Published on Thursday, August 21, 2003 by the Christian Science Monitor Houston Grapples With Mass Transit - and its Ego by Kris Axtman Dale Patterson has taught herself Spanish. Each day she spends about three hours driving to and from work - and that gives her plenty of time to catch up on the news, make cellphone calls, and listen to Spanish-language tapes. Not part of her Berlitz lessons: How to politely complain to city officials that she's had it with these long commutes, clogged freeways, polluted skies, endless road construction, and practically non-existent mass transit. ¡Caramba! Ms. Patterson is one of 2.1 million commuters who take to the roads around Houston each day, frustrated and fed up. This transplant from Chicago says she'd gladly leave the driving to the city if that was an option. It's not - at least not yet. This November, Houstonians will get their chance to vote on the most ambitious mass-transit proposal since the creation of the Metropolitan Transit Authority in 1978. It includes 40 miles of light-rail extensions, an eight-mile commuter train track to Missouri City, 142 additional miles of Park & Ride bus service, 44 new bus routes, and bike racks on all buses. While it may sound good in theory, the idea of stepping out of cars and onto commuter trains is about as foreign to native Houstonians as a meal of leafy greens. This is a city built on the automobile, after all, fed on fossil fuel and the stretch of prairie land - with endless miles of road to cross it. But city officials warn that two million new faces will be pouring into the area over the next two decades, and freeways will simply not accommodate them all. 'The future of our city is at stake' The result is a fight over the city's soul. Will Houston change its character, become a denser, more pedestrian-friendly community like New York or Boston? Or will it keep spreading, with ever-greater freeway systems that snake through southeast Texas? That question will soon be in the hands of weary commuters who, according to a new report by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, drive more miles per capita than residents in any other US metropolitan area - 37.6 miles each day. "The future of our city is at stake," says Arthur Schechter, chair of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County. "If we don't do this [pass the mass-transit plan] or something like it, we're headed for disaster." Houston's lack of public transportation is already being felt, says Mr. Schechter - and not simply on the freeways. The city lost its bid for the 2012 Olympics in part because of a low transportation score. A new Toyota assembly plant scratched Houston from its list, naming air pollution as the main drawback. And more and more CEOs say they're having trouble luring bright, ambitious workers to the city because of quality-of-life qualms linked to congestion. But despite the clear hazards of sluggish mass transit, if history is any guide, the fight over the new multibillion-dollar proposal will be knotty. Opposition is well-funded and outspoken, spearheaded by business leaders (such as land developers and oil executives) who believe the answer lies in building more roads. They claim that cities with more sprawl have lower housing costs. That's the main reason Kaysie and Matt Colman live so far outside Houston. "You get more for your money," Kaysie says. They recently moved closer - but still commute two hours daily. And although they work at the same restaurant, they often drive in separately. Kaysie has visited cities with subways and says she'd definitely use one here, but Matt is more hesitant. He loves being independent and alone behind the wheel. "It's a sensible idea," he admits. "I would probably use it once in a while." But Kaysie smirks as she straightens her apron, unconvinced by the image of Matt on a subway. The will to drive and the drive to build Critics of the mass-transit plan say that fierce Texas independence - and the way it is manifested behind the wheel - may prove unconquerable by buses in a city with freeways nearly as wide as they are long. "The car culture is absolutely intrinsic to the whole nature of Houston. It was built by, for, and on behalf of the automobile," says Stephen Klineberg, a sociologist at Rice University in Houston. "So Houstonians are never going to want to give up their cars, but that does not mean they wouldn't want to ride in a state-of-the-art rail system." Indeed, recent polls show enormous frustration with congestion and overwhelming support for mass transit - even if respondents say they wouldn't use it themselves. And though city leaders don't like to use Dallas as an example, that city's new light-rail system has exceeded all expectations - doubling the number of anticipated riders in its first year of operation. Other Western cities built around cars, have had varying success with mass transit. Denver and Salt Lake City are held up as good examples, while Los Angeles is still struggling to get commuters aboard. But most agree that mass transit should play a large role in their futures. "The list of cities in the South and West that want more transit is impressive: Fort Lauderdale, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas," says Anne Canby, president of the Surface Transportation Policy Project in Washington. "They are realizing that one transportation model may not be adequate to do the whole job, especially with the demographic changes happening in the next 20 years." But back in Houston, the big question is funding. With the economy already sputtering and cities forced to cut budgets, voters wonder how much they'll have to pay - and whether it will be worth it. Jamie Older, an IT manager downtown, has watched construction on the already- approved light-rail system, set to open next year. It will stretch 7.5 miles, linking downtown Houston with the medical center and sports arenas. "You're talking about a very small area being serviced when large suburbs don't have service," says Ms. Older, who gave up driving an hour into work each day and now rides an express bus in half the time. "I just don't see the benefit of it." While city leaders say this is just the first piece in a larger transit plan, it's still unclear whether Houstonians will agree to more. I am not familar with the proposals on the table, anyone else care to give a brief? I for one, would love to have a mass transit option, I have 2 hours of commute time a day and I am sick of it! Why can't there be rail system mirroring our highways? train from The Woodlands to Downtown train from Katy to downtown train from Sugarland train from Clear Lake train from Baytown getting people on trains, will help our pollution problems and will help lower insurance rates I understand people love their cars and all, but we've got to stop being so selfish and think bout the greater good on at least SOME issues around this city...
Because it's massively expensive, and it takes an extremely long time to build. Plus, the cost vs. the benefit is often debated, especially when, in some cities, the trains are underutilized (or sometimes take even longer than the commute by car). And in a city so spread out, it would take a massive infusion of cash to build a comprehensive rail system. And, once built, a rail system is often not very flexible. If people don't ride rail on one leg, that might just be wasted money. Buses, though, can be moved wherever needed, are easy to install to a neighborhood, and are considerably cheaper to implement. But people don't like to ride buses (and they would naturally be stuck in the same traffic that a car would be, though, as I've mentioned, some trains are slower than the traffic). It's a tremendously expensive risk with potential results that may be questionable (until we build it, we don't know if people will actually ride it).
My understanding is, by the way, that expectations for the rail ridership were extremely low based on the number of people who had been riding before they opened the leg north of 635 (and consider that the High Five Construction mess may well be moving people to rail who wouldn't otherwise have gone to rail, and who may well go back to cars once the construction is finished). Plus, we haven't even had it a year, so there is a newness factor to the rail line from Plano. And, I'm not sure the rail is lessening polution. If most of the polution comes when I start my car, it's still getting into the atmosphere when I drive (stop and go traffic on surface streets) the eight miles to the Park & Ride, if I were to take the train downtown. But RM95 likes the Dallas rail, I understand.
I am a taxpayer living in the city of Houston. That being said, I am ashamed that this great city of ours has some of the worst public transportation of any major city in the US. I don't care how much it costs. This city needs comprehensive light rail that stretches from the Woodlands to Galveston, from Baytown to Katy, and all points in between. It sickens me that new stadiums for billionaire sports team owners and their millionaire players take precedence over decent, reliable mass transit for all of the citizens of this city. If we do not get light rail built, this city will eventually choke on it's own auto exhaust and die. I, for one, do not want to see that happen.
Urban rail transit projects are INCREDIBLY expensive. Not one of them is financially solvent; in fact only 2 of our nation's transit systems even recover half of their operating expenses through fares! As an example, I only have to pay a buck (or maybe $1.10 in a month of two) to ride the T in Boston. The actual cost of my ride is over $20. I am in fact getting a $21.16 subsidy on each ride of the T! Bus systems, thought far from solvent, are more efficient (thanks to their ability to use existing infrastructure). However, the public definitely sees public bus transportation as far less "sexy" than heavy and light rail. That's not to say that rail transit doesn't have other good effects. In essence, urban rail transit amounts to being a transfer payment from the wealthy to the poor (since the bulk of mass transit users are poorer). I think it's a good way to increase the accessibility of poorer residents, but the significant pinch will definitely be felt either in the budgets or in the taxpayers' wallets. Across the board, mass transit in this country is very costly and under utilized. That is an undisputable fact. Mega Projects by Aschluter (and some other guy), just published by the Brookings Press is a GREAT explanation of the political and economic history of urban mega projects (most notably mass transit, airport construction and stadium/convention center building).
Metro's new proposal doesn't even begin to solve your commute time unless you live somewhere in the loop. According to their current plan, there is zero, zilch, nada in terms of plans for running rail down the I-10 corridor...because it's cost-prohibitive. This is what happens when you're the nation's second biggest city in terms of square miles.
If I lived inside the loop, I wouldn't have a commute problem! So why are they going to build rail only within the loop? That seems like a waste to me. I would move inside the loop if it wasn't cost-prohibitive
Even the one that went "west" from the city center..the original proposal that isn't being used...stopped at the West Loop...and then headed south towards the Galleria. Keep in mind, even that wouldn't have been totally complete from almost another 11 years, in 2014. The current plan runs to north to Northline Mall (or thereabouts) sometime by 2008. None of the Phase 2 extensions extend more than 7 miles away from the Main Street rail line. Total cost? $958 million...for a total of about 20 additional miles of rail in Phase 2.
But it's not cost-prohibitive to build a 16-lane freeway over the same stretch of land? Look, mass transit won't fix all the problems and it'll never be liked by 100-percent of the populace. But unless Houston devises SOMETHING in the way of mass transit, Houston is going to have serious issues in the coming years.
Excellent points. Houstonians don't blink when they're asked to fund a millionaire's arena or gargantuan 16-lane freeway, but the idea of public transportation riles people in ways that boggle the mind. Public transportation won't limit your driving options; it'll increase them.
i'm not even doing a comparison here, Vegan...though I do think Katy Freeway expansion of some sort is LONG overdue...the genie is well out of the bottle on that stretch of road. i agree...we have to devise something...my point is merely that the current Metro plan, in my opinion, does not do that. it has a nice line for the press corps staying downtown for sporting events...but it does nothing to solve the real commuting problems we have here. i'm with you...we should have addressed this whole thing about 30 years ago. but it will be well after i'm dead before there's any substantive alternative to taking the Katy Freeway from the west side of town into downtown.
1. we don't blink?? ummmm...the baseball stadium approved by less than a full percentage point...and we voted down a basketball arena, before finally approving it some 2 years later. 2. i don't recall voting at all on the expansion of the Katy Freeway
MadMax, I received an email yesterday from a friend that had an electronic copy of the handout from the lunch and learn about the I-10 expansion. It stated that the expansion was going to incorporate an area for future light rail down I-10.
yeah...they're going to leave space for it...but Metro doesn't have the money to do it. currently, the plans are prioritized to have the Phase 2 expansions done by 2012. even in the planned expansions previously to the west of downtown, they all stopped at the west loop. they'll connect the Galleria before they connect Katy...you know..so the press corps can go shopping on our trains while staying at downtown hotels. in 2012, i will be 38...if i had to place a bet, i'd bet that there will not be a rail system in place running down the I-10 corridor to Katy with a stopping point as far west as Eldridge by the time I die. and being that's the most likely case....you better expand I-10 more than the plan for a 16-lane freeway. particularly given the consistent growth out west.
I agree... and if they ever did build it I doubt people would use it consistently. The heat in the summer makes walking a few blocks to you destination or waiting for a bus after you ride the rail an unpleasant situation.
that's an even bigger issue, and one of the key factors that killed Mayor Whitmire's monorail plan. the station for the Astrodome was over 2 miles from the Astrodome. who wants to do that? who wants to walk 2 miles in the Houston heat in the summertime to watch a game when there's an alternative? that's why we built a dome in the first place. and the bigger problem, it seems to me...is that you ultimately still have to own a car to get to your park and ride station. which means you still have to make a car payment and pay for insurance each month. the cost of riding the rail better be less than the cost of filling up your car, or it doesn't make sense economically, either.
Isn't a monorail just a light rail system hanging from a track instead of sitting on top of it. I never see a monorail proposal for Houston. It seems to me that it would be easier to build, like erecting tinker toys, avoid surface road conflicts that require expensive grade crossings or stop traffic with light controls and also it has a wow factor for Space City that a train does not. Raised stations don't seem like a major drawback to me. I'm on record in past D&D's as thinking rail service for Houston is ludicrous because we don't have the population density or centralized employment centers to make it practical for almost anyone to actually ride a train. The city already has a mature development pattern based on the automobile and it makes more sense to keep improving that rather than trying to retrofit a dubious new solutiuon. Innovations like a real workable bus system, lighter more efficient personal vehicles and flex hours to eleminate the predictable 8-9 & 5-6 traffic jams make much more sense to me. When light rail will help the warehouse worker in the middle Alief , come talk to me.
monorail runs on magnet technology instead of direct electricity, i believe. it's about as clean as it gets. the problem is the cost...but it does not interfere with regular surface traffic. i love the idea of monorail. but i'm not sure i'd love the idea of paying for it. Kathy Whitmire made monorail her big issue and got her butt handed to her by Bob Lanier, who virtually came out and said, "a vote for Lanier is a vote against rail." He won. i think you're largely correct...i really don't have a problem with the main street rail...but let's don't pretend that will solve traffic problems in this town. it won't. but i think it is of value, particularly if you want to keep luring the super bowl or other events to town. ultimately, it connects all the pro sports facilities in town.
I know that many of you have been to cities that have excellent mass transit systems, in Europe, Japan and the United States. San Francisco, for example, stands out in my mind because of the mixture of systems they have. And although it's a dense city with many, many central city dwellers, there are a huge number of commuters due to the amazingly high housing prices. So they keep expanding their systems. Houston is tough because, except for a brief period in the '40's, we've never had zoning. That would have made this easier, in my opinion, but Houston doesn't have it and the sprawl we see is partly a result of that. Houston had a rail system until the late '30's, I believe, when Ford, GM and the like used "incentives" (payoffs) to get cities like Houston to abandon their streetcars and switch to buses. (do a google on it if you don't believe me) My Mother and Grandmother have told me many stories about taking the trolleys downtown to go shopping. Yes, it's very, very expensive. They will never make profits, but around the world cities subsidize rail transit because it enhances their quality of life. The longer Houston waits to build rail, of whatever type, the more expensive it is going to be. It's past time to start. Think about it when you're making that hour, hour and a half commute each way in your car. You could be reading the paper or working on your laptop. How many of you do that on a bus? I get a headache. Start building it. I think the plan is not nearly ambitious enough.
