METRO meeting June 18 regarding halting of transit expansion

MARTA could be better, yes. It needs more funding.

It's miles better than what we have in Houston.

I just used Atlanta as an example. Seattle, Salt Lake City, Denver, Boston, New York, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Cleveland, DC, and Philadelphia all have rail connections to their airport. If all of those cities can garner enough ridership to justify rail service to the airport, then Houston can too.

Sorry, but I'll take things happening in the real world than just blindy believing some troll saying that it's a "waste of money" with nothing to back up his argument.

lol

 

That was a poorly designed route. Route 102 still goes to IAH and I've taken it. The problem with a bus route direct from downtown to the airport is that buses just don't generate as much ridership that rail does.

 

Since most business travel is reimbursable, I'm walking straight out and jumping in a taxi; no lines no waiting, no walking.

 

Your logic only works from the airport. Getting to the airport, in Houston, you have to call for a taxi. ...and btw, they are unreliable showing up in a timely fashion.

Besides, if its rush hour a train is faster than a car or bus.

It's called OPTIONS. Sometimes taxi is better ...sometimes train is better. In most cities, you have a choice.

 

Let's be honest, no one takes public transportation if they can afford anything else. I've never taken it once (shuttle buses being the exception), but I've heard horror stories from friends who have, and there are enough videos floating around to back up what I've heard.

Crime, filth, disease, lowlifes, people that smell, random acts of violence, sometimes towards you, and all of that before you even get to work in the morning. No thanks.

Nor do I want to live within walking distance of bus stops, and for all the reasons I listed above. With few exceptions, people who cannot afford to own a car are not people I want to be around.

 

More airport trips are generated by airport workers than travelers and you have the same problem serving their existing low density as all the other conversations above (a train to Humble, Conroe?) Travelers would actually be a tiny tiny blip on the total travel per day in Houston.

Houston is Houston. When I drive the I-10 autobahn or the newly repaved streets of the Bellaire McMansions I feel like the envy of other cities. If I can help it I don't ever want other people living contiguously on all six side of me.

The tax plan is fair as is, the 25% that want to live in high densities are getting theirs.

 

You obviously haven't spent much time out of the country ...or even in NYC, Chicago or SanFran. ...and Houston is as big as those cities.

If you build it correctly, then "correct" means it is more efficient than cars.

Correct doesn't mean buses, btw. I agree with you that nobody wants to take a bus.

 

You don't travel much, huh?

 

Taxis are horrible if you're stuck in traffic. There have been several times where I've missed flights from midtown to JFK because I've been stuck in traffic on the LIE or the Van Wyck. It's frustrating as hell.

High speed rail goes 90mph - try doing that in traffic.

 

I can't wait to take speed rail to the giant Astrodome Aquarium from the cruise ship docks in La Porte. Then this city will be like San Francisco. Oh boy!

 

...and that invalidates the point how?

Perhaps the highest % of users of the current light rail is med center employees. It still serves the purpose of moving people that need to get there. If employees can use the train to get to the airport, then great. Excellent point.

This is the biggest flaw in the logic that folks use.

10 or 20 years from now, regardless if we invest in rail or not, Houston will look VERY VERY different than it does today. We have a choice to try to impact how Houston changes to serve citizens best interests or we can just shake things up, throw it in the air and let's the chips fall where they land. That really is the fundamental difference in the conversation. Do you want proactive development where the city can invest dollars in advance (such as drainage, transportation, police/fire stations, schools) in areas where thei city can expect growth. Or do we let developers drive growth wherever they see fit and let the city come in afterwards and retrofit the city services. The argument against reactive growth is we get monstrosities like 1960 that the city has paid to widen multiple times in the past 30 years to ONLY accommodate auto traffic ...when they could have planned that and planted lots of trees, put in better transportation, put in better drainage and generally accommodated the anticipated growth ...similar to how the Woodlands has done a very nice job.

I am glad you feel that way and we do have some very nice areas.

That said, not many people are envious of Houston. That is pretty common knowledge.

In a democracy, we can disagree.

 

People saying we shouldnt invest in rail are the same people who would have rejected interstate highways that go to North Dakota. Investing in infrastructure is a good thing and a far better investment than a bunch of the other nonsense that local municipalities spend money on.

We are a society that has become bred to only think in terms of short term gain.

I swear today's generation wouldn't build interstate highways because it would be "too expensive."

 

Yes, I travel, and I take cabs or shuttle buses.

 

East Houston gets no love. How about a train the goes from NE Harris County to Pasadena. I'd ride that to work.

 

If you have hate in your heart let it out!

 

enjoy spending 10x as much going from pt a to pt b in a cab in nyc while taking 4x as long as me taking the subway system to the same place.