Why isn't there a metro train from Sugar Land (Katy, Woodlands, etc) to downtown? (Houston: house, construction)

[Poltracker]

Originally Posted by chicagomama

I don't get it. Wouldn't people use it all the time? Is the govt talking about it? Houston is such a big city, they should put in a metra....

Unlike Chicago, Houston is the model for what is known as urban sprawl. There are many "business centers" within the city (and out of it), downtown is just one of them. Moving by train has just not been economical and folks in Texas are practical if nothing else. I can tell you for a fact that the former president of the Long Island RR thought the issue impractical when he was asked to consult on rail for Houston by former Mayor Whitmire. Commuter rail systems are generally supported at least 70% by taxes, they in no way pay for themselves. Economic times have changed and it may now be more practical from an economic standpoint.

[Kofi713]

Originally Posted by tstone

As a rule, Texas lags behind in public transportation. The large cities of Houston, DFW, Austin, and San Antonio all have this problem. They are all very car-dependent cities/metros (for the most part) with wide open spaces.

Nope. I'll give you Austin and San Antonio. They lag behind. But the other two, they are expanding their rail systems and Houston's bus system is number one in ridership in the Southwest. Not to mention the excellent Park and Ride systems.

Transit is not just rail.

Originally Posted by texas7

Even the one little rail we have is poorly designed so when we have more - we'll have more poor designs spread out. They need to not cheap out and build it elevated - instead they take streets down to one lane to put the rail in. The signage of which isn't clear due to the clutter of so many other signs in this unzoned city. In some places, the turning lane is actually on the rail line (med center). When the streets flood - they can't go. It's really just a silent amusement ride up and down one street. Can't see that we need more of that.

Yet, it has 45,000 rider per day on just 7.5 miles (second highest riders per mile in the nation). For comparison, Dallas on 45-miles, has 61,000 riders per day (and Dallas has the elevated and short underground stuff).

Let me give you a list of cities with street-level light rail like our own: San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, Boston, Seattle, Pittsburgh, etc.

You can blame Culberson and DeLay for the rail being the way it is. They blocked federal funding for Metro. So, I fail to see how Metro is "cheaping out". Especially since the new expansion includes some elevated, subway, and rail in its own ROW. All by 2012.

[tstone]

I'm sorry but you cannot compare the public trans systems of San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, Boston, Seattle, and Chicago to Houston's. Totally different levels. I understand our system has potential but they are neither on the size nor scale of those cities. Maybe DFW and Houston are best in the rough "Southwest" from TX NM & AZ, but we lag way behind those other cities mentioned. Night & day.

[Kofi713]

Originally Posted by tstone

I'm sorry but you cannot compare the public trans systems of San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, Boston, Seattle, and Chicago to Houston's. Totally different levels. I understand our system has potential but they are neither on the size nor scale of those cities. Maybe DFW and Houston are best in the rough "Southwest" from TX NM & AZ, but we lag way behind those other cities mentioned. Night & day.

Portland has us in light rail, but not bus. We own on Seattle. Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, and San Fran are the only ones that are above us in all levels, and with that, Baltimore BARELY.

[randian]

Because trains are massively overpriced public works boondoggles. Absolutely not worth a single dime to build.

[Indianspringsguy]

It is very simple. It costs too much. To do it here in Montgomery County, we would have to get right of way for another track and build a rail system. A train could never even come close to paying for itself. Unless someone comes along with big bucks and says "take this gift", it ain't go'n to happen! We have one existing line that is too full to add a metro to it.

[texas7]

Great some elevated, some subway, some street -- just a hodge podge of what they can throw together .... so how often will they run into "water" issues on the subway parts every time it rains.................. I work downtown and I love how often they run the lights .... just great (it is quite often). If you are on one of the lanes that turns - and you have the okay light to be in the turning lane but have a red light still for making the turn, if a train pulls up behind you - they lay on the horn trying to force drivers to run the light make a dangerous left turn across traffic. Just not a good design. Danger Train is a good name for it (for pedestrians and drivers not on the train).

[Topaz]

Originally Posted by Kofi713

Portland has us in light rail, but not bus.

We just moved here from Portland. Their MAX system had safety issues like stabbings, beatings, robberies, etc. It made commuting by car in Portland's heinous traffic look much more appealing. (This is the same awful traffic that Portlanders will swear is just fine...they are a city in mass denial about their transportation woes).

[houston-nomad]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the massive efforts by our politicians such as Tom Delay to block mass transit. And build more and more and more freeways. Gee, that was farsighted, wasn't it?

[randian]

Originally Posted by houston-nomad

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the massive efforts by our politicians such as Tom Delay to block mass transit. And build more and more and more freeways. Gee, that was farsighted, wasn't it?

Mass transit is slow, inflexible, inconvenient, monstrously expensive, and delivers no significant environmental benefits. Did I mention monstrously expensive? So yes, they were very farsighted.