Why doesn't Houston consider building the rail system underground? Subway? (Katy: middle-class, real estate)

[HookTheBrotherUp]

Originally Posted by Spade

An elevated system would be ideal for Houston. But it costs just as much as a subway. So build it one phase at a time and be patient with it. I dislike the part about rail stopping at intersections. That's just stupid IMO. What's the point of rail if it stops at the intersections? Just basically a bus on a ROW. Tell the crying drivers to wait or find another route. I also believe that heavy rail needs to be studied more for Houston. Because a city and metro the size of Houston needs a larger capacity for it's rail system. And I'm not talking about commuter rail. I'm talking about the systems that Washington, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Miami has. Houston could easily have a system like Washington with it's hub and spoke system.

That's what I'm talking about. I've been to all of those cities, and used the transit system. Most recently BART, it was very convenient to get on at Berkley and exit on Market Street and Powell in the city. And yes, stopping at intersections is crazy, you might just as well drive and get there sooner yourself.

I would love to drive from, let's say Katy, to a point on HWY 6, they could build some soft of elevated parking system over either side of the freeway in the Corps Of Engineers property, or even use the existing Park and Ride and stack it as in California, then take rail to see the Astros, Texans, Zoo, Museum, or a concert. How convenient would that be? Park in a relative safe place, take the rail in and not have to worry about driving around looking for parking, all that aggravation we all currently tolerate.

[Bike4Life]

Cost is irrelevant. It's all Bob Lanier and John Culberson's fault for this ignorance. Suburban dwellers are to blame, too. They all complained that they didn't want it years ago and now the same people are complaining about high gas prices and toll road.

We could have left downtown Houston and gotten home to Austin, TX in one hour.

YouTube - The Bullet Train "NOZOMI" Part3 Hiroshima-Okayama

[texas7]

Honestly, for me personally, I could care less about rail - but then I am a person who prefers to drive over public transport but if I lived in proximity to walk or bike to most of the places I need to go, I would do that.

I do object to rail if it uses up any of the current auto traffic lanes or gets in the way of auto traffic - elevated would be the ticket though.

[HookTheBrotherUp]

Originally Posted by texas7

Honestly, for me personally, I could care less about rail - but then I am a person who prefers to drive over public transport but if I lived in proximity to walk or bike to most of the places I need to go, I would do that.

I do object to rail if it uses up any of the current auto traffic lanes or gets in the way of auto traffic - elevated would be the ticket though.

I used to think the same way, but after backpacking through Europe, then meeting my wife who is from Barcelona, we found ourselves going to Europe on average about every nine months.

It's great, we take a flight from IAH to CDG, get on the TGV to Barcelona, switch in SANTS, and take the intercity train to Sitges, step out of the train station, walk across the street and be home! We've done the same when landing in London, Zurich, even Rome. You don't need a car to vacation in Europe, unless you want to get to some remote castle, or montessori.

'Sorry, back to Houston... I do recall in the 80s there was talk about a bullet train between Houston, Dallas and San Antonio/Austin. It was to be a triangle network, but back then the cost was an issue. Just imagine how much more expensive it is today to do the same thing. It is never going to get cheaper, Houston might just as well begin now. The joy ride they have now in downtown is inadequate, is slow not because the trains cannot go faster, but because it still has to cross intersections just as cars do. Asinine really. And no matter how many whistles, and lights flash, we still have accidents. Trains and cars sharing the same roads don't work in the US. Funny though, they work just great in Europe, I've never seen an accident. But it's been there for so long in Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Scandinavia, even the elderly grew up with it and respect it.

Lastly, someone else mentioned it, but the Triangle network was to be a bullet train and take about 1.5 hours to Austin, and 2.5 hours to Dallas. How much time do you spend in Houston traffic just getting from Katy to downtown, or Fairfield on 290 into downtown? Imagine being able to live amongst the hills, and lakes in Austin, and commute to Houston, with WiFi?

[Wysiwyg]

I think a commuter train system is more appropriate. the fifth ward would make a good train yard

[ssgmun5000]

Possibly to expensive for underground. Im excited about the current light rail plans though. Anything that will help alleviate traffic and save on gas is good for me.

[stoneclaw]

I too have asked this question many times these past few years. Not to get into Dallas VS Houston but i don't understand why Dallas could build a segment of their rail underground and Houston can't do the same thing. Houston seems to take the cheap way out all the time only to regret it later. Cost is always going to be an issue. I'm with HooktheBrotherup on the fact that if we build it now, it will be far less expensive than it would be say 10 years from now.

I think Houston could do subway. No one says it has to be real long either but at least 2-3 miles. The best place to build it is between the city and the suburbs. I don't think the water table is to high in between places like Cypress, Katy, or Sugarland. Those places need rail more than any other place in Houston.

[Zhang Fei]

Urban rail systems are massive boondoggles. Fares are generally subsidized using state gasoline taxes, which really ought to be spent on things like roads, bridges and tunnels. The problem is that over time, these rail systems tend to consume bigger and bigger chunks of those taxes, which are taxes that transit riders don't pay. If you've ever driven in New York state, you'll understand what driving in a Third World country is like. Despite the fact that New York has one of the highest gasoline taxes around. If you drive, you definitely don't want the introduction of an urban rail system, let alone the massive cost of an underground system. Because long term, it will result in increases in state gas taxes and decreases in road quality.

[chris_ut]

I agree with Zhang. Mixed-use areas where people can live, work and shop within a short distance are much better solutions than spending tens of billions on mass transit schemes to move people around.

[jd2008]

Reading the responses on here are very interesting and really point to one of the real reasons we get nowhere here in the US on this issue - everyone is looking for an all-or-nothing solution. Sorry folks, there isn't one. Like all complicated problems, there is not a simple solution.

We have to have a blended solution. We need rail transport, including light rail, heavy rail (subway in some cases - Uptown comes to mind), commuter rail, regional rail just to name a few. In addition we need a better bus network integrated with the rail system. I have found the limited rail system here is very disjointed from the bus system. When I have taken the rail, I've often had trouble deciphering the connecting bus routes. Of course we also need better roads, more bike lanes, better sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure, and yes...we do need highways as well (although I think Houston has that base covered). Finally, we need a smart regulatory system to encourage integrated building in order to allow people to live close to work and yes...even walk from their home to the market, to entertainment, etc.

Someone mentioned Europe; anyone with even a brief experience with travel in Europe would realize how much better their infrastructure is in comparison to ours here in the US (well, Western Europe at least). They have an integrated solution to transportation. They have highways, they have roads but they also have a real, unified public transit system. They have a real pedestrian friendly environment and encourage people to consider cycling by making it safer with grade-separated lanes and tough traffic laws to protect cyclists. They also use government to help plan and correct some of the market failures inherent in the real estate market in order to encourage certain types of development and help integrate neighborhoods.

Of course, we must be willing to pay for this. Unfortunately, people in the US (at least in the last 20 some odd years) seem to want to pay for a 3rd world system and then complain about a 3rd world outcome.