Houston: why expensive rail transit? (Howe, Mart: apartment, neighborhood, buy)

[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!

[Guerilla]

Because rail transit is needed to provide even greater mobility throughout the region. And actually, A LOT of people use rail transit in America. Houston's first line itself is a success, as it has 67% of DART's ridership with 30-miles of less light rail track. I am very glad Houston is expanding its light rail system, as commuter rail will be coming in. I hope they try to get streetcars, too.

[jfre81]

I hear ya. Man, I'm totally with ya.

I need my personal space no matter where I am, and that personal space needs to be able to fit my golf clubs and my skis. Even though I don't play golf because it requires too much walking, and there are no mountains around. No matter where I go, even if it's from one end of a strip mall to the other, I'm getting in the car and driving. I hate walking. If it doesn't have a drive-thru I don't eat there. I'll drive in circles in the Wal-Mart parking lot for 30 minutes waiting to catch somebody backing out of the closest non-handicap parking space. Failing that I'll park in the handicap space. I have a handicap, and it's called being lazy and self-centered. I've heard Houston isn't very walkable, but I wouldn't know first-hand either way.

I really wish more people like you would move here. Nothing says "fiscal conservative" like insisting we continue to consume gasoline and export more American money overseas to Saudi Arabia. But the commie liberals have won, and we might as well fold up the tent. They're expanding this light rail boondoggle. Pretty soon you won't be able to run a red light anymore without getting hit by a rail car. I'm gonna still do it anyway, because I need to get where I'm going. That train shouldn't be there in the first place, so I'm going to ignore it.

So, unfortunately, I would say cross Houston off your list. In Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina they do not have rail transit. Everyone drives and there's no land they won't develop. They drain out natural ponds for strip malls. That's what I call progress. We need a Subway on every street corner, and not the ones on rails. That's the mentality there, and I think that's where you need to go.

[Guerilla]

I'm amazed at the lack of light rail knowledge by some people. Both can co-exist (light rail and the automobile). I'm off for the night!

[kpoeppel]

Originally Posted by jfre81

I hear ya. Man, I'm totally with ya.

I need my personal space no matter where I am, and that personal space needs to be able to fit my golf clubs and my skis. Even though I don't play golf because it requires too much walking, and there are no mountains around. No matter where I go, even if it's from one end of a strip mall to the other, I'm getting in the car and driving. I hate walking. If it doesn't have a drive-thru I don't eat there. I'll drive in circles in the Wal-Mart parking lot for 30 minutes waiting to catch somebody backing out of the closest non-handicap parking space. Failing that I'll park in the handicap space. I have a handicap, and it's called being lazy and self-centered. I've heard Houston isn't very walkable, but I wouldn't know first-hand either way.

I really wish more people like you would move here. Nothing says "fiscal conservative" like insisting we continue to consume gasoline and export more American money overseas to Saudi Arabia.

Why the sarcastic attitude?

How many people take mass transit? How many people drive? Are all of them self-centered? Or do they just find the automobile the fastest and most convenient way to get from point A to point B?

We're actually sending more money to Canada or Mexico, our top two suppliers of oil. Oil is a global commodity...if the Saudi's weren't selling the oil to us, they'd be selling it to someone else. Either way, they'll make lots of money. If you're worried about not having "energy independence", well, we're going to have to live with it. We have a growing economy that needs energy, and we'll buy from to anyone who will voluntarily sell it to us. Places like Saudi Arabia are just as dependent on our business as we are on their oil. We are mutually interdependent. Also, cars are being developed which run electricity, or a combination of gasoline and electricity.

Originally Posted by jfre81

But the commie liberals have won, and we might as well fold up the tent. They're expanding this light rail boondoggle. Pretty soon you won't be able to run a red light anymore without getting hit by a rail car. I'm gonna still do it anyway, because I need to get where I'm going. That train shouldn't be there in the first place, so I'm going to ignore it.

So, unfortunately, I would say cross Houston off your list. In Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina they do not have rail transit. Everyone drives and there's no land they won't develop. They drain out natural ponds for strip malls. That's what I call progress. We need a Subway on every street corner, and not the ones on rails. That's the mentality there, and I think that's where you need to go.

All of those are red herrings. Many cities are growing rapidly, with or without rail systems. If you don't like rapidly growing cities, why would you live in a place like Houston? Why not move to places like California and Oregon that have strict laws against land development?

I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't have public transit. My point was, why not busses instead of trains? Busses can go anywhere, on an existing road network. Lanes can be dedicated to busses only, allowing them to bypass congestion (in the same way rails would) and yet the busses could go anywhere (unlike rail). Busses use exiting roadways, without the need for the aquisition of property for new rights of way and the construction of new rail networks (very expensive).

Seattle, which is considered "liberal" and "progressive" uses busses and bus lanes. They do have a heavy-rail commuter train (Sounder) but, until recently, no light rail.

For further reading:
Reason Foundation - Light Rail

[Guerilla]

Seattle does have light rail. It is under construction now. In fact, that bus tunnel had to be reconstructed to have light rail in there.

Here is a photo: http://www.soundtransit.org/Images/v...T_Trackway.jpg

And a link to the Sounder Transit Light Rail plan: Sound Transit

[kpoeppel]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

I'm amazed at the lack of light rail knowledge by some people. Both can co-exist (light rail and the automobile). I'm off for the night!

But the existence of TWO systems is precisely why rail is so much more expensive than bussing. Busses don't need a whole new system of infrastructure. Why is it that we complain about taxes, but vote for transit systems that are far more expensive than alternatives? "There's no free lunch."

See the following article: http://www.reason.org/pu16.pdf

[Guerilla]

Yes, buses do. You have to place in bus stops and upgrade roads to handle that bus capacity. Buses also add to the pollution and traffic-clogged roads.

Buses are meant to feed into the heavy rail, or light rail system.

[kpoeppel]

Jfre81 and Guerilla,

Why so defensive of rail over busses? Do you both take trains to work daily? What happens when a person doesn't happen to live near a rail station? What if a person's workplace is not near a rail station?

These days, in most cities, businesses and workplaces are not located exclusively in centralized downtown areas. If everyone worked in a one square mile area, perhaps fixed guideway systems (like rail, subway, etc) would be an efficient way of getting to work (assuming everyone also lived along the rail line).

I just find it hard to believe that the cost vs. benefit is better for rail than busses.

[jfre81]

I think my sarcasm is because I've heard this all before, millions of times.

No, it's not easy to give rail access to everything and everyone in a city built how you say you like it, which is pretty much what Houston is and has been. When they opened the first rail line they said nobody would ride it. Then a few weeks later people were saying they were only riding it because of the Super Bowl and that it was useless. Four years later even more people are using it. And it doesn't even really go through a residential neighborhood yet. This is going to change.

For a city laid out like Houston, I think buses are better used for short trips (as in just up the road) or for connecting you from your neighborhood to the rail line. A lot of bus routes near the rail line have been reconfigured for that purpose, which is something we'll likely see when the new lines go up (whether anyone likes it or not). Buses for longer trips across town don't work as well. This is not Seattle. This is Houston and it's very big. It takes one friend of mine upwards of two hours at night taking the bus from work in the Montrose to his apartment on the northwest side outside the loop.

Most people seem to equate rail transit with "liberalism," which I don't really get. I never understood how moving people on tracks had anything to do with politics, but apparently it does for other people. Either way, if you want more development and economic growth, you're going to have to move more people around. If you insist on putting it all on the roads and freeways and keep developing, the infrastructure will fall behind. As things get built out in the far suburbs, building more freeways through and near where people paid good money to live is not going to be politically convenient for whoever proposes the idea. NIMBY holds up a lot of development here. It has partly to do with why we haven't had a comprehensive rail system for some time and why a topic like this on the Houston forum isn't a moot point right now.

Rail isn't cheap, but neither are freeways and neither is idling in traffic, burning gas that just keeps getting more expensive, and getting nowhere. I don't understand why a "fiscal conservative" would go for that, but it's surely how we've rolled for the last 40-50 years. There's got to be another way, which is exactly what I'm thinking when I'm going over the Montrose bridge over 59 and watching people barely move at 3:30 p.m., when we've still got the worst of the rush to look forward to.