As you can clearly see, the other UP truck is parked on the tracks at the intersection in front of the crossing gate. A passenger vehicle that appears to be a cadillac or buick is waiting outside for that UP truck to move.
Posted on 03/07/2004 5:02:00 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
After witnessing a weekend of self-congratulatory festivities marking the January 1st debut of Houston’s MetroRail transit system, the hometown newspaper’s editorial board could hardly contain its exuberance. “Viewed from any angle,” opined the Houston Chronicle, the kickoff celebrations were a sure “sign of good things to come.” To the board, itself a merciless campaigner for rail, the roughly 15,000 people in attendance suggested that a “large helping of crow” was in order for transit critics. Reports from Houston spread quickly causing the Arizona Republic’s editorial page to gloat “critics rail at light rail to no avail.” After all, what worked for Houston would surely also work for Phoenix. An Austin-based advocacy group went even further, hailing their favored transit mode’s “enthusiastic acceptance by the public” though also neglecting the role free tickets played in attracting inaugural weekend riders.
Declarations of this sort typified proponent reactions to the controversial “light rail” commuter train – a system that recently consumed $340 million of Houston’s congestion relief funds. Despite the laudatory responses, an ever-growing volume of evidence plays testament to a certainty for Houston: MetroRail may quickly become an anchor around the neck of the city’s transportation system rather than the traffic relief measure of its original intent.
The problems to date are widespread and growing. Before it even opened MetroRail already boasted the dubious record of five automobile-train collisions in barely a month of test runs, thus relegating transit police to blocking duty along the tracks for opening weekend lest another accident replace rail itself as the top evening news story. Constant technical glitches and another ten automobile-train collisions since service began have placed MetroRail on target for becoming the most accident-prone transit system in the nation.
Far from attaining public acceptance, the flow of passengers at the rail stations came to a crashing halt on Monday morning after the festivities. The first paying train departed with only a crew of reporters, did not gain any passengers until the third station, and remained sparsely ridden for the entire day. Aside from a brief Super-Bowl induced rider surge in early February, not much has changed since day one of paid services. Transit officials recently reported that the main parking lot serving their system has averaged only one-fifth capacity on workdays – a figure that is similarly reflected in dismal ridership totals for its first month of operation.
According to official reports from MetroRail, a total of 558,257 passengers road on the train during the month of January. Though rail proponents claimed the figures were proof of “success,” a closer examination reveals that those claims are premature. The figures for January include over 15,000 boardings during the inaugural weekend when free tickets provided an incentive for curious passengers. They also include inflated numbers from pre-Super Bowl festivities on January 29th through 31st when light rail carried about 120,000 passengers for game related events. Accounting for those two extraneous events that induced non-routine ridership surges and the actual monthly boarding figure would be something closer to 425,000 total or about 14,000 round trips (and thus only 7,000 passengers) a day. Either way, MetroRail’s current ridership figures, if sustained, put it on pace to carry somewhere between 5.1 and 6.7 million passengers for 2004 – only half of the 10 to 13 million originally estimated by some rail proponents. Even worse, MetroRail’s $23.5 million annual operating costs indicate that even with the overly optimistic 13 million passenger figure the system will still be $10 million in the hole at the current $1 fare. Barring a quick turnaround from the current pace, that figure may to fall over $18 million short from simply recovering its annual operating costs at the fare box, all to be taken from public monies.
As if its financial boondoggle status were not bad enough, light rail’s disastrous safety record has become something of a legend in Houston. Affectionately dubbed the “Wham-Bam-Tram” by local conservative activists, light rail has lived up to its nickname. A summary of the collisions and glitches to date reveals the extent of this growing problem:
CRASH 1: November 19, 2003 – Light rail is involved in its first accident, hitting the fender of an SUV as it turned across the tracks.While transit backers dismiss light rail’s shortcomings as temporary adaptation problems for commuters, the issue is substantially more fundamental. MetroRail’s tribulations derive almost entirely from an inherent yet neglected system design flaw: the operation of trains in mixed traffic. Whereas popular transit systems such as the Washington D.C. METRO use grade-separated tracks that do not intersect vehicular lanes, MetroRail runs in the middle of a major thoroughfare along side and in between automobiles. This design is something akin to placing 21st century bullet trains on 19th century trolley tracks and attempting to operate them in a pattern that requires stopping every six blocks.CRASH 2: December 16, 2003 – Train hits the bumper of a car as it pulls out of a driveway on Fannin at Southmore.
CRASH 3: December 19, 2003 – MetroRail collides with a pickup truck turning left from Main at Alabama. A light rail crash safety drill was occurring a few blocks away at the time of the accident.
CRASH 4: December 20, 2003 – Light rail crashes into a Ford Explorer making a left turn from Fannin at John Freeman in the Medical Center.
CRASH 5: December 30, 2003 – MetroRail collides with a passenger car exiting a private driveway along the tracks on Fannin.
CRASH 6: January 9, 2004 – Light rail collides with a passenger car turning left at Fannin and Binz. The driver was apparently confused over the difficult to read lighted no-turn signs along the route.
CRASH 7: January 19, 2004 – A light rail train collides with a suburban attempting to make a left turn off of Fannin at Dryden. The intersection contains notoriously confusing turning lane signs switch to no-turn signs when a train is present.
CRASH 8: January 23, 2004 – A light rail train obliterates a Union Pacific maintenance truck and severely injures its driver on a test track that runs parallel to the UP track. The train involved in the collision was also traveling at approximately 60 mph on a “test” run – a speed not even remotely approached during the stop-and-go operations of street use that average just over 12 mph.
CRASH 9: January 26, 2004 – MetroRail collides with a passenger car attempting to make a left turn off of Fannin at Southmore in the Museum District
CRASH 10: January 27, 2004 – Light rail hits a Toyota minivan attempting to turn left on McGowen from Main.
CRASH 11: February 5, 2004 – A train collides with an automobile turning left off of Fannin at Dryden in the Medical Center. This intersection is the sight of an earlier accident where confusing lighted no-turn signs may have contributed to the crash.
CRASH 12: February 15, 2004 – MetroRail hits a flatbed truck alleged to have run a light while crossing Pierce near downtown.
CRASH 13: February 19, 2004 – Light rail involved in an accident with an armored car pulling out of a bank parking lot near Fannin and Southmore
CRASH 14: February 21, 2004 – Train collides with a van turning left at Fannin and Montrose.
CRASH 15: February 24, 2004 – Train crashes into a car turning left at Fannin and Dryden – the third collision to date near this intersection.
Electricity Failure 1: January 4, 2004 – A power failure near Reliant Park shuts down the light rail system in its vicinity forcing riders to leave the stalled trains through emergency exits after 18 minutes without air conditioning. The power failure exposed another design flaw in the system by shutting down crossing gates along roadways for the duration of the outage. The result: when MetroRail ceases to move so does everyone else in a car nearby. A frustrated driver and a Metro bus reportedly broke through two of the gates during the outage.
Electricity Failure 2: January 17, 2004 – A small fire at a power station shuts down a lengthy segment of the light rail system for over an hour and a half. Stranded passengers had to be carried by bus to their destinations
Electricity Failure 3: February 6, 2004 – A delivery truck reportedly clipped one of the relatively low-hanging high voltage trolley cables between the Wheeler and Rice stations. Light rail obtains its power from a modern day version of a “troller” – a device invented in the 1880’s that makes electrical contact with open wires suspended overhead. The accident happened at about 9:30 AM and took until 1:30 PM to be repaired. Reports from the scene indicate that it may have taken up to half an hour for repair crews to respond to the downed wire.
Super Bowl Shutdown: January 29-February 1, 2004 – Light rail was originally sold to Houstonians under the claim that it would help carry passengers with ease at major sporting events such as the Super Bowl, yet during the event’s festivities many streets proved too crowded to safely operate the trains. As a result transit officials shut down large segments of the light rail line into downtown, leaving thousands without an easy access to transportation. Persons trying to enter and exit downtown had to wait up to two hours despite the trip’s length of only a few miles.
As with streetcars, MetroRail’s constant stopping prevents trains from completing a journey in a reasonably efficient time. The current 7.5 mile journey takes 35 minutes at an average of 12.8 mph, or roughly the top speed of a Segway Scooter. Three Chronicle reporters recently experienced this flaw the hard way by timing the train against busses and automobiles. MetroRail runs 50% slower than both alternatives and also costs more when parking and fares are considered – all facts that leave little room for wonder about the system’s dismal ridership.
The fifteen accidents to date stem in large part from automobile driver error yet one cannot help but question that their frequency, and thus some culpability, results from a common sense failure in rail design. This circumstance may be demonstrated through a simple comparison. Few will deny that a cliff-side highway with no guardrails poses a danger in its own right to drivers who steer off the road and into the ocean below. Though the error in steering is itself a fault of the driver, the absence of a cliff-side guardrail provides a substantial contributing factor to the accident. The proximate cause for each accident is a negligent design that makes that particular stretch of road accident-prone and an abnormally high frequency of accidents would provide more than ample testament to that design flaw.
Houston’s at-grade light rail exhibits its own abnormally high accident rate and that alone, even with driver error, is cause to seriously reexamine the system’s design. Though light rail supporters, such as the militant smart growthers at Austin’s “Light Rail Now!,” tend to dismiss their favored transit system’s inherent hazard to traffic as the product of Houston having the “nation’s worst drivers” (after all, no wrong could ever be committed by a transit system in their minds), the real issue at hand is once again the fundamentally bad idea behind light rail itself: at-grade mixed traffic operations. Putting a full sized passenger train in the middle of vehicular traffic makes about as much sense as installing a lane of vehicular traffic down the toy aisle at Wal-Mart. It has about as much logic to it as trying to land passenger jetliners on an interstate or conducting navy war exercises at a popular snorkeling spot. All of these situations create inherently dangerous conditions for users who are patently ill-suited for simultaneous interactions. Since the problem stems from design, simply writing tickets every time somebody gets hurt and simply sticking an oversized deer-whistle-for-humans on the front of a train will never lessen accident frequency.
Similar problems will continue to impede the success of MetroRail so long as transit advocates refuse to reevaluate their system’s design. At the unfortunate insistence of these same persons and their corporate cronies who profit from transit construction contracts, Houston voters narrowly approved a substantial light rail expansion before having an opportunity to see phase one in action. An opportunity, though small, presently exists to achieve this end: separate the grade for any and all expansions of MetroRail and take passenger trains off the streets. Instead of bestowing unearned and premature declarations of success on the new system, officials must come to grip with the fact that fundamental flaws exist and correct for them before a 7.5 mile boondoggle in downtown becomes a 60 mile folly for the entire Houston region.
The Houston MetroRail isn't a high speed train.
It is a local, light rail commuter system that travels at regular traffic speed, just like any other trolley system. There's no reason for Houston drivers to be running into it more than other cities unless they are complete idiots.
Wrong! The metrorail system is a high speed train operating at constant start-and-stop conditions that accordingly restrict its AVERAGE speed for the route to about 10-15 mph SLOWER than vehicles on the route. In between two stops though (roughly 1/2 a mile apart) the train rapidly accelerates to somewhere in the 35 mph range, accumulates the said momentum for that speed, then rapidly decelerates to a stop almost as soon as it peaks. Trolleys of the old style can stop and start _almost_ as quickly as a bus or large truck. But Metrorail accumulates momentum and cannot, thus the wrecks. Put another way, it has all of the bad qualities of a trolley and none of the good.
There's no reason for Houston drivers to be running into it more than other cities unless they are complete idiots.
Compare the design to any other major city and you will find that Houston's has (1) more dangerous technical glitches, (2) more mixed interface intersections, and (3) less mileage than any other major system in the country. The result to date has been (4) more wrecks in 3 months than many longer and better designed systems average in an entire year.
By S.K. BARDWELL and LUCAS WALL Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
A Union Pacific Railroad employee was seriously injured Friday morning when he drove his utility truck under a railroad crossing barrier lifted by a co-worker and was struck by a Metro train in southwest Houston, police said.
Christopher McGinnis, 30, of Houston was in serious but stable condition at Memorial Hermann Hospital on Friday afternoon. He worked as a welder for Union Pacific, said company spokesman John Bromley.
The Metro train operator trainee, Walter McBride, 48, activated the emergency brake as the train traveled 50 mph and was thrown into the windshield. He suffered minor injuries and was transported to Ben Taub Hospital. After being released, he complained of glass in his eyes and was then taken to Memorial Hermann, said Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton.
The only passengers aboard the train were four other driver trainees who were taken to hospitals as a precaution, according to Metro. None suffered injuries.
The crash happened about 9 a.m. as the Union Pacific truck, southbound on Kirby, drove past railroad crossing arms blocking tracks along Holmes Road. It was struck by the eastbound light rail train, said Metro Police Chief Tom Lambert. The crash was the eighth involving a Metro train since testing began last fall.
Metro police said witnesses, including another railroad worker, saw a Union Pacific employee lift the crossing gate so McGinnis could drive past the red flashing lights indicating a train was approaching.
The employee who witnessed the collision said he and his co-workers were briefed that morning on safety precautions, including a warning that Metro was conducting train tests, according to a Metro police report.
Bromley said he had heard those reports but could not comment on the allegations until Union Pacific completes its investigation.
Ignoring, disabling or defeating safety barriers is against company policy, and all employees are well trained in safety policies and procedures, Bromley said. No decision will be made about any disciplinary action against McGinnis, who has been with Union Pacific since 1997, until the investigation is complete, he said.
Metro President & CEO Shirley DeLibero said she was shocked at the circumstances of the crash and intends to address safety concerns with UP officials. But, she noted, it appears the worker was properly briefed and chose to ignore his instructions.
The test track allows the trains to reach their maximum design speed of 66 mph. They may only travel up to 40 mph on the Main Street line.
Each light rail train must be driven 1,000 miles before it can carry passengers. Most of that "burn in" occurs on the Metropolitan Transit Authority's 1.7-mile test track, which runs parallel to two UP freight-railroad tracks near the light rail yard at Fannin and West Bellfort.
Train 115 suffered severe damage. Connaughton said it's not yet known if repairs can be made in time to put it back in service for next week's Super Bowl events. Metro has 16 other trains available.
The utility truck was badly mangled, and the train's front wheels were knocked off the tracks.
"These trains weigh 98,000 pounds," Lambert said. "They are going to probably win in any circumstance where there is a conflict with a truck or automobile."
So, um, remind me again...who's fault was the accident?
Based upon all the evidence I have seen, Metro appears to have a greater share in the fault. To the best of my knowledge though the investigations of that wreck have not been finalized yet, or if they have it hasn't been publicized.
It should also be noted that you CANNOT trust the Houston Chronicle to provide an accurate, complete, or even remotely objective story about anything that Metro is involved in. Why? Because they have a policy of intentionally slanting their news coverage to promote light rail - a fact that was inadvertantly revealed to the public last year when they accidently posted the memo detailing it onto the web. The story the wrote about the January 23rd wreck is no different.
As photos from the wreck site reveal, the truck that was hit was actually one of two UP crews working on the same section of track (Note: this was not reported by the Chronicle).
Those photos also reveal that the other truck was parked on top of the tracks in front of the crossing guard, which is part of the pre-existing freight railroad system and not metrorail's test track, which simply shares them and runs parallel to them. This also makes it equally if not more likely that the crossing bars were down due to the presence of the first repair crew and not metrorail. This is key because if the UP truck driver thought or knew that the other truck was in control of the crossing gates his own bypassing of those gates would have been perfectly legitimate (Note: this was not reported by the Chronicle)
As the photos from the scene also reveal, a civilian vehicle was waiting outside of the gates at the crossing that was blocked by the other UP vehice. It was waiting there because of that other UP vehicle, NOT metrorail (Note: this was not reported by the Chronicle)
And as reports of the accidents reveal, metrorail was travelling at a speed substantially in excess of the absolute fastest rate it will ever travel in normal operations, giving more than enough reason to question the need to operate it in such a manner (Note: this was not substantially considered by the Chronicle).
As I noted previously, an analogy demonstrates the clear bias of the Chronicle and others who assign blame upon UP. Suppose that the UP crew was a road repair crew working on an interstate. Suppose metrorail was a motor vehicle, and suppose that vehicle also recieved full notice that a road crew was working on the interstate where they travelled a few miles ahead. Now suppose a worker in that road crew, which consisted of several teams and was visible from at least a half mile back, briefly stepped around one of the orange cones to access the other side of the road he was working on. As he did so, other vehicles in the area (such as a car at a nearby intersection) waited for the crew to finish its work before proceeding on their own. Yet the motorist on the interstate, fully aware of that crew yet still travelling 20 mph above the normal speed limit to say nothing of standard construction zone reductions, decided he would plow through there anyway without making any adjustment or compensation for the fact that the road was being worked on. He hits the repair crewman in the crossing after making a late but ineffective attempt to brake and severely injures him in the process. QUESTION: Under the standard law of practically every single state in the union, who is at primary fault?
The answer will virtually always be the motorist, and so should it be with metrorail.
As you can clearly see, the other UP truck is parked on the tracks at the intersection in front of the crossing gate. A passenger vehicle that appears to be a cadillac or buick is waiting outside for that UP truck to move.
How is it stupid? UP workers service gates all the time and do so by hand. They also intentionally lower gates so they can service crossings. If two work trucks are going to a particular crossing and the first one there lowers the gates to begin servicing it, the only way for the second one to get in is to lift it up and bypass it for access. I've personally seen this done a dozen times or more as there was a regularly serviced RR crossing just across the street from my highschool. That was several years ago but I know of no reason why they've changed the practice any since then.
Also, to note that they had been briefed about metrorail is about like noting that a road crew has been briefed that there will be traffic on the interstate. They already know trains are operating on the tracks because that is part of the job. Train operators are also briefed though (as are motorists via signs a mile or two up the road) that a repair crew is working on the tracks today and this was no different with metrorail. It is always incumbent upon the vehicle operator to be on the lookout for work crews and adjust his operating practices to ensure their safety, not the other way around.
As far as you statements about the speed of the train while under testing, it has to be tested at that rate to find out if the vehicle meets the requirements of the contract.
It does, but not constantly and in every single test run. Metrorail had been testing for 3 months at the time of this accident and had plenty of other runs to see if it would go its top speed.
Sure, the paper is probably biased, but which one isn't? At least when reading the newspaper account their bias doesn't appear to be so rabid and emotional as yours does. Why don't you admit your own bias that no matter what this system could do for Houston, you'll never be for it?
That's a nice little tu quoque fallacy you play, though it does not even begin to challenge the validity of anything I have said. In the case of metrorail though - you are correct in one thing. I will probably oppose any version of light rail that they offer simply because it cannot and does not work in Houston (or most other cities for that matter). It's an inherently flawed system thus it would be stupid for me to say that I'll overlook those flaws and consider them. Now separate grade commuter rail or elevated rail - those are another story and in certain cases I would favor them. But that's metro's burden to meet and to date they insist upon cramming light rail down our throats without any significant input or seriously considered comparison to any other alternative.
Every , let me repeat, every single vehicle has to be tested throughout the range of requirements because each vehicle needs to show the capacity to meet all of the specifications. Have you even read this contract?
I would agree with your point about the crossing gate except one minor problem - the gate is used for the light rail as well as UP. The fact that this ignoramus lifted the gate while having prior knowledge that the LRVs would be undergoing testing shows a blantant disregard for safety features. This accident could have been avoided just like all of the other ones where people feel they can "beat the trains" by going through or around lowered crossing signals.
But that's metro's burden to meet and to date they insist upon cramming light rail down our throats without any significant input or seriously considered comparison to any other alternative.
Wasn't this put up for a referendum and voted on by the public? If this was truly forced on you (like many of the things I live with out here in Kalifornia because of our Socialist leaders without voter input) I guess I might have some sympathy. Face it, you lost. Buck up and try harder next time something comes up. But quit "the grassy knoll" approach on everything Metro does. Of course, you could always move out here....
FINE! And let me repeat: Metro has been "testing" every single vehicle at the 60 mph speed up and down that track for the last four months with or without track repair crews working on site. Further, let me repeat, it does not even matter if they try to duck behind their contract as justification for going 60 mph on that particular day as simple common sense dictates that they should have chosen to operate at reduced speeds from the simple knowledge that a repair crew was in the vicinity. You wouldn't drive down an interstate at top speed with a repair crew present and you certainly wouldn't offer as an excuse the fact that you had planned to go top speed in advance regardless of what the road conditions were. So why does metro?
I would agree with your point about the crossing gate except one minor problem - the gate is used for the light rail as well as UP.
That's no problem at all. The tracks run parallel as do many railroad tracks all over the county. The problem with your argument though is that union pacific has been operating that crossing guard at that track's intersection for years and possibly even a century or more, as some rail lines into Houston are that old. Metrorail is the newcomer and they're using equipment that was NOT especially installed for them but rather has always been there for the freight trains.
The fact that this ignoramus lifted the gate while having prior knowledge that the LRVs would be undergoing testing shows a blantant disregard for safety features.
Exactly how else was he supposed to get onto the track other than lifting the gate that his buddies in the other UP vehicle appear to have lowered so they could begin repairs? And once again, would you tell a road crew that it was entirely up to them to lookout for cars on the interstate that were going by at the 70 mph speed limit regardless of their work a few feet away? Probably not. In situations such as these the principles of physics and the standards of law ALWAYS say that the primary burden for caution is on the bigger or faster moving vehicle. Why? Because in any collision between them and a repair crew, the repair crew will always lose.
Wasn't this put up for a referendum and voted on by the public?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Phase one of light rail (as in the one operating right now and having all those wrecks) was built before a single vote was ever cast on it. In fact, Metro went to court against us at least three times to defeat an attempt to force a public referendum by petition and succeeded in doing so. The only vote we ever had was on the expansion. It passed by a 1% margin only because they logrolled it on an election day when the city of houston voted for mayor by harris county had no other races. We got this thing decided for us by Mayor Lee P. Brown and his cronies on the metro board without so much as one vote of public input.
Yes, I am biased too, as I worked on the LRV project in a prettty high position, so I tend to be a little "thin-skinned" when attacks are made against the project. In this thread and many of the other ones that discuss Metro, I get tired of hearing the bitterness poured out on something that doesn't deserve it, namely the trains. Let's get real, it is only an inanimate object designed and built by a large group of American workers. Many of you who oppose the system sound so "sophmoric" with your little pet names you give the project and the photoshopping of the pictures. Get over it, the reason you are so pissed is that your City Council voted against your position and you do not like it. Take you anger out on them and not where it doesn't belong.
Fact: Not all systems that run at street-level have the same amount of accidents as this one, or any accidents at all.
Fact: No deaths have occurred as a result of this system but property damage has (who came up with the Deathtrain stuff, a sixth grader?).
Fact: The entire system was built and installed to the latest codes and legal requirements (Yet, for me, this is the area that I would focus on as being the weak link in the system).
Fact: The negative campaigning and slurring of the system degrades the populaces belief in the system (which is maybe what the agenda really is) and impacts the ridership levels of the train.
Fact: The City Council acted within the legal boundaries of their authority as representatives of the citizens (they just happened to make the choice you did not like) but at least they made a choice and acted on it.
Fact: The accidents have all been the result of violating posted warning systems (either the warning systems do what they are supposed to or don't - but why they don't work might be because drivers aren't paying attention).
Fact: LTK (out of Pennsylvania) had most of the design oversite authority and they have a very good track record for putting systems into place (if you don't like what they did, hire your own consultants to evaluate their work).
Again, take you bitterness out on where it belongs in your mind - the City Council. So you have a hosebag group of leaders that you do not like or what you feel they did to your city. Vote them out! Get rid of them! Or, if it really is so bad, move. Life is too short to harbor so much anger.
Rail transit has been touted as an economical and environmentally-friendly means of transportation for urban dwellers. Yet a study by the Reason Foundation concludes that rail transit is more expensive and polluting than automobiles.
Moreover, it reduces mobility for transit riders and automobile users.
According to the study:
o Twenty-four urban areas with rail transit systems experienced a total loss of 33,000 transit commuters during the 1990s, compared to gains of 27,000 transit commuters in areas with bus-only transit systems.
o During the 1990s, rail transit's share of motorized travel declined in two out of three regions.
o Rail regions must use about 50 to 80 percent of their transportation funds for rail transit systems that serve only 1 to 5 percent of urban travelers
o Three out of five rail lines use more energy per passenger mile than automobiles.
Even where rail transit can reduce air pollution, say researchers, the cost is exorbitant -- roughly $1 million per ton of reduced emissions, compared to $10,000 per ton for many other air quality measures.
Additionally, rail transit is not necessarily safer than automobiles. Between 1992 and 2001, light rail killed almost nine times as many people per passenger mile as buses or highways.
Source: Randal O'Toole, "The Great Rail Disaster," Reason Public Policy Institute, February 16, 2004.
For text http://www.rppi.org/thegreatraildisaster.shtml
For more on Transit and Urban Land Use http://eteam.ncpa.org/policy/Land_Issues/Urban_Land_Use/
I realize you take some pride in those trains but those of us who oppose the system have perfectly valid complaints against them. Specifically, trains of that type are unfit for safe operation on streets as currently designed in Houston. We also tend to take issue with the exhorbitant costs we paid for them and the fact that they provide us with no substantial performance advantage over what could have been obtained for substantially less.
Many of you who oppose the system sound so "sophmoric" with your little pet names you give the project and the photoshopping of the pictures.
Hey, there's no harm in having a little fun at metro's expense even if it is silly!
Get over it
No. I'm not going to get over it because, unlike you, I have to live with that death machine travelling down the streets of my city and I have to pay for its extremely inefficient operations with a sales tax on everything I buy here for perpetuity.
the reason you are so pissed is that your City Council voted against your position and you do not like it.
Wrong again. City Council did not adopt the rail and in fact some members of council led the lawsuit I previously spoke of to force a referendum. Houston's transit agency (which has jurisdiction over Houston proper and over Harris County) is an unelected board that is ultimately accountable to one man and one man alone: the mayor of Houston. He has the power to appoint 5 of the 9 metro board members - a majority that lets him do whatever he wants. In effect, he makes governing decisions for over a million residents who do NOT live in the city limits and do NOT have any say in his election or any other city government election. We got stuck with the mayor of Houston's metrorail project after having no say in it and we got shafted with the bill.
Take you anger out on them and not where it doesn't belong.
I would, but you know what? I CAN'T VOTE FOR MAYOR OF HOUSTON! And I CAN'T VOTE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE METRO BOARD! The latter are all appointed and accountable to one man: the mayor of Houston. And since I don't currently reside in the city limits, I have no say in who that mayor is. I still pay the metro sales tax and I still have to put up with the roads that they tear up and the roads that they run their death machines on but I have absolutely no say and no representation in their agency.
Fact: Not all systems that run at street-level have the same amount of accidents as this one, or any accidents at all.
...which seems to suggest that Houston's system has an extremely poor and in fact inherently flawed design system. As I said earlier, we've had more wrecks in three months than most cities have in a year and it is because of the system's terrible design.
Fact: No deaths have occurred as a result of this system but property damage has .
...it's only a matter of time.
(who came up with the Deathtrain stuff, a sixth grader?)
...actually, its an extension of the notorious Metro Death Bus problem in Houston, and they mow down dozens of pedestrians and vehicles every year with several casualties.
Fact: The entire system was built and installed to the latest codes and legal requirements
...yet it still has hundreds of unfixed technical glitches and still manages to be involved in a collision every 3 or 4 days.
Fact: The negative campaigning and slurring of the system degrades the populaces belief in the system (which is maybe what the agenda really is) and impacts the ridership levels of the train.
...yet the populace (as in Harris County as a whole) has NEVER conclusively demonstrated its belief in the system to begin with and NEVER had an opportunity to vote on this phase of the project. As for adversely impacting ridership, I am more than happy to contribute for the simple reason that the less people ride this one, the less of a drive there will be in the future to expand the damn thing.
Fact: The City Council acted within the legal boundaries of their authority as representatives of the citizens (they just happened to make the choice you did not like) but at least they made a choice and acted on it.
WRONG! City Council does NOT have control over the Metro board - the mayor of Houston does. And as mayor of Houston, he and his metro board appointees make decisions for all of Harris County including over a million people who do NOT get a chance to vote for him and who have no control over metro's policies.
Fact: The accidents have all been the result of violating posted warning systems
...only in several places along the route those posted warning systems (i.e. the lighted train signs) have been giving simultaneous and contradictory signals with other posted warning systems (i.e. the green traffic light).
Fact: LTK (out of Pennsylvania) had most of the design oversite authority and they have a very good track record for putting systems into place (if you don't like what they did, hire your own consultants to evaluate their work).
We already have. Independent organizations in Houston have brought in professional transit consultants from all over the country. One transit consultant from Los Angeles was hired by a local TV station and came to the conclusion that it was the worst designed light rail system he had ever seen.
Again, take you bitterness out on where it belongs in your mind - the City Council.
But city council is powerless in this matter.
So you have a hosebag group of leaders that you do not like or what you feel they did to your city. Vote them out! Get rid of them!
I would if I could, but I don't get to vote for Mayor of Houston nor do a million other Harris County residents who are impacted by his metrorail projects.
Taxation without representation was a main beef of our Founding Fathers. It thrives today in greater Houston. I've never seen the dang train, will never be in a position to ever ride it, and there are no plans to ever expand it to anywhere near where I live.
But I'm paying for it, AND at the expense of the budget for maintaining the roads I have to drive to get to work.
This was a bonehead idea, ridiculously expensive, and which will do nothing to relieve traffic congestion. At best, it will bring added business to collision repair shops.
One of the things that irks me more than anything else about it is when out of towners who don't live anywhere near Houston and who don't have to live with the stupid thing like all Harris County residents do show up on FR and start lecturing me on how my city needs to have rail like theirs does and how I have no grounds to complain when I, as a taxpayer, get shafted by a system that I never wanted, never asked for, and never got to vote for but, thanks to the absence of democracy in Houston's government, I have to live with.
And quite frankly I don't care if LTK and all those other light rail contractors who descended upon Houston built the thing with high tech state of the art space shuttle tiles and supersonic jet airplane engines - it's still a crappy, overpriced, ineffective, poorly designed, and outright dangerous transit system that I never asked for, never wanted, still don't want, and never will want that I'll nevertheless have to pay for in perpetuity.
THAT is exactly what is wrong with Metrorail and every last cretin who pushed the thing down our throats and facilitated its construction without our consent is equally guilty and culpable for the crime against democracy that they committed by giving it to us. Mayor Brown, Shirley DiLibero, the METRO board, the downtown cronies like Ed Wulfe and Arthur Schechter - they're all responsible for it. But so are the light rail contractors who cut the deals to build the thing and who pumped money into the political accounts of its proponents. As far as I'm concerned, Siemens is just as much a part of the problem as Brown, the METRO board, and Wulfe. What they did with Metrorail is no different than what they've been doing for the past 70 years since Hitler hired them to lay power lines to Auschwitz: whoring themselves out to governments who rob their citizenry and abuse the consent of the governed while they run off with a cushy contract and a project that will provide them return business as long as it exists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.