Commuter Rail in Houston

[cloud713]

why doesnt Houston have commuter rail? it only costs ~10 million a mile, vs 100 or so million for light rail. we have spent over 2 billion on light rail over the last decade.. with that amount of money we could have built over TWO HUNDRED miles of commuter rail.. that would be enough track milage to build rail to Conroe (Hardy), Galveston (Highway 3), Highway 6 (288), Rosenberg (90A), Kingwood (Hirsch/494), Willowbrook/1960 (the rail line that eventually parallels 249), Cypress (290/Hempstead), Katy, and down Westpark..

i understand the importance of having a core/base system (light rail), but now that we have (almost) 3 lines built out (and in a couple years an uptown BRT line), we have something to work with/transfer to when the commuters get into the city, so i think its time to start looking at building some of these commuter rail lines. traffic is bad and only going to get worse as millions more people move to the area.. at what point do we finally say enough is enough, its time for an alternative?

[Slick Vik]

Politics

[Slick Vik]

I agree though once university line and uptown line are built it's time for commuter lane

[JamesL]

 it only costs ~10 million a mile,

 

It wouldn't cost $10m a mile to get it inside the loop and reasonably close to Downtown jobs. All the freight lines are at capacity so new right-of-way would be required.

 

Besides, the Park & Ride system provides better service than commuter rail ever could. Would you prefer a nonstop (or close to nonstop) 65 mph ride from a suburban parking location to the door of your office building or a trip with a number of stops that gets you to the outskirts of Downtown where you have to transfer to a bus or light rail train to get the rest of the way?

 

Could the Park & Ride system be operated and marketed better? Absolutely. But it's already a more effective commuter transit system than most commuter rail systems. Try finding a postwar commuter rail system with a subsidy per boarding of $9 (METRO's P&R average).

[cloud713]

Great points.. You'll have to forgive my wild ramblings. I've been sketching out a fantasy transit map recently and have been implementing different modes of transportation. When I did some research on the costs I was stunned at how cheap commuter rail is. You're right, a lot of the lines would need additional ROW for commuter rail, and/or possibly need to be trenched, which would be a good deal more than 10 million a mile but the Westpark corridor up to Montrose wouldn't need new ROW. I hope METRO is serious about the 90A proposal. It's kind of sad we don't have a single mile of commuter rail..

[livincinco]

Park & Ride is actually the part of the METRO system that is experiencing the most growth at the moment (3.4 increase over LY), but even at those rates it isn't big volume. The entire system generates approx. 33,000 average weekday boardings and that's spread over 30 different locations. Even if you assume exponential increases it's hard to get to ridership numbers that require commuter rail on any single route.

[Moore713]

Park & Ride is actually the part of the METRO system that is experiencing the most growth at the moment (3.4 increase over LY), but even at those rates it isn't big volume. The entire system generates approx. 33,000 average weekday boardings and that's spread over 30 different locations. Even if you assume exponential increases it's hard to get to ridership numbers that require commuter rail on any single route.

the only 33,00 I know of is the rail line and that does not take i the extended line.. metro overall dalily ridership is  somewhere in the 100,000 plus range( including P and R)

[Houston19514]

the only 33,00 I know of is the rail line and that does not take i the extended line.. metro overall dalily ridership is  somewhere in the 100,000 plus range( including P and R)

 

In the latest stats available, (YTD through November 2013), average weekday ridership on the P&R system was 33,108.

 

Average weekday ridership for Metro (rail and bus combined, including P&R) was 286,772.

 

Average weekday ridership for MetroRail was 37,558.

[mfastx]

We've already spent a ton of money on the P&R system.

I'd rather we focus our resources on improving inner city transit, not suburban transit.

Not enough potential transit riders that far out.

[cloud713]

In the latest stats available, (YTD through November 2013), average weekday ridership on the P&R system was 33,108.

 

Average weekday ridership for Metro (rail and bus combined, including P&R) was 286,772.

 

Average weekday ridership for MetroRail was 37,558.

where did you find the park and ride number? that seems pretty low. especially considering how much higher the total bus ridership is.

[livincinco]

where did you find the park and ride number? that seems pretty low. especially considering how much higher the total bus ridership is.

Those are the official METRO numbers.

[Houston19514]

In the latest stats available, (YTD through November 2013), average weekday ridership on the P&R system was 33,108.

 

Average weekday ridership for Metro (rail and bus combined, including P&R) was 286,772.

 

Average weekday ridership for MetroRail was 37,558.

 

Further to my earlier post, FWIW, there are approximately 19 metro areas in the United States that have commuter rail systems.  Of those 19, only 7 have ridership greater than our P&R System.

[Houston19514]

where did you find the park and ride number? that seems pretty low. especially considering how much higher the total bus ridership is.

 

Just Google "Houston Metro Ridership"

 

http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Documents/RidershipReport.aspx

[livincinco]

Further to my earlier post, FWIW, there are approximately 19 metro areas in the United States that have commuter rail systems. Of those 19, only 7 have ridership greater than our P&R System.

I saw a stat the other day that really surprised me. 65% of rail users in the US are in the New York City metro.

[cloud713]

We've already spent a ton of money on the P&R system.

I'd rather we focus our resources on improving inner city transit, not suburban transit.

Not enough potential transit riders that far out.

i agree for the most part.

and let me be clear.. i dont think we actually need commuter rail down all of the corridors i mentioned. i was just saying theoretically with the amount of money weve spent on light rail, we could of built commuter rail (at 10 million a mile, which was pointed out to be a flawed assumption) to all of those places. i would however not mind seeing commuter rail down Westpark (and a couple of the other routes), to take busses off that narrow/congested tollroad, and put that expanse of ROW along the south side of Westpark to use. it would be the easiest commuter rail to implement (unless we were able to convince a railroad company to somehow integrate commuter rail into their cargo schedules, though most of those lines are at capacity as someone mentioned.. maybe the 90A line?)

i disagree however that there arent enough potential transit riders that far out. Houston has almost 4 million people living outside the city. if they were able to reroute the busses that were taken off the roads by rail, to spiderweb outward from each station to serve the local areas so that people were within "walking distance" of the busses, and thus the train stations, it may help boost numbers. also its a pretty common notion that trains are more appealing than busses. not to mention the whole "reverse white flight" phenomenon thats predicted to happen in the coming decades as the inner cities gentrify and home values go up, forcing the poor out to the suburbs.

[Slick Vik]

Park & Ride is actually the part of the METRO system that is experiencing the most growth at the moment (3.4 increase over LY), but even at those rates it isn't big volume. The entire system generates approx. 33,000 average weekday boardings and that's spread over 30 different locations. Even if you assume exponential increases it's hard to get to ridership numbers that require commuter rail on any single route.

So you would agree rail being built on dense corridors makes sense since the ridership is higher than all commuter routes combined.

[Slick Vik]

i agree for the most part.

and let me be clear.. i dont think we actually need commuter rail down all of the corridors i mentioned. i was just saying theoretically with the amount of money weve spent on light rail, we could of built commuter rail (at 10 million a mile, which was pointed out to be a flawed assumption) to all of those places. i would however not mind seeing commuter rail down Westpark (and a couple of the other routes), to take busses off that narrow/congested tollroad, and put that expanse of ROW along the south side of Westpark to use. it would be the easiest commuter rail to implement (unless we were able to convince a railroad company to somehow integrate commuter rail into their cargo schedules, though most of those lines are at capacity as someone mentioned.. maybe the 90A line?)

i disagree however that there arent enough potential transit riders that far out. Houston has almost 4 million people living outside the city. if they were able to reroute the busses that were taken off the roads by rail, to spiderweb outward from each station to serve the local areas so that people were within "walking distance" of the busses, and thus the train stations, it may help boost numbers. also its a pretty common notion that trains are more appealing than busses. not to mention the whole "reverse white flight" phenomenon thats predicted to happen in the coming decades as the inner cities gentrify and home values go up, forcing the poor out to the suburbs.

It's a good point that there is a significant portion of people that would ride trains but refuse to ride buses.

Also HOV isn't perfect especially on the 45 north corridor where it slows to a crawl daily. A grade separated system would save a lot of time there.

[Slick Vik]

We've already spent a ton of money on the P&R system.

I'd rather we focus our resources on improving inner city transit, not suburban transit.

Not enough potential transit riders that far out.

Agreed this was dart's mistake but now they are working on making streetcars within the city to help connectivity once you arrive. Basically they took the reverse approach of us which may work out better in the long run because I don't see us building commuter rail after university and uptown lines.

[cloud713]

Further to my earlier post, FWIW, there are approximately 19 metro areas in the United States that have commuter rail systems.  Of those 19, only 7 have ridership greater than our P&R System.

i count at least 8 (unless you arent counting NJ and NY as separate.. you did say metro i guess).

top 8.. (keep in mind 5 of the 8 are metros with lower populations than Houston)

NYC

Chicago

(NYC again.. different rail operator)

NJ

Boston

Philly

San Fran/San Jose

LA

Baltimore

the one i find most impressive is Caltran in San Francisco/San Jose.. 77 miles of track, moves over 47,000 people a day. 

[arche_757]

^Where there is nothing now - there is room for something in the future.  No reason to not see Houston having commuter rail 20-30 years down the road.  The biggest problem is it is almost* a generational sort of investment.  If we started to build commuter rail today it would be at least a 1/2 decade before the first segments of that first line open - more than likely even longer.  For a full implementation of commuter rail to all suburbs/surrounding cities it would take a couple of decades (not unlike LR investment inside the city core).

 

The problem with Houstonian's against LRT/HR/BRT etc. is they want a 50% reduction in traffic overnight.  They don't want to see 7% or even 12-15% reduction in traffic on weekdays commuting to town.  To them those numbers aren't worth the expense.  The problem is the money MUST be spent since there is a limit to how much road surface we can construct in town (eg: I-45s Pierce Elevated, 610-West Loop etc).  While I've no doubt Heavy Rail or Commuter Rail (what ever its called) would be a success to The Woodlands/Conroe, Galveston/League City, Sugar Land, Pearland, Katy and other areas, I do know that it wouldn't be an immediate overnight success story.  We - Houstonian's - are so impatient we're neglectful.  The mantra that "It takes too long to build it" is absurd.  Not building it takes even longer!

[cloud713]

Agreed this was dart's mistake but now they are working on making streetcars within the city to help connectivity once you arrive. Basically they took the reverse approach of us which may work out better in the long run because I don't see us building commuter rail after university and uptown lines.

i agree about the DART mistake. but why dont you see us building commuter rail after university and uptown lines? that seems like there wouldnt be a better time.. the inner city system would finally be built out as envisioned (granted, IMO we need streetcars in some populated/dense areas to extend the "last mile" reach of the light rail).

[livincinco]

So you would agree rail being built on dense corridors makes sense since the ridership is higher than all commuter routes combined.

 

I agree that heavy rail, preferably grade separated, makes sense when capacity is extremely high.  I have yet to see a convincing argument for LRT over BRT especially because emerging technologies are continuing to erode the few advantages that LRT does have.  I don't believe that Houston has any corridors that justify the use of heavy rail at this point in time, however agree that METRO should be establishing ROW for the point that they will need it.

 

I believe that the most pressing need for Houston is expanded coverage and frequency.  Neither of which are strengths of rail.

 

Regarding the Park & Ride vs. rail, it's an extremely flawed comparison because Park & Ride utilizes existing infrastructure while rail requires construction of an entirely new set of infrastructure.  The cost comparisons aren't even close.  For example the Katy Freeway Park & Ride is entirely contained in the existing infrastructure that supports an estimate 274,000 vehicles/day which significantly exceeds the daily ridership of any light rail system in the United States.

[arche_757]

I agree that heavy rail, preferably grade separated, makes sense when capacity is extremely high.  I have yet to see a convincing argument for LRT over BRT especially because emerging technologies are continuing to erode the few advantages that LRT does have.  I don't believe that Houston has any corridors that justify the use of heavy rail at this point in time, however agree that METRO should be establishing ROW for the point that they will need it.

 

I believe that the most pressing need for Houston is expanded coverage and frequency.  Neither of which are strengths of rail.

 

Regarding the Park & Ride vs. rail, it's an extremely flawed comparison because Park & Ride utilizes existing infrastructure while rail requires construction of an entirely new set of infrastructure.  The cost comparisons aren't even close.  For example the Katy Freeway Park & Ride is entirely contained in the existing infrastructure that supports an estimate 274,000 vehicles/day which significantly exceeds the daily ridership of any light rail system in the United States.

 

I think the major issue is (for Houstonian's):  Cost+Construction Time vs doing nothing (which is free).

 

Waiting until we have total gridlock is foolish, since then we will end up waiting another 10 years or so for full buildout.

 

And for anyone to think that Houston with 6 million people is not big enough/populated enough for commuter rail to work is silly.  Just how many millions more do we need until we are no longer the exception to the norm?

[Slick Vik]

i agree about the DART mistake. but why dont you see us building commuter rail after university and uptown lines? that seems like there wouldnt be a better time.. the inner city system would finally be built out as envisioned (granted, IMO we need streetcars in some populated/dense areas to extend the "last mile" reach of the light rail).

 

I don't see it because of hard headed political opposition here.

[Slick Vik]

I agree that heavy rail, preferably grade separated, makes sense when capacity is extremely high.  I have yet to see a convincing argument for LRT over BRT especially because emerging technologies are continuing to erode the few advantages that LRT does have.  I don't believe that Houston has any corridors that justify the use of heavy rail at this point in time, however agree that METRO should be establishing ROW for the point that they will need it.

 

I believe that the most pressing need for Houston is expanded coverage and frequency.  Neither of which are strengths of rail.

 

Regarding the Park & Ride vs. rail, it's an extremely flawed comparison because Park & Ride utilizes existing infrastructure while rail requires construction of an entirely new set of infrastructure.  The cost comparisons aren't even close.  For example the Katy Freeway Park & Ride is entirely contained in the existing infrastructure that supports an estimate 274,000 vehicles/day which significantly exceeds the daily ridership of any light rail system in the United States.

 

There are corridors where ridership would be extremely high. Westheimer from downtown to highway 6 would be a great corridor. If you put it in the right place, people will ride. If there were no corridors that justified the use, we would have no traffic, and that is not the case.

 

Also, rail could be built on HOV infrastructure, so that sunk cost could be eliminated.

 

Frequency is a strength of rail. Our light rail is 3 times faster than our buses except park and ride, and there are cities like Vancouver where it runs every 3 minutes, and in mexico city every 2 minutes.

 

FYI BART carries 400,000 people a day.

 

The one advantage that LRT has over buses is, it's not a bus.

[Slick Vik]

^Where there is nothing now - there is room for something in the future.  No reason to not see Houston having commuter rail 20-30 years down the road.  The biggest problem is it is almost* a generational sort of investment.  If we started to build commuter rail today it would be at least a 1/2 decade before the first segments of that first line open - more than likely even longer.  For a full implementation of commuter rail to all suburbs/surrounding cities it would take a couple of decades (not unlike LR investment inside the city core).

 

The problem with Houstonian's against LRT/HR/BRT etc. is they want a 50% reduction in traffic overnight.  They don't want to see 7% or even 12-15% reduction in traffic on weekdays commuting to town.  To them those numbers aren't worth the expense.  The problem is the money MUST be spent since there is a limit to how much road surface we can construct in town (eg: I-45s Pierce Elevated, 610-West Loop etc).  While I've no doubt Heavy Rail or Commuter Rail (what ever its called) would be a success to The Woodlands/Conroe, Galveston/League City, Sugar Land, Pearland, Katy and other areas, I do know that it wouldn't be an immediate overnight success story.  We - Houstonian's - are so impatient we're neglectful.  The mantra that "It takes too long to build it" is absurd.  Not building it takes even longer!

 

This is so true. You ask a lot of people that have been to other cities or move in from other cities, and they all wonder why we don't have a rail system, and they would ride it if we had one. The demand is there, but it has to be built. But there's a reason certain people do their level best to stop it, it hurts their bottom line. This leads to corruption.

[cloud713]

I think the major issue is (for Houstonian's):  Cost+Construction Time vs doing nothing (which is free).

 

Waiting until we have total gridlock is foolish, since then we will end up waiting another 10 years or so for full buildout.

 

And for anyone to think that Houston with 6 million people is not big enough/populated enough for commuter rail to work is silly.  Just how many millions more do we need until we are no longer the exception to the norm?

 

THIS. completely agree with your posts in this thread.. waiting until traffic becomes that bad is extremely ill advised and would have adverse effects on our growth and economy. and like i pointed out, only 3 of the top 8 metros with commuter rail (by ridership) have bigger populations than Houston. even the Baltimore area (26th biggest city in the US, 20th biggest metro) has commuter rail..

 

There are corridors where ridership would be extremely high. Westheimer from downtown to highway 6 would be a great corridor. If you put it in the right place, people will ride. If there were no corridors that justified the use, we would have no traffic, and that is not the case.

 

Also, rail could be built on HOV infrastructure, so that sunk cost could be eliminated.

 

Frequency is a strength of rail. Our light rail is 3 times faster than our buses except park and ride, and there are cities like Vancouver where it runs every 3 minutes, and in mexico city every 2 minutes.

 

FYI BART carries 400,000 people a day.

 

The one advantage that LRT has over buses is, it's not a bus.

huh.. Westheimer would be a great corridor for commuter rail? maybe a subway..

agreed rail could be built on HOV infrastructure. thats how i originally envisioned it years ago.. but i kind of like the HOV system, and it would operate even better with the busses taken out of the equation, so i figured ROW along existing rail lines for some corridors could be acquired instead. though i would put rail down the Katy tollway, leaving one HOT lane in each direction, and unfortunately/possibly take out the HOV on 45 from Broadway to downtown (well, as far as it goes towards downtown at least, and extend the rail to the METRO HQ station) for an express line to Hobby. light rail to Hobby would take quite a while to get into town/make transfers/ect.. plus a LRT extension from Palms TC would go through some undesirable parts of town that you wouldnt want to "showcase" to out of towners as their first impression of our city.

thinking about it, its sad they dont leave available ROW or build a rail line alongside the Hardy extension into downtown, because north of 610 there appears to be room for a third line, where there are currently only 2, but south of 610 im afraid they might take up all of the potential ROW with the tollroad.

i wish METRO planned long term and set aside more corridors in the past, like the Westpark ROW, for future commuter rail when its needed. because by the time its needed, if we dont have any ROW set aside it will be a ***** and a half to acquire new ROW from whoever/whatever is developed along the corridors.

[Slick Vik]

THIS. completely agree with your posts in this thread.. waiting until traffic becomes that bad is extremely ill advised and would have adverse effects on our growth and economy. and like i pointed out, only 3 of the top 8 metros with commuter rail (by ridership) have bigger populations than Houston. even the Baltimore area (26th biggest city in the US, 20th biggest metro) has commuter rail..

 

huh.. Westheimer would be a great corridor for commuter rail? maybe a subway..

agreed rail could be built on HOV infrastructure. thats how i originally envisioned it years ago.. but i kind of like the HOV system, and it would operate even better with the busses taken out of the equation, so i figured ROW along existing rail lines for some corridors could be acquired instead. though i would put rail down the Katy tollway, leaving one HOT lane in each direction, and unfortunately/possibly take out the HOV on 45 from Broadway to downtown (well, as far as it goes towards downtown at least, and extend the rail to the METRO HQ station) for an express line to Hobby. light rail to Hobby would take quite a while to get into town/make transfers/ect.. plus a LRT extension from Palms TC would go through some undesirable parts of town that you wouldnt want to "showcase" to out of towners as their first impression of our city.

thinking about it, its sad they dont leave available ROW or build a rail line alongside the Hardy extension into downtown, because north of 610 there appears to be room for a third line, where there are currently only 2, but south of 610 im afraid they might take up all of the potential ROW with the tollroad.

i wish METRO planned long term and set aside more corridors in the past, like the Westpark ROW, for future commuter rail when its needed. because by the time its needed, if we dont have any ROW set aside it will be a ***** and a half to acquire new ROW from whoever/whatever is developed along the corridors.

 

Yea the more time that goes by the more expensive ROW becomes. As far as going through undesirable parts of town all public transit does that, it's just part of the game. Those are the people that need it the most.

[cloud713]

I agree mass transit generally serves more of the poor people. But taking first time visitors of our city through those decrepit areas seems counter productive to the impression we want to give of our city. Idk, the undesirable areas are a small concern. More importantly taking the light rail into the city from hobby would take 45 minutes or so. As long as some of the shorter flights.. A direct line down 45 and Broadway would be much faster. Or down Mykawa and then over on airport blvd.

[cloud713]

And I noticed you mentioned in another thread waiting on the bus is generally the longest part of the trip. Commuter rail is timely as it doesn't have to deal with surface street traffic, so you know when to expect the train, and thus are able to factor that into your schedule so you don't have to wait so long.