A lot of the light rail money is federal money which you would not be getting anyway, so use it while it's available.
Yes, they are doing that mainly because Houstonians have been reluctant to jump all in and they would rather have most of that money dedicated to road improvements, which is a constant need in Houston. But again, I am NOT opposed to some form of light rail in the inner loop area, that would be the smart thing to do, and that is what is already happening. I am not sure however a mass transit system like a subway system connecting, say, Katy or the Woodlands to the downtown area would be feasible nor desirable. so am I :grin:
DC is freakin' expensive, although it is probably the only recession-free city with all that national security and defense money pouring in.
I live in Chicago and have lived in other mass transit cities... no thank you. Yes, you get reasonably satisfactory mass transit, but you also get taxed out the a$$ and still end up needing a car in many situations. Until you live in an areas like Chicago, NYC or Boston; you will not realize how good it in in Houston. The cost of living is amazing.
Maybe it's just me... but the beauty of Houston, having grown up near there, IS the fact that you can cruise around all-stinkin'-day and never go to the same place twice. The freeways/interstates are laid out in an easy to navigate fashion. Learning to drive in that area not only taught me every skill I'd ever need in traffic, it sharpened my built-in compass skills. I like rail... commuting via budget conscious means... and saving money... but give me the City of Houston, a car with decent gas mileage and a Saturday to burn and I'm a seriously happy man. :grin: I miss Houston. Dallas is so.... linear and dumb.
That is part of what makes Houston unique. I am not objecting to some form of mass transit, but through experience I can tell you that the costs in taxes, attention, etc are very high. It is not a coincidence that the areas with large mass transit also experience high tax rates and inflation. Houston is one of the only major cities that most people can afford to live in. Move to Chicago or Boston and try surviving on less than $100,000 a year.
This is misleading. Mass transit would NOT cost more in taxes, it would just mean a reallocation of resources. The state alone has poured over FIVE BILLION dollars into highway construction in the last decade. Subways are more expensive to get off the ground but as easier and cheaper to keep functional for longer. They can power themselves, don't have 3,000 lb vehicles crashing into them everyday and thus need less repair. Sure you need new trains every so often, and have to assume the larger cost of constant labor, but that's nothing compared to highways that cost billions to install, billions to keep up, and (in a city like Houston that experiences such rapid/sprawling growth) will inevitably need total redesign every 10 or so years. Houston's population boom in the 60s-70s basically chose the highway route, and it is probably borderline impossible to make the switch now. Our only hope is a supplemental light rail that connects the airports, schools, and the urban core to the major suburbs, not a swiss-modeled mass transit system intended to be a replacement of our highways. And we probably won't ever get the funding for even that. Lighter traffic is our best case scenario. Suburban planning sucks.
i live in japan, public transportation is a nuisance. it's nice because you'll never be late for work if you get on the right train, and there's always a few beautiful women on the train, eye candy per say. but i'd rather have a car, listen to my system, maybe smoke something on the way to work...
Not true at all. I can't speak for Boston, but I've been living in Chicago for the past two and a half years, and the cost of living here is far closer to that of Houston, when compared to that NY, Boston, SF. Maybe the weather scares people, but Chicago really is pretty affordable if you know where to look.
It'd only make sense, right? There arent any rail lines connected to the LAX airport in Los Angeles cuz I think cab companies and shuttle services and such griped against it at first. That along with car-centric citizens that prefers driving to some "hippie transit system", mass transit ideas will be even tougher to get passed. As a city swells in population, not going to say a good mass transit system is an "inevitability", but having other commuting options available is good. If there's ever the big oil shock later on, would be nice to have an alternative means to get around already in place. I drive of course. ONLY took the bus cuz the car broke down. Didnt like the commute time AT ALL. Didnt care for the demographic of people and perceived dangers. But it was less stressful to me than driving in congested traffic, and probably cheaper. I know if I go see my relatives in New York, I dont need to rent a car. In fact alot of them dont even own a car or have a driver's license. I dont want my living expenses raised to support bridge to nowhere projects. But if people prefer the option of waiting in rain, snow or sleet for the public transportation and it doesnt interfere with my driving, why feel threatened by it?
What makes mass transit work is population density and rganized business and employment nodes. Houston kinda works from Hobby/Med Center/ Downtown/ Galleria but how would we ever get 500 square miles of low density housing access to a mass transit system? We are a car town and we always will be. It may be small hybrid or electric cars but it will be cars. And if you will look, the only property values that are up because of the houston street car are Mayor Bob's and his buddies.
Back to my original point: this city sucks if you do not have a car. But then again, Houston was never a tourist destination.
I dont know where you live, but that is not my experience AT ALL. Cook County has the highest (or second highest depending on how you mash the numbers) taxes in the nation. This does not include cost of food, etc. Also housing costs are out the roof. I suppose if you live in a crappy part of the city, do not own a car (another huge expense in Chicago, parking in cook county is sometimes over $100 a month), and are single then you can do okay. Then again, see how affordable Houston is living in a crappy part of town.
I think this is a key point regarding energy prices, the stress of commuting, and the simple convenience of being able to get around. I live in SF, and there are tons of people that visit here from around the world. Most of them can't legally drive in the US, so having the option of jumping on the BART to get from the airport to their destination for $8 is damn convenient. Here's the BART map. It connect basically the entire East Bay, Oakland airport, Daly City, SFO, and finally the tip of the peninsula.
This is like one of the only things I agree with you on. This will obviously never happen, at least not in our lifetimes. And even hypothetically speaking, it should not happen. We should do everything to discourage suburb living... I can't stand the suburbs, and would never live out there. Having multiple kids would *maybe* be the only reason I could see someone living way out.
