You don't want bus people taking up space on the train, though. The whole point of the train is to take cars off the road driven by people who won't ride a bus. If you just transfer the bus people to the trains, they take up space that could be taken up by people coming from cars.
Part of the point of the train is to reclaim the buses along the train corridor so that they can provide more buses for routes other than the train route. We are transfering the bus people to the train at the same time that we are taking people out of their cars and putting them on the train.
Reclaiming the busses can't be too big of a priority since buying more busses is significantly cheaper than building a rail line. Plus, if demand is so high in other areas that more busses are needed, why aren't they already being provided? The complaint always seems to be that a lot of people won't ride the bus and that the busses are rarely full. If all you end up doing is transferring bus people to the train, you've failed. The spots on the train need to almost all be going to getting cars (driven by people who won't ride the bus) off the road. For every bus person taking up a spot on the train, that's potentially one fewer car off the road. For the price of rail, it needs to be taking as many cars off the road as possible (plus, one of the reasons car people don't like the bus is because of the people who ride the bus. Put them all on the train, and you might scare off car people who otherwise would ride the train).
My two cents: The Light rail... ...seems to be moderately successful at accomplishing the goals for which is was built. As Mateo pointed out, it has made it possible for people move back and forth easily from downtown to the medical center. ...certainly has some immediate design flaws in its system. It's evident that there was a complete lack of forethought for safety concerns by those who designed the system. And IMO, I think it was stupid to have the rail run at ground level, stopping for red lights at intersections. To me, that sorta defeats the purpose (I can accomplish the same by driving my car). ...should not be blamed for the difficulties it created when it was built. Once we decided to build it, there was just no way to avoid the problems of closing streets, construction, and damage to businesses. You can't build a train downtown and NOT have those problems. This blame should not fall on the light rail, but on those who approved of it. ...should never have been built. Though it takes mateo to lunch (as he indicated above), such a pleasantry certainly does not outweigh the extreme expense of the rail. We should have focused our spending on a suburban rail system (as others here have mentioned) which moves people to and from Pearland, Sugarland, Katy, Jersey Village, Tomball, The Woodlands, Kingwood, etc.. Expanding our horizons for inner-city transportation is nice, but it's short-sighted compared to the extreme amount of gridlock traffic on our freeways, which is not addressed by the light rail. The light rail is an overpriced toy. -- droxford
A study by A&M concluded there is nothing different from this rail system to other street levels systems around the world. Those who designed it used them as a precedent. They had no idea that Houston drivers were stupid relative to the rest of the world. I do agree they have a problem now but it wasn't foreseeable. We'll see what they do about it building the next phases. This, IMO, is a huge fallacy. All streets were rebuilt downtown. Main St. would have been rebuilt anyway. While we were at it, we added the rail. Yes construction probably was a little longer but the streets would still have been torn up either way. Can't blame that on light rail. Patients, grasshopper. We are focusing on that now. But you can't build a suburban rail system that drops off the earth. All city infrastructure starts inside out...that doesn't change here. Oh, and don't forget that the first line wasn't approved by voters so the funding was limited. I know that makes many people cringe but now people can see the benefit of it...so now it does have voter approval.
Huh, that is one measure of success, I suppose. To simply address this odd comment... As it stands, each train holds 200 people. Right now, each train is seeing about 140 boardings. When the buses stop, they'll effectively double capacity by running trains twice as often. I think they have enough room on the trains for the bus people and you regular folk too. From a financial point of view, why pay to operate bus routes that mimic a rail line. That is a waste of money. From a functional point of view, in the light of the rail's current state of 7.5 miles long, it's primary function isn't really to take cars off the road. It connects Houston's major cultural centers, the Medical Center and downtown and provides a foundation for future rail lines. A little known fact is that this bus corridor is the most heavily utilized bus route in the city. That is partly why they chose this location...to be sure there was an immediate demand for it...and it's now proven there is a demand. Yes, it takes a few cars off the road but it won't really have a chance to do that in an effective way until it builds the rail extensions outwards. That is coming next.
Selective reading? 8 of the cities mentioned are modern North American systems. But to fall into your trap, those people in Eurpoe aren't contrained by the flawed American human characteristics that allows them to not drive into a gigantic train. We lowly Americans must be held to a lower standard. Oh, and New York has the luxery of building underground. Houston is below sea level. We don't have that luxery.
I'm a rail supporter, but... You do know the response to this line is going to be: "or vice versa - why build a rail line to mimic bus routes that were already doing fine?"
not sure if you know this by your response, but the rail system WILL have commuter lines from the burbs...its all part of the rail bill that was passed, this limited line is not the end of it. the rail bill also included large amounts of funds for expanding the bus system as well (more busses, more transit centers) the rail bill was about more than just light-rail, it was a bill to develop a comprehensive system
You continue to show you ignorance. Houston can't build underground? That's an interesting comment. You may want to go ahead and inform Metro that, since some groups are pushing Metro to construct the east-west downtown rail line in a subway. That would allow it to be built underneath Lamar or McKinney streets with stations below the convention center, Main Street Square and City Hall. My guess is that this "subway" would cost a lot of $$, but hey, it would increase the "coolness factor", so you'd probably like it more. Any finally, Houston's average elevation is about 50 feet above sea level. I'm glad informed voters such as yourself were the ones who barely tipped the election to the pro-rail side...
Okay, I wondered if somebody was going to call me on that. You think our existing system was expensive. I can't wait to hear what you have say about building an underground system that would require extensive pumping systems to keep it from flooding. Even if we did build a subway, just imagine if another Allison hits this city when we are dependant on an underground system. It'll shut down the city. I'd be more in favor of an over-the-street solution than an under-the-street solution. I think it would be more cost effective. Average, huh? Well, I remember reading somewhere that downtown Houston was below sea level. I could be wrong. To all me uninformed that interesting because I'd venture to guess that many people have this belief. I have already discovered in numerous sources that parts of Harris county are at 0' above sea level but I'll check back w/ you when I have something concrete.
You build a rail line to REPLACE bus routes so that you can redeploy your buses more effectively as you expand your rail system to include commuter lines to the 'burbs. I might consider working downtown again if there was a rail line to Clear Lake.
Okay, I stand corrected. But that doesn't change my point. For all practical purposes it would be problematic to build a subway when you can't dig more than 30' below the ground without requiring expensive pumping and flood control systems. Everything east of Scott St. (which is 2 miles east of downtown) out to about Armand Bayou is between 20-40 ft above sea level. So is the part of Buffalo bayou which runs through downtown. Where the existing line crosses Brays Bayou, it is also 20-40 Ft. The rest is 40-60 feet. I noticed you picked out one random comment that I misstated but neglected to rebut of any of the other myths of yours that I debunked. Source: National Biological Information Infrastructure
That's what I thought. BixTexxx goes down in flames. Silence is grand. I refuted each of your points with hard facts. All you ever came back with was nitpicking my points and rehashing old rhetoric. Oh yea, you came up with some bus system in Brazil. Look Texxx, I agree light rail is expensive. Our real debate is whether it is worth that expense. Time will tell but you have to leave the posibility open that it 'might' in fact be worth it. People are using it. Plus there is every indication that even more people will use it in the future. I see it as an investment, of sorts, in our community. If it assists in people being happier about our city, whether that is real or perceived, then it did its job and it is worth the expense, IMO. Precisly what makes people happy (commute, quality of life, etc.) about light-rail is irrelevant. The city as a whole will be better off. It is too early to tell at this point...but so far so good. As the rail expands, we'll see the system become more useful and reach more people.
Isn't that a benefit? I remember reading a looong time ago that the bedrock Houston (and most of east Texas) sits on is very soft. That's why we don't get earthquakes, but also why it's difficult to build things underground. Is that true?
We should assess our own safety needs independently from what other cities do. You make no sense here (in two different ways). Regarding construction, street closings, and business suffering... 1) First you say that it's a "huge fallacy" that these problems were unavoidable (meaning that the problems WERE avoidable). Are you saying you believe a rail system could have been built downtown WITHOUT closing streets, creating construction, and hurting customer-flow for businesses in the construction zone? 2)You finish your paragraph with "Can't blame the light rail on that". I didn't. In fact, the last sentence of my paragraph states that the blame for these problems "should not fall on the light rail". You really bought their sales pitch, didn't you? Guess what - this isn't New York. You can walk across downtown in 15 minutes (I do it twice a week). Having a way to get from one side of downtown to another is NOT one of our biggest needs. Having a way to get from the med center to downtown is NOT one of our biggest needs. Having a way to get TO downtown from a suburb IS one of our biggest needs. Chump, you said... The extended rail system will not move people to or from ANY of the suburbs I listed. Not one. It WILL move people to and from IAH, Hobby Airport, Greenspoint, Greenway Plaza, Galleria, Gulfgate, and Sunnyside. So, after spending billions of dollars, we will have addressed NOT ONE our primary traffic congestion problems. Here's a map of the current and future rail lines: -- droxford
I'm not quite sure where to do with this..are you just not from Houston and don't know the area or are you just pretending to be stupid?
