13 Comment

• daga October 22, 2014 at 9:55 am

  Mr. Kubosh realizes the 90s are over and Destiny’s Child isn’t a thing anymore right?
• tony October 22, 2014 at 10:14 am

  No matter what route gets the nod, for-profit HSR for the primary sake of connecting the two cities must not take precedence over Houston’s regional commuter rail needs that only a non-profit, elected body (e.g., local government) is qualified to elucidate. Citizens with dutiful concern for implementation of mass transit in the interest of the Houston community must insist that the bullet train route take a path and implement stations along a route that optimally impacts commuter rail needs for this area.

  While both currently leading proposals for the bullet train’s path utilizes a US-290 approach into downtown, the clearest, most immediate need is to connect the Woodlands and IAH with downtown and link into Metro’s light rail network. Dallas is planning this strategy and Houston ought to as well.

  If the Hwy 290 proposal and a worship of this project win out simply because it’s a non-gov’t entity that’s spearheading and HSR is not routed along an I-45 corridor instead, this region misses out on a crucial opportunity to address long pent-up commuter rail demand for Montgomery County and IAH travelers.
• joel October 22, 2014 at 11:14 am

  let’s all take a moment to thank jersey village for electing such high class money grubbing worthless politicians. this one goes to you Elkins.
  ***
  and the idea of a “destiny’s child lane” just made me throw up in my mouth.
• joel October 22, 2014 at 11:17 am

  alright, I admittedly typed that before checking his voting record assuming the worst and yes indeed, this guy is a slimeball.

  http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/5502/gary-elkins#.VEfYD0GKLgU
• HoustonOnly October 22, 2014 at 11:39 am

  Miami? I thought this was a Houston real estate blog?
• TheNiche October 22, 2014 at 12:26 pm

  Commuter rail is superfluous to Houston’s highly effective P&R and HOV/HOT system. Airport-to-downtown routes in similar cities (serving mostly non-residents, who don’t pay many taxes) have notoriously low rates of ridership by comparison with similar intraurban routes (serving residents, who pay most of the taxes). METRO is highly debt-burdened already, so any investment toward commuter rail represents a dis-investment from existing services. And moreover, getting Union Pacific or BNSF to agree to share its already-congested freight tracks is very unlikely.

  Its long-term prospects are also very poor. On the transit demand side, an increasing share of employment is being created outside of the urban core in places that can only be served by a decentralized transit model. On the transit supply side, all it would take to significantly reduce congestion is to put a significant portion of commuters into self-driven cars and public or private ridesharing services. In that scenario, capital-intensive fixed-route transit is subject to a high risk of functional and economic obsolescence.

  The pro-commuter-rail argument is over, its done, its demolished. Its fruitless to pretend otherwise.
• TMR October 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm

  @tony Unfortunately, this is an example of politics being the art of the possible. TCR will get priority over regional rail, simply because they have clearer paths toward funding, and fewer difficulties securing right-of-way (astonishingly) than METRO or a hypothetical multi-county agency would.

  Any rail improvements in the region are better than no rail at all. A critical mass of riders on the bullet trains might be what it takes to generate enough political will to get a comprehensive commuter plan put into place.
• Ian October 22, 2014 at 12:45 pm

  Just looked at Elkins’ record. What a steaming turd, this guy should be nowhere near an elected office.
• awp October 22, 2014 at 1:03 pm

  tony,
  “regional commuter rail needs that only a non-profit, elected body (e.g., local government) is qualified to elucidate.”
  Why would you believe that?
  God forbid some private entity put up a route where it was most valued by the people who would actually use it.
  How does placing one route exclude the placing of further routes?
• Memebag October 22, 2014 at 1:23 pm

  @tony: The same train can’t do both things well. Commuter rail is great, and should be developed as soon as Houston’s public transit system can handle it. The Dallas bullet train is entirely unrelated. The trains coming from Dallas will be full of people already. They won’t be getting off to make room for commuters.
• Thomas October 22, 2014 at 2:49 pm

  Destiny’s Child Lane?!?! It’s not April 1st is it???
• Local Planner October 22, 2014 at 2:54 pm

  According to TCR, they’re not using any public funds, so they will put their route wherever they feel maximizes their financial performance and where they can secure access, mostly through private agreements with the owners of the right of way. The government has no business telling them that they need to modify their plans to accommodate commuter rail, unless they’re bringing a big pot of money (and not too many strings) to the table.

  NIche is correct, the HOV/HOT/Park&Ride system can provide superior service to commuter rail – leaves every 5-10 minutes, can travel at high speeds most of the way (provided the HOT/HOV lanes are kept uncongested), and takes you close to your building without having to change vehicles. Unless we’re going to fully grade-separate commuter rail to and through downtown and other activity centers (huge $$$), I don’t see why it would be preferable to the user.
• TMR October 22, 2014 at 5:31 pm

  IMO, though, the best thing about the HSR route proposals is that they all lend themselves to a reconstruction of the Southern Pacific Grand Central Station northwest of downtown. This is an opportunity to create a true signature gateway to the city, better than other attempts have been.