Why does Houston lag so much in transit development

[citykid09]

RIGHT, now we have to get around Culberson with this University line.

If you don't like Houston anymore, that's fine, but don't ignore the progress in areas it has made or is making. Such as TMC developments, diverse neighborhoods, HOV system and the upcoming projects such as downtown park, Park tower, Blvd Place, High treet , and Pavilions.

I believe Houston is coming up. It's just missing a few key elements and sadly mass transit is currently one of them. That will be changing.

I still like Houston, I just don't look at it as I did a few years ago. Most of thoses projects you have listed have been around for years and nothing has happened, the only one that has shown any progress is the downtown park. I don't know if any of those others will ever happen. So please don't get it wrong, I still like Houston, I just can't stand to see all of these other cities catching up to it and passing it up. I like cities where I can hear about and acctually see progress like Dallas and Austin. I hate hearing year after year stuff thats coming to town and never see it coming, there is always an excuse. Let me hear and see the announcement of a new themepark then we can talk Houston!

[tierwestah]

HA! Citykid09. You a joke! How do you figure Dallas and Austin are more progessive than Houston? The only thing Dallas is leading Houston right now is mass transit. Austin is building new skyscrapers, so what? Houston has been doing that for years.

Houston was miles ahead of Dallas, Austin, and Atlanta 30 years ago. All Austin is doing is planning to build more skyscrapers and Mass Transit. A few scrapers are starting to take off there, but its not comparable w/ Houston. And Just because Dallas and Atlanta are more aggressive lately does not mean Houston is not progressing. If you think about it, ATL and DAL are just catching up to HOU. Houston is progressing, It's just not progressing in the way citykid09 and scarface want it to. I mean i'm a fan of subway and stuff like that but it doesn't make or break a city.

Just move to Dallas or Atlanta if you want to see a subway. PEACE!

[Pumapayam]

Citykid09, i share your frustrations as far as mass transit goes, but that issue is not Houston's fault. Metro is doing everything possible to get more rail, even took the initiative themselves and built the only line we have w/ no federal help. Blame the leaders in Congress who seem to have a personal vendeta against any progress for rail in Houston. Thank Culberson and Tom Delay.

As silly and expensive as this sounds, if all the major streets in Houston were replaced with lightrail lines, we'd really not need a use for cars (it's sounds stupid, but it is true, all we need is a vast network, and each additional line, no matter where it is, helps us get one step closer to it, and less dependant on cars). I can imagine that all the stop could get annoying, but it would be functional as a means of transportation.

[citykid09]

HA! Citykid09. You a joke! How do you figure Dallas and Austin are more progessive than Houston? The only thing Dallas is leading Houston right now is mass transit. Austin is building new skyscrapers, so what? Houston has been doing that for years.

Houston was miles ahead of Dallas, Austin, and Atlanta 30 years ago. All Austin is doing is planning to build more skyscrapers and Mass Transit. A few scrapers are starting to take off there, but its not comparable w/ Houston. And Just because Dallas and Atlanta are more aggressive lately does not mean Houston is not progressing. If you think about it, ATL and DAL are just catching up to HOU. Houston is progressing, It's just not progressing in the way citykid09 and scarface want it to. I mean i'm a fan of subway and stuff like that but it doesn't make or break a city.

Just move to Dallas or Atlanta if you want to see a subway. PEACE!

Thats what I have been saying the whole time! Houston is letting these cities catch up! Why!

Why let them get to apoint where they are at the same level as Houston. Why pause to let them catch up, keep going don't let other cities pass you up!

[Pumapayam]

Just move to Dallas or Atlanta if you want to see a subway. PEACE!

I thought the DART was above ground, I never knew it was a "subway"

That is news to me . . .

[TheNiche]

As silly and expensive as this sounds, if all the major streets in Houston were replaced with lightrail lines, we'd really not need a use for cars (it's sounds stupid, but it is true, all we need is a vast network, and each additional line, no matter where it is, helps us get one step closer to it, and less dependant on cars). I can imagine that all the stop could get annoying, but it would be functional as a means of transportation.

This isn't Sim City 1, you know.

[citykid09]

I thought the DART was above ground, I never knew it was a "subway"

That is news to me . . .

I know you where joking but here you go:

[lockmat]

Thats what I have been saying the whole time! Houston is letting these cities catch up! Why!

Why let them get to apoint where they are at the same level as Houston. Why pause to let them catch up, keep going don't let other cities pass you up!

I didn't know we were in a race

[Pumapayam]

This isn't Sim City 1, you know.

LOL . . .if only it really did cost $20 a section to install rail . . . then yes, I do agree with that.

But, like the BRT to LRT conversion, if the tracks are laid and enough of it is laid to cause usership to increase along that BRT line, a train will pop up like magic, just like in the Sim City game (of course, the bus being replaced by a train is expensive magic, but you get the point).

Just watch out for the occasional monster attack, could it be a metaphore for Culberson???

I know you where joking but here you go:

I have yet to visit downtown Dallas, so actually, I was being serious, thanx for sharing.

[TheNiche]

LOL . . .if only it really did cost $20 a section to install rail . . . then yes, I do agree with that.

But, like the BRT to LRT conversion, if the tracks are laid and enough of it is laid to cause usership to increase along that BRT line, a train will pop up like magic, just like in the Sim City game (of course, the bus being replaced by a train is expensive magic, but you get the point).

Just watch out for the occasional monster attack, could it be a metaphore for Culberson???

Well actually, I was referring to the seeming inevitability in Sim City 1 that there be no roads ever under any circumstances in any big city.

[nate]

Interesting. Would this solution not put more vehicles on the streets instead of less and increase traffic along wait times? Larger number of smaller vehicles on the streets doesnt do anything to help with congestion. I wouldnt trade my vehicle for a bus of any size only to sit in traffic, in a vehicle which i have no control over, just for the sake of riding a bus or using public transport.

If METRO replaces large buses on many routes with more smaller buses, there would certainly be more METRO vehicles, but they will be smaller and more manuverable. Since better schedules would attract more people, I think that the net effect would be to get more people out of their cars and into buses.

A jitney is just a guy with a car who picks people up for a fare while he goes about his day. I doubt that would increase traffic as these people are already on the roads. Private buses could only stay in business if they were able to attract riders. They can only attract riders if people prefer riding buses to driving. Many won't prefer buses, but we should give bus operators a shot.

[scarface]

Thats what I have been saying the whole time! Houston is letting these cities catch up! Why!

Why let them get to apoint where they are at the same level as Houston. Why pause to let them catch up, keep going don't let other cities pass you up!

but while the cities are catching up, Houston will be taking off in the upcoming years. Houston may not be quite as hot as Atlanta and Dallas are right now, but its still growing and will continue to do so. As i've heard, Atlanta has cooled off quite a bit this year. Let's see what happens for Houston in the upcoming years!

And to use the Amusement Park thing against Houston is a little too soon. Our Amusement Park just closed a year ago. It won't be long before someone realizes the market in Houston.

[nate]

I know you where joking but here you go:

Wow...look at all those people in the station.

DART is losing massive amounts of money. A complete waste of resources.

You people are so small town minded! You all need to come to Bryan/College Station and let real city folk run Houston. You guys act like citizens of small towns and you are making your city look really stupid. There must be something in the water down there because a lot of stupid decisions have been coming out of Houston latley:

Houston Texans: Pick Mario Williams orver Reggie Bush & Vince Young

Major Projects announced: Pretty much no results

METRO: Changing rail plan in to some goddamb guided busses

And the list goes on. To me Houston is run like a small town with lots of people in it. I use to be a big city of Houston fan as many of you know because I have been a part of this fourm since the begining (have not been around here much latley), but now I am a fan of cities with progress that you can see: Dallas & Austin to name a few!

I'm not sure what "small town minded" means.

I prefer solutions that are cost-effective. Rail is extremely expensive and should only be the last resort.

[TheNiche]

Wow...look at all those people in the station.

DART is losing massive amounts of money. A complete waste of resources.

I'm not sure what "small town minded" means.

I prefer solutions that are cost-effective. Rail is extremely expensive and should only be the last resort.

To be clear, all well-run transit agencies operate at a financial loss and must be subsidized in some form or another. If they aren't operating in a river of red ink, they probably should be.

However, I do agree with you that light rail, by virtue of its high cost, places it near the bottom of the list of transit options that should be utilized, and that it will only become worth its cost much further down the road. In fact, I'd put the argument out there that to embrace rail before a city is economically ready for it is a sign of the 'small town minded' nature of the pro-rail folks. It's kind of like a homophobe trying to cover up his own insecurities by acting out irrationally. I, on the other hand, am secure with my city's place in the grand scheme of things.

[zebra]

To touch more on what citykid say, how can he say houston is not progress. dallas and atlanta don't have an area like kemah. clearlake area. oh and what about all new condo tower going up around clear lake. dallas atlanta have nothng like that.

[Pumapayam]

Well actually, I was referring to the seeming inevitability in Sim City 1 that there be no roads ever under any circumstances in any big city.

Is that the ultimate way to successfully evolve the city. I always that you have to have both roads and rail.

[713 To 214]

However, I do agree with you that light rail, by virtue of its high cost, places it near the bottom of the list of transit options that should be utilized, and that it will only become worth its cost much further down the road.

In your theater of the mind, when will that be?

If state/city/METRO planners adopted your rationale, there would be little to no point in ever building another rail or road. Construction costs for these things rise over time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it gets. Not the reverse. This is due to supply and demand issues, as well as currency/property valuation issues. The excuse you provide for not building a rail alternative is, IMHO, misplaced. Had METRO began to build its rail system back during the Whitmire administration (over a quarter century ago), and continue with expansion through today, it would have cost far less than what it will eventually end up costing to build a system today. Additionally, the City would probably have an impressive system that would provide real alternatives for travel between many of the City's business centers, entertainment destinations, densely populated areas, and airports. Does rail cost? Sure it does. However, it is an investment we make now so that future generations of Houstonians and visitors will have an efficient transportation option that will increase their quality of life while in the City. The price we pay today, will be diminished over time as the system grows.

[Pumapayam]

I dont think Europes model is best at all. I think it sucks. Thier model is to punish people that have cars buy charging ridiculous amounts of taxes and such for fuel, which in turn forces people to use public transport or pay out the ass for fuel. That socialist garbage is not for me. Im in Europe frequently and will be headed there again tomorrow. The bulk of my European counterparts are envious of the freedom to drive and own cars here for relatively cheap prices.

In other sense, it has basically killed any potential for huge SUV's because of that added cost. When I think of the cars in Europe, as I am sure most do, you think of compact hatchback models.

[VelvetJ]

Couldn't have said it better, myself!

DOUBLE DITTO!

[Pumapayam]

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.

I have yet to ride one either, but from what I see at the bus stops, other than the downtown business workers that ride in the morning and at night, homeless people use it to get around and it sticks out may be a indirect reason why so many people could fear riding it.

But having lightrail won't rid the trains of homeless people, but the ratio may shrink and make people less fearful if a range of other riders were on board with them.

[musicman]

I'm not saying it isn't good. I never said it was either. I was just stating the fact. What I am saying is that it's not what I would do for Houston. They can do that b/c they haven't already sprawled like us. If we could start the city over it might be a good idea, but of course not now.

I guess the repeated references to the book confused me. I wouldn't keep referring to the book personally if i didn't agree with it.

[lockmat]

I guess the repeated references to the book confused me. I wouldn't keep referring to the book personally if i didn't agree with it.

I agree that it's good for Europe.

Of course I don't agree that we should slow traffic down in general here in Houston. In certain places it would be good though. HD areas for example.

Ugh..miscommuniction is no fun

[houstonmacbro]

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.

boils down to a lot of people not wanting 'it' in their backyard. for example ... NO ONE wants it to run from downtown to the galleria/uptown, even though it would be a natural boon.

also, you cannot get from the airport (either) to downtown via metro.... why? same reason prolly.

this town has a lot of backwards thinkers who only look at the short term pain and not the long term benefit.

[TheNiche]

In your theater of the mind, when will that be?

The time horizon varies from place to place. I'd expect that we would've been ready for the introduction of light rail in systematic form within about 10 to 15 years, tops. None of this incremental crap, either. The Red Line, standing alone, was a big mistake. In the mean time, improvements should have been made to the bus system--for instance, by cutting into sidewalks so that busses can pull out of traffic when they pick up and drop off passengers.

If state/city/METRO planners adopted your rationale, there would be little to no point in ever building another rail or road. Construction costs for these things rise over time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it gets. Not the reverse. This is due to supply and demand issues, as well as currency/property valuation issues. The excuse you provide for not building a rail alternative is, IMHO, misplaced. Had METRO began to build its rail system back during the Whitmire administration (over a quarter century ago), and continue with expansion through today, it would have cost far less than what it will eventually end up costing to build a system today.

That is the most ridiculous load of crap I've ever heard.

1) As population expands, it must be accomodated. To the extent that they are accomodated by horizontal growth, roads, highways, HOV lanes, and ultimately heavy/commuter rail must be built and expanded (in that order). To the extent that they are accomodated by vertical growth (i.e. densification), road expansion, bus routes, light rail, and ultimately subway lines must be built and expanded (also in that order). The no-build alternative is always present, but unless you're speaking to us from Detroit, it is almost always unreasonable as a long-term solution.

2) Construction costs rise over time, just as do the costs for all goods and as does economic output. This is called inflation. In the long run, inflation (a.k.a. nominal cost) is irrelevant. On the other hand, economic output and technology are increasing at a geometric rate and consistently outpace the rate of inflation. With greater technological knowledge, better roads and transit can be built at a lower real cost as a percentage of total output.

3) Land values are irrelevant in the transit-building game. This is a complicated point to try and communicate with any acceptable degree of brevity, but the key to it all is that the cost-benefit analysis uses market land values for all iterations of a transit investment study. Market land values equal the net present value of all rents that are expected from the land in the future if that land is applied to its highest and best use. So if appreciation has occured at a more rapid rate in Houston than the average long-term risk-free rate of return (which it has), then that is only because expectations have changed. If it had been forseeable in the future back in the Whitmire administration, the land prices would've been higher back then. Similarly, if further unforseen appreciation were forseeable today, prices would be higher than they are.

4) The weak dollar of the present was unforseeable in the past...and if it had been, then the value would've adjusted lower back then (see above explanation of market valuation).

Additionally, the City would probably have an impressive system that would provide real alternatives for travel between many of the City's business centers, entertainment destinations, densely populated areas, and airports.

The point of mass transit is not to provide alternatives for travel for the sake of providing alternatives. It is to systematically move people quickly and efficiently throughout the city. Whether they move by private vehicle, carpool, bus, light rail, or on their own two feet is irrelevant insofar as they are moved efficiently.

The price we pay today, will be diminished over time as the system grows.

Uh, no. Two words: opportunity cost. If we hadn't built the Red Line, we could just as easily have placed all those hundreds of millions of dollars in an investment fund with compounded growth and have been making money...or we could have just given it back to the taxpayers and let them spend it the way that they please...individuals have a good knack for maximizing their own utility if you grant them the freedom. We passed up the opportunity for alternative use of these resources by building an infrastructure that will depreciate over time, requiring maintenance and repair.

[lockmat]

Niche, are you an economist? Or do you just really know your stuff?

[Mark F. Barnes]

I've ridden on both and DART is by far ahead of the game. METRO should take notes.

The Buses are a toss up, but the rail systems are not even close.

And by the way Niche is a number crunching maniac, and given my guess an economic management major in college, and knows his stuff when it comes to crunching economic data.

[713 To 214]

Niche, are you an economist? Or do you just really know your stuff?

I can't answer the first part of your question. However, the second part is definetly no.

Not only do I stand by my statements (in part because The Nicheagreed with much of my post, albeit he tried to split hairs in a pitiful attempt to prove his original point), but I challenge The Niche to provide us with one (1) historical example of a city that has constructed its system, as we know it today, all at once. . .which is what I believe he's suggesting METRO should wait (10 to 15 years?) to do. Now, if every other transit authority, in the USA/world built successful rail systems contrary to The Niche's proposed model, then guess who I'm going to side with. AND Finally, for all that read this post. . .look at my post and then look at the Niche's post, then ask yourself which one makes more sense, and takes less effort, words to explain. In my line of work, we have a saying. . .if you have to do to much explaining, you're loosing the argument (because it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell us the Sky is Bl ue when we can look up and see that the sky is Blue). . .Make sense?

[Montrose1100]

Niche, are you an economist? Or do you just really know your stuff?

Niche is a genius.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Watch This Video

[lockmat]

I can't answer the first part of your question. However, the second part is definetly no.

Not only do I stand by my statements (in part because The Nicheagreed with much of my post, albeit he tried to split hairs in a pitiful attempt to prove his original point), but I challenge The Niche to provide us with one (1) historical example of a city that has constructed its system, as we know it today, all at once. . .which is what I believe he's suggesting METRO should wait (10 to 15 years?) to do. Now, if every other transit authority, in the USA/world built successful rail systems contrary to The Niche's proposed model, then guess who I'm going to side with. AND Finally, for all that read this post. . .look at my post and then look at the Niche's post, then ask yourself which one makes more sense, and takes less effort, words to explain. In my line of work, we have a saying. . .if you have to do to much explaining, you're loosing the argument (because it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell us the Sky is Bl ue when we can look up and see that the sky is Blue). . .Make sense?

Makes sense...for some things. Not everything is that simple. Some things are.

I don't know in this case. I'm not all that educated on this kind of stuff.