My question for you is, what exactly is the "case" that is needed for rail? Is it profit? Because surely you realize that most of the public transportation systems in the world are unprofitable and require tax payer funds. MTA in NYC is losing money every year, by your account, it seems like they have been a failure too and should have never been built.
I never said stand-alone profitability was the goal cost effective means to transport goods, people and emergency vehicles rail fails in Houston
This is a particularly feeble analysis. Rail in Houston does not have the ridership at this point because it has not been built out to serve the needs of more people. I remember when they first opened DART. It was a joke. Nobody rode it because it didn't go anywhere. They have expanded the lines and ridership continues to escalate. Analysis of ridership as it stands now with the omitted lines we have now is shortsighted and inherently flawed analysis. For it to be successful, it will need to be expanded to go to the major hubs in town (Galleria, Westchase, Washington Ave) and also connect to the major suburbs (Woodlands, Willowbrook, Sugarland, Clear Lake). Trying to call it a failure now is like critiquing a painting after the second brush stroke.
lol try reading the thread first before you try another lazy effort to try to take me down I'm talking about future rail expansion in Houston.
The layout of each area and the rail plan of each area is completely different. It is not a good comparison.
I have yet to see you comment on this. You posted an article from a year ago bemoaning the DART system. Honest and serious question, how is DART doing today, compared to the year old article?
Apparently in his opinion ridership is up but solely because of new lines opening. I don't understand how someone can not see past the negatives of more forms of mass transit. It is an investment in the future that pay off more as times proceeds. What is Harris county estimated population in 50 years? You don't think this could be improved on in that time in combination with substantial population increase? People will either move into dense condominiums downtown or commute to downtown from other suburbs. I just looked it is supposed to increase by 6 million people from 2000-2050 how many highways do you think you will need by then? How much will gas cost in 2043??? What if something happens to the world economy and it skyrockets and you zero foundation for any type of transportation for people to not rely on an automobile. I can go on and on. I have a question my self how do trains impact the environment?
In order to properly analyze Dallas' rail system, one needs to know the different types and capabilities of rail technology. Dallas has chose to build "light rail," which is great for shorter distances through high population areas. But light rail is limited in speed and ridership capacity. Houston's light rail works very well, due to it's limited line length and the fact that it hits many destinations. Heavy rail, which is what you see in Washington, DC. and Atlanta, works better for longer distances. It's top speeds are much faster than light rail (80 mph) and can cover a lot of ground quicker. If Houston ever builds rail to the airports (which I think it should) heavy rail technology would be faster and generate more ridership. Light rail will take too long to get people form the airport to high population centers.
This is an area I've studied before and the environmental affect of passenger trains versus cars depends on what you are looking at. For energy if you look at per passenger energy usage trains are much more efficient than cars during peak hours when the trains are running at capacity. That changes though during off peak hours when the trains are closer to empty and then cars perform better. For the environment how the energy is generated though makes a difference so if the electricity to run LRT trains is mostly from coal power plants there isn't much benefit to the environment but there are many sources of energy for trains while the vast majority of cars on the roads are limited to gasoline and diesel. Energy isn't the only factor affecting the environment but roads themselves negatively affect the environment because they are hard surface that contribute to water pollution. Trains tracks take up far less space to transport the same amount of people than roads so in that regard have far less environmental impact.
Good post. I've been a big fan of having light rail connect the centrally located business/shopping centers like Galleria, Greenway, DT, etc. Once those are in place then you have commuter trains out to the suburbs. To me this would work so much better than the current bus system which sucks for anyone not working in DT.
Dallas built its light rail system on old abandoned right of way, which was the fastest way possible. This is basically a feeder route into the suburbs, which obviously won't get the best ridership due to the fact many in the suburbs think they're too good to ride the train and once it gets into the city there isn't much good transit infrastructure. The irony is that much of DART was built on funds originally earmarked for Houston but thanks to a 1983 referendum and Bob Lanier that money ended up being given to Dallas because Houston wouldn't build rail.
