detected by the network of 354 cameras.

So, the camera system that was supposed to enhance public safety and cut labor costs doesn't seem to be working out all that well.

A well-run, responsive public organization might reconsider the whole cameras-as-replacement-for-security gambit.

METRO, on the other hand, responded as it usually does:

METRO transit headquarters has filed documents in an effort to keep quiet about its camera failures. In response to a Local 2 Investigates request for complete camera maintenance and outage reports, METRO filed with the Texas Attorney General, asking that the documents be kept secret.

That's outrageous -- but not surprising.

Recall that METRO chief Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson once asserted that METRO operates "in a completely transparent manner."

Right!

PREVIOUSLY: BH Park-and-Pillage Archives.

Photo by flickr user Andyrob used via a Creative Commons license.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/26/09 02:01 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (8)

17 September 2009

Chron: METRO approves massive new budget, fare increases; public in the dark until last minute

The Chronicle's Carolyn Feibel reports that METRO approved a massive new budget today that contains another round of fare increases.

Feibel reported this morning on the proposed fare increase. There hasn't been much awareness or discussion of the fare increase, mainly because METRO prefers to keep the public in the dark on its full budget.

Feibel recently reported on METRO's lack of budget transparency, and today even the Chronicle editorial board, one of the enablers of METRO's nontransparent and arrogant behavior over the years, chided METRO for its budget secrecy.

Not that any of it really matters. As long as Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson is running METRO and we have a mayor who is disinterested in METRO, Wilson is going to do what he pleases. Too bad if public watchdogs, or the public itself, object.

It will be interesting to see if the fare increases actually produce an increase in revenues. If Bill King is right, revenues won't increase, and may well continue their decline.

BLOGVERSATION: Texas Watchdog.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/17/09 10:27 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (3)

14 September 2009

King argues for fare rollback, community discussion on METRO's goals/resources

Last week, we posted the most recent METRO transit utilization data from Tom Bazan, which show a significant, ongoing decline in ridership across the system.

On Sunday, the Chronicle ran the latest public-policy op-ed from Bill King. His latest topic? The ongoing decline in METRO's ridership.

We encourage you to go read King's argument in its entirety. We found these points most notable:

King contends the significant, ongoing decline in ridership tracks very well with METRO's recent fare increases (and proposes rolling back those increases).
King also contends that Frank Wilson's decision to try to boost revenues at the expense of ridership represents "a monumental policy shift" with minimal public discussion that is representative of the organization's ad hoc decisionmaking.

The op-ed has produced grumbling from some Dem partybloggers (King is a Republican after all, and that is disqualification enough for some), but like Cory Crow we think it ought to generate a more substantive discussion.

Isn't it time to have King's community discussion about METRO's goals and the resources required to achieve them, instead of just deferring to Frank Wilson's whims? Are the projects and budget numbers laid out by METRO Solutions at all realistic in 2009? Should we consider rolling back the fare increases, and further subsidizing poorer riders who depend upon transit? Do our mayoral candidates have any opinions beyond "me too!" on these topics?

Please discuss.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/14/09 10:05 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (16)

09 September 2009

Transit system continues to suffer from declining ridership, collisions

Tom Bazan passes along the latest information he has obtained from METRO via his public information requests.

Here is the METRO ridership/revenue spreadsheet compiled through July 2009.

Here is the Main Street light rail accident information from January through July 2009.

Obviously, the declining ridership figures for 2009 stand out. The accidents won't look so bad compared to the at-grade rail alignments that are being proposed downtown and in the Galleria.

Please discuss this and anything else you find interesting.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/09/09 08:49 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (0)

19 August 2009

Topiary inspiration

METRO has announced a new "Swiftline" bus service, not to be confused with the "Quickline" bus service. You'll recall the Quickline service was behind schedule, not necessarily quick, and inspired METRO to create topiary bunnies. With luck, the new Swiftline route can morph into a Quickline route, according to METRO's highly paid blogger.

We can sense a trend...how about we help METRO choose the next bus route name? Ontimeline? Straightline? Zippyline? FasterthanJohnNovaLomaxline?

Maybe topiary cheetahs will be forthcoming. And can a topiary Abuelita be far behind?

Topiary photo by flickr user vertigogen, used via a Creative Commons license.

Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/19/09 06:25 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (6)

17 August 2009

King: Raise the rail in the Med Center

In Sunday's Chronicle, area businessman and former Kemah Mayor Bill King described problems with the rail line in The Medical Center area with which blogHOUSTON readers are very familiar:

An at-grade alignment in a dense automobile and foot traffic corridor that has led to numerous accidents.

Confusing signs and lights providing directions.

Stray current problems that will have to be monitored for the life of the light rail, and may require millions of dollars' worth of rehabilitation to prevent catastrophic structural failures.

King's solution?

Elevate the rail, at least in the Med Center and other dense areas.

As King concedes, paying for such a good idea is the problem. Elevating the rail can drive two to five times higher, according to King. "Despite Metro's multiple groundbreaking ceremonies," he writes, "federal funds have yet to be approved in amounts sufficient to actually construct any portion of the rail line."

King suggests one possible solution is federal "Fixed Guideway Rehabilitation" funding, which could provide up to 80% of the cost of elevating the rail line by the time plans were ready, which could drive the overall cost to METRO and area taxpayers down to amounts that might be required to mitigate stray-current issues anyway.

The entire op-ed is here. Please go give it a good read.

We have long thought that laying rail down busy traffic corridors does nothing for overall mobility in Houston, and agree with King that great transit systems in the world don't do things this way. We would rather not have rail in Houston if this is the only system METRO's leaders can come up with, due to its inadequacies, lack of impact on overall mobility, and significant cost to taxpayers.

We have friends in the rail debate who argue it's important for Houston to move forward on rail as quickly as possible to set a precedent, however poor the plan, and fix any disastrous consequences later once a "rail culture" has taken hold. We have other friends in the debate who argue that rail is not a cost-effective solution for Houston because of the city's density, and that existing and future rail plans should simply be scrapped.

We take a position somewhere in the middle. Our friend Tory Gattis has argued that a rail network that connects Houston's major job centers/universities makes some sense. And that argument resonates to the extent that most serious people understand such a system needs to be aimed at future growth and needs (10, even 20 years down the road), since it's hard to argue we have the population density at the moment to support that kind of system. In reality, we have just enough density in certain areas to create more traffic nightmares if we continue laying rail down busy streets. That's why we should be talking about grade-separated rail (especially in denser areas) and connecting job centers inside the loop, with a view towards Houston's future growth. The next phase following construction of a well-planned, inner-city network would be enhancing commuter options (Park and Ride, commuter rail, and the like) -- since it doesn't make much sense to enhance those options if your transit organization can't get patrons to job centers effectively once they are inside the loop. Airports would be dead last on my list, given the distance involved, the cost, and the lack of immediate benefit to local taxpayers.

Obviously, constructing that sort of system would cost much more money than voters contemplated in the 2003 referendum (aspects of which METRO has disregarded anyway), and it shouldn't be undertaken without a robust, honest* debate over costs and benefits long-term -- and a vote. Unfortunately, we don't tend to have those sorts of debates over transit in Houston. And that's why Bill King's comparatively modest proposal likely didn't generate much more than a "harrumph" from Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson and METRO's acolytes.

* For example, we are tired of reading METRO claims that the next phase of light-rail expansion will create 60,000 jobs.

Photo of Med Center light rail/traffic sign from my personal flickr collection. Photo of a Chicago EL train by flickr user celikins, used via a Creative Commons license.

UPDATE (08/20/09): And here is the official "harrumph," in the form of a letter to the Chronicle, which we are reposting in its entirety due to the unreliability of Chron archives and the fact this is a statement from a public official:

09 August 2009

METRO board: We're not a rubber-stamp; we just all vote like it

The chair of METRO's board doesn't like being called a rubber stamp for CEO Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson.

Nevertheless, a board that once had vigorous debates no longer does, and votes almost seem predetermined.

To quote board member Jackie Freeman, "We end up voting in one voice... and it appears like it’s a rubber stamp, but there’s a lot of work that goes into it before each meeting.”

In a story on Friday, Texas Watchdog's Rosanna Ruiz sorted out METRO's new, please-don't-call-it-a-rubber-stamp approach to delivering near unanimity for Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson. Be sure to check it out if you haven't already.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/09/09 07:45 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (1)

26 July 2009

Magaziner: Part One of METRO Solutions -- The Other Side of the Story

We're running a guest editorial essay today by Paul Magaziner, a local businessman and a member of Corridors United. As an alternative local opinion outlet, blogHOUSTON is interested in running more occasional opinion pieces by outside authors (which we have done in the past). If interested, please feel free to contact us. We should note that the views expressed are, as with our blog posts, those of the author.

Part One of METRO Solutions: The Other Side of the Story

By Paul Magaziner

If it's true that you can't teach old dogs new tricks, then METRO must be in the ranks of Moses. Everyone knows METRO started the construction of the Main Street alignment in Year 2000 without voter approval or federal funds. METRO even started construction in the middle of the night. Bad Habits are hard to break.

Business people always study their business's past history, from failures to successes. The following is my version of the history of METRO under Mayor White, David Wolff and Frank Wilson.

20 July 2009

Chron: Some in East End start to feel pinch of rail expansion

Today's Chronicle runs a story by Allan Turner on Lenox Barbecue, a longtime East End barbecue joint that will be forced to close down because of the light-rail expansion.

In what is now a familiar refrain, some members of the community feel like METRO has not been responsive to their concerns about the expansion:

East End voters approved Metro's light rail plan in 2003 by a 14 percent margin, but since then, a number of issues have left area residents in an uproar.

“We really feel badly about Lenox,” said Diane Lipton, president of the East End Chamber of Commerce, “but we don't have any control over it.”

Lipton said her group favors light rail development on Harrisburg, but believes Metro disregarded community concerns in designing the project.

“We can't get a response from Metro,” she charged. “They do things behind our backs. They are not community-responsive.”

We feel for those who were naïve enough to trust their political leaders (some of whom undoubtedly have profited from a positive relationship with METRO) and their regional transit authority.

But the political reality has always been this: METRO needed the votes of this community in passing the rail referendum overall. That was the input that most concerned METRO. Details of construction and the impact on the community after the vote? Well, input from "experts" who don't live in the area (but who are affiliated with firms that will benefit handsomely from the expansion) tends to carry much more weight with the like-minded "experts" at METRO. That's The Houston Way, after all!

Incidentally, for those who might wonder what other fun changes are coming to Harrisburg, be sure to check out some of the links (to the various EIS statements and to the Parsons contract) in this post. It's dense, but informative, reading.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/20/09 09:00 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (1)

19 July 2009

METRO goes on high alert for anti-rail protesters

Last week, METRO threw itself a big party at Union Station to celebrate the groundbreaking of the Southeast and North Corridors. We hear METRO feared anti-rail protesters would crash the party, so METRO flew into action: There was a special area set aside for protesters, there were bomb-sniffing dogs scouring the premises, there were plans to confiscate banners that might be brought in to disrupt the festivities, etc, etc.

We also hear the massive hordes of violent anti-rail protesters failed to materialize.

We are sure Chief Lambert appreciated an opportunity to deploy his elite counterterror unit, including his sharpshooters, bomb-sniffing dogs, and bomb robot. It's unclear what role METRO's Boat Rescue Squad played, but maybe they provided security for Frank Wilson on his taxpayer-subsidized commute to and from work. You know, to protect him from all those violent anti-rail protesters.

Posted by Anne Linehan @ 07/19/09 07:33 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (6)

17 July 2009

Hair Balls on METRO's "civil rights trainwreck" (updated)

The Houston Press Hairballs blog takes a break momentarily from amateurish, incomprehensible rambling to post actual work from a professional journalist* related to METRO. Here's a snippet from Paul Knight, commenting on METRO's adventures with civil-rights laws:

A couple months back, we wrote about Metro receiving notification from the Federal Transit Administration, saying Metro had violated federal civil rights laws, but we hadn't seen a draft of the preliminary report. Now we have, and, apparently, Metro hasn't been too concerned with the federal laws.

According to the report, "the general consensus among the staff was that there was little to no awareness of METRO's Title VI Program," a program designed to ensure that Metro doesn't discriminate based on race, color, or national origin, and it evaluates the "social and economic effects of programs and activities on minority populations and low-income populations."

Furthermore, the report says, no one on staff interviewed by the FTA even knew that there was a person or department where Title VI complaints should be directed.

Tom Bazan, a Houston resident whose name should be familiar to people who follow Metro, obtained the report from the FTA, but since a lot of information has been redacted from the draft, he feels that the agency is still stonewalling him.

"For all their transparency, they still seem to be reluctant to talk about unpleasant topics," Bazan tell Hair Balls.

Our METRO?

Surely not.

* Yes, apparently there are a few such creatures left at the place.

ANNE LINEHAN ADDS: Paul Knight's post includes an update:

Raequel Roberts, a Metro spokeswoman, responded to our questions about the report and said that Metro has responded to the FTA report, adding that the agency's final report is complete. (The FTA hasn't responded to Hair Balls.)

Since Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson insists that METRO operates in a "completely transparent manner," METRO should encourage the release of the final report so we can all see METRO's response.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/17/09 11:33 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (1)

16 July 2009

Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson awards large no-bid contract to former associate

Former Chron reporter Rosanna Ruiz has a nice story for Texas Watchdog today on curious expenditures by METRO.

As Ruiz notes, METRO is apparently paying a California-based former associate of Frank Wilson roughly $300/hour to oversee the contract for the light-rail buildout. Wilson was able to secure a no-bid contract for his former associate, and it has been extended three times. The consultant will wind up making around half a million bucks for a year-and-a-half of work. Wilson says the hire is justified, because nobody at METRO is qualified to do the sort of work his former colleague is handling.

Since there's really nobody to hold METRO/Wilson accountable to the public/taxpayers (Senate Candidate White is certainly much too busy these days), that's probably about the last word on the subject.

Of course, nobody familiar with Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson's background should be terribly surprised by any of it.

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/16/09 11:28 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (4)

15 July 2009

METRO Boat Rescue Squad ready to serve!

Did you realize that in addition to its Elite Counterterror Squad, METRO also has a Boat Rescue Squad?

We didn't either, but METRO's expensive blogger Mary Sit spelled it out for us in this post:

The documentary details how METRO responds to natural disasters, such as storms. A boat rescue squad practices regularly on how to rescue in debris-filled water, including buoy rescues and tethered rescues.

Initially, that seemed to us like another wasteful duplication of services already provided by other safety agencies.

And then we realized that METRO actually does need its own dedicated Boat Rescue Squad.

How else would the organization get passengers off the stranded Danger Train and onto buses when there is three inches of rain?

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/15/09 08:45 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (9)

12 July 2009

Coming soon to downtown: A train-traffic-pedestrian-infrastructure adventure only METRO could love!

The Chronicle's Mike Snyder reported on Wednesday that a revision to the archaic codes used by Mayor White to curry favor with powerful supporters and block the Ashby highrise development could conflict with the city's new transit corridors ordinance, which is being presented by supporters/media as a code to foster pedestrian-friendly development (but in reality represents a significant power grab).

One of the most important quotes in the story comes nearly at the end:

Chapter 15 was added to the design manual in the aftermath of the Ashby controversy, but it simply put into writing procedures that the city already followed, said Andy Icken, deputy director of the Department of Public Works and Engineering.

Icken said he will work with Marlene Gafrick, Houston’s planning and development director, to add language to the transit corridors ordinance clarifying that reduced automobile traffic is likely along corridors where people will be riding trains. That should reduce the need for any traffic mitigation, Icken said.

In other words, a city official who is supposed to be analytical/nonpolitical has just offered up a very helpful political solution to a problem created by the last very helpful political solution.

Leaving aside that element of The Houston Way, we do wish to highlight what city officials are generally loath to admit to the public: Reduced automobile traffic is likely along corridors where people will be riding trains.

Not only is it likely, but the tremendous impact of laying many miles of new light rail down busy streets (in downtown and uptown) -- in the form of greatly reduced traffic mobility -- is one of the great undercovered stories in Houston at the moment. Covering the story is not made all that easy by METRO, city planners, or even management districts (which exist to promote and protect the interests of businesses and people that live/work/reside within those districts), as documents can be difficult to obtain and difficult to reconcile with each other. So local media have largely stuck with easier fare, like bunnies and Safety Lou.

We decided it might be useful to reproduce some info from the relevant documents we have been able to obtain and/or review. We have focused only on downtown mobility issues here, although a preliminary review indicates that LOS problems and METRO mitigation "solutions" are even more shocking in the Uptown corridor.

An accident METRO officials couldn't blame on anyone but themselves

Back on June 16th, Kevin Whited noted, incredulously, that the Danger Train somehow managed to derail, run into a power pole, and rear-end another train. It was unclear if METRO PD Chief Tom Lambert found some nearby pedestrians to berate for causing the accident.

A couple of weeks later, KHOU-11 followed up with the accident investigation results. As with anything related to METRO, all we can do is shake our heads:

1. The train was speeding, going 22 mph in a 15 mph zone. The investigation notes that part of the problem is METRO had three different speed limits within an 1100 foot section of the track.

2. The report recommends that for Danger Train expansion routes that have tight curves, METRO should either widen the track or install rail guards to keep trains from derailing.

3. METRO should stop applying rail lubricant manually along curves, and instead install an automatic lubrication system. "The report found that the lubricant can dry up quickly and become ineffective in Houston’s hot summers." Who knew?

4. METRO needs to preserve evidence after a derailment. The report noted that by the time investigators arrived five days after the accident, METRO had already begun repairs.

5. METRO has also discovered that it doesn't have a standardized program for Danger Train instructors. After 5+ years of operation, METRO just now discovers this?

Isn't it comforting to know that the experts in charge of 7.5 miles of downtown light rail are working on expanding it?

On a side note, The Downtown Aquarium train had a little rear-end accident last night. According to the Aquarium's press release, the mini-train will be operating today in spite of the accident. Be careful out there!

FROM THE ARCHIVES: Train driver who smashed bicyclist had permission

RELATED: Derailment Blamed on Human Error, METRO's Sit and Spin blog

Posted by Anne Linehan @ 07/12/09 07:52 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (1)

05 July 2009

Stimulus money for local projects

Hope everyone is having a great Independence Day weekend. The blogHOUSTON crew is still in slow-posting mode, but this caught my eye: The Chron's Carolyn Feibel writes on local road-building projects that are receiving stimulus funds:

A little-known regional body, the Transportation Policy Council, decided how to spend most of the stimulus funds in the Houston area. The council represents the eight counties of the Houston metro region, and its 24 voting members are drawn from local governments and agencies such as the Texas Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

It either chose stimulus projects directly or approved ones desired by TxDOT.

The stimulus has one big requirement: Projects must begin soon, to create jobs and boost the economy. The Transportation Policy Council focused on projects that were “shovel ready,” meaning the necessary government and environmental approvals were in place. After that, the council looked for projects that had been waiting a long time for funding.

The story includes special guest appearances by mass-transit fans Robin Holzer and David Crossley.

Posted by Anne Linehan @ 07/05/09 07:07 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (5)

16 June 2009

METRO adds a new trick to the Danger Train files

From KHOU-11 via the Houston Chronicle Froot Loops bureau comes this report on a train derailment in Houston:

A Metro light rail train derailed around 12:30 a.m. this morning near the intersection of Greenbriar and Braeswood, between the Texas Medical Center and Reliant Park.

[snip]

The derailed train collided with a power pole and another rail car.

The toy train derailed?!

How does that even happen?

We're sure METRO will be entirely forthcoming with the details. *wink*

Posted by Kevin Whited @ 06/16/09 09:52 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (3)

15 June 2009

Chron: MetroRail has 11 million riders every year

As critiques go, this is as tepid as they come, but it's undoubtedly all the Chron editors will allow, and it will be held up as an example of the Chron's tenacious, watchdog reporting:

The Metropolitan Transit Authority touted numbers from a state-mandated audit last month showing that ridership increased 3 percent over the past four years.

The agency also touted increased revenue — partly because of fare hikes — and at least $150 million in light-rail expansion funding that the federal government has indicated it plans to funnel to Metro.

But a closer look at all the good news shows that ridership is slightly below where it was in 2000, despite a 17 percent increase in Harris County’s population. Bus ridership — Metro’s core service — has dropped more than 14 percent.

The new audit has prompted a debate over Metro’s performance. But how critics grade the agency also hinges on what they think its fundamental mission should be. Should you count the number of riders? Number of buses? Cost to the taxpayer? Whether buses are on time? Crowded? Comfortable? Energy efficient?

The critics' concerns (and facts) are flattened by the non-critics' explanations. You'll be so surprised to see where Carolyn Feibel turned for soothing reassurances:

Members of the Citizens’ Transportation Coalition also counsel patience during construction. “A dollar you spend on new facilities is a dollar you don’t spend on operations, and vice-versa,” said CTC board member Christof Spieler. Another difficulty is maximizing ridership while also using tax dollars wisely, he added.

Robin Holzer, the coalition’s chair, pointed out that simply counting riders does not take into account the quality of the trip.

The light rail is quieter, more comfortable, and more reliable than a regular bus. “It’s got level boarding, which is great if you are in a wheelchair or have a baby stroller,” she said.

Apparently, that is the new measure of worthiness to spend billions of taxpayer dollars: level boarding. Never mind that a tiny fraction of the greater Houston-area population will ever use it, or that the train will increase congestion by taking away traffic lanes. Reducing traffic congestion was one of the initial selling features of light rail. Now level boarding is a talking point.

As Metro adds more light rail lines, riders will flock to it, Holzer predicted. Metro officials project 160,000 daily trips by 2030.

Yes, well, the predictions METRO makes for public consumption are often wildly different from actual projections on government documents.

And then there's this:

Since 2006, more than 11 million people have ridden the Main Street “Red” Line every year.

I'm guessing that stat refers to boardings, but METRO has a tendency to run fast and loose with stats and wording, as Rad Sallee explained three years ago:

The measure that Metro watches most closely — the key indicator of how well it is performing its mission — is often referred to as "ridership." But this turns out to be a slippery concept. As with the elephant and the blind men, you need to examine it several ways for a complete picture.

Slippery is the perfect word to describe METRO. But just for fun, let's run with the "11 million riders" data point for a moment. Back in 2006, METRO told the Ottawa Sun that 12 million passengers were riding the light rail line every year. Now it's down to 11 million. Hmmmm. That would seem to be a declining trend.

BLOGVERSATION: TBIFOC.

Posted by Anne Linehan @ 06/15/09 05:06 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (9)

09 June 2009

Making Houston even more inviting

See if this reminds you of a circular firing squad:

Warning: More tickets, tows, boots on the way for Houston cars

Parking scofflaws who drive under the radar are more likely to be nabbed under a system that received a Houston City Council committee’s blessing Tuesday.

The proposed $1.6 million upgrade to the city’s parking management databases would let enforcement teams view parking citation information on a mobile handset, so officers could immediately “boot” or tow a vehicle if it had too many unpaid citations.

And:

HPD: Many towed cars get lost, misplaced

On Monday, HPD Captain Williams Staney told the Council Committee on Public Safety at Houston City Hall that their system was not working.

He said that 135,000 vehicles are towed from illegal parking spots and because of traffic violations each year in Houston.

Captain Staney says that HPD has one phone number that drivers and tow truck companies both call for information. He said that phone lines get an average of 845 calls each and every day.

HPD admits the bottleneck can lead to confusion, data mistakes and very long wait times for Houstonians wanting to find out if their vehicles were either stolen or towed without their consent.

“The call takers and data entry people get overwhelmed with the whole amount of vehicles being entered but at the same time they have people calling in looking for their vehicles,” said Frankie Rash of Fast Tow Wrecker Service. “It can be very overwhelming,” he said for both his staff and for police.

The solution? A $1.3 million web-based towed vehicle reporting management system, of course!

So, here we have Liliana Rambo wanting to spend $1.6 million on new technology to ticket, boot, and tow more cars (she promises a one million dollar return on the investment for the city), and then we have HPD wanting to spend $1.3 million on new technology because the department admits it cannot keep track of all the towed vehicles for which it's responsible. Got that? Revenue-wise, the city should make out quite well. Residents? Not so much.

The big exception to all this is around HPD headquarters, because there is absolutely no ticketing, booting, or towing going on there.

Posted by Anne Linehan @ 06/09/09 06:52 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (7)

[Previous 20 Entries]

SITE MENU

+Home
+About
+Archives/Categories
+BH Commentary (RSS)
+Bloggers
+Blogroll
+Contact Us
+Donate
+Forum
+Local News Headlines
+Syndication
+Twitter

WEATHER/TRAFFIC

(local traffic via TranStar)

ACTIVE TOPICS

Hiatus

A couple of asides, in case you missed 'em...

News roundup, 07/07/2010 edition

Councilmember Johnson breaks through storm coverage

The threads above are the most recently active in the blogHOUSTON comments (RSS).

LOCAL BLOG TALK

How Low Can Local Dem Blogger Go? (Rhymes with Right)

Texas Democratic governor hopeful White duels with Houston critic over bonds (Robert Garrett, Dallas Morning News)

Richard Justice’s confusion about David Carr (Houston's Clear Thinkers)

Even in Texas, Death Penalty Still Constitutional (Defending People)

The Metro Shelter on Beechnut Just East of Hillcroft Was Smashed to Smithereens Late Tuesday or Early Wednesday by an Unknown Assailant or Assailants (Slampo's Place)

Chef bites critic: In which I get kicked out of Jonathan's The Rub (Cook's Tour)

Is Houston's restaurant service style "too southern"? (Cook's Tour)

Rick Dennison hire starts offseason right (Texans Chick)

This section is regularly updated with posts from local bloggers who add to the blogversation about Houston media, politics, and life.

WHERE'S MAYOR WHITE?

Bill White on Education: Pre-K

Texas Voices: Michelle Colvard

Texans Back Bill White for Governor

Volunteer Spotlight: Elisabeth in Austin

Houston mayor Bill White has been very busy of late running for a Senate seat that isn't even available yet, leaving the city on autopilot. Fortunately, his campaign staff keeps us up to speed on his travels outside of Houston.