What is your ideal transit plan for Houston?

[mfastx]

While those design issues may be real bottlenecks, it is freeways and other free roads that cause congestion. There's a market principle that if something is free people will use it until it's gone. Likewise if a road is free, people will use it until it's full. Unless, as someone pointed out, you're building new freeway capacity in markets that are declining in population and that's just stupid. Of course there won't be congestion there, but there already isn't.

 

Actually, to be fair, it's elected officials that cause congestion because for political reasons they want to encourage sprawl in the unincorporated areas and do so by funding roads in those areas instead of transportation options where people already are, or relative to jobs.

 

Sugar Land and Pearland and the others need to greatly grow both their jobs and their populations before you can talk about adding high-capacity transit. And except for Pearland none of the places people think Metro should deliver transit are in the Metro service area, again thanks to local politicians.

 

I like the dreaming about heavy rail and so on, but I'm sorry, that is never going to happen in Houston. We might get some commuter rail, which is not heavy rail as that's defined, but that would only be because suburban politicians found some significant money to waste. The 5-line commuter rail system recommended by H-GAC would cost $3 billion and carry 41,000 riders a day. That's approximately what the Main Street light rail line carries now, and I suspect now that it goes up to Northline mall it carries more than already.

 

Quoted for truth.  I am not a fan of commuter rail in Houston.  We have already sunk so much cost in the P&R system already and it does a decent enough job.  Besides there isn't enough demand for transit in low density suburbs to provoke enough people to switch to justify the costs of a commuter rail system.

Edited January 28, 2014 by mfastx

[David Crossley]

Right, heavy rail configurations usually have higher average speeds than LRT/BRT because of stops and grade separations, but it is also more efficient on a cost-per-rider basis, and can travel up to 85mph. 

 

But of course it's a lot more expensive.  Kind of wish we got started on heavy rail when Kiepper proposed it in the 80s when the feds were handing out money for transit systems. 

 

We are going to have to build a ton of BRT for it to be as effective and transformative, and I don't see how we can even afford that with METRO's financial structure the way it is. 

I don't know that there's any reason light rail vehicles couldn't travel at 80 or 90 or whatever, but they don't largely because there's no need. The Main Street train can travel 66 mph but doesn't because of the close spacing of stops.

 

Metro's financial structure is entirely the produce of elected officials in suburban cities and Harris County, plus the Mayor of Houston, who takes the most money from Metro. Plus, the voters in 2012 voted to continue taking all that money from Metro, and while they were at it ended light rail expansion. 

[David Crossley]

 

"Transit" is not necessarily "mass transit" and CAN mean other forms of transportation, which includes highways and things like tollways and HOV lanes. The backbone of any mass transit system involves roads of some sort, and if you don't figure highway builds and expansions into the future of the city, fine. I'm cool with that. This is a subjective thread, remember?

Okay, it's a fine point, but you're right that the term "transit" as defined in Wikipedia includes everything. So let's say the topic of this thread should be "...ideal mass transit plan..." to avoid that confusion. 

The only places that need more roads - and there are no places that need new highways - are sprawl cup de sac areas where people are forced in collector streets and transit is terribly costly to deliver for that reason. Breaking up cul de sacs is nearly impossible, I think. So, new roads are not part of the solution.

[arche_757]

Never implies an impossibility.  Nothing as commonplace as heavy rail (excuse me...ahem: Commuter Rail) is impossible for a metropolitan region of 6+million.  And anything in my post was hypothetical, and it was not an "overnight."  And that also goes for the light rail connectivity of the suburban job centers.

 

David,  what do you propose?  Your constant critiques of everything else posted by everyone else on here has grown tiresome.

[mfastx]

I don't know that there's any reason light rail vehicles couldn't travel at 80 or 90 or whatever, but they don't largely because there's no need. The Main Street train can travel 66 mph but doesn't because of the close spacing of stops.

 

Metro's financial structure is entirely the produce of elected officials in suburban cities and Harris County, plus the Mayor of Houston, who takes the most money from Metro. Plus, the voters in 2012 voted to continue taking all that money from Metro, and while they were at it ended light rail expansion. 

 

Most light rail vehicles aren't built with speed in mind.  Our cars are the exception, for example the newer cars we ordered are only certified up to around 45mph. 

 

Once Houston gets bigger voters will demand more transit.  Look no further than Los Angeles.  Houston needs to develop more, grow in population to the point where our traffic is actually bad (not only on freeways but also on surface roads), and grow politically. 

 

We are decades away from that so it's hard to have a serious discussion about improving transit when we are locked in for over a decade of paltry funding.

[IronTiger]

and there are no places that need new highways

I beg to differ, but okay.

Nothing as commonplace as heavy rail (excuse me...ahem: Commuter Rail) is impossible for a metropolitan region of 6+million.

If METRO had talks with Union Pacific, then we might see something maybe by 2020. Who knows?

[arche_757]

I should add:  This is not a college course, none of us are 100% correct, no one really knows what the next decade or two decades will bring.

 

All we are doing is hypothesizing what "could be," not "what will be."  So its safe to dream big... afterall small dreams are seldom worth pursuing.

[David Crossley]

Never implies an impossibility.  Nothing as commonplace as heavy rail (excuse me...ahem: Commuter Rail) is impossible for a metropolitan region of 6+million.  And anything in my post was hypothetical, and it was not an "overnight."  And that also goes for the light rail connectivity of the suburban job centers.

 

David,  what do you propose?  Your constant critiques of everything else posted by everyone else on here has grown tiresome.

Sorry to be tiresome. But I'm trying, in my annoying way, to help bring some clarity to this discussion. Most of the posters I'm agreeing with or having small discussions about small definitions.

 

Heavy rail and commuter rail are not interchangeable terms. Here's APTA on that topic:

 

 

Definition: Commuter Rail

Commuter rail refers to passenger trains operated on main line railroad track to carry riders to and from work in city centers. The trains are normally made up of a locomotive and a number of passenger coaches. The coaches are dimensionally similar to intercity (Amtrak) coaches, but typically have higher density seating as the average ride is shorter.

 

Definition: Heavy Rail

Heavy rail refers to traditional high platform subway and elevated rapid transit lines. Principal characteristics are operation over rights of way that are completely segregated from other uses, with the track placed in subway tunnels, on elevated structures, or on fenced surface rights of way, free of grade crossings with roads. Trains consist of anywhere from two to 12 cars, each with its own motors, and drawing power from a third rail (or in some cases from overhead wire).

 

So when we talk about commuter rail, we're usually talking about long trains pulled and maybe pushed by a diesel engine. Heavy rail, such as the DC, New York, and Atlanta trains, are usually electric and are just a different kind of beast.

 

Now, can heavy rail deliver commuter service? Of course. But so can light rail and BRT.

 

Sorry, I can't find the "overnight" thing so I don't know what that refers to.

[David Crossley]

I should add:  This is not a college course, none of us are 100% correct, no one really knows what the next decade or two decades will bring.

 

All we are doing is hypothesizing what "could be," not "what will be."  So its safe to dream big... afterall small dreams are seldom worth pursuing.

Yes, I completely agree with this. I much prefer to dream big. But in Houston we're reduced to just table scraps, so I guess, while I've done a lot blue sky stuff about transit, right now I'm trying to get into dialog about something that's possible and soon. But it's true the title of this thread is "ideal transit plan" so why not go for it?

 

Maybe we need to start over with something like "What your best possible transit plan for Houston considering the politics of a region determined to grow at the edges and reduce the population of the towns and cities? Or maybe something not so incendiary, but still in the realm of near term (20 years) possibility.

 

Should we do that?

[David Crossley]

 

 

David,  what do you propose?  

I propose a regional base network in the existing highway infrastructure that connects job centers and eventually evolves to dedicated right of way in those facilities. The map I posted shows how that would work.

 

Then it's just my opinion that the right technology for that is buses and I think they should be as high end as we can stand, knowing that we tend to choose less interesting hardware. 

[arche_757]

David:

 

I wasn't trying to be impertinent, but I gather that you must have viewed it that way?  If so then I apoligize for coming across that way...

 

I view all of our transit systems in this country as laughable compared to other westernized/modern infrastructure.  Germany (as the best example) still uses: light rail, commuter rail and heavy rail not just in Berlin but almost all of their larger industrialized areas.  Granted Germany is much denser in population than we are - even including the much ballyhooed "Megalopolis" of DC to Boston.. but even that area lacks the same density of transit options as Germany.  Sadly we look at what Germany has and think: "gee...wouldn't that be nice"  yet despite the fact we actually HAD that scale of a transit system pre-1950s.

 

I don't see why Houston can't have what it used to have?  It will of course take plenty of time... which brings me to "overnight"  I was implying an "overnight" period to infrastructure construction/implementation.  So 5-8 years +/-

 

I'm not stupid, I realize it will take 2 decades to get things moving to where they need to be in this region.

[arche_757]

I propose a regional base network in the existing highway infrastructure that connects job centers and eventually evolves to dedicated right of way in those facilities. The map I posted shows how that would work.

 

Then it's just my opinion that the right technology for that is buses and I think they should be as high end as we can stand, knowing that we tend to choose less interesting hardware. 

I forgot about that map!  Sorry.  I thought it good and I believe I even liked it?

 

Bus first.  Light rail second (for larger routes).  Light rail connects to commuter rail, which in turn will connect to an eventual heavy rail that will run between larger cities in and around the state and region.

 

My posts aren't always as articulate as I'd like them to be..

Edited January 28, 2014 by arche_757

[IronTiger]

The quickest way to change things would be making all highways tollways and eliminate free parking.

 

Mass transit, light rail specifically, should be approached (read: marketed) in a way that it shouldn't be seen as a leftist plot to force everyone to use public transportation. Therefore, I think it would be in the best interest of mass transit enthusiasts to not confirm fears.

It could be argued (and it's been mentioned on HAIF before) that one of the attracting things about Houston is that it doesn't rely a lot on public transit.

I think in terms of mass transit, I think there should be light rail, not heavy/commuter rail, running out to the suburbs. Why? Because transfers suck. That's why people take cars. It's simply

house-->car-->parking garage/work-->walk?

rather than

house-->walk/bike/car-->LRT station-->WAIT-->LRT-->work-->walk?

which is the way it is in Dallas.

It's even worse if it's

house-->walk/bike/car-->commuter rail-->WAIT-->train-->another station of some sort-->WAIT-->work-->walk?

or a variation thereof.

Keep Houston Houston has argued that the reason why Dallas light rail doesn't get a high ridership is because there's highways. My argument is that it's poorly designed: lookie here. Price notwithstanding, let's take a look.

For example:

Two lines travel toward Plano, yet there's a dozen stops on both. When there's that many stops, many choose to take the highway because even if there's a stop due to a jam, you at least have the freedom of taking your own car. By making the orange line an express line from Uptown to Downtown Plano, those specific problems will disappear. (It's also worth noting that the NYC subway line has routes instead of a set line).

[Slick Vik]

Mass transit, light rail specifically, should be approached (read: marketed) in a way that it shouldn't be seen as a leftist plot to force everyone to use public transportation. Therefore, I think it would be in the best interest of mass transit enthusiasts to not confirm fears.

It could be argued (and it's been mentioned on HAIF before) that one of the attracting things about Houston is that it doesn't rely a lot on public transit.

I think in terms of mass transit, I think there should be light rail, not heavy/commuter rail, running out to the suburbs. Why? Because transfers suck. That's why people take cars. It's simply

house-->car-->parking garage/work-->walk?

rather than

house-->walk/bike/car-->LRT station-->WAIT-->LRT-->work-->walk?

which is the way it is in Dallas.

It's even worse if it's

house-->walk/bike/car-->commuter rail-->WAIT-->train-->another station of some sort-->WAIT-->work-->walk?

or a variation thereof.

Keep Houston Houston has argued that the reason why Dallas light rail doesn't get a high ridership is because there's highways. My argument is that it's poorly designed: lookie here. Price notwithstanding, let's take a look.

For example:

Two lines travel toward Plano, yet there's a dozen stops on both. When there's that many stops, many choose to take the highway because even if there's a stop due to a jam, you at least have the freedom of taking your own car. By making the orange line an express line from Uptown to Downtown Plano, those specific problems will disappear. (It's also worth noting that the NYC subway line has routes instead of a set line).

Lack of mass transit does not make houston attractive, jobs do. People are actually stunned that our mass transit sucks so much. If anything the prevention of suitable mass transit seems like a plot to force most people to drive. Irony.

About dart the reason it doesn't have ridership is it doesn't have lines in dense areas it's simply a suburban feeder system. Once you get in town there's no easy way to get around. If there was you would see a lot more ridership. Also a critical east west line is missing along 635.

[IronTiger]

Lack of mass transit does not make houston attractive, jobs do. People are actually stunned that our mass transit sucks so much. If anything the prevention of suitable mass transit seems like a plot to force most people to drive. Irony.

The Park and Rides are there, technically, and they get pretty good ridership.

About dart the reason it doesn't have ridership is it doesn't have lines in dense areas it's simply a suburban feeder system. Once you get in town there's no easy way to get around. If there was you would see a lot more ridership. Also a critical east west line is missing along 635.

Well, in downtown Dallas, there are several stops, plus a underground/skyway system (not nearly as good as Houston's, I agree) and *gasp* even a streetcar that's not part of the main light rail network.

The real question is, how do you make mass transit more popular? If the answer is "let's kneecap the highways to encourage ridership", that's a lousy answer and basically means "No, mass transit is the inferior choice so we must make highways worse to get more people on board", which is akin to a politician trying to undermine his opponent's campaign because no one would vote for him otherwise. If that's not true, then how do you propose a solution? I see mass transit as a helpful option. It's not to going significantly reduce congestion, but it is there, and that's an important thing for some people.

Also, on a related note, I would like to see Columbia Tap Rail Trail converted to a BRT line and move the bike path to a safer route.

[Slick Vik]

The Park and Rides are there, technically, and they get pretty good ridership.

Well, in downtown Dallas, there are several stops, plus a underground/skyway system (not nearly as good as Houston's, I agree) and *gasp* even a streetcar that's not part of the main light rail network.

The real question is, how do you make mass transit more popular? If the answer is "let's kneecap the highways to encourage ridership", that's a lousy answer and basically means "No, mass transit is the inferior choice so we must make highways worse to get more people on board", which is akin to a politician trying to undermine his opponent's campaign because no one would vote for him otherwise. If that's not true, then how do you propose a solution? I see mass transit as a helpful option. It's not to going significantly reduce congestion, but it is there, and that's an important thing for some people.

Also, on a related note, I would like to see Columbia Tap Rail Trail converted to a BRT line and move the bike path to a safer route.

 

All the park and rides combined get less ridership than the red line (before expansion).

 

There are a few stops, but in Dallas people want to go to Knox/Henderson, uptown, etc. And the streetcar is more of a novelty than anything. The 635 east/west line would've helped more than anything.

 

Again as I said before at this point public transit has been kneecapped to make driving more popular.

[IronTiger]

Again as I said before at this point public transit has been kneecapped to make driving more popular.

Dollar for dollar, highways serve more people (and is compatible with their driveways), and even as nice as the light rail is in area that are serviced, the highways are still more popular, because they provide more freedom.

Light rail is designed to satiate a bare minimum of comfort: there's no eating, no smoking, etc.

I can't eat a hamburger in the light rail, or smoke on the light rail (I don't smoke, in case you're wondering), but I can in my car, but if they had eating and/or smoking, the light rail would be dirty, smelly, and generally unpleasant. Cars represent freedom, if you wanted to eat, smoke, or blast music from the stereo, you can. That is one of the reasons why highways are inherently more popular than public transit.

[arche_757]

Houston doesn't need more roads, we just need them to be managed better.  We do need more transit options though!  I'd love to take the train down to the island, and from the island to Downtown to IAH etc.  I can't.  Therefore I must drive.  There are times (plenty actually) when I want the freedom and relative cleanliness of my own vehicle over that of public transit, but there are other times when I think "gee, I'd love to be reading that really good book and sipping coffee right now without worrying about running into/or getting run into by someone..."

 

Private cars do not allow that.  At least not safely and legally.

 

Ideally we will see in 20-30 years a plan that utilizes buses on local routes, lightrail for connecting neighborhoods (such as what's happening inside the Loop now) and commuter rail running between towns like Baytown-Sugarland; Conroe-Galveston etc.  Additionally we would also have heavy rail running to College Station, Austin, San Antonio, Beaumont, New Orleans and DFW et cetera.

[Slick Vik]

Dollar for dollar, highways serve more people (and is compatible with their driveways), and even as nice as the light rail is in area that are serviced, the highways are still more popular, because they provide more freedom.

Light rail is designed to satiate a bare minimum of comfort: there's no eating, no smoking, etc.

I can't eat a hamburger in the light rail, or smoke on the light rail (I don't smoke, in case you're wondering), but I can in my car, but if they had eating and/or smoking, the light rail would be dirty, smelly, and generally unpleasant. Cars represent freedom, if you wanted to eat, smoke, or blast music from the stereo, you can. That is one of the reasons why highways are inherently more popular than public transit.

 

Dollar for dollar, highways also cost more to maintain once they're built (not to mention a lot to build in the first place). In fact, TXDOT doesn't have enough money to maintain what's there, expansion's days are numbered. They have set lives at which point there are major costs. Rail lines once built have very low maintenance costs, and replacement if any is way into the future as compared to 25-30 year lives of highways which need constant upkeep and paving.

 

You can't smoke in any building in Houston.

 

Cars don't represent freedom in Houston, they represent lack of freedom to not drive in most cases due to crappy alternatives. Why would anyone own a car if they had an excellent public transportation system? Think about it. A new car costs about $15,000 minimum, plus constant maintenance of oil, filling up gasoline, car insurance, and God forbid an accident, whereas a monthly pass on a transit system would be around $100. Now you tell me what makes more sense. Carmakers saw this 100 years ago and that's where the GM conspiracy started.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Slick Vik

[IronTiger]

Cars don't represent freedom in Houston, they represent lack of freedom to not drive in most cases due to crappy alternatives. Why would anyone own a car if they had an excellent public transportation system? Think about it. A new car costs about $15,000 minimum, plus constant maintenance of oil, filling up gasoline, car insurance, and God forbid an accident, whereas a monthly pass on a transit system would be around $100. Now you tell me what makes more sense. Carmakers saw this 100 years ago and that's where the GM conspiracy started.

A used car does just fine for most purposes, and that's assuming a monthly pass on a transit system would be $100. If I was an urban dweller where I didn't need a car or have a particular desire to go anywhere else (other cities), then yes, it makes sense. However, since you seem to have a lack of understanding how others prefer to live and prefer to cling to conspiracy theories, not to mention that nearly all cities have more road usage than other public transit use (even with better mass transit), what makes "sense" is a rather loose concept.

In fact, one could argue that lower ridership is actually a benefit, as it provides freedom to read a book or do whatever you like. A high ridership mass transit line means that people are cramped like sardines inside, leaving no one to do anything except wait when it's over.

[arche_757]

^Cars do techinically allow more freedom of movement than a fixed route bus/train/hovercraft/whatever... they do however, tie you into car ownership.  Which is not freedom in some sense of the word.

 

GM/Ford/others killed the street car in the later 1940s and 1950s - there are several outlets that discuss this.

 

And I think rail implementation is - by and large - more expensive per mile than highway construction.  Hence why we do that.  However, roads need to be constantly repaired and rail probably has a longer lifespan given that everything that travels on it is a constant/given/never alternating what it is, how it moves on the rail and the like.

 

The end solution - for the whole country - is to allow private rail back into the game of moving passengers.  Let Union Pacific and Burlington Northern (along with countless smaller lines) move people along existing rail infrastructure.  The Germans do it.  Why can't we do it as well?

[IronTiger]

GM/Ford/others killed the street car in the later 1940s and 1950s - there are several outlets that discuss this.

The privately owned lines were going bankrupt, the few that weren't bought by GM either ceased entirely or were bought by the government. It's unfortunate, but it's what happens with capitalism. It's also worth noting that streetcars are romanticized in media, which wasn't quite the case in reality...

The end solution - for the whole country - is to allow private rail back into the game of moving passengers. Let Union Pacific and Burlington Northern (along with countless smaller lines) move people along existing rail infrastructure. The Germans do it. Why can't we do it as well?

Thing is, they can. But it's not very profitable to move people, which is why they stopped doing. It's even less profitable to move other certain types of cargo that trucks do. That's why there's less railroad spurs and less railroads than there used to be. Europe can have a good passenger-centric rail line because it's significantly denser than the United States is.

[arche_757]

Thing is, they can. But it's not very profitable to move people, which is why they stopped doing. It's even less profitable to move other certain types of cargo that trucks do. That's why there's less railroad spurs and less railroads than there used to be. Europe can have a good passenger-centric rail line because it's significantly denser than the United States is.

 

True about Europe being denser, but trains that can move between places like Beaumont/Dallas/Houston or Louisville/Nashville/Birmingham would be great to have.

 

I'll wager the Teamsters have more to do with "certain" goods being moved via truck, rather than rail simply not wanting to move goods.

 

And private rail would also see a very strong hand from Southwest, United, American, Delta, Jet Blue...etc. if they ever attempted to re-enter the passenger business.

[Slick Vik]

A used car does just fine for most purposes, and that's assuming a monthly pass on a transit system would be $100. If I was an urban dweller where I didn't need a car or have a particular desire to go anywhere else (other cities), then yes, it makes sense. However, since you seem to have a lack of understanding how others prefer to live and prefer to cling to conspiracy theories, not to mention that nearly all cities have more road usage than other public transit use (even with better mass transit), what makes "sense" is a rather loose concept.

In fact, one could argue that lower ridership is actually a benefit, as it provides freedom to read a book or do whatever you like. A high ridership mass transit line means that people are cramped like sardines inside, leaving no one to do anything except wait when it's over.

 

I don't have a lack of understanding, I have an excellent understanding as I've been living in Houston since 1990 save for college. I know what it feels like to be in an auto centric city. However I've been to other cities all over the world where there are alternatives. I don't think you understand THAT. Viable alternatives make life easy. However politicians and people in Houston want it one way (cars) but not the other. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

Cramped like sardines maybe, but if you get on early you'll get a seat.

 

The GM conspiracy is not a conspiracy. They bought up private rail companies, and ripped the tracks out of the ground. What's so hard to understand?

[Slick Vik]

^Cars do techinically allow more freedom of movement than a fixed route bus/train/hovercraft/whatever... they do however, tie you into car ownership.  Which is not freedom in some sense of the word.

 

GM/Ford/others killed the street car in the later 1940s and 1950s - there are several outlets that discuss this.

 

And I think rail implementation is - by and large - more expensive per mile than highway construction.  Hence why we do that.  However, roads need to be constantly repaired and rail probably has a longer lifespan given that everything that travels on it is a constant/given/never alternating what it is, how it moves on the rail and the like.

 

The end solution - for the whole country - is to allow private rail back into the game of moving passengers.  Let Union Pacific and Burlington Northern (along with countless smaller lines) move people along existing rail infrastructure.  The Germans do it.  Why can't we do it as well?

 

Union Pacific would never upgrade its tracks to proper speeds.

[IronTiger]

I don't have a lack of understanding, I have an excellent understanding as I've been living in Houston since 1990 save for college. I know what it feels like to be in an auto centric city. However I've been to other cities all over the world where there are alternatives. I don't think you understand THAT. Viable alternatives make life easy. However politicians and people in Houston want it one way (cars) but not the other. Don't be a hypocrite.

Politics plays a huge role in light rail, too: in Portland it's far easier get people to extend MAX then add more highway capacity.

The GM conspiracy is not a conspiracy. They bought up private rail companies, and ripped the tracks out of the ground. What's so hard to understand?

Streetcar fans talk about it as if it was a conspiracy (as do other forms of media), but I'm glad we agree on something.

Union Pacific would never upgrade its tracks to proper speeds.

Even long freight trains can go 80 mph on relatively straight level ground, which includes passenger trains.

[Slick Vik]

Politics plays a huge role in light rail, too: in Portland it's far easier get people to extend MAX then add more highway capacity.

Streetcar fans talk about it as if it was a conspiracy (as do other forms of media), but I'm glad we agree on something.

Even long freight trains can go 80 mph on relatively straight level ground, which includes passenger trains.

 

It's not as easy as you think in Portland. Example is columbia river bridge.

 

It's not a conspiracy, it's something that was done for profit and nothing else. If you think streetcars were so terrible, ask people that were alive in those days. It was a wonderful thing, a cheap easy way to get around town.

 

They can but not for the whole stretch.

[Ross]

I don't have a lack of understanding, I have an excellent understanding as I've been living in Houston since 1990 save for college. I know what it feels like to be in an auto centric city. However I've been to other cities all over the world where there are alternatives. I don't think you understand THAT. Viable alternatives make life easy. However politicians and people in Houston want it one way (cars) but not the other. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

Cramped like sardines maybe, but if you get on early you'll get a seat.

 

The GM conspiracy is not a conspiracy. They bought up private rail companies, and ripped the tracks out of the ground. What's so hard to understand?

 

Kind of hard to get on early when your stop is halfway to the destination, and the car fills before it gets to you.I prefer not to spend the better part of an hour with my nose crammed into someone's smelly armpit.

 

The streetcar thing happened many decades ago when things were different, and arguing about it now is not going to change anything. We aren't going to spend huge sums rebuilding a means of transport that is now obsolete.

[Slick Vik]

Kind of hard to get on early when your stop is halfway to the destination, and the car fills before it gets to you.I prefer not to spend the better part of an hour with my nose crammed into someone's smelly armpit.

The streetcar thing happened many decades ago when things were different, and arguing about it now is not going to change anything. We aren't going to spend huge sums rebuilding a means of transport that is now obsolete.

Nose crammed into someone's smelly armpit? That's all you ever say about riding the train. Stop exaggerating.

And many cities are reinvesting in streetcars and light rail worldwide and domestically.

[David Crossley]

I'm always amazed when people who don't want to use transit, for whatever reason, want passionately to engage in dialog about it.