Sports stadium are terrible investments for city, but the city spent over a billion dollars building them. A lot more people use rail. The rail wasn't expected to carry 33000 people till 2020, but we are already at 37000 today.
I'm talking about non-profits and other NGOs. Unless those organizations just use firms, which wouldn't make a lot of sense as an NPO.
Rather than arguing for or against light rail based purely on dollars and effort, I'd be interested in seeing pros and cons from a climate change perspective. I know the majority of conservatives on this board and America do not believe in climate change, but it would be helpful because currently I agree with the right-wing posters solely on the dollars argument. However, their numbers would be wrong if externalities like environmental damage are not taken into account. Saving money would be foolish if light rail is substantially better for the environment than thousands of cars stuck in rush hour on 290 and 59. Also, is there anything better than light rail for accommodating Anthropogenic climate change/global warming?
We are not trying to build trains to serve all 500 square miles, we are building a few lines in the denser inner loop area, which will serve a lot of commuters. Light rail is more efficient than buses, and carries more riders. Rail is meant to be in city centers. Uptown, Greenway Plaza, Medical Center, and Downtown are our biggest employment centers, and will be connected. Ridership will be MUCH higher than the current bus routes, and rail lines will attract more transit riders, taking cars off the road. Yes, they have flexibility. Which is good for suburban areas where they can be changed easily. However, there is no need for "flexibility" when you are connecting the largest employment centers in the city. Medical Center isn't going anywhere, Downtown isn't going anywhere, Greenway Plaza isn't going anywhere, and Uptown isn't going anywhere. If anything, new employment centers will develop along rail lines. Or, current employment centers will expand along the lines. There is no need for inner-city rail to be flexible. That's understandable, and they should find it more convenient, because our transit system is inferior to most in the country. These light rail lines aren't necessarily traditional rush hour patterns either, they are simply connecting employment centers. They choose not to use buses because they are an inferior service to rail. The light rail lines aren't going far out into different neighborhoods, they are mostly staying inside the loop within a few neighborhoods. Personal transportation is anything but efficient. The subsidies roads and freeways require are far greater than the subsidies a good transit system requires. False, even today there is higher density housing being constructed, especially inside the loop. While obviously not all homes will be abandoned, many inside the loop will be redeveloped into higher density housing, especially along major thoroughfares. And higher density housing will continue to be constructed. Who said light rail will serve suburbs? The light rail system we are building now will serve the inner loop employment centers, so you shouldn't be opposed to it. No one is suggesting that we build light rail to serve suburbs. A few strategic commuter rail lines would be feasible, but buses serve lower density suburbs fine as of now.
OK, great. We already have about 1000 buses. Just adding more won't generate more ridership. The demand isn't there due to the fact that a bus only transit system is inferior to one that has a core rail system that the buses can feed into. A light rail train can carry hundreds of people at once, far more than buses.
I'd be interested in seeing the climate change stats, also, for those who believe in climate change. I'm not convinced rail would be any better than buses. Remember, rail runs on electricity, which in the eastern US and Texas means a lot of coal-fired pollution. Plus the construction phase to build rail is very bad for the environment. Buses running on natural gas or electricity could be superior from a climate change point of view to rail. and by the way -- I know you were just making up an example, but let's be clear -- the light rail in Houston has nothing to do with taking commuters off of 290 and 59. Our street tram doesn't come close to reaching the burbs where the source of traffic congestion stems from...
Can you expand on your continual comments about how rail is so superior to buses? Yes, you can fit more people into one rail car vs. one bus, but bus service can be scaled up and down easily by adding more frequent service. Any we don't exactly have a problem about people hanging out of super crowded buses to where we need to solve that problem. In fact, I struggle to see what problem we're even addressing with rail. Please explain.
This alone is not justification. How do you define large? How do you define successful? What city is exactly like Houston? Just a worthless post from you. Do better.
It's too bad that the voters back in the 80's did not approve an elevated rail. It would have made so much more sense in this city to have an elevated rail. At this point it would be a nightmare to build an elevated rail line.
Sure. Rail attracts more riders than buses, meaning that when rail is built, more people use public transportation than before. Take the Red Line for example. After the Red Line was built, 20,000 people started using it daily that hadn't taken the bus before. Not only that, but rail carries more riders, at a lower cost per rider. The Red Line has capacity issues, too many people are riding the rail, so in a few years METRO will add more rail cars to add to increased demand. The problem we are addressing with rail is extremely low transit ridership. If people that live in the inner loop and commuter to the inner loop (such as myself) take the rail as opposed to their car, then this frees up space for commuters that don't live in the inner loop. Freeways aren't the only roads that have congestion problems. Side streets like Richmond, Alabama, Westheimer, Bissonnett, etc. are always backed up, and the University Line would provide an alternative. I know I would certainly use it to get to work.
I define large and successful the same way: transit ridership. If you look at the APTA daily ridership numbers, you'll find that there are many, many transportation agencies that have higher ridership than us daily, even though there are only a few cities larger than us. What do all of them have in common? A core rail system.
Reading the article, it dawned on me that Culberson is simply one of two things: 1) A liar 2) Stupid Either way, he shouldn't be in office.
The problem is low transit ridership? To me that is not a problem. Achieving "high transit ridership" is not what I would call success. It's picking a random metric and assuming it's good for all. Many believe that people in Houston have a higher standard of living since we can more easily afford a car vs. those who live in say NYC which has a much higher cost of living. The inner loop congestion issues are not large. I live in the inner loop (River Oaks) and use all those roads you've listed and there is no problem. (Westheimer is bad in the Galleria area, yes) You could also use a bus to get to work.
The fact we have politicians like texx in office is sad and totally backwards thinking. Our city is a laughingstock because of these bumbling good ol boys.
The fact that you believe this is a good idea without looking under the covers at the financials is a complete joke. You're a rail fanboy who wants to see a cool train in town. Sorry but it's true.
Well that's just your opinion then. Many, many people agree with me in the fact that Houston would be a nicer city with better transit options. Also, many people would agree that traffic in the inner loop would be better if more people rode transit. Unfortunately you don't agree with me, so I guess that's that. Transit ridership is not a random metric, I'm not sure why you think it is. A public transportation system is important in any large city. Much higher cost of living = higher standard of living. The majority of people who are well traveled and have been to other cities in the US would say that we have a low standard of living, in comparison with other large cities. There is a reason why it's so cheap to live here.
The fact that you believe Culberson without knowing jack **** about METRO's finances is a complete joke. It's stupid and amateurish. You must be high school or younger. Culberson doesn't know **** about METRO's finances, and neither do you. Talk to a METRO board member with your concerns, and maybe it'll be an enlightening experience for you. Sorry but it's true.
I drive down Richmond every day and there's traffic backed up miles. I used to ride the bus every day but it got caught in the same traffic as a car, was never on time, and I cannot rely on METRO buses to get to work unless it's a short-ish trip. A long local bus ride is guaranteed to have delays. The University line would be a HUGE improvement over the current bus service, and would not only carry more riders, but it would also increase property values and spur even more development in the area.
