Houstonians want less traffic but feel lukewarm about local public transit options, Kinder Institute surveys show. A new state plan would deliver relief to them — if it ever comes to fruition.
The Texas Department of Transportation released a draft plan last month that calls for major investments in bus and rail projects over the next 25 years, with a particular focus on connecting Houston to its regional outskirts and the state’s other large metro areas.
The document, which hasn’t yet been finalized, marks a rare acknowledgment from state government officials that Texas must seriously look beyond vehicles and roads to reduce traffic congestion. It remains to be seen, however, how aggressively the Texas Department of Transportation will work to enact the plan or whether the state’s Republican leadership will support it with funding and legislative action.
“I’m encouraged that this is happening in the first place,” said Peter Eccles, director of policy and planning for LINK Houston, a transportation advocacy nonprofit. “It’s long overdue for there to be an examination this comprehensive of the state transportation apparatus, of how public transit is planned and funded and the opportunities there.”
In Houston, residents have been clear: They want someone to make traveling smoother.
In the 2025 Kinder Houston Area Survey, traffic ranked as the most commonly cited “biggest problem” facing Houston among residents of Fort Bend and Montgomery counties, with one-quarter of residents choosing it. About 14% of Harris County residents cited traffic as the region’s biggest problem, clocking in as the fourth-most commonly cited issue.
When asked to rate the quality of public transportation in Houston, roughly one-third graded it “poor,” one-third called it “fair” and one-third said it is “very good/excellent.” A Kinder Institute survey from 2024 showed 1 in 8 Houstonians reported using public transit once a week, including 1 in 4 who had a household income of less than $25,000.
While the state plan’s prospects are uncertain, it offers several notable insights regarding the Department of Transportation’s outlook on Houston and its needs moving forward.
Houston congestion will get worse without action
State demographers expect the population will continue to grow in urban and suburban areas over the coming decades, exacerbating traffic issues if current conditions persist.
“The location and focus for this anticipated growth will have a profound impact on demand for, and design of, transit services throughout the state,” the plan’s authors wrote.
The average Houston commuter spent a record 77 hours stuck in traffic last year, according to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Barring significant changes in travel behavior and traffic patterns, state officials forecast time spent in traffic across Texas will triple by 2050.
State officials said expanding transit options would “accommodate growth and bypass congestion.”
Getting from Houston to other metro areas is too hard
The plan’s authors said travelers simply have too few high-quality options for moving between Houston and the rest of the“Texas Triangle,” which includes Dallas, Austin and San Antonio.
Bus lines between the cities are run by private companies, making it difficult to coordinate optimal routes, and there’s a “lack of adequate transfer facilities with little coordination” to help riders get to their final destination, the authors wrote.
Meanwhile, the state’s only rail operator for riders, Amtrak, provides “inadequate levels of service” and doesn’t even connect Houston to Dallas, they said. (A Houston-to-Dallas train proposal known as the Texas Central project remains very much in limbo.)
In response, Texas would benefit from a statewide strategy to “organize, coordinate and prioritize intercity routes and schedules,” the authors said. They pointed to Florida’s privately owned and operated rail system, Brightline, and Austin’s Eastside Bus Plaza as examples of well-planned solutions.
Money and leadership are holding Houston back
Under Texas law, local and regional organizations, such as Metro, are responsible for providing public transportation services within dedicated areas and mostly generate revenue from local taxpayers. The state, meanwhile, takes a relatively hands-off approach to public transit outside of more rural areas and provides minimal funding. The federal government holds sway by offering a decent chunk of funding but doesn’t directly craft local or state regulations.
For the plan’s authors, this decentralized approach and the state’s lack of investment make it too difficult to coordinate transit between cities.
Alan Clark, a member of the plan’s steering committee and Metro’s chief strategy officer, said a lack of funding and planning leaves little public transit connecting downtown Houston to areas such as Conroe, Galveston and Huntsville — let alone the Texas Triangle.
“I would hope that this report will stimulate even more interest and potentially investment that can be supported through the state,” Clark said. “But it takes everybody to make this happen. My sense is this report is one of the most positive demonstrations of interest and support at the state level I’ve seen.”
Urban transit districts face a bleak future
In Houston’s suburbs and exurbs, a few entities known as urban transit districts provide bus, trolley, ride-share and other public transportation services. They include the Gulf Coast Transit District in Galveston and Brazoria counties and the Brazos Transit District, which serves Montgomery and Liberty counties, among others.
Unlike Metro, which derives most of its funding from a 1% local sales tax, urban transit districts rely on federal grants and contributions from local governments. Their funding levels have been “historically stagnant,” the plan’s authors wrote, making it difficult to maintain current service levels.
The long-term outlook is particularly ominous, with forecasted revenues in 2050 of less than $200 million and projected costs for maintaining existing services approaching $650 million.
“(Urban transit districts) not only face a funding shortage that challenges their ability to maintain existing services but also have insufficient funding for service improvements and expansion to address the growing demand associated with per capita growth,” the plan’s authors wrote.
