Such weak logic. I'll assume you're one of the "logic challenged rail fanboys". Can you just stop and think about what an ignorant position you're taking? "Hey, NYC, Boston and Chicago have rail! We're never going to be a great city unless we copy them!" Can we challenge ourselves to have something more creative than a "me, too" strategy that's not based upon fact, reason or logic? Regarding Dallas' transit, please see my post at 3:18pm yesterday where I blew your position out of the water.
Ha! You're still going? First off, there's about 150,000 workers in downtown, not 25,000. (next time take the 10 seconds to actually look up the fact) Then you go on to argue that all the money we're spending on rail is for some nebulous "future benefits" many, many years down the line? You must not understand the very complex concept of "we gotta pay for this sch!t!" You can't just be a rail fanboy arguing his position without even considering the cost of rail. Look folks, if we lived in a world where money grew on trees and we could pay for every idea that popped onto somebody's wish list, then rail would be totally rad. However, we live in a far different world.
New York and Paris say's HI... This would be a good thing for Houston, less cluster **** of traffic you have to worry about for now...
Houston's trolley shut down in 1940. The industrial expansion of the WW2 developed the modern auto manufacturing industry and the ubiquitous personal automobile. Houston in the 60's hadn't expanded much outside the boundaries of the current Loop 610. *Westhiemer past the loop was a two lane Farm to Market road. Suburban expansion and use of personal transportation is sort of a chicken and egg situation, neither would exist without the other, but the facts are Houston is a very late developing city among the top 10 in the US and auto/freeway/suburbs is the development model that won out on financial success. If traffic issues were really as untenable as many in this thread suggest, we would see a resurgence of higher density/inner loop development. Without a doubt there is some, but the trend for suburbanization is still vastly dwarfing that. For all the people that tell me I need to spend more time in the inner loop area I would ask them to take the drive from Clear Lake, Pearland, Sugar Land, Katy, Cypress, Tomball, The Woodlands and Kingwood. Hunreds of thousands of acres are still being actively developed. The Westpark Tollway dwarfs Metrorail in service numbers everyday. The center of the population of Houston is now somewhere near Gessner and I-10, 10 miles West of downtown. The Houston model is unique and not recommended for the rest of the world. It can probably only exist because of the City's world leadership in energy production. But we are hardly a laughing stock or people wouldn't still be flooding in here. It is a successful model as evidenced by the continued rapid expansion. I've stated before but again: The most desired housing solution in the world is the single family home and we have provided that for millions of people. More privacy, more space, better schools, better neighborhood conveniences, more modern and efficient housing, more stable housing markets, better housing options for the poor, more choice and more personal freedom. yeah, that sucks, I'm embarassed
People flood here because of the low threshold for entry and tough economic times (plenty of info on this), not because our sprawl is so appealing. Plus our population growth (internal, not external) is running at the highest clip in the nation. These are not hallmarks of the greatness of the urban sprawl development platform, they're completely unrelated. That's wonderful, I hope those people enjoy their McMansions out in BFE while the rest of us urbanites take advantage of more efficient, convenient, and cheaper transportation options.
More nonsense. You could counter your point by saying that Houston's lack of dense NYC-style living and lack of rail mileage doesn't KEEP them from moving here. So now you're trying to be some self-sacrificing hero that eschews living in a big house? And a big fat LOL at rail being a cheaper transportation option.
Very clearly not what I said. Houston is a great city...with a crappy transportation system. What I said was that rail is a primary part of every effective transportation system in this nation. You can pretend it isn't and be an ass to people who disagree while completely misquoting them, but that does not make it true.
Wow...human logic evades you completely. If you cannot understand the simple concept of commuters' unwillingness to ride a train into the city unless the rail gets them close to where they have to go, then there is little hope for you. Once the train goes to the major hubs of the city, riding it becomes more feasible for commuters once you expand it to the suburbs. That is not nebulous. That is predictable. As for it not being free...really? Wow. Tell me...is freeway expansion free? No. This is especially true when you take into account closing businesses and condemning land for the expansion. Also necessary to consider is the point at which continued freeway expansion is no longer feasible due to structural concerns. I suspect you knew all this already, but ignore it because it does not fit your political rubric. Additionally, I am not a rail fanboy. I cannot ride the rail because I have to be mobile at a moment's notice for court appearances. I have no skin in the game. I just believe it will enhance the overall transportation system in this city once complete...and I am far from alone in that belief.
We all would love to have miles and miles and miles of cool looking high speed cutting-edge technology trains in Houston. That would be way cool, brah. However, money doesn't grow on trees and it's not responsible to think that it does and pour money into this pit. It's hilarious to me that you, as a lawyer, trot out the "well how much does a freeway cost" logic, then counter your own point that you must depend on non-rail transportation sources because you "have to be mobile at a moment's notice". The freeway cost argument is a non-starter, because freeways are a true necessity for Houston -- ambulances, firetrucks, lawyers (lol!), tractor-trailers all must use them. We need freeways. Even your fantasy-world nirvana cities of NYC and Boston require freeways. Rail in Houston is nothing more than a luxury pimped by the "city weiner envy crowd" who can't understand basic economics.
I can find McMansion townhomes in Rice Military, or I could find historically constructred 3,000 sqft homes being built in The Heights. What, no love for the 1,000 sqft shotgun house? Large houses are not a suburban occurence. Besides, the discussion of home size is irrelevant to transportation needs, perhaps you meant lot size. However, Dubious and bigtexxx are correct that the majority of traffic flow comes into the city from suburban neighborhoods. Any rail line construction should be built to accomodate that traffic flow first and then focus on innercity rail. I look at it as a cart-before-the-horse issue.
Yes, but the population density in the areas we're discussing (lightrail expansion) make McMansions less common. (and yes, lot size is the real point here) I'm all for developing express commuter rail to the burbs eventually, but not firstly, the demand just isn't there yet (this is where buses excel). Putting rail that runs through high traffic and dense population zones in the inner city is the highest priority. Better ROI, lower startup cost, and more ridership per mile on the Richmond line for sure. Once the demand for suburban rail is there, it will be a worthy investment to make for the long term. The initial costs are high, but the maintenance and operating costs are far lower, so if you put in a rail system that you use for decades, it ends up a cheaper alternative compared to bus lines or highway expansion, etc.
Yet we have plenty of money for freeways. Stop with your tea party rhetoric. It's tired and annoying.
Seriously? It isnt about copying or trying to be like other cities. 1. It creates affordable convenient fast transportation 2. It'll create more jobs (train operators, maintenance, cleaning, ticketing, not to mention that larger stations will be great spots for stores/shopping centers to pop up.) Also making other shops in downtown easier to access brings in the ppl who may not shop there now b/c of distance/inconvenience 3. It's more environmentally friendly than adding more buses as well as cut traffic down significantly. 4. Eventually connecting houston residents will make it easier to connect cities in texas (dallas, austin, sa, etc) stimulating the economy all over. 5. One major problem with this country is that you can't go anywhere without driving a long distance or taking an expensive inconvenient flight. California-Texas-Florida-NY would do wonders for the US.
so much error in your post...where do I even begin??? rail's environmental benefits over buses are not clear, since rail runs on fossil-fuel generated electricity. "affordable transportation"?? Rail is anything but, unless you read mfastx's amateurish analyses that don't consider the cost to actually BUILD rail (lol). Then you talk about connecting Houston with Austin and Dallas? Whaaaah? Then to California, Florida and even New York! Good grief man you're out there with that. You must be one of the rail fanboys who thinks billions just grow on trees.
Are you sure you know what you are posting? The reason Houston rail has more access than Dallas is because DART was built in abandoned ROWs away from people, while the rail in Houston was in the middle of streets and easily accessible (like San Francisco's Muni system). LOL, no it isn't. The center of Houston population is just south of I-10 near Silber. Maybe slightly more W/NW of there now. Of course the Westpark Tollway dwarfs Metro numbers...but there are rail lines in freaking Atlanta that dwarf the Westpark Tollway. The Houston model is not unique. And yes, we are a laughing stock. People from around the world comment on how nice of a city Houston is, and the amenities it has, but the mass transit system is just complete crap. The suburbs across America are still the fastest growing, but people have begun moving into the inner city in droves. Income levels have gone up, families have been priced out and moved to the inner ring or far out suburbs, and now the people in the core want ways to get around without using a car. Look at Phoenix. Their entire metro area works together under one transit agency, and you can take one single bus line across the entire Phoenix metro area. There needs to be more of that in Houston. If the suburbs want to say they are going to leave Metro if they don't get their tax, then they need to ask for bus service..
Are YOU sure what you're posting? The answer is clearly no. The article I posted was referring to all transit, not just rail.
And Houston and DFW are not built the same way. The suburbs up there are big and powerful, so the job centers are more spread out and its much harder to connect than in Houston. Plus, like I said, DART rail is built in abandoned ROWs and not as easily accessible by walking. You can't compare the two systems, except both are light rail..
