Dallas Vs. Houston

[713 To 214]

Pro Houston???????? When? Where?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not answering that! The conversation had been squarely shifted to Metro and DART's ridership/efficiency. Yet, you reached back 13 posts to yesterday in order to bring that up? Who's perpetuating the flame wars here? Stop and think about your actions.

[danes75]

Considering rail lines are so expensive and deliver so little benefit, and considering Houston has such major transportation and environmental problems, I think Houston needs to use more judgement, more creativity, and focus on actual results...not just mileage of the rail lines or how impressive it looks on a map.

[713 To 214]

^That threw me for a loop too.

[Gary]

I'm not answering that!  The conversation had been squarely shifted to Metro and DART's ridership/efficiency.  Yet, you reached back 13 posts to yesterday in order to bring that up?  Who's perpetuating the flame wars here?  Stop and think about your actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey pro Houstonian, I mean 713 to 214, I have once again read and reread many of your previous posts and my friend you are about as objective as Madonna is to abstonance.

On top of that your posts when regarding Houston and Dallas are almost always in the negative (regarding Houston). In fact I find you down right rude and arrogant. Did it ever occure to you that someone here might be able to enlighten you?

I'm through arguing with you but I had to get one more comment through. By the way Red Scare is right regarding the Seattle thread, he made your "facts" look silly.

[banking214]

RedScare, don't be so quick to judge WHY the numbers have fallen (if they have fallen). The numbers falling due to design is something I don't think you can pin on Dallas' rail system.

kjb434, your last paragraph suggests Dallas didn't not do a good job in building their rail system and Houston did the best thing by being the largest city in America without rail for so long. We were the laughing stock of the American mass transit systems due to all of the crashes into the train, yet we have the best designed system in the country because we waited so long, correct? And creating legislation to block rail funding from our own "kin" was the best thing for Houston, right?

My God, I have to say one of the most frustrating things about living in this city is the bubble we place ourselves in. A developer can come in and build a 50 story turd, and we will fool ourselves into thinking it's a good thing.

I'm totally starting to believe that Houston is always a step behind because we deserve to be. WE continue to vote these people into office. WE continue to allow neighborhoods to be ruined because it cuts into someone's profits. WE continue to allow our freeways to look like junkyards because it "shows free-enterprise". WE continue to allow the northside's precious pine trees to be decimated at an INCREDIBLE rate because one more strip center and large parking lot means more tax money. Let our counterparts outpace us, we will wait 50 years from now and do it correctly, right?.

And the worst part of it is, once again, we will convince ourselves that everything is fine and Houston is already the best it can be. Sigh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. I believe many think just because a building goes up we should be excited. How many buildings are there all over this state that serve no asthetic value? I do believe Dallas has an awesome rail system. I ride it a few times a month to head downtown. Houston's system just seems to go to a few places and that is it. I really wish they would establish lines that would run to Clear Lake or The Galleria. How great would that be to hop on the train and travel from downtown to The Galleria without getting in a car? They say Houston can't support a sub way system, but if the Dutch can do it in Amsterdam, so can we.

[RedScare]

Patience, dear banker, patience.

METRO is in the process of expanding to the Galleria and UH/TSU. Clear Lake is planned, but will take a little time.

BTW, I wasn't judging why DART ridership had dropped (about 1,000, apparently), just asking for opinions as to why. Consensus seems to be that expansion into the burbs causes riders per mile to drop, but that is not necessarily a good judge of rail usage.

[2112]

Tom DeLay--I repeat, Tom DeLay--along with Bob Lanier have been the two biggest obstacles over the last 17 seven years in Houston receiving federal funding for rail service. It's a sore subject that will indeed evoke passions but I dare say that it is in no way fair to make determinations about the mindset, class and intentions of 2-plus million people based on the rogue actions of two politicians.

As far as embarrassments, I don't care what anyone says, the biggest calamity, IMO, in terms of built or unbuilt transit projects in the U.S. is the Big Dig in Boston. It is rep-re-freakin-hensible to blow that much money on a public works project. $14 billion dollars for a tunnel that's less than five miles long.

Meanwhile, the hicks in Houston built the nation's most efficient rail line for $320 million, and, as usual, gets treated as assbackwards. Tell that to the people at DART who were laid off because the rail lines didn't quite bring in the expected revenue to cover operating costs.

Tell that to the people in the Twin Cities, who striked because of work/pay disagreements with Twin Cities Transit (who was being hamstrong by operating costs and the costs of building new rail lines).

It's not easy, and if we have a realistic chance of doing ANYTHING useful with our rail system and TRULY changing the landscape of public transit not only in Houston or Texas but the entire Sunbelt, we need to be doing it smartly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who was that masked man? And why isnt he wearing any pants?

[2112]

Ok. I am going to go ahead and say it: Bob Lanier might have been right in stopping the rail lines. From my understanding, a substantial portion of that would have been monorail. If that is incorrect, then my post here is not valid and should be disregarded. But if the plan was going to be to build monorail, then I think I stand behind the guy. I basically don

[SpringTX]

I'm not sure I understand this post.  How is a bus better for the environment than an electric light rail?

I'm also not sure where to find the stats, but it seems to me that HOV Lanes are a waste of space.  Every time I'm on the highway, there's rarely anyone in them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's say that a city has 100 million dollars to spend. One option is to build 4 miles of light rail track, which gains new 1,000 riders a day who switched from driving a car. (These numbers are all made up, by the way.) And another option is to use that money and set up several new commuter bus (park n' ride) routes. The money buys new buses, signs, and shelters, and pays the salaries of more drivers. So these buses end up bringing in 500 new riders a day, and take them an average distance of 20 miles. This bus solution would be better at cleaning up Houston's polluted air, in my opinion, because it eliminated 10,000 "car miles" driven as opposed to 4,000 from the light rail solution.

I don't know how much of these numbers are accurate. My point is that Houston needs to get the most "bang for the buck" and do something quickly to get our polluted air cleaned up, and to get drivers off the roads. My understanding is that light rail is extremely expensive for the environmental benefit derived, even if it creates a wondrous spectacle for visitors to behold. If light rail is the cheaper way to do it, then I'm for light rail. If more commuter buses are the better way, then I'm for that.

Something that Washington, DC has done is to make whole freeways HOV-only for certain periods of the day during rush hour. This forces solo drivers to find alternate (slower) routes, which encourages them to carpool. Another option is, for toll roads like Beltway 8 or the Hardy Toll Road, to reduce the price for HOV lanes (or increase the price for solo-driver lanes). This would also ecnourage HOV usage. My point is: Houston needs to find creative ways to get more cars off the roads.

[713 To 214]

Let's say that a city has 100 million dollars to spend.  One option is to build 4 miles of light rail track, which gains new 1,000 riders a day who switched from driving a car.  (These numbers are all made up, by the way.)  And another option is to use that money and set up several new commuter bus (park n' ride) routes.  The money buys new buses, signs, and shelters, and pays the salaries of more drivers.  So these buses end up bringing in 500 new riders a day, and take them an average distance of 20 miles.  This bus solution would be better at cleaning up Houston's polluted air, in my opinion, because it eliminated 10,000 "car miles" driven as opposed to 4,000 from the light rail solution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think your hypothetical makes sense if the 4 miles of rail track is where you stop. However, if the 4 mile track is part of an overall "Transit System Plan" that will be built in stages, and expand to, say, 100 miles of rail, and considers the growth of your area, then it will make more sense IMO to build the rail.

[danes75]

Which is more important though, what plans for the future or what's cheapest? Every time the government tries to go the cheapest route (i.e. building contracts, roads, etc) they get what they pay for: shoddy work and bloated schedules.

How is a transit system any different? Lets throw more buses out there. I personally LOVE going down Westheimer towards downtown and getting stuck behind a bus making stops every 5 minutes, ON TOP of the places that the street allows parking in one of the two lanes. Lets not forget the wonderful noxious fumes that billow out of it whether its idling or speeding up... so strong that you have to switch your car AC to recirculate.

I've never ridden the bus here, but I know going from Greenville Ave. on a bus to downtown Dallas can take over an hour. The lightrail takes about 15 minutes: and I think that's the main reason people will never switch from driving to public transportation if its by bus. It takes to damn long.

[SpringTX]

Which is more important though, what plans for the future or what's cheapest?  Every time the government tries to go the cheapest route (i.e. building contracts, roads, etc) they get what they pay for: shoddy work and bloated schedules.

How is a transit system any different?  Lets throw more buses out there.  I personally LOVE going down Westheimer towards downtown and getting stuck behind a bus making stops every 5 minutes, ON TOP of the places that the street allows parking in one of the two lanes.  Lets not forget the wonderful noxious fumes that billow out of it whether its idling or speeding up... so strong that you have to switch your car AC to recirculate.

I've never ridden the bus here, but I know going from Greenville Ave. on a bus to downtown Dallas can take over an hour.  The lightrail takes about 15 minutes: and I think that's the main reason people will never switch from driving to public transportation if its by bus.  It takes to damn long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking more of commuter (park n' ride) buses. Which use HOV lanes, by the way, helping them avoid a lot more traffic. In Washington, DC, the commuter buses are even allowed to use the airport road, which is normally open only to those doing business at the airport.

I like a limited light rail solution as long as it's a way to link up suburban commuter rail lines to the various employment centers (Galleria, Medical Center, etc.).

Regarding costs, I didn't say Houston should cut corners on doing jobs (which would result in shoddy workmanship). I said they should develop creative solutions to make their limited resources spread farther. If they can cleverly think of a way to get more folks to use the HOV lanes, for example, that might not cost a nickel.

[VelvetJ]

Redscare, you've busted me. I was indeed looking for someone to fight with, so I decided to come to this site to do so. I AM ashamed.

Also, there is nothing more that I want for Houston than a inefficient failure of a rail system. I mean that's why I always seem to be so hard on this city's flaws and some of what I see as backward decisions because failure is my only dream for this place. What would be a more obvious HUGE mistake than a mass transit system that goes nowhere, costs a kazillion dollars, and carries only a handful of riders? Yeah, that's what I want for Houston.

I suppose I am still on the lack of "edge" and "forward thinking" spirit this city once had. A number of people hear have made the case that commuter rail is cheaper and it actually has more chance of taking cars off of the road, thereby easing traffic and helping our city clean it's air. My question is, why didn't our citizens figure this out earlier? As so many vital rail tracks were being removed in the late 90's, our air was literally getting worse every year, our population was continuing to grow at a healthy rate, and we complained that rail of any kind (commuter or light) was too expensive and would be a waste of "our tax money", (so we continued to vote people into office who was staunchly against it), here we are slowly getting into the game (and still allowing Tom Delay to play games with what we voted for).

We always seem to "get it" after the fact.

Dane75 I have to agree with you on the "what's cheapest" deal. More times than not, I have noticed that what is cheapest takes priority over many things in Houston instead of what's best for the city as a whole, what works the best, or even better, what's best for the city/looks the best/works the best/ AND cheapest. I think you can even pick that up by many posters at this site. One does not have to throw his money away to do what's best for the city as whole. I think that idea has gotten lost here.

[RedScare]

VelvetJ...no harm, no foul.

On the cheapest route topic, I think some of that (at least for rail) comes from trying to offend as few people as possible, plus getting it built with no federal money.

And, as transportation goes in genral, for years, Houstonians have convinced themselves that we are 'different', that mass transit won't work here. Only recently, have SOME Houstonians realized that highways can't do it all, and that we are not very different than any other city. While commuter rail may add to sprawl, as was suggested here, adding it will at least give us more options to get around.

[713 To 214]

While commuter rail may add to sprawl, as was suggested here, adding it will at least give us more options to get around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that commuter rail adds to sprawl. I think commuter rail becomes necessary because of sprawl. After all, there would be no point in sending trains to outlying areas unless there were communities that already exist, with ridership numbers to justify the service.

[skwatra]

^i think you're both right. the sprawl has to already be there to justify the commuter rail, but then the commuter rail will cause the suburb to grow even faster and lead to more sprawl.

[SpringTX]

^i think you're both right. the sprawl has to already be there to justify the commuter rail, but then the commuter rail will cause the suburb to grow even faster and lead to more sprawl.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If commuter rail were to make the suburbs denser, as you say, wouldn't that be the opposite of sprawl?

The Houston suburbs are rapidly getting denser now anyways, and have been for 30 years when places like The Woodlands first popped up. I don't think the actual geographic coverage area of Houston has increased noticeably in 30 years. The current boundaries in all directions are about a 1-hour commute from downtown and I don't see that limit expanding unless cars get faster, or unless all the available real estate inside that area becomes too expensive for an average person to afford.

I believe the real solution to (the effects of) sprawl is to make autombiles cleaner for the environment, and safer for riders.

[danes75]

I think commuter rail defeats the purpose of trying to move all of the rail lines out of town (which BNSF is trying to do). I live close to a rail and I'm personally looking forward to when its no longer active. If it gets turned into a commuter line... dammit.

I wonder if the wham bam tram's saftey record is reducing ridership?

Why can't we be on the cutting edge? A highspeed or maglev train from the airport to the downtown station. (talk about rail deaths...)