I still don't get why they would build a light rail that travels at ground level, I don't think underground would be the option due to the amount of times Houston gets flooded however an elevated metro system would of been prefect , riding along 45 from the woodlands all the way to the south crossing downtown, that for sure would ease traffic , but instead they make a light rail at ground level taking up space from vehicles and putting stresss on drivers ! Let's push for an elevated rail system !
A la Miami or Vancouver, that would've worked well. A fraction of a subway's cost (see NYC with their 2nd avenue subway...), totally segregated, fast, no need to worry (at least too much) about floods. Miami was able to do it, I'm pretty astounded Houston isn't even willing to consider it. And I don't think, given Houston's GDP, that it only comes down to cost issues.
The purpose of Houston's light rail being at ground level, besides cost, is to provide high-capacity rapid transit to the densest parts of the city (such as Downtown, the HCC area, and the TMC area) while also making it as accessible to communities as possible. A light rail at ground level would be more easily accessible to all residents and wouldn't comprise of a large architectural footprint like an elevated metro would (would be comparable to the multiple freeways in and around Houston).
The actual system doesn't look bad, yet given Houston is US's 4th biggest city, it is quite ridiculous in regards to size , even by US standards. I don't understand how cities like Denver Miami or even Medellin in Colombia managed to build proper mass transit systems (admittedly with some hiccups for Denver), while Houston wouldn't. A below ground subway wouldn't be justified as Houston isn't nearly as densely populated as say NYC or SF, plus the cost to build and maintain would be enormous. But a 100% segregated system, like for ex. a commuter rail a la Denver or an elevated subway like Miami's would totally make sense. Must be all related to nimbyism and politics.
@@jayasmrmore3687 Elevated rail would be perfect for that city. There's plenty of space, population density's very low as well. Still can't figure out how cities with a fraction of Houston's budget are able to do it, but not them. Underground would be feasible (look at Boston or SF), but the cost would be awfully high.
The operating speeds on the Houston Metro Rail are faster than in Europe mainly because the stop spacing is much farther apart. The city is very much spread out, a victim of urban sprawl. Houston is the United States' 4th largest city in land size but has less people than in New York. Houston is far less dense than New York or most European cities. Even with the longer stop spacing in Houston, the Metro Rail system doesn't come close to covering even half of the city or its citizens.
I still don't get why they would build a light rail that travels at ground level, I don't think underground would be the option due to the amount of times Houston gets flooded however an elevated metro system would of been prefect , riding along 45 from the woodlands all the way to the south crossing downtown, that for sure would ease traffic , but instead they make a light rail at ground level taking up space from vehicles and putting stresss on drivers ! Let's push for an elevated rail system !
A la Miami or Vancouver, that would've worked well. A fraction of a subway's cost (see NYC with their 2nd avenue subway...), totally segregated, fast, no need to worry (at least too much) about floods. Miami was able to do it, I'm pretty astounded Houston isn't even willing to consider it. And I don't think, given Houston's GDP, that it only comes down to cost issues.
The purpose of Houston's light rail being at ground level, besides cost, is to provide high-capacity rapid transit to the densest parts of the city (such as Downtown, the HCC area, and the TMC area) while also making it as accessible to communities as possible. A light rail at ground level would be more easily accessible to all residents and wouldn't comprise of a large architectural footprint like an elevated metro would (would be comparable to the multiple freeways in and around Houston).
I agree it should be elevated except for the stops maybe.
The actual system doesn't look bad, yet given Houston is US's 4th biggest city, it is quite ridiculous in regards to size , even by US standards. I don't understand how cities like Denver Miami or even Medellin in Colombia managed to build proper mass transit systems (admittedly with some hiccups for Denver), while Houston wouldn't. A below ground subway wouldn't be justified as Houston isn't nearly as densely populated as say NYC or SF, plus the cost to build and maintain would be enormous. But a 100% segregated system, like for ex. a commuter rail a la Denver or an elevated subway like Miami's would totally make
sense. Must be all related to nimbyism and politics.
They tested a monorail system back in the 1950s. It would have been a lot more practical, but from what I have heard is that corruption kill the deal.
Well paying lobbying from car companies
Elevated rail can work but not underground due to flooding
@@jayasmrmore3687 Elevated rail would be perfect for that city. There's plenty of space, population density's very low as well. Still can't figure out how cities with a fraction of Houston's budget are able to do it, but not them. Underground would be feasible (look at Boston or SF), but the cost would be awfully high.
@@that90skid72 underground would be possible with a bunch of pumps, but yeah I think elevated is better
Houston's light rail looks more modern then our muni light rail in SF CA
Sadly it doesn't go anywhere.
@@DarilVanHorn they may expand purple line to hobby
houston's light rail seems to be so much faster than in europeans city !!!...light metros are very low there in France ...thanks for sharing
The operating speeds on the Houston Metro Rail are faster than in Europe mainly because the stop spacing is much farther apart. The city is very much spread out, a victim of urban sprawl. Houston is the United States' 4th largest city in land size but has less people than in New York. Houston is far less dense than New York or most European cities. Even with the longer stop spacing in Houston, the Metro Rail system doesn't come close to covering even half of the city or its citizens.
Cleanairbus light rail system in France is called "tramway" or "tram"...is that word "tramway" is used in english spoken country ???
Francois Gauthier we use the terms "streetcar" and "light rail"... "Tramway" is used for an aerial cable car.
Cleanairbus thank you for your explanations...have a nice day and keep going to share your videos !
@@cleanairbustrue but the bus takes you where the trains don’t most of the places.