Let's form a citizen's group to pressure the city to come up with real development plan (Houston: live in, manufacturing)

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by austinguy2009

Houston is more dense than Atlanta, Phoenix, and Dallas. Atlanta is the biggest land wise metro in the country and less population than us. Their city of 300000 is about 4000 per square mile. Our city as a whole is that dense but the loop - where about a million people live- is more like 6-7000/square mile. I know my zip is about 6500.

DART is still light rail, and isn't MARTA for the most part?

Dallas and Atlanta have much better rail systems than we do. So this argument that we somehow don't need it should go out the window. Also it's not just about now. Putting up a rail system now will encourage more efficient development for our future, with rational corridors of dense population along the system.

You can still steer development into those corridors with light rail (we've seen early stages of such with the existing line). Even with our density as it is, I'm not convinced that we're at the point where the investment in heavy rail is feasible. This is as of 2009 though, let's see where we are in 2029.

[austinguy2009]

Originally Posted by chris_ut

What you call an oil crisis I call money in my pocket .

As a biglaw attorney at one of the 3 major firms in town, can't say I disagree with that. But that doesn't mean it won't cause big problems for the commuters in the city.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by austinguy2009

Dallas and Atlanta have much better rail systems than we do. So this argument that we somehow don't need it because we're not dense enough should go out the window. Also it's not just about now. Putting up a rail system now will encourage more efficient development for our future, with rational corridors of dense population along the system.

I am not sure why there is so much hype about rail, it is one part of a transit system. The Houston metro has more people who use mass transit than both other metros so Houston is ahead of both cities in that aspect. The thing I see if people get worked up over rail because it appears modern and sleek without actually considering how effective it is. BTW, Houston is putting up a rail system which will connect to our commuter bus system/HOV system. Considering their density and their congestion levels being so very similar to ours, rail hasn't exactly helped them out to much.

I think you are getting a lot of flack because you have some utopian ideas of how a city should work that isn't entirely based on reality. New people come in here and act like they know how Houston actually functions but it just the same old story again and again and they get shot down again and again.

[theSUBlime]

^ I'm pretty sure someone has shown studies on here that show that people (even though they may dislike public transportation) tend to prefer rail to bus.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Ive never been able to get a straight answer on why Houston doesnt want zoning.

In the Heavy vs. Light rail debate, it really doesnt matter. They both serve the same purpose. And people do prefer rail to bus. Its harder to get as extensive coverage with rail. I dont know about Houstons rail system, but in Dallas 90% of the rail is elevated above the ground and there are a couple of underground stations. Therefore, it is not subject to traffic except in Downtown Dallas. In Houston, is the rail subject to traffic or is it elevated?

Either way, as far as rail goes, the future is brightest in Dallas than any other city in the Sunbelt right now. They are planning very extensive growth including a light rail line that goes from Southwest Fort Worth to DFW airport and 3 more lines for DART. The 2030 plan even has an orbital line that will circle Dallas. I havent seen anything like that come out of the plans in Houston though I know they are expanding the rail system.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

^ I'm pretty sure someone has shown studies on here that show that people (even though they may dislike public transportation) tend to prefer rail to bus.

Oh I agree, I'm just saying it is overhyped. Most LRT in America underperforms but it's it sleek and modern and exciting!

Originally Posted by LAnative10

Ive never been able to get a straight answer on why Houston doesnt want zoning.

Because it has repeatedly been voted against. Also, Houston's land use regulation give Houston form based zoning. For whatever reason, it has been beaten into people's brain that we don't have zoning which is FALSE. We do, it just isn't the traditional type of zoning as there are many different types. In fact, Houston recently passed an urban corridor initiative which guides the form of streetscapes and building setbacks.

In the Heavy vs. Light rail debate, it really doesnt matter. They both serve the same purpose. And people do prefer rail to bus. Its harder to get as extensive coverage with rail. I dont know about Houstons rail system, but in Dallas 90% of the rail is elevated above the ground and there are a couple of underground stations. Therefore, it is not subject to traffic except in Downtown Dallas. In Houston, is the rail subject to traffic or is it elevated?

The current LRT and expansion is at street level and grade separated for a majority of track and has priority over cars (uses the thing ambulances and firetrucks use to signal red lights). Houston's LRT is geared for shorter trips in the urban core, while DART is more geared for longer trips to the suburbs and outside of the core. Also, a commuter rail from downtown Houston to Galveston is currently being proposed.

Either way, as far as rail goes, the future is brightest in Dallas than any other city in the Sunbelt right now. They are planning very extensive growth including a light rail line that goes from Southwest Fort Worth to DFW airport and 3 more lines for DART. The 2030 plan even has an orbital line that will circle Dallas. I havent seen anything like that come out of the plans in Houston though I know they are expanding the rail system.

I would just point out about the bright future is the projected ridership for DART in 2013 is 130,000, which is ~8000 less than Houston's HOV/Park&Ride system to give you an idea of how effective light rail is in the sunbelt.

DART rolls in new era with Green Line opening | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091409dnmetdartgreen.43d0b4e.html - broken link)

However, I am sure that DART will beat expectations, but it's not going to be a game changer.

[chris_ut]

Rail in places like Singapore and Tokyo works great. Houston is a very different city and I don't see rail being economically feasible here.

[austinguy2009]

Rail isn't just about economics, although in the long term under the right conditions it *can* make sense from a cost benefit standpoint, given more efficient development also (less roadway construction and maintenance, less spent on gas, more cost effective services and police/fire). That's very long term and more part of an overall plan though. Remember the overall strategy is to have more liveable urban environments. Rail is just a piece of that puzzle.

You have to remember there are other interests at stake here. For instance Houston has the most car fatalities per capita of any big city. If you got even 1/5 of people riding rail (which is orders of magnitude safer than car), that would make a big dent in the number of car fatalities. There is also health factors - Houston has atrocious air quality in appreciable part because of the number of cars we have. It makes being outdoors dangerous for some people and contributes to long term health issues for everyone. There are also aesthetic interests at stake - it's much more attractive to have a less car dependent city.
Some economists could try to incorporate these interests into a CBA, but they're notoriously hard to model and for each economist you would get a different result. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what kind of a city you want Houston to be in 20, 50, even 100 years. Do you really believe that the wisest approach is unfettered sprawl and more and more cars? It's easy to be fatalistic and think were just not like those other cities, but those other cities were not built overnight and how they are now are the resultnof decisions made early in their existence. It's not too late for Houton.

One last thing, about cost which is probably the only real compelling worry with rail. Remember that aside from the benefits described above it's very likely that Houston could get more federal money for his stuff if our city pushed the reps in DC to do it.

[jfre81]

One also wonders if/how paving every other square mile with reinforced concrete (read: highways) is any more economically feasible. Consider land acquisition, construction, upkeep. Your contribution through gas taxes doesn't pay for any more than your METRORail fare does for the light rail's construction, operation and upkeep. Those freeways also have to have more police in taxpayer-funded cruisers burning taxpayer-funded fuel made from crude oil that gets shipped to places where we have to wage taxpayer-funded wars to ensure our access to that oil. Like Iraq. Sure, we could drill our own, but it'll be more expensive, and you'll be paying for that too. There's no such thing as a free lunch, nor is there such a thing as a free ride to lunch.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by austinguy2009

You have to remember there are other interests at stake here. For instance Houston has the most car fatalities per capita of any big city. If you got even 1/5 of people riding rail (which is orders of magnitude safer than car), that would make a big dent in the number of car fatalities. There is also health factors - Houston has atrocious air quality in appreciable part because of the number of cars we have. It makes being outdoors dangerous for some people and contributes to long term health issues for everyone. There are also aesthetic interests at stake - it's much more attractive to have a less car dependent city.

Cars contribute to Houston's air quality less than DFW's metro (which is larger) and more than ATL's (which is smaller) even though all cities share similar car use. Houston's air is from the manufacturing base (petro, refining, etc.), trucks carrying freight/cargo due to Houston being a very large distribution, and the Port. Getting cars off the road would have less than an impact than you would imagine.

Some economists could try to incorporate these interests into a CBA, but they're notoriously hard to model and for each economist you would get a different result. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what kind of a city you want Houston to be in 20, 50, even 100 years. Do you really believe that the wisest approach is unfettered sprawl and more and more cars? It's easy to be fatalistic and think were just not like those other cities, but those other cities were not built overnight and how they are now are the resultnof decisions made early in their existence. It's not too late for Houton.

Tell that to Austin, Austinguy. Have you forgotten how Austin sprawls from Georgetown to Kyle? Austin is developed exactly like Houston, probably worse truth be told.