Jump to content

mfastx

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by mfastx

  1. I'm well aware of all of this .. I really don't think we're in much disagreement, but if you're saying LRT should be built in lower density areas, and BRT should be built in higher density areas, then that's where we disagree. Any new system built today will continue to appreciate in value over the next several decades, including the LRT lines in east Houston. My point was, that building rail in more densely populated areas and connecting employment centers would yield faster positive returns. I don't see how that's a controversial statement. I'm well aware of ridership reports, having sourced them in this very thread just a few posts up. You're comparing entire P&R routes to one single metrorail station, which is not remotely an apples to apples comparison. If you're asking whether P&R routes would have higher ridership if they were converted to rail, the answer is most likely yes.
  2. The Silver Line serves the second largest employment center. If you're not going to contribute a counter example which proves my comment about LRT generating more ridership than BRT wrong, then I can't take your comments (which are all out of thin air) seriously. Voters don't have to approve, Metro elects do hold these referendums. Also, voters voted for rail numerous times. I agree that LRT on the east side, lower density areas wasn't the best investment, the money would have been much better spent in higher density areas of Houston where it would have generated more ridership. You're switching goalposts now. In addition, you're treating transit like a business - which it's not. No form of transportation in and of itself is profitable. However, dollars invested in transit have proven to generate economic benefits, there's been numerous studies on the subject if you'd like to educate yourself. Just because they're in need of transit options (I'm weary of making that blanket assumption but alright) doesn't mean we have to build them the most expensive option available. LRT provides way more capacity than what the Green and Purple lines currently carry. The east side lines were originally proposed as BRT - which I feel makes sense given the lower density and population of those areas.
  3. Which transit dependent populations does the original Red line (not north side extension) traverse? If you read my earlier post in the thread, you'd see that I acknowledged the high initial capital costs associated with rail. You get what you pay for - if you want more transit ridership, need to pay for better infrastructure.
  4. In most places yes, but the western corridors like Richmond and Westheimer absolutely have enough population to make rail work. Instead, Metro built rail in the less-dense, underdeveloped eastern and northern areas of Houston. Just backwards - it'll take a long times for development to densify in those areas and for those lines to be well utilized (decades if not more). Let's take a look at the first fully BRT route in Houston, the Silver line. Right now it carries 849 riders on an average weekday, according to Metro's data. The Green line in a much less developed area of east Houston? About 3,600 riders a weekday. That's almost 4x as much. Obviously, even when putting LRT in an area that doesn't have the density to fully utilize it, the returns are much better than BRT ridership wise. The Red line, which actually goes through some employment centers, carriers around 32,900 riders/weekday. See ridership numbers above. All modes of transportation are subsidized, so there's not point in discussing your second point. Rail, on an operating cost basis, is subsidized less per rider than bus modes.
  5. BRT does not generate the same ridership as LRT, so if you want to have something that competes against cars, rail is the superior mode given that it attracts more riders. Obviously, Houston may not need the capacity of LRT right now, but these lines will be in place for 100+ years. What will Houston, especially west inner-loop, look like then? Those lines' utilization will continue to increase over the decades. I understand they'll be using the new lanes, but I do not recall seeing any plans for them to actually stop at the BRT stations.
  6. The user I was responding to seemed to think that the P&R system would not only use the BRT busways but also stop at their stations, or at least that's what I interpreted from their post. BRT certainly can spur economic/land development as we've seen from multiple projects over the last decade or so. I'm not discounting that. Most of my preference for LRT over BRT is the actual transit aspect - higher ridership/utilization and greater capacity/ability to handle future demand increases. I'm still in support of BRT over nothing and am excited about the project. Of course, HRT (heavy rail) is superior to all modes and it's a damn shame that Houston never built the 1980 proposed system but no use arguing for it since it's not an option Metro is considering now.
  7. I think the user I was responding to wasn't talking about transfers, but rather the P&R Buses operating within the BRT right of way. Perhaps I was mistaken though. I am aware of the current and proposed transfers the new BRT lines would offer. Sorry, maybe try this? https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-811
  8. Unfortunately, there aren't many apples to apples comparisons of BRT vs LRT lines in similar areas with good data. Here is a GAO 2012 study on BRT with a focus on its (positive) impacts on economic development. The focus here is on BRT, but it's referenced numerous times in the article that local officials and transit experts believe that rail transit offers greater economic benefits, with the report saying that "rail-like" features can enhance BRT's positive economic impacts.
  9. I'm not sure I follow. In Houston, significant development has sprouted around the light rail, particularly in midtown and even in the extremely underdeveloped northern, eastern and southeastern areas of town where the new lines went. How would BRT spur better development in Houston? I'm not sure how you could argue a system with less ridership and connectivity is superior to the LRT in Dallas. Metro has no plans to interconnect the P&R buses with BRT. I guess theoretically they could, but the reason people use P&R buses to begin with is the direct, express service to downtown. The BRT lines have too many stops along their routes. I'm not the one that made the comparison. DART has more intermediate stops and obviously serves more people than the P&R service. I said that because it was suggested that Dallas shouldn't have built rail and should have instead built express bus lanes. The latest APTA 4Q 2022 numbers show about 61,000 daily boardings for DART and 41,000 daily boardings for Metro. You can see the latest ridership report here: APTA 4Q 2022 Ridership Report
  10. Yep, exactly. Rail is always more efficient, once constructed, in operating costs on a per rider basis. Anyone can see this by viewing National Transit Database statistics. The initial price tag scares people off, but once it's built it is more efficient to operate and generates significant economic benefits for decades/centuries.
  11. Are you claiming that if DFW built dedicated bus lanes, it would generate more ridership than its light rail? Because Houston actually built a Park & Ride bus system with dedicated lanes, but that generated only about 31,000 boardings/day pre-COVID (significantly less so now). Dallas' LRT system averages over 60,000 boardings/day and that's right now, with the post-COVID decline. Also, the University Line isn't competing against highways, it's an inner-city transit line, not a line to the suburbs.
  12. They are only considering BRT due to its lower initial capital cost, LRT is the superior mode, generating about twice as much ridership in a vacuum and would generate more development benefits/revenue generation for the city. I wonder if that dirty Culberson law is still in effect preventing rail on Richmond. It really is so typically backwards that Houston constructed LRT on lines in lower density areas where BRT would have made more since, while it's constructing BRT on the more dense, higher ridership potential areas in west Houston that connect employment centers (a proven area of demand for transit).
  13. This is really annoying. Voters already approved rail multiple times, most recently in 2003, smh.
  14. Ha, you sound like a highway lobbyist. You are aware that we've been doing just that for the last 50+ years, correct? Do you know how much money we've spent on the HOV lanes? Rail transit is obscenely expensive, I'll give you that. But it also has by far higher ridership, moves people more efficiently on an operating cost basis, and generates far greater economic benefits than a normal bus line.
  15. They did cut and cover all around the central areas of DC and it turned out just fine.
  16. I'm down for the parking idea. And then build mixed use on all the surface lots... 🤤
  17. Really wish some of those lots around MMP would be developed by Crane. Just embarrassing seeing the overhead shots.
  18. Kinda annoying how the satellite imagery is still from like 2019 if not earlier, other cities are updated more frequently!
×
×
  • Create New...