quote:

---

Via reddit

---

Based on what I've heard through reliable folks who work with organizations throughout the city, this is a real thing.

quote:

---

It would obviously cost billions of dollars, take about 20 years to complete, and will never happen, but I will continue to dream.

---

Any public transit program will take billions of dollars and lots of time, Houston is not an exception in that regard.

The 'Fastracks' expansion program for Denver's RTD is a multi billion project and has a very long scope of work. It's taking RTD from an existing 2 rails in the southern burbs and adding 122 miles of rail to all the other areas of town.

They started the expansion project 8-10 years ago on the first new line. Now this year already they've completed 2 new rails including the new one to/from the airport/downtown, and by year's end they'll complete 2 more lines. So it's starting to look like a spoke/wheel design for rails to all the suburbs. This year they also added a bus rapid transit service to/from Boulder/Denver. A fifth rail will open in 2018, then the extension of a few more will be complete around 2020 and the continued extension of each line further into the suburbs as they need it. Before you know it, it's been 20 years, the city spent billions of dollars, and they have a very extensive public transit system. They didn't just dream about it, they came up with a plan and executed it. The entire fastracks expansion program was voter approved.

Houston just needs to do make it happen; yes it will take a very long time and a lot of money.. who cares, so did the katy freeway expansion. They have to know that highway expansion alone will not solve traffic congestion long term. In the long run, public transit is a necessity.

The existing rails were the two southern ones going to downtown (c,d and e,f) and the blue H line... the expansion project is everything else. Once complete, the entire expansion will have taken 15-20 years.

quote:

---

Forget corruption. Rail to the burbs will never happen unless Katy, League City, Sugarland, etc. cede over to the City of Houston. Why would the CoH want to spend billions on infrastructure to reduce commute times to areas outside of its tax base? They want commutes to be terrible to force you to buy within the city and expand the tax base.

---

There's your problem.. COH is in charge?

In Denver, RTD is in charge of the public transit, and it is multi-county, multi-city. If you live in the RTD district, (which is 2,340-square-miles) then 1% of sales tax goes to RTD.

quote:

---

Do everyone in town a favor and live near where you work. Problem solved.

---

So every time you switch jobs/get laid off you have to uproot your family and move? And your spouse has to quit his/her job so they can find a job close to your new home as well?

Man, this guy has all the answers.

Spend money on things we need instead of rail. I reverse commute. I could hop on a bus downtown, but once I get out to the burbs, I have to Uber or take a taxi to get to work. Metro assumes that people taking a bus to a park and ride have a car there. Need taxis, ubers, or van pools to supplement major bus routes.

quote:

---

I will also add, as we get closer to driverless cars, the need for massive transit will change as well.

---

And in the same breath of patting denver on the back, I'll say that it may be far enough along that Houston doesn't need to worry about public transit because of the thought above.
Autonomous cars may be closer in our future than the time it takes for Houston to get an extensive transit system.



I think this technology should start in its infancy at stop lights. When the light turns green, if all cars could simultaneously begin to accelerate on their own, and have the driver take over, this will increase car throughput at lights drastically. The technology that allows cars to talk can't be that far away, if not already available.

The next step would be for the lights to talk as well, so a 45 second light will allow so many cars to go through, say 15 cars. That 16th car knows it won't make it, so it never lets the driver take over. This all of a sudden has removed red light runners and the accidents caused by them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I will also add, as we get closer to driverless cars, the need for massive transit will change as well.

---

And in the same breath of patting denver on the back, I'll say that it may be far enough along that Houston doesn't need to worry about public transit because of the thought above.
Autonomous cars may be closer in our future than the time it takes for Houston to get an extensive transit system.



I think this technology should start in its infancy at stop lights. When the light turns green, if all cars could simultaneously begin to accelerate on their own, and have the driver take over, this will increase car throughput at lights drastically. The technology that allows cars to talk can't be that far away, if not already available.

The next step would be for the lights to talk as well, so a 45 second light will allow so many cars to go through, say 15 cars. That 16th car knows it won't make it, so it never lets the driver take over. This all of a sudden has removed red light runners and the accidents caused by them.

---

I just want lights timed. You should not spend 5 minutes sitting at lights in downtown. Smith Street you can drive from one end of downtown to the other. Any other street in downtown, you sit at 8 lights before you make it through.

I don't think you can time the lights anymore because of the MetroRail

quote:

---

I think this technology should start in its infancy at stop lights. When the light turns green, if all cars could simultaneously begin to accelerate on their own, and have the driver take over, this will increase car throughput at lights drastically. The technology that allows cars to talk can't be that far away, if not already available.

---

What kind of system do you propose the guarantee that there are no obstructions such as pedestrians walking across the street, between cars or a stalled car, or some other obstruction?

quote:

---

Spend money on things we need instead of rail. I reverse commute. I could hop on a bus downtown, but once I get out to the burbs, I have to Uber or take a taxi to get to work. Metro assumes that people taking a bus to a park and ride have a car there. Need taxis, ubers, or van pools to supplement major bus routes.

---

If you have the trains running to the P&R's, they can have buses that run from there to the retail shops and major businesses in that area rather than having them clog up the HOV lanes and sit in traffic like everybody else.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think this technology should start in its infancy at stop lights. When the light turns green, if all cars could simultaneously begin to accelerate on their own, and have the driver take over, this will increase car throughput at lights drastically. The technology that allows cars to talk can't be that far away, if not already available.

---

What kind of system do you propose the guarantee that there are no obstructions such as pedestrians walking across the street, between cars or a stalled car, or some other obstruction?

---

****'em. They should have looked both ways.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think this technology should start in its infancy at stop lights. When the light turns green, if all cars could simultaneously begin to accelerate on their own, and have the driver take over, this will increase car throughput at lights drastically. The technology that allows cars to talk can't be that far away, if not already available.

---

What kind of system do you propose the guarantee that there are no obstructions such as pedestrians walking across the street, between cars or a stalled car, or some other obstruction?

---

If I would have had the entire system already designed.. well it would be in use and I'd be billionaire now wouldn't I?

Cars can already detect other cars (blind spot detection), so surely it could detect a pedestrian or other 'non-auto'.. and since they all talk they can all wait, problem solved. A car has stalled in a lane? Oh, did I mention all the cars talk to each other? Do you know how efficient merging will be if the talking cars did the merging? An exact every other car merge with no braking and hesitation like seen with humans.

Of course, this totally assumes ALL cars have this networking functionality; but that's a given, until they all have it, it's a useless system.

But it has to be in our relatively near future.. I just know it.

We have politicians that successfully argue that requiring people to have valid ID's at voting booths is discrimination towards poor people.

Just when is it you think the gov will be able to require all cars that use public roads have new automated systems installed on them?

quote:

---

Just when is it you think the gov will be able to require all cars that use public roads have new automated systems installed on them?

---

Same thing could have been said about back up cameras years ago.. And now they are required by 2018.

As slow as the gov is, they do adapt.

Based on what I've heard from working 10 feet away from METRO's capital planning department that's about as much a real thing as Johnny Football's NFL career.

Metro would love to build something like that but given the political and public realities, there is nothing even close to that as part of any realistic plan. As part of HGAC'S long range plan some of that stuff is included but most of that is just a transit nerd's pipe dream.

Metro is controlled by a 9 member Board. COH controls 5 seats (and thus typically the chairmanship), Harris County controls 2 and the other member cities (West U, bellaire, the villages, Katy, MO city, etc) control the other 2. For the most part, the municipalities that are not in metros service area (sugar land, Pearland, Pasadena, jersey village, Stafford and probably a few others) are capped out on their sales tax and have no sales tax to buy into metro.

^

What he said.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just when is it you think the gov will be able to require all cars that use public roads have new automated systems installed on them?

---

Same thing could have been said about back up cameras years ago.. And now they are required by 2018.

As slow as the gov is, they do adapt.

---

It's a lot cheaper to add a little camera than to install a automatic driver system.

that rail map is sweet until I get off the train at eldridge and I-10 and am still 2 miles from work....meh it's only a 30 minute walk.

no kidding. Screen in the rear view mirror adds maybe $50 to the cost of the car.

You are all missing the major factor that needs to happen before any type of mass transit system is feasible:

Population density.

Highest Population Density Cities in the US

That's why places like NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston etc. have better systems than Houston will ever have. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the systems were around more or less since the cities entered into the industrial age (Houston wasn't even a city then for all intents and purposes), but also because of how the people live in those cities. Pull up some population density maps and you'll find that these areas have very high numbers of people living in small areas. Think about the neighborhoods from Rocky or even Friends versus the living style we have here.

The same people that want a mass transit system are also the same people that will fight tooth and nail against any type of structures being built in their neighborhoods that are multi-family dwellings. You cannot have one without the other, pure and simple. At least not one that works like those do in high population dense urban areas that have a completely different style of living than we do here.

Without an area that essentially has people living on top of people that need to travel from one general location to the same general location, a mass transit system simply will not work. At least without massive subsidies to keep it solvent and running anyway.

We have enough wanton waste and bridges to nowhere as it is, no need for the billions of outlays it would take to force a square peg into a round hole in the Houston metro area on a system that nobody is going to ride anyway.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just when is it you think the gov will be able to require all cars that use public roads have new automated systems installed on them?

---

Same thing could have been said about back up cameras years ago.. And now they are required by 2018.

As slow as the gov is, they do adapt.

---

It's a lot cheaper to add a little camera than to install a automatic driver system.

---

HAHAH. you think regulations are supposed to be cheap and easy?? you must not work in.. uhh.. any industry.

It's a lot cheaper to put in back up sensors instead of a camera. It's also a lot cheaper to do absolutely nothing than to install back up sensors. Yet, now the gov. requires a camera. The most expensive option of the 3.

It will be a lot cheaper to install an automatic driver system in 15-20 years than it is today. You think a backup camera installation in 2001 was as cheap as it is today? No. It was probably very costly. But, 17 years later, it's much cheaper, and required.

So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Things change, and the gov. adapts. Look at airbags.. you know how much money auto manufacturers have spent on R&D and design changes to accommodate airbags? You think the gov cares about these costs for manufacturers? Their studies show airbags and backup cameras make it safer, so they implemented a requirement.

Auto driving cars will be the same.

Today, if you are down on your luck and have to buy a car to get to work, you can do so for less than 1k. Think anything close to that will be possible with mandatory auto driver cars?

quote:

---

Without an area that essentially has people living on top of people that need to travel from one general location to the same general location, a mass transit system simply will not work.

---

First off, which freeway corridors are you referring to that don't have a lot of people? 45, 10, 290, and SW59 are all highly populated corridors. Maybe you're not sure how transit works.. you are in Houston after all. These rails don't go to your house.. they run along highways. You drive from your house to the stations along the highway and park, many times in a garage. Those that are immediately in the corridor can walk or bike to the stations.


Second off, maybe it's an exception, not the rule, but look at Denver. There are several rails, including the one going to my side of town, that go through large sections of areas with densities in the 1-3K/sqmi range.

I'd love for the I10 HOV/Toll to be only HOV for both lanes for 2 hrs AM & PM. Encourage people to carpool when it is actually beneficial for speed. Right now all lanes go about the same speed in the evenings.

quote:

---

feel free to post your fascinating thoughts on the Denver board.

---

I was waiting for this.

Fortunately I don't have to because we don't complain about our crappy public transit nonstop

quote:

---

You are all missing the major factor that needs to happen before any type of mass transit system is feasible:

Population density.

Highest Population Density Cities in the US

That's why places like NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston etc. have better systems than Houston will ever have. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the systems were around more or less since the cities entered into the industrial age (Houston wasn't even a city then for all intents and purposes), but also because of how the people live in those cities. Pull up some population density maps and you'll find that these areas have very high numbers of people living in small areas. Think about the neighborhoods from Rocky or even Friends versus the living style we have here.

The same people that want a mass transit system are also the same people that will fight tooth and nail against any type of structures being built in their neighborhoods that are multi-family dwellings. You cannot have one without the other, pure and simple. At least not one that works like those do in high population dense urban areas that have a completely different style of living than we do here.

Without an area that essentially has people living on top of people that need to travel from one general location to the same general location, a mass transit system simply will not work. At least without massive subsidies to keep it solvent and running anyway.

We have enough wanton waste and bridges to nowhere as it is, no need for the billions of outlays it would take to force a square peg into a round hole in the Houston metro area on a system that nobody is going to ride anyway.

---

Blue star to this person - he gets it. If you don't like your commute - MOVE! It will drive up prices closer in (and already has), but that's the only way to impact this. Instead, people want a rail out to their 1 acre lot. Won't happen (at least not in our lifetimes).

quote:

---

Today, if you are down on your luck and have to buy a car to get to work, you can do so for less than 1k. Think anything close to that will be possible with mandatory auto driver cars?

---

When the auto driving car is as old as your hypothetical $1k car is today, yes it will be possible. Why don't you think it would be? Do you think that these auto driving cars won't depreciate?

I never said that when it becomes required, replacement across the board must or will happen. The requirement is for new vehicles. In 2018, rear view cameras are required on all new cars, but you will not be required to drive a car with back up camera. It's a phase in. In 2028, the gov MAY decide to then require all cars on the road to have one.. at that point, you spend the $150 to add it to your pre 2018 car or buy a car that is post 2017.

It's the same with auto driving. And as I said, until all cars on the road are auto driving, it may seem like a useless function. But at some point, the phase in will be complete, and we'll have all cars on the road either produced with or retrofitted with auto driving capabilities.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are all missing the major factor that needs to happen before any type of mass transit system is feasible:

Population density.

Highest Population Density Cities in the US

That's why places like NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston etc. have better systems than Houston will ever have. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the systems were around more or less since the cities entered into the industrial age (Houston wasn't even a city then for all intents and purposes), but also because of how the people live in those cities. Pull up some population density maps and you'll find that these areas have very high numbers of people living in small areas. Think about the neighborhoods from Rocky or even Friends versus the living style we have here.

The same people that want a mass transit system are also the same people that will fight tooth and nail against any type of structures being built in their neighborhoods that are multi-family dwellings. You cannot have one without the other, pure and simple. At least not one that works like those do in high population dense urban areas that have a completely different style of living than we do here.

Without an area that essentially has people living on top of people that need to travel from one general location to the same general location, a mass transit system simply will not work. At least without massive subsidies to keep it solvent and running anyway.

We have enough wanton waste and bridges to nowhere as it is, no need for the billions of outlays it would take to force a square peg into a round hole in the Houston metro area on a system that nobody is going to ride anyway.

---

Blue star to this person - he gets it. If you don't like your commute - MOVE! It will drive up prices closer in (and already has), but that's the only way to impact this. Instead, people want a rail out to their 1 acre lot. Won't happen (at least not in our lifetimes).

---

You know.. you're right, you're onto something. We really should have all 9 million people in Houston metro move ITL! Problem solved!

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

quote:

---

quote:

---

Without an area that essentially has people living on top of people that need to travel from one general location to the same general location, a mass transit system simply will not work.

---

First off, which freeway corridors are you referring to that don't have a lot of people? 45, 10, 290, and SW59 are all highly populated corridors. Maybe you're not sure how transit works.. you are in Houston after all. These rails don't go to your house.. they run along highways. You drive from your house to the stations along the highway and park, many times in a garage. Those that are immediately in the corridor can walk or bike to the stations.


Second off, maybe it's an exception, not the rule, but look at Denver. There are several rails, including the one going to my side of town, that go through large sections of areas with densities in the 1-3K/sqmi range.

---

Denver is the exception to the rule, and only marginally at that. They receive a lot of subsidies to operate. And Denver is notorious for ensuring certain people get their projects through political corruption. DIA is a prime example of that.

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. We have multiple areas of spread out population that go to multiple areas of the city to work. 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.

People here are not going to alter their lifestyle to attempt to live like somebody in NYC or Boston does. Look at vehicle ownership rates in the areas with major rail systems that work and you'll find that it is very low, especially compared to here. Housing is not the same, property ownership is not the same, building is not the same - and people here simply don't want it the same. Look at the Allen Tower fight in Houston for an example of the fact that people don't want multiple story multi family dwellings and instead want their "quaint" town homes or master planned communities with the 8 different styles of houses to choose from, walking trails, green spaces, pools and water parks. Hell, when gas was $4 a gallon it didn't really cause any significant changes.

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.

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. Because let's face it, people aren't walking 4 or 5 miles from their home in Cinco Ranch or Sienna or Kingwood or any of the other hundred thousand master planned communities to a rail station that they likely fought against being put in their neighborhood to start with. And they damned sure aren't doing it from March through November. Or you'd have to have multiple spur lines to get down to walking distances people would actually make - and that would be a fight again, both politically and through sheer real estate costs to obtain the land and easements.

And generally speaking, here the areas that have high (by our standards) population densities tend to be the low income areas. Those areas are not going to provide an actual benefit to any transportation system. Your own Denver Metro knows this and requires a lot of subsidies as a result. Additionally, rail type systems typically cost a lot more to construct and maintain than any bus operated system. 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.

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.

I think the problem is they continue to expand the freeways. By the time it's built, the developers have created the next nightmare commute. Forget expansion on the freeways and it will naturally fix the density issue. It will also save taxpayer money.

Houston metro's amazing idea to boost use.

METRO needs a better PR campaign like Ride the ****