Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Express bus service from Downtown Transit Center to Intercontinental Airport


Recommended Posts

So according to this page: link, a express bus service from downtown to iah will start in august. any more information about this?

"Express bus service from Downtown Transit Center to Intercontinental Airport starts in August. Looking at this map, I hope that it will have a few stops added in 2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question!

My previous experiences with Metro service to the Big Airport have involved long, bewildering sidetrips through Gunspoint apartment complexes.

I wonder, how will the taxicab community be impacted?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My previous experiences with Metro service to the Big Airport have involved long, bewildering sidetrips through Gunspoint apartment complexes.

It will be a more direct route. It will use the HOV on 45 when it is open and Hardy Tollroad when it is not. I think you will be able to check bags(?) and it will be $15 one way (or more but I thought I remember them saying something like $30 round trip)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question!

My previous experiences with Metro service to the Big Airport have involved long, bewildering sidetrips through Gunspoint apartment complexes.

I wonder, how will the taxicab community be impacted?

They'll have fewer people to insist on charging the meter rate instead of the city mandated flat fee? (Happened to me more than once)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it works, it will be a good alternative to putting in rail service to the airport. What often puts tourists off is the prospect of having to take a local bus through unknown territory. If it's done right, it can be a replacement for rail.

Case in point: Tokyo's main airport is connected by both bus and train, but most visitors opt for the bus (called the Airport Limousine Bus because it's simple, efficient, and only stops at the main tourist hotels. I've used it a few times and it is vastly superior to the rail service. The cost is about $20.

Here's how to do it wrong: The only options for getting to/from Pittsburgh International Airport are private car, taxi, and the 28X Airport Express via Busway bus route. Even though it has "express" in its name, it makes over 20 stops, and some in places that make no sense to a business or casual visitor. The route maps are worthless, too. It's probably as bad or worse than Metro's 102 route.

It's interesting that Pittsburgh has a huge light rail system (25 miles and growing) but you rarely hear about it. That's because unlike most cities that use it as an economic stimulus to link airports with downtown and tourist locations, Pittsburgh's is very much focused on serving the outlying neighborhoods instead. Or at least that's how it appears to me as an outsider. I'll let you know if my opinion changes after my trip there next month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was informed that this new service would be on the property just west of the Downtown Transit Center. The property had the temporary fire station until recently. There is to be a cab stand at this location, so the commuters will have a choice of a cab, local Metro bus service or light rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was informed that this new service would be on the property just west of the Downtown Transit Center. The property had the temporary fire station until recently. There is to be a cab stand at this location, so the commuters will have a choice of a cab, local Metro bus service or light rail.

Nice. Good location for it -- close to downtown without clogging the streets with buses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was informed that this new service would be on the property just west of the Downtown Transit Center. The property had the temporary fire station until recently. There is to be a cab stand at this location, so the commuters will have a choice of a cab, local Metro bus service or light rail.

Courtesy shuttles from downtown and TMC hotels will stop there for transfers as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good to hear. I remember a columnist at the Chron writing a sort of rant about the #102 being anything BUT an express service. Perhaps if this is a succesful route, we'll see a similar route to Hobby?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it works, it will be a good alternative to putting in rail service to the airport. What often puts tourists off is the prospect of having to take a local bus through unknown territory. If it's done right, it can be a replacement for rail.

Case in point: Tokyo's main airport is connected by both bus and train, but most visitors opt for the bus (called the Airport Limousine Bus because it's simple, efficient, and only stops at the main tourist hotels. I've used it a few times and it is vastly superior to the rail service. The cost is about $20.

Here's how to do it wrong: The only options for getting to/from Pittsburgh International Airport are private car, taxi, and the 28X Airport Express via Busway bus route. Even though it has "express" in its name, it makes over 20 stops, and some in places that make no sense to a business or casual visitor. The route maps are worthless, too. It's probably as bad or worse than Metro's 102 route.

It's interesting that Pittsburgh has a huge light rail system (25 miles and growing) but you rarely hear about it. That's because unlike most cities that use it as an economic stimulus to link airports with downtown and tourist locations, Pittsburgh's is very much focused on serving the outlying neighborhoods instead. Or at least that's how it appears to me as an outsider. I'll let you know if my opinion changes after my trip there next month.

I've seen places where buses can work, but it really needs to be a dedicated express service. You are absolutely correct that strangers in town are put off by having to take a bus, so the buses need to be well-marked, clean, and frequent. That said, given a choice at airports I go for rail every time. As an aside, last month I took a bus from an airport but due to a series of traffic problems we couldn't follow the route and ended up detouring for at least an hour through the 'burbs. Some of the passengers were getting pretty darn unhappy since they were worried they would end up having to drag their bags miles to their hotels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
where can i find the info on this bus? it is already august and i want to plan a trip in september. however i need a schedule so i can pick the right times.

The plan is for the buses to run ever half hour and the trip will take 1/2 hour. For any more detail, it looks like you'll have to be patient (and hope they get it started before your September trip)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bus service starts next Sunday and will be $15 one way, $30 round trip. It will run all day, seven days a week until about 10:30pm, though for a $30 round trip it should be 24/7. I might ride it to get to work if I ever transfer to Bush/IAH since TSA would be footing the ridiculous fare.

If you don't remember Metro already had a service like this a few years ago; the 112 - Bush IAH Direct. It had regular express fare but basically was the same premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The bus service starts next Sunday and will be $15 one way, $30 round trip. It will run all day, seven days a week until about 10:30pm, though for a $30 round trip it should be 24/7. I might ride it to get to work if I ever transfer to Bush/IAH since TSA would be footing the ridiculous fare.

If you don't remember Metro already had a service like this a few years ago; the 112 - Bush IAH Direct. It had regular express fare but basically was the same premise.

awesome thanks. glad to hear its 24/7. can you give me a link to where you got this information. or tell me the bus number. thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a shuttle bus service back in the late 70's that went from the Allen Center to IAH. It was a pretty convenient service. I took it several times during those years. I think it was $15.00 and that included your parking fee at the Allen Center garage. I remember the taxi companies complained so loud that the service was discontinued. METRO has probably been reluctant to offer a direct service because of this precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know what routing the buses will use? I'm assuming they'll use the Eastex, but once the Hardy Toll Road extension to downtown gets completed (whenever that'll be), there will be full uninterrupted freeway service to the IAH grounds via the Greens Rd connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know what routing the buses will use? I'm assuming they'll use the Eastex, but once the Hardy Toll Road extension to downtown gets completed (whenever that'll be), there will be full uninterrupted freeway service to the IAH grounds via the Greens Rd connection.

Ever since the Hardy Tollroad Airport Connector opened in 2000, there's been uninterrupted freeway service to the airport. The downtown extension of the Hardy really isn't needed for that. Unless you consider taking 45 or 59 to 610 to the Hardy not to be a freeway routing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one of the express buses for the first time today. It was one of the brand new 5000 series MCI 45 ft suburban hybrids. I couldn't get a good look at it since it was going down the freeway, but there seemed to be something on the rear windows denoting that it was a special bus, I think it might have said something about Continental Airlines?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As ill conceived as it may be, I doubt this Airport Direct service will be going anywhere anytime soon. Metro has not only dedicated buses and manpower to the route, but also nontransferable infrastructures such as buildings and their own Metro Direct vans for transporting passengers to and from hotels. I guess that's where the $15 comes in. Nevertheless, if Metro was using billions of dollars on BUS service, Metro could run the Airport Direct at a fare of $5 and offer service to Hobby and the Greenway/Galleria area as well. But, this is a mere pipe dream.

I observed 5005 in service on the line with ONE person on board at the time of departure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As ill conceived as it may be, I doubt this Airport Direct service will be going anywhere anytime soon. Metro has not only dedicated buses and manpower to the route, but also nontransferable infrastructures such as buildings and their own Metro Direct vans for transporting passengers to and from hotels.

Sources for any of that?

The buses and manpower are "dedicated" only in the sense they are being used for this service at this time . Obviously, they can be very easily moved to other services. I don't believe they have invested much at all in the way of buildings and what reason is there to think that such building is "nontransferable"?

Further, I don't believe there is any "Metro Direct" van for transporting passengers to and from hotels. The hotels will provide that service for themselves.

You seem to love bashing every move Metro makes. Criticizing is fine, but once in a while you might think about checking your facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe YOU should check YOUR facts. If you actually observe the building, you will see at least three brand spanking new Metro vans branded with the Airport Direct logo and there was also a blue Super Shuttle van there as well. Did Metro buy the vans for the sake of simply having them sit on the property and advertise the service? The station is not even in a central location. It's located at the edge of downtown away from many of the hotels and major office buildings. You think someone is going to drag their luggage 10 blocks in Houston heat and then pay $15 to ride a city bus to the Airport? Give me a break.

And yes, I do criticize Metro. I actually use the service on a daily basis and I'm not talking about the light rail. I use the local bus service, an aspect of Metro that has been neglected since Wilson came in and started tinkering with toy train sets. The only expansions in bus service have come on the commuter end of things, which is fine since that segment is growing. However, at the same time Metro has failed to even offer rudimentary improvements to local bus service. It's laughable.

As far as the buiding goes, what do you think Metro can do with a small building with TVs, monitors with flight information, and coffee bar inside? I'd say sell it for a loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe YOU should check YOUR facts. If you actually observe the building, you will see at least three brand spanking new Metro vans branded with the Airport Direct logo and there was also a blue Super Shuttle van there as well. Did Metro buy the vans for the sake of simply having them sit on the property and advertise the service? The station is not even in a central location. It's located at the edge of downtown away from many of the hotels and major office buildings. You think someone is going to drag their luggage 10 blocks in Houston heat and then pay $15 to ride a city bus to the Airport? Give me a break.

And yes, I do criticize Metro. I actually use the service on a daily basis and I'm not talking about the light rail. I use the local bus service, an aspect of Metro that has been neglected since Wilson came in and started tinkering with toy train sets. The only expansions in bus service have come on the commuter end of things, which is fine since that segment is growing. However, at the same time Metro has failed to even offer rudimentary improvements to local bus service. It's laughable.

As far as the buiding goes, what do you think Metro can do with a small building with TVs, monitors with flight information, and coffee bar inside? I'd say sell it for a loss.

Making assumptions based on your observations (observations being a skill set that you have shown in the past to lack), is NOT the same as checking your facts. If Metro plans to provide van service to downtown hotels, why would their website include this information: "On your ride into the city, METRO will notify your hotel of your arrival at the Airport Direct Passenger Plaza to allow for a timely pick up. Then on your way back, simply let your hotel know of your departure plans and allow them to arrange transportation to the Passenger Plaza for a worry-free ride to IAH on the METRO Airport Direct."? No doubt they have some sort of plan for those vans, but just the existence of vans (if they indeed exist) does not equal a plan to provide van rides throughout downtown to Airport Direct customers.

You seem to have overlooked the downtown transit center and DTC MetroRail stop adjacent to the Airport Direct Plaza. Not to mention the coordination with hotel shuttles.

As for the building, It does not take a much imagination to think of other possible uses... It could be a hub for Metro Park n Ride service... Besides which, the investment in the building is probably minimal. You certainly make it sound like it was a minimal investment... "small building with TVs, monitors and coffee bar..."

This "ill-conceived" plan is something they should have been doing for at least 10 years. (Although I do think they may have over-priced it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the vans indeed exist? I'm obviously arguing with someone who has not actually been to the plaza. The vans are indeed there and it makes much more sense that they will work in tandem with the hotels and companies within downtown than just sitting there for "future use."

And no, I didn't forget the fact that the rail stop and decrepit transit center are adjacent to the plaza, however, remember that the service is $15. So, the people who use the downtown TC and rail line most likely won't be lugging their luggage off the bus/train to connect to the $15 500 - Airport Direct (no transfers of course).

And any investment in real estate downtown is not minimal. The investment in the service is not minimal, hence the ridiculous price. Also, you say Metro should have been doing this 10 years ago, they were; it was called the 112 - Bush/IAH direct. It was the same 30 minute frequency and run time with a $3 round trip. It failed for whatever reason.

The vans, the concierge service, the building, the equipment inside the building, the marketing etc. etc. is a bit much for a bus route that is projected to carry 100 PEOPLE PER DAY and this is from the horse's mouth. Meanwhile, the nearly 15,000 daily riders on the 2 - Bellaire are subjected to articulated buses that have a "sunroofs" in the bellows that connect the segments. If you don't get it, that means the bellows are torn and the duct tape used to patch them up have failed as well. But that's okay, because we have an opulent airport shuttle with projected ridership of 100, and it's not even there yet.

Edited by MetroMogul
Link to post
Share on other sites

The smaller vans that are currently visible on the lot are vehicles from Super Shuttle, which has been contracted to operate a certain amount of the Airport Direct service during the day (from what I've been told, we're talking very AM service and late evening service). The structural facility in place now includes a "trailer" to serve as a customer reception area. If the service does not make it longterm, the trailer can be lifted and move somewhere else to serve some other purpose (in theory, of course).

The buses being used are no different than many of the MCI's METRO currently operates along the Katy and Eastex Freeway corridors (for example).

Ridership has indeed been fairly low, thus far, but METRO anticipated it. It remains to be seen how much ridership will increase over the next few months.

Also, you say Metro should have been doing this 10 years ago, they were; it was called the 112 - Bush/IAH direct. It was the same 30 minute frequency and run time with a $3 round trip. It failed for whatever reason.

The vans, the concierge service, the building, the equipment inside the building, the marketing etc. etc. is a bit much for a bus route that is projected to carry 100 PEOPLE PER DAY and this is from the horse's mouth. Meanwhile, the nearly 15,000 daily riders on the 2 - Bellaire are subjected to articulated buses that have a "sunroofs" in the bellows that connect the segments. If you don't get it, that means the bellows are torn and the duct tape used to patch them up have failed as well. But that's okay, because we have an opulent airport shuttle with projected ridership of 100, and it's not even there yet.

Unfortunately, I can't disagree with a single word of this.

**Although, I will say that the 2 Bellaire is closer to 11,000 boardings a day now, given the number of alternate services implemented over time, including METRORail. In fact, the 82 Westheimer is now the busiest weekday bus route in METRO's system.

By the way, METRO would like to eventually get rid of all of the artics. They're old and the manufacturer doesn't even make that particular type anymore. From what operations people tell me, it is a pain in the butt trying to get replacement parts for when one of them breaks down.

Edited by The Great Hizzy!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I was wrong about what the vans are used for, but for the most part the Great Hizzy has vindicated my stance on this issue. Metro didn't buy the vans, instead they entered into a contract with Super Shuttle to provide early morning and late evening service on the route. I guess this saves money as they won't have to operate the large MCI coaches. However, how much money is saved depends on the cost of the contract with the Super Shuttle and if operating their own mini buses would have been cheaper.

As far as the building goes; if this service fails, it will be sold at a loss. In theory, it can be used for something else, but it won't. It's specifically for this service and it's continued use depends upon whether or not the Airport Direct reaches that magic number of 100 riders.

Using the MCIs on the route is a waste of money. For 100 riders per day, using buses that hold 55 people per bus is throwing money into a sinkhole. The buses are transferable to other routes, but in the meantime, they are being wasted on this route and money wasted keeping them operating on this route.

The meat and potatoes of my argument he agreed with; my OBSERVATION that for 100 riders per day Metro was wasting money while critical local service with tens of thousands of riders was being neglected. And, when all things considered, that's the most important observation of all.

So, RMAOLMAOLOLloooolz2006~!LMBAO at YOU my friend.

P.S.

Quick observation; you look like a fool bowing at the feet of The Great Hizzy as if he vanquished the beast that is I when he agreed with my argument against the service (not to say he agreed that the service was bad in his eyes, in case you can't read between the lines). Your observational skills are looking a bit fuzzy there pal. Get some new glasses.

HAR HAR HAR.

Edited by MetroMogul
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. I was wrong about what the vans are used for, but for the most part the Great Hizzy has vindicated my stance on this issue. Metro didn't buy the vans, instead they entered into a contract with Super Shuttle to provide early morning and late evening service on the route. I guess this saves money as they won't have to operate the large MCI coaches. However, how much money is saved depends on the cost of the contract with the Super Shuttle and if operating their own mini buses would have been cheaper.

As far as the building goes; if this service fails, it will be sold at a loss. In theory, it can be used for something else, but it won't. It's specifically for this service and it's continued use depends upon whether or not the Airport Direct reaches that magic number of 100 riders.

Using the MCIs on the route is a waste of money. For 100 riders per day, using buses that hold 55 people per bus is throwing money into a sinkhole. The buses are transferable to other routes, but in the meantime, they are being wasted on this route and money wasted keeping them operating on this route.

The meat and potatoes of my argument he agreed with; my OBSERVATION that for 100 riders per day Metro was wasting money while critical local service with tens of thousands of riders was being neglected. And, when all things considered, that's the most important observation of all.

Apparently, it has escaped your notice that I have never argued with your opinion. So, Great Hizzy's opinion on the utility of the service was not of any great moment to me. I was merely applauding him for having done some basic fact-checking and honest observation. My argument with you is entirely regarding your use of "facts" that are simply wrong, wild assumptions based on nothing, and bad observations (or plain dishonesty, from this distance I can't really tell which it is). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts."

Again, assumptions do not equal fact-checking.

You ASSUMED the vans were for shuttling people to downtown. You assumed wrong. You ASSUMED Metro had purchased a bunch of vans for this service. You assumed wrong. The facts are that Metro is contracting for the van use, not purchasing the vans (thus avoiding investing a lot of capital in this service, which an honest critic would at least acknowledge, if not praise). The facts are that the vans are being used for the service to IAH (thus avoiding an even bigger capital cost of investing in VERY expensive buses, allowing the buses to be used in other service, which an honest critic would acknowledge, if not praise.)

You ASSUMED and stretched the truth to claim that Metro has sunk a whole bunch of capital buying and improving real estate for this service. The facts are that Metro is leasing the land, and instead of building an actual building (as you implied), they parked a trailer on the land; both the lease and the trailer (rather than an actual building) again avoiding huge capital investments, which, once again, an honest critic, especially one whose point is that Metro should be investing their resources elsewhere, would surely acknowledge, if not praise.

Now, you continue with your baseless assumptions: That Metro will not be able to use the trailer anywhere else. That they will necessarily have to sell it at a loss. Even that they purchased the trailer. It is very possible that they are merely leasing the trailer as well. You claim to have been told by some horse that they expect only 100 riders a day. Sorry if I don't necessarily put a lot of weight on anything you post, with the track record of bad assumptions, faulty observations, and obfuscation. I'm not buying that Metro has set up this service planning for only 100 riders per day. If the horse indeed told you they expect only 100 riders per day, I think maybe your were talking to the wrong end of the horse. ;-)

Edited by Houston19514
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question -- why is this even a Metro function? What is it about IAH, or Houston, or whatever that is keeping the private sector from filling this need?

CoachUSA operates the airport service at Newark Liberty, Toronto Pearson, and both airports in Chicago. Other companies do it in other markets. Maybe Metro should put it out for bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea. Metro has contracted out a few trips to Super Shuttle, but other than that they are footing the bill for most of the operations. Of course, there is a rumor that CO is sponsoring the service and Metro is not paying anything out of pocket. But someone heard a bus driver say that so who knows. I'm sure they may pay something for the ads on the sides of the buses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently, it has escaped your notice that I have never argued with your opinion. So, Great Hizzy's opinion on the utility of the service was not of any great moment to me. I was merely applauding him for having done some basic fact-checking and honest observation. My argument with you is entirely regarding your use of "facts" that are simply wrong, wild assumptions based on nothing, and bad observations (or plain dishonesty, from this distance I can't really tell which it is). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts."

Again, assumptions do not equal fact-checking.

You ASSUMED the vans were for shuttling people to downtown. You assumed wrong. You ASSUMED Metro had purchased a bunch of vans for this service. You assumed wrong. The facts are that Metro is contracting for the van use, not purchasing the vans (thus avoiding investing a lot of capital in this service, which an honest critic would at least acknowledge, if not praise). The facts are that the vans are being used for the service to IAH (thus avoiding an even bigger capital cost of investing in VERY expensive buses, allowing the buses to be used in other service, which an honest critic would acknowledge, if not praise.)

You ASSUMED and stretched the truth to claim that Metro has sunk a whole bunch of capital buying and improving real estate for this service. The facts are that Metro is leasing the land, and instead of building an actual building (as you implied), they parked a trailer on the land; both the lease and the trailer (rather than an actual building) again avoiding huge capital investments, which, once again, an honest critic, especially one whose point is that Metro should be investing their resources elsewhere, would surely acknowledge, if not praise.

Now, you continue with your baseless assumptions: That Metro will not be able to use the trailer anywhere else. That they will necessarily have to sell it at a loss. Even that they purchased the trailer. It is very possible that they are merely leasing the trailer as well. You claim to have been told by some horse that they expect only 100 riders a day. Sorry if I don't necessarily put a lot of weight on anything you post, with the track record of bad assumptions, faulty observations, and obfuscation. I'm not buying that Metro has set up this service planning for only 100 riders per day. If the horse indeed told you they expect only 100 riders per day, I think maybe your were talking to the wrong end of the horse. ;-)

I guess in your mind leasing equals free. Leasing land and a trailer plus buying whatever is in the trailer IS a a huge capital investment. Having staff on hand to arrange trips and load luggage IS a huge capital investment. And since the Super Shuttle vans only operate early mornings and late evenings, VERY expensive MCI buses are used for the BULK of the service, another HUGE capital investment. Metro hasn't even reached it's projected ridership. The Metro Blog states that ridership for one particular day was 33. So, for 33 people, tell me how you can justify sinking that much capital into leases and contracts and praise them for it.

Edited by MetroMogul
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess in your mind leasing equals free. Leasing land and a trailer plus buying whatever is in the trailer IS a a huge capital investment. Having staff on hand to arrange trips and load luggage IS a huge capital investment. And since the Super Shuttle vans only operate early mornings and late evenings, VERY expensive MCI buses are used for the BULK of the service, another HUGE capital investment. Metro hasn't even reached it's projected ridership. The Metro Blog states that ridership for one particular day was 33. So, for 33 people, tell me how you can justify sinking that much capital into leases and contracts and praise them for it.

Seriously, Mogul... take it down a notch. Breathe deeply. It's all going to be OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's painfully obvious to anyone reading this forum (except, I guess, MetroMogul) that Metro does not plan to operate this service for 33 passengers a day. That number of passengers was of course on one of the very first days of service, and before the official kick-off of service.

After reviewing the actual facts of the service, it is also very obvious Metro has no intent whatsoever of continuing this service come hell or high water, as MetroMogul told us they would in his first post here. The very reason for leasing the land (rather than purchasing it), parking a (probably leased) trailer (rather than building a building), contracting vans for part of the service (rather than buying buses for the full service) is to test the service for a time to see if it works before making the full up-front capital investment required to buy the land, build a building and purchase additional buses.

Edited by Houston19514
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure it's painfully obvious to anyone reading this forum (except, I guess, MetroMogul) that Metro does not plan to operate this service for 33 passengers a day. That number of passengers was of course on one of the very first days of service, and before the official kick-off of service.

After reviewing the actual facts of the service, it is also very obvious Metro has no intent whatsoever of continuing this service come hell or high water, as MetroMogul told us they would in his first post here. The very reason for leasing the land (rather than purchasing it), parking a (probably leased) trailer (rather than building a building), contracting vans for part of the service (rather than buying buses for the full service) is to test the service for a time to see if it works before making the full up-front capital investment required to buy the land, build a building and purchase additional buses.

Quite an ASSUMPTION there buddy. This is not a test. If it were a test Metro would be operating the service using all vans or mini-buses from the Downtown transit center. They set the bar low for this waste of money. The projected ridership is 100 people, they are at 33 right now. The expenditures put forth for this service are for 100 people. It's a waste of money providing a niche service when their job is to provide services for a broad spectrum of people. It seems you cannot or just outright refuse to grasp that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite an ASSUMPTION there buddy. This is not a test. If it were a test Metro would be operating the service using all vans or mini-buses from the Downtown transit center. They set the bar low for this waste of money. The projected ridership is 100 people, they are at 33 right now. The expenditures put forth for this service are for 100 people. It's a waste of money providing a niche service when their job is to provide services for a broad spectrum of people. It seems you cannot or just outright refuse to grasp that point.

It is not an assumption. It is what Metro has said. Until you provide a direct verifiable source for your claim that their ridership projection is 100 per day, I am certainly not buying it, and I doubt anyone here who has paid any attention to ANY of your previous posts about Metro will be believing it either.

(And by the way, it seems you cannot or refuse to grasp the point that I am not and have never been arguing with your conclusion that this is not a service Metro should be spending money on... I am only arguing with your use of bad assumptions, lies, misstatements, and misunderstandings to "support" your conclusion". I can imagine an honest critic could make a reasonable argument for your position using actual facts and truth. Maybe you could give that a try some time.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I just tried to use the service and the math just does not work. Taking a 3 day trip I can drive to IAH and remote park for $8 or round it out for 20 bucks. To use the service its 30 plus cab fare of about 10 r/t for me.

Metro are you listening?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just tried to use the service and the math just does not work. Taking a 3 day trip I can drive to IAH and remote park for $8 or round it out for 20 bucks. To use the service its 30 plus cab fare of about 10 r/t for me.

Metro are you listening?

Agreed. I think even $10 each way would be a LOT more attractive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...