Why does Houston lag so much in transit development

[lockmat]

If someone knows of another thread that answers my question, please, lead me to it.

But I just want to know why Houston has such a hard time building light rail, subway or anthing else. I know that Metro has some proposals for other mass transit that includes trains that might possibly turn into Light rail in the future, but why can't we just build those lines now?

I just ask because it seems like other cities get these things passed and built with ease. I'm sure they don't go without opposition, but none the less, it still happens. Is it the city officials' way of thinking, the voters?

I don't get it.

Mass transit will not solve our problems over night, but we have to start somewhere.

Someone enlighten me, thanks.

[MaxConcrete]

Someone enlighten me, thanks.

Like many people you have a fixation on trains, but trains are not a cost-effective solution in a city like Houston. The low density and sprawl of Houston makes buses and HOV lanes a much better solution in terms of cost-effectiveness and actually getting people out of their cars. Our HOV lane system is one of the best and carries a lot of trips every day (I don't have recent data but it is at least 120,000 trips per day).

Just look at any number of similar cities that have invested in rail: Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Dallas. Rail has not solved their transportation problems and (especially in the case of Dallas) have not stopped the relative decline of their downtowns. The fact is, Houston is much better off than other cities because we invest in low-cost solutions that WORK, not light rail that costs at least $40 million per mile and has a neglible effect on transportation.

[feufoma]

If someone knows of another thread that answers my question, please, lead me to it.

But I just want to know why Houston has such a hard time building light rail, subway or anthing else. I know that Metro has some proposals for other mass transit that includes trains that might possibly turn into Light rail in the future, but why can't we just build those lines now?

I just ask because it seems like other cities get these things passed and built with ease. I'm sure they don't go without opposition, but none the less, it still happens. Is it the city officials' way of thinking, the voters?

I don't get it.

Mass transit will not solve our problems over night, but we have to start somewhere.

Someone enlighten me, thanks.

I think it has alot to do with the fact that Houston is an oil town at the core and has always catered to developers. Thoese groups have a huge influence on local politics and will do anything to preserve and increase their coffers. If mass transit (e.g., expanded rail service) might possibly eat into profits then those groups are going to fight transit tooth and nail.

[CDeb]

I think it has alot to do with the fact that Houston is an oil town at the core and has always catered to developers. Thoese groups have a huge influence on local politics and will do anything to preserve and increase their coffers. If mass transit (e.g., expanded rail service) might possibly eat into profits then those groups are going to fight transit tooth and nail.

When all else fails, go after the ole' reliable boogeymen!

[sevfiv]

it is super scary for a city like houston to spend a load of money on something that like-minded folks in power were ripping out sixty or so years ago. and of course, with massive sprawl, the buck stops at freeways

[lockmat]

Like many people you have a fixation on trains, but trains are not a cost-effective solution in a city like Houston. The low density and sprawl of Houston makes buses and HOV lanes a much better solution in terms of cost-effectiveness and actually getting people out of their cars. Our HOV lane system is one of the best and carries a lot of trips every day (I don't have recent data but it is at least 120,000 trips per day).

Just look at any number of similar cities that have invested in rail: Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Dallas. Rail has not solved their transportation problems and (especially in the case of Dallas) have not stopped the relative decline of their downtowns. The fact is, Houston is much better off than other cities because we invest in low-cost solutions that WORK, not light rail that costs at least $40 million per mile and has a neglible effect on transportation.

You're right, in a way I do have some sort of a fixation. But at the end of the day, I just want whats best too.

The book I'm reading right now is called Breaking Gridlock, and it says what LA makes off of their transit only covers 20% of their cost of maintenance to run it. Sounds really bad, right? It went on to say that in places like Europe where subways and trains are used far more often, I think it said they only cover about 40% of their cost to operate. Europe doesn't expect to make profit off of it, and neither should we.

If all we have in ten or twenty years is just HOV lanes and buses, it's gonna be a scary to even get on the freeway.

[Pumapayam]

Someone enlighten me, thanks.

This is a thread that is pretty much a heated debate on a particular line, which should give you an idea why Houston is having such a hard time adopting light rail.

Also, you can check out a Pro Rail site, RichmondRail.org

[lockmat]

This is a thread that is pretty much a heated debate on a particular line, which should give you an idea why Houston is having such a hard time adopting light rail.

Also, you can check out a Pro Rail site, RichmainRail.org

Sweet man, appreciate it

[WesternGulf]

Just look at any number of similar cities that have invested in rail: Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Dallas. Rail has not solved their transportation problems and (especially in the case of Dallas) have not stopped the relative decline of their downtowns. The fact is, Houston is much better off than other cities because we invest in low-cost solutions that WORK, not light rail that costs at least $40 million per mile and has a neglible effect on transportation.

Well what do you say to a system that gets close to 40,000 riders a day vs a system in Dallas that currently has five times the amount of miles that Houston has but only gets around 50,000 riders a day give or take a few (it may be higher now. I don't know.) Also wasn't there a study that 40% of the current Red Line riders did not take any METRO services before light rail? Says a lot about how people will take a train before a bus even if it is a glorified bus system. The problem is, we don't know because we were never given the option. Houston is not Dallas or Atlanta.

[musicman]

The book I'm reading right now is called Breaking Gridlock, and it says what LA makes off of their transit only covers 20% of their cost of maintenance to run it. Sounds really bad, right? It went on to say that in places like Europe where subways and trains are used far more often, I think it said they only cover about 40% of their cost to operate. Europe doesn't expect to make profit off of it, and neither should we.

It's not about making a profit but about spending our resources so that the most people can benefit.

I'd have to say that there are many modes of transit and we definitely don't lag overall.

[lockmat]

It's not about making a profit but about spending our resources so that the most people can benefit.

I'd have to say that there are many modes of transit and we definitely don't lag overall.

I don't know if we lag overall or not. You're probably right and we don't. But I think we need to get to the point where ridership isn't just among people going back and forth from DT or for the low income folks. It should be for people running errands and all income classes. (Now I know it's not only low income folks riding, but on a more regular basis, they are the ones riding)

And I know that it's not about profit, thats why I pointed out that transit cities don't. I agree we should do the best we can with our resources. But think about the money people might save if they were able to ride on a more frequent basis that didn't include just going to work? Not that it would be a huge chunk, but that would be more money going somewhere else into our economy than into gas and car maintenance costs. And it still may not even be worth it money-wise. But this is a discussion, so...

[feufoma]

When all else fails, go after the ole' reliable boogeymen!

He, I'm in the energy business. I just call it like I see it. What's your opinion on the reason behind Houston's failure to have decent public transit?

[citykid09]

Well what do you say to a system that gets close to 40,000 riders a day vs a system in Dallas that currently has five times the amount of miles that Houston has but only gets around 50,000 riders a day give or take a few (it may be higher now. I don't know.) Also wasn't there a study that 40% of the current Red Line riders did not take any METRO services before light rail? Says a lot about how people will take a train before a bus even if it is a glorified bus system. The problem is, we don't know because we were never given the option. Houston is not Dallas or Atlanta.

You are right, I had never ridden on any of METROs busses, but as soon as they got the rail, I was like I want to ride it and see the city. There is a difference, a big difference! Busses are harder to figure out then rail, rail is an exact and you figure it out easly. Last March when I went to Atlanta, I was able to take MARTA from the airport to downtown where we stayed and from there pretty much all of the hot spots we wanted to see. Going somewhere where you can travel around the city by rail makes you realize what Houston is missing out on.

[CDeb]

He, I'm in the energy business. I just call it like I see it. What's your opinion on the reason behind Houston's failure to have decent public transit?

My OPINION (so take it for what it's worth) is that (right or wrong) the majority of folks in the Houston area don't want it or are indifferent about it because they don't think they'll ever benefit from it. I know that opinion seems odd in the intellectually cocooned environment of an internet message board like this one where nearly everyone is in favor of mass transit, but remember that we're a teeny tiny proportion of folks living in Houston, so our opinions and ideas are not representative of the populace as a whole. It's kind of like the famous person (dont' remember who it was, as I wasn't born yet) who was shocked that McGovern had lost the election in 1972, as she didn't know a single person who voted for Nixon, even though it was a huge landslide.

Confounded by the overall mood of the populace is the fact that land in Texas has been historically cheap, which is why Houston is as spread out as it is, and why expanding freeways has been relatively cheap here. This is still one of the cheapest places in the country to buy a nice home on a suburban lot. Great for homebuyers, but it complicates the mass transit issue immensely. Houston's commuting patterns don't easily fit in the traditional hub-and-spoke mass transit paradigm.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for transportation options in Houston and would love to see the light rail system built out with a commuter rail system to boot, but I believe that if the above mentioned factors did not exist, then any opposition from the boogeymen would have been easily overcome by the public demand.

[lockmat]

My OPINION (so take it for what it's worth) is that (right or wrong) the majority of folks in the Houston area don't want it or are indifferent about it because they don't think they'll ever benefit from it.

I think people are just set in their ways and since they haven't been introduced to the option, they automatically decide against it.

[CDeb]

I think people are just set in their ways and since they haven't been introduced to the option, they automatically decide against it.

I agree that this is part of it.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The reason Houston is behind in public transportation is because this is one of the largest free cities in one of the largest free states--meaning Automobile = Freedom. Our city is caters towards the automobile and peoples freedom to use thier automobiles more easily. I have no problem with that. Many of us, including me will not part with our autombiles easily and i will especially not part with my auto for a bus, trains are a different story

[feufoma]

The reason Houston is behind in public transportation is because this is one of the largest free cities in one of the largest free states--meaning Automobile = Freedom. Our city is caters towards the automobile and peoples freedom to use thier automobiles more easily. I have no problem with that. Many of us, including me will not part with our autombiles easily and i will especially not part with my auto for a bus, trains are a different story

I certainly don't disagree with you. Yes, Houston caters to the automobile and will probably continue to do so. Different strokes for different folks I guess... Buses in Houston are unquestionably not an efficient means of transportation unless you're taking it from a close-in area of the Loop to DT.

It will be interesting to see how congested central Houston becomes in the next few years. It's already at a near stand still on some arteries in the early evenings and on weekends. I realize that only a percentage of the increasing population over the next few years will reside in the central city, but I think it's going to be really tough to get around without some better transit options (e.g., LR in the central city connected to a commuter system; plus quick rail connections to each airport from a central station). I guess "my" part of Houston will just have to get smaller (Houston to me is only a few square miles now as it is; there's really not that much to see or do outside of the Loop anyway).

[lockmat]

The reason Houston is behind in public transportation is because this is one of the largest free cities in one of the largest free states--meaning Automobile = Freedom. Our city is caters towards the automobile and peoples freedom to use thier automobiles more easily. I have no problem with that. Many of us, including me will not part with our autombiles easily and i will especially not part with my auto for a bus, trains are a different story

I'd be more than willing to give up my truck sooner than later if transit was just more convenient.

I could be oversimplifying, but what if we just added more buses and routes? If we could just cut down the wait time for another bus, I'd be all over it.

I admit, I probably don't have a clue, so if someone can tell me why even part of that wouldn't work, let me know.

[sevfiv]

also, the new rail line caters to those who would not necessarily wait on the street at a possibly uncovered shelter for a bus. the stations are relatively clean, sheltered, well lit, have ticket purchase options, and are easy to identify.

[citykid09]

The reason Houston is behind in public transportation is because this is one of the largest free cities in one of the largest free states--meaning Automobile = Freedom. Our city is caters towards the automobile and peoples freedom to use thier automobiles more easily. I have no problem with that. Many of us, including me will not part with our autombiles easily and i will especially not part with my auto for a bus, trains are a different story

I wouldn't part with my automobile for a bus or train ither if I lived in Houston. There is not enough train to take me to where I need to go. I would keep my car in Atlanta also. They have rail (enough to get you to much of the hot spots), but you still need a car. If I lived there I would ride the rail though if Im going into the city.

The only cities in America that I wouldn't need a car are New York and Chicago (really only NYC).

I am not saying Houstonians should totally give up cars, but lets not rely on just automobles to get around, have other options.

There is a British show being taped in Houston right now which Beyonce's dad is apart of. It has like 7 young Britsh singers and the all move to Houston to train with Beyonces dad. Reporters ask them what they liked and disliked about Houston and all of them said that they disliked the transportation options and how hard it was to get around Houston. There was also something in 002 Magazine about it.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Part of this analysis is flawed in the sense that quietly people are equating quality mass transit with the number of miles of rail service (Light, Heavy, Commuter, etc) an urban area has, completely eliminating or disregarding the effectiveness of Houston's bus and HOV lane system relative to other cities. For example, how much is Houston's mass transit struggling relative to Dallas? Are you comparing total mass transit or just rail miles? I mean, you certainly couldn't be going by boardings per rail mile or percentage of persons in each system's service area who use public transit (bus and rail). So what's the measure in place?

While I support expanding rail service in certain corridors to and from specific places, the notion that the effectiveness of an area's public transit is measured by the amount of rail service offered seems to be more a subjective expression of one's taste. For example, there's nothing stopping you from taking public transit from downtown to IAH or Hobby--that is, unless you have a hang-up about buses. And that's what it often comes down to when people speak of "effective" mass transit.

For example, Miami has three times as many miles of rail and substantially more riders per day on its rail system, yet I dare you to visit and honestly say that public transit there is any more useful to you than it is in Houston. Try getting to and from the airport to the beaches, for example.

But the simple and sweet answer to this is that government doesn't invest in public transit in general because the public at large isn't adamant about it. If a greater percentage of the public at large were truly interested in public transit, they would put the screws to politicians in order to make sure that their area received the necessary funds to expand its public transit component.

So the buck stops with the public at large, which just isn't passionate enough about it to affect change. Houston's hardly unique in this area.

[lockmat]

But the simple and sweet answer to this is that government doesn't invest in public transit in general because the public at large isn't adamant about it. If a greater percentage of the public at large were truly interested in public transit, they would put the screws to politicians in order to make sure that their area received the necessary funds to expand its public transit component.

So the buck stops with the public at large, which just isn't passionate enough about it to affect change. Houston's hardly unique in this area.

For the most part, the public is not looking into the future and thinking about potential problems like the politicians are/should be.

I don't mean to keep referring back to the book I'm reading (Breaking Gridlock), but it talks about how European cities purposly plan their transit and city streets etc to slow down (mph) the auto and to encourage public transit.

Sometimes people don't know what's good for them. And nobody is going to force people to completely get rid of their cars or use public transit, of course. But when the problem gets bad enough, those same car lovers will have to change their travel habits to some degree.

Our politicians are there for a reason, and part of it is to lead the city into the right direction. Their job is to think about these things. They have the time, unlike most people.

[musicman]

But I think we need to get to the point where ridership isn't just among people going back and forth from DT or for the low income folks. It should be for people running errands and all income classes. (Now I know it's not only low income folks riding, but on a more regular basis, they are the ones riding)

And I know that it's not about profit, thats why I pointed out that transit cities don't. I agree we should do the best we can with our resources. But think about the money people might save if they were able to ride on a more frequent basis that didn't include just going to work? Not that it would be a huge chunk, but that would be more money going somewhere else into our economy than into gas and car maintenance costs. And it still may not even be worth it money-wise. But this is a discussion, so...

Many CAN ride public transporation now but choose not to due to additional time factor.

Remember we're so spread out that in general most citizens will NEVER be within walking distance from a train because we just don't have the funds to make it feasible. Therefore, a car will still be vital in our city.

[lockmat]

I'd be more than willing to give up my truck sooner than later if transit was just more convenient.

I could be oversimplifying, but what if we just added more buses and routes? If we could just cut down the wait time for another bus, I'd be all over it.

I admit, I probably don't have a clue, so if someone can tell me why even part of that wouldn't work, let me know.

Many CAN ride public transporation now but choose not to due to additional time factor.

Remember we're so spread out that in general most citizens will NEVER be within walking distance from a train because we just don't have the funds to make it feasible. Therefore, a car will still be vital in our city.

Many CAN ride public transporation now but choose not to due to additional time factor.

Remember we're so spread out that in general most citizens will NEVER be within walking distance from a train because we just don't have the funds to make it feasible. Therefore, a car will still be vital in our city.

Exactly, that's why I gave my proposal.

Of course, like I said, I could be oversimplifying, or just straight wrong. But would that not cut down on the wait/ride?

[DJ V Lawrence]

Houston is such a one-person one-car minded city. Not sure what would chang that mindset now. Our city leaders probably aren't sure yet either. They wouldn't want to spend millions of dollars on a subway that they weren't sure could be used. Can't blame them.

[lockmat]

Houston is such a one-person one-car minded city. Not sure what would chang that mindset now. Our city leaders probably aren't sure yet either. They wouldn't want to spend millions of dollars on a subway that they weren't sure could be used. Can't blame them.

Would a subway not be ideal for Houston though?

Of course there is rain, but it seems like technology is so advanced that it's not a problem. And then the most important part, it would keep riders out of the scorching hot sun. They can keep those things cool, right? I think the ones I rode in Europe just had window vents, eeek

[musicman]

My OPINION (so take it for what it's worth) is that (right or wrong) the majority of folks in the Houston area don't want it or are indifferent about it because they don't think they'll ever benefit from it. I know that opinion seems odd in the intellectually cocooned environment of an internet message board like this one where nearly everyone is in favor of mass transit, but remember that we're a teeny tiny proportion of folks living in Houston, so our opinions and ideas are not representative of the populace as a whole. It's kind of like the famous person (dont' remember who it was, as I wasn't born yet) who was shocked that McGovern had lost the election in 1972, as she didn't know a single person who voted for Nixon, even though it was a huge landslide.

Confounded by the overall mood of the populace is the fact that land in Texas has been historically cheap, which is why Houston is as spread out as it is, and why expanding freeways has been relatively cheap here. This is still one of the cheapest places in the country to buy a nice home on a suburban lot. Great for homebuyers, but it complicates the mass transit issue immensely. Houston's commuting patterns don't easily fit in the traditional hub-and-spoke mass transit paradigm.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for transportation options in Houston and would love to see the light rail system built out with a commuter rail system to boot, but I believe that if the above mentioned factors did not exist, then any opposition from the boogeymen would have been easily overcome by the public demand.

GREAT post CDeb.

[TheNiche]

Would a subway not be ideal for Houston though?

Of course there is rain, but it seems like technology is so advanced that it's not a problem. And then the most important part, it would keep riders out of the scorching hot sun. They can keep those things cool, right? I think the ones I rode in Europe just had window vents, eeek

The primary disadvantage is the extreme cost. It might be suitable for a mile or two, here or there, in extremely dense areas, like downtown or uptown, but not really anywhere else.

[lockmat]

The primary disadvantage is the extreme cost. It might be suitable for a mile or two, here or there, in extremely dense areas, like downtown or uptown, but not really anywhere else.

What if we gave the naming rights to Enron, errr...someone like, I don't know, who has a lot of money.

Eh, who am I kidding

You're right though. High density area would be best.

But Europes model is good. That's how they do it(subway in HD area), and then they have trains that take people further out if they want to.

I think people who make public transit decisions should have to go live in Europe for a year or something and see how to do it right (And yes, I know there are no sprawled out "Houstons" over there, but still, it would help their thinking)