Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: About that late-19th Century technology.

It's no secret that I am not a fan of Houston Metro's danger train. Building at-grade rail in Houston's densest population centers with little-to-no connectivity to suburban areas is just not smart. I also think trying to shoe-horn in trains where they haven't previously existed is a dumb idea.  People always like the idea of mass-transit for other people to ride, thus freeing up the roads for themselves.

An interesting article in D Magazine makes note of another trend:

Who has better rail transit: Houston or Dallas? Peter Simek, D Magazine

In all of these cities, the OC Register reports, driving alone has increased. Also interesting, more people are working from home in these cities than commuting on transit to work. The extent of the impact of technology on commuting probably couldn’t have been foreseen back in the early 1980s when the region was discussing its options for planning a rail system. Similarly, we can now speculate about how automated cars — which may be mainstream in a similar 30-year time period — will impact transit ridership.
In light of all of this, despite the shortcomings of each, I think I’m happier with the Dallas model than the Houston model when it comes to rail. Promoting dense  development in places like Plano and Richardson seems like a positive fringe benefit particularly since, for all of Houston’s system’s efficiency, like Dallas, it is loosing(sic) riders all the same.

In short: As trends go it appears that spending Billions of dollars on the at-grade Danger Train might saddle Houston with a congestion causing boondoggle in areas with highest traffic that need mobility improvement the most.  As new technology, including self-driving cars and an increase in telecommuting, emerges this is going to get worse as the system will become more of an expensive novelty than it already is.