Why does Houston lag so much in transit development

[C2H]

OK, OK, I have read enough. I will tell you EXACTLY why we are sooooooooo behind in mass transit. We are the energy capital of the world, our whole economy in Houston is based on OIL ! Now, if we had mass transit and didn't have all this sprawl, requiring everyone that moves here to buy a car in order to drive 50 miles to get anywhere you need to go and burn OIL, then what kind of example would we be setting by trying to CONSERVE our economy's number one resource ? I mean really ?

This is brilliant

[sunsets]

Having people transfer increases travel times. Increased travel times mean less people would be likely to ride it.

How many people posting on here use the public transit system nearly every day? Namely, the bus and red line part of the system? I'm just wondering how true the quoted statement is.

Here's my own anecdotal experience using the bus and train to travel from the Heights to the Med Center.

I have three options to get home: 1) The #34 Montrose Crosstown, straight up Montrose from the TMC. 2) The #8, which travels up Fannin, then through downtown then west to the Heights. 3) The red line to downtown, then a transfer at Main Street to the #40, which heads out to the Heights.

Option 1 is by far the fastest, but service is limited. If I get stuck at work past 6:30 pm, then I have to choose between options 2 and 3.

Option 2, the #8 parallels the train route up Fannin to downtown, then turns west to the Heights. Theoretically, this should be the faster option, because I'm not transferring. It never is. The bus is usually behind schedule, and if at any point it needs to stop and pick up a 300 lb guy in a wheelchair, you've added another 5 minutes to the journey. Add 10 if he decides to get off the bus three blocks later. Add another 3 minutes to get everyone and their groceries on at the Fiesta. It usually takes at least an hour to get home by this route.

Option 3, Train-to-bus. I like this much better because the trains run every 6 minutes, so as long as I leave enough time, I can miss one, catch the next, and still make my transfer downtown. Contrast this to missing the #8 and having to wait another 30 minutes for the next one. The train usually takes about 17 minutes to run from the Houston Zoo station to Main Street Square. Even a 300 lb guy in a wheelchair is no problem, since the train is level with the platform and there are plenty of exits, everyone can get on and off in a timely fashion. I exit the train, walk 3 blocks to Travis and Walker, and then catch the #40. If the 40 is on time, I am then home 15 minutes later. Total travel time including transfer is usually 30-45 minutes.

Of course, all this relies on the #40 being on-time, which it rarely is. And standing on that corner at Travis and Walker after dark can be a bit alarming (especially when the bum behind you has just started pissing on the garbage can). But my point is that the train to bus transfer is not a problem at all, and usually shortens my travel time. And yes, as a middle-class white person, I do happen to prefer the train I get carsick, so the smooth ride of the rail vs. the stop and go of the typical city bus is more to my liking.

Yes, it would be faster for me to drive, and traffic is not too bad in the loop. However, the TMC is definitely using some economic pressure to get its employees out of their cars. I refuse to pay $120/mo for parking.

And finally, it would be great if Metro hadn't reneged on their promise of bike racks on the buses.

[TheNiche]

How many people posting on here use the public transit system nearly every day? Namely, the bus and red line part of the system? I'm just wondering how true the quoted statement is.

Here's my own anecdotal experience using the bus and train to travel from the Heights to the Med Center.

I have three options to get home: 1) The #34 Montrose Crosstown, straight up Montrose from the TMC. 2) The #8, which travels up Fannin, then through downtown then west to the Heights. 3) The red line to downtown, then a transfer at Main Street to the #40, which heads out to the Heights.

Option 1 is by far the fastest, but service is limited. If I get stuck at work past 6:30 pm, then I have to choose between options 2 and 3.

Option 2, the #8 parallels the train route up Fannin to downtown, then turns west to the Heights. Theoretically, this should be the faster option, because I'm not transferring. It never is. The bus is usually behind schedule, and if at any point it needs to stop and pick up a 300 lb guy in a wheelchair, you've added another 5 minutes to the journey. Add 10 if he decides to get off the bus three blocks later. Add another 3 minutes to get everyone and their groceries on at the Fiesta. It usually takes at least an hour to get home by this route.

Option 3, Train-to-bus. I like this much better because the trains run every 6 minutes, so as long as I leave enough time, I can miss one, catch the next, and still make my transfer downtown. Contrast this to missing the #8 and having to wait another 30 minutes for the next one. The train usually takes about 17 minutes to run from the Houston Zoo station to Main Street Square. Even a 300 lb guy in a wheelchair is no problem, since the train is level with the platform and there are plenty of exits, everyone can get on and off in a timely fashion. I exit the train, walk 3 blocks to Travis and Walker, and then catch the #40. If the 40 is on time, I am then home 15 minutes later. Total travel time including transfer is usually 30-45 minutes.

Of course, all this relies on the #40 being on-time, which it rarely is. And standing on that corner at Travis and Walker after dark can be a bit alarming (especially when the bum behind you has just started pissing on the garbage can). But my point is that the train to bus transfer is not a problem at all, and usually shortens my travel time. And yes, as a middle-class white person, I do happen to prefer the train I get carsick, so the smooth ride of the rail vs. the stop and go of the typical city bus is more to my liking.

Yes, it would be faster for me to drive, and traffic is not too bad in the loop. However, the TMC is definitely using some economic pressure to get its employees out of their cars. I refuse to pay $120/mo for parking.

And finally, it would be great if Metro hadn't reneged on their promise of bike racks on the buses.

Sounds to me like if you can't catch the Montrose crosstown, then you're just a victim of crappy bus service (possibly intentional). They really should have more express routes, and have them more frequently. If the #8 acted as an express route between the TMC and downtown, letting the people in the low-ridership areas in between the two utilize the Red Line for local service to a high-ridership hub, then the #8 would have the time-characteristics of a private vehicle along Fannin...and private vehicles beat the LRT hands-down. Instead, METRO has overlapping services that largely eliminate the effectiveness of the #8 between the TMC and DT. The result is that you and others like you add to the LRT ridership counts, which METRO will flaunt as an indicator of LRT effectiveness even though it may better be an indicator of bus ineffectiveness.

And you're right that the lack of bike racks limits the effectiveness of the bus system...it'd be an easy ridership multiplier with relatively little cost.

By the way, if memory serves, studies show that mass transit riders' average opportunity cost of time is equal to about a half of their hourly wage rate when they're in-transit, but between 1.0 and 1.5 times their wage rate when they're waiting for a transfer. I'll verify that when I eventually dig out my old Urban Economics textbook.

[sevfiv]

i'm (finally) almost finished with houston electric by steven baron. good read on the local history of transportation - shows the general attitude.

also, i recommend Who Framed Roger Rabbit

eddie valiant: "that lame-brained freeway idea could only be cooked up by a toon"

[dbigtex56]

i'm (finally) almost finished with houston electric by steven baron. good read on the local history of transportation - shows the general attitude.

also, i recommend Who Framed Roger Rabbit

eddie valiant: "that lame-brained freeway idea could only be cooked up by a toon"

You'd love Toronto. There's an example of how government, investors and the citizenry came together.

I'd swim the St. Laurence Seaway to be a Canadian Wetback.

[TheNiche]

I'll verify that when I eventually dig out my old Urban Economics textbook.

Textbook uncovered. It is the 5th edition of Urban Economics by O'Sullivan.

I was precisely correct. According to Small (1992), the average commuter values the time spent in transit vehicles at about half the wage rate, but is willing to pay between 1 and 1.5 times his wage rate to avoid an hour of walking/waiting time. The value of travel time increases less than proportionately with income.

The book spends a couple paragraphs touting Houston's HOV system, although the author is much less forthcoming with support for other cities' attempts at implementing diamond lanes. According to Richmond (1998), The system caused large increases in carpooling and bus ridership, so the HOV lanes diverted large volumes of traffic from general-purpose lanes. The average vehicle occupancy increased by 20 percent and congestion dropped by 4 percent, with minimal impact on the capacity of general-purpose lanes.

The author is supportive of auto and bus systems, but is critical of heavy and light rail in most cases. He notes that NYC and Chicago are the only possible exceptions, as they have corridors with passenger volumes in excess of 30,000 persons per hour, beyond which integrated bus service might possibly be more expensive per passenger mile than with a BART-like heavy rail corridor. Light rail has exceptionally high capital costs and typically also has higher operating costs per passenger than do busses. Although the author recognizes the advantages to light rail, that it is faster and more comfortable than a bus, he points out that the modern American city is already dispersed and that most riders must utilize some other form transit in order to get from home to the LRT, and then from the LRT to their final destination; the time cost of collection and distribution tends to be higher than the time cost for the line-haul itself, so LRT really isn't competitive with a well-run integrated bus system.

He concludes that "In many cases, busways and HOV systems would be less expensive and more effective in increasing transit ridership. In other cases, simple and inexpensive changes in regular bus service (adding buses, changing routes or schedules, decreasing fares) may be more efficient than big projects.

Not to start anything, but Houston is cited on five occasions within the book on various topics and is also included among various tables and graphs; Dallas is not mentioned...ever.

[dbigtex56]

I was precisely correct. According to Small (1992), the average commuter values the time spent in transit vehicles at about half the wage rate, but is willing to pay between 1 and 1.5 times his wage rate to avoid an hour of walking/waiting time. The value of travel time increases less than proportionately with income.

Congratulations on being precisely correct.

Me, being of a congenital low brow, had to read that sentence three times before it made sense.

In simpler terms, a person is more willing to devote time as a commuter than he cares to admit. He (or she) does not value the time spent commuting for some reason.

Are we on the same page?

[TheNiche]

Congratulations on being precisely correct.

Me, being of a congenital low brow, had to read that sentence three times before it made sense.

In simpler terms, a person is more willing to devote time as a commuter than he cares to admit. He (or she) does not value the time spent commuting for some reason.

Are we on the same page?

Excuse me for not elaborating. My post was lengthy enough, and I know that there are lots of folks that just won't read it if it looks too imposing, so I tried to keep it brief. The short answer is that no, people do not positively value the time that they spend commuting. It is a cost to them. People don't like costs and try to minimize them.

The results of the study, which reveal the characteristics of commuter costs by mass transit can be interpereted as follows:

1) The typical commuter would be willing to pay half of his hourly wage to avoid an hour riding on the bus or train. So no, people do not value the time that they spend commuting, but the disamenity factor is reasonably low.

2) In contrast, a typical commuter would be willing to pay between his whole hourly wage and 150% of his hourly wage to avoid an hour of waiting or walking. So not only do they not value the time that is spent on the street, but they'll pay a fairly substantial sum to avoid it.

From these two findings, O'Sullivan concludes that service improvements that decrease walking and waiting time generate larger increases in ridership demand than improvements that decrease riding time.

[dbigtex56]

people do not value the time that they spend commuting, but the disamenity factor is reasonably low.

OK

Humor me.

First of all, (me being of inferior intellect and uneducated and all) I cannot find a reference for the word 'disamenity'. You're going to have to help me out with that one. The supposed meaning is "that which people don't like". Is that right? In the same ballpark?

Here's the crux of the matter: that maybe people cannot be treated as mere widgets. Maybe there's a reason that people are more willing to accept long commuting times than they care to admit. Maybe you're giving more weight to flawed methodology than you ought.

But what do I know?

I think that there are aspects of being a lone commuter which are insufficiently explored. For many people, it's the only time they have to express themselves without being judged. For many people, it's the only time they have the luxury of being alone - to rant and rave in private, to listen to whatever music one likes and express opinions without being judged by ones employer or family.

It's a form of freedom - an emotional outlet. And people want to guard that time.

It's an aspect which needs to be considered.

[Guest danax]

OK

Humor me.

First of all, (me being of inferior intellect and uneducated and all) I cannot find a reference for the word 'disamenity'. You're going to have to help me out with that one. The supposed meaning is "that which people don't like". Is that right? In the same ballpark?

Here's the crux of the matter: that maybe people cannot be treated as mere widgets. Maybe there's a reason that people are more willing to accept long commuting times than they care to admit. Maybe you're giving more weight to flawed methodology than you ought.

But what do I know?

I think that there are aspects of being a lone commuter which are insufficiently explored. For many people, it's the only time they have to express themselves without being judged. For many people, it's the only time they have the luxury of being alone - to rant and rave in private, to listen to whatever music one likes and express opinions without being judged by ones employer or family.

It's a form of freedom - an emotional outlet. And people want to guard that time.

It's an aspect which needs to be considered.

Yes, it is damned hard to get people out of their cars, no matter how long it takes to get home. No transit system can drop you off at your driveway or parking spot at work in privacy and comfort. People love their cars and pay a lot each month to have one and are not easily going to give them up, no matter how nice of a transit system their city might have.

Rail should be looked at as non-essential infrastructure at this point; a nice alternative to cars and busses and a potential spur for non-surburban development, but with so many cars, even that is not guaranteed. I would love to see our city become full of it though, along with wide sidewalks and bike trails and all of the frills and thrills that go along with that, but I'm in the minority and so am merely dreaming.

[musicman]

How many people posting on here use the public transit system nearly every day? Namely, the bus and red line part of the system? I'm just wondering how true the quoted statement is.

Here's my own anecdotal experience using the bus and train to travel from the Heights to the Med Center.

I have three options to get home: 1) The #34 Montrose Crosstown, straight up Montrose from the TMC. 2) The #8, which travels up Fannin, then through downtown then west to the Heights. 3) The red line to downtown, then a transfer at Main Street to the #40, which heads out to the Heights.

=====================

And finally, it would be great if Metro hadn't reneged on their promise of bike racks on the buses.

One definite advantage you have is that you have options for public transporation, the ability to use 3 routes. I would have to say that most users don't have that luxury.

And i agree totally with your bike rack comment!

[musicman]

1) The typical commuter would be willing to pay half of his hourly wage to avoid an hour riding on the bus or train. So no, people do not value the time that they spend commuting, but the disamenity factor is reasonably low.

2) In contrast, a typical commuter would be willing to pay between his whole hourly wage and 150% of his hourly wage to avoid an hour of waiting or walking. So not only do they not value the time that is spent on the street, but they'll pay a fairly substantial sum to avoid it.

From these two findings, O'Sullivan concludes that service improvements that decrease walking and waiting time generate larger increases in ridership demand than improvements that decrease riding time.

I don't understand your statement "So not only do they not value the time that is spent on the street, but they'll pay a fairly substantial sum to avoid it."

So are you saying they do value their time (i.e. don't want to wait/walk) so they are willing to pay a substantial sum to avoid it?

[TheNiche]

I don't understand your statement "So not only do they not value the time that is spent on the street, but they'll pay a fairly substantial sum to avoid it."

So are you saying they do value their time (i.e. don't want to wait/walk) so they are willing to pay a substantial sum to avoid it?

People dislike waiting or walking during a commute. They are willing to pay a fair bit of money to avoid waiting or walking. For instance, if a commuter earns $10 per hour at his or her job, they are most likely to be willing to pay between $10 and $15 to avoid an hour (or between $0.16 and $0.25 per minute) of waiting or walking during a commute.

[lockmat]

You know "that book" I have referenced a few times? ("Breaking Gridlock") It makes a comment on Houston and here it is:

"Jonathan Richmond, has taught at MIT and Harvard...Rail projects bring in money for a large number of contractors and other special interests, but they actually encourage driving by building park-and-ride lots. They just don't work in low-density regions. Cities like Houston could do more by expanding their busways."

The author notes how this is also done in Curitiba, Brazil but also wonders, "but why is it an either-or quesetion? My experience in Portland was that the transit system works because it's multifacited and intermodal. The buses connect to light rail, which connect to Amtrak, the airport, and the new trolley lines. Car sharing and heavy bicycle use help, too"

-------

20 mins later...

Random idea...

What if Metro charged people like tollways charge people? It's a little bit different, but what if riders were charged for the distance they traveled? They could swipe a card when they got on and off that would log how far they rode. Of course this would slow things down if they were forced to pay when getting off. But it could be used like EZ tags are. You can put money into your account, or you could just pay it off every month.

One-time riders could pay a higher flat rate. Maybe a dime or quarter more?

Maybe a lame idea, but was just thinking of ways to produce a little more revenue.

-----

And an hour later...

Just thought I would also throw in this quote from the author's learning's from writing this book to offset the first quote I put in.

"Refuse to accept bottom-line thinking: On paper, transit will never make sense. Given the huge capital investment necessary to launch any light-rail system it will always look like a loser. Even bus lines, with their higher ridership and lower infrastructure investment, can't meet their costs on the fare box alone. The best way for municipal planners to think of mass transit is as a safety valve. Look at any subway system. See all the people? They'd be blocking the highways with their cars if they weren't on board. Consider the cost of all that extra gridlock. If the city, state, and federal governments have to subsicize mass-transit, it's usually worth the investment in the long run."

Edited December 17, 2006 by lockmat

[lockmat]

OK, OK, I have read enough. I will tell you EXACTLY why we are sooooooooo behind in mass transit. We are the energy capital of the world, our whole economy in Houston is based on OIL ! Now, if we had mass transit and didn't have all this sprawl, requiring everyone that moves here to buy a car in order to drive 50 miles to get anywhere you need to go and burn OIL, then what kind of example would we be setting by trying to CONSERVE our economy's number one resource ? I mean really ?

Something I've learned from reading the past couple days...

Notice how you said we are the energy capital of the world and not the oil capital. Companies like Shell are investing time and money into other forms of energy now, not just oil.

I'm not totally discounting your argument. I'm just sayin'.

[TJones]

Something I've learned from reading the past couple days...

Notice how you said we are the energy capital of the world and not the oil capital. Companies like Shell are investing time and money into other forms of energy now, not just oil.

I'm not totally discounting your argument. I'm just sayin'.

I didn't mispeak Lock, I meant "Energy Capital of the World", but it is based on OIL ! Not Nuclear, not wind power. We are talking OIL and Natural Gas. Shell, has tried to grab on to the Ethanol bandwagon, as a means to "caudle" the greenpeace crowd. Shell/Texaco has for years been trying to find a substitute for petroleum based products so THEY will have an alternative for EVERYONE, so they look like heros, but it is all about the almighty dollar. You gotta spend money to make money, and with second quarter profits the way they were this year. They have plenty to spend on R&D.

Edited December 18, 2006 by TJones

[sttombiz]

Im naive but what is the difference between light, heavy, and commuter rail?

also you can thank the oil crisis of the 80s for houston not having more of a mass transit system today. lanier was the head of METRO and made the decision to nix the bond fund that would pay for it and before this in the early 80s or late 70s the houston voters voted down the bond that would allocate money for this type of problem. so you can thank the non-divesture of the houston economy and bob lanier for being fiscally responsible.

houston rail is a good thing though when we have the money. the munies that would pay for this would increase the tax basis but it is needed. you have to weigh the pros and cons and end sprawl which can only be done through zoning. there is only one place in houston that has zoning and its some neighborhood in lamar terrace.

either way the rail for dense areas such as from downtown to uptown but I mean that would be one long ass rail line down westheimer and imagine no left turns on westheimer (hey look you cant get into royal oaks or hey look I cant go to the galleria)- a subway would likely be more apt in that situation.

if you want better transit either double stack the freeways to katy, sugar land, and the woodlands or stop the sprawl- what is that new parkway going to be called outside of 99 like the meadow or prairie parkway? great idea

[TheNiche]

Im naive but what is the difference between light, heavy, and commuter rail?

Light rail is basically a modern streetcar system. Heavy rail and commuter rail are pretty much the same thing; examples include BART, MARTA, Washington D.C.'s Metro system, and LA's Red Line.

houston rail is a good thing though when we have the money. the munies that would pay for this would increase the tax basis but it is needed. you have to weigh the pros and cons and end sprawl which can only be done through zoning. there is only one place in houston that has zoning and its some neighborhood in lamar terrace.

either way the rail for dense areas such as from downtown to uptown but I mean that would be one long ass rail line down westheimer and imagine no left turns on westheimer (hey look you cant get into royal oaks or hey look I cant go to the galleria)- a subway would likely be more apt in that situation.

if you want better transit either double stack the freeways to katy, sugar land, and the woodlands or stop the sprawl- what is that new parkway going to be called outside of 99 like the meadow or prairie parkway? great idea

I'd rather not turn this into a discussion of the merits of zoning, but just so you're aware, since most sprawl doesn't occur within the City of Houston, zoning would not be effective at curbing sprawl. If anything, the inefficiencies of land allocation and added costs of red tape within the City would create more incentive for developers to go into unincorporated areas. In other cases, NIMBYists would argue for land uses near their neighborhoods to be lower-density than you or the market would prefer...a lot of them will win, too. Can't escape the law of unintended consequences.

[sttombiz]

but I was under the impression that the no zoning rules gave way to areas such as greenspoint, westchase, and the energy corridor. since all the businesses should be located in one central hub.

but residents faired west in the 70s and 80s because of large homes and the inexpensive nature of it all. transit in essence is a good thing but for houston will be spotty at best. or will they link katy and sugar land via rail lines?

its all academic but there should just be rail corridors in certain areas and bus lines to connect the areas. it would increase community spirit for that area but not for houston as a whole (which in essence is a bad thing). alas, my suggestions are menial and would never fix the problem.

[musicman]

but I was under the impression that the no zoning rules gave way to areas such as greenspoint, westchase, and the energy corridor. since all the businesses should be located in one central hub.

but residents faired west in the 70s and 80s because of large homes and the inexpensive nature of it all. transit in essence is a good thing but for houston will be spotty at best. or will they link katy and sugar land via rail lines?

its all academic but there should just be rail corridors in certain areas and bus lines to connect the areas. it would increase community spirit for that area but not for houston as a whole (which in essence is a bad thing). alas, my suggestions are menial and would never fix the problem.

Zoning doesn't say that all businesses should be lcoated in one central hub. It does differentiate where residential and commerical areas are.

So you should say we should build rail for community spirit? Poor rationale IMO.

Edited December 27, 2006 by musicman

[TheNiche]

since all the businesses should be located in one central hub.

That's an entirely normative statement, and one that isn't backed by many zoned cities. Even in places that are very strict in their application of urban planning, there is a recognition of benefit to there being multiple business districts.

Think of it this way: the vast majority of people use private automobiles, and you may be able to reduce their number by a few percent with transit, but you can't get around that fact. So do you want them all going all the way downtown or would you prefer that a fair number of their trips end half-way to downtown, freeing up road capacity for those that absolutely need to make it downtown? Is downtown better or worse off for having less congested access to the entire suburban labor pool? Is the citizenry better off?

The answers, of course, are that it makes the entire city more competitive for big corporate headquarters locations and for firms that need to tap big populations. Trying to force every business downtown, in contrast, just crowds out the big boys, limiting economic growth potential. That doesn't make for a very happy citizenry.

[Subdude]

It can work in any number of ways. Where I am, which is roughly the size of Houston, there are some suburban office developments, but the vast majority of offices are in the center. No one is forcing all the construction in the center, but businesses consider it most advantageous because of the availability of transit to bring in commuters. Locating too far away would be self-defeating, since employees don't want to have to rely on cars exclusively, and proximity to rail is considered a major plus. That said, the dense "downtown" area is much larger than that in Houston, so not everyone can be close to transit lines, so a lot of people still have to rely on cars, road capacity is limited, and major traffic jams result. Bottom line is less road capacity, more mass transit capacity, equal or somewhat greater auto traffic congestion at peak hours, less auto congestion off-peak, and many more pedestrians. Is it perfect? Not at all. There are always trade-offs in transportation systems. Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this model limits economic growth potential. That would be a stretch.

[TheNiche]

It can work in any number of ways. Where I am, which is roughly the size of Houston, there are some suburban office developments, but the vast majority of offices are in the center. No one is forcing all the construction in the center, but businesses consider it most advantageous because of the availability of transit to bring in commuters. Locating too far away would be self-defeating, since employees don't want to have to rely on cars exclusively, and proximity to rail is considered a major plus. That said, the dense "downtown" area is much larger than that in Houston, so not everyone can be close to transit lines, so a lot of people still have to rely on cars, road capacity is limited, and major traffic jams result. Bottom line is less road capacity, more mass transit capacity, equal or somewhat greater auto traffic congestion at peak hours, less auto congestion off-peak, and many more pedestrians. Is it perfect? Not at all. There are always trade-offs in transportation systems. Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this model limits economic growth potential. That would be a stretch.

Where are you?

[Subdude]

In Ireland. My point was just that I don't think you can claim that a particular model of transit development, either the dispersed "Houston model" or a centralized "European model" necessarily makes a city more competitive. Either one can work, but it's a matter of prioritizing a number of factors, of which traffic congestion is only one. And again, it's not a matter of forcing businesses to locate in the center. They try to do so out of self-interest.

Please nobody get on my case that I am trying to "force" Houston to be like other cities, or stop it from "being itself," or "force" people to use mass transit. Not at all - it's just pointing out that there are different models that are feasible, each with pros and cons.

[TheNiche]

In Ireland. My point was just that I don't think you can claim that a particular model of transit development, either the dispersed "Houston model" or a centralized "European model" necessarily makes a city more competitive.

Texas and Ireland are incomparable. Cities in Ireland compete within the context of European cities, the majority of which tend to follow similar growth models; it's a level playing field.

And again, it's not a matter of forcing businesses to locate in the center. They try to do so out of self-interest.

A centralized location may be the most accessible to the labor pool, but it is also by far the most expensive. In big cities, there are relatively few kinds of firms that need access to the entire region's pool of labor, but they tend to be the largest of all firms. Smaller businesses with labor needs that are easier to fulfill go suburban because the marginal benefits of centrality are fewer and because big firms (and speculators serving them) for whom centrality is critical bid up the land prices and assure future capacity for their own expansion. The costs of centrality outweigh the benefits. Smaller businesses therefore couldn't compete in the CBD; it is not in their best interest.

If it were always in businesses' best interests to locate centrally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd just do it.

[AftonAg]

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!

City kid - I go to College Station every chance I get, but please don't go inviting all of these non-Aggies to take up residence in the State of Texas' equivalent of Mecca. Most of them wouldn't like the overall conservative attitude there anyway. If you think Austin is a city that has shown progress I have to ask you when the last time you drove in that great city during a rush hour was. Traffic there is as bad if not worse than Houston . . .

As for the draft picks - How many times have you heard it said that in the NFL Defenses win Championships - the great Pittsburgh teams, Cowboy teams and many many others all had great defenses. For the Texans it would not have mattered who was the QB or the running back - without blocking they aren't going very far or going for long. Prior to the much ballyhooed Carr vs Young game the chronicle and all the sportscasters tried sell Houston that if the Titans won then obviously Vince Young was a better QB than Carr. Using their own logic then since the Carr led Texans defeated the Manning led Colts why aren't they saying that Carr is a better QB than Manning? It was their logic remember - not mine, and nevermind that when VY ran for the winning score in O.T. (Great run by the way) David Carr wasn't on the field to tackle him -

[musicman]

Texas and Ireland are incomparable.

concur. European cities are so much older and much was developed before the advent of "modern" transportation therefore things were centralized.

[dbigtex56]

Light rail is basically a modern streetcar system.

And SUVs are basically a modern form of horseless carriage.

Light rail has numerous advantages over streetcars.

[TheNiche]

And SUVs are basically a modern form of horseless carriage.

Light rail has numerous advantages over streetcars.

Yes, of course. As I said, they are a modern version of streetcars.

[musicman]

Light rail has numerous advantages over streetcars.

such as.....?