March MetroRail riders top 1 million Light rail will save me more money in 2005 than any George Bush tax break!!! * I've spent <$100 is gas so far in 2005. I used to spend ~2k/yr. * I've dropped my car insurance coverage since I use it only on weekends saving 50% on my rates. * I have virtually no wear/tear on my car. I won't need replacement breaks, tires, etc. * I won't get traffic tickets. * I won't have car accidents requiring a deductible. * I won't have door dings or cracked windshields. It costs too much money Thank you Mayor Brown for saving me money! Many republicans have that "What's in it for me, mantality?" For me, I saved a lot more money thanks to Brown than I have w/ W in office. So suck on that naysayers!!! Maybe it doesn't help you ...but it works for me. So was it too costly for Houston? Try asking the people that use it. Houstonians won't use it! To all the rail naysayers, people are using it...and it doesn't even go anywhere...yet! It's 7.5 mile long track is carrying a lot of people. Daily boardings are now topping 32 thousand. Once the system is expanded to 75 miles of track, imagine how many people will use it then? New developments with housing options are planned at 4 or 5 locations along the current line so ridership will sky rocket once those residences become occupied. Who will live in those new houses/condos/apartments? Many of them will move in from the suburbs. It doesn't help traffic? One thing that rail naysayers always claimed is that the rail doesn't come out to their neighborhoods. As housing options become more available, people will move back into the inner city. Rail doesn't JUST allow you to RIDE in from the suburbs. It allows you to MOVE in from the suburbs. This is one major way rail alleviates traffic. If you don't move in, many of your neighbor(s) will. That helps traffic. The Money is Better Spent on Roads But Houston traffic will never be "alleviated" because more people continue to move to Houston. The Katy Freeway expansion budget has doubled over the original costs partly because they didn't factor in purchasing right-of-way private properties that needed to be paved over to make room for roads. WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO BUILD MORE ROADS. To make room is too costly and too disruptive to localities. Not to mention that 80 lane freeways are ugly as hell. Rail is Dangerous 1st: Nobody has been killed. Not one! Furthermore, rail crashes have dropped 50% since this time last year. Of the crashes that do occur, only a few even result in injuries. So the safety issue is over dramatized. That being said, I do agree, however, that an overhead system would have been even better. But we all know that is more costly and would NOT have been passed. So if you opposed rail and used safety as one reason, blame yourself for the current safety problems. If the naysayers didn't oppose it so dramatically, perhaps a safer (i.e. more costly) system could have been built. But Mayor Brown did the best he could given the opposition he faced and what we have is better than nothing at all. It's too slow During rush hour, I find it takes me, ON AVERAGE, no more than 5 minutes longer to take rail than to drive...counting door-to-door. People tend to only count freeway drive-time in their commute. But try counting the time you get up from your seat to when you stick the key in your front door. With rail, there are no parking garages or traffic lights. I find the commute time is about the same...and much less stressful...not to mention more healthy since it promotes more walking. However, after hours, rail takes longer because the trains run more infrequently. Is it successful? Just like Iraq, it is too early to claim victory. We'll need to give it 20 years to make a fair assessment. But unlike Iraq, all signs indicate that light rail will be successful.
I use it every time I head downtown for an Astros/Rockets game or for partying, or if I am heading to the museum district for an art exhibit. The only thing I haven't used it for yet is for going to the Continental Club, because whenever I go there, I usually close it down, and I'm afraid of missing the last train out to Fannin South.
You'll never convince me that building a ground level rail system in the middle of busy city streets is a good idea. If and when the rail system expansion is complete I don't think you'll see much of an improvement in traffic, it may cause more traffic in areas where it travels due to rail crossings. The HOV lanes and Park and Ride have done little to ease the traffic burdens in Houston even though they are widely used and less intrusive on other traffic. You also have to take into consideration that a very small number of Houstonians are in a place where they could access the rail system with ease. We don't live in a bustling metropolis, we live in a sprawling municipality where the vast majority of citizens live outside of the city. Houstonians won't flock into the city by the thousands because the cost of living is cheaper in the suburbs. The majority of people moving back into the revitalized parts of town are single or non-parent couples... and they are doing it more for the trend factor then thinking about a family. Traveling from the suburbs via a light rail train that makes frequent stops will take longer then traveling via Park and Ride or the HOV. It may be cheaper to ride a rail but suburb dwellers rely too heavily on their vehicles for their everyday tasks... and I imagine most of them wouldn't want to be constrained by not having a vehicle in the event that a family emergency arises. In other major cities with some kind of mass transit system the majority of those who use them are the ones that live in the city, not the suburbs. Our city is made up of suburb after suburb, and traveling 20 minutes to a train station, waiting 15 minutes for the train, then taking a train for 30 minutes to downtown wouldn't do much to ease travel times. The beauty of our freeway system is that our loops and toll roads give us alternative routes to help bypass known congested areas. With the exception of I-10 most of the Houston freeways can be navigated around easily enough using our toll roads and alternate routes. As for the argument that we don't have land to keep expanding, that's ridiculous. If there is one thing we have plenty of in Houston, it's land. Buying out businesses and landowners to build roads is nothing new, it's been a part of our highway system for decades. Sure light rail numbers have exceeded expectations, but many, many of the riders ride the train mutiple times in the same day. I know a lot of our major corporations that provided constant daily shuttles from downtown to the medical center (Shell for example) have encouraged their employees to use the train to help shave operating costs. The current rail system is an ideal one if there is such a thing with a road-based rail system because it connects two points that have constant interaction with one another.... meaning many companies/people need to travel back and forth all the time between those two points. The problem with that is there really isn't any other areas in Houston that have that many riders condensed into a small area. The Galleria area might be a place where it would see success but even there the area is spread out when compared to Downtown or the Medical Center. Light rail will only be widely used by the same types of people that use HOV and Park and Ride, and while that's a good number of people the vast majority of Houstonians won't switch to mass transit simply because of the constraints it puts on people who live in the suburbs. The cost of the expanded light rail system could be used in various other ways to help improve congestion and give drivers even more alternate routes of travel... such as the Westpark Tollway.
Good post. Here in Minneapolis where we opened our first line last summer we've noticed a lot of the same things. Just wanted to comment on a few points in relationship to my own experience with LRT. This is the case with the LRT in MPLS too with ridership far above expectations. There are also tons of new housing development being built up along the line. One of the drawbacks to people like me who live near the line is that its driven up housing and property taxes. I've said all along that LRT shouldn't be looked as a tool for relieving existing congestion. There's no way one line could do that. What it is better for is to encourage new development in a way that will reduce congestion in the future and also reduce further congestion by moving people more efficiently than individual cars. EXXXACCTTLLYY!! In many cities, even ones that aren't very dense there isn't any room to take land to build more freeways in the central cities. An LRT line only takes up about 2 lanes of regular road but can move as many people as a 4 lane highway. When you factor in the amount of land needed to build frontage roads, on and off ramps, intersections and all of the other infrastructure needed for a freeway LRT comes out as much more efficient. This must be a Texas thing because theres only been two accidents on the MPLS line and both were the fault of the car driver. Local news here have done several scare stories about the dangers of LRT but none of that has come to pass. Anyway compared to the stats of automobile accidents LRT accidents I bet over the lifetime of LRT in Houston there have been many many many times more automobile accidents vs. LRT accidents.
LOL. 32,000 people means that 0.6% of Houston's metro population uses the light rail per day. Less than 1% of Houstonians. Yeah, keep telling yourselves that "tons of people are using it". That's funny. Krosfyah, which of the virtues that you listed about rail don't apply to the pre-existing bus that was there? LOL. Toy trains are cool looking!
Curious, why did they not build a subway or sky rail(like Chicago)? Those help to solve the traffic problem better.
A subway is impossible in Houston (it would be water-logged everytime there's a hard rain). The sky rail would have been too expensive. Frankly, I'm glad that the city has wised up and realized that a sprawling, suburban metropolis is unsustainable. We may have plenty of land available, but that doesn't mean we'll have the ability to afford the services necessary for sustaining commuter communities 50+ miles from the city. A rail system is the way to go to end this waste of resources. However, after reading VoodooPope's thread, the obvious next step is to improve inner city school systems. There's no way people will move back into the city without decent schools, and having a couple of magnet/advanced programs won't cut it. I'd also say that more parks need to be created, so that kids without the big yards still have a place to play.
You're missing the point. If YOU want to use it, you can. All you have to do is move. Or you can sit back and b**** that they didn't built it in your back yard (which you'd still probably b**** about). The choice is yours. And that's the beauty of it...you now have a choice. A typical neocon arguement (I'm not calling you a neocon...just saying it's a typical type of logic.) Just because in some paralell universe you envision that buses are just as good doesn't mean in reality people will use buses. So Bigtexxx, abstinence is the best form of safe sex. Now lets join the real world. People will still have sex regardless. So which arguments apply? All of them. I would never ride a bus. Call me snotty but I wouldn't...and I'm not alone. The train is here and I ride it...and I'm not alone. Sure a bus CAN do it but if people don't use the bus, then what good does it do? The toy train, Bigtexxx, is working.
Simple. Because a subway or sky rail would have faced too much opposition to build due to the added expense. That would have been defeated at the polls. So this is what we got.
Maybe not. If Delay and company hadn't mounted such a senseless and venemous opposition compaign, perhaps the public would have supported spending more money on an above ground system. So as it stands, we got the best system we could get past the voters. And it is better than nothing. I agree, you probably won't see any improvement...because Houston continues to grow. But at least you'll have the option of moving somewhere that the rail serves and then you won't have to sit in the traffic. Before rail, you didn't have that option. Right again. The demographics of a city is in constant motion. So next time you move, among other factors in chosing a residence, you can have the option to move close to a station. Most cities with rail/subway list with the realitor how close the house is to a rail/subway station by walking distance, not driving distance, as a selling point. The same is happening in Houston already. The description says it is a 5 minute walk to the station...not a 15 minute drive to downtown. Over time, people chose to move closer and one factor is proximity to a rail station. Myth. I've already demonstrated how much money I'm saving on automobile expenses. What if 10 years the infrastructure is built up enough that I don't need to buy a car at all? Is it really cheaper in the burbs? So you move out because of schools? Is it really worth it if you never see your children during the week because your stuck in traffic? Debatable. I save probably 10 hours of commute time per week that I can spend with my family. So what's more important? People don't live in the city because there isn't a compelling reason to do so. It wasn't safe. Schools generally aren't as good. blah blah blah. Light rail is not and never will be a primary means to serve the burbs. If you want to save time, move closer in. Otherwise, expect a long commute when you move 50 miles away. I can't rebut all your points. But Houstonians need to rethink the concept of rail. Houston demographics will change over time as all cities do that have rail. You may want to consider being one of the people that change rather than complaining about how far away YOU moved from the city. Toronto has a great subway system that still does not serve the burbs. People know that when they purchase their homes. They have the choice of a less expensive house with a long commute or a more expensive house with a short commute. CHOICE. That is the theme of the day.
First, I'm all for some kind of rail system in Houston, However, you said "Maybe it doesn't help you ...but it works for me. So was it too costly for Houston? Try asking the people that use it." Bush's tax cuts really helped my family out this year (I'm serious about this) but rail has done nothing for me. So, because the tax cuts helped me (but not you) does that means they were worth it? "Maybe it doesn't help you ...but it works for me." I can apply that same sentence to Bush's tax cuts with regards to my life.
You are exactly right. But these are the types of arguments that I hear from Republicans all the time. I'm glad the tax cut helped you and your family. I'm merely pointing out that the rail has helped me and my family. Most naysayers simply pawn off the rail as a "toy train." Tell that to my accountant! It has improved my financial position as well as my state of mind. For me, its great. If you'd like to see that kind of impact, keep that in mind next time you buy a house or rent an apartment.
I'd venture to say Chicago's public transportation infrastructure is AT LEAST 10 years ahead of Houston's. Around 96-98, the city of Chicago really started to become a haven for yuppies. They were reclaiming all the old land the projects were on and building high priced condos. The problem is, most of the inhabitants ARE young people with kids less than school age. Unless the parents are rich enough to afford private school, they move the family to the burbs. It's more than just a blahblahblah. That's how it works in Chicago. And that city has the benefit of being a walking city with most of the business concentrated downtown...something Houston may never be. As you said, "choice" is the theme of the day. And for most families, when ALL the costs are taken into account, they will choose the burbs. Public transprtation will work out for some folks and may save them money. For most, they'll choose something else. I'm glad it's working for you. But, don't expect everyone to be happy when local taxes are subsidizing a lifestyle that can't work for them. Unfortunately, that's not their choice.
And that is fine. At least people have the choice. My wife grew up in downtown Toronto and has wonderful memories of living in the city. As a child, you have MUCH more independence in the city than you do in the burbs. In the burbs you have to wait until your 16 to drive. In the city, you can jump on the rail much earlier and have the whole city at your disposal. As a parent, that means you don't have to spend any money on a cars for teenagers. What a savings that is? So the premise that the burbs are more kid friendly than the city isn't as cut and dry as most Houstonians assume. But if you are in the burbs, your tax money isn't going to Metro, right? However, this Metrorail will cover all the way up to IAH. That is pretty far out. I forget how far west it is projected to go. But Sugarland will have commuter rail to serves SW Houston. League City also already a commuter rail that serves Galveston. Why not extend it to Houston in the other direction? Lightrail isn't for commuters. Its to serve the city center. And a strong city center is good for the entire region even if you live in the burbs. But again, rail systems...like roads...are long term projects. You have to start somewhere and you can't build to every burb right off. Heck, the 75 miles that passed did so on a narrow margin largely due to cost. If it was even bigger, it wouldn't have passed.
Actually, if you take the money spent on the rail project and divide it by the number of people who actually use rail, you could have given each user a brand new Mercedes. Would that be more valuable than your tax break? Oopsie daisy. Diverting what 50%(? or more?) of our transportation dollars to serve .6% of the population is just insanity. Ridership figures are propped up by the fact that they shut down the busses that used to run along the current rail line. Without that move, we'd be looking at .4%? .2%? Who knows. BUT IT LOOKS COOL!
If you're using bigtexx's number (assuming his base population is correct), it's probably even lower. It appears he got .6% assuming 32,000 people. The article said 32,000 boardings, which is probably closer to 16,000 people.
