quote:

---

And tell me, how exactly to the rails work? One must have a lot of people riding to make them feasible financially - Houston isn't that place why not? You don't think people along 290 would hop on a rail to get downtown if it was full of other downtown workers? it would be relatively inexpensive, and take less time than driving, and you can work while on the train. If I worked downtown, I would, but I'm several miles outside of downtown We have multiple areas of spread out population that go to multiple areas of the city to work. just like many other cities. I drive from burbs towards downtown everyday, and there is more traffic going the other direction, both in the AM and PM. What we don't have here is large areas in or around Houston with really high population densities that necessitate rail systems, and we don't have the massive urban downtown areas like most of the major metropolitan areas that concentrate people working and we don't have the infrastructure to carry those people that the town grew around. there are plenty of people in the major burbs (katy, cypress, woodlands, etc) that work downtown or galleria. The remainder of people that live in a burb and work in another burb will benefit from 20-30% less cars on their route. Public transit isn't supposed to work for EVERYBODY. But even if it works for 25%, that's a lot less cars on the freeway.



Oh, and I never said that there wasn't people that live on the main corridors. Reading is hard. I said that our population density here is nowhere near sufficient to support such a system. The first Texas city listed is South Houston, coming in at #403. Next Texas city listed is Bedford at 100+ spots later. To get to your 3k/mi2 density range you have to get to #1015 on the list. 3 thousand per square mile in an urban area is not a dense population at all, especially when you consider that the #1 spot sits at 97,000 people per square mile. so are you agreeing with me? Denver rail goes to areas that have 3k/sqmi, which according to you is not dense at all. It's not the city density that matters, it's the area around the rail corridor, and all houston corridors are highly populated. You are kind of contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

Here you'd have to dedicate massive amounts of very valuable land towards parking lots and stations for people to drive their cars to in order to use mass transit. They've managed to do it here. They are extending the south rail near my house 2.5 miles, right in the middle of Lone Tree, and highly dense community along 25 that has a major hospital, charles schwaab HQ, multiple large hotels and dense housing. I guess Houston is different though, and they can't do it.

One article I read about Denver Metro is the fact that the cost to ride the rail is about 30% higher than bus. Doesn't mean much to somebody making $100k a year, but to somebody making $10 an hour, an extra $2.50 a day to take the same ride to work is not easy on the finances. buses are for local transport, they are not a secondary option over the rail (though some trips require both). They are for people riding a bus that work in their community. The rail is for burb dwellers to get downtown, the tech center or airport, to an office job or to a football game. So I'm not sure what your point is here. If i worked downtown, my rail costs would be about $200 a month, instead I drive 50 miles rt, so about $120 monthly in gas (for now), plus increased maintenance and depreciation, so pretty close to break even. Rail would on average be about 10 minutes longer, but it would be exact same commute time every time. For those that live within 10 miles or so of downtown, a rail trip is ~$5 a day and 20 minutes.. it's a break even alternative to driving. The same could be said for those along 290 or katy freeway that work downtown.

If you compressed the Houston metro area into an area about 1/3 the size of what it is now, a metro system would be a necessity. But that's not happening, and any sort of system here will be nothing more than a government program that will cost a metric crap ton of taxpayer money for almost no actual benefit. so what was the excuse in the 70s? when all the other big metros were expanding their transit.. houston was saying???? FWIW, Denver rtd master plan has a spread of about 60 miles from south to north for rail system nad probably beyond to the springs and fort collins in the far future, which is maybe 100 miles. It's not tiny by any means.

---

quote:

---

So long as you are willing to wait 40 years sure.

---

It doesn't always have to be about you. Many people, believe it or not, think about future generations.

We are never going to agree - you live in a world of unicorns and fairies. (You conveniently ignored the "Denver is the exception, and only marginally at that comment, but we'll keep going).

Outside of massive outlays of cash, massive annual subsidies and a complete change in the overall lifestyle of this area, it's simply not going to happen because it's not a feasible project here.

The sheer geographic size of Houston compared to almost every other major metro area that has a good rail system is also a huge problem.

quote:

---

We are never going to agree - you live in a world of unicorns and fairies. (You conveniently ignored the "Denver is the exception, and only marginally at that comment, but we'll keep going).

Outside of massive outlays of cash, massive annual subsidies and a complete change in the overall lifestyle of this area, it's simply not going to happen because it's not a feasible project here.

The sheer geographic size of Houston compared to almost every other major metro area that has a good rail system is also a huge problem.

---

I ignored it because you not only provided no 'rule' that you're referring to, but also no reason why denver is an exception to that rule. So why is Denver an exception? It's a major metro that had little rail transit until 10 years ago when it was publicly voted to massively expand. It will take a lot time, money, land acquisition, headaches, subsidies, whatever.. but it will be done for future generations. It's like a $5b budget.. that is a lot of cash. You sit there and say Houston can't do it outside of massive cash.. I agree, neither can any city. This topic has surely been among conversation in Houston for 25 years, probably when it was the size of current day Denver.

Ya'll done *****ing yet? One of my favorite things about Houston is that I have the CHOICE to live ITL in a one bedroom apartment within walking distance of light rail or OTGP (outside the Grand Parkway) in a 2500 s.f. house with a 3-car garage and a pool. I can afford either and both are available to me. Throw in a roommate or two and both options are available to damn near every person in this city. Everyone could have better access to public transportation, but they CHOOSE not to pay for that access for a myriad of reasons. As long as there are apartments available for rent along the light rail line, ya'll are creating a problem where none exists.

quote:

---

We are never going to agree - you live in a world of unicorns and fairies. (You conveniently ignored the "Denver is the exception, and only marginally at that comment, but we'll keep going).

Outside of massive outlays of cash, massive annual subsidies and a complete change in the overall lifestyle of this area, it's simply not going to happen because it's not a feasible project here.

The sheer geographic size of Houston compared to almost every other major metro area that has a good rail system is also a huge problem.

---

Would you think the same thing of they had started this in the 70's? Probably not. The lifestyle change won't happen overnight, but to think nobody will use it now crazy. As the population continues to grow and the freeways become more and more crowded, people will begin to make some changes. But people like you would rather build more roads that are temporary solutions until the neighborhoods and retail centers max out on them and then you're right back to square one.

The reason it's successful in places like NYC, Chicago, and DC is because people planned ahead years ago and it's part of their daily lives now. Not to mention that parking is insanely expensive there, so taking a train is cheaper. Population density wasn't what it is now when they planned and built.

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Proposed-Houston-rail-lines-shown-on-1973-map-5828082.php#photo-6980237

quote:

---

Ya'll done *****ing yet? One of my favorite things about Houston is that I have the CHOICE to live ITL in a one bedroom apartment within walking distance of light rail or OTGP (outside the Grand Parkway) in a 2500 s.f. house with a 3-car garage and a pool. I can afford either and both are available to me. Throw in a roommate or two and both options are available to damn near every person in this city. Everyone could have better access to public transportation, but they CHOOSE not to pay for that access for a myriad of reasons. As long as there are apartments available for rent along the light rail line, ya'll are creating a problem where none exists.

---

really, your favorite thing about Houston is the fact you can choose to live in the city OR in the suburbs?? That's kind of a dumb reason to live a city.
Just about every American in a metro has that choice, save for a few that are very expensive like San Fran and nyc. My 3000sf house is the same price as a 2 bedroom condo in the city, just like so many other cities. Houston is not alone in that regard.

You think everyone in Houston chooses to not pay for public transit, yet we're on a thread with people dreaming about the day Houston has a better transit system and a board that continually *****es about traffic? Hah. Ok.

I commuted into downtown from the burbs for 13 years. After getting completely fed up with the commute, I put the house on the market and sold in 2 weeks. We finally just bought within 15 minutes of downtown. The commute made me miserable. I do believe more people would use mass transit if the schedule was predictable. I leave on this train at this time, and exactly get there at this time. The light rail is a joke. Just put more crap with traffic. It should be elevated and independent of all vehicles. That's why people want their cars. The bus is no better off stuck in traffic.

Its a losing battle though. The only way to impact your life is to move. I get much more time with my family now, see my kid practice, and can be almost anywhere I need to be in a very reasonable time. I am a much happier person with a shorter commute. A long commute does add to stress, but for some people, they just don't care. I calculated that if I worked 20 more years, I would be on the road 1.5 years driving straight thru 24/7, had I stayed in the burbs. No thanks.

A feasible option with today's infrastructure: remove all parking downtown, force people to park and ride. Remove the toll and make all existing HOV/Toll HOV only to deal with increased buses....or convert 1 lane to rail all feeding downtown.

The real issue is there aren't centralized office zones to make transit more efficient. But that'd be a start. And it doesn't matter how much you make or how "important" you are, no parking downtown for anyone other than residents.

You have pretty centralized office areas. Downtown, Galleria, Westchase, Gunspoint, Energy Corridor off the top of my head. You don't need the train to stop at every office, but get in the area and let buses take it from there.

Also, if you run a rail line through an area that's largely undeveloped, that area could be developed into another office area.

quote:

---

I do believe more people would use mass transit if the schedule was predictable. I leave on this train at this time, and exactly get there at this time. The light rail is a joke. Just put more crap with traffic. It should be elevated and independent of all vehicles. Light rails are on a schedule, and are not on the same grade as cars. Denver trains are punctual down to the minute, every time, and my experience was the same in SF. Obviously the Houston public is not informed very much on how these kinds of things work. They assume the train is sitting in 290 traffic I guess.

Its a losing battle though. The only way to impact your life is to move. I get much more time with my family now, see my kid practice, and can be almost anywhere I need to be in a very reasonable time. I am a much happier person with a shorter commute. A long commute does add to stress, but for some people, they just don't care. I calculated that if I worked 20 more years, I would be on the road 1.5 years driving straight thru 24/7, had I stayed in the burbs. No thanks. I see this argument so many times, but no one ever responds to my rebuttal: what happens when you leave that job, or get laid off, and what about your spouse? You gonna sell the house and have spouse find a new job every time this happens? Not everyone's wife is stay at home. I personally believe it's better to live where you want to live and raise kids, and attempt to work nearby if a long commute isn't desirable. My first home, I worked for 3 different employers, one at 290/tidwell, one at westheimer/BW, and one in Tomball.. I'd hate to uproot my life every time I changed employers. And I can see you staying at a job you aren't happy with or don't have advancement potential, just because you like the commute and it's close to home. Honestly, your method only works in perfect world.. wife doesn't work, and you have the same job (or one in the same area) from college until retirement. One could also argue that to achieve what you desire, then get the f out of houston, because it's too big. It was a big reason behind our move. There are a ot metros in the US where the furthest burbs are 10-20 miles from downtown.

---

To add to the "just move" people...aside from spouse's job, you also have to look at the schools that your kids are in. You can't just uproot your kids and move to a different school every couple of years because you got a new job around Houston.

I live in Kingwood and commute to the EC every day. The commute sucks, and I try my best not to complain because I knew it would be bad going in. We've thought about moving, but it's not the right time for us. Our house is almost paid off, which will free up a lot of cash in the next few years, our family all live in the Kingwood area, most of our friends are in this area, oh, and there's my wife's business. Not to mention that the elementary, middle, and high schools that my kids will be going to are all the best in the district. If I were to move to this area, I'd pay twice as much for similar square footage while moving from a house we built in '08 to one built before I was born, so unless it's been updated, there's more expenses. The people in my office that live in Katy and Cinco Ranch all have similar commute times to me due to how ****ed up the Katy Freeway is.

I worked near IAH for 8 years and was laid off a couple of years ago. I had no choice but to look for another job, and the opportunity that I felt was the best for my career came with a much longer drive. We have a location near Greenspoint that I can hopefully get to with a promotion or two, so if I follow the "just move" logic, I'd be right back here and have to go through 2 unnecessary moves.

My issue isn't the traffic. My issue is the city's lack of planning, both in the past and planning for the future. You can only expand freeways so much before you're stuck. If I was able to take a train/bus and have a similar commute time to what I have now, I'd do it in a heart beat. Driving in traffic sucks and takes a lot out of you. If I was able to sit back and relax during it, I would a lot less "tense" when I got home.

quote:

---

A feasible option with today's infrastructure: remove all parking downtown, force people to park and ride. Remove the toll and make all existing HOV/Toll HOV only to deal with increased buses....or convert 1 lane to rail all feeding downtown.

The real issue is there aren't centralized office zones to make transit more efficient. But that'd be a start. And it doesn't matter how much you make or how "important" you are, no parking downtown for anyone other than residents.

---

I never worked downtown, but I worked in a highrise off westheimer, and the building had its own parking lot.. I imagine most buildings downtown have their own as well.. so your idea here really doesn't make much sense. I don't think highrise workers are parking on the street and those corner surface lots everyday.

And yes, we've heard it a thousand times, Houston doesn't have a SINGLE office zone. It doesn't make a lick of difference.. LOTS of people, if not a huge majority of commuters, work in 1 of 4 areas; galleria, downtown, EC or Med center. If transit was in place to these areas from 3-4 of the large burbs and you could free up 30% or more of the cars on the freeway. And like magic, those people working in all those other areas have less cars to contend with. Transit isn't supposed to be for EVERY BODY. Several comments on here seem to believe this would be true.

To counter 62's ball gargling of Denver:


A U.S. census report on commuting for 2013 estimated how residents in the Denver area (excluding Boulder) traveled to work and how long it took, on average:
By car: 75.4 percent (26 minutes).
By carpool: 8.9 percent (29 minutes).
By public transit: 4.4 percent (47 minutes). Surveys by the Downtown Denver Partnership, while not scientific, suggest that far more downtown workers roughly 40 percent in the 2015 survey commute most days using public transit.
Another way: 11.3 percent (no time given).



How much taxpayer money on glorious mass transit projects is justified to serve 4.4% percent of commuters to give them the pleasure of spending an extra 20 minutes on their commute?

Denver Commutes Getting Worse

Plenty of other articles out there about light rail not reducing commute times, not reducing the number of cars on the road and having no measurable affect on improving pollution.


Another good article that light rail may not be the answer


Mentions a lot of things from other posters above re: tele-commuting, Uber Lyft, density, centralized business districts etc

Public Transportation is not cost effective in Houston. When you have multiple business districts Downtown, Galleria, Greenway, Greenspoint, EC, Woodlands, 290 Corridor and people coming to them from 20 different directions you can't have a cost effective public transportation system.

You also can't expect anyone in Houston to walk more than a block on surface streets. Notice places like New York, San Fran, Seattle, Denver, Chicago that have public transportation? You can walk more than a block without having to change your shirt.

Need to make it easier to get from Loop - Beltway - 99 and keep people from driving through town that need to get from one side to the other. Spend money on this infrastructure instead of pouring more into a lost cause that is the light rail.

If it was not cost prohibitive to dig more than 3 feet in this city underground would be an option, but you can't tunnel through bedrock here. To put something underground from Downtown to Katy would require an excavation that would take out the entire width of the freeway and then some for the duration of the project. Not going to happen.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A feasible option with today's infrastructure: remove all parking downtown, force people to park and ride. Remove the toll and make all existing HOV/Toll HOV only to deal with increased buses....or convert 1 lane to rail all feeding downtown.

The real issue is there aren't centralized office zones to make transit more efficient. But that'd be a start. And it doesn't matter how much you make or how "important" you are, no parking downtown for anyone other than residents.

---

I never worked downtown, but I worked in a highrise off westheimer, and the building had its own parking lot.. I imagine most buildings downtown have their own as well.. so your idea here really doesn't make much sense. I don't think highrise workers are parking on the street and those corner surface lots everyday.

And yes, we've heard it a thousand times, Houston doesn't have a SINGLE office zone. It doesn't make a lick of difference.. LOTS of people, if not a huge majority of commuters, work in 1 of 4 areas; galleria, downtown, EC or Med center. If transit was in place to these areas from 3-4 of the large burbs and you could free up 30% or more of the cars on the freeway. And like magic, those people working in all those other areas have less cars to contend with. Transit isn't supposed to be for EVERY BODY. Several comments on here seem to believe this would be true.

---

You misunderstood. I mean remove all parking not tied to existing (or future) residential buildings. Tearing down a parking garage to increase office density is a lot easier than the social re-engineering of removing the suburbs for condo/apartment like density of NYC. By increasing office density and running light rail on one of the existing HOV lanes going to downtown you will build out the infrastructure for surrounding areas. But you have to create the demand first. If you can't park downtown you will have to use a park and ride. And then rail becomes a lot more desirable over a bus. Have a main transit depot downtown, then if you're in Kingwood and with at 6&10, you can take the rail in, switch and ride back out. Employers can have shuttle vans to get you to work from there.

The problem is the VIP's won't want to give up their parking, and that's where political will power comes in to say everyone is equal. This wouldn't impact parking structures already built into office buildings so maybe some people can still drive in, but if you take away the paid toll ways, and make them sit in reg traffic it may change behavior. And more residential high rises may be built as office density also increases. But if that's what you want, it can happen.

quote:

---

To counter 62's ball gargling of Denver:


A U.S. census report on commuting for 2013 estimated how residents in the Denver area (excluding Boulder) traveled to work and how long it took, on average:
By car: 75.4 percent (26 minutes).
By carpool: 8.9 percent (29 minutes).
By public transit: 4.4 percent (47 minutes). Surveys by the Downtown Denver Partnership, while not scientific, suggest that far more downtown workers roughly 40 percent in the 2015 survey commute most days using public transit.
Another way: 11.3 percent (no time given).



How much taxpayer money on glorious mass transit projects is justified to serve 4.4% percent of commuters to give them the pleasure of spending an extra 20 minutes on their commute?

Denver Commutes Getting Worse

Plenty of other articles out there about light rail not reducing commute times, not reducing the number of cars on the road and having no measurable affect on improving pollution.


Another good article that light rail may not be the answer


Mentions a lot of things from other posters above re: tele-commuting, Uber Lyft, density, centralized business districts etc

---

Well damn I just had my responses typed up, but accidentally hit esc which closed the window.

In a nutshell:
your quote says 40% of downtown workers.. that's exactly my point. Transit is for a specific set of people, not everybody. Would houston traffic improve if 40% of downtown workers were off the road? Enough said.
Flaw in the article; Denver light rails stop at DU, with 12k students, and auroria campus which houses 3 colleges and probably 30k+ students. That is a lot of people that ride that probably aren't counted in this article's definition of 'commuter'. My cousin goes to CU Denver and rides the rail. He's one of thousands. Those are cars off the road. You can't argue that.
Another slight flaw, in 2013, only 2 rails existed, both going south. By the end of this year, 4 more will have opened, adding service to the west side, nw side, se side, and in 2018, the ne side.

Denver commute times are getting worse no doubt, because everyone like myself is moving in droves here. Hopefully, an extensive rail system can help alleviate it and give people options in the far future. Denver also doesn't seem to just continually made freeways wider, opting to find other options I guess, so that adds to the worsening commute times when you couple it with high numbers of people moving here. I-70 is two lanes much of the way through denver, including right by downtown.

No one ever says rail is quicker than driving. That's not the point. You take cars off the road, and you remove the rider from stressful traffic to read, work, music, sleep, etc. And remove chance of a wreck. Also, I've had a 2 hour commute after getting stuck at work in a blizzard. a rail along 290 would no doubt be quicker than the 80 minutes it takes to get far out. So there are situations where rail would be quicker.
And 'not reducing cars on the road'.. This is very easy to explain; yes it is reducing cars on the road, but those cars are replaced by new additional cars of people moving here, so it appears as though the rail didn't reduce the number. Had the rail not been there, there would have been a large increase of cars of the road.

I'd love to telecommute everday. I did several days a week for several years here, but I've changed jobs and it's not my decision, nor is it most people's decision.

At the end of the day, you can sit there from 1000 miles away and have your opinions, but I see with my own eyes every day trains on the side of I25 with a whole lot of heads inside. Hands down, that means there are less cars on the road, making my commute quicker.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, you can sit there from 1000 miles away and have your opinions, but I see with my own eyes every day trains on the side of I25 with a whole lot of heads inside. Hands down, that means there are less cars on the road, making my commute quicker.

---

So you typed all that to say you see people on trains? Do you see dead people too? Your other statistic of "my cousin rides the train" is awfully impressive.

I ride the bus to work every day. It's chill. The bus is more convenient to me than driving and I enjoy putting my headphones in and not worrying about anything during my 10 minute commute from work to home. I value the convenience gained from being able to take public transit to work. Also, $2.50 a day RT is significantly nicer than parking costs downtown.

Anyway, we're way off topic here..

If you don't think that traffic would improve if this system was in place in Houston today, or that wouldn't people wouldn't ride it because it's not their 'lifestyle', you're out of your mind.




If they had this vision in the 90s, it would be complete today. Instead, they widened, widened, widened.

The politicos are pro-widen and anti-rail, particularly the suburban GOP reps. Unfortunately due to the ridiculous way that districts are pretty much drawn along racial lines and not along any other kid of socioeconimc ones (ie we have white districts, black districts, and hispanic districts, rather than urban districts, suburban districts and rural districts). So you have an ******* like John Culberson, who represents a largely suburban area, but his district snakes his way into white areas in the central city where he could effectively block urban transportation happening in "his district."

So when Metro wanted to build and got the votes to build 640 million worth of light rail and apply for 640 million more from federal matching funds. John Culberson and Tom Delay used every political trick in the book to kill the funding (and also used a dash of Metro incompetence against them as well). Metro tried to bundle the whole system as one project, half federally funded and half local, but basically Delay and Culberson killed the project saying, "gotcha! "You didn't apply for the federal funding correctly! You tried to have the federal money pay for certain lines wholly and local money pay for others wholly! Haha! No money for you!" when in fact Culberson had used very similar bundling and accounting type moves to get the Katy Freeway built for toll road portions, etc (and then during an election one year, he even put his own smug face on a billboard overlooking his wet dream to say that he, and he alone had built this wonderful highway).

In the end Metro had to pay for half of the rail system we voted for using ONLY the 640M of local money and we never got dick from the federal govt, because Culberson blocked it all so Metro didnt have the money to build the Westpark/University, Uptown, and Inner Katy lines. Of course, no doubt everyone in the region paid a large amount of money to the federal government, that went to pay for similar projects (probably in ****ing Denver based on this thread) but our own congressman blocked us from receiving it.

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

I am not nearly as pro-rail as I once was. I think we need to take a much more wait and see approach with transit right now. The transportation paradigm is about to change drastically in the next couple decades and I don't think anyone really knows how the end result is going to end up with regard to how it affects land development patterns and transportation networks at this point.



That said, the way the whole light rail thing went down after the 2003 referendum really left a bad taste in my mouth about politics. The fact that basically one politician was able to bust up the entire thing for his own special interests and a small number of constituents through political tricks, and the end result was that all of the local money earmarked for the project was spent, while this jackass killed all of the extra money to pay for the rest (and meanwhile we didn't stop paying federal taxes), and on top of it all, this was after the entire region had VOTED yes to build all of this stuff, so his small minority outweighed everyone else. It kind of angers me.

quote:

---

Anyway, we're way off topic here..

If you don't think that traffic would improve if this system was in place in Houston today, or that wouldn't people wouldn't ride it because it's not their 'lifestyle', you're out of your mind.




If they had this vision in the 90s, it would be complete today. Instead, they widened, widened, widened.

---

Nobody would be using this.

Widening and cars made (and still makes) much more sense than this nonsense in Houston. What do you not understand about how low density the population here actually is when compared to east coast cities?

Those rail lines are walkable to a tiny fraction of the population and littered with stops. So just getting to wherever you board the train requires either a bus ride or a drive to a park & ride lot. You're already talking about 20 minutes just to get to the train. Then tack on 30-40 minutes to get to the other end of the train, followed by (???) length of walk to get to your destination. You've saved zero time, wasted insane amounts of capital, and still have tons of traffic.

Like I said in my earlier post: Houston is too low-density for the traditional "plop in some rail lines and add some buses" solution to public transit. This is true because car commuting is faster. Public transit in Houston currently exists mostly as a social service for people that can't afford car ownership.

So you have to think outside of the box to offer a public transit system that encourages people not to drive (instead of punishes them for driving). Build a self-driving bus model that operates on an Uber-style model with pick up and delivery nodes where chancing vehicles is rare (or does not happen) and the increase in time spent commuting is zero (or at most very small).

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Like I said in my post above, you're not going to improve public transport in Houston by trying to punish car commuters. You're going to succeed by enticing them to use public transport as an attractive, convenient alternative. To make that happen, you have to get away from the extremely antiquated concept of fixed rail lines with the gaps filled in by bus service. This is particularly true with the lurking advent of self driving cars and the robust capabilities of networked transportation systems.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Anyway, we're way off topic here..

If you don't think that traffic would improve if this system was in place in Houston today, or that wouldn't people wouldn't ride it because it's not their 'lifestyle', you're out of your mind.




If they had this vision in the 90s, it would be complete today. Instead, they widened, widened, widened.

---

Those rail lines are walkable to a tiny fraction of the population and littered with stops. So just getting to wherever you board the train requires either a bus ride or a drive to a park & ride lot. You're already talking about 20 minutes just to get to the train. Then tack on 30-40 minutes to get to the other end of the train, followed by (???) length of walk to get to your destination. You've saved zero time, wasted insane amounts of capital, and still have tons of traffic.

---

Come one man... think a little bit. The 20 minutes driving to the train is done without the train as well; the stations are along the highway. Unless you somehow magically start your commute in the middle of the highway.

And I'll say it again, it's not about saving time. It's about removing a car from highway, and having a more relaxing/productive commute.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Anyway, we're way off topic here..

If you don't think that traffic would improve if this system was in place in Houston today, or that wouldn't people wouldn't ride it because it's not their 'lifestyle', you're out of your mind.




If they had this vision in the 90s, it would be complete today. Instead, they widened, widened, widened.

---

Nobody would be using this.

Widening and cars made (and still makes) much more sense than this nonsense in Houston. What do you not understand about how low density the population here actually is when compared to east coast cities?

Those rail lines are walkable to a tiny fraction of the population and littered with stops. So just getting to wherever you board the train requires either a bus ride or a drive to a park & ride lot. You're already talking about 20 minutes just to get to the train. Then tack on 30-40 minutes to get to the other end of the train, followed by (???) length of walk to get to your destination. You've saved zero time, wasted insane amounts of capital, and still have tons of traffic.

Like I said in my earlier post: Houston is too low-density for the traditional "plop in some rail lines and add some buses" solution to public transit. This is true because car commuting is faster. Public transit in Houston currently exists mostly as a social service for people that can't afford car ownership.

So you have to think outside of the box to offer a public transit system that encourages people not to drive (instead of punishes them for driving). Build a self-driving bus model that operates on an Uber-style model with pick up and delivery nodes where chancing vehicles is rare (or does not happen) and the increase in time spent commuting is zero (or at most very small).

---

BS on nobody would be using this. Ever go to a park & ride in the mornings? There is 1 in Kingwood and 1 at 59/Townsend, and both are packed with cars everyday. People take the bus into downtown, and some even hop the rail into the med center. I have friends who live in Spring and The Woodlands who work downtown and they each take the bus. Just because you won't use it doesn't mean nobody will.

As far as population density...do you save for retirement? If so, why are you wasting your money and time planning for the future? Live in the now. Worry about 20 years from now 25 years from now.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Like I said in my post above, you're not going to improve public transport in Houston by trying to punish car commuters. You're going to succeed by enticing them to use public transport as an attractive, convenient alternative. To make that happen, you have to get away from the extremely antiquated concept of fixed rail lines with the gaps filled in by bus service. This is particularly true with the lurking advent of self driving cars and the robust capabilities of networked transportation systems.

---

Do you know what's attractive about public transportation? Not having to drive in stop and go traffic. I could take the bus now, but it sits in the same traffic I do, so what's the point? Generally, rail runs on-time, and if one's behind, a nifty app (similar to the one CTA has) will show how behind it is and the ETA to the station.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Like I said in my post above, you're not going to improve public transport in Houston by trying to punish car commuters. You're going to succeed by enticing them to use public transport as an attractive, convenient alternative. To make that happen, you have to get away from the extremely antiquated concept of fixed rail lines with the gaps filled in by bus service. This is particularly true with the lurking advent of self driving cars and the robust capabilities of networked transportation systems.

---

It will take 40 years for self driving cars to be the norm. The problem is all cars have to be self driving to be efficient as it ony takes 1 bozo to screw it all up. Rail along existing corridors can work, and increasing density of office centers will help drive it. But you have to remove parking structures to create that density. This isn't a cure all for everything g but to lighten the load n existing infrastructure because it's built as wide as it can go.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Like I said in my post above, you're not going to improve public transport in Houston by trying to punish car commuters. You're going to succeed by enticing them to use public transport as an attractive, convenient alternative. To make that happen, you have to get away from the extremely antiquated concept of fixed rail lines with the gaps filled in by bus service. This is particularly true with the lurking advent of self driving cars and the robust capabilities of networked transportation systems.

---

It will take 40 years for self driving cars to be the norm. The problem is all cars have to be self driving to be efficient as it ony takes 1 bozo to screw it all up. Rail along existing corridors can work, and increasing density of office centers will help drive it. But you have to remove parking structures to create that density. This isn't a cure all for everything g but to lighten the load n existing infrastructure because it's built as wide as it can go.

---

I think we fundamentally disagree on the best solution. And I think that actually implementing rail infrastructure in Houston is a much longer time horizon than self driving vehicles. Using existing corridors, you've still got to actually construct grade (or viaducts/tunnels) and track.

Why remove parking structures if there is no serious scarcity of land issues in the first place? And why chase after density?

Because cities continue to grow, and sprawl is not always a good thing. Besides, even if you have all this wonderful self driving cars you still have to put them somewhere and even if wrecks are reduced, you will still have congestion problems. Using existing corridors by removing and repurposing lanes is MUCH more efficient than using eminent domian. Office and work centers with mass transit going in is more efficient but you do need to create critical density. Self driving cars everywhere doesn't solve the problem of congestion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Like I said in my post above, you're not going to improve public transport in Houston by trying to punish car commuters. You're going to succeed by enticing them to use public transport as an attractive, convenient alternative. To make that happen, you have to get away from the extremely antiquated concept of fixed rail lines with the gaps filled in by bus service. This is particularly true with the lurking advent of self driving cars and the robust capabilities of networked transportation systems.

---

Do you know what's attractive about public transportation? Not having to drive in stop and go traffic. I could take the bus now, but it sits in the same traffic I do, so what's the point? Generally, rail runs on-time, and if one's behind, a nifty app (similar to the one CTA has) will show how behind it is and the ETA to the station.

---

Do you know what sucks about public transportation? The public. Know what else? The usual vehicles you have to ride in. You know what else? The hassle. I get in my car and drive from A to B. It's much better than riding on a crappy old bus or in a plastic seat on a rail car next to a sickly old man and some lady that smells like a combination of dirty feet, febreze, and cigarettes. In Houston, it is categorically faster to drive.

I wouldn't waste my time with Houston public transport unless and until it becomes a convenient alternative to driving.

About rail lines: they're insanely expensive and they're fixed.

The whole idea of rail in Houston is a total pipe dream that is outdated by half a century susceptible to massive political corruption.