Midtown is basically the area S of the Pierce Elevated, W of 288, N of 59, and E of Montrose. I know Midtown feeds into Lamar, and it looks like Gregory Lincoln is the MS for the area. Oh, and the new HSPVA campus will be in the heart of Midtown. There are 2 lines to serve the E side. In fact, there was a nice article about how the citizens want to connect the Harrisburg & Hobby lines to form a nice little loop. And what's on the E side? Current & potential transit users, just like every other corridor. And given the fact that the E side is actually one of the more dense areas in Houston, the line is a good fit. (I was actually pleasantly surprised to see rail lines in SE Houston, considering the fact that these are working-class neighborhoods. I just knew that there would be a bunch of lines running to the suburbs, and that would be it. I was really expecting another example of servicing the "haves" & forgetting the "have-nots", which is quite a tradition here in Houston.) And of course, it's all just planning for now, anything can change. But I would bet for this plan rather than against if I were you, especially when you consider what's left. Oh, and apparently the rumor I've heard is that Metro has alluded to the fact that future expansion will involve separate, possibly elevated (YAY! ), rail lines, not as much light rail. We'll just have to wait & see. Should be interesting.
I wasn't sure about that..thanks for clearing it up. I have to tell you...I don't think I'd send my kid to an HISD school. Sorry if that makes me a jackass...but I'm charged with my kid's education. I don't think I'd do it, save maybe a few.
Amen to that, dude! The ONLY solution to Houston's long-term traffic problem is mass transportation. More roads only bring more traffic, which causes more lanes to be built which causes more traffic. This also creates more and more pollution. This modest light rail project is hopefully the first baby step in modernizing Houston's 1950s-era idea of transportation.
Live, perhaps you missed my serious points behind my tongue in cheek humor. You can't impose a high density solution on a low density city and expect it to be successful. If the City of Houston had developed with a mass transit system through it's history, there would already be nodes of high density along it's path, on the order of the bedroom communities of the Northeast. But it didn't. We are a city that developed in the age of the automobile. We have no great rivers or mountains that might have directed our growth. On the contrary, we have a vast flat plain to our west with the unlimited capacity for expansion. Right or wrong, Houstonians have spoken: we want a quarter acre of land, good fences and no zoning. The result is a vast low density development totally dependent on personal transportation. Accept it, it's a fact. The millions of us are already out here spread over 525 square miles. We cannot and will not walk literally miles to and from a mass trasit system. Oh, the 40,000 of us that work downtown might, or the 40,000 of us that work in the Med Center might, but the millions of us work in service jobs in all the refineries,office parks, shopping centers and warehouse developments out here in the suburban hinterland. We need cars and we need roads. Now we could live with smaller more energy efficient cars. And we would like to avoid traffic jams if our bosses would just allow us to work something other than 8-5. Our mobility could improve with something just that simple. We don't need a 300 million dollar a mile train. Oh, and tell me again, what can a train do that a row of buses on an HOV can't. You know, a row of busses can split up and let people off in more than one place, like East downtown, West downtown, South downtown; then you wouldn't have to walk so much when you get there. No, trains for Houston are just the folly of utopian dreamers or chauvinistic Yankees. Ride the bus and save me the extra taxes please. Jeep
ok...this is not BAD logic at all. i saw some fliers once dating back to the late 50's early 60's (i think) when they tore the rail up out of the Heights. the powers that be at the time were trumpeting how smart it was...how rail could only let you go in one direction...how once it's fixed, it can't be altered without significant cost and work. buses on the other hand, can change routes as necessary. they're more flexible...and the intial outlay is significantly cheaper... having said that...i think there is clearly a place for rail...but this argument gene makes is one that has been around for a while...and at one point, was the nouveau trendy side of the argument the way being for rail is today.
1. 1 train can move 200 people, the equivalent of 3 buses. 2. They take buses off the streets, buses that slow down drivers like yourself. 3. Dedicated rail lines can be major, permanent infrastructure upgrades that, if managed properly, can be maintained for decades (see Chicago, NY). Can't say the same for concrete or buses, which have to be replaced or expanded every 3 to 10 years. 4. OPTIONS, OPTIONS, OPTIONS. What's wrong with having 2 forms of mass transit, especially if they can be managed properly? (In basketball terms, would you rather have Francis (the bus), or Yao (rail) & Francis? And if Yao made the MAX?) 5. Ah yes, there's nothing like throwing extra tax $ at freeway expansion. I mean, I want to ride trains, why should I pay for freeways? Wouldn't that $ be best served going to schools, building parks, etc? Again, $1.6 B for a 10-20 mile expansion that only affects, at the most, 10% of the population. And when completed, will be just as congested as before. Tell that to Dallas & Ft Worth residents, an area that's even less dense and more sprawling than Houston. They can't lay the tracks down fast enough up there, and there have been articles that DFW's composition is being affected somewhat. I just don't agree with the fatalistic "...Houston has & always will be in love with the car..." logic, I'm willing to try other transit options. Maybe mass transit has been seen as a high density solution because people keep preaching the same sermon. Fact is, until recently, mass transit & low density have never been tried in the same area. When Houston (and many other cities that dismantled their systems) had its street cars, it was also a much denser city (oh, mismanagement has just as much to do with the street car system's failure as the emergence of the car did). I obviously think rail is worth a try, especially since its the only thing we really have yet to try. It's obvious the "...move as far away, build more freeways\HOV lanes, drive everywhere..." plan isn't working, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. My solution: 1. Fulfill as much of the eventual plan as possible. Its natural that some corridors may change in composition, populace, etc. 2. Elevated rail lines inside the Beltway, commuter rail, which works even in "The Center of the Car Universe" Los Angeles, to outlying communities. 3. Maintain freeways, but no more expansion. And speaking of LA, once a srawling city with low to so-so density that has now become one of the most dense cities in America. 11K sq miles in area, 17M in population (and growing). They still love their cars, but a change in city composition (which can obviously occur ) has this now dense city suffocating under the weight of poor infrastructure & beautiful freeways. They're now building a nice rail system, trying to get the whole area in on it. LA can handle this problem because it's LA, people flock there in spite of its "issues" (obscene land value & home prices, smog, etc.). LA's like a plant that inexplicably grows without shade or water. Can you say the same about Houston, especially with a comparable city (Dallas) to the N that's addressing its infrastructure issues?
excellent points, Live...part of building this rail system is simply to keep up with the joneses...it's important for attracting young professionals who, more often than not, subscribe to the idea that having rail is better than not having rail. rail bias, i guess. that's a benefit to building rail that isn't easily measured but exists nonetheless.
Well, I could care less about the Joneses actually. I use LA as an example of what can happen if you don't plan properly. Now they're scrambling to find alternatives. (There was even a plan to widen a freeway that went through the Valley. Problem is, it would have meant the destruction of many buildings, schools, churches, & homes! Luckily, it went down in flames.) But yes, having rail can give Houston a competitive edge in terms of attracting talented people & continuing to grow. As for me, I'm just tired of having to drive everywhere.
Initially, but when you add maintenance issues, buses are a bigger expense. And you have to replace them every 5-10 years, trains can last up to 30. I thought this was already occuring. I do agree, however, that Metro needs to better utilize HOV lanes. So throwing $ at freeways that will never meet capacity is a better investment than building & investing in other forms of mass transit that can compliment existing forms of transportation? I just don't understand this notion of freeways or rail, can't we have both? I am paying for it, just like I'm paying for freeways that subsidize & validate suburbs. All of us are. OK, so you'd back an even more expensive (all the stations have to be ADA compliant --> elevators --> multi-million $ stations), and more inflexible system (it's a B!TCH to build monorail lines that can intersect & share the same supports) over light rail. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just find it a bit odd since you've argued about price, priorities, etc. of light rail.
for the record...yes...i support the latter...i'd rather pay MORE money and get a system we can be proud of then just build a system to say we have one.
