How can anybody in Houston not support expanding metro rail to the whole city? (Humble: bus, airports)

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by bu2

The initial red line was the 2nd most used light rail per mile in the entire country behind Boston's green line. Even San Francisco's light rail couldn't match it. Don't think the SE line was a good investment, but the red line was.

Two things distort this stat: (1) Most all of the bus lines that ran to and then up Main, were changed to simply feed the rail line, adding thousands of riders. (2) The Medical Center used it to transport workers back & forth from the satellite parking lots just a couple miles away. All of those 2-mile hops count as transit rides.

Both of those are certainly good uses for the rail line, but don't justify its existence.

[Astoriahoney]

I've never understood Houston's lack of public transportation and it's desperate campaign to rail against it.

It's one of the bigger reasons (along with the crippling heat temperatures) that keep the Olympics away from the city.

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by Astoriahoney

I've never understood Houston's lack of public transportation and it's desperate campaign to rail against it.

I see what you did there.

In any rate, it's only a certain politician and some constitutients that are fighting the rail. Far from the whole city.

It's one of the bigger reasons (along with the crippling heat temperatures) that keep the Olympics away from the city.

The heat issue is dealt with by moving the games to a date later in the year. And for most places, it's more efficient to bid as a region rather than as a singular city.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by astrohip

Two things distort this stat: (1) Most all of the bus lines that ran to and then up Main, were changed to simply feed the rail line, adding thousands of riders. (2) The Medical Center used it to transport workers back & forth from the satellite parking lots just a couple miles away. All of those 2-mile hops count as transit rides.

Both of those are certainly good uses for the rail line, but don't justify its existence.

And so a lot of bus trips have been eliminated and handled more efficiently by train. So the numbers do justify its existence.

Plus it connects TMC to downtown meaning all the park-n-rides to downtown can be viable alternatives for getting to the medical center.

Where rail is justified is where there is a lot of bus traffic. That's why Westpark, which has been blocked by John Culberson, makes so much sense. Westheimer, Richmond, Westpark and Bellaire are among the busiest corridors.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Astoriahoney

I've never understood Houston's lack of public transportation and it's desperate campaign to rail against it.

It's one of the bigger reasons (along with the crippling heat temperatures) that keep the Olympics away from the city.

Has nothing to do with the Olympics. That's all a beauty pageant. Plus Atlanta's commercialism soured the committee on US cities, especially southern cities.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Texyn

I see what you did there.

In any rate, it's only a certain politician and some constitutients that are fighting the rail. Far from the whole city.



The heat issue is dealt with by moving the games to a date later in the year. And for most places, it's more efficient to bid as a region rather than as a singular city.

Every Houston area representative, Republican and Democrat, except Culberson himself, tried to get rid of Culberson's block of funding. Culberson has lots of help outside Houston because they want those funds for their own cities.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by bu2

Every Houston area representative, Republican and Democrat, except Culberson himself, tried to get rid of Culberson's block of funding. Culberson has lots of help outside Houston because they want those funds for their own cities.

Like Dallas. Funded their Green Line off of federal funding directed for Houston.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by bu2

And so a lot of bus trips have been eliminated and handled more efficiently by train. So the numbers do justify its existence.

Plus it connects TMC to downtown meaning all the park-n-rides to downtown can be viable alternatives for getting to the medical center.

Where rail is justified is where there is a lot of bus traffic. That's why Westpark, which has been blocked by John Culberson, makes so much sense. Westheimer, Richmond, Westpark and Bellaire are among the busiest corridors.

A lot of bus trips were not eliminated. The rail made people ride one bus, then the rail, then another bus.

Why do you want to get rid of buses? They are flexible, don't block infrastructure when they aren't running, and cost much less to build and operate.

Rail in Houston is a bad idea all around, and was poorly implemented by Metro.We don't have room for rail, no one really wants it in their neighborhood, and it's overly expensive for what we get. I've ridden rail systems, buses, trams, undergrounds, and trolleys all over the world. Houston's rail is not the least bit impressive.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by WRM20

A lot of bus trips were not eliminated. The rail made people ride one bus, then the rail, then another bus.

Why do you want to get rid of buses? They are flexible, don't block infrastructure when they aren't running, and cost much less to build and operate.

Rail in Houston is a bad idea all around, and was poorly implemented by Metro.We don't have room for rail, no one really wants it in their neighborhood, and it's overly expensive for what we get. I've ridden rail systems, buses, trams, undergrounds, and trolleys all over the world. Houston's rail is not the least bit impressive.

It doesn't have to be impressive. It just needs to get the job done.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by WRM20

A lot of bus trips were not eliminated. The rail made people ride one bus, then the rail, then another bus.

Why do you want to get rid of buses? They are flexible, don't block infrastructure when they aren't running, and cost much less to build and operate.

Rail in Houston is a bad idea all around, and was poorly implemented by Metro.We don't have room for rail, no one really wants it in their neighborhood, and it's overly expensive for what we get. I've ridden rail systems, buses, trams, undergrounds, and trolleys all over the world. Houston's rail is not the least bit impressive.

If Metro was in Phase II or Phase III of the voter approved plan below (with federal funding dollars going to Houston and not Dallas or Miami), do you think it be poorly implemented?





Part of the reason why the metro isn't as attractive to employers outside of the energy industry is because it lacks good alternative transportation options. If this rail system was in place, Houston would be a completely different metro area right now. I'm going to blame a third of this on Metro, but 2/3 on two infamous local politicians and their constituents.