...and in such a way that it kills the project, keeps Houston hopelessly mired in its third-world traffic, and in the meantime helps you and your business buddies line their pockets. Specifics is one thing. Unheard-of minutiae is another.
Culberson isn't requiring financial details, only a specific list of what the voters are voting for, specific rail lines, etc. The amount of the bond issue is already in the ballot language, to my understanding, and no word of revenues, etc. are being required. Normally, I do support as specific of ballot language as possible since the City of Dallas has proven in court that any promises made while selling a specific project can be ignored once the project is approved. Only the ballot language itself confines any project. That's how a bond election sold as beautification of the Trinity River can end up funding a Toll Road to make Ross Perot, Jr. richer. But I also don't have faith that voters will read a 22 page ballot before making their decision. And I don't know that the Secretary of State would approve a 22 page ballot for one bond question. It's awfully cumbersome to require very specific language on the ballot laying out specifically where rail lines will be built under this proposal. Can't we just expect some level of education on the part of the voters? If this is required for rail, shouldn't it also be required of everything. I mean, shouldn't the ballot list all the major issues a candidate is for or against. I mean, if we just listen to the candidate and his supporters, we might well make the wrong decision when we go to vote.
Actually it would do just the opposite. It would save Houston from devoting precious transportation dollars to a rail line that very few would use, all the while neglecting the much-needed upgrades on our current highway system. Rail would do very little to clean up Houston's congestion problems. The real problems are in the commutes out I-10, 59, 290 and 45, and the rail plan would do *nothing* to help these problems. Instead, it would strip away the funds needed to upgrade these vital roads.
As much as I like the way Chicago and Washington are set up, I just don't see how it would work for Houston. We are just sprawling. You don't see LA trying this either. Ideally, yes, some public transport is nice, but I think we should spend our money elsewhere.
I think they only built that to fight against movie producers going to Chicago to shoot on the El. Here's a system map, though: http://www.mta.net/riding_metro/metro_rail/mr_system_map.htm
In most cities with rail systems natural boundaries tend to concentrate development into denser patterns. Even in LA the mountains and ocean do this. Houston is flat and unbounded for it's entire 525 square miles. Here almost every family can afford a free standing house on a quarter acre lot. Our major thorough fares are 1/2 mille apart. It's hard enough to walk to a bus stop much less to train station. And if you wanted to it's oppressively hot four months a year and raining a couple of days a week. Houston is a young city, most of it didn't even exist before 1960. The city has been built around the automobile. An expensive train system that serves only 2% of the people is just a politician's trophy. They look at Dallas and get trainis envy. We can spend less money on an extensive bus system that can pick up people near their homes, use the HOV lanes to take them close to where they need to go at 50 MPH.
But with 4 million plus in population and growing, there's only so much space left to build more roads. Rail would be the perfect compliment to the current system we have. Why are some Houstonians so fearful of taking a chance on this? Wasn't Houston built by risk-takers, big-thinkers, and big-dreamers?!
Because it is so horrendously expensive.l I mean, DART was bragging that they got costs below $30 million PER MILE on the Parker Rd. extention. And even the wildly optimistic projections of DART saw only 28,000 cars taken off the road per day... out of 2 million. It is a legitimate question as to whether a system that costs so much and has so small an impact even when successful (and with no guarantee of success) is the right course of action. Is it worth it to spend billions of dollars to build an inflexible transit system that, at best, gets less than 2% of the cars off the road? Is it worth billions of dollars to slow traffic growth by a matter of days (one study showed the impact of DART when fully built-out would, at best, offset increases in traffic only as long as one month. So the traffic that would've happened in January 1, 2020 will, instead, happen on February 1, 2020. Quite a lot of money for such a small result)? You can look at it this way. Some of the worst traffic in the Metroplex is along the very same road that has the rail line running right next to it. Is having the rail line helping? I'm sure it is. But is it helping as much as it should given the cost? That's an open question. And another question: Was there a more efficient way to spend that money to allieviate traffic congestion? I don't have the answer, but it's a question that should be considered.
I agree that something needs to be done to reduce the congestion on the roads. But why trains? I live in Beaumont and I find the freeways in Houston to be well thought out and pretty efficient when not under construction. Why couldn't the city committ to having the most advanced bussing system in the world. This would seem like a more reasonable solution to me. I for one would love to come to Houston and park off of IH10 and ride a bus right up to the front steps of the new arena.
I admit I don't have a sure-fire solution as well. But, unless I'm missing something, there are only three ways to do mass transit: 1. personal vehicles 2. buses 3. rail You can only lay down so much concrete before you start running out of space/right-of-ways to build on. Are there any other options besides rail which may be a better solution?
You guys dont want this dont look ahead AT ALL. What do you think this thing will just be here for 20 or 30 years. NO it will be here when you great grandchildren will be here, and so on after that. What do you think in 75 years when who knows how many people will be living in Houston and other cities like it will do. Leave 4 hours before you have to go to work. NO you have to have alternatives besides roads. This will be expandable one day. It may be a long time before that ever happens but one day it will. Guys face it things are changing, you have to keep up with them. It will cost people a TON of money now but it is needed. You cant always do things for the present you have to things for the people that will be here one day when we are not.
Doable solutions for Houstons traffic: 1. Flexible work hours - the reasonHouston's traffic seems so congested is most people go to work from 7-9 AM and go home from 5-7 PM. I drive all over this town at 70 MPH during other times of day . 2. A better bus system - Machiavelli must be designing the routes for Metro. All major thoroughfares and freeways should have continous service with comfortable waiting stations at all major intersections. That way one could persue an efficient route from place to place without having to go downtown to get anywhere. Admittedly I am not a bus rider and have only a couple of frustrating attempts to use Metro. 3.Smaller cars - We could use our toll and HOV regulations to favor smaller, more fuel efficient, less polluting cars for commuters. Just reducing the physical size of our vehicles will make more room on the freeways. And let just add one answer to the questions above about running out of room for freeways. I think the existing right- of-ways will be enough. If you look at the traffic flows on the newly improved 59 and even I-10 inside the loop there seems to be room for everyone. The traffic jams result where the improved highways have to feed into the unimproved highways and construction is underway for a lot of those areas.
ONLY #2 would be feasible. But that would NOT be enough to combat the continual increase of our population and the need for a more efficient mass transit system. You only have so much land/right of ways to put concrete on for more roads. #1 would not work becuz that would require corporate America to change its tried and true ways, which it won't. #3 would not work either becuz Americans, especially Texans, love their big SUVs. It would be UN-American to take away that option from us.....
Yeah, but if you're only delaying the inevitable by a month (by offsetting the population growth with a rail system), what real difference would the trains make anyway? Is a rail system in a sprawling metropolis really an efficient mass transit system, especially considering the cost? And, your note about people not wanting to give up their SUVs, so that's out. That hits on one of the dangers in building rail. The people you want to ride rail are not the current bus passengers, they're people who are currently driving. If they won't give up their SUVs for other cars, it's not altogether unlikely that they won't give up their SUVs to ride the train.
mrpaige, I'd contend that the traffic down 75 is due more to the "High Five" construction more than anything else. I never had too many problems on that road up to the Turnpike except at 635, and I had problems there no matter what time of day it was.
I'm sure that significantly contributes, though I'm also sure that High Five construction also contributes to the number of people riding the train. Also helping with 75 traffic, though, is the widening that took place in the several years leading up to when the train opened. I would also bet that the high Collin County unemployment rate numbers play a part, as well. But, even using DART's numbers, the number of cars taken off 75 thanks to the train is an incredibly small percentage of the number of cars who travel that road and other Metroplex roads, not enough to affect the traffic on that road in any major way, and certainly not for any significant amount of time. The trains are cool, but I still don't think it can be considered the most efficient use of money in relation to curing traffic woes. Even full trains can't keep up with the population growth.
Actually, I believe the car/truck drivers would eventually leave their autos at home and jump on the trains, especially from the suburbs. I still contend that we won't have any room left to lay down more & more roads. This will cause traffic to be even more congested and the car drivers would eventually hop on trains to get into town, etc.
