Why Doesn't Chicago Have Light Rail? (Normal, Westchester: upkeep, tax, stats)

[tjasse]

Texas cities probably will see new mass transit before many other places simply because they have the most money to pay for it and they are kind of bursting at the seams population wise. Plus they don't really have the kind of regulations other states do, so it would probably be easier to get the transit built.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by tjasse

Texas cities probably will see new mass transit before many other places simply because they have the most money to pay for it and they are kind of bursting at the seams population wise. Plus they don't really have the kind of regulations other states do, so it would probably be easier to get the transit built.

No, actually, they don't have that much money to pay for it.

Texas Bill Would Block Federal Funds for Local Rail Transit Projects - State & Local - GovExec.com

Legislation recently introduced by a conservative Texas state senator would effectively tie the hands of local government leaders in the Lone Star State with a bill mandating that the state’s Department of Transportation, “a local governmental entity, or another political subdivision of this state may not use money provided by the Federal Transit Administration for a mass transit passenger rail project.”

They did not build mass transit back when it would have cost less and they won't build it now. Texans are car obsessed. Living in Houston, I wish there was more transit and it has gotten a bit better with the extension of the light rail. Still, light rail is really not the way to go for a city like Houston with streets flooding frequently. They really should build an elevated rail system.

Houston missed the window for federal funds for rail once due to state maneuvering.

[Yn0hTnA]

Originally Posted by nana053

No, actually, they don't have that much money to pay for it.

Texas Bill Would Block Federal Funds for Local Rail Transit Projects - State & Local - GovExec.com



They did not build mass transit back when it would have cost less and they won't build it now. Texans are car obsessed. Living in Houston, I wish there was more transit and it has gotten a bit better with the extension of the light rail. Still, light rail is really not the way to go for a city like Houston with streets flooding frequently. They really should build an elevated rail system.

Houston missed the window for federal funds for rail once due to state maneuvering.

The link says that the bill would block funds; meaning it has yet to come to effect. So there is still a chance that it would not come to pass; the senators of Texas can't be that stupid to pass such a bill.

The light rail is not going to be the main commuter system for Houston; it is just the intra-urban network that will link the active areas of the city's urban core, not too dissimilar to a European tram, most of which, run at grade. Once that is complete, the true commuter/rapid transit system can be constructed, and that system can be elevated, or function as a subway.

Although there was a decent opportunity missed for Houston by not adopting transit back in the day, really, in regards to the constructions for these systems, its better late than never

[knitgirl]

Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA

The link says that the bill would block funds; meaning it has yet to come to effect. So there is still a chance that it would not come to pass; the senators of Texas can't be that stupid to pass such a bill.

Sure they will, it's Texas.

[tjasse]

That bill is considered DOA. It was proposed by some goofball tea bagger type.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA

The link says that the bill would block funds; meaning it has yet to come to effect. So there is still a chance that it would not come to pass; the senators of Texas can't be that stupid to pass such a bill.

The light rail is not going to be the main commuter system for Houston; it is just the intra-urban network that will link the active areas of the city's urban core, not too dissimilar to a European tram, most of which, run at grade. Once that is complete, the true commuter/rapid transit system can be constructed, and that system can be elevated, or function as a subway.

Although there was a decent opportunity missed for Houston by not adopting transit back in the day, really, in regards to the constructions for these systems, its better late than never

Subway in Houston probably is not feasible given the amount of rain and the flooding possibilities. They won't build an elevated because they won't spend the money. Seriously, I wish they would build commuter rail, too, but they won't.

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by tjasse

That bill is considered DOA. It was proposed by some goofball tea bagger type.

AKA, your average Texan.

[Yn0hTnA]

Originally Posted by knitgirl

Sure they will, it's Texas.

But see, that bill would basically block free money from being granted to the state, much of which was paid away by the state as tax (much more than is received back); basically, if that bill comes to pass, Texans would be ripping themselves off. No one would even be that mental to make such a decision.

Originally Posted by nana053

Subway in Houston probably is not feasible given the amount of rain and the flooding possibilities. They won't build an elevated because they won't spend the money. Seriously, I wish they would build commuter rail, too, but they won't.

Cites like Hong Kong, and Shanghai, have the same humid subtropical climate regime as Houston, with lots of rain and flooding as well, and they have subways. Singapore, a very soggy equatorial climate, with humidity, heat, and rain year-round, has a subway system as well. Look at Amsterdam having a subway, and yet its below sea-level.

Not that elevated rails, like that of Chicago's, wouldn't be any more efficient, but subways can be done in Houston. The flooding argument is such a cop-out, considering the city's downtown has an underground maze of tunnels.

And plans for commuter rail are being studied, with routes planned. The article escapes me, but they are there. But I think the light rail being implemented for Houston, and other such cities, is quite appropriate; like a European tram, it serves to link the important areas of the urban core easily, allowing for good conditioning and seasoning into mass transit. With that accomplished, heavy rail can then do its thing. Cities like Chicago have already accomplished such seasoning, in the form of street-car lines, which were ripped up, and replaced with buses. But because of such seasoning, the lack of street-car lines didn't matter; the populace was already accustomed to mass-transit, no matter the form, and said mass-transit is quite extensive, and efficient.

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

AKA, your average Texan.

Would not stand for such nonsense being said by the senators, and is willing to see improvements take form in all of the cities. The average Texan is tired of the loonies in office right now in the state, and do not answer to the silly laws that are passed. Public schools in Texas all teach evolution, not creation, and even the students, as young as even 2nd Grade, just laugh at the silliness the senators of the state concoct.

[knitgirl]

Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA

But see, that bill would basically block free money from being granted to the state, much of which was paid away by the state as tax (much more than is received back); basically, if that bill comes to pass, Texans would be ripping themselves off. No one would even be that mental to make such a decision.

They ARE that mental. There were several states that turned down money for Obamacare even though it didn't cost the states anything and would have provided health insurance for people who didn't have it.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by jman07

Isn't it obvious? We have have millions of people and a huge population density. Light rail is for smaller cities and for lower volumes of people.

Then why does Philadelphia have it? Millions of people and denser than Chicago.