Subways: Are They Possible?

[HoustonIsHome]

I think the better question is whether a comprehensive system would work here.

Cost aside just about everyone would agree that a subway line is possible.

But how about a complete system with urban rail and commuter feeder lines.

I'm ask for rail, but I don't think we will ever have comprehensive urban rail and I think commuter rail lines will only be an expensive mess. I would ride it everyday, an all for it, but I don't think it will be successful.

[IronTiger]

Because the public transportation in Pearland is zero an extension among 288 would be just an expensive park an ride. 

Huge parking lots would have to be built and prior would still have to drive miles to board the rail.

I do admit it would probably ease some of traffic on 288 (like the TMC park and ride the rail set up) but something tells me it won't have that big of an effect.

If I recall correctly, the Pearland P&R was canned because Pearland isn't part of METRO. No METRO--definitely no METRORail. But should METRO actually build rail that way, would anyone ride? Same principle applies going to the airport.

[IronTiger]

I think the better question is whether a comprehensive system would work here.

Cost aside just about everyone would agree that a subway line is possible.

But how about a complete system with urban rail and commuter feeder lines.

I'm ask for rail, but I don't think we will ever have comprehensive urban rail and I think commuter rail lines will only be an expensive mess. I would ride it everyday, an all for it, but I don't think it will be successful.

Commuter rail would be a mess because of the way that the rails are set up and what they're used for. 290's parallel rail would work (in theory) but the others are messed up: for example, a rail from Sugar Land sounds good--and it just might've been had the Columbia Tap Rail Trail not been abandoned, but you'd have to deal with the GSC warehouse, the light rail, and a variety of others, even then, it's a 20 mile journey to downtown...otherwise, you have to deal with the crossings and tight curves near Mykawa, and even that only reaches EaDo and would have to circle around to downtown.

Part of the beauty of commuter rail (that is, standard gauge rail) is that for the most part, the ROW and basic infrastructure is right there.

[HoustonIsHome]

I don't think the mileage matters. Its getting people on the thing that is the problem. My issues are:

1. Will more people ride it than the park and rides?

2. How much more than the park and ride buses would it cost the riders

3. Would a higher cost scare off riders

My cousin lives about 40 miles north east of London (about 10 miles outside the metro). The town has about 60,000 people but it is only about 4 sq miles. Between that town and the london metro there are mainly fields and about 4 or five smaller towns with between 15k and 25k people. All these towns were served by the commuter rail and it is highly successful because all these towns were about a mile across and surrounded by fields. In all these towns you could walk to the stations. I cannot think of one burb in Houston that more than a meager percentage of the population would be able to do that.

To be honest I would have two lines along westheimer. One with a zillion stops and one a commuter rail connecting Montrose, uptown and Hilcroft.

I would try my best to replace taxed bus systems by rail and improve the bus systems in others.

The burbs I would let create their own system and if they survive they survive, if the people don't want it then so be it.

I don't even think a commuter rail system to the airports at this juncture would be fruitful. The designated airport buses were a major failure and the regular city buses to the airport for now are adequate. Not fancy but hey if we cared what visitors thought of us we would be a whole other city

[citykid09]

I think the need for commuter rail can mostly be eliminated if METRO built a system like BART, MARTA or DC METRO. These systems go out to areas that commuter rail would usually go. I don't know if anyone knows about or has mentioned this (I have mentioned it a few years back), but medium capacity rail could also work in Houston. I think it would have been a much better choice than light rail and slightly below heavy rail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-capacity_rail_transport_system

 

[Marcus Allen]

I definitely think if it is marketed appropriately, light rail would work, in time, in HTown. I really don't think it's financially feasible to build a subway system in Houston based on the type of soil and sea level of the city. I am afraid it would double or triple the normal costs of such an undertaking. What would be the point?

[IronTiger]

I definitely think if it is marketed appropriately, light rail would work, in time, in HTown. I really don't think it's financially feasible to build a subway system in Houston based on the type of soil and sea level of the city. I am afraid it would double or triple the normal costs of such an undertaking. What would be the point?

There are a few reasons I outlined:

- Minimized ROW demolitions: if the University Line was built as planned, the strip center near Westpark and Weslayan would be demolished (at least partially)

- Faster speeds and better turns for the light rail

- Would not end up destroying roads (during construction or reducing their functionality)

Would it really be the double/triple the costs of a "normal" undertaking? Remember, the tracks would still be the normal, wire-fed system, it would just be in a tunnel.

[mollusk]

Building not-at-grade (whether up or down) is usually going to cost more up front, simply because there's more prep work to do.  

 

However, soil type and elevation really aren't a negative factor here.  If anything, the soil type helps, because it's layers of sand and clay, both of which are much easier to dig through than solid (or even rubbly) rock.  As far as elevation is concerned, the downtown tunnel system has had a grand total of one catastrophic flooding incident that I know of, during Alison.  What happened then was the relatively thin wall between the Tranquility/Theater District underground parking gave way, and nobody had submarine doors at the time (since corrected).  During the same event, the Medical Center did have flooded buildings from overtopping, as did the then brand new criminal courts building (in that case, through the grade level elevator vents).  The previous time downtown saw flooding of that magnitude was back during the 1930s, so this is clearly a "worst case" event.

[IronTiger]

Very good point. If there was extreme Allison-level flooding for whatever reason (hundred year flood type) the light rail would probably be shut down anyway. I think a better topic would be: Subways: Are They Worth It?

[samagon]

My cousin lives about 40 miles north east of London (about 10 miles outside the metro). The town has about 60,000 people but it is only about 4 sq miles. Between that town and the london metro there are mainly fields and about 4 or five smaller towns with between 15k and 25k people. All these towns were served by the commuter rail and it is highly successful because all these towns were about a mile across and surrounded by fields. In all these towns you could walk to the stations. I cannot think of one burb in Houston that more than a meager percentage of the population would be able to do that.

 

 

The same is true of the Netherlands.

 

Small towns surrounding the larger cities, commuter rail leading into the cities, there are speedy trains that go from big city to big city, and stop trains that hit every little town.

 

each town is really tiny, but they also have recently started doing bus service around the little towns that circulate people to the train station.

 

It's not just a web, or a connection point to point. These systems have to be like root systems for trees, large trunks, and small feeders going out, then even smaller feeders from there. 

[HoustonIsHome]

Yeah. I think walkability is the factor here. Big differences won't occur unless stations are near the bulk of the population and our city's are just not built that way.

We have uniform density so either we have thousands of stations and stops every thirty seconds or we only catch a small portion of the population.

It's difficult to imagine commuter rail working here. After years thinking about it it hard gets harder and harder to imagine.

[Slick Vik]

The same is true of the Netherlands.

 

Small towns surrounding the larger cities, commuter rail leading into the cities, there are speedy trains that go from big city to big city, and stop trains that hit every little town.

 

each town is really tiny, but they also have recently started doing bus service around the little towns that circulate people to the train station.

 

It's not just a web, or a connection point to point. These systems have to be like root systems for trees, large trunks, and small feeders going out, then even smaller feeders from there. 

  

This is what they are trying to do in vancouver. Send buses around to the streets that go around neighborhoods and sometimes through them, so people can walk to buses, and feed those buses to skytrain stations. The buses run every 7-9 minutes, and the skytrain runs every 3 minutes.

[HoustonIsHome]

The thing with Houston, there is nothing to compare it to.

It is not quite built like Dallas.

It looks like it is developing like LA, but still not quite. LA has old dense pockets and natural boundaries, we do not have either.

[arche_757]

We have natural boundaries - that big body of water called "Galveston Bay" and then there's the "Gulf of Mexico" amazingly large natural boundaries.

 

I'm tickled by the people who have just said "can't ever see how commuter rail will work here..."

 

Really?  Ever?  In history?  Amazing!

 

So Houston will always develop the way its developing and will never see the density needed (anywhere in the city) for heavier rail.  We should just resign ourselves to the automobile and be done with it.  It will be the death of this city - traffic will stagnate this town to the point growth will become impossible.

 

I seem to also forget that LA and New York have ALWAYS had thousands of people per square mile.  I mean - its amazing - they just "POOF" popped up overnight and were all dense and stuff!

[ricco67]

The bodies of water you're referring to is a fairly good distance from DT. The only municipalities that are affected by it are the ones located on the shore.

it will be quite some time before it will constrain Houston.

[arche_757]

Still - they are there.  And those shoreline communities are a major part of what makes Houston unique and different compared to Dallas or Oklahoma City.

[HoustonIsHome]

Pardon me for not being able to imagine it but I simply can't imagine a successful commuter rail here.

As for the natural boundaries you mentioned, you cant corral a bull by fencing off its left hip. Houston is unchecked in almost every direction.

[cloud713]

Pardon me for not being able to imagine it but I simply can't imagine a successful commuter rail here.

really? not even one along the Hardy Tollroad to IAH, The Woodlands and Conroe, a line along Hempstead Highway/290, or the Westpark corridor? i think all three of those could be successful commuter rail lines. the other potential "spoke" rail corridors (possibly Westpark even) should be hybrid LRT express/minimal stop light rail service IMO. at least for the next few decades.. i wish they could extend the Dallas-Houston HSR line to have occasional service to Galveston, so we could have fast rail service to the beach and other popular tourist areas like Nasa/Kemah, instead of a 50 mile hourish long commuter rail journey.

[HoustonIsHome]

really? not even one along the Hardy Tollroad to IAH, The Woodlands and Conroe, a line along Hempstead Highway/290, or the Westpark corridor?

Yeah really.

I don't see it.

Not even those three lines.

I think ridership would be piss poor on the first two and the third would have issues taking people where they want to go.

Again, how many people more than those who ride park and ride right now do you think would ride the rail? How much more than park and ride would the rail cost to riders and to operate? I don't see it

[Slick Vik]

Yeah really.

I don't see it.

Not even those three lines.

I think ridership would be piss poor on the first two and the third would have issues taking people where they want to go.

Again, how many people more than those who ride park and ride right now do you think would ride the rail? How much more than park and ride would the rail cost to riders and to operate? I don't see it

If you finish light rail then commuter rail would make a lot of sense

[HoustonIsHome]

If you finish light rail then commuter rail would make a lot of sense

Ok look.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for rail of all sorts here. I want subway down westheimer, bellaire and other busy corridors, I want light rail on less busy streets. I want commuter rail on all major thoroughfares. But I just don't see it.

Stop grilling me for not seeing it. I never said one thing against building the darn thing. I JUST DON'T SEE IT BEING SUCCESSFUL.

It's like a supertall here. Yes I would like a 3000ft monster that you can see from Lubbock, but common sense tells me that it won't happen because of market and finances. Same with commuter rail. The market and finances IN MY OPINION do not justify commuter rail on any corridor.

You can disagree with me. You can try to offer figures to prove me wrong ( I would love that actually), but all of y'all need to stop acting like I'm crazy for for not being able to imagine commuter rail being successful here.

[arche_757]

Ok look.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for rail of all sorts here. I want subway down westheimer, bellaire and other busy corridors, I want light rail on less busy streets. I want commuter rail on all major thoroughfares. But I just don't see it.

Stop grilling me for not seeing it. I never said one thing against building the darn thing. I JUST DON'T SEE IT BEING SUCCESSFUL.

It's like a supertall here. Yes I would like a 3000ft monster that you can see from Lubbock, but common sense tells me that it won't happen because of market and finances. Same with commuter rail. The market and finances IN MY OPINION do not justify commuter rail on any corridor.

You can disagree with me. You can try to offer figures to prove me wrong ( I would love that actually), but all of y'all need to stop acting like I'm crazy for for not being able to imagine commuter rail being successful here.

 

What is your definition of commuter rail?  Are you talking "heavy rail"?  I think any transit system would need to mature a little before certain strategic numbers are met - perhaps some lines would take longer to fill in, others would be more successful more quickly.  I think a commuter rail line from Cypress - Downtown (with well reasoned stops) would be a huge success.  HUGE.  The need for larger park'n rides and parking lots at many of those stations would be there, but they would still get used.

 

Also, Atlanta has MARTA - which isn't perfect, but I'll wager Atlanta (in 1970 or whenever the first line opened) didn't have the desired density throughout the city for it to be an overnight success.

 

And my opinion on this - quite a few more people would take the rail than use park-n-ride.  Rail trumps Bus any day for most commuters (as an idea) so many would probably use it that wouldn't give one thought to using the buses now.  Just my opinion.

 

And argue all you want about Galveston Bay/Gulf as boundaries but that's why Houston is growing the way it is.   Denver has mountians ONLY on the west.  Chicago has its "left shoulder" (using your example) on the lake, everything else is endless prairie.  LA has the Pacific on the west, and some mountains (which its grown OVER) and nothing much between it and Vegas.  Point being - a lot of cities have less geographic constraints than what we perceive, most can grow in at least 2 directions as much as they can.  Atlanta and Dallas have virtually no real geological/geographic boundaries.  NYC, Seattle and San Francisco (but NOT all of the Bay Area) have land issues that have forced them to be more creative in how they grow.

[IronTiger]

I agree that commuter rail won't work.

 

For one thing, many of the commuter rail systems were built on top of existing rail corridors, and the rail corridors that do remain are not particularly conducive to commuter rail traffic.

 

For example, the railroad paralleling Northwest Freeway has the greatest potential, but it doesn't even directly connect to the main rail line (a spur would have to be built at the very minimum), and the number of stops would require additional transit centers up and down the Hempstead Road/Hempstead Highway corridor. If you were going to downtown, you would still have to let the train back into the Northwest Transit Center.

 

 

For Westpark, METRO actually did own the ROW and could do with it what it pleased (commuter rail?) but it ended up selling the line to HCTRA and still has the other half of the ROW to work with. If the light rail was to go out to the Hillcroft Transit Center, this would be the best place to have "commuter style" light rail running all the way out to Katy area.

 

The Katy ROW, just a few miles up was never owned by METRO and METRO had very little say in the Interstate 10 project (as it didn't contribute much in the way of money) but they demanded that there be a potential for rail down HCTRA's tollways, and METRO contributed some more money to that--they weren't snookered into donating it.

 

The railroad that parallels Hardy Toll Road would be a good alternative--there is enough ROW to, in theory, add stations up and down it to Conroe, but some logistical problems, like getting the Montgomery Co. residents to sign onto METRO and getting UP to borrow the line at certain times would be difficult. You also run into the problem of those rails not actually interfacing with downtown.

 

The railroad that goes near Sugar Land is also saddled with other problems like some out-of-the-way routes, some sharp curves (hello Griggs and Mykawa!) and it doesn't interface with downtown either.

[HoustonIsHome]

My definition of rail is rail in the broadest sense. Any rail.

And even thought people prefer rail over bus, if the price is not right their asses will be planted in their cars to work.

Again you are operating under the assumption that I am against rail. I won't mind if I'm the only one riding it.

As for the natural boundaries comment. The bay has done nothing to curb sprawl. You mention Denver, Chicago and Las Vegas, last I checked all three are sprawling. And that is not my point. DFW and ATL are sprawling too but neither has the uniform density that Houston has. If you read my post in whole instead of picking out parts to disagree with you will see that the important part of what I said is that HOUSTON IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION FOR COMMUTER RAIL BECAUSE IT HAS NO DENSE POCKETS TO COMMUTE FROM. INSTEAD IT HAS UNIFORM DENSITY FROM THE CORE TO GOD KNOWS HOW FAR.

Where do the stops go if you have no drops and rises in density. And if the ridership on the park and ride isn't busting at the seems, what justifies an upgrade to rail of any sort.

Are we going to have a system like Dallas where we increase the local route prices to subsidize the commuter routes. Are the commuter routes going to be $15 bucks per day plus parking.

HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN HIS LOVELY IT WOULD BE TO HAVE COMMUTER RAIL?

[HoustonIsHome]

IronTiger, on top of all those problems you listed we would still have to consider funneling people to the system.

[arche_757]

My definition of rail is rail in the broadest sense. Any rail.

And even thought people prefer rail over bus, if the price is not right their asses will be planted in their cars to work.

Again you are operating under the assumption that I am against rail. I won't mind if I'm the only one riding it.

As for the natural boundaries comment. The bay has done nothing to curb sprawl. You mention Denver, Chicago and Las Vegas, last I checked all three are sprawling. And that is not my point. DFW and ATL are sprawling too but neither has the uniform density that Houston has. If you read my post in whole instead of picking out parts to disagree with you will see that the important part of what I said is that HOUSTON IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION FOR COMMUTER RAIL BECAUSE IT HAS NO DENSE POCKETS TO COMMUTE FROM. INSTEAD IT HAS UNIFORM DENSITY FROM THE CORE TO GOD KNOWS HOW FAR.

Where do the stops go if you have no drops and rises in density. And if the ridership on the park and ride isn't busting at the seems, what justifies an upgrade to rail of any sort.

Are we going to have a system like Dallas where we increase the local route prices to subsidize the commuter routes. Are the commuter routes going to be $15 bucks per day plus parking.

HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN HIS LOVELY IT WOULD BE TO HAVE COMMUTER RAIL?

 

I gave LA as an example - not Vegas.  Don't get angry!  Don't yell - use big words to convey a point but not a whole sentence.  And why would we want asses in the seats?  We want people in the seats not donkeys!

 

Obviously Light Rail here has failed (that's a pretty clear statement you made - did I miss the point?).

 

You ignored my MARTA start-up question.  Clearly there are dense pockets in ATL now, but when Marta started how many pockets were there?  Houston suburbs will be prime areas for transit orriented developement.  A commuter rail line to Cypress needn't have 30 stops, more like 5-7 so how hard would it be to restructure transit to feed into that line?  Probably so hard we should just turn transit development over to NASA.  Would it be impossible to have a rail station in/around the current park and ride stations?

 

I think of a lot of things everyday - I seem to have trouble grasping how hard it would be for a metro area of 6.2+ million to have rail transit?  That's one of the things I fail to see.  I'll ask this:   How many of DC's METRO riders actually walk to the stations versus driving or taking a bus or carpool?  Speaking about the "suburban" stations.  Because if transit only survived off of commuters who walked to the stations then it would fail in 95% of the cities that currently have it.  NYC and maybe Inner Chicago would thrive, everything else... fail.

 

Part of my job is to be creative and imagine possibilities... transit isn't about getting riders on it today but building so that when tomorrow comes riders/commuters have other options.  A heavy rail/commuter rail system in Houston might take a decade to reach full ridership.  It might?  I'll bet if gas hits $5 a gallon and people have a chance to use it rather than spend $150 dollars per fill-up on the vehicles they will gladly use it.

 

Look, if you really love rail you would be clamoring to have it here even if you and I were the only people to ride it and we held each others hands in jubilation every day.  How many of Metro's Red Line South riders use the park and ride lot?  I did.  It was almost always full when I had the ability to use transit to get to/from work.

 

[HoustonIsHome]

I gave LA as an example - not Vegas. Don't get angry! Don't yell - use big words to convey a point but not a whole sentence. And why would we want asses in the seats? We want people in the seats not donkeys!

Obviously Light Rail here has failed (that's a pretty clear statement you made - did I miss the point?).

You ignored my MARTA start-up question. Clearly there are dense pockets in ATL now, but when Marta started how many pockets were there? Houston suburbs will be prime areas for transit orriented developement. A commuter rail line to Cypress needn't have 30 stops, more like 5-7 so how hard would it be to restructure transit to feed into that line? Probably so hard we should just turn transit development over to NASA. Would it be impossible to have a rail station in/around the current park and ride stations?

I think of a lot of things everyday - I seem to have trouble grasping how hard it would be for a metro area of 6.2+ million to have rail transit? That's one of the things I fail to see. I'll ask this: How many of DC's METRO riders actually walk to the stations versus driving or taking a bus or carpool? Speaking about the "suburban" stations. Because if transit only survived off of commuters who walked to the stations then it would fail in 95% of the cities that currently have it. NYC and maybe Inner Chicago would thrive, everything else... fail.

Part of my job is to be creative and imagine possibilities... transit isn't about getting riders on it today but building so that when tomorrow comes riders/commuters have other options. A heavy rail/commuter rail system in Houston might take a decade to reach full ridership. It might? I'll bet if gas hits $5 a gallon and people have a chance to use it rather than spend $150 dollars per fill-up on the vehicles they will gladly use it.

Look, if you really love rail you would be clamoring to have it here even if you and I were the only people to ride it and we held each others hands in jubilation every day. How many of Metro's Red Line South riders use the park and ride lot? I did. It was almost always full when I had the ability to use transit to get to/from work.

Ok where did I say light rail failed? I can see you are just thinking I am a rail hater so go back and read my comment. I said Commuter RAIL I do not see being successful.

I did but ignore MARTA. I told you ATL is built different. Both cities sprawl. ATL sprawls with major drop off in pockets. We sprawl with uniform growth from MonTrose to San Antonio. I never said we needed 30 stops to cypress. My question is the 5 stops you mentioned, where would they go? Would you just throw them up anywhere like Dallas?

The park and ride set up is set up for bus prices. You are running away from the fact that you can't expect a smooth tranfer of those existing customers if the price change is not the same. People paying $5 now might drive all the way if the price jumps to $10

You fail to see how a metro of 6M doesn't have an extensive system because you are assuming all metros are built the same. Fact of the matter is Houston is not built like metros with a successful transit system. Too much area to cover, not enough people per mile to support costs.

As for DC its not a matter of how many people walk versus taking a bus or driving to the stations, the question is what are the options. For Houston the easiest and cheapest option is driving all the way. Come on man, DC is one eighth the size of Houston. Its satellite employment centers are connected by drops in density. It is a perfect candidate for commuter rail.

Stop acting like I said that walking to the stations were the be all and end all of successful rail. The point I made was that around each station the development extended out a mile or two so that people COULD walk if they wanted to. But the point isnt walking the point is being close to a station.

Again in Houston there is no gap between development. The density is low, but it is consistent throughout.

[IronTiger]

One of the things that I think a lot of you are forgetting is that the place where commuter rail is most successful (regular gauge, not DC METRO/MARTA subways) is the Northeast (not California), where there are several cities clustered together.

 

In 200 miles in the Northeast, you'll find Washington DC and its suburbs, Philadelphia and its suburbs, and New York City and its suburbs. That's millions and millions of people. Surprise surprise, that's one of the densest parts of the United States.

 

Even LA, who some are hailing as some sort of leader, their sprawl is more conducive to commuter rail. 

 

From LA's downtown to Covina is solid sprawl, about 50 miles worth east. About 40 miles southeast to Irvine, 12 miles southwest to the Pacific, 30 miles to Santa Clarita, and nothing to the northeast--that's all mountains and very little development. In Houston, the "suburbs", like Texas City, The Woodlands, Katy, and Baytown--are 30 miles out from Houston but spread in every direction, meaning more lines total, and less ridership for each line. The way that the city sprawls is completely different, which is why the "but LA has similar density! we need to do it JUST LIKE THEM" argument is totally bunk.

[arche_757]

Ok where did I say light rail failed? I can see you are just thinking I am a rail hater so go back and read my comment. I said Commuter RAIL I do not see being successful.

...My question is the 5 stops you mentioned, where would they go? Would you just throw them up anywhere like Dallas?

As for DC its not a matter of how many people walk versus taking a bus or driving to the stations, the question is what are the options. For Houston the easiest and cheapest option is driving all the way. Come on man, DC is one eighth the size of Houston. Its satellite employment centers are connected by drops in density. It is a perfect candidate for commuter rail.

Stop acting like I said that walking to the stations were the be all and end all of successful rail. The point I made was that around each station the development extended out a mile or two so that people COULD walk if they wanted to. But the point isnt walking the point is being close to a station....

1) You did just type "rail" so I thought you meant that in a blanket sense.

2) I've not looked at a map of 290 and the feeders so I can't say right now - but I never said you said we would need 30 stops.  Just generalizing on that statement.

3) That is true about DC's burbs.  DC metropolitan area is quite large though... spread out, and there are rail lines running all the way to West Virginia and central Maryland that bring in commuters to DC daily.

4) But then what is the point of the density adjacent to a commuter rail station if its not for walkers/bikers?  Provide parking areas and people can drive there too.

 

..The way that the city sprawls is completely different, which is why the "but LA has similar density! we need to do it JUST LIKE THEM" argument is totally bunk.

 

Actually Los Angeles the city is quite dense.  Much denser than Houston.  Of course it wasn't always that way - it grew into it a bit over the past century.  Houston will continue to infill and then the need for additional transit options will be there.

[Slick Vik]

Ok where did I say light rail failed? I can see you are just thinking I am a rail hater so go back and read my comment. I said Commuter RAIL I do not see being successful.

I did but ignore MARTA. I told you ATL is built different. Both cities sprawl. ATL sprawls with major drop off in pockets. We sprawl with uniform growth from MonTrose to San Antonio. I never said we needed 30 stops to cypress. My question is the 5 stops you mentioned, where would they go? Would you just throw them up anywhere like Dallas?

The park and ride set up is set up for bus prices. You are running away from the fact that you can't expect a smooth tranfer of those existing customers if the price change is not the same. People paying $5 now might drive all the way if the price jumps to $10

You fail to see how a metro of 6M doesn't have an extensive system because you are assuming all metros are built the same. Fact of the matter is Houston is not built like metros with a successful transit system. Too much area to cover, not enough people per mile to support costs.

As for DC its not a matter of how many people walk versus taking a bus or driving to the stations, the question is what are the options. For Houston the easiest and cheapest option is driving all the way. Come on man, DC is one eighth the size of Houston. Its satellite employment centers are connected by drops in density. It is a perfect candidate for commuter rail.

Stop acting like I said that walking to the stations were the be all and end all of successful rail. The point I made was that around each station the development extended out a mile or two so that people COULD walk if they wanted to. But the point isnt walking the point is being close to a station.

Again in Houston there is no gap between development. The density is low, but it is consistent throughout.

Have you been to gulfton? The area by 59 between 610 and beltway 8 is the densest part of the city.

Also the rails have to go down corridors people already travel, like westheimer and bellaire.

The reason I said why I think commuter rail will work is if light rail is in the city then when people take commuter rail then they will have a way around once they get into the city. Otherwise it's another DART.