The initial route is, by any measure, a success. This article shows one way that our rail system has been successful and that success will continue to grow as rail is sent to Katy (hopefully via Greenway and the Galleria), The Woodlands, and Clear Lake. I personally think that the initial line sould have been elevated to alleviate traffic and collision issues in addition to flooding issues, but that does not change the success of this line. I personally can't wait for the day that I can catch a train from Clear Lake and take it to The Galleria, Reliant, Downtown, or wherever and not have to have a second car. I have a good friend who has HUGE problems with buses (I don't, I rode on every day when I worked at Metro) but would ride a train in to work downtown. Thank you, Houstonians, for seeing through the smoke and mirrors thrown up by the detractors and voting for progress.
Coming from somebody who just admitted to kissing Molly Ivins on the lips, I'm truly flattered. That comment caused me to upchuck. stadia is an acceptable plural form of stadium. EDIT:
Molly Ivins has inner beauty off the chart. I'd do it again. And I'm aware that stadia's proper, but it's still nerdy. The proper pronunciation of Brecht is 'Bresht' but you won't catch me using that one either.
From personally using the rail and buses and the HOV lane, I think rail is a waste unless you live right next to it. And not many people live right by it. If I drove to the Fannin Park and Ride which is only like 10 minutes away, it would still probably take me 30 minutes longer to get to work as opposed to driving or using the bus. It's just not very fast. When I carpooled with my brother, he said it took him 30 minutes to get from the Med Center up to my work during rush hour. Stadiums are also a waste economically but at least many more people watch and enjoy sports teams. So they feel they are getting something out of their tax dollars even if they don't go to the stadium.
Uh, with the notable exception of the following measures: Financial success Easing congestion Interacting well with the roads Tearing up the streets Developing areas adjacent to the tracks Max, you sure fell on your sword early. Just when you thought you had a winner, WHAMMY, it flies right back in your face.
Put up or shut up. I can answer every one of those, but will not unless you agree to a structured, judged debate. You are much like the Black Knight in Monty Python's "The Holy Grail." Even after you have been completely torn to shreds, you still declare victory, ignoring the reality of the situation. You are yellow.
Please, show me an instance in america, other than NYC, that has shown that mass transit has provided these great things. You can argue about potential all you want (Didn't Eddie Griffin have potential?) but all I want is a single example where mass transit provided these things in a more cost effective way than an intelligent alternative. Environmental returns? It's FAR more cost effective to set up remote emissions detection stations and prosecture inspections violaters. ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more cost effective... You're damn right education costs money. And so does transit. One provides amazing social returns. One has been shown time and time again to be cost ineffective. Max, usually you give well thought out responses, but when you say "The argument is over boys, you lost," that's simply not true. We all lost on this one. Hell, I don't live in Houston (I live in DC) and my transit system here is far more subsized than yours, so I guess by that kind of logic, I win, since more of your federal dollars are going to my coffer than to yours. But frankly, we're all big losers on this one. Please please please, show me peer reviewed, scholarly studies (i.e. not a "think piece" or op-ed put out by APTA or CLR or another interest group with a finger in the pie) that indicate the ability of rail transit to either: 1) combat sprawl 2) alleviate congestion 3) improve mobility of lower income citizens 4) improve air quality in a more cost effective method than a simpler alternative. It's not even close. I've read the literature, it's appalling. Again, if you have a relative in the construction business, or in a transit worker's union, then you should be supporting this, because you're getting tidily subsidized by 300 million of your bestest buddies in America.
ah, yes...the desire to be the "winner" of a basketball BBS argument with you. it burns deep within, TJ...but alas...I still don't care. more rail will be put down...more beautiful sleek trains will pass you. and i'll be onboard...pointing at you and laughing, mostly.
Rail Ridership Breezes Past Other Cities _______________ What wonderful news this is for the fine city of Houston in the great state Texas. I salute the little metro train that could... Chooga Chooga
Vik; Have you read Paul Weyreich's work on mass transit? He's a noted conservative yet is strongly supportive of mass transit particularly rail. You might find some of it interesting. In regards to some of the points you made you have to consider that there are major costs both in regards to having the personal automobile as the main transportation system. It takes lots of money to build and maintain freeways on the public side but what isn't factored is in the cost to individuals to buy, maintain and insure automobiles. A significant portion of the population cannot afford to own their own cars which causes a drag on productivity when workers can't get to jobs. For example many poor people live in inner cities but many service jobs are in suburbs. Without adequate public transportation those service jobs are unfilled or wages have to be greatly raised to attract workers. So jobs go unfilled or prices go higher while there are people willing to fill those jobs at lower wages unable to get to them. Also as cities get more developed the cost of adding more roads skyrockets as land gets more expensive. In the Twin Cities where I live its pretty much impossible to add more freeway lanes in the central cities. Transit is a better solution to deal with that because it takes less space to have 40 people riding in a bus or train than to have 40 people each riding in there own cars. I'm skirting the environmental issues but those have to be considered also. Any thorough analysis of the economic tradeoffs of transit versus personal autos have to take all of these factors into consideration.
I don't know about Houston but I believe that ridership on the LRT line in Minneapolis far exceeds ridership on the bus line that previously followed its route.
Sorry for the rapid fire posts but I have to respond to this point that Vik's brought up twice. It doesn't matter whether its LRT or freeway it still costs a lot of money so construction businesses will benefit either way. As for transit unions if a city has an existing bus system its likely that some of that many of the staff who handled the bus lines that got phased out by LRT will end up working on the LRT. Its true there will be some new jobs but I don't believe that there will be so many more jobs as to make a huge difference. Anyway more jobs is the point of most government projects.
Affordable rail service, maybe bullet or at least "high-speed", between Dallas and Houston would be a great step. Maybe less than 30 bucks one way if possible....I would GLADLY give up my car and not have to hassle with an airport or the yahoo's who turn I-45 into a drag strip... There have been ideas around this for sometime I think--anyone have details or links?
Sishir - Weyrich is the guy that was the first president of Heritage, right? I'm not sure what kind of empirical work he's done on transit, although I'm sure he's done plenty of advocacy. If you want to help poor people that live in inner cities get jobs in the suburbs, there are far more efficient ways of doing that. Instead of having huge transit subsidies, lump sum transportation subsidies to low income individuals would be a non-distortionary alternative. It would cost the taxpayers less, produce no dead weight loss, and leave lower income people as well off as they are with transit (if not better, depending on the size of the check). As of 2000, 90.65% of US households owned automobiles, and that number is increasing (Source: BTS). If you take out people living in the tri state area (remember, I'm not against mass transit in NYC) I bet you'd find that only 2-3% of households don't own an automobile. There is simply not a significant portion of the population that cannot afford to own a car (as you claimed). Instead of worrying about these folks and spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money each year, we could give these 2-3% a lump sum subsidy, wchich would be a non-distortionary and far cheaper alternative. The effect of transit on air quality is tough to pinpoint. As I said, in many metro areas, increasing transit expenditures leads to INCREASED congestion due to induced traffic. As such, in these areas, transit is actually increasing pollution. Furthermore, bus transit in most cities actually increases congestion since it harms peak hour traffic flows. This increased congestion leads to many vehicles moving a lower speeds which leads to greater pollution. I'd love to see a scholarly empirical study on the effects of transit on air quality. Public transit simply does not make sense in the United States. There may be a role for private mass transit, and this is being investigated (even in Houston, there is talk of Metro subcontracting to some jitney services on Westheimer at peak hours).
