02 September 2007
Grand Parkway Segment C generates opposition
The Grand Parkway continues to stir up opposition -- this time in Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties. Last week, a public meeting was held to solicit input for Segment C, "a 26-mile four-lane controlled access toll road with intermittent frontage roads from US 59 (Southwest Freeway) to SH 288 through Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties."
Folks in that area are not in favor of the project (via the Fort Bend Herald-Coaster):
But the vast majority of residents and others who attended Thursday's meeting said they never want to see the 26-mile, four-lane, controlled-access highway built. Many who spoke during the public hearing were critical of the project, with some using the "no toll, no road" slogan in opposition to the highway, which would be a toll road.
Some of the main reasons cited for the opposition:
€ The highway is being expanded for traffic that does not exist.
€ The project is too costly, and money used for the highway could be better spent elsewhere.
€ The highway could damage quality of life for people who live near construction sites.
€ Noise will increase and air quality will decline.
€ The project is essentially a way for developers to make money and for politicians to profit.
€ Plus numerous environment issues.
Patrons were each given three minutes to talk, and more than a dozen people spoke while others had a chance to give written comments. Only two people spoke in direct support of the project.
These concerns are similar to the concerns Spring/Tomball residents have regarding the F-2 segment that I have blogged about previously: it would be environmentally devastating; developers are the main beneficiaries at the expense of local residents and business owners; and, up here in the Spring area, many people would lose their property for the unnecessary road.
Few if any in the audience agreed with Gornet's assessment. Jesse Cuellar of Richmond won the loudest cheers after he spoke. He was concerned about - among other things - environmental issues, water runoff, property values and quality of life. Cuellar said he thinks the reasons given for the project amount to a lie - and that it is being built for entities with commercial interests.
Jerry Carpenter of Greatwood said before the meeting that he was against the project because he didn't think it would alleviate traffic problems and that the project is being done to benefit developers - and he's upset that the project would be so close to Brazos Bend State Park.
People from special interest groups were there, including Brandt Mannchen, chairman of the air quality committee for the Sierra Club's Houston region, who shared his environmental concerns. Robin Holzer, chairwoman of the board of the Houston-based Citizens' Transportation Coalition, said the project is a bad use of transportation money.
Oh look, Robin Holzer found a transportation project she's against. Honestly, if Robin wants to see a bad use of transportation money, she should look at the billions Metro wants to waste on rail transit that will do nothing to alleviate congestion, but will do lots to increase it, and will enrich developers.
I wish the folks who will be affected by Segment C all the luck in the world fighting the Grand Parkway Association and TxDOT.
And I would like to know where the three gentlemen running for Harris County judge stand on the issue of the F-2 segment.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/02/07 08:46 AM |
30 August 2007
Accident on Spur 527 death ramp!
There was an accident on the Spur 527 Death Ramp earlier this evening. Here are a couple of (bad) photos from my cell phone:
Of course, as TXDOT's PR representatives love to say, there's nothing wrong with the ramp.
Nothing to see. Move along. Unless your 527 merge turns out badly and you must be towed.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/30/07 08:30 PM |
29 August 2007
Houston hurries to add more red light cameras before new law takes effect
With little fanfare, the city is adding 20 more red light cameras, possibly to beat a deadline, even though the city has already installed the 50 cameras it said would be initially installed (via the Chronicle's Matt Stiles):
Houston police quietly have moved to install new red-light cameras at 20 intersections already monitored by the system, allowing citations for motorists traveling in the opposite direction, officials confirmed Tuesday.
The 20 new cameras are expected to start working Friday. Motorists caught by the new cameras would be issued warnings during a month-long grace period ending in October, police said.
The move to add more cameras, which had not been publicly disclosed, appears to conflict with the terms of a contract the City Council approved in 2006 with American Traffic Solutions Inc., the private company that installs and monitors the cameras.
That agreement includes payment arrangements with the company for a total of 50 intersection "approaches," or cameras monitoring specific directions at a location.
But department officials said Tuesday that they long had planned to increase the number of cameras at some locations, and they denied the contract limited that total to 50 intersections.
"These are different approaches at those same intersections," said Executive Assistant Chief Martha Montalvo, who supervises the program.
And now, let's highlight some fine Martha Montalvo quotes:
Montalvo said the decision to add the new cameras had nothing to do with a new state law, which takes effect Saturday, that could require some cities to do engineering studies at new locations.
Of course not!
She also dismissed a common complaint that the new cameras were intended to generate more revenue, even as the new law requires that a portion of the fines go to a regional trauma center fund.
"This is not about revenue," she said. "This is about changing the behavior and public safety."
Of course not!
Montalvo said late Tuesday that she was not aware of any briefings to council members about the new cameras.
Of course not!
But she said Police Chief Harold Hurtt had planned to make an announcement later this week.
Before he leaves town for the weekend?
Montalvo has in the past said expanding to more sites was possible, but only after the department hired someone to study the effectiveness of the current cameras at reducing crashes.
Montalvo said Tuesday she had not arranged for such a study, but that one was still planned.
Sure.
We know it's about revenue. The city needs to recoup some of the money it'll be losing thanks to the new state law. If it was about safety and changing behavior, the city would have lengthened yellow light times.
It'd be fun to put red light cameras to a vote -- not before Council, but before the citizens of Houston.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/29/07 05:21 AM |
25 August 2007
Whimsical transit policy: Left hand, right hand, what hand?
On Thursday, the Chronicle's Rad Sallee reported that METRO's real-estate division was about to spring into action:
The Metropolitan Transit Authority board today will consider the purchase of a former rail bed between downtown and the 610 North Loop, as well as sites for new Park & Ride lots in Katy and Pearland.
Metro plans a commuter rail line from near U.S. 290 and Hempstead Highway to a future terminal for trains and buses north of downtown, although an exact route has not been announced.
Metro spokeswoman Raequel Roberts refused Wednesday to discuss the transit agency's interest in the property or provide a map of it before today's meeting, set for 1 p.m. at 1900 Main.
On Friday, Sallee reported that METRO decided it might be worthwhile to think over the matter and talk to other local actors before barreling ahead:
The Metropolitan Transit Authority shelved a planned vote Thursday to buy a former freight rail bed for commuter rail, after learning - to board members' surprise - that the city plans a bike trail there.
Board member Rafael Ortega said news that Metro is interested in the route had "created some concern in the community." He suggested that Metro should "communicate our regret to the city of Houston and TxDOT for jumping the gun."
Chairman David Wolff said that was not necessary, but agreed that the agenda item had been premature. Metro staff will discuss the proposal with Houston officials before a vote is rescheduled, he said.
Wolff said the property, now owned by the Texas Department of Transportation and formerly by the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, was considered as a possible route from the northwest area to a planned terminal north of downtown for buses, light rail and commuter trains.
Whoops!
As noted in an earlier post, transit policy in Houston certainly does have its whimsical aspects, and this is a nice example.
We're fairly sure this planned acquisition will return to the agenda at some point, however. METRO usually is persistent about pursuing what it wants.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/25/07 01:23 PM |
Perils of at-grade (freight) rail/vehicular traffic interaction
Christof Spieler of the transit advocacy group Citizens' Transportation Coalition posts an interesting 1953 report on Houston's problems with at-grade rail lines, and continues with a discussion about the surprising salience of the report's observations and recommendations to Houston's ongoing policymaking with regard to freight rail operations. Here's Spieler's conclusion:
What’s ahead is a process of prioritizing. TxDOT’s Houston Freight Rail Study has proposed hundreds of individual projects: grade separations, street closings, added track, relocated yards. We do not have the money to do all of them; the hardest task will be to figure out which to do first. Equally important is doing them right; some of the projects in the Study make sense, but others could damage neighborhoods rather than help them. And all this needs to happen in coordination with other agencies: TxDOT’s highway plans, METRO’s light rail and BRT lines, and the county’s commuter rail proposals.
We’ll only get good results here if the public is involved. It’s absolutely critical that the District keep the public informed and seek neighborhood input on overall goals and on specific projects. And it’s important that neighborhoods that are living with freight rail lines pay attention.
The good news is that this could be a win-win. It’s possible to design projects that will make neighborhoods quieter, safer, and easier to get around in, reduce traffic jams at railroad crossings, and take trucks off the roads by reducing railroad congestion.
The excerpt I've bolded is the only reference to METRO's light-rail operation in the entire post, which otherwise focuses on freight rail.
METRO, of course, is planning a massive expansion of at-grade rail lines in the near future. If the Main Street Danger Train line is any indicator -- and it would seem to be a better empirical indicator than editorializing from pro-METRO blogs and newspapers -- then the further expansion of at-grade rail lines along busy vehicular traffic corridors is likely to result in an increase in the number of dangerous rail/traffic intersections and associated vehicular traffic congestion.
Those two problems of at-grade-rail/traffic interaction figure prominently in the 1953 report cited by Spieler, so it's interesting that he focuses exclusively on the impact of freight rail (and not passenger rail). It's not really surprising, though, since CTC has long championed running light rail down busy Richmond (even as it told gullible local journalists that it merely wanted all options studied, and didn't prefer any alignment, something we now know was untrue). Running at-grade rail down Richmond will contribute to vehicular gridlock along Richmond and will create more dangerous intersections along the street, so we're not entirely surprised that Spieler restricted this discussion to freight rail lines, even though the same logic should apply to the Richmond light-rail alignment his group has long favored.
Transit policy formation in Houston often has its whimsical side, even from organizations that construct really nice graphics.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/25/07 01:15 PM |
21 August 2007
Houston's transit backbone has a spasm?
I was driving through Midtown tonight, and noticed that METRO's light-rail "transit backbone" was having some difficulties:
The Danger Train rail line was shut down in both directions at Main near Cleburne, with several METRO technicians working on some sort of problem, and several more METRO folks watching them work.
We probably won't hear about the problem on METRO's blog or website (those are devoted to positive spin, after all). Here's hoping METRO dispatched buses to get people around.
UPDATE: KPRC-2 and the Chronicle finally covered the news.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/21/07 09:24 PM |
18 August 2007
Longer yellow-light times decrease red-light running (cont'd)
TheNewspaper.com highlights what happened at a red-light camera intersection in Springfield, Missouri, when the yellow-light time was increased:
Springfield, Missouri found that lengthening the yellow signal warning time at intersections that had previously been selected for the city's new red light camera program has now eliminated profit from the system. The city has decided to address this problem by moving its cameras to intersections where the yellow warning time has been shortened by at least half-a-second.
Just remember -- it's about safety, not revenue.
PREVIOUSLY: bH posts on yellow light times
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/18/07 08:47 AM |
14 August 2007
It's time for more METRO service adjustments!
Laurence Simon notes that METRO is promising another round of "service adjustments" on August 26, 2007.
This latest round of "service adjustments" doesn't look as if it will get METRO much closer to fulfilling the promise it made to voters in the 2003 referendum to boost bus service by 50%. A different page brags about the hours METRO is adding to the system but doesn't mention the hours being cut in the latest round of "service adjustments."
But hey, it's METRO. Promises made to voters really don't matter all that much when there is utopia to be constructed.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/14/07 09:33 PM |
13 August 2007
Way to serve the community, Metro!
Last week, the Memorial Examiner ran a story about how the Spring Branch Family Development Center was given the cold shoulder by Metro, after being promised four years ago that the taxpayer-funded transit agency would expand bus service in the Spring Branch area:
Barnes has been lobbyingMetro to expand bus service in Spring Branch since the Family Development Center opened in 2001 and came close to success when Metro announced four years ago that it would inaugurate a north-south line on Bingle-Voss-Hilcroft that would run from south of Richmond to near U. S. 290 in Spring Branch.
The route was supposed to open in August 2003 but Metro’s leadership changed, and the new line was scuttled. The executive who supported it was reassigned.
As the story notes, the center was on the receiving end of a large charitable donation that enabled it to provide its own transit service for those in need, in spite of Metro's unwillingness to follow through on a promise:
For just $10 a month, Spring Branch residents who have no means of transportation can get portal-to-portal service to area medical clinics, markets and social service offices on a 14-passenger bus purchased by the Spring Branch Family Development Center with funds donated by an anonymous benefactor.
Recall that Metro doesn't like bus routes to have a more than $6 per-rider subsidy, but doesn't mind the almost $25 per-rider subsidy light rail requires.
You might also find it interesting that Metro's sales tax allocation for August was more than $46 million.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/13/07 07:39 PM |
10 August 2007
"Urban planner" laments lack of opposition to highway 290 expansion
KHOU-11's Jeremy Desel reports that public comment sessions on the proposed highway 290 expansion have produced very little in the way of public comment/opposition:
The planned expansion of State Highway 290 could impact hundreds of homes and businesses the displacement list is long more questions than answers.
"Just rumor from what I've heard from people. Just rumors. And their is many different stories,” said [business owner Stan] Campbell.
The problem is the public comment period for the project ended Wednesday. And the deadline passed with little outcry from those potentially affected.
[snip]
Not what urban planner David Crossley of the Gulf Coast Institute was looking for.
"It not only surprises me it surprises me a lot and it saddens me too,” Crossley said.
That's the same "urban planner David Crossley" who's been a strong advocate for running rail down Richmond (no matter what folks who live/work/drive along Richmond have to say during public comment!) and whose Gulf Coast Institute has also worked for METRO to "study" the matter.
Interestingly, the same groups that lament the apparent lack of opposition to the highway 290 tend to favor METRO running roughshod over folks who live/work/drive along Richmond and who oppose losing traffic capacity, property, and green space to dangerous, ill-conceived at-grade rail. Funny how that works.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/10/07 10:00 PM |
08 August 2007
Metro's public comment meetings
We all know Metro has no direct accountability to the public that funds it, so it's interesting to read a couple of anecdotes about how Metro handles those pesky public comment times.
Recall last week this KHOU-11 story about residents protesting Metro's plan to run the East End rail line down MLK. Metro's David Wolff complained that there's already been plenty of public input, and no more is needed:
“We can’t just wiggle around every time somebody shows up. This process went on for six years like I said we had 140 meetings. At some point you have to make a decision, and stick with it,” said Metro Board Chairman David Wolff.
But look at what happened when a Richmond property owner went to meetings where the University Line was up for discussion:
For 30 years, Francisco Valle has owned one block in Richmond, but now new rail could be coming.
That could affect all four of Valle’s properties.
In fact, he says three of them could be taken in full, “That is what they always emphasized in every meeting. Not to worry about it. It is not going to effect anything. It will only be a few feet from the front. That’s all it’s gonna take.”
In all 13 homes and about one dozen businesses would be lost on the Richmond option.
Were similar soothing reassurances given at the East End meetings? Probably. But all Metro has to do is say it has held these meetings, and its obligation is done. Metro can spin or dismiss any concerns affected residents and property owners might present.
Which is why Metro is pressing forward with the Richmond route, even though that wasn't on the 2003 ballot. It's what Metro and its supporters have wanted all along.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/08/07 08:20 PM |
06 August 2007
The sacrifice needed to make room for the University rail line
KHOU-11 has the first look at what the University Line DEIS report says and it's not pretty:
For 30 years, Francisco Valle has owned one block in Richmond, but now new rail could be coming.
That could affect all four of Valle’s properties.
In fact, he says three of them could be taken in full, “That is what they always emphasized in every meeting. Not to worry about it. It is not going to effect anything. It will only be a few feet from the front. That’s all it’s gonna take.”
In all 13 homes and about one dozen businesses would be lost on the Richmond option.
About 24 homes and one dozen businesses would be lost on the Westpark option and another 10 to 14 homes, depending on the alignment, of the University of Houston section of the line.
Take the area around Richmond and Montrose as an example.
In either option the buildings between Roseland and Stanford are affected.
About four buildings would be completely taken and five more partially affected.
Other buildings also affected as the line continues down Richmond.
If the Westpark option is chosen, the impact turns with the line adding all of the buildings on the west side of Montrose to those completely taken.
Oh, and:
There is a 45 day comment period which ends September 17.
Comment can also be made in person at any of the three public hearings scheduled.
Right. The only comments that will matter to Metro are the ones are in favor of its preferred alignment. Will the CTC stand up for property owners? Don't hold your breath!
Just remember, when a government agency takes private property for mass transit, that's good. When a government agency takes private property for expanding highways, that's bad.
And all this for a boondoggle that will do nothing to reduce congestion. But a rail line down the middle of a street should add to it!
BLOGVERSATION: HouStoned, Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/06/07 07:49 PM |
04 August 2007
Will Metro save the trees along MLK?
Last week Kevin Whited noted this KHOU-11 story on the displeasure of some residents with Metro's plan to run BRT/light rail down MLK:
The trees so carefully placed along the MLK median could soon give way to trains.
Metro’s plan to improve mobility calls for new lanes in the center of MLK, first for new guided buses, and eventually for light rail.
Dee Simon is having none of it. “We’re not willing to see our boulevard, named after one of our heroes, torn up. Look at the damage light rail construction has caused downtown, and it still hasn’t recovered.”
[snip]
Simon says she’ll fight on, to preserve the tree-lined MLK.
Does Metro plan on saving the trees that line MLK? UH is currently relocating 25 big oak trees that are in the way of a housing project, according to the Chron's East End/Third Ward Community News section.
Metro needs to do the same.
MORE: UT recently moved 16 oak trees, as part of the Memorial Stadium expansion project. See, Metro, it can be done!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/04/07 09:29 AM |
Let's see a report on the yellow light times at these intersections
On the Chron's City Hall blog, Matt Stiles posts the latest information on the city's red light cameras:
The department has issued 89,000 citations, and about 57 percent of the cited motorists have paid. This rate, however, is skewed by the fact that motorists have about three months to pay. The payment rate from the earliest months of the program is much higher. Seventy-four percent of those cited in October have paid, for example.
There have been an average of 442 citations issued per day.
The busiest intersection is West Road at the North Freeway (1,066 citations, on average, per month). The slowest is North Shepherd at the North Loop (19 citations, on average, per month).
It could be true that the cameras (and publicity about them) have achieved the "behavior modifications" Executive Assistant Chief Martha Montalvo wants. Monthly citations have declined from a height of 15,293 in April, when only 40 intersections were monitored, to 14,201 in May and 13,512 in June. All 50 cameras were operating during those two months, of course, so the decline is even more significant. We'll see whether this trend continues.
It still boggles my mind that Council didn't force the city to make sure all these intersections were functioning properly; specifically, that lights were timed properly and intersections were well-engineered. Recall that Chron columnist Lisa Falkenberg caught herself running red lights because of downtown's "synchronized" traffic signals. Also recall that, back when red light cameras were being debated, Mayor White balked at the suggestion of increasing yellow light times because he thought that would reduce mobility.
The behavior modification should have begun with city and HPD officials and how they opted for the most punishing "solution" to the problem of red-light running, a problem that might well have its roots in how the city manages its intersections.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/04/07 07:48 AM |
27 July 2007
Who can blame them for being concerned? It's Metro, after all
KTRK-13 has another story on residents in southeast Houston who aren't pleased a light rail line is coming to their neighborhood:
For more than 30 years, Rutha Hymon has lived in MacGregor Place.
"This is a quiet neighborhood, it's close to downtown, you know it's nice," she said.
She lives just a half block from Martin Luther King Boulevard. It's a long a stretch that METRO has selected for construction of a 1.2 mile light rail line between Old Spanish Trail and Griggs Road.
Hymon fears the line could leak stray electricity into the neighborhood and could endanger children who cross MLK to Peck Elementary.
"I don't welcome more problems," she said.
Others agree and say it is risky for METRO to put in a line near where children gather. There is fear that children don't always look both ways before crossing the street.
"They don't do it," said Baba Shango of the Sehah Youth Center. "Some will do it, some won't do it and that is too much of a chance."
Shango is one of a half dozen people who pled with METRO's board to move the route behind their neighborhoods. They also accused the board of not notifying the neighborhood residents concerning public meetings on the issue.
METRO's CEO says 14,000 door hanger meeting notifications were sent out before 140 meetings on the issue which took place over a six year period. He says METRO has been sensitive to the homeowner's concerns and laments that there is no way to please everyone.
"So it is our responsibility to make sure we disrupt the community as little as possible," said METRO's David Wolff. "We're sensitive to safety concerns and we make sure businesses continue to prosper and we are committed to that."
Certainly there is enough of a track record (literally!) along the Danger Train line that residents have plenty of valid reasons to be concerned. Metro's competence to build light rail is not a given.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: KHOU-11 also has a story on this topic. Unfortunately, we will continue to see these sorts of stories so long as we are determined to build light rail at grade, down busy streets and along busy intersections. It's a dangerous, short-sighted way to build transit, and hardly world-class (when compared to the great transit systems of the world, which are not run down busy streets).
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 07/27/07 05:01 AM |
21 July 2007
METRO: "We just can't get it done" (cont'd)
KTRK-13's Katisha Cosley reports that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee's recent meeting with METRO workers turned into a big gripe session over workplace safety and security:
In the past few days, two drivers have been attacked on their buses. One woman driver was raped. And as police look for who was responsible, some METRO drivers are sounding off.
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee called a meeting with the Transport Workers Union to talk about security training with the drivers, but ended up getting an earful about their own safety concerns.
"The bus radio is a joke," said one driver.
"METRO needs to better equip these buses with cameras, so we can feel a little safer on buses," said another.
Another driver voiced her concern, saying, "I shouldn't have to sit there 40, 45 minutes waiting on METRO police to come to my aid."
One by one, METRO bus drivers took turns telling the congresswoman about safety flaws on their buses.
"I think it's appalling," said Jackson-Lee.
Several drivers who spoke said they've had their own run-ins with passengers before.
"It took about 14 minutes, 12- 14 minutes, for METRO police to get there," said a driver during the meeting. "We finally, in the process of struggling with him, had to call HPD."
METRO, whose PR spokesmen are usually quick to respond to criticism via their expensive (but little-read) blog and the traditional media, had no comment for KTRK:
We did talk to METRO police Friday and they said they aren't available for comment. However, they say they are trying out a new camera system. Right now, they have 10 cameras on 10 buses.
10 cameras on 10 buses (out of hundreds) and a slow-to-respond police force with a bumbling chief -- no wonder bus drivers are concerned after recent events!
KPRC-2 could not get a comment from METRO for their story either:
KPRC Local 2 called METRO several times on Friday for a response. The calls were not returned.
It all seems in line with our suggested new METRO motto: "We just can't get it done."
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/21/07 02:40 PM |
16 July 2007
Diversity is beauty, METRO edition
The Chronicle's Rad Sallee reports that diversity is somewhat lacking at METRO, but that President and CEO Frank Wilson is working on the problem:
In 2005, the most recent estimate available, Hispanics made up 30 percent of the area population, but they still are just 16 percent of Metro's work force.
In 2003, the Houston Chronicle reported the Hispanic work force at Metro, then 14.6 percent, had risen by less than 1 percentage point in the previous decade.
In the three years since President and CEO Frank Wilson was hired, it has risen by 1.2 points, and more Hispanics have penetrated the upper job levels.
The hiring gap is notably larger in Metro's work force than in those of the city of Houston (21 percent Hispanic), Harris County (20 percent) or the Houston Independent School District (22 percent.)
[snip]
[Janie Palomo] Reyes and others said they do not think hostility or discrimination against Hispanics is a problem at Metro. The work force is 60 percent black; that rises to 80 percent among the ranks of bus and light rail operators.
[snip]
"We have an obligation, not only to get the best talent we can find, but to make sure it reflects a good, diverse mix of people," he said. "That's what we're held accountable for when we contract with our vendors and suppliers, and that's what we hold ourselves accountable to."
Metro's new human resources director, Helen Cavazos, said the agency's priority is to increase the number of Hispanics in its work force. The question is how.
"We had 250 spots open for operators (drivers)," Wilson said. "I told HR and operations that they could not hire anybody but women and Hispanics until we righted the imbalance, or at least we had to make a good-faith effort to do so.
"We advertised in the newspaper and on the radio. We went to every job fair. We created job fairs. We went on Spanish-speaking television. Finally, they came back to me and said, 'Frank, we just can't get it done.' "
It took a few seconds to absorb President Wilson's hiring edict. Once we moved on, we decided that "We just can't get it done" seems like an appropriate motto for the regional transit organization.
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport, The County Seat.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/16/07 09:25 PM |
11 July 2007
Don't worry, trust METRO (or not)
KHOU-11's Jason Whitely reports that a private firm hired by the Texas Medical Center has found worrisome stray current levels related to METRO's Main Street light-rail line:
In an eight page executive summary of a report prepared by Corrpro for the Texas Medical Center, and reviewed by 11 News, experts discovered worrisome levels of stray current in the foundation walls of the Meyer Building, part of Texas Children’s Hospital, and the Thermal Energy Corporation’s piping system, which supplies water to the all of the hospitals and medical buildings.
Corrpro said these two facilities “had stray current effects sufficient to warrant continued surveillance to detect and respond to possible increases.”
Electricity can corrode the steel rebar enveloped in concrete which is used in foundations and over time could eventually compromise structures.
Inconsequential effects of the leaking current from the light rail line were found at Methodist Hospital, UT Medical School, St. Luke’s Medical Tower, Memorial Hermann Professional Building, Fannin Holcombe Garage, Ben Taub Hospital and Parking Lot E of the Meyer Building.
No stray current was detected in other areas at Texas Children’s Hospital, Memorial Hermann Hospital and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Prevention Center.
Over time, corrosion experts said, all of these facilities could see stray current levels increase.
“Transit system rail stray currents tend to increase as the system ages,” the report stated. Corrpro said the Texas Medical Center “should expect to continue a monitoring program for the life of the rail system.”
METRO's response, as reported by Whitely, is that only a few testing locations had stray current issues that warranted any concern whatsoever.
Previously, METRO's PR representative had assured that the problem posed no more concern than a nine-volt battery, an assessment apparently not shared by the professional engineers hired by the Medical Center to perform independent testing.
UPDATE: The Chronicle posts a catch-up story by Rad Sallee on the topic. The Froot Loops editor must have departed for the day, letting the actual news staff swing into action.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/11/07 12:20 PM |
08 July 2007
Metro: adding bus service and hiding new maps
Finally! A Metro service improvement than might actually be considered an improvement:
METRO’s August service changes include 14 more local trips on routes that include the 1 Hospital and 85 Antoine, and one new commuter trip on the 221 Kingsland. In total, METRO is adding more than 78 hours each weekday that its buses will be on the street.
It's a small step, but it's a step, one that hopefully signals a rethinking of priorities inside the Lee P. Brown Administration Building.
We also learn that while light rail is Metro's transit backbone, bus service "is the heartbeat of our business,” [Metro President Frank] Wilson said. “We’ll continue to expand and improve that service as this region grows and prospers.” Yeah, well, "continue to expand and improve" are not the best choice of words. After several years of nothing but cuts in bus service, Metro might need a heart transplant.
Then Metro's blogger Mary Sit announced that Metro has a new system map. There's just one little problem:
Those of you who have seen our new system map, now available at our RideStores (behind the counter - you have to ask for one), will see some welcomed changes.
Ha! That's the funniest paragraph we've read in a long time. Unfortunately, she wasn't trying to be funny. Typical Metro.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 07/08/07 05:05 PM |
05 July 2007
Chron: Some at-grade rail is kind of dangerous
The Chronicle's Rad Sallee today describes some of Houston's dangerous at-grade rail crossings. Here's an excerpt:
Roughly half of the nearly 1,800 at-grade, or street-level, crossings in the Houston area, like the East Archer location where the teens died June 14, have only "passive" safety devices that are not train-activated. These include "stop," "yield" or "crossing ahead" signs, pavement markings and street lighting.
There are 25 crossings in the Texas Department of Transportation's six-county Houston District that federal officials have approved for "active" signalization — flashing lights and crossing arms.
[snip]
Four other crossings, all near downtown Houston, are recommended for closing.
In addition, TxDOT has recommended 12 other crossings in the Houston district for upgrades. If approved, these likely would be completed by late 2009, Gbur said.
Railroads consider at-grade crossings "an opportunity for something bad to happen" and applaud their elimination, Union Pacific Railroad spokesman Joe Arbona said.
[snip]
Arbona noted that installing flashing signals at an at-grade crossing cannot guarantee safety as long as some drivers ignore the warnings.
"More than half of accidents happen at places where you have signal lights," he said.
However, a driver has to go to some trouble to crash through a crossing arm or deliberately go around it. All 25 of the approved upgrades call for gate arms.
As Laurence Simon observed earlier, there's a rather notable omission in this story about the dangers of at-grade rail crossings that have only minimal, "passive" safety devices: The story does not once mention the fact that most of METRO's light rail is at-grade and most street crossings do not have gate arms.
Interestingly, the story notes that TXDOT is trying to reduce the number of such intersections in the Houston area, but makes no mention of the fact that METRO is determined to move forward with more dangerous at-grade madness with the new rail lines it is building.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/05/07 09:11 PM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]