Some one

The people who bend over backward for any road projects are the same people who will scream and cry foul if Metro wants to build one mile of light rail.

There's a boost corridor being planned that runs down Broadway. Honestly the good thing about the realignment is that not only is it cheaper, but it also goes through Gulfgate , which could bring in more riders.

Not everyone wants to sit in bumper to bumper traffic for 1 hour just to go 5 miles.

I think they're most likely going to change the alignment of the extensions if they go through with just one. I think they should go with what Ramabhadran said and have the two lines meet up earlier to form one line. Hopefully they use the money from that to fund the other lines. (and judging by the comments they got, I think it's possible, they are considering it after all). (https://ridemetro.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1780&meta_id=41291 if you're interested in seeing the presentation) I think it would be a better idea to extend the red line to Pearland, since it would connect the TMC to Pearland (and Pearland really wants to have transit connection to the TMC). I do agree with you on a potential Green Line though.

I doubt Southwest will fly there, given their record of airports like these. I think smaller airlines, and maybe Allegiant, will fly there instead.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Richmond-rail-ban-removed-from-federal-spending-13620859.php?utm_campaign=CMS Sharing Tools (Premium)&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=referral

It's privately funded https://www.texascentral.com/facts/

A light rail/commuter rail project is WAAAAAY different from the $77 billion fiasco that was the California high speed rail

Dart is a good example of how NOT to build a rail system. They built it on a bunch of old right of way and now they have to deal with problems like gaps on the north and east side, stops avoiding neighborhoods and major activity centers, and the 4 lines going through downtown together. It’s kinda sad when the metrorail has about 10 million less riders than dart does (and dart is the biggest light rail system in the us by miles).

I think it’s possible. The guy who’s long opposed them is gone and has been replaced by someone who’s willing to help metro. There’s also been a huge increase in support in rail. The only concern is cost, but if the infrastructure bill does pass, metro could take advantage of that. Building rail to the suburbs may be harder, but this is being planned in conjunction with HGAC’s high capacity transit task force (http://www.h-gac.com/taq/transportation-committees/HCT/default.aspx). Take it with a grain of salt though, as barely any transit project included in HGAC’s regional transportation plan has been built.

Trains (and public transportation in general) should NEVER be proposed as a way to solve traffic congestion. No matter what we do, there’ll always be traffic. Even cities with the best public transportation still have terrible traffic. Instead, it should be proposed as an alternative to traffic.

An aging transportaton system that's way different from ours is breaking down due to a lack of fundings? Color me shocked.

I think most of them will be more like the 290 hov lanes. Honestly my preferred vision (which is like yours) would be that you can take the park and ride and commuter rail from the surburbs to the city and from there take the light rail and buses around the city.

Not that I disagree with you, but I think buses (and eventually self-driving buses) work best as feeder for rail.

Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?

Air India, Philippine Airlines and Ethiopian Airlines have expressed interests in flying to IAH. Problem is, they've said that a while back and we haven't gotten any news of it since then.

LA Metro's recent line, the Expo Line, garners a daily boarding of about 61,957 riders. I'd say that's a pretty good thing. Heck there's even people who wish that the expo line is a subway. LA Metro light rail is also the most used light rail system in the United States by ridership (67,921,600 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership). As for the declining numbers, like someone else said, when gas prices are at an all times low, it's no wonder that more people are buying cars. Will it last forever? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Who knows? These articles on LA acknowledges the problem with light rail and what we can do to fix it. https://www.citymetric.com/transport/los-angeles-metro-great-so-why-aren-t-people-using-it-2742 https://www.planetizen.com/node/86714/light-rail-successes-draw-attention-la-metros-rail-problems If Houston wants to build more light rail and not end up like Dallas or Los Angeles, then we're gonna have to start densifying our neighborhoods and build light rail in places where it actually makes sense (and not on old right of ways). Also, METRO is going to have to find a way to speed up transit time and solve the first/last mile issues.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that we should have rail to please the "train worshipers" (heck, I agree that they should relocate the current extension to hobby airport because they are better served by the future boost corridors). I'm saying that the BRT extensions being proposed cannot handle the ridership numbers for corridors like the University Line. Considering the fact that the University Line plans on going through dense areas and major business districts like Westchase, Uptown, and Midtown, I think it's better off as light rail. Also as for the "other cities", that's just an article on Phoenix. If other cities are saying "enough" with light rail then why did cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles approve for a referendum to build more light rail (and other forms of transit)? And yes, there were huge voter support for it and here's proof. https://la.curbed.com/2016/6/2/11845368/metro-measure-r-data-ridership-transit https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_County_Sales_Tax,_Measure_R_(November_2008) http://www.atlantaloop.com/699-2/ As for Phoenix, a transit prop was passed with a vote of 55% yes and 45% no (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/08/25/phoenix-elections-transit-results-prop104/32283455/). As for the anti-rail protesters, this article shows that the anti-rail group are being backed by the Koch Brothers, a company well-known for attempting to kill transit projects https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/09/25/the-koch-brothers-are-behind-a-phony-grassroots-effort-to-kill-hight-rail-in-phoenix/ But, at the end of they day I will admit that there are many problems with public transportation and rail in general. This articles gives a good example on the problem with transit and how we can improve it https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/public-transportation-problems-sustainable-mobility-data/580684/ Sorry it took so long to respond.

No offense, but what you're saying makes no sense. So we should stop building rail, why? Because auto sales are going up? So? Even if there are some people who only ride transit until they can get a car, there's still a lot of people who choose transit simply because they don't want to drive. Heck, there are some people who only drive because they have no other choice. Maybe we shouldn't build rail in the suburbs/areas with less ridership potential, but the ridership numbers for corridors like the University BRT shows that there is demand for rail. Plus I'm getting sick of the whole rail vs brt thing and the mentality that we have to build one or the other. Newsflash, we can build both. Build LRT for the dense areas and BRT for the suburbs, heck we can even include commuter rail if there's enough support for it. Same thing for highways and public transportation, they should compliment each other instead of us generally sticking with the former. We've been doing that for a while and look where that's gotten us now. I agree. It's already bad enough that we're a few years behind when it comes to public transportation.

Honestly, this feels more like a plan to appeal to the John Culberson/anti-rail type of people. The plan ignores the potential to add rail on the west side of Houston (arguably the densest parts of Houston), and the light rail extensions being proposed have very little ridership (not to mention very little light rail extension to begin with). It kinda bugs me that Metro is banking on the idea of autonomous vehicles and how they believe it's the "future" when they're forgetting about autonomous trains. I agree with others that we need to build rail to the suburbs (whether it's light rail, commuter rail, or a hybrid). Hopefully the red line extension to Sugarland (or if GCRD can get fundings to build a commuter rail line) can kickstart that.

I think that buses can work as a feeder to rail and/or for less dense areas. But solely relying on buses just screams disaster to me.