Houston Annexation of the 50s/60s Kept the City from Having a Subway System

[DaTrain]

Here's my theory taken from existing opinions and facts about why Houston's transportation system sucks. Suburban layouts of the city are one thing, and I think I have come on the conclusion of this: excessive annexation back in the 1950s thru the 1970s have kept Houston from ever having any type of elevated rail/subway transit built at all. Here's the thing: conservaties and politicians of such rep about 60% of the city -- and 85% live outside of Loop 610 while liberals (and those for transportation options) live inside the Loop. And because the conservaties are that chunk of the population, those same ppl did not want rail transit at all and kept turning it down for 25 years till the new millennium. And the street layout and density layout exacerbated the problem because they are also in Houston and because the city limits swallowed countrysides whole all that time.

If only Houston was landlocked to inside Loop 610 (with Uptown in the city limits too), then it would have made all the difference in trans. options today: the city would have had an extensive rail system already in heavy rail tech mode that would have went DT, Reliant Park, East End, Uptown, Northline, the whole nine yards. And most of the residents that would have wanted it that live inner loop would have gotten it anyway due to politics of the liberal, Houston would have been landlocked, and they wouldn't have to miss out on having a rail system because of the suburbians outer loop who act like NIMBYs to keep it from happening, and the freeways in the metro would have been two lanes less than what they are today. The P&R bus routes METRO runs wouldn't be necessary today either had this been the case too, it wouldv'e been less car dependent if not all the way transit/ped friendly, hell Montrose residents (for example) would have rode a train along Westheimer to either DT Houston or Uptown rather than drive down the chocked up traffic of the street if needed. And since Houston has a rep of being a oil industry that fuels our cars with high-ass gas, the landlocked in the loop Houston wouldn't have the refineries in the city limits at all.

What do you think: do you agree or disagree of this theory of H-Town should've been landlocked so that it could have a rail system?? Look at NY, Chicago, DC and SF and Philly -- they have extensive rail systems because they did not annex their city limit boundaries. Oh well, just drop your opinions.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I disagree that the city should be landlocked in order to get a train system. Im a supporter of trains, but not at the cost of eliminating homes on 1+ acre lots and forcing people to live in a jumbled up over crowded inner city area. The fact that Houston has lots of room to grow and expand, with homes on large lots filled with greenery , is a tremendous draw for people to the city

[CDeb]

Here's my theory taken from existing opinions and facts about why Houston's transportation system sucks. Suburban layouts of the city are one thing, and I think I have come on the conclusion of this: excessive annexation back in the 1950s thru the 1970s have kept Houston from ever having any type of elevated rail/subway transit built at all. Here's the thing: conservaties and politicians of such rep about 60% of the city -- and 85% live outside of Loop 610 while liberals (and those for transportation options) live inside the Loop. And because the conservaties are that chunk of the population, those same ppl did not want rail transit at all and kept turning it down for 25 years till the new millennium. And the street layout and density layout exacerbated the problem because they are also in Houston and because the city limits swallowed countrysides whole all that time.

If only Houston was landlocked to inside Loop 610 (with Uptown in the city limits too), then it would have made all the difference in trans. options today: the city would have had an extensive rail system already in heavy rail tech mode that would have went DT, Reliant Park, East End, Uptown, Northline, the whole nine yards. And most of the residents that would have wanted it that live inner loop would have gotten it anyway due to politics of the liberal, Houston would have been landlocked, and they wouldn't have to miss out on having a rail system because of the suburbians outer loop who act like NIMBYs to keep it from happening, and the freeways in the metro would have been two lanes less than what they are today. The P&R bus routes METRO runs wouldn't be necessary today either had this been the case too, it wouldv'e been less car dependent if not all the way transit/ped friendly, hell Montrose residents (for example) would have rode a train along Westheimer to either DT Houston or Uptown rather than drive down the chocked up traffic of the street if needed. And since Houston has a rep of being a oil industry that fuels our cars with high-ass gas, the landlocked in the loop Houston wouldn't have the refineries in the city limits at all.

What do you think: do you agree or disagree of this theory of H-Town should've been landlocked so that it could have a rail system?? Look at NY, Chicago, DC and SF and Philly -- they have extensive rail systems because they did not annex their city limit boundaries. Oh well, just drop your opinions.

I think your "republican = hate transit" equation is a bit simplistic. I'm as conservative as they come and I am fully in favor of transit options. I look at the METRO solutions package combo of light rail and commuter rail and think it would be fantastic and I want more.

I think that Houston has always had a ton of room to expand, and that includes its freeways. Compared to other states, Texas has never been shy about laying down a fresh ribbon of concrete for people to drive on. Because of that, people have never experienced freeway congestion like what exists in the cities that you've mentioned. If you think 290 is bad, try driving the 5 in LA county or the 101 through Hollywood. It would make many Houstonians wet their pants. But since our freeways are only just now approaching that level of congestion, you are only starting to see people waking up to the need for transportation options. I don't think it's a liberal/conservative issue.

[TheNiche]

Here's my theory taken from existing opinions and facts about why Houston's transportation system sucks. Suburban layouts of the city are one thing, and I think I have come on the conclusion of this: excessive annexation back in the 1950s thru the 1970s have kept Houston from ever having any type of elevated rail/subway transit built at all. Here's the thing: conservaties and politicians of such rep about 60% of the city -- and 85% live outside of Loop 610 while liberals (and those for transportation options) live inside the Loop. And because the conservaties are that chunk of the population, those same ppl did not want rail transit at all and kept turning it down for 25 years till the new millennium. And the street layout and density layout exacerbated the problem because they are also in Houston and because the city limits swallowed countrysides whole all that time.

If only Houston was landlocked to inside Loop 610 (with Uptown in the city limits too), then it would have made all the difference in trans. options today: the city would have had an extensive rail system already in heavy rail tech mode that would have went DT, Reliant Park, East End, Uptown, Northline, the whole nine yards. And most of the residents that would have wanted it that live inner loop would have gotten it anyway due to politics of the liberal, Houston would have been landlocked, and they wouldn't have to miss out on having a rail system because of the suburbians outer loop who act like NIMBYs to keep it from happening, and the freeways in the metro would have been two lanes less than what they are today. The P&R bus routes METRO runs wouldn't be necessary today either had this been the case too, it wouldv'e been less car dependent if not all the way transit/ped friendly, hell Montrose residents (for example) would have rode a train along Westheimer to either DT Houston or Uptown rather than drive down the chocked up traffic of the street if needed. And since Houston has a rep of being a oil industry that fuels our cars with high-ass gas, the landlocked in the loop Houston wouldn't have the refineries in the city limits at all.

What do you think: do you agree or disagree of this theory of H-Town should've been landlocked so that it could have a rail system?? Look at NY, Chicago, DC and SF and Philly -- they have extensive rail systems because they did not annex their city limit boundaries. Oh well, just drop your opinions.

Convoluted for a variety of reasons.

Remember the MetroSolutions vote? If I'm not mistake, the entire METRO service area got a say in it. City boundaries don't necessarily equal Service Area boundaries.

[editor]

Here's the thing: conservaties and politicians of such rep about 60% of the city -- and 85% live outside of Loop 610 while liberals (and those for transportation options) live inside the Loop. And because the conservaties are that chunk of the population, those same ppl did not want rail transit at all and kept turning it down for 25 years till the new millennium.

This is the same situation in just about every large American city: the majority of liberals live in the urban core, while conservatives live in the suburbs.

So, why is it that Houston didn't end up with mass transit when the same situation exists in New York, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, and elsewhere?

Your theory doesn't match the reality.