How can anybody in Houston not support expanding metro rail to the whole city? (Atlanta: hotel, income)

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Well, the new rail lines all went to low-density areas (only UH could be considered a high-density origin/destination) and they have consequently low ridership. Was it right for METRO to spend so much money essentially betting on a higher-density future in these corridors, when funds could have been spent providing other kinds of needed transit improvements and in larger quantities, to address needs the city has right now?

Come on. You know the economic situation regarding those areas of light rail expansion. Much more than those areas just not being dense.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Well, the new rail lines all went to low-density areas (only UH could be considered a high-density origin/destination) and they have consequently low ridership. Was it right for METRO to spend so much money essentially betting on a higher-density future in these corridors, when funds could have been spent providing other kinds of needed transit improvements and in larger quantities, to address needs the city has right now?

Lightrail, just like the Grand Parkway, don't need "high density"
Once built, they will attract businesses and housing

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Texyn

Come on. You know the economic situation regarding those areas of light rail expansion. Much more than those areas just not being dense.

Yes, those areas are lower income in general, so in theory they should have higher transit dependence. It hasn't been anywhere near enough to make up for those areas being predominately single family detached and not having concentrated employment nodes except for UH (some might claim the Northline Commons retail but I think that's still weak). Furthermore, outside of the hotels, restaurants and some basic service providers (janitorial services for example), how many of the folks of lower income and education levels actually work downtown? Now, they might need to go downtown to change to another bus line, but I don't see the areas served by the new lines as being major labor markets for the office towers. Unless of course those areas can gentrify and densify to become more white-collar-employee oriented.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Vicman

While I doubt the Northside has the population density of Gulfton, the mostly Hispanic areas to the north have a fair number of people. East End should have a healthy number of people too. The density around Palm Center is lower, though.

Part of the issue is that the feds aren't giving what they should to METRORail partly because of the actions of our own politicians (Culberson).

No, these areas have low to moderate population density, and frankly not much different from many suburban portions of the metro, or even less - much of the East End's land area is industrial, so residential uses are just limited period. The SE line has some residential density right around UH. Employment density is also very limited except at UH.

[madrone2k]

My first thought -- when Metro started to put in the light-rail beyond the initial Red Line -- was that they were just putting it wherever they could that didn't have political opposition. However, I was skeptical that the service to those areas would be very useful to the people who lived there. So ... this brings up the issue of whether to build rail transit where there is already pent-up demand or where densification and demand will both increase in the future. I don't know the answer. My thinking is that rail is an investment in the future. However, I still think that it should be done right or not at all.

I remain quite confident that the University Line and Uptown Line would have been very successful. Despite the "can't do" attitude of some of the old white folks who live in those areas and their elected officials. (Full disclosure: I am also an old white dude, but one that has a different opinion on this issue. I live in the area and I would use both of them.)

[hbcu]

a line to Missouri City has been talked about for ages as it helps alleviate the Medical Center.

Its almost like Metro had to build a line but really never wanted it so they put it in areas where demand would never be great to keep from building more.

[Vicman]

Originally Posted by hbcu

a line to Missouri City has been talked about for ages as it helps alleviate the Medical Center.

Its almost like Metro had to build a line but really never wanted it so they put it in areas where demand would never be great to keep from building more.

They could extend the Red Line down there, past Hiram Clarke!

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

No, these areas have low to moderate population density, and frankly not much different from many suburban portions of the metro, or even less - much of the East End's land area is industrial, so residential uses are just limited period. The SE line has some residential density right around UH. Employment density is also very limited except at UH.

I would imagine the line would help funnel people from the East End to Downtown if that's where they work.

It might be good to post some maps so we can see what kinds of land use are around the light rail line.
* METRORail Green Line Map (not to scale): https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/GreenLine.aspx - It ends at Magnolia Park
* City of Houston Map of Super Neighborhoods: https://www.houstontx.gov/superneigh...nmapsbyzip.pdf

Land usage maps:
* Downtown (61): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/De...1_Downtown.pdf (start of the Green Line)
* Second Ward (63): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/De...econd_Ward.pdf (additional Green Line)
* Greater Eastwood (64): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/De...r_Eastwood.pdf (no Green Line segments but nearby)
* Lawndale/Wayside (88): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/De...le_Wayside.pdf (no Green Line segments but nearby)
* Magnolia Park (82): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/De...nolia_Park.pdf (end of the Green Line)

These maps don't measure employment density. It's merely showing what kind of land use they have and numerical figures of what population density they have.

Population per square mile in 2000 and 2015:
* Downtown (61): 4,579 -> 4,464
* Second Ward (63): 5,116 -> 4,556
* Greater Eastwood (64): 7,255 -> 5,747
* Lawndale/Wayside (88): 5,011 -> 4,602
* Magnolia Park (82): 8,420 -> 6,720

(City average: 3,166 -> 3,314)

Interesting to see that the population density is decreasing!

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Texyn

Bwahahahahaha, you still don't have a clue, sweetheart. The points in bold have been debunked, handedly. Just do a simple Google search, and you'll see.

I don't need to Google search. I live it daily.

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

I don't need to Google search. I live it daily.

Then you clearly aren't paying attention in your daily life. And without the necessary contexts provided in those Google Searches, you lack the means to figure out why your statements are invalid.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Dopo

Lightrail, just like the Grand Parkway, don't need "high density"
Once built, they will attract businesses and housing

You're making my point - METRO installed the new lines banking on the development of higher density in these corridors. Only portions of which are really ready for it market-wise.