Exactly. I would love to be able to garage and restore my Miata (it was one of the first 1500 in the US), but as long as I have to use it to commute, that is simply not possible.
That's the beauty of it... You will soon have a choice. Next time you move to a new house/apartment, you can take that into consideration. It might just be cost effective to buy a house closer to town next time. Nevermind all the intangibles of living closer to the city that can't be quantified such as missing 40 hrs/month (2 hrs/day) of driving in traffic that you could have spent with your family. Oh yea, the schools are better in the burbs. Is that better if you can't ever spend time with your children? See Houstonians, it is a mentality shift. Don't think of it as the rail will adapt to you. You can adapt to it...and that is a good thing.
We have this thing called park and ride that already address these issues, and it doen't cost $7.5 billion to impliment like the 2025 LTR plan does. You can get on the park and ride in Clear lake and be downtown in 25-30 minutes, and it also allows you to save the money on insurance and gas that you are supposively saving using the light rail.
Briefly - I'm not commenting about the other parts of the 2025 plan, I'm just saying that LR is not a cost effective component of any plan for the city of houston. YOu're not getting a lump sum benefit. Let's say you're saving $100/year thanks to LR. The cost of providing that $100 savings to you is far more than $100 (probably an order of magnitude or two). Not only that, the method by which is provided is distortionary. That is, people's preferences are being distorted by this subsidy. If you can get your $100 without changing the way you feel and other people feel on the margin, then everybody will be better off (or the same) and there will be no dead weight loss. This form of subsidy distorts preferences. I'm not saying do nothing. By no means! I'm saying we should price road usage by marginal cost, and give everybody a transportation voucher. That is, there is an optimal price (toll) for each lane of each road at each time of day under specific driving conditions. If we charge for road usage at these optimal prices, we will reduce congestion far more than by building new roads, rail lines or expanding bus service. But you're probably thinking that all of these tolls mean more money out of your pocket. That's why I would scrap the national highway trust fund (which is crappily formed legislation and extremely distortionary, giving states like Wyoming and Idaho far more money than they need, and leaving states like California and Texas poorer) and use toll revenues to maintain the roads. Then whatever is leftover (toll revenues would greatly exceed trust fund contributions) would be redistributed back to everybody. So basically you'd get a few hundred bucks back, or maybe a few grand (which is what you contribute to the highway trust fund in the form of inefficient gasoline taxes and some other federal discretionary spending) and you'd also get a toll revenue redistribution of a few hundred bucks. Under optimal tolls, you'd spend, say $2000/year driving around, but your total voucher would be, say $2500. You'd have $500 more in your pocket, and roads would be far less congested. The numbers are just for the sake of exposition (I made them up), but the bottomline remains the same. You'd have more cash in your pocket, and less congestion on the roadway. It's not sleight of hand, it's just moving towards an optimal allocation of scarce resources (that is, roadway). It's not a handout, it's a lump sum voucher. (Please don't connote this with education vouchers, which bring into account a whole seperate set of issues). Conservatives would like this because it would reduce spending. Environmentalists would like this because it would reduce congestion, and the associated air pollution. Urban residents (like myself) would like this because it would encourage reverse commuting. Suburban residents (like most of Houston) would like this because it would and reduce lengthy commute times, and encourage creative work scheduling/telecommuting and carpooling. Entrenched interests (i.e. interest groups with contracts with the deparment of transportation, transit labor unions, and transit special interests) will not like this, because it reduces the dead weight loss that they siphon off of our transportation budget. It's sad, really.
kros.. I guess that's true, I just would need to go a lot more places than the railline... I guess it depends how often you need to travel out of downtown etc
I haven't fully calculated it yet because 2005 isn't over but I'm saving WWWWAAAAYYYYY more than $100/yr. So let me put some of my figures to it for you. I recently got a new job downtown, in part, because of LTR. As a result, I figure I'll save about $1,600 in gas. I've spent about 100 so far. I normally spend about $2,000 a year looking back at my last 3 years in Quicken. I will also save about $800 on insurance rates since I've lowered my premiums due to the less driving. Lets say I'll save $500 on maintenance costs that I normally spend anytime my car touches a mechanic. I also don't have to pay for a parking garage which I normally would if I drove. Others that work downtown or in the Med Center also have to pay. That is a savings of $1,500/yr for parking with a typical monthly contract. Those are hard costs. Now I also don't have to worry about racking up speeding tickets, tolls, or any costs associated with having a car accident...should that occur. Lets average that out and say that's another $500/yr since one accident in a 5/yr period heavily skews that # upward. So, granted I made up some of these costs but I'm being fair. The numbers could be dramatically more. So subtract the $420/yr for the Metropass and... I'm saving: $4,480 a year. This, mind you, that I'm not including a car payment. I've delayed purchasing a new car since I don't need "reliable" transportation. My 5 year old car will do just fine. What a savings that is!!!!!!! So if I included a $400 car payment in that figure that would now be a total anual savings of $9,280 a year. So Vic, these are real #'s. I'm not inventing this stuff. These are true costs of operating a vehicle in Houston. This is truely the economic impact LTR is making on my pocket book. Your plan sounds interesting and I can't really fully comment on it. You definately get credit for thinking outside the box. But here are a few potential problems with your plan: 1. It would take an act of congress, literally, to get it done. While the plan sounds nice, the reality of it is slim. Socialism also sounds nice on paper but it hasn't faired too well in reality. 2. While we're talking about socialism, Americans want to be able to go where they like when they like. Your plan sounds an awful lot like measures to restrict people's movement. I don't think that will go over well. Rather than systemetize ways to restrict people, why don't we give people a better alternative...such as LTR. 3. Your system doesn't promote development of Houston. You've already poo poo'd that idea but Houston has already seen significant development along the existing line and much more is still planned. Your plan wouldn't spur any development. 4. Your plan also has administrative overhead that has to be figured in. I don't know the impact of that one way or another but it doesn't sound trivial. And yes, I agree with you. Special interest groups don't like change.
And that is true. I wish there was more stuff along the rail line. But I hear about new things being planned all the time. So over time, it'll become more and more vibrant. For example, I recently saw a sign at McGowen and Main in midtown in that BIG empty lot for a new commercial/residential development. That's two stations up where Continental Club is. So if some nice things go in there, that'll be really nice. Also, if they ever do anything interesting with the Astrodome in terms of restaurants/hotels/entertainment, that'll be another nice place to go. It's coming. It's a chicken/egg deal. People don't want to move in until there is stuff but they don't put in a lot of stuff until people move in. So it takes time but it is happening.
i think houston has tremendous potential as a city. IMO, in order for houston to become a world-class city, public transportation must improve dramatically. it is an investment in the future, it won't happen over night but light rail is a good first step.
kros. I ask because I really don't know, but are there places for groceries etc around downtown. When I'm in downtown Houston, not really thinking about that so haven't really noticed. I know though like I'm in downtown Nashville some (just because it's close to school), and there aren't realy the everday things that I'd need. In other words, is downtown Houston to the point that is has the everyday things that people need as far as groceries, just stores in general.. or is it still a long way from the point that someone could live and surive in the downtown area without leaving it much.
No, it ain't there just yet. It is coming though. There is a new Randall's and of course Spec's in midtown but they are both like 2-3 streets away from Main St. A new CVS opened in mid-town and downtown. There is also Fiesta near the Walker stop. None of it is enough yet, however, to do it by foot. You definately still need a car to run errands. I haven't sold the car...yet. For enterainment, there are a lot of options. But there aren't enough residences just yet to justify many stores...at least how we think of living "downtown." But its coming along.
Vik; You and Krosfyah are posting way too much and too fast for me to get to but I'll try to address some of the issues you raised in your last post addressed to me. Here's a link to a study conducted by the DOE explaining how sprawl costs more: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/articles/sprawl.shtml And here is also another study done by Transit Cooperative Research Program at Rutgers http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-a.pdf Both of these pieces also address some of the other issues raised in this thread but in short they point out that the benefits of sprawl, low land costs and cheaper construction, are outweighed when you factor in all of the infrastructure costs as compared to development in existing urban areas. This is a myth that sprawl is created by the market when it actually has been heavily subsidized by government money interms of infrastructure and mortgage in tax benefits. If there hadn't been such subsidies its likely that American cities after WWII might have developed much differently. I personally would settle for a solution like removing government subsidies for all transit and allowing municipalities keep more tax dollars at home. I think that would force them into more compact developments and transit options as localities are forced to deal more directly with the costs of innefficient development.
Interesting point I hadn't considered. What is the cost of sprawl? Plus you've got to have fire/police/ambulances/trash/etc to all these new places. What is the cost of all that? As an aside, I read an article today in USA Today that said many suburbanites are now demanding better pesticides on farms. Why? Because the developments are so close to farms, that people are now coming into contact with these toxic chemicals. Yup, same problem in Houston. Our cost overruns of the I-10 highway is partly due to original exclusion of costs to purchase land. In once case, they wiped out half the business tax base of one small city that boardered the freeway. Nice. They are now looking to expand I-45 north of downtown and are facing the same problems of how to acquire land without pissing off all the residents.
My wife and I were going downtown, over Easter, to see a late showing of Inside Deep Throat, and we were sitting at a light, waiting for it to change, when a train came by, and then another came by in the other direction. It was a surprise, because we hadn't even noticed the tracks. We just looked at each other and grinned. It was like Houston was finally moving in the right direction. The documentary was good as well.
I was a land planner and laid out a lot of Houston suburbs. I have studied development patterns and the impact of transportation modes, you know post WW2, the personal auto, the highway system and Levittown. And I will tell you , people want to live in sprawl. The don't want to live in the same box with other people on top of them and below them. Lower densities yield lower stress, more privacy, more freedom, more of a sense of ownership. Nothing make a man more proud than providing a home for his family. Well planned suburban development connected to work centers by adequate personal transportation is the best design model for promoting social welfare. We just need more efficiency than the profit motives of the auto makers and oil companies have provided up to this point.
madmax.. in the end, it looks so cool that it's like. who cares. .it looks good! now it's time for me to regroup. 430am. been up all night studying with no end in site.. ill rejoin this thread when I get a chance again
Very interesting. Well you certainly can bring a different perspective to this converstaion. In large part, that is true. But this idea of "sprawl" is relatively new to mankind and we as a society are starting to learn more. For example, several recent studies indicate that sprawl contributes to obesiety since developments impede people from safely walking anywhere. Regular walking, as we know, has been a part of human requirements right up to the time of sprawl. People walked when we lived in villiages, on the farms and in the cities. Its only the suburbs where people don't walk. That certainly is the overwhelming perception in America but I think a lot of people are starting to see the benefits of living in a more dense area and away from the sterility of suburbia. Me personally, I felt growing up in the suburbs were very boring. I knew so many kids that got in alot of trouble in the summer because they basically were bored. They did things that they couldn't have gotten away with in the city light shoot flaming arrows on people's houses...just cause they could. My wife grew up in Toronto and I can see some benefits growing up in the city with proper parental guidance. Please not that you are expressing an opinion...not fact. I'm not saying you are wrong but you present it as fact. As society changes, this may not continue to be true. Mind you that this has never been true in New York, Toronto, Chicago, San Fran, etc. As example of how things are changing, many baby boomers who don't want to move to Florida are chosing to buy condo's in the city because living closer to town offers many more conveniences you don't get in the suburbs. They aren't land-locked into their subdivision anymore.
But most of that development was driven by direct government funding in terms of where and how to build infrastructure along with subsidizing mortgages for those developments and other tax breaks. This wasn't a mass choice made by society through the free market but a conscious decision made by government planners to push this model. as for people liking suburbs more I think that's been changing for the last 20 years. As cities gentrify and develop new infrastructure like LRT there's been a big demand to move back into central cities. In the Twin Cities housing demand and construction has skyrocketed in the central cities following a pattern that's been experienced in cities throughout the US from Denver to Pittsburgh. At the same time suburbs are trying to look more like the traditional central cities by building New Urbanists town centers with mixed density housing in close proximity, or on top of, retail. I think its fallacy to presume that Americans simply like suburban sprawl so we should continue with that when market forces and demographic are also showing a strong preference towards higher density mixed-use developments with lots of transit options.
Speak for yourself. Urban sprawl sucks. I hate it...I hate living in a box all cramped in, as well, but urban sprawl is worse.
Unfortunately most of the areas that the expanded track will be built won't even come close to looking as "cool" as Main street.
