Subways: Are They Possible?

[arche_757]

I would tend to think a subway would trump the tunnel system.  Not like the tunnels are so important they can't be re-routed or simply closed in places?
 

What?  What's wrong with calling it Uptown?  Its west of town, and technically it isn't "up - as in north" but it is higher elevation.

 

The question posed was:  Is a subway possible in Houston?  Yes of course it is.  I agree that subways wouldn't be needed everywhere - just in areas like Uptown.  Or maybe City Center out west?

[IronTiger]

Yes, the idea of a subway system is one that is compatible with the light rail, and not yet at least going to the suburbs. The problem is that there's no other good space to put it. There's very few usable abandoned railroad corridors, METRO has no money to do major ROW clearances, and putting rail down road does neither any favors.

[Houston19514]

Even if the tunnels did not exist, a subway line would almost certainly be below their level anyway, just to avoid the other underground infrastructure.

[cloud713]

Could be $15 billion at the least.  We cannot even build light rail.  The Boston Dug was more than that. 

the Big Dig was a lot more than tunneling a light rail line.. they tunneled whole swaths of highway through the middle of the city.

tunnel bored subways typically run about 500 million a mile. your looking at about 10 miles between Westchase and the red line in midtown. that means a Westheimer subway line could be built for $5 billion. its almost twice the cost of what weve spent on our entire light rail system (counting the green and purple lines), but it could be "worth it" in the future.

given the cost of a Westheimer subway line, i would just tunnel the post oak line through uptown, coming up to the surface for the portion that travels along and north of 610.

then have a line branch off of the 610 portion, through the south side of Memorial Park, before joining up with Memorial Dr and finally connecting into the green/purple lines under i45 at the Theater District, with minimal stops in between downtown and uptown (maybe one at Shepherd where a potential upper Kirby subway would terminate/join tracks to head into downtown, and possibly one at Montrose).

it would be less than 2 miles of subway (say 1.75 billion), with 5 miles of surface rail (500 million), would be almost a billion cheaper than a line down Westheimer from just the segment from the Galleria to Main St (would still be 3 billion). and really the Post Oak line is already going to be built/could theoretically be subway one day. so that would already be paid for and the additional expenses you would be paying for an E/W line between uptown and downtown would only be the 500 million in surface rail between 610 and downtown, making the similar Westheimer stretch 6 times more expensive.

 

Even the systems with subways are only below ground where it makes sense.  BART has subway, at grade, and elevated elements; 40% of the New York subway is at or above grade (h/t Wikipedia), less than half of DC's Metrorail is subway.

 

Downtown's existing infrastructure would pretty much require that a subway be built even deeper.  My back of the envelope guess is that the roof of the tube could be no less than 25' below grade to clear the tunnel system, probably a bit more in places - which you'd have to do anyway in order to put the northern portal north of Buffalo Bayou.  Sure, the trains on the street are a bit in the way (particularly when METRO gets overly aggressive with the traffic light overrides), but overall not that big a deal.

 

I think where a subway would really make sense would be in a dense area that has a laughably inadequate surface street grid - something like Post Oak/Westheimer (in honor of another contributor, I'm not going to use the popular yet trademarked name stolen from the nearby shopping mall; in honor of my own refusal to bow to the silly I'm not going to use the Pretentious Alternate Name that makes no geographic sense, either).

for sure. and for the record. i always hear "even Chicago isnt building elevated rail anymore". is that true?

yeah the tunnel system screws up any subways for downtown without running them like 30-40 feet deep (from the floor of the tunnel, your assessment of 25' from the top of the tunnel is probably about right)

IMO i would put subway lines down Post Oak, Westheimer, and Kirby (north of Halcombe/Bellaire).

[livincinco]

tunnel bored subways typically run about 500 million a mile. your looking at about 10 miles between Westchase and the red line in midtown. that means a Westheimer subway line could be built for $5 billion. its almost twice the cost of what weve spent on our entire light rail system (counting the green and purple lines), but it could be "worth it" in the future.

 

Not necessarily.  New York's 2nd Avenue line is projected to cost $2 billion/mile ($17 billion for 8.5 miles).  Don't really expect that a subway line in Houston would cost that much, but the $500 million/mile number might be optimistic.

 

[citykid09]

I think heavy rail is the way to go for Houston. It does not necessarily have to all be subway, just in the inner city (downtown, uptown, Greenway, Medical Center, etc), like MARTA, BART, and the DC Metro are.

 

Although I believe the people stopping rail on Richmond are completely against any type of rail, I don't blame them for not wanting it going do their street. I would rather see that line in a subway where traffic and pedestrians will not be a factor. If Houston ever went to a heavy rail system along the red line, I wonder what would happen to the light rail? Would it be used as a street car (it already is)?

 

Imagine riding on a heavy rail in Houston at an above ground station while looking out the window and then suddenly being taken into a tunnel where your next stop is somewhere at or near downtown. You get off the train and head up to the street level where there is lots of activity. You see street vendors, street performers, people shopping, people walking dogs, etc. You spend the day in the city doing whatever (having a good time), you go back into the tunnel and get off a the transfer station where you catch the train and get off at your station to go home. Many others get off at that station with you and you all walk off to  wherever you destination is. This is the kind of Houston I want to see, the type of experience I get when I go to most any other city and have always looked for in Houston (but was disappointed when I found out it did not exist here).

 

How can a city be satisfied with seeing people only in malls grocery stores and shopping centers, clubs and bars (many which are built in shopping centers)? Yeah Houston may have a lot to do, but in my opinion, its still a boring city. There are no real attractions that you can get to without driving nearly to Galveston and even they are sub-par. Its a city that has lots of potential but the lackluster leadership make it a city that people only want to move to for jobs. Sure the city is making improvements but its always in the cheapest and blandest way. And don't get me started on the light rail and the streets with ditches in the inner city. Can someone please explain the point of placing track and stations in the front of houses and neighborhoods that look like they belong in a rural ghost town somewhere in West Texas. Its laughable! Are they hoping that the neighborhoods will eventually redevelop? I think that its probably the worlds first light rail in basically a rural area.

 

I guess the city of Houston sees itself as cheap and unworthy of the best. Why is a few billion spend for a heavy rail/subway system in Houston too much? Is Houston, the 4th largest city in America not worth it? Does Houston ever see it self becoming anything other then a car city?

 

And who else thinks that the name METRO is to generic? How about calling it HART or MTA Houston or M-HART?

 

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but I had to vent.

[mollusk]

I would tend to think a subway would trump the tunnel system.  Not like the tunnels are so important they can't be re-routed or simply closed in places?

 

What?  What's wrong with calling it Uptown?  Its west of town, and technically it isn't "up - as in north" but it is higher elevation.

 

The question posed was:  Is a subway possible in Houston?  Yes of course it is.  I agree that subways wouldn't be needed everywhere - just in areas like Uptown.  Or maybe City Center out west?

 

Ohhhh, the tunnels are VERY important.  Even with Chamber of Commerce weather like today, there were probably as many Mole People down there as people getting light exposure out on the sidewalks - and when it's raining, or cold, or (most frequently) blazing hot, the tunnels get lots and lots of use.  It's going to be interesting to see just what happens with the tunnel level businesses in Chase when the Houston Club connector gets closed down in a few weeks.

 

What's wrong with calling it that... made up name?  (eye roll)  "Up" in the absence of any adjacent "mid" or "down" is just silly and pretentious.  Sorta like the Cadillac Cimarron - a low level Chevy with a different grille and a much bigger price tag.

 

Finally, I forgot - we DO have an underground, downtown Subway.  It's in the food court under 919 Milam. 

[Slick Vik]

The Feds don't do 3 to 1 matches.

But they do 1 to 1

[Slick Vik]

Not necessarily. New York's 2nd Avenue line is projected to cost $2 billion/mile ($17 billion for 8.5 miles). Don't really expect that a subway line in Houston would cost that much, but the $500 million/mile number might be optimistic.

That line is necessary, being built along the busiest corridor of the entire NYC subway system.

[IronTiger]

the Big Dig was a lot more than tunneling a light rail line.. they tunneled whole swaths of highway through the middle of the city.

tunnel bored subways typically run about 500 million a mile. your looking at about 10 miles between Westchase and the red line in midtown. that means a Westheimer subway line could be built for $5 billion. its almost twice the cost of what weve spent on our entire light rail system (counting the green and purple lines), but it could be "worth it" in the future.

given the cost of a Westheimer subway line, i would just tunnel the post oak line through uptown, coming up to the surface for the portion that travels along and north of 610.

then have a line branch off of the 610 portion, through the south side of Memorial Park, before joining up with Memorial Dr and finally connecting into the green/purple lines under i45 at the Theater District, with minimal stops in between downtown and uptown (maybe one at Shepherd where a potential upper Kirby subway would terminate/join tracks to head into downtown, and possibly one at Montrose).

it would be less than 2 miles of subway (say 1.75 billion), with 5 miles of surface rail (500 million), would be almost a billion cheaper than a line down Westheimer from just the segment from the Galleria to Main St (would still be 3 billion). and really the Post Oak line is already going to be built/could theoretically be subway one day. so that would already be paid for and the additional expenses you would be paying for an E/W line between uptown and downtown would only be the 500 million in surface rail between 610 and downtown, making the similar Westheimer stretch 6 times more expensive.

I really think that the existing lines drawn are more or less fine as they are, and preferably being underground should be minimized whenever possible to save on costs. And for what it's worth, the Big Dig was far more comprehensive than any other freeway project and they had to do crazy things like reroute century-old infrastructure (power/water/etc.), freeze the ground below the railroads to stabilize it, and keep heavy traffic flowing while trying to remove the overcrowded viaduct that was the cause of the whole thing.

[IronTiger]

I think heavy rail is the way to go for Houston. It does not necessarily have to all be subway, just in the inner city (downtown, uptown, Greenway, Medical Center, etc), like MARTA, BART, and the DC Metro are.

Although I believe the people stopping rail on Richmond are completely against any type of rail, I don't blame them for not wanting it going do their street. I would rather see that line in a subway where traffic and pedestrians will not be a factor. If Houston ever went to a heavy rail system along the red line, I wonder what would happen to the light rail? Would it be used as a street car (it already is)?

Imagine riding on a heavy rail in Houston at an above ground station while looking out the window and then suddenly being taken into a tunnel where your next stop is somewhere at or near downtown. You get off the train and head up to the street level where there is lots of activity. You see street vendors, street performers, people shopping, people walking dogs, etc. You spend the day in the city doing whatever (having a good time), you go back into the tunnel and get off a the transfer station where you catch the train and get off at your station to go home. Many others get off at that station with you and you all walk off to wherever you destination is. This is the kind of Houston I want to see, the type of experience I get when I go to most any other city and have always looked for in Houston (but was disappointed when I found out it did not exist here).

How can a city be satisfied with seeing people only in malls grocery stores and shopping centers, clubs and bars (many which are built in shopping centers)? Yeah Houston may have a lot to do, but in my opinion, its still a boring city. There are no real attractions that you can get to without driving nearly to Galveston and even they are sub-par. Its a city that has lots of potential but the lackluster leadership make it a city that people only want to move to for jobs. Sure the city is making improvements but its always in the cheapest and blandest way. And don't get me started on the light rail and the streets with ditches in the inner city. Can someone please explain the point of placing track and stations in the front of houses and neighborhoods that look like they belong in a rural ghost town somewhere in West Texas. Its laughable! Are they hoping that the neighborhoods will eventually redevelop? I think that its probably the worlds first light rail in basically a rural area.

I guess the city of Houston sees itself as cheap and unworthy of the best. Why is a few billion spend for a heavy rail/subway system in Houston too much? Is Houston, the 4th largest city in America not worth it? Does Houston ever see it self becoming anything other then a car city?

And who else thinks that the name METRO is to generic? How about calling it HART or MTA Houston or M-HART?

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but I had to vent.

The idea of a subway system tunneled light rail system is to be compatible with the existing light rail system to be in certain corridors without messing up anything. The reason is that there are corridors that could use light rail, but to avoid ROW demolitions, they have to be built on the road. That messes up the road. That slows down the light rail. It really benefits nobody, and it explains why people in Houston seem to be so tepid about light rail. Houston is a strange city, but definitely not a boring one. While the action is spread out, it's better than one center and miles of slums/boring stuff in all directions (I can think of several cities like that).

[editor]

Can anybody name a tropical or subtropical city essentially at sea-level with a water table just a few feet below ground that has successfully built subways?

 

Red herring.

 

The notion that Houston can't have a subway because of its topography or water table was disproven last century.  At least two tunnels have been put under the Ship Channel with no problems.  

 

But, to answer your question: Singapore, Hong Kong, Rio, São Paulo, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Dalian, Panama City, Taipei, Bangkok, Caracas, Los Teques, Maracaibo, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Busan, Fukuoka, Kolkata, Chennai, Santo Domingo.

 

Google is your friend.

[cloud713]

Not necessarily. New York's 2nd Avenue line is projected to cost $2 billion/mile ($17 billion for 8.5 miles). Don't really expect that a subway line in Houston would cost that much, but the $500 million/mile number might be optimistic.

True, but that's the most expensive line in history and has to go through some seriously tough bedrock while avoiding all of NYCs utilities and other underground.

I've heard around 500 million is about average, but you might be right.

[Howard Huge]

See, in the case of the much maligned University Line, I think it would be the best, since bridging over 59 would end up demolishing buildings and messing up Richmond, not to mention the fact that the light rail would end up stopping at lots of stoplights anyway--going from Weslayan and Westpark Road to Edloe and Richmond would have less jerky curves than what was previously proposed, and then it could use the old "Westpark ROW" the rest of the way, solving (most of) everyone's worries.

While a full "spider-web" network is still pretty unrealistic, it does reopen a lot of corridors for ideas.

I was thinking that a subway wouldn't be possible not just because of the proximity to sea level but softer ground that makes it unattractive to build. Subways aren't possible in say, Galveston.

Ive always said, a subway line from elgin and main all the way down to westheimer and hwy 6 would be a no brainer and the most prolific rail line in houston.

[Howard Huge]

Red herring.

The notion that Houston can't have a subway because of its topography or water table was disproven last century. At least two tunnels have been put under the Ship Channel with no problems.

But, to answer your question: Singapore, Hong Kong, Rio, São Paulo, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Dalian, Panama City, Taipei, Bangkok, Caracas, Los Teques, Maracaibo, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Busan, Fukuoka, Kolkata, Chennai, Santo Domingo.

Google is your friend.

This post. So much win.

It irritates me to no end everytime I hear people regurgitate the same old "Houston cant have subway tunnels because we are below sea level.

Yea, someone should tell that to the people who manage the Washburn tunnel, you would think they would have figured out you cant have underwater tunnels in Houston after 64 years.

[livincinco]

True, but that's the most expensive line in history and has to go through some seriously tough bedrock while avoiding all of NYCs utilities and other underground.

I've heard around 500 million is about average, but you might be right.

 

I think that number might be outdated, but the sample set is pretty limited because there's very little recent subway construction in the US.  San Francisco's subway construction is currently tagged at about $850 million/mile.

 

[Howard Huge]

I think heavy rail is the way to go for Houston. It does not necessarily have to all be subway, just in the inner city (downtown, uptown, Greenway, Medical Center, etc), like MARTA, BART, and the DC Metro are.

Although I believe the people stopping rail on Richmond are completely against any type of rail, I don't blame them for not wanting it going do their street. I would rather see that line in a subway where traffic and pedestrians will not be a factor. If Houston ever went to a heavy rail system along the red line, I wonder what would happen to the light rail? Would it be used as a street car (it already is)?

Imagine riding on a heavy rail in Houston at an above ground station while looking out the window and then suddenly being taken into a tunnel where your next stop is somewhere at or near downtown. You get off the train and head up to the street level where there is lots of activity. You see street vendors, street performers, people shopping, people walking dogs, etc. You spend the day in the city doing whatever (having a good time), you go back into the tunnel and get off a the transfer station where you catch the train and get off at your station to go home. Many others get off at that station with you and you all walk off to wherever you destination is. This is the kind of Houston I want to see, the type of experience I get when I go to most any other city and have always looked for in Houston (but was disappointed when I found out it did not exist here).

How can a city be satisfied with seeing people only in malls grocery stores and shopping centers, clubs and bars (many which are built in shopping centers)? Yeah Houston may have a lot to do, but in my opinion, its still a boring city. There are no real attractions that you can get to without driving nearly to Galveston and even they are sub-par. Its a city that has lots of potential but the lackluster leadership make it a city that people only want to move to for jobs. Sure the city is making improvements but its always in the cheapest and blandest way. And don't get me started on the light rail and the streets with ditches in the inner city. Can someone please explain the point of placing track and stations in the front of houses and neighborhoods that look like they belong in a rural ghost town somewhere in West Texas. Its laughable! Are they hoping that the neighborhoods will eventually redevelop? I think that its probably the worlds first light rail in basically a rural area.

I guess the city of Houston sees itself as cheap and unworthy of the best. Why is a few billion spend for a heavy rail/subway system in Houston too much? Is Houston, the 4th largest city in America not worth it? Does Houston ever see it self becoming anything other then a car city?

And who else thinks that the name METRO is to generic? How about calling it HART or MTA Houston or M-HART?

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but I had to vent.

+1

I hear you buddy, its not that people dont think were worth it, I think Annise Parker would LOVE to have a subway in Houston, she is very progressive and forward thinking.

However, its paying for it and getting it approved thats the issue, and as long as we keep electing corrupt, payoff taking douchebags like Tom DELAY and John Culberson, they will continue to make it their lifes work to block any and all rail funding in Houston like the lives of their children depended on them KILLING THE EVIL RAIL LINES.

Its the whole "good ol boy", "we wanna keep Houston a small country southern town like it used to be, you can keep all of that rail and big city stuff in New Yeorrrk Ciddie", and the usual suspects taking dirty money under the table from special interest groups to destroy rail and keep their constituents happy.

Believe or not, for every subway/mass transit loving urbanists like ourselves in Houston, theres 1000 more southern, hillbilly rednecks who want to "Keep Texas Texas". To hell with progress and joining the ranks of the largest US and world class cities, 100 LANE FREEWAYS GALORE!!! YEEEHAAAWWWW!!!!!

[livincinco]

Ive always said, a subway line from elgin and main all the way down to westheimer and hwy 6 would be a no brainer and the most prolific rail line in houston.

 

That's an approx. 16 mile line at a conservative estimate of $500 million per mile.  $8 billion in construction cost with major construction disruption down Westheimer for years.

 

Not sure I would call that "a no brainer".

 

[IronTiger]

I hear you buddy, its not that people dont think were worth it, I think Annise Parker would LOVE to have a subway in Houston, she is very progressive and forward thinking.

However, its paying for it and getting it approved thats the issue, and as long as we keep electing corrupt, payoff taking douchebags like Tom DELAY and John Culberson, they will continue to make it their lifes work to block any and all rail funding in Houston like the lives of their children depended on them KILLING THE EVIL RAIL LINES.

Its the whole "good ol boy", "we wanna keep Houston a small country southern town like it used to be, you can keep all of that rail and big city stuff in New Yeorrrk Ciddie", and the usual suspects taking dirty money under the table from special interest groups to destroy rail and keep their constituents happy.

Believe or not, for every subway/mass transit loving urbanists like ourselves in Houston, theres 1000 more southern, hillbilly rednecks who want to "Keep Texas Texas". To hell with progress and joining the ranks of the largest US and world class cities, 100 LANE FREEWAYS GALORE!!! YEEEHAAAWWWW!!!!!

Hate to tell you this, but while the "good ole boy" feel is alive and well, there are more things at play such as screwing up streets, cost-effectiveness, and a whole variety of other factors are preventing it. And again, there is a large group of people that probably wouldn't mind light rail but could live without it.

This isn't even taking account problems at METRO itself.

Of course, some people would rather take the road of blaming politicians when they're not in favor of rail, no matter what the circumstances actually are.

[livincinco]

+1

I hear you buddy, its not that people dont think were worth it, I think Annise Parker would LOVE to have a subway in Houston, she is very progressive and forward thinking.

However, its paying for it and getting it approved thats the issue, and as long as we keep electing corrupt, payoff taking douchebags like Tom DELAY and John Culberson, they will continue to make it their lifes work to block any and all rail funding in Houston like the lives of their children depended on them KILLING THE EVIL RAIL LINES.

Its the whole "good ol boy", "we wanna keep Houston a small country southern town like it used to be, you can keep all of that rail and big city stuff in New Yeorrrk Ciddie", and the usual suspects taking dirty money under the table from special interest groups to destroy rail and keep their constituents happy.

Believe or not, for every subway/mass transit loving urbanists like ourselves in Houston, theres 1000 more southern, hillbilly rednecks who want to "Keep Texas Texas". To hell with progress and joining the ranks of the largest US and world class cities, 100 LANE FREEWAYS GALORE!!! YEEEHAAAWWWW!!!!!

 

Good thing that all of us Southern, hillbilly rednecks have smart urbanites like you to tell us what we should do.  We really like that so many smart urbanites leave "world class cities" like New York and Chicago every year and move to hick southern towns like Houston, so that they can tell us everything that we're doing wrong.

 

After all, the real reason that so many people are moving to Houston is because those kind hearted souls want to help fix all those things that are wrong with our little hick town!

[Howard Huge]

Good thing that all of us Southern, hillbilly rednecks have smart urbanites like you to tell us what we should do. We really like that so many smart urbanites leave "world class cities" like New York and Chicago every year and move to hick southern towns like Houston, so that they can tell us everything that we're doing wrong.

After all, the real reason that so many people are moving to Houston is because those kind hearted souls want to help fix all those things that are wrong with our little hick town!

Jobs.

[Howard Huge]

Hate to tell you this, but while the "good ole boy" feel is alive and well, there are more things at play such as screwing up streets, cost-effectiveness, and a whole variety of other factors are preventing it.

Oh brother, I dont wanna hear all those lame excuses, what city didnt have to deal with all those factors, as well as spend alot money on their subways??

[Slick Vik]

Good thing that all of us Southern, hillbilly rednecks have smart urbanites like you to tell us what we should do. We really like that so many smart urbanites leave "world class cities" like New York and Chicago every year and move to hick southern towns like Houston, so that they can tell us everything that we're doing wrong.

After all, the real reason that so many people are moving to Houston is because those kind hearted souls want to help fix all those things that are wrong with our little hick town!

223,000 people move to New York per year.

[IronTiger]

Oh brother, I dont wanna hear all those lame excuses, what city didnt have to deal with all those factors, as well as spend alot money on their subways??

You're being sarcastic, right?

[Howard Huge]

Jesus christ.

By yalls logic, no subway, light rail or commuter rail should EVER be built in ANY city unless:

1) Its free to build and costs literally nothing

2) It takes no construction to build it and doesnt tear up any street or cause any traffic anywhere.

3) Literally every single citizen of the city will ride it, even the people with cars

4) There is absolutely ZERO opposition to the rail. Like EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CITY agrees to it and not one person is opposed to it.

[Howard Huge]

Meanwhile, we dont mind spending almost $3 Billion dollars, and dealing with the worst traffic in the history of Houston, to exapnd the Katy freeway to a few more lanes (that you have to pay to use ), and not even seeing much of a difference in traffic.

[Houston19514]

But they do 1 to 1

 

Yeah, and you can check my math, but I don't think a 1 to 1 match will get you $900 Million from the Feds when Metro is putting up about $350 Million of its own money.

 

And where do you get the idea that we could have built a 7.5 mile subway for only $1.2 Billion or even $1.8 Billion?

[Houston19514]

I think that number might be outdated, but the sample set is pretty limited because there's very little recent subway construction in the US.  San Francisco's subway construction is currently tagged at about $850 million/mile.

 

 

This article says it is $1.6 Billion for 1.7 miles of subway.  $941 Million + per mile.

[Houston19514]

223,000 people move to New York per year.

 

And apparently 205,000 leave New York per year.  Their net migration is only 18,000.  FWIW, 110,000 more people leave NYC every year for other places in the US than move to NYC from other places in the US.  (Negative domestic migration of 110,000)

 

In comparison, 55,000 more people moved to Houston from other places in the US than moved from Houston to other places in the US.  (Positive domestic migration of 55,000)

[Houston19514]

Meanwhile, we dont mind spending almost $3 Billion dollars, and dealing with the worst traffic in the history of Houston, to exapnd the Katy freeway to a few more lanes (that you have to pay to use ), and not even seeing much of a difference in traffic.

 

See, this is where these discussions always break down.  It is nothing short of dishonest to claim there has not been much of a difference in traffic as a result of the Katy Freeway expansion.  It is also dishonest to claim (or imply) that you have to pay to use all of the additional lanes.

 

Further, as you surely know, not all of the $2.8 Billion was tax money.  Harris County Toll Road Authority paid $500 Million towards the project, so those lanes you are complaining about having to pay to use... tax money did not pay for them.

 

So, for the $2.3 Billion of tax money invested in the 23 mile widening project, we could have had, what, 3 miles of subway, every bit of which you would have to pay to use?

 

I'm generally pro-rail and would love for Houston to have a huge subway system, but it's hard for me to figure out how to justify that kind of expenditure in a city like Houston.