METRORail Construction Resumes

[ricco67]

While I wouldn't mind changing the construction schedule to coincide with the deliveries of the new vehicles, I think the construction construction pace along areas where businesses and residences are impacted should proceed on schedule.

There are various areas along the route that can be "delayed" that won't have an impact on people.

[mfastx]

I don't think that the service areas have very much to do with anything; you are the one who brought them up. Fact is, the vast majority of METRO's operations are contained within an area about the size of MARTA's service area, yet METRO performs better.

I agree that METRO has a much better P&R system from the 'burbs than MARTA (hence the larger service area), but MARTA does better than METRO in terms of inner-city transit. I don't have any stats on this, but I would think that METRO gets a large percentage of its ridership from the P&R routes. MARTA doesn't really have those, otherwise they would have higher ridership. MARTA has tried to expand it's service to the 'burbs, but residents have voted against that. What I'm saying is that rail is better suited for inner-city transit than buses. For example, isn't it safe to say that if METRO had a heavy rail system, their ridership would be higher than it is now?

[citykid09]

I agree that METRO has a much better P&R system from the 'burbs than MARTA (hence the larger service area), but MARTA does better than METRO in terms of inner-city transit. I don't have any stats on this, but I would think that METRO gets a large percentage of its ridership from the P&R routes. MARTA doesn't really have those, otherwise they would have higher ridership. MARTA has tried to expand it's service to the 'burbs, but residents have voted against that. What I'm saying is that rail is better suited for inner-city transit than buses. For example, isn't it safe to say that if METRO had a heavy rail system, their ridership would be higher than it is now?

I think it would have higher ridership if it had heavy rail. I also think the city would have developed more densely as well. I believe that if the city had a core north south line and east west line that all of the development out in the energy corridor and far out places would be clustered near rail stops in Greenway Plaza/Midtown/Medical Center/Uptown/Downtown, etc. I think we would also see a lot more mixed use developments clustered around stops and a lot more people who walk and don't own cars.

[ricco67]

Just for grins, here is an article written on the chron about why we should love light rail and screw the suburbanites and their whining about it.

[totheskies]

So much going on in this thread!!

I'll just say this... BRT is a great solution, but it's an intermediate step. But I think it would work much better for the East End and Southeast Lines b/c those areas are far lower density than the other three lines to begin with. Most of the people that will be riding those lines were/are already riding the existing bus routes that parallel them. Simple fact. BRT would be a good solution in these two lines b/c we can always upgrade it to rail later.

The University, North and Uptown Lines should be kept and built as rail. For the North Line, the population density is higher than East and Southeast so they will have a higher ridership and can make better use of the rail format.

For University and Uptown, these lines must be rail b/c of the riders they're trying to attact. You avg. upper anxious classman (Anxious class is the new Middle Class btw) just doesn't ride brown. They need a new toy to try out. As stupid as it sounds, every time I ride the rail line, I see a young couple with one or two kids that are riding the train just for entertainment. They say "we always come ride the choo choo on Sundays" or something like that. Otherwise they wouldn't even care. To a majority of Houstonians, that's what METRO is to them... a mode of entertainment, or something that poor people use b/c they don't have a car. Rail's purpose (sad though it may be) is also to educate the public that it is in fact possible to travel to various destination in Houston without a car. And busses? Oh, puh-lease!! I get awkward looks everyday at Texas Southern University as I step off of the 68 and go to teach my classes. The students and faculty don't think it becoming for a teacher to be riding the bus.

[urbancowboy]

I tend to agree that the system needs more grade separation. I have difficulty calling the current system rapid transit since it does stop at traffic lights. Hopefully with the restructuring of the bus system for the rail will include increased frequencies and a few 24 hour trunk lines.

[IHB2]

Just for grins, here is an article written on the chron about why we should love light rail and screw the suburbanites and their whining about it.

hard to argue with Crossley b/c he's talking ideal case, which is exactly what every public agency should strive for. instead the public policy debate in Houston is now filtered through $300 million of our dollars spent over 7 years, construction halted, federal law violated, agency finances radically over-leveraged, a 30% 2011 budget reduction, and going backwards on some parts of the design and procurement processes. and some rail routes moved from optimum alignment b/c of inner loop politics, NOT b/c of "whining" suburbanites.

you think taxpayers should just step back now and let METRO proceed asap? Crossley does.

I think there are more rocks to turn over before we know the extent of METRO's screwup of the Solutions program, more heads need to roll.

[TheNiche]

What I'm saying is that rail is better suited for inner-city transit than buses. For example, isn't it safe to say that if METRO had a heavy rail system, their ridership would be higher than it is now?

LRT or BRT is better suited for inner-city rapid transit than heavy rail and BRT w/P&R is better suited for commuter rapid transit than heavy rail. Heavy rail is an obsolete cost-ineffective technology in most every circumstance.

But of course, if you're just throwing imaginary money at the problem...then yeah, sure. Build it, don't replace other components of the system, and some people will ride it.

[editor]

LRT or BRT is better suited for inner-city rapid transit than heavy rail and BRT w/P&R is better suited for commuter rapid transit than heavy rail. Heavy rail is an obsolete cost-ineffective technology in most every circumstance.

But of course, if you're just throwing imaginary money at the problem...then yeah, sure. Build it, don't replace other components of the system, and some people will ride it.

BRT blows compared to LRT. I'm speaking as someone living in a city with BRT, who rides both BRT and LRT. I doubt any significant portion of the LRT detractors on HAIF have ever ridden BRT. Everything they know is from what they've read from other BRT detractors who also have never ridden it.

[ricco67]

Heavy rail is an obsolete cost-ineffective technology in most every circumstance.

But of course, if you're just throwing imaginary money at the problem...then yeah, sure. Build it, don't replace other components of the system, and some people will ride it.

I'm curious as to what you would recommend in that case. While the current P&R system is quite adequate, I always figured HR would be a bit of an "upgrade" for those that live a bit further out.

[mfastx]

But of course, if you're just throwing imaginary money at the problem...then yeah, sure. Build it, don't replace other components of the system, and some people will ride it.

I realize that heavy rail is expensive, but it's not imaginary money, it's the billions METRO has lost since 25% of their sales tax was diverted to roads. We had a heavy rail plan, it was just voted down. But light rail will have to do for now.

Look, I know you don't want to admit it, but rail systems in general have more ridership than buses, and I know that you know that. That's what I want: a system that people will actually ride, because of it's reliability, speed and high capacity. I know you think my opinions might be stupid, or uninformed, but I have been to other cities and have seen the benefits of rail.

I am not going to change my mind, and apparently neither are you, so I will try not to reply to your posts any longer, it is apparently a wasted effort. You still have yet to name a city that manages to have a high transit ridership without a rail system. I doubt that's a coincidence. You're right: rail costs more, and at first, it is financially inefficient. But rail's efficiency will improve over time, as the city's population grows around it. We've all heard the saying "you get what you pay for."

Basically what it boils down to for me is quality, speed, reliability. And in my own experience, rail has been a more reliable form of transit, and that's why I want it here.

Go ahead and have the last word if you want it.

[TheNiche]

BRT blows compared to LRT. I'm speaking as someone living in a city with BRT, who rides both BRT and LRT. I doubt any significant portion of the LRT detractors on HAIF have ever ridden BRT. Everything they know is from what they've read from other BRT detractors who also have never ridden it.

LRT blows compared to maglev, but I don't think that maglev is cost effective for intra-regional rapid transit, either.

If the participants to this discussion cannot acknowledge that 1) METRO has budget constraints that will not be overcome without dramatic game-changing legislation at all levels of government, and 2) that entering Chapter 9 bankruptcy would be undesirable for METRO and the city as a whole...then this discussion isn't worth having.

EDIT: This subject matter brings to mind Christof Spieler's post from back in April 2006, titled very appropriately, "Show me the money". An excerpt: "So it seems to me you have two choices: either you think about how to work with the money we have, or you figure out where more money would come from. The former means compromise. The latter means changing our political culture."

[TheNiche]

I'm curious as to what you would recommend in that case. While the current P&R system is quite adequate, I always figured HR would be a bit of an "upgrade" for those that live a bit further out.

For commuter rapid transit, Park & Ride with coach-like buses is pretty hard to beat. They're inexpensive because the infrastructure already exists and already goes to where people work, in every direction (as opposed to old rail corridors, which cannot accommodate suburb-to-suburb trips). Inexpensiveness means that we can get more of them running sooner, also increasing the frequency of departures and the number of destinations served, which feeds back into ridership (on routes that are fairly lengthy), which dramatically increases the number of passenger miles of transit use. That's how you get people to trade their cars for transit.

True, buses aren't super-reliable. ...and for the majority of people, that's OK because buses aren't airplanes. Just because the engine dies, doesn't mean that anything or anyone else does.

Once people are in the city, Christof would argue that it is crucial that there be a way for people to circulate to their final destination. I completely agree. Park & Ride buses can do that, and with more destinations and greater frequency, they can do it in a manner that is far more convenient than light rail could ever hope to be, requiring no transfer, and being able to make many stops within an employment center like Downtown or Greenway Plaza instead of just a very few along one path.

That's my vision for commuter rapid transit... P&R: Bigger, Better, and Uncut!

As for those that use transit for more local trips, well, frankly, most of us aren't poor enough that we should be considered. More has to be spent to coerce the average person not living in poverty to ride transit than the person that lives in poverty, but regardless of what kind of person is on the road, they all contribute just the same to traffic congestion. So if METRO can get 1.5 poverty-stricken people out of their cars for the price of 1 person not in poverty, this is a better solution. It's also better for those of our population who have fewer options. Consequently, my proposal is simple and wonderfully unsexy. Improve the quality of bus service as it is experienced by the rider as well as by the traffic that has to interact with it. Better buses w/wifi, better bus stops, more pull-ins to keep buses from blocking up traffic, and of course, improved frequency and more routes.

There are some frustrations about buses that cannot be avoided. A driver that has to piss needs to go and piss. We can't be paying insurance premiums on a workforce of bus drivers with bladder infections! Likewise, no matter what we do with our transit, Westheimer inside the loop will always be uncomfortably narrow. You can't sweat the small stuff.

[citykid09]

I agree with you for the most part mfastx. I always think about all of these other world cities around the population of Houston and smaller that have heavy rail systems and wonder why Houston is probably one of the only cities (especially in developed nations) of its population without one. I believe you mentioned in your last post that heavy rail (not meaning commuter rail) will eventually happen in Houston, well I don't think it will at least not in our life time. Even if the government placed a ban on vehicles I don't think Houston will get heavy rail, its just too many people with power against it. I believe they would much rather see the city die off then to spend tax money on rail.

[IHB2]

I agree with you for the most part mfastx. I always think about all of these other world cities around the population of Houston and smaller that have heavy rail systems and wonder why Houston is probably one of the only cities (especially in developed nations) of its population without one. I believe you mentioned in your last post that heavy rail (not meaning commuter rail) will eventually happen in Houston, well I don't think it will at least not in our life time. Even if the government placed a ban on vehicles I don't think Houston will get heavy rail, its just too many people with power against it. I believe they would much rather see the city die off then to spend tax money on rail.

Houston only became a big city in terms of population recently (since the 1970s). you get it that Houston's geography has been and continues to be the primary driver of its economic development? and there is nothing about that development that would have favored the development of heavy rail transit.

no geographical limitations on expansion, no desirable geography period - mountains, lakes, oceans, etc = cheap land. cheap land = cheap commercial and residential property = cheap cost of doing business and living.

no history of zoning b/c available land not limited enough = not expensive enough to warrant regulation - a Walmart builds in your neighborhood and you don't like it, well there are 1000s of gated McMansions out on the fringes you can move to.

cheap land, no zoning = sprawl. fixed guideway transit suuuucks at serving sprawl so why would any of those powerful people past or present spend huge amounts of public $ on that when there were and are so many opportunity costs (like building and expanding a port) to doing so?

[C2H]

If the above post is true, why is it Dallas seems to get alot of Mass Transit and TODs? Dallas hasn't been a big city for that long either and they seem like they can have their acts together as far as mass transit and urban development.

[ricco67]

If the above post is true, why is it Dallas seems to get alot of Mass Transit and TODs? Dallas hasn't been a big city for that long either and they seem like they can have their acts together as far as mass transit and urban development.

Like Houston, Dallas didn't really start increasing in size until the 60's. I believe Houston and Dallas both grew for the same reason: Transportation.

While they benefited, indirectly, from Houston port, they are centrally located to be a hub for commerce coming from Houston and other destinations and has been so for the entire existence of the city.

Also, as it has been said on here time and time again, they didn't have to deal with a Tom Delay fighting them on rail. If it wasn't for Delay, odds are we would be just behind Dallas as far as rail lines go.

[citykid09]

Houston only became a big city in terms of population recently (since the 1970s). you get it that Houston's geography has been and continues to be the primary driver of its economic development? and there is nothing about that development that would have favored the development of heavy rail transit.

no geographical limitations on expansion, no desirable geography period - mountains, lakes, oceans, etc = cheap land. cheap land = cheap commercial and residential property = cheap cost of doing business and living.

no history of zoning b/c available land not limited enough = not expensive enough to warrant regulation - a Walmart builds in your neighborhood and you don't like it, well there are 1000s of gated McMansions out on the fringes you can move to.

cheap land, no zoning = sprawl. fixed guideway transit suuuucks at serving sprawl so why would any of those powerful people past or present spend huge amounts of public $ on that when there were and are so many opportunity costs (like building and expanding a port) to doing so?

You have some good points but flat land that does not limit development is no excuse for not having heavy rail in a city the size of Houston. Chicago is flat as well, but look how they developed. When you say there is no desirable geography in Houston I don't think that is completely true its the way that the city allows development to occur that makes it undesirable. Houston could be a very beautiful organized city if there was a plan. Ok, there are no mountains, well use the trees to make up for it. Imagine if trees lined the freeways and all of the inner city development was retained inside of 610 and all of the suburban development was retained inside of beltway 8 and all streets went in a grid, how nice would that be? Imagine walkable neighborhoods with trees that provide shade from Houston's hot and humid summers. Houston can only grow so far out until it gets to a point where the people will start to say its not worth it, there is no quality of life here because you have to drive over an hour to get to any destination. I would rather send more to live in a city with a quality transportation network than a cheaper city that is completely car dependent. Also I wanted to speak on how heavy rail and city cores bring people and cultures together like a melting pot. (had more to say but I erased it all). Basically wanted to say I guess Houston is just to conservative. You just don't see those free spirited people that you see in other cities. For instance I can go to another city and different races of people with dreadlocks in their hair and think nothing of it, but you just wouldn't see that in Houston. What I am trying to get at and what I think you all have been saying for years is: move to Houston if you want to work, have a big house and freewill to do or build anything you want anywhere but not much else. Move to cities like NYC, etc if you want culture, structure, workability, and rail transit?

[C2H]

Well Citykid, its starting to improve, so stop talking like its still 1999 when Houston hardly had any signs of urban development. Yes, the lack of urban feel and mass transit is frustrating. I used Dallas as an example because in reality, they're no better off than Houston as far as density, culture, structure, workability, and rail transit as you so put it but they can put a mass transit plan together with no problem. Their rail stations don't even go though many urban clusters like Houston and they have an extensive network. Hopefully this setback isn't for too long.

[citykid09]

Well Citykid, its starting to improve, so stop talking like its still 1999 when Houston hardly had any signs of urban development. Yes, the lack of urban feel and mass transit is frustrating. I used Dallas as an example because in reality, they're no better off than Houston as far as density, culture, structure, workability, and rail transit as you so put it but they can put a mass transit plan together with no problem. Their rail stations don't even go though many urban clusters like Houston and they have an extensive network. Hopefully this setback isn't for too long.

DART may not go through too many developed areas, but the stations they have built (many of them) have began to create new developments. For example Park Lane and Mockingbird Stations.

[713 To 214]

hard to argue with Crossley b/c he's talking ideal case, which is exactly what every public agency should strive for. instead the public policy debate in Houston is now filtered through $300 million of our dollars spent over 7 years, construction halted, federal law violated, agency finances radically over-leveraged, a 30% 2011 budget reduction, and going backwards on some parts of the design and procurement processes. and some rail routes moved from optimum alignment b/c of inner loop politics, NOT b/c of "whining" suburbanites.

you think taxpayers should just step back now and let METRO proceed asap? Crossley does.

I think there are more rocks to turn over before we know the extent of METRO's screwup of the Solutions program, more heads need to roll.

This is the most intelligent analysis I've read on METRO's current problem in a very long time.

METRo's flubs, unethical behavior and illegal operations over the last decade will have a lasting impact on the agency that many still can't comprehend. At this rate, voter confidence in METRO is sinking fast, and as a result rail expansion will probably fail if it has to go back to the voters. There are just too many issues to overcome now.

[713 To 214]

Well Citykid, its starting to improve, so stop talking like its still 1999 when Houston hardly had any signs of urban development. Yes, the lack of urban feel and mass transit is frustrating. I used Dallas as an example because in reality, they're no better off than Houston as far as density, culture, structure, workability, and rail transit as you so put it but they can put a mass transit plan together with no problem. Their rail stations don't even go though many urban clusters like Houston and they have an extensive network. Hopefully this setback isn't for too long.

Well, one of the main differences between DART and METRO is the structure of the agencies. METRO represents all of Harris County, and has a governing board that has to represent (e.g. battle with) the interests of people living as close in as DT and far out as the Woodlands. DART is comprised of 13 member agencies, and with the exception of University Park and Dallas, all of them are suburbs. That means that Dallas' (inner and outer) loop/suburbs have bought-in to the DART rail system a long time ago by voting to pledge $0.01 of their sales tax to fund DART. It doesn't hurt that when DART proposes a plan, they execute it on-time or ahead of schedule and under-budget. And with the exception of the budget shortfall fiasco a couple of years ago, DART stays out of controversy.

[KinkaidAlum]

BRT blows compared to LRT. I'm speaking as someone living in a city with BRT, who rides both BRT and LRT. I doubt any significant portion of the LRT detractors on HAIF have ever ridden BRT. Everything they know is from what they've read from other BRT detractors who also have never ridden it.

Totally agree with you. Boston has both and the LRT is > the BRT.

[KinkaidAlum]

I think that there is a key difference between most projects in west Houston and most projects along the Red Line in that most projects in west Houston have been speculative and could have been built anywhere in the region provided that there was investor interest, whereas most projects along the Red Line really couldn't have possibly been very far away from it, especially in the Texas Medical Center. Sure there are exceptions, however I can personally attest from professional experience that investors got a sudden and intense priapism-inducing hard-on for west Houston when the freeway got expanded. It wasn't just that land prices got speculatively bid up; crap actually got built. Memorial City got new highrise condos! Nowhere along the Red Line got new highrise condos. I'll grant you that there's some subjectivity to the interpretation of data, but it's still a pretty strong case.

Really?

Memorial City got one new highrise condo building. It sits about 4 or 5 blocks off of I-10. From the looks of things, it appears to be quite empty.

Isn't One Park Place within 5 blocks of the light rail? Isn't that "new?" I guess you might argue that the building isn't "condo" since it's a rental, but those apartments and their 85%+ occupancy are a way bigger project ($$$ wise) than the Memorial City condo bldg.

Additionally, what about all of the loft conversions downtown? Commerce Towers, Hermann Lofts, Rice Lofts, Franklin Lofts, Capitol Lofts, etc... Sure, while none of those were "new" from the ground up, it's really disingenuous to claim that the rail didn't spur highrise residential development in the area when all of those conversions add up to HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of investment.

[dbigtex56]

I can personally attest from professional experience that investors got a sudden and intense priapism-inducing hard-on for west Houston when the freeway got expanded.

Exactly what profession are you talking about?

[TheNiche]

Houston could be a very beautiful organized city if there was a plan. Ok, there are no mountains, well use the trees to make up for it. Imagine if trees lined the freeways and all of the inner city development was retained inside of 610 and all of the suburban development was retained inside of beltway 8 and all streets went in a grid, how nice would that be? Imagine walkable neighborhoods with trees that provide shade from Houston's hot and humid summers.

Imagine if affluent families didn't insist on sending their children to schools with mostly-white children from other affluent families.

Imagine yourself a frickin' time machine...

Houston can only grow so far out until it gets to a point where the people will start to say its not worth it, there is no quality of life here because you have to drive over an hour to get to any destination. I would rather send more to live in a city with a quality transportation network than a cheaper city that is completely car dependent. Also I wanted to speak on how heavy rail and city cores bring people and cultures together like a melting pot. (had more to say but I erased it all). Basically wanted to say I guess Houston is just to conservative. You just don't see those free spirited people that you see in other cities. For instance I can go to another city and different races of people with dreadlocks in their hair and think nothing of it, but you just wouldn't see that in Houston. What I am trying to get at and what I think you all have been saying for years is: move to Houston if you want to work, have a big house and freewill to do or build anything you want anywhere but not much else. Move to cities like NYC, etc if you want culture, structure, workability, and rail transit?

Most people don't care about being within an hour of any destination. They mostly just want to be convenient to work or school, to where their kids go to school (if applicable), and reasonably close to basic shopping. If they're younger, they probably care about being somewhat close to a breeding ground (whether that's a club scene, bars, church, or whatever).

Besides which, heavy rail is about the worst kind of technology to deliver your vision of being within an hour of "any destination". There are too few corridors that are physically feasible.

Basically wanted to say I guess Houston is just to conservative. You just don't see those free spirited people that you see in other cities. For instance I can go to another city and different races of people with dreadlocks in their hair and think nothing of it, but you just wouldn't see that in Houston. What I am trying to get at and what I think you all have been saying for years is: move to Houston if you want to work, have a big house and freewill to do or build anything you want anywhere but not much else. Move to cities like NYC, etc if you want culture, structure, workability, and rail transit?

It's funny that you bring this up, actually, about rail-based transit giving rise to or perhaps being a reflection on some kind of a free-spirited hipster culture.

See, I've been traveling to Dallas a lot lately. It is of comparable size to Houston and has a fair bit of rail-based transit. ...I very near literally feel deprived and suffocated by all the ____ing squares when I go out and try to find a locally-operated restaurant in which to expense a good meal. Don't get me wrong, Dallas has nicer curb appeal than Houston whether we're talking about freeways or major thoroughfares. But there are only so many retail districts tucked into particular pockets of the city. You can't just drive around randomly for five minutes and find an awesome hole in the wall. No! Maybe in some of its suburbs (Garland proves good for that), but not Dallas. For Dallas, you end up journeying to some little retail enclave; they're all very nice and uniform, looking just so to a crowd that looks just so. It's as though they've taken Washington Avenue, scrunched it up all close together in several little nodes throughout the city, and eliminated any other competing options for people who would prefer not to be douches...except of course for places like Mockingbird Station.

I drove to Mockingbird Station once, late, out of desperation. (I would've ridden the train, but it didn't go suburb-to-suburb...because it sucks, as trains are prone to do in low-density sunbelt cities.) ...had to drive past a vampire-themed wine bar as I entered the little parking area in the middle of it. [facepalm] ...walked around a little bit afterward. ...figured that in the grand scheme of things, this was a trite and meaningless gesture to a constituency that appreciates trite and meaningless gestures.

I'm just...so disgusted that Dallas exists within Texas. It brings shame to my heritage.

You should probably move there. /endrant

If Houston wants to skirt dubious federal policy in order to attract hipsters, we should strongly consider just dropping any and all enforcement or prosecution related to marijuana. It wouldn't cost any money and would be something that no other city is doing. ...and that certainly beats trying to keep up with the Jones' where the construction/erection of phallic symbolism is concerned.

[TheNiche]

Really?

Memorial City got one new highrise condo building. It sits about 4 or 5 blocks off of I-10. From the looks of things, it appears to be quite empty.

Isn't One Park Place within 5 blocks of the light rail? Isn't that "new?" I guess you might argue that the building isn't "condo" since it's a rental, but those apartments and their 85%+ occupancy are a way bigger project ($$$ wise) than the Memorial City condo bldg.

In the long run, they'll both fill. The important thing is that they got financed in the first place.

Also, it's important to point out although the ped-shed is only about 1/4 of a mile for transit stations, most people are generally willing to drive significantly further because they can do so quickly and sweat-free. Consequently, the area benefited by a freeway is vastly larger than the area benefited by a fixed-guideway transit corridor.

Additionally, what about all of the loft conversions downtown? Commerce Towers, Hermann Lofts, Rice Lofts, Franklin Lofts, Capitol Lofts, etc... Sure, while none of those were "new" from the ground up, it's really disingenuous to claim that the rail didn't spur highrise residential development in the area when all of those conversions add up to HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of investment.

Seeing as how the Rice Lofts were originally purchased for redevelopment in 1996, I think that it is disingenuous to attribute their redevelopment to light rail. Furthermore, their success signals that some significant demand for residential conversions downtown exists independently of access to light rail.

[TheNiche]

Exactly what profession are you talking about?

ur mom. lol.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. ...had to do that on account of that I hate it when people try to rub my nose in a career that spontaneously combusted. No, seriously though, that was back in the days when I worked development and development-related consulting.

[editor]

There are some frustrations about buses that cannot be avoided. A driver that has to piss needs to go and piss. We can't be paying insurance premiums on a workforce of bus drivers with bladder infections!

Wait... I must have missed this portion of the discussion. Are you saying that Metro does not have designated places at the beginnings and ends of routes for drivers to relieve themselves?

I know one transit system I used to ride had places not only at both ends, but also along the way where drivers could stop. All they had to do is get a certain number of minutes ahead of schedule (2 or 3 I think) and they were allowed to stop a [insert random donut shop here]; or they could make up the 2-3 minute pee break delay on the back end of the schedule.

[editor]

Chicago is flat as well, but look how they developed.

In many ways comparing Houston and Chicago is pointless when it comes to development.

In Houston you've had a series of short-term, fairly powerless mayors who do what they can with their limited power in a city with no zoning.

In Chicago they had one mayor and his son rule the city with an iron fist for the better part of 60 years. In Chicago the mayors Daley had the power to tell developers, "You WILL build in THIS neighborhood, and your buildings WILL be THIS tall, or else." The Chicago mayors also exerted massive amounts of influence over the development of the surrounding suburbs. I think the only developer who ever stood up to a Daley was Donald Trump, and even he had to give in at the last minute on the height of his building, resulting in the famous newspaper headline "Daley to Trump: You're Spired!"

There are dozens of books about all of this. Most pretty interesting. There will doubtless be more to come.

Another reason it's kind of pointless to compare the development of Houston and the development of Chicago when it comes to rail is that the whole reason most of the Chicago suburbs even exist is because of rail. Chicago railroad barons would run their lines out into the prairie and build towns along the way, creating commuter rail suburbs long before they even had roads connecting them to the city.

Houston's development was just the opposite, with a combination of developers building huge developments out in the prairie and the local governments being forced to lay freeways to them to keep up with demand from commuters coming in by car; and large freeway ring roads being laid across empty expanses of land in anticipation of future development.

It's not just apples and oranges. It's more like apples and telephones.