Houston: why expensive rail transit? (Austin, Round Rock: school, live, buses)

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

First of all, what is the definition of a "great" city? Is that merely your opinion or based on some facts? One way to objectively see if a city is "great" is to see how many people are moving into a city vs. moving out.

If car-centered cities (in America) are not great, than why have their populations been growing so rapidly compared to the older, high density, transit-oriented cities? If Houston isn't great because it doesn't have a rail system, than why has it doubled in population almost every decade, even before the 7 mile light rail system?

Because they are cheaper and have more jobs. That is how those older cities were way back in the early 1900's. Has nothing to do with freeways, etc.

Well, that certainly speaks volumes. How do you presume to know what forms of transportation I have used? I've ridden several rail transit systems: Chicago, Atlanta, and D.C. Every time, I was a tourist. Yes, some commuters rode the trains too, but guess what? More often than not, they had to drive to a train station in an evil automobile, then had to take an evil bus from the downtown station to their workplace.

Yeah, because they (in Atlanta's case), voted to not have MARTA into their counties, but STILL drive to the stations to use the rail. Some use buses to connect to the rail. And no one said buses are evil. Buses are meant to compliment the rail system.

That's great...and yet you're still stuck in traffic. So are Chicago and Atlanta, even though they have extensive rail networks. Will expanding the Houston rail network (at huge expense) really do any good? Good intentions are not enough. It is results which matter.

Imagine how much worse Chicago and Atlanta's roadways would be without the rail systems. New York has the only 24 hour subway in North America and has over six million people use its system everyday. The city is still clogged with traffic, but NYC shuts down if their transit system is closed.

Ok, so you call my mentality "suburban". Well, guess what...a large number of Americans have the same mentality, apparently. Don't like it? Tough. It's still a free country, and (with the exception of the West Coast) people live where they choose, not where self-appointed elitists dictate. In the last 50 years, how many people moved to inner cities vs. moved to the suburbs? I rest my case.

What?

More people find Portland has a higher quality of life than Houston? Really? If that is the case, more people should be moving to Portland than Houston. Is this true? Last I checked, Houston was growing much more quickly than Portland. Apparently, most people are more concerned about affordable housing, good jobs, and mobility than how "green" a city is. As long as pollution isn't high enough to significantly affect one's health, most people aren't going to pay 3 times as much for a house in a "green" city.

Not many cities are growing as fast as Houston. Only Atlanta and DFW are (which, by the way, both have 45-mile rail systems).

Pave the entire city? Good job knocking over that straw-man.

You are the one who wants widened freeways and more buses to clog those freeways. I don't understand that.

New York: far too expensive for most people. Congestion is terrible, even with lots of the sacred mass transit.

But the transit is efficient. If you don't live in the city, a quick drive to the Park and Ride rail station will do you good.

Washington DC: ditto

Only on the freeways, but DC's rail is quick, clean, and efficient. I have ridden on it before and was impressed.

Chicago: affordable, but most middle and upper-class people who work there live in the evil suburbs. Not growing as quickly as car-oriented Sunbelt cities.

No, those suburbanites drive to the rail stations in Chicago, and ride on in to Downtown, with a transfer on Chicago's subway.

Tourism: I don't know too many people who move to a city just because there are lots of tourists around. Again, it would seem that economic opportunities and affordable housing are more important to most people.

No, tourists go to a city with an easier way to get around. When I go to NYC this Spring Break, we aren't renting a car (an added expense of $200+). Why? Because it is easy to get around without a car.

Finally, I don't understand why people live in a city like Houston if they think that high-density, mass transit, stagnant population, extreme environmentalism, etc are so great. Houston is practically a symbol of oil, limited regulation, economic growth, the superiority of the automobile, etc. In other words, the things that a certain segment of our society absolutely hate. Why don't those people move to San Francisco or Portand, which are symbols of near-dictatorial central govenment and planning, the "green" mentality, anti-development laws, mass transit spending, and the like?

Yet, Houston is actively trying to get more rail (and will get it). The first line was/is successful. Come to Houston in 2012 and see how easy it will be to move around without a car.

[johnherrera305]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

Since so few Americans use mass transit, why is the Houston region spending so much money on new rail systems?

I realize that some people cannot drive, and that mass transit is necessary. It seems to me that busses are far less expensive, and also more flexible (not restricted to rail routes) than rail transit.

I have read that, for the longest time, Houston did resist the light-rail "hype" and did precisely that: it used busses, bus lanes, and HOV/bus lanes.

I don't currently live in Houston, but I am strongly considering moving to the area for it's apparent fiscal conservatism and strong economy. However, I am concerned that the "smart growth" or "new urbanist" crowd has achieved a foothold in Houston, and that all of the problems associated with it will soon rear their ugly heads there. I want to live in a city that is pro-development, pro-automobile, pro-freeway, and pro-economic-growth...and doesn't waste taxpayer dollars on politically-correct transportation.

Does anyone have any information on the local politics regarding land use, transportation policy, how your property taxes are spent, etc? I see that your property taxes are very high, yikes!

We need more and more cars off the road. We need to become a greener city. And it saves you money in gas, insurance and car payments. However, its too late to build a Mass transit system in Houston. New York's system started in the early 20th century and took many years to develop. -

[Guerilla]

How is it too late?

[BamaTex]

It's never too late.

Houston will never be New York as far as mass transit. But that's okay. I think Chicago is the city Houston needs to look to. Of course, minus the subway and the L. Commuter rail and light rail, as well as buses, working together are the way to go.

You can only add so many freeway lanes!

[Guerilla]

Houston will have some subway sections though ! The Uptown/Pink Line is a subway from San Felipe to I-10.

[bostoner]

Is it really going to be called the Pink Line? I was expecting more primary colors.

[Guerilla]

Well, it is colored on the map as a "Pink Line" , so maybe. Red, Green, Blue, Orange, and Brown are already, or will be used, so I guess Pink was next.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

New York: far too expensive for most people. Congestion is terrible, even with lots of the sacred mass transit.

Surprisingly I found the freeways of New York to be more free-flowing than Houston. Maybe Houston drivers are too slow?

[kpoeppel]

Ok, I've heard a lot from one side. Are there any non-liberals on this forum? Are there any conservatives or libertarians out there?

[Cornwell]

The light rails are great!!! oh wait... noo they get in wrecks all the time from what I've noticed... And they make turning in downtown extra confusing