Citizens National Bank At 402 Main St.

[mfastx]

Are we nothing but moths to a bulb?

Have you ever been to Times Square? The last time I was in Times Square, many of the people there weren't on their way to a broadway show at all, they were just standing there, taking pictures of the giant TV screens, sitting in the lawn chairs that they had out. Hell, there was even a giant staircase-type thing that people were just sitting on. Times Square is alive 24 hours a day. If you argue that broadway shows and hotels are attracting all of those people, then why would there be hoards of people at 4 in the morning, there's no broadway shows at that hour, and most people in the hotels are asleep.

Of course, you could make the argument that the urban clutter comes after the people are already there, but the sign ordinance making retailers remove their ads certainly didn't help the situation.

For one, the tunnels did not drive a single person away from downtown. It didn't drive away pedestrians, either.

Sorry I did not make myself clear. I was not implying that the tunnels 'drove people away from downtown.' What I was saying was that the downtown tunnels are taking away sidewalk pedestrians, those tunnels are crowded, and if they did not exist, those people would be walking on the street. Those tunnels are great, and super convenient, but why build tunnels for pedestrians when you can build them for trains?

What percentage of people taking transit would qualify as "better"? 10%? 20% 30%? Would it surprise you to learn that nearly 50% of Downtown workers take transit to work?

What you lament is that it doesn't LOOK the way you want it to. Your ideal involves everyone walking on the sidewalks. The fact that they walk where you cannot see them bothers you. And, you want them all to arrive at work by train. The fact that 29% take a Park&Ride bus, and 11% carpool doesn't have the trendy cool transit factor you crave. But, make no mistake, Houstonians DO take transit to downtown, and they ARE pedestrians.

Woah there! I am not lamenting, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am just stating why I think there are not as many pedestrians downtown as in other cities. I realize that a good percentage of downtown workers commute by transit, but I think that percentage would be higher if we had a more reliable core system. Lots of people that commute by METRO use the P&R system, which is solid IMO. But what about on weekends? Foot traffic in downtowns is also caused by casual shoppers, or people going to an event. On weekends, the transit options that many people take are not available. During weekdays, there's a decent amount of foot traffic, but after work, downtown is dead. If we had a better core transit system, it would be more convenient for people that live inside the loop to quickly get downtown to activities.

Do you really think that if we had an extensive heavy rail system, there wouldn't be more pedestrians downtown? The fact that almost 50% of commuters ride METRO means that the majority of downtown workers drive to their parking garage, walk in their tunnel/skybridge, and are never on the sidewalk.

Look, it's fine with me if you're 100% satisfied with the current downtown situation, forgive me for suggesting ideas to increase foot traffic. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I would prefer our downtown area to be more vibrant with more pedestrians, that's just my personality, I like walking in an urban environment with lots of people, to me that's more pleasant and interesting than getting in my car to get to work. And since I love Houston and live here, why not suggest ideas to improve the situation from my point of view? Besides, the fact that almost 50% of downtown workers commute via METRO is irrevelant anyway, since we are talking about the after work night scene. The P&R options aren't available at that time.

Never in my previous post did I mention the word train. But since you say so, yes, if we had a good rail system, more workers would use METRO, since rail just happens to be more reliable than buses. Sure, you can depend on a P&R bus to get you to work on time, but a local route? Those are often late. A core rail system adds reliability, speed, and capacity, therefore attracting more riders. But don't take it from me, go look at other transit system with core rail systems, and compare/contrast ridership with METRO.

Edited October 20, 2010 by mfastx

[RedScare]

Do you really think that if we had an extensive heavy rail system, there wouldn't be more pedestrians downtown? The fact that almost 50% of commuters ride METRO means that the majority of downtown workers drive to their parking garage, walk in their tunnel/skybridge, and are never on the sidewalk.

Look, it's fine with me if you're 100% satisfied with the current downtown situation, forgive me for suggesting ideas to increase foot traffic. Besides, the fact that almost 50% of downtown workers commute via METRO is irrevelant anyway, since we are talking about after work. The P&R options aren't available at that time.

No, actually, I don't think a heavy rail system would change a thing. The reason I believe so is because of the number of Park&Ride routes that would have to be converted to heavy rail. It would take tens of billions to get the same coverage as the buses. There are a few routes that would work, and those routes would probably have more stops that the current P&R routes, making those few routes more accessible, and therefore more popular. But, it would be nearly impossible to get the same coverage for all routes.

By the way, 50% transit use is probably one of the highest in the country outside of New York. For instance, over half of Chicago workers take transit downtown, compared to Houston's slightly less than half...in spite of Chicago's famed heavy rail system. Los Angeles, which has spent billions on expanding its rail system, has only 25% transit usage by its downtown workers. Boston isn't much better, at 32%.

Again, on the foot traffic. There is plenty of it, simply not where you want it. Since the purpose of downtown is for workers and businesses to produce...not for tourists to look at them...I suspect that you won't garner much support for closing the tunnels and forcing the workers to the streets. I fully understand your view that a busy sidewalk conveys a sense of vibrancy. I just don't think many people are willing to indulge your fantasy, not when there is work to be done.

[TheNiche]

It would be nice if downtown Houston had something unique to set it apart from other cities.

We are unique in our lack of downtown gimmickry.

[mfastx]

No, actually, I don't think a heavy rail system would change a thing. The reason I believe so is because of the number of Park&Ride routes that would have to be converted to heavy rail. It would take tens of billions to get the same coverage as the buses. There are a few routes that would work, and those routes would probably have more stops that the current P&R routes, making those few routes more accessible, and therefore more popular. But, it would be nearly impossible to get the same coverage for all routes.

I did not say that heavy rail alone would change the amount of pedestrian activity, but heavy rail in addition to the other things I suggested would make a difference. Also, I am not suggesting that the current P&R routes be converted to heavy rail, I am suggesting that there be heavy rail between downtown and the TMC, Galleria, and Greenway Plaza, while going through the inner loop residential neighborhoods. The currnet P&R routes are fine, though I would like to see commuter rail to Galveston and maybe up 290. Tens of billions? For a core heavy rail system, it would be tops 10 billion. It's not about "getting the same coverage as buses," it's about ridership. Ridership of heavy rail would be much higher than buses, for reasons that should be obvious. For commuter rail, however, ridership would only be slightly higher, as P&R buses do the job fairly well considering they have their own lane in the middle of the freeway.

By the way, 50% transit use is probably one of the highest in the country outside of New York. For instance, over half of Chicago workers take transit downtown, compared to Houston's slightly less than half...in spite of Chicago's famed heavy rail system. Los Angeles, which has spent billions on expanding its rail system, has only 25% transit usage by its downtown workers. Boston isn't much better, at 32%.

LA has high pedestrian activity in downtown, due to not having pedestrian tunnels, having retail, and having ads to attract people to the retail. LA also has high pedestrian areas outside of downtown, unlike Houston. LA isn't spending billions trying to get workers downtown, they're spending billions on the city as a whole. LA has about 1.5 million transit riders daily, while Houston has about 270,000. Again, I believe that transit is one part of having high volumes of foot traffic.

Again, on the foot traffic. There is plenty of it, simply not where you want it.

Well sure there's plenty of foot traffic. But we are talking about why there aren't as many people on the sidewalk as there used to be. And you are strengthing my argument that there is foot traffic "not where I want it to be" (which means not on the sidewalk), because of the tunnels/skybridges.

Since the purpose of downtown is for workers and businesses to produce...not for tourists to look at them...I suspect that you won't garner much support for closing the tunnels and forcing the workers to the streets. I fully understand your view that a busy sidewalk conveys a sense of vibrancy. I just don't think many people are willing to indulge your fantasy, not when there is work to be done.

You are getting off into different tangents. Any realistic person would know that creating convenient pedestrian tunnels would take away from sidewalk traffic, and that's exactly what I said in my original post, no more, no less. Sure no one would want to just close the tunnels, but if people are told that there would be a subway built there instead, then maybe they will reconsider. Some people that drive to work every day would rather have a subway, so their commute would be cheaper. I'm sure the trade off of having to walk outside (gasp) would be worth it to them.

Edited October 20, 2010 by mfastx

[TheNiche]

Are we nothing but moths to a bulb?

Not us; highly-accessorized thin blond white women. And we all know that that is the only metric that really counts to anybody else (who matters).

Compare downtown Houston with downtown Fort Worth. Houston has a far denser concentration of amenities, however fewer blonds per block face. The difference, as near as I can tell, is Sundance Square...which as far as I can tell is a surface parking lot with Christmas lights strung up around it and lots of retail signage.

(I could be wrong. I'm not from north Texas. But I did recently spend the better part of an hour trying to find the "Square", and the surface lot seemed like the most likely candidate. Regardless, the lighting and signage at the street level seemed highly effective at making a place more special than it deserves to be.)

[mfastx]

Not us; highly-accessorized thin blond white women. And we all know that that is the only metric that really counts to anybody else (who matters).

Compare downtown Houston with downtown Fort Worth. Houston has a far denser concentration of amenities, however fewer blonds per block face. The difference, as near as I can tell, is Sundance Square...which as far as I can tell is a surface parking lot with Christmas lights strung up around it and lots of retail signage.

(I could be wrong. I'm not from north Texas. But I did recently spend the better part of an hour trying to find the "Square", and the surface lot seemed like the most likely candidate. Regardless, the lighting and signage at the street level seemed highly effective at making a place more special than it deserves to be.)

Hardee, har, har.

OK so I see you have jokes... here's a funny guy!

[TheNiche]

Hardee, har, har.

OK so I see you have jokes... here's a funny guy!

The 'De-Annex the Heights' thread is a joke.

This is a funny hypothesis. Got a better one?

[mfastx]

This is a funny hypothesis. Got a better one?

I think my best bet is to leave the funny hypothesis creating to you. That is all.

[RedScare]

I did not say that heavy rail alone would change the amount of pedestrian activity, but heavy rail in addition to the other things I suggested would make a difference. Also, I am not suggesting that the current P&R routes be converted to heavy rail, I am suggesting that there be heavy rail between downtown and the TMC, Galleria, and Greenway Plaza, while going through the inner loop residential neighborhoods. The currnet P&R routes are fine, though I would like to see commuter rail to Galveston and maybe up 290. Tens of billions? For a core heavy rail system, it would be tops 10 billion. It's not about "getting the same coverage as buses," it's about ridership. Ridership of heavy rail would be much higher than buses, for reasons that should be obvious. For commuter rail, however, ridership would only be slightly higher, as P&R buses do the job fairly well considering they have their own lane in the middle of the freeway.

This infatuation with heavy rail is reminiscent of citykid's theories, which never have proof to back them up. I'll leave you to your fantasy that somehow a heavy rail line should replace the light rail. I have no interest in a factless debate. However, I did highlight one statement because of its sheer ridiculousness (also without proof, or even explanation).

NOTE: Reading your response for the 3rd time, it appears you have switched your argument to innercity rail, when before we were discussing suburban rail. I'm just going to ignore this whole thread from here on out. The point has been made.

Some people that drive to work every day would rather have a subway, so their commute would be cheaper. I'm sure the trade off of having to walk outside (gasp) would be worth it to them.

This number would be infinitesimally small, as the overwhelming majority of those people now take the convenient, inexpensive and reasonably comfortable Park&Ride. And despite claims that Houstonians will not walk outside, nearly half commute to downtown, and many of the rest leave their cars in the garage all day, walking to lunch. I know, I used to be one of them.

[lockmat]

We are unique in our lack of downtown gimmickry.

...which is not a draw for most people.

[samagon]

When yokels arrive on the train from Podunk and emerge, squinting, from Grand Central Terminal, Times Square is the first impression of New York they're going to have.

We don't have that sort of captive audience in Houston. Tourism -and the tourist experience - is in itself a theatrical quality of New York which we cannot duplicate in Houston.

I was having a similar discussion last night with one of my neighbors.

the same thing that draws youths to want to live in a city, is what will draw visitors to want to visit.

All of the popular cities (that were 'hip' to live in) of the later half of last century were all driven by art.

There is some art at the heart, or natural beauty surrounding the city and I think this is what drives people to live in one of those places.

Houston has always been viewed as a working town. I mean, look at our city seal, a train? We've always been industry, oil/gas, NASA, etc. Houston has never been known for music, movies, art, counter culture, and we certainly aren't known for the beauty of our bayous.

Those big draws of other cities, the arch, times square, 6th street, height-ashbury, the french quarter, all those places are physical symbols of what makes the town attractive.

Between us and Dallas we've always been in this big fight about which one of us is more cosmopolitan, but in reality, we're both a pair of working cities.

But that is a bigger problem we have than making downtown more vibrant and alive.

As far as downtown, I would love to see signs hanging to attract business, if you can't have advertisement that people see, no one knows you're there. I know there's a CVS on main, I've passed it while riding the train a few times, but to actually get to the store and buy something, it takes me time cause I end up going the wrong way to get there. It's silly.

If Houston can not have any signs that would be okay, because it makes the buildings look clean, sterile, and they aren't detracting from the beauty of those buildings, but at the same time, the streets are dirty, there are bums, and neither of those are clean, sterile, and they certainly detract from the beauty of the buildings. They city needs to finish the job. Clean it up, and keep it clean, and get rid of the bums (whoops, transients, don't want to offend any of them that may be reading).

[KinkaidAlum]

Have you ever been to Times Square? The last time I was in Times Square, many of the people there weren't on their way to a broadway show at all, they were just standing there, taking pictures of the giant TV screens, sitting in the lawn chairs that they had out. Hell, there was even a giant staircase-type thing that people were just sitting on. Times Square is alive 24 hours a day. If you argue that broadway shows and hotels are attracting all of those people, then why would there be hoards of people at 4 in the morning, there's no broadway shows at that hour, and most people in the hotels are asleep.

Yes, I have been to Times Square HUNDREDS of times. I went to college in New York. I lived in NYC for half a year after college and then worked there multiple times during my 12 years in Boston. I have hundreds of friends that live in the City, and NONE of them go to Times Square for anything other than work or a show.

Trust me, those people that you saw taking pictures of flashing advertisements weren't locals. The folks sitting in lawn chairs weren't there from Tribeca. Those were TOURISTS and a vast majority of them were staying in the nearby 16,000 hotel rooms. It is because of those hotel rooms and the Broadway Venues that street performers like the Naked Cowboy pop up in Times Square and not say, down on Wall Street. But those tourists don't just come for Times Square and Broadway. They also come to see the nation's largest city, the Empire State Building, Central Park, the Statue of Liberty, the UN, Ground Zero, SoHo, Greenwich Village, some of the nation's best museums, etc...

Houston doesn't have 16,000 hotel rooms concentrated in a small cluster. Houston doesn't have over 50 million tourists a year. Houston doesn't have 39 theater venues located in just a few square blocks. Houston isn't known for first-run stage theater either. We don't have the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. The MET isn't here nor are we home to NYU, Pace, Columbia, Fordham, CUNY, Parsons, Cooper Union, Hunter, Barnard, Baruch, Fashion Tech, Hunter, Marymount Manhattan, Juilliard, etc... (the schools just in Manhattan proper). We'll never have a Times Square. The best we could ever hope to do is be like Dallas and develop something like Victory Plaza, which, by most accounts, has been a huge FLOP.

[lockmat]

What if some super weatlhy philantrhopist bought out all the broadway actors to come to Houston for say, 10 years? Would they come for money even though it's not Broadway?

That could be the start of something.

I know this is major pie in the sky.

[mfastx]

Those were TOURISTS...

Exactly. In a city with lots of pedestrian activity, a good portion of those people are tourists. Hell, some of the people walking in downtown Houston have maps out trying to figure out where they are.

For the locals, I still think that to get people to walk around, you have to let them know what's there.

Edited October 20, 2010 by mfastx

[mfastx]

This infatuation with heavy rail is reminiscent of citykid's theories, which never have proof to back them up.

You want proof that heavy rail works? All of the transit agencies in the US that have heavy rail have a higher daily ridership than METRO.

See for yourself.

In my original post, I stated the following:

1. The pedestrian tunnels result in less sidewalk pedestrian activity, because people that would otherwise be on a street-level sidewalk are now underground.
2. If we had a better transit system, more people would be on the sidewalks in general, not just in downtown.
3. More retail options would attract more people to the sidewalk.
4. Better signage/lighting would make people feel more comfortable on the sidewalk, especially after hours.

These are very obvious things that I stated, I really don't see how anyone could disagree with this. What you are doing is taking quotes out of context and putting words in my mouth and completely misundersanding my entire post. If you actually read my original post in this thread, I never suggested that we demolish the tunnels, or that we change anything at all about downtown in general.

Edited October 20, 2010 by mfastx

[totheskies]

Speaking of Red Cat, it's gone from downtown. I saw a rent arrears lockout notice Sunday. A little research and I found they're going to open a new place in Pearland.

Where did you find this information from?? I didn't hear anything about it at the Red Cat Jazz Festival.

[sevfiv]

Wow - Shadow Creek Ranch..

Red Cat Jazz Cafe thanks Downtown Houston for 10 Years we are moving to a new location and new beginning in Shadow Creek Ranch. We will keep you posted on when the grand opening will be taking place. - Management

Hours of Operation: N/A

http://www.redcatjazzcafe.com/

Love jazz? Love authentic creole cuisine?

Well, you're in luck!

Red Cat is coming to Shadow Creek Ranch!

http://www.shadowcreekranch.net/redcat/index.html

[totheskies]

Yes, I have been to Times Square HUNDREDS of times. I went to college in New York. I lived in NYC for half a year after college and then worked there multiple times during my 12 years in Boston. I have hundreds of friends that live in the City, and NONE of them go to Times Square for anything other than work or a show.

Trust me, those people that you saw taking pictures of flashing advertisements weren't locals. The folks sitting in lawn chairs weren't there from Tribeca. Those were TOURISTS and a vast majority of them were staying in the nearby 16,000 hotel rooms. It is because of those hotel rooms and the Broadway Venues that street performers like the Naked Cowboy pop up in Times Square and not say, down on Wall Street. But those tourists don't just come for Times Square and Broadway. They also come to see the nation's largest city, the Empire State Building, Central Park, the Statue of Liberty, the UN, Ground Zero, SoHo, Greenwich Village, some of the nation's best museums, etc...

Houston doesn't have 16,000 hotel rooms concentrated in a small cluster. Houston doesn't have over 50 million tourists a year. Houston doesn't have 39 theater venues located in just a few square blocks. Houston isn't known for first-run stage theater either. We don't have the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. The MET isn't here nor are we home to NYU, Pace, Columbia, Fordham, CUNY, Parsons, Cooper Union, Hunter, Barnard, Baruch, Fashion Tech, Hunter, Marymount Manhattan, Juilliard, etc... (the schools just in Manhattan proper). We'll never have a Times Square. The best we could ever hope to do is be like Dallas and develop something like Victory Plaza, which, by most accounts, has been a huge FLOP.

You're so right... we don't have any of those things. But the few attractions that central Houston DOES have (Discovery Green, very good theater venues, sports, and a world-class museum district) we sure don't spread the word about them like NYC does. If we want a tourist culture in this town, we have to develop it. It doesn't just happen overnight. It didn't just happen for NYC either. You know, there are now taller buildings in the world than the Empire State Building, including one in our own country. But it's special because NYC and its promoters hold it in that regard. NYC has done the tourism thing for a long time, and places like Times Square are the result.

Edited October 20, 2010 by totheskies

[C2H]

While that's true, I don't think it fully answers my question. At least the last picture was taken during the day on a Wednesday. Today, downtowns daytime population I'm betting is much higher than it was that day. The only thing I can think of is the tunnels and we now have less retail. So even if there are new hotspots today, there are still more people downtown now.

day source: http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1955&country=1

Like someone said earlier, air conditioning also has diluted the street scene from downtown. You're forgetting that alot of those new people from the population are in the tunnels.

I don't know what other answers you could be looking for.

[C2H]

Wow - Shadow Creek Ranch..

http://www.redcatjazzcafe.com/

http://www.shadowcreekranch.net/redcat/index.html

Good news for Pearland. Bad news for downtown. I thought things would be getting better for downtown once the Pavilions and Disco Green got off the ground. If downtown is in the maturization phase from the hip hop club scene, it sure isn't making for a more active downtown.

[Materene]

Why were there so many people walking around? Did the tunnels exist then? I'm sure there are many more people officing AND living downtown now than there were then. I'm also guessing a big difrerence is that there was more retail back then?

Bump: There were so many people around because this is where the largest retailers were located. Those buses and cars bring back a lot of memories, I rode those buses often at 5 and 6 years old with my Grandmother. She was a movie fanatic and liked to go to the Majestic or Metropolitan for the afternoon opening shows. I saw many first run movies in those houses, also there was a restaurant much like FIRs that was very near the Movie strip, we would always go into it and have a late lunch before catching the bus. No air conditioners on those buses and the Black folks sat in the rear, that was how 1955 was! It was much later that major retailers moved to the outskirts of downtown and just never stopped moving farther and farther from Down Town. Houston was a wonderful City then but I find it hard to adjust to the new look, don't think that's surprising but in 1970 when I got out of the Army you could drive down Main Street and never pass another car. There were often only 8 police cars on traffic patrol! I was involved in a wreck at the Warwick Circle fountain, a guy ran the yield sign crossing main and onto Montrose. We sat there for over an hour waiting for the accident investigators to arrive. A very popular place was Bill Williams drive in and diner located where the MD Anderson center is sitting, there was actually a side street that connected main and the opposite side of the center. Major changes have gone on in Houston in 40 years, so many land marks have been bull dozed in the name of progress. The old VA hospital was a wooden framed building, very large and very old before it was dozed. It was a Navy Hospital in it's beginnings. My Grandmother worked at the Hilton and also at the Rice Hotel for a time.

[KinkaidAlum]

We can promote until we are blue in the face but we'll NEVER have a tourist culture even in the same vicinity as New York. It will never happen. The cold hard fact is NYC is the biggest/baddest/most iconic city in America. Until King Kong climbs the old Texas Commerce Tower, we'd be dreaming to think we can promote a building ala the Empire State.

I don't understand our preoccupation with trying to make things "like" somewhere else. I love downtown Houston. I love the Discovery Green. I love Market Square. These are authentic places. I don't need someone else to like them to make me feel better about my liking them. And, to be honest, if thousands of tourists started flocking to downtown Houston, in my opinion, they'd ruin in. Times Square SUCKS now. The only thing worth visiting is a Broadway show. There is nothing left that is authentic to New York. While it used to be a fun place to visit with hookers, adult bookstores, excitement, dive bars, gay cinemas, etc... it is now Toys R Us, TGI Fridays, the Disney Store, and other generic USAville. Maude and Harold now stroll around taking pictures of Coca-Cola ads whereas up until the 1980s, Harold and Maude would be watching their backs but loving every minute of it.

Sure, downtown could use some more chains, hotels, and main stream venues, but NOT at the expense of becoming a generic Seaside wasteland.

[lockmat]

Maybe this could help...

[samagon]

Exactly. In a city with lots of pedestrian activity, a good portion of those people are tourists. Hell, some of the people walking in downtown Houston have maps out trying to figure out where they are.

For the locals, I still think that to get people to walk around, you have to let them know what's there.

My definition of a tourist is anyone that doesn't live or work in the downtown area daily, whether they live in the city or not.

You've got people who don't know how to drive around people on bicycles, cause they spend 99% of their lives driving around out in the suburbs where the only people on bikes are kids supervised by their parents.

You've got people who don't understand what a one way street is, and those that do, aren't sure which streets are actually going which way.

You've got people who drive 10 miles an hour and stop at every intersection regardless of whether the light is green or red, looking for a familiar landmark so they have an idea where they are.

and

You've got people who ride in the middle lane of traffic, then decide at the last second, they are needing to turn on this street, and cut across 3 lanes without looking who is there.

I'm not saying people need to not come downtown, that's a good thing, I just want to bring perspective to this discussion. More people, as was said, isn't necessarily a great thing.

So, I guess I'm agreeing with Kinkaidalum.

Maybe this could help...

http://www.flickr.co...ext/2895203851/

ha, that gives me an even better idea, we all miss astroworld, what about putting some roller coasters downtown, but rather than these roller coasters just going in a circle, they go from venue to venue.

Take the greezed lightning from HP to Disco Green, take the XLR8 from disco green to bayou plaza, take the looping starship from the downtown metro station to the downtown metro station, take the serpent from bayou plaza back to HP!!!

I'd gladly pay $2 per ride, and it would be quick too!

Edited October 21, 2010 by samagon

[lockmat]

ha, that gives me an even better idea, we all miss astroworld, what about putting some roller coasters downtown, but rather than these roller coasters just going in a circle, they go from venue to venue.

Take the greezed lightning from HP to Disco Green, take the XLR8 from disco green to bayou plaza, take the looping starship from the downtown metro station to the downtown metro station, take the serpent from bayou plaza back to HP!!!

I'd gladly pay $2 per ride, and it would be quick too!

What if Houston made the first ever ride that starts at the top a building and spirals around it all the way to the bottom? That would be the scariest ride EVER.

[TheNiche]

You want proof that heavy rail works? All of the transit agencies in the US that have heavy rail have a higher daily ridership than METRO.

Nope. Austin has heavy rail and it sucks. They know it, too.

[JJVilla]

Austin MetroRail - they just opened a few months ago/early this year. I am not saying it's the best thing since sliced bread but it's too early to tell.

I like my car as much as the next person but I have never rented a car outside the US for work or personal travel because of the good mass transit. It more favorable when it's a good mix of trains (light/tram, subway or heavy) and buses in some cases. Diversification is good for investment and energy as well as mass transit.

[mfastx]

Nope. Austin has heavy rail and it sucks. They know it, too.

No, they have commuter rail. Big difference.

[mfastx]

Austin MetroRail - they just opened a few months ago/early this year. I am not saying it's the best thing since sliced bread but it's too early to tell.

I like my car as much as the next person but I have never rented a car outside the US for work or personal travel because of the good mass transit. It more favorable when it's a good mix of trains (light/tram, subway or heavy) and buses in some cases. Diversification is good for investment and energy as well as mass transit.

Agreed. Los Angeles is a great example. They have heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, BRT, and standard bus. They've always had a great bus system, but their investements have paid off, and they now have over 1.5 million daily riders.

Edited October 21, 2010 by mfastx

[editor]

We are unique in our lack of downtown gimmickry.

You must be working with a definition of "unique" that I'm unaware of. There are hundreds of American cities with unremarkable downtowns.