JSB

How are you going to deal with the fact that even if rail takes you to a part of town where you want to go, the residences and businesses are very spread out once you get there?

I don't think the transportation infrastructure in D.C. is nearly as convenient as in Houston despite Washington having more options. I think it's false to assume that more options is necessarily superior. What problem? How are you going to impose rail on a city where residences and businesses are generally built at driving rather than walking scale? I've not seen anybody provide an adequate answer to this question.

Taking rail to get around Charlotte would be as inconvenient as taking rail to get around Houston. Most of Charlotte is, like Houston, already built at driving rather than walking scale. That's what I don't get. If you're talking about rail to encourage pedestrian-oriented communities, then you're not only talking about the cost of building rail, you're also talking about the cost of having to rebuild the parts of the city along the rail line, because right now the distances are based on the assumption that people are driving, not walking.

It sounds like you've voted with your feet and are happy with your decision to move to Boston. To each his own. That said, your description is pretty selective. Would you necessarily have to have a house bigger than you need in Houston, with higher utilities and the need for more furniture? And is there no inconvenience associated with not having a car there? You might not need one, but plenty of people apparently do, but find it terrible to drive and park there. And were you really always on the freeways in Houston? Could you have lived closer into the city for a price comparable to what you pay in Boston? Most importantly, do you think rail would somehow make significant parts of Houston like Boston, with the same level of density that makes walking and riding the T convenient? That's the real issue here. Even if you prefer living in a place like central Boston, D.C. or New York, is spending billions of dollars to lay rail in inner-Loop Houston going to simulate that experience? I'd far rather walk around Back Bay, Dupont Circle or Greenwich Village than drive there, but that doesn't mean that putting rail on Richmond is going to make it the same.

Why can't they walk to the bus stop? Or to their cars? I don't see why rail is a prerequisite to pedestrian-oriented communities if the demand to live there exists.

By the way, and this is off-topic, could someone please tell me how to change my location so that it doesn't alternate among "McKee Street Bridge," "Eleanor Tinsley Park" and "Smith Street?" Or am I locked into whatever location is automatically assigned?

Isn't walking the best form of transportation for pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods? And can't their feet take them to bus stops as easily as rail stations?

I agree with you here. I've made no argument against building areas where there is high-density housing, shopping, restaurants, etc., and people can walk from place to place. People can do that already, and have done it in some limited places. I'm not convinced that spending billions of dollars on rail to encourage that process is justifiable. If you're talking about building those kinds of communities without a massive public investment, that's fine. Then why the need for rail in places not particularly suited to rail?

If they can think for themselves, then why do we need to build a shiny new toy train to convince them of the benefits?

How can you draw this conclusion without considering whether the density required to provide for what you're advocating will drive away customers who need to use their cars to patronize that business? As currently built, the businesses in the densest parts of the city, other than downtown and parts of Midtown, would not be very effective for drawing pedestrians. I'm talking about along Richmond, Westheimer, Montrose, Kirby, Shepherd and Alabama inside the Loop. Although those areas are much denser than the suburbs, they are built with cars in mind. The city blocks are long. The stores are set back from the streets to provide for parking. Even if the city were to engage in a massive building project to install a dense rail network along all those streets, it would still be a tall order to expect most people to walk from store to store and from stop to stop. Compare those areas to where the rail runs most extensively in New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, London, etc., and it's not even close in density. So the idea that if we build rail (at a cost of billions of dollars), they will come just doesn't seem valid. Are you expecting that wherever the rail runs, the existing businesses, set back to provide parking, and separated because the space was there, would be torn down, and miles of contiguous storefront, with parking confined to the back (or not at all), would spring up? That sounds like rebuilding those parts of the city from scratch. How in the world is that remotely economical?

But it sounds like the only way to form pedestrian-oriented communities is to spend billions of dollars on rail. Why can't people form their pedestrian-oriented communities around where they live to walk in, and then get in their cars and drive when necessary? Why is it necessary to spend billions of dollars to provide them with something they could have without that kind of investment?

More efficient in what way? What's the difference in cost per mile, both capital and operating cost? Bus routes can be added, subtracted, modified, stops put in different places. Rail routes are fixed. Why wouldn't an extensive bus system, with lots of stops and regular service, not have the same effect as rail if so many people really enjoyed a pedestrian-oriented lifestyle?

I don't think it's absurd at all. Wasn't the introduction of air conditioning a factor in facilitating the growth of many of the cities in the South, and perhaps most of all Houston? I'm not saying nobody is going to walk outside when it's hot, but given the choice between walking and driving during much of the summer, I believe the weather would be a significant deciding factor for a number of people.

And how do those numbers work out per capita for the cost of rail that is supposedly necessary to draw people to and accommodate people in pedestrian-oriented environments?

How would you expose them to it? Would you expose them to the inconveniences as well? How about in a place like Houston, where the infrastructure is already largely built at driving scale, as opposed to walking scale?

Who says that nobody wants to live in pedestrian-oriented environments? But the claim that lots and lots of people want to live in pedestrian-oriented environments and that the entire inner Loop is pedestrian-oriented does not strike me as accurate. If anything, much of the inner Loop, with the exceptions of downtown and parts of Midtown, are more akin to the medium-density parts of Northwest Washington -- where the subway stops are not all that close and cars are pretty much a necessity -- than to the thick urban density of Manhattan, downtown Washington or Boston or central London. Even with extensive investment in rail, people living in pedestrian-oriented enviromments would still find it necessary to use their cars from time to time. And if these people are so gung ho about it, why are they avoiding the fairly extensive bus system already in place?

If congestion into downtown becomes so bad, then why would businesses move there rather than into the edge cities? I think the trend is that Houston will become more populated more quickly than it becomes more dense. While density in some areas will increase, more and more people will locate in the suburbs. The city is built on a flat coastal plain, which means that building out will virtually always be cheaper than building more densely in the more central areas. People may choose to live closer to where they work, but that won't necessarily be downtown or even near downtown.

In New York, Chicago, London, Boston, D.C., etc., they do it because they have to, not necessarily because they want to. Yes, it's something they're willing to deal with, especially since driving and parking in those cities is miserable at times. That doesn't mean converting Houston into that is desirable. And part of your question is answered by the fact that Houston chose to build the tunnels in the first place, just as Minneapolis chose to build the skyways.

But lots of people don't like it, so they move to other cities, such as Houston. The problem is spending billions of dollars to make inner-Loop Houston more like that, which affects not only the people who want to live there that way, but the people who right now can get there in their cars and don't live within walking distance or rail access. As for what the businesses prefer, presumably there is an economic point (which is not necessarily easily discernible) between whether a pedestrian-oriented business or a car-oriented business is more lucrative. You seem to be overlooking the cost of business that is lost on drivers who will go elsewhere to avoid the congestion when speculating on the benefit of business from pedestrians who like to walk to their local coffee shop, restaurant, pub or boutique. I agree that it works in some areas. I don't think it's desirable all over the inner Loop.

Good point. I shouldn't be so categorical that nobody wants to live there. Some people do, and they're willing to pay the price.

Try living in the center of a dense Northeastern city and doing your shopping at a downtown Macy's. It's fine for going in, trying things on and carrying a few items home, but if you buy anything more than what you can easily carry, you get to face the following after making your transaction at Macy's: 1. Walk to the subway. Which may be a block or two away, or not, depending on how close Macy's is to the station. 2. Wait for the subway. Which may come frequently, or not, depending on the time of day. 3. Ride the subway. Which may be packed, or not, depending on the time of day. 4. Walk back to your apartment, condo or townhome. Which may be a block or two away, or not, depending on how much you were willing to spend to live near the station. 5. Get your car. Assuming it was worth having one, given the traffic, and whether you have the option and can afford to buy parking or there is street parking near where you live. Otherwise, you can wait for a friend or relative to give you a ride. 6. Negotiate the congestion back to Macy's. Which may be awful, or not, depending on the time of day. 7. Figure out where to park near Macy's. Which may be a block or two away, or not. 8. Haul your stuff from Macy's to your car. 9. Negotiate the congestion back to your apartment, condo or townhome. 10. Find parking. 11. Haul your stuff from your car to your apartment, condo or townhome. Add beating sun, snow or rain to taste. Making a run to Ikea is even more fun. It's usually an all-day affair, driving far, far, far out of town, which is the only place where Ikea could affordably locate. Fighting your way out, fighting your way back in, finding a loading dock to park to bring stuff up, getting into an argument with the building manager because you're using the loading dock when someone else has signed up for it exclusively to move that day, etc., etc., etc. I'd just as soon go to the Macy's at Memorial City on the day after Thanksgiving to similate something similar in convenience and efficiency.

But do lots of Houstonians really want to live in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods where (1) rents and mortgages are higher due to dense clusters around rail stops, (2) parking is scarce and expensive and (3) congestion is much greater? Under this scenario, public transportation only becomes more efficient by making driving less efficient. In other words, you're not necessarily making things more efficient overall, you're just making the current mode of transportation less attractive, thereby making the alternative more attractive. It makes little sense in a city (1) where the temperature is above comfortable levels for walking much of the year, (2) where most residences, workplaces and retail establishments are already significantly built up at driving rather than walking scale, (3) where land is relatively affordable and (4) where the road system is extensive to try to recreate the kind of high prices, congestion, parking scarcity and general inconvenience of city centers on the East Coast. Have you ever walked to work in heavy rain or snow? Hauled bags of groceries several blocks? Crowded onto a train to get to work? Tried to figure out how to get there when the train is out of service? Spent more on a one-bedroom condo than a single-family home costs in the suburbs? The most established place in the city for living like this, downtown, is connected by a series of tunnels, because most people find it too uncomfortable much of the year to walk outside even if just to get lunch or a cup of coffee while working. That makes a pretty strong statement about the mass appeal about living that way all the time. And all of this without considering the billions of dollars that rail costs.

What about the hundreds of thousands of Houstonians who don't live inside the Loop but who eat and shop there regularly? The density that would tend to build up along rail routes would presumably make it difficult and expensive to park. Would inner-Loop businesses want to forego outer-Loop customers who drive for the chance to attract inner-Loop customers who do not? Moreover, is it realistic to expect that large swathes inside the Loop can be interconnected with rail densely enough to make commuting and shopping by rail workable? Even along Richmond inside the Loop most businesses are far enough apart that a lot of walking would be involved. And this is without considering whether the cost of rail is worth trying to create a kind of culture that does not significantly exist in Houston. It seems that that's a large part of what matters. Imposing rail on the city does not strike me as a market-oriented approach.

As noted above, it seems that retailers would value these customers depending on how many of them are and how much they spend. I cannot imagine retailers would not welcome and try to accommodate customers who represented a decent size of their market. That said, doing grocery shopping as a pedestrian or by public transportation is generally inconvenient, at least in my experience, so I'm not sure how big those numbers are or would be.

I do see how it doesn't put a dent in vehicular traffic if (1) the numbers of rail users, even if in record numbers, don't take more than a tiny percentage of private cars off the road or (2) most of those riders are people who would've taken the bus and thus not been in private cars anyway. In other words, just because lots of people ride the light rail does not mean that private vehicular traffic has decreased significantly, nor does it mean that the costs outweigh the benefits. Nor do I see how approval ends the argument over whether light rail is worth the cost.