119 replies to this topic

[mfastx]

Over on SSP I saw a neat graph showing the change in transit ridership for major cities from 1997 to present day. Houston's ridership was virtually unchanged, but I wanted to know more specifically where ridership increased and decreased.

Here is a graph I prepared showing METRO riderhip from 1997 to 2012 (statistics are provided by the APTA). Red represents total ridership, blue represents bus ridership, and the weird lime-green color represents METRORail ridership.



Park and ride ridership is not included from 1996-2007. In 2008, the APTA either stopped reporting P&R ridership, or bundled it with standard bus ridership. For some reason, since they stopped specifying P&R ridership, total ridership dropped dramatically, which leads me to believe that P&R ridership is not reported for whatever reason, hence the low riderhship post-2007.

Well anyway, riderhsip hit its peak in 2001 and has since remained relatively the same. I have noticed that riderhip drops coincide with our last two recessions, so I'm guessing that since gasoline prices were lower post recession, public transit ridership dropped. For example, in 2002 after the September 11 attacks, bus riderhsip dropped until around 2005 and then leveled off. Another drop in bus and rail ridership happened in 2009.

I just wanted to share this interesting information with y'all. I am happy to create other graphs comparing Houston's transit ridership with other cities if you'd like. So what do you think?

Edited by mfastx, Tuesday, July 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM.

[TheNiche]

Boardings are not ridership.

[Slick Vik]

Boardings are not ridership.

Explain scrooge

[TheNiche]

Explain scrooge

Now, play nice.

...

If you buy gas at a gas station using a debit card, then go into the C-store and buy a pack of gum, are you one customer or two? Transit agencies would say two.

There is not a mechanism or technology in place to count individual riders as they make their way across an interconnected multi-modal system of many dozens of routes. Consequently, riders forced to transfer at any point get counted as riders multiple times, inflating systemwide ridership or possibly localized ridership if a bureaucrat somewhere is pushing for federal subsidy on a related project.

[kylejack]

A person using a transfer could be counted as one, but is only possible for Q card users.

[IHB2]

Over on SSP I saw a neat graph showing the change in transit ridership for major cities from 1997 to present day. Houston's ridership was virtually unchanged, but I wanted to know more specifically where ridership increased and decreased.

hmmmm, given that statement maybe you'll be running for office after all

Regardless of the distinction between "boardings" and "ridership" your graph shows a spectacular rise and equally spectacular decline over the years presented. That's hardly "unchanged."

To connect this thread to the METRO .25% tax thread, how can METRO show that the startling 12 year decline following a 3 year increase will reverse for some reason other than simple population increase over the time to build out the system? The point of mass transit is to make headway against single vehicle congestion, pollution, and other "quality of life" issues, not just spend billions to keep the status quo (public transit, subsidizing transportation for people who cannot otherwise transport themselves is a different issue, but METRO pitch to complete Solutions has become almost wholly about mass, not public transit).

[mfastx]

Boardings are not ridership.

You're right, I should point out that on the APTA website, they estimate that the actual number of people riding METRO daily to be about 40% of the numbers depicted here.

Regardless of the distinction between "boardings" and "ridership" your graph shows a spectacular rise and equally spectacular decline over the years presented. That's hardly "unchanged."

Pre-2009, I'd say that the change in total ridership was relatively small. The dropoff I think occurs because the P&R ridership doesn't seem to be reported for some reason. But you're right, ridership the last few years has dropped significantly.

To connect this thread to the METRO .25% tax thread, how can METRO show that the startling 12 year decline following a 3 year increase will reverse for some reason other than simple population increase over the time to build out the system? The point of mass transit is to make headway against single vehicle congestion, pollution, and other "quality of life" issues, not just spend billions to keep the status quo (public transit, subsidizing transportation for people who cannot otherwise transport themselves is a different issue, but METRO pitch to complete Solutions has become almost wholly about mass, not public transit).

Hmmm not sure on that one. METRO's got their work cut out for them that's for sure.

I'd say that public transit shouldn't just be about supplying transit for those that can't afford any other transportation though. In other words, I disagree with the notion that METRO's purpose is to provide transit to those that can't afford cars. It should be to provide an alternative that hopefully more people will take.

Edited by mfastx, Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 9:06 AM.

[kdog08]

To connect this thread to the METRO .25% tax thread, how can METRO show that the startling 12 year decline following a 3 year increase will reverse for some reason other than simple population increase over the time to build out the system? The point of mass transit is to make headway against single vehicle congestion, pollution, and other "quality of life" issues, not just spend billions to keep the status quo (public transit, subsidizing transportation for people who cannot otherwise transport themselves is a different issue, but METRO pitch to complete Solutions has become almost wholly about mass, not public transit).

Can you honestly say that mass transit in this city has been funded and given the support needed to make headway against single vehicle congestion, pollution, and other "quality of life issues". Texas and Houston (hell this country as whole) spends little on mass transit infrastructure and this is what we get.

[IHB2]

Can you honestly say that mass transit in this city has been funded and given the support needed to make headway against single vehicle congestion, pollution, and other "quality of life issues". Texas and Houston (hell this country as whole) spends little on mass transit infrastructure and this is what we get.

no I can't say that, which is why METRO needs to explain in detail how this particular tax increase will accomplish that - b/c right now METRO is just saying if you don't give us the .25% we won't be able to expand service.

What I want to hear is if you do give us the .25% we will blah blah blah by 20??, and blah blah blah by 20??, and that will represent making headway b/c the population blah blah blah and saving you the taxpayer X $$$ over that period of time b/c blah blah, and remove X cars from Houston streets and X tons of pollutants from our air and blah blah

This is a disastrous time for fed, state, and local government revenues - METRO needs to sell this and the debate has gone way past whether one is pro or anti LRT.

[ToryGattis]

Can you honestly say that mass transit in this city has been funded and given the support needed to make headway against single vehicle congestion, pollution, and other "quality of life issues". Texas and Houston (hell this country as whole) spends little on mass transit infrastructure and this is what we get.

Metro has spent billions on transit over the last 15+ years during a time of dramatic population increases. If ridership was increasing, an argument could be made to increase funding and increase ridership even more. But it's moving in the wrong direction, at which point you have to ask if more money will move the needle back the other direction, and if so, why the previous billions didn't?

[mfastx]

Metro has spent billions on transit over the last 15+ years during a time of dramatic population increases. If ridership was increasing, an argument could be made to increase funding and increase ridership even more. But it's moving in the wrong direction, at which point you have to ask if more money will move the needle back the other direction, and if so, why the previous billions didn't?

They've spent almost all of their money on just buses though. They spent a billion dollars on a HOV system that carries less commuters than light rail, which cost only $300 million.

More money spent on the right projects will definitely get ridership back up. If METRO puts out a better quality transit system, then ridership will go up.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that if all 5 proposed rail lines were built, then ridership would go up.

[ToryGattis]

They've spent almost all of their money on just buses though. They spent a billion dollars on a HOV system that carries less commuters than light rail, which cost only $300 million.

More money spent on the right projects will definitely get ridership back up. If METRO puts out a better quality transit system, then ridership will go up.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that if all 5 proposed rail lines were built, then ridership would go up.

This is a common argument by transit agencies. "If we just build the next few billion dollars of rail, we'll finally have critical mass and overall ridership will increase." To my knowledge, none have succeeded over the last few decades, even with much larger rail networks than Metro is planning. And ignoring the rail completely, with the dramatic population and congestion increases Houston's had over the last 15+ years, ridership should have at least increased proportionally, even with no increase in network and service. But it didn't - it dropped. Why? Here's a logical hypothesis: Metro proposed a 50% bus service increase in the 2001 referendum, yet actually reduced bus service over the last decade as more and more money went towards rail. And overall ridership dropped. Seems like cause and effect to me. And it implies Metro needs a change of strategy...

[mfastx]

I think this is a good time to post some graphs showing daily boardings of some major transit agencies that have undergone rail expansion. These graphs show daily boardings over the last decade.

Dallas:



Los Angeles:



Denver:



Salt Lake City:



As you can clearly see, aggressive rail expansion almost always leads to an increase in transit ridership. All three of the cities I posted have recently expanded their rail in the past decade and have plans for more. Los Angeles also has a great BRT line (Orange line) and plans to expand it. There is clearly a direct correlation with investing money in transit and transit ridership.

ToryGattis -

You say that METRO has already but billions into the system.. what are you talking about? The HOV system cost about a billion.. and our light rail line cost $300 million.. and METRO hasn't had any other large capital expenses other than that. Yes, they require yearly subsidy, and of course it it's 30+ years of existence they've recieved a lot of money cumulatively.. but at no point in time have they ever spent "billions" of dollars on a capital project, have they?

[Slick Vik]

When LA outspends you in transit that is pathetic

[mfastx]

When LA outspends you in transit that is pathetic

Not only have they outspent us, as a result their ridership has gone way up.

They are poised for the future and have created good infrastructure to build around. Ridership will continue to go up for them.

[ToryGattis]

I'd say most of those graphs are pretty flat. I wonder how Denver got a big spike in bus ridership? Metro's billions went to the existing and new LRT lines (which haven't opened yet). Those dollars could have gone to expanded bus service, including many, many more miles of cheaper BRT.

LA is one of the few cities that might be able to justify a massive rail expansion over the very long term, based on their incredibly high overall density, complete freeway and arterial gridlock, and year-round excellent pedestrian weather. Although they too would probably be better off with more miles of BRT than fewer miles of LRT or subways.

[Slick Vik]

I'd say most of those graphs are pretty flat. I wonder how Denver got a big spike in bus ridership? Metro's billions went to the existing and new LRT lines (which haven't opened yet). Those dollars could have gone to expanded bus service, including many, many more miles of cheaper BRT.

LA is one of the few cities that might be able to justify a massive rail expansion over the very long term, based on their incredibly high overall density, complete freeway and arterial gridlock, and year-round excellent pedestrian weather. Although they too would probably be better off with more miles of BRT than fewer miles of LRT or subways.

BRT is a temporary solution. Ask bogota, Colombia

[kdog08]

I'd say most of those graphs are pretty flat. I wonder how Denver got a big spike in bus ridership? Metro's billions went to the existing and new LRT lines (which haven't opened yet). Those dollars could have gone to expanded bus service, including many, many more miles of cheaper BRT.

LA is one of the few cities that might be able to justify a massive rail expansion over the very long term, based on their incredibly high overall density, complete freeway and arterial gridlock, and year-round excellent pedestrian weather. Although they too would probably be better off with more miles of BRT than fewer miles of LRT or subways.

So we should wait till those conditions to exist to finally expand our public transit in any meaningful way?

Edited by kdog08, Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 10:47 PM.

[ToryGattis]

So we should wait till those conditions to exist to finally expand our public transit in any meaningful way?

No, it means the transit solution should be tailored to the city. Houston is a decentralized, low density city where the key issue is rush hour traffic congestion. Rail is a bad fit - the solution should be a more comprehensive set of express lanes and commuter buses to more job centers. The Main St. LRT was a fine investment with many destinations on a short route, but I don't have much faith in the new lines (the Universities line might have been a different matter) - they have consumed a couple decades of Metro's capital building capacity and are likely to yield very little.

[mfastx]

I'd say most of those graphs are pretty flat. I wonder how Denver got a big spike in bus ridership? Metro's billions went to the existing and new LRT lines (which haven't opened yet). Those dollars could have gone to expanded bus service, including many, many more miles of cheaper BRT.

Well you can clearly see that for all of those cities, ridership is clearly in an "upward" trend. Rail has long term benefits. Actually, rail is like a freeway in a lot of ways. You think that we are building the Grand Parkway because we need it now? Of course not. But 50 years from now, it will be a utilized highway. Much like rail. While rail does increase ridership short term, you can really see benefits long term. Over time, cities will build around rail, much like they build around highways. And over time, the value of a rail line appreciates. You cannot say the same thing for buses, and in only rare cases can you say the same thing about BRT. BRT has to happen on a massive scale for it to have as much impact as a few rail lines.

LA is one of the few cities that might be able to justify a massive rail expansion over the very long term, based on their incredibly high overall density, complete freeway and arterial gridlock, and year-round excellent pedestrian weather. Although they too would probably be better off with more miles of BRT than fewer miles of LRT or subways.

Call me crazy, but I think Houston will resemble LA in the future (minus the weather, haha). I don't think it hurts to plan ahead for our future growth. I'm sure that if LA could start over, they would have done the same.

What makes you think that BRT is superior to rail in most cases? BRT is great to have, but as a compliment to a rail system. What have you seen to believe that BRT could raplace rail in LA and still have the same impact/ridership?

No, it means the transit solution should be tailored to the city. Houston is a decentralized, low density city where the key issue is rush hour traffic congestion. Rail is a bad fit - the solution should be a more comprehensive set of express lanes and commuter buses to more job centers. The Main St. LRT was a fine investment with many destinations on a short route, but I don't have much faith in the new lines (the Universities line might have been a different matter) - they have consumed a couple decades of Metro's capital building capacity and are likely to yield very little.

So far, we've built a pretty good network of HOV express lanes for our P&R system - but at such a high cost, its impact hasn't been ideal. Why would investing billions more in express lanes do any better than what we currently have?

I somewhat agree with you on your last point. I think the University Line is head and shoulders above the rest - and it's a travesty that Culberson and other political opponents are doing everything they can to stop it. While I think the lines under construction will do well, it's unfortunate that the University Line is being held up. I think that is the line which would make the most impact in the short term, and have the ability to make an even greater impact in the long term.

As for the current lines under construction, I think their impact will be seen more in the long term.

[Slick Vik]

No, it means the transit solution should be tailored to the city. Houston is a decentralized, low density city where the key issue is rush hour traffic congestion. Rail is a bad fit - the solution should be a more comprehensive set of express lanes and commuter buses to more job centers. The Main St. LRT was a fine investment with many destinations on a short route, but I don't have much faith in the new lines (the Universities line might have been a different matter) - they have consumed a couple decades of Metro's capital building capacity and are likely to yield very little.

Commuter rail instead of HOV would be nice

[kdog08]

No, it means the transit solution should be tailored to the city. Houston is a decentralized, low density city where the key issue is rush hour traffic congestion. Rail is a bad fit - the solution should be a more comprehensive set of express lanes and commuter buses to more job centers.

Yet, Houston's inner core resembles LA in many regards (relatively dense residential with large, multi-polar job centers.). Otherwise I'd agree with your assessment. I don't see why you seem to make it a bus vs rail issue when it should be a multimodal issue. Rail inside the core that serves our major employment and activity centers connected by an expanded park&ride system.

The Main St. LRT was a fine investment with many destinations on a short route, but I don't have much faith in the new lines (the Universities line might have been a different matter) - they have consumed a couple decades of Metro's capital building capacity and are likely to yield very little.

That is simple not true. If one single 7.5 mile line in a metro of 6 million people consumes your capital building capacity then your issues are funding and not enough of it.

[ToryGattis]

- BRT gets you more miles for the same money
- We are unlikely to ever densify near to what LA has. It has geographic constraints and a strong desire by people to live near the coast. Houston will, for the most part, continue to spread out. Our core will densify to some extent, but nothing like LA.
- Main St. LRT has not transformed its immediate neighborhood (i.e. blocks on either side) after 8 years
- The HOV investments we need involve connecting up other job centers (esp. Uptown, TMC) and making it a true network instead of pure downtown-centric. If we don't, employers will continue to leave the core and move to the suburbs, like Exxon is doing.
- Here's why commuter rail doesn't work in a city like Houston
- LRT connect major employment/activity centers: as the Universities line would have done, but the 3 lines under construction don't
- The capital consumption also includes the 3 lines currently under construction

[IHB2]

- The capital consumption also includes the 3 lines currently under construction

don't forget to include the capital "consumed" by illegal railcar procurement procedures and the Enron-style accounting that led to the almost $200 million writeoff in 2010.

[Pleak]

Here is an interesting read on DART's rail build out.

http://www.dallasnew...-add-riders.ece

Appears the only way they have added more riders is to add more stations. Riders per staions have dropped generally across the board. But I thought they were one of the "shining stars" that Houston rail is always being compared against....

[kylejack]

Yes, the rail car purchase from Spain was an unmitigated disaster. Hopefully the "New Metro" is more than just a marketing ploy, but only time will tell.

[kdog08]

- BRT gets you more miles for the same money

No doubt. I favor BRT for many routes, especially Gessner and Westheimer. I favor BRT to supplement the University and Uptown Lines while we figure it what we are doing going forward. BRT is just one mode of travel that Houston needs.

BRT can't unload and load several hundred passengers and be on it's way in two minutes like it does in Downtown and the Med Center. I would imagine Uptown and Greenway Plaza would have similar rush hour requirements, although with less riders.

- We are unlikely to ever densify near to what LA has. It has geographic constraints and a strong desire by people to live near the coast. Houston will, for the most part, continue to spread out. Our core will densify to some extent, but nothing like LA.

Well of course. But our inner core, again, has significant employment density (Downtown, Uptown, Greenway Plaza, TMC, and our higher education institutions) and is certainly increasing in residential density in the general vicinity of the proposed Uptown and University lines. Not to mention the parks, cultural centers, and major sports venues are all within the core and proposed lines. Lastly, as Houston grows the events (Rodeo, festivals, etc.) will grow; especially, as Houston host more college games, all star games, super bowls and hopefully World Cup and the Olympics.

- Main St. LRT has not transformed its immediate neighborhood (i.e. blocks on either side) after 8 years

I notice how you have to qualify that claim by limiting it to blocks on either side. You know full well that Midtown is adding more residential that is within 1/2 mile of the rail and is increasingly getting closer to the rail as land runs out. Phase 2 of city place (5 blocks west of the rail) is about to start up. Not to mention the amount of construction that would be near the University and Uptown lines.

- The HOV investments we need involve connecting up other job centers (esp. Uptown, TMC) and making it a true network instead of pure downtown-centric. If we don't, employers will continue to leave the core and move to the suburbs, like Exxon is doing.

Agreed.

- Here's why commuter rail doesn't work in a city like Houston

Who said anything about commuter rail? However, I did find your commuter rail idea, "the brain train" that goes from Galveston to College Station a great step forward. We need to first get Metro funded and with a plan.

- LRT connect major employment/activity centers: as the Universities line would have done, but the 3 lines under construction don't

Yes I wish it was the other way around, as BRT would have been a perfect fit for those 3 lines.

- The capital consumption also includes the 3 lines currently under construction

My mistake. I still stand by my statement that it's a shame.

[mfastx]

- BRT gets you more miles for the same money

True. However LRT is a step above BRT. BRT is great though and I'd love to see more BRT in Houston.

- We are unlikely to ever densify near to what LA has. It has geographic constraints and a strong desire by people to live near the coast. Houston will, for the most part, continue to spread out. Our core will densify to some extent, but nothing like LA.

I disagree. Inside the loop (where the proposed rail lines are) well most certainly densify enough to more than justify rail. Do you think that in 50 years the inner loop areas won't be as dense as LA is now?

- Main St. LRT has not transformed its immediate neighborhood (i.e. blocks on either side) after 8 years

Almost all of the neighborhoods that the light rail runs through were already established before light rail. Downtown, TMC, Museum District, all of those areas are well developed and have continued to improve after light rail.

Midtown was the one neighborhood that was not on par with the others... but as of now it is most certainly improving. Now whether you think light rail has anything to do with that or not, that's another story. But you can't deny that Midtown has become a better place to live after light rail was installed. Regardless, 8 years is not enough to judge an infrastructure investment. What about 20, 30, 40 years from now?

- The HOV investments we need involve connecting up other job centers (esp. Uptown, TMC) and making it a true network instead of pure downtown-centric. If we don't, employers will continue to leave the core and move to the suburbs, like Exxon is doing.

I agree with that, but let's be open minded and consider alternatives, not just P&R buses.

- Here's why commuter rail doesn't work in a city like Houston

I've read that. You don't know whether commuter rail would work or not. What you are proposing would be incredibly inefficient. While it would be great for commuters to have bus service and express lanes every which way into all employment centers, it would not only require huge capital cost to build your proposed system, but the buses wouldn't be even close to being full, as each bus would only cater to a handful of commuters.

It's more efficient to bring large amounts of commuters in to a hub in the core, and then disperse them every which way to wherever their job is using the local transit system. In other words, it's more efficient to have one line cater to all commuters going into town, than have many lines only cater to a few commuters.

I'm not sure you will get what I'm saying as it's hard for me to explain on a message board.

I'd like to add that if the local transit system is improved, many won't mind making an extra transfer, even if it adds a few minutes to their travel time.

- LRT connect major employment/activity centers: as the Universities line would have done, but the 3 lines under construction don't

I do agree with you there. But, I still think that in the long run the LRT lines under construction will be well-utilized. I think that building these lines will improve the neighborhoods around it, and in the long run, people that work downtown will move close to light rail lines so that they can get to work reliably.

EDIT: Wow, I see that kdog08 has responded to each of your comments individually in a similar way I have.

You have a lot to respond to Mr. ToryGattis!!

Edited by mfastx, Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM.

[mfastx]

Here is an interesting read on DART's rail build out.

http://www.dallasnew...-add-riders.ece

Appears the only way they have added more riders is to add more stations. Riders per staions have dropped generally across the board. But I thought they were one of the "shining stars" that Houston rail is always being compared against....

DART is a weird case. While rail has added to DART's riderhsip, they seem to love building rail in old abandoned ROW's away from people. A lot of their stations are literally in the middle of nowhere it seems.

This is why the University Line will fail if built along 59 and Westpark like Culberson wants it to go.

It needs to go where people are (Richmond).

[Slick Vik]

- BRT gets you more miles for the same money
- We are unlikely to ever densify near to what LA has. It has geographic constraints and a strong desire by people to live near the coast. Houston will, for the most part, continue to spread out. Our core will densify to some extent, but nothing like LA.
- Main St. LRT has not transformed its immediate neighborhood (i.e. blocks on either side) after 8 years
- The HOV investments we need involve connecting up other job centers (esp. Uptown, TMC) and making it a true network instead of pure downtown-centric. If we don't, employers will continue to leave the core and move to the suburbs, like Exxon is doing.
- Here's why commuter rail doesn't work in a city like Houston
- LRT connect major employment/activity centers: as the Universities line would have done, but the 3 lines under construction don't
- The capital consumption also includes the 3 lines currently under construction

Please research what has happened to Bogota. BRT is only a temporary solution. They are wanting rail now after only a few years. It's a band aid on a gaping wound.