Public Transportation in Houston (bus, bill, office) - Texas (TX) - Page 10 - City-Data Forum

Wysiwyg · 08-15-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheasare

Quote from the article:

"NEW YORK (AP) -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg was promised $354 million in federal funds Tuesday to help launch his ambitious plan to reduce traffic and pollution by charging extra tolls for driving into the busiest parts of Manhattan."

C.

I see bigwigs and traders can drive into manhattan in their ferraris and maseratis

. Parking will become cheaper offsetting the tax maybe? the other side of the rivers are parking lots already for ferry and subway commuters so some can do that. I'm not sure who will be forced to totally take mass transit if they can afford to drive during rushhour into manhattan now. I mean its not like raising the toll on the westpark tollway

AustinTraveler · 08-15-2007, 12:39 PM

Please remember that this thread is about Public Transportation in Houston.

jfre81 · 08-15-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinTraveler

Please remember that this thread is about Public Transportation in Houston.

Huh? Isn't that like a thread about waterfalls on Mars?

jk

PT in Houston is still a failure for a city of this size and importance. We do need to look at what other cities have done and talk about how it can be applied here.

What about subways in Houston? They have the tunnels downtown so why not subways?

I like the monorail and el-train concepts but I can't see how it wouldn't cost significantly more than light rail. Also, wouldn't we have a lot of noise complaints? I do like that the METRO railcars are very quiet - much moreso than I was first expecting. I thought one of the biggest drawbacks besides the disruption in traffic patterns would have been noise, but it's pretty much a non-factor. It's a lot more quiet than the cars zooming around.

What we have is very limited, but for now at least I have the option of not paying for parking when I go downtown, where there's starting to be something to do besides work. And that's not a bad start.

John84 · 08-15-2007, 01:33 PM

"What about subways in Houston? They have the tunnels downtown so why not subways?"

Those same tunnels were underwater during Allison.

There are no basements in Houston for that same reason.

For a city a like Houston, I question whether rail is necessary, except in certain areas. For the suburbs, my guess is that bus and HOV traffic carries more people than rail, but I was looking for data to support that conclusion.

jfre81 · 08-15-2007, 01:48 PM

If a hurricane hits NYC their subways will be underwater too. Just look what one big (non-tropical) storm system did just a couple weeks ago.

My problem with the HOV is when one car breaks down or blows a tire or whatever and the whole thing shuts down. Then the buses have to get off the freeway to where people actually work, live etc. and all the stopping slows down traffic.

The light rail line is on the ground and you do have to stop for it, but it's not like it moves slowly and takes forever to get across. I do more stopping for pedestrians in places like Rice Village and Montrose than I do driving around the METRORail, and the railcar moves faster than the pedestrians. At least the people walking around in those areas aren't getting back into their cars and pulling out of one parking lot just to pull into another across the street.

John84 · 08-15-2007, 02:13 PM

I would argue that Houston is more prone to flooding than NYC. I'm not sure of the civil engineering effort, but it seems like an expensive effort to put subways in the swamping ground of Houston. Why don't people have basements here?

HOV is wide enough to get around minor fender benders and tire blowouts. I've taken 290 HOV for the past two years, and it's extremely convenient with rare issues.

SDBreaux · 08-15-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfre81

Huh? Isn't that like a thread about waterfalls on Mars?

jk

PT in Houston is still a failure for a city of this size and importance. We do need to look at what other cities have done and talk about how it can be applied here.

What about subways in Houston? They have the tunnels downtown so why not subways?

I like the monorail and el-train concepts but I can't see how it wouldn't cost significantly more than light rail. Also, wouldn't we have a lot of noise complaints? I do like that the METRO railcars are very quiet - much moreso than I was first expecting. I thought one of the biggest drawbacks besides the disruption in traffic patterns would have been noise, but it's pretty much a non-factor. It's a lot more quiet than the cars zooming around.

What we have is very limited, but for now at least I have the option of not paying for parking when I go downtown, where there's starting to be something to do besides work. And that's not a bad start.

You have to consider the land differences in Houston and NYC. NYC is very concentrated. Houston is not. In fact, Houston can continue to grow outward and upward and still have no need for subways.

There are plenty of other alternative options which Houston is already taking advantage of. Yes, everyone pretty much agrees Houston acted late in building a light rail, but at least they started. I would much rather ride reliable light rail instead of drive a car and spend thousands on gasoline. No matter the cost of a train ticket, it's ALWAYS cheaper than filling up with gas. The light rail CAN and SHOULD be expanded to all areas within the region, but first local communities should start constructing their OWN light rails. Eventually, everything can be connected. We'll also have to reconfigure the way everything is drawn up in Houston to make a successful LR service.

That said, I honestly cannot see Houston -ever- having a PT like NYC. What we may see in the future is solar and wind powered cars that can also be charged in your garage. That idea is acceptable for me. America has a love affiar with cars. The United States is not developed enough to truly have a massive national PT system.

mpope409 · 08-15-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wysiwyg

houston, TEXAS. not cosmopolitan DC, LA, chicago or NYC. .

Good public trans, Houston does lack, but what it does not lack is being cosmopolitan.

Guerilla · 08-15-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John84

I would argue that Houston is more prone to flooding than NYC. I'm not sure of the civil engineering effort, but it seems like an expensive effort to put subways in the swamping ground of Houston. Why don't people have basements here?

HOV is wide enough to get around minor fender benders and tire blowouts. I've taken 290 HOV for the past two years, and it's extremely convenient with rare issues.

They do it in Amsterdam, which is built on land like New Orleans. Houston isn't built on all swampland either...only the Southeast side.

John84 · 08-15-2007, 08:07 PM

I'm not saying it couldn't be done - but I think it would be prohibitively expensive. Having been to Amsterdam most of their rail lines are above ground.

And to an earlier point, like NYC, Amsterdam is not an analogous situation to Houston. For one, they're willing to pay $2.4 Billion to go 5.9 miles:

Dutch devise subway for Amsterdam - USATODAY.com

Putting this in perspective, it would only cover 2/3 of the existing rail service distance.

To the original question of this thread - if you live outside the loop, you'll need a car. Bus service is pretty good around Houston and pretty easy to understand. PT, while devoid of rail service, does have an good HOV system if you need the flexibility of a car.