All aboard for commuter rail

[citykid09]

All aboard for commuter rail

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6672981.html

Why does this topic come up every few years, but nothing ever gets done or comes from it?

[sevfiv]

Massive opposition, lobbying, and bullying from the "freeway people." It's a really yawn-inducing cycle.

[Highway6]

A ) Congrats Speedy... a week old article.

B ) It hasnt been decided which of several possible entities would run this operation. "Union Pacific willing to work with public officials." ?? did you even read what you posted... That would only true for GCRD... not Metro or Txdot.

C) It's not even news. It's an editorial, an opinion piece. It's the County judge coming to bat for one of the the entities mentioned above.

[musicman]

All aboard for commuter rail

who's all?

[IronTiger]

I thought commuter rail for Cypress and Sugar Land was to be a reality by 2012 or so. Guess I was wrong.

[ToryGattis]

This is not as clear-cut as it seems. Judge Emmett's argument, which I sympathize with, is that we need all available transportation capacity we can muster, esp. if there are underutilized rail lines. On the other side there are two main problems (assuming costs are reasonable, which is a big assumption). One is that these lines won't come inside the 610 loop, where the tracks are more congested. Major problem, since that's where everybody wants to go, and transfers to shuttle buses or long light rail rides aren't going to work for most people. The only part I can see working is the 290 line feeding the Uptown LRT, but there's no way those riders will continue on to Greenway, Downtown, or TMC, given the slow LRT speeds (<20mph net).

But there is a bigger problem: express buses in managed lanes are faster (65mph vs. 30mph net avg for commuter rail with stops), more frequent, much cheaper, more convenient (closer Park and Rides, no transfers), and can circulate at job centers to get people right to their destination building (and stay out of the weather as much as possible). But the ironclad rule of rail investment is that all competing bus service must be canceled to maximize rail ridership. So, in the end, people end up with much worse service for much more money.

I'd like to think there's a way to mix everything (commuter rail, LRT, and buses) and get better overall service, but I don't see how.

[Random]

This may have been discussed, but as there ever been talk of doing express bus service 24/7 so people can go to a from major business centers any time of the day or night?

[RedScare]

But there is a bigger problem: express buses in managed lanes are faster (65mph vs. 30mph net avg for commuter rail with stops)...

That would be a big problem if it were true. To use real life examples, rather than guessing, the Trinity Railway Express in Dallas-Fort Worth runs approximately 38 miles in 57 minutes (per their schedule), for an average speed of about 40 mph. The METRO Cypress 217 Park and Ride runs from Skinner Road to downtown, a distance of 26.5 miles, in 50 minutes, for an average speed of 31 mph. And, considering that Greenway Plaza and the TMC are serviced by running a bus through downtown first, then on to TMC or Greenway, transferring from a commuter train wouldn't take any more time than it already does. From Cypress, Greenway and the Galleria is serviced by driving down S. Post Oak, then driving east on Richmond...virtually the identical route of the light rail. Again, no quicker than the train. The park & Ride busses do not circulate amongst the buildings. They stop at designated stops. TMC has a circulator that serves the busses AND the light rail. Your "circulating park&ride" argument does not hold water.

Your "flexibility" argument is a red herring. The park&ride busses depart from permanent stations with permanent concrete parking lots. They enter permanent freeways via permanent flyovers onto the permanent HOV lanes. Moreover, permanence increases ridership. Rail commuters AND park&riders know EXACTLY where the stops are and when they run. There is consistency because they are permanent. Bus routes change constantly, affecting the confidence that the stop will always be there. And, permanent rail stations encourage development nearby, making commuting even easier. The same can be said for Houston METRO's park&ride stations and light rail stations, but not for regular bus stops.

The one thing that is true about your bus argument is that it is cheaper to build infrastructure.

[AtticaFlinch]

The one thing that is true about your bus argument is that it is cheaper to build infrastructure.

It seems to me the same people who don't and wouldn't use public transportation in the first place are the same people who argue against commuter and light rail. It seems that since they don't see a value in it for themselves, it wouldn't benefit anyone.

[ToryGattis]

That would be a big problem if it were true. To use real life examples, rather than guessing, the Trinity Railway Express in Dallas-Fort Worth runs approximately 38 miles in 57 minutes (per their schedule), for an average speed of about 40 mph. The METRO Cypress 217 Park and Ride runs from Skinner Road to downtown, a distance of 26.5 miles, in 50 minutes, for an average speed of 31 mph. And, considering that Greenway Plaza and the TMC are serviced by running a bus through downtown first, then on to TMC or Greenway, transferring from a commuter train wouldn't take any more time than it already does. From Cypress, Greenway and the Galleria is serviced by driving down S. Post Oak, then driving east on Richmond...virtually the identical route of the light rail. Again, no quicker than the train. The park & Ride busses do not circulate amongst the buildings. They stop at designated stops. TMC has a circulator that serves the busses AND the light rail. Your "circulating park&ride" argument does not hold water.

Your "flexibility" argument is a red herring. The park&ride busses depart from permanent stations with permanent concrete parking lots. They enter permanent freeways via permanent flyovers onto the permanent HOV lanes. Moreover, permanence increases ridership. Rail commuters AND park&riders know EXACTLY where the stops are and when they run. There is consistency because they are permanent. Bus routes change constantly, affecting the confidence that the stop will always be there. And, permanent rail stations encourage development nearby, making commuting even easier. The same can be said for Houston METRO's park&ride stations and light rail stations, but not for regular bus stops.

The one thing that is true about your bus argument is that it is cheaper to build infrastructure.

Of course commuter rail speeds vary depending on the number of stops. I've seen 30mph in reports. Props to TRE for making 40mph - we should try to do the same. You bring up a specific slower express bus route with surface streets as a substantial part of its route, but they can do 65mph in the HOV lanes. Trains avg 30-40mph over their entire length. We will need more diamond/HOV/HOT lanes in key places so the higher speeds can be sustained over more of the routes, mainly on the 610 loop.

I agree existing express bus service is not done well by Metro. There should be more expresses nonstop to more job centers, and they should do a better job circulating, which they are perfectly capable of doing. Just because the service is not done that way today does not mean that it could not.

The real "red herring" is believing the city will adapt around the rail stops, esp. employers, when it could take many, many decades, if ever. The buses are inherently more flexible and can get closer to destination buildings than rail ever will. And their routes can be easily adapted if new job concentrations grow in new places, for whatever reason.

I am not opposed to LRT as a core circulator, but, in Houston, commuter transit is better done by express buses than heavy rail.

[jgriff]

Of course commuter rail speeds vary depending on the number of stops. I've seen 30mph in reports. Props to TRE for making 40mph - we should try to do the same. You bring up a specific slower express bus route with surface streets as a substantial part of its route, but they can do 65mph in the HOV lanes. Trains avg 30-40mph over their entire length. We will need more diamond/HOV/HOT lanes in key places so the higher speeds can be sustained over more of the routes, mainly on the 610 loop.

I agree existing express bus service is not done well by Metro. There should be more expresses nonstop to more job centers, and they should do a better job circulating, which they are perfectly capable of doing. Just because the service is not done that way today does not mean that it could not.

The real "red herring" is believing the city will adapt around the rail stops, esp. employers, when it could take many, many decades, if ever. The buses are inherently more flexible and can get closer to destination buildings than rail ever will. And their routes can be easily adapted if new job concentrations grow in new places, for whatever reason.

I am not opposed to LRT as a core circulator, but, in Houston, commuter transit is better done by express buses than heavy rail.

Tory: I know your an expert on this subject that can argue both sides if you wish. It seems like we always hear about the downsides of rail based transit. What are some of the upsides? It seems there are a lot of people in favor of rail based transit. What are their reasons for favoring it over buses?

[RedScare]

Of course commuter rail speeds vary depending on the number of stops. I've seen 30mph in reports. Props to TRE for making 40mph - we should try to do the same. You bring up a specific slower express bus route with surface streets as a substantial part of its route, but they can do 65mph in the HOV lanes. Trains avg 30-40mph over their entire length. We will need more diamond/HOV/HOT lanes in key places so the higher speeds can be sustained over more of the routes, mainly on the 610 loop.

I agree existing express bus service is not done well by Metro. There should be more expresses nonstop to more job centers, and they should do a better job circulating, which they are perfectly capable of doing. Just because the service is not done that way today does not mean that it could not.

The real "red herring" is believing the city will adapt around the rail stops, esp. employers, when it could take many, many decades, if ever. The buses are inherently more flexible and can get closer to destination buildings than rail ever will. And their routes can be easily adapted if new job concentrations grow in new places, for whatever reason.

I am not opposed to LRT as a core circulator, but, in Houston, commuter transit is better done by express buses than heavy rail.

I didn't expect you to admit intentionally trying to make busses look faster than trains, but I didn't expect you to make rebutting your argument so easy, either. I bring up a "specific slower express bus route" because that is the EXACT ROUTE that the 290 commuter train will replace. And, even your explanation of train vs. bus speeds is still intentionally deceptive. In your first post, you claimed "express buses in managed lanes are faster (65mph vs. 30mph net avg for commuter rail with stops". In your feeble attempt at explaining yourself, you claim busses "can do 65mph in the HOV lanes". What kind of argument is that? Net speed versus top speed? Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

And stop with the "flexible" argument already! We don't want flexible! I don't think you even lived in Houston in 1984, but in that year, I took the Kuykendahl P&R to law school downtown nearly every day. Back then, the P&R lot was surrounded by fields. Guess what? That same P&R is still running in the same location today, surrounded by apartments, with no intention of moving. There are dozens just like it all over the METRO service area.

It is possible that busses are better than commuter rail in Houston. But, we wouldn't know it based on your arguments. Your arguments amount to a conclusion looking for stats to back it up. Use fair comparisons and see where it ends up. You might be surprised.

[jgriff]

From Cypress, Greenway and the Galleria is serviced by driving down S. Post Oak, then driving east on Richmond...virtually the identical route of the light rail. Again, no quicker than the train.

OK, here's a positive argument for the train.... the bus is no quicker. I'm looking for more of this. What are the other reasons that rail is better than bus?

[ToryGattis]

Speed: they are clearly different. A commuter train stops every couple of miles along its entire route, netting to 30-40mph. An express bus leaving from a P&R directly onto a freeway HOV is immediately going 65mph over its entire route (as long as the lanes exist), *until* it exits at the job center. Then it circulates. That circulation would slow the average speed over the entire route, but it's a "feature not a bug" because it's getting people closer to their destination building without a transfer. That train stop would have been substantially farther away. That circulation speed should not be factored in and compared to the train, but rather compared to whatever people have to do *after they get off the train* (i.e. walk or transfer).

Flexibility: you're talking about the P&R lot side, I'm talking about the route among the destination buildings. Obviously the P&R lots don't move. But I do favor contracts with private parking lots all over the city that are underutilized on weekdays, like churches and malls, to offer additional, closer P&R lots.

jgriff: trains are obviously more comfortable vehicles than buses. Bigger seats, easier to walk around, and there can be services like a cafe car. But the real reasons people like trains is that they've had a good experience with them when they visited much older cities that evolved around the lines, where it really works well (esp. in Europe). Those old, dense, colder cities, built around walking before trains even existed, fit well with rail because they kept their jobs concentrated in a single, main, downtown job center (like Manhattan or downtown Chicago). But they extrapolate that to assume that it's also the right answer for Houston, a decentralized, sunbelt, low density, post-WW2, car-based city. We have less than 7% of our jobs downtown, and many different job centers (dt, uptown, TMC, Greenway, Greenspoint, Clear Lake, Energy Corridor, Westchase, etc.) We also have pedestrian-hostile climate 5 months of the year - and while you can wear coats for cold northern weather, there are no air-conditioned clothes we can wear down here. Our city wasn't built like theirs, and serving it with rail transit makes about as much sense as replacing their old-city rail lines with freeways.

[august948]

It seems to me the same people who don't and wouldn't use public transportation in the first place are the same people who argue against commuter and light rail. It seems that since they don't see a value in it for themselves, it wouldn't benefit anyone.

Being primarily concerned with what benefits you is, unfortunately, a common human condition. As soon as gas prices spike back up and the cost of commuting rises again you'll see those arguments subside and general interest resume in public transportation. Hopefully, our public officials will take this likelihood into account and prepare the groundwork so we won't be so far behind the curve when the need hits.

Interestingly, during last summer's gas price spike I started seeing more of what looked like middle-class white folks waiting at bus stops on the west side. When the prices went back down, they disappeared.

[august948]

And stop with the "flexible" argument already! We don't want flexible! I don't think you even lived in Houston in 1984, but in that year, I took the Kuykendahl P&R to law school downtown nearly every day. Back then, the P&R lot was surrounded by fields. Guess what? That same P&R is still running in the same location today, surrounded by apartments, with no intention of moving. There are dozens just like it all over the METRO service area.

I suspect you'll find even more examples if you look at public transit in the US and abroad over a longer range of years. Having a predictable, long-term investment in the transportation network drives development in those areas over the long term. You can even make that argument using our current primary infrastructure, the highway system, and see that development tends to occur more frequently on or close to the highways.

If you build a rail system, they will come.

[RedScare]

Speed: they are clearly different. A commuter train stops every couple of miles along its entire route, netting to 30-40mph. An express bus leaving from a P&R directly onto a freeway HOV is immediately going 65mph over its entire route (as long as the lanes exist), *until* it exits at the job center. Then it circulates. That circulation would slow the average speed over the entire route, but it's a "feature not a bug" because it's getting people closer to their destination building without a transfer. That train stop would have been substantially farther away. That circulation speed should not be factored in and compared to the train, but rather compared to whatever people have to do *after they get off the train* (i.e. walk or transfer).

Again, apples and oranges. You insist that the train must stop "every couple of miles". Why? The TRE makes 9 stops along its 38 mile route, or every 4.5 miles. Why does the Cypress commuter rail have to stop more often than the 5 stops that the park&ride busses currently make? It's a commuter train, not a light rail. And, suggesting that a 70 mph train on a dedicated track is slower than a bus that must compete with cars on an HOV is ridiculous. I watch the busses get bogged down in HOV traffic daily. That is why METRO schedules the 26.5 mile Cypress bus to take 50 minutes. My numbers, by the way, do not come from studies. These are the schedule ride times on actual trains and busses in cities just like Houston...Houston itself and Dallas/Fort Worth.

Northwest P&R map

Trinity Railway Express map

[jgriff]

jgriff: trains are obviously more comfortable vehicles than buses. Bigger seats, easier to walk around, and there can be services like a cafe car. But the real reasons people like trains is that they've had a good experience with them when they visited much older cities that evolved around the lines, where it really works well (esp. in Europe). Those old, dense, colder cities, built around walking before trains even existed, fit well with rail because they kept their jobs concentrated in a single, main, downtown job center (like Manhattan or downtown Chicago). But they extrapolate that to assume that it's also the right answer for Houston, a decentralized, sunbelt, low density, post-WW2, car-based city. We have less than 7% of our jobs downtown, and many different job centers (dt, uptown, TMC, Greenway, Greenspoint, Clear Lake, Energy Corridor, Westchase, etc.) We also have pedestrian-hostile climate 5 months of the year - and while you can wear coats for cold northern weather, there are no air-conditioned clothes we can wear down here. Our city wasn't built like theirs, and serving it with rail transit makes about as much sense as replacing their old-city rail lines with freeways.

Thanks for the answer Tory. I usually don't see the people who argue in favor of rail making much of an argument past "I want it". I'm really curious what their reasons are.

Does it save them money or time? Would rail transit in Houston save a large segment of the population money or time? I think when we talk about rail transit in Houston we are assuming that it will take people downtown. How much of the metro area would this benefit? What is the percentage of the population that works or lives downtown?

[AtticaFlinch]

We also have pedestrian-hostile climate 5 months of the year - and while you can wear coats for cold northern weather, there are no air-conditioned clothes we can wear down here.

Not true. People would walk if the option was available, even during August. People did when gas cost $5/gallon, and people walk all the time in cities in Mexico and Central America that are hotter and more humid than Houston. It's when walking is inconvenient beyond just the temperature that people opt against it. If it's necessary to drive somewhere in order to walk, then people will just continue driving. The problem is, considering very few sunbelt cities have any extensive rail systems, many people like to make assumptions that benefit their own argument. You can't say people won't walk until you give them the opportunity to walk.

[jgriff]

Not true. People would walk if the option was available, even during August. People did when gas cost $5/gallon, and people walk all the time in cities in Mexico and Central America that are hotter and more humid than Houston. It's when walking is inconvenient beyond just the temperature that people opt against it. If it's necessary to drive somewhere in order to walk, then people will just continue driving. The problem is, considering very few sunbelt cities have any extensive rail systems, many people like to make assumptions that benefit their own argument. You can't say people won't walk until you give them the opportunity to walk.

OK, here is another positive argument for rail. Most of what I see are people defending rail against other forms of transit.

We want people to walk more.

[august948]

OK, here is another positive argument for rail. Most of what I see are people defending rail against other forms of transit.

We want people to walk more.

Here's another positive argument for rail. Developers, businesses and residents need predictability. When you make a massive infrastructure investment, it's not likely that the routes are going to change. Rail alignments, once they are built, aren't easily subject to change. That predictability is what people need to make other long-term decisions about how and where they will live and work.

[ToryGattis]

Here's another positive argument for rail. Developers, businesses and residents need predictability. When you make a massive infrastructure investment, it's not likely that the routes are going to change. Rail alignments, once they are built, aren't easily subject to change. That predictability is what people need to make other long-term decisions about how and where they will live and work.

Yes, but I don't think we're better off changing from a city with more flexibility - i.e. "I can locate my home or business in many places and still have access to express buses" - to one with less - "I now have to locate near a small handful of rail stops or I'm screwed."

[august948]

Yes, but I don't think we're better off changing from a city with more flexibility - i.e. "I can locate my home or business in many places and still have access to express buses" - to one with less - "I now have to locate near a small handful of rail stops or I'm screwed."

We made that change when we started building the highway system 50+ years ago. You can locate anywhere you want, but you still have to pay more in time and money the farther you are from the highway. Since express buses also have limited stops, I'm not sure how different this really is since you are either going to be driving to a bus stop or driving to a rail stop.

[ToryGattis]

Again, apples and oranges. You insist that the train must stop "every couple of miles". Why? The TRE makes 9 stops along its 38 mile route, or every 4.5 miles. Why does the Cypress commuter rail have to stop more often than the 5 stops that the park&ride busses currently make? It's a commuter train, not a light rail. And, suggesting that a 70 mph train on a dedicated track is slower than a bus that must compete with cars on an HOV is ridiculous. I watch the busses get bogged down in HOV traffic daily. That is why METRO schedules the 26.5 mile Cypress bus to take 50 minutes. My numbers, by the way, do not come from studies. These are the schedule ride times on actual trains and busses in cities just like Houston...Houston itself and Dallas/Fort Worth.

Northwest P&R map

Trinity Railway Express map

I do notice that route varies from 40 min to 50 min based on time of day. I assume that's some sort of HOV congestion issue. When they are converted to HOT, that should go away, as prices will be increased to keep speeds high.

Of course rail stops can be farther apart to increase net speeds. But that does make it less convenient for people. In Houston's case, since almost everybody will be driving to/from the commuter rail stops, they could be farther apart and increase speeds. TRE is probably a good model. Point taken.

This confused me: "Why does the Cypress commuter rail have to stop more often than the 5 stops that the park&ride busses currently make?" The P&R buses should be going nonstop from the P&R lot to the destination job center, then stopping multiple times there to get people close to their building (in this specific case, they do make one stop at the NW transit center for transfers). As I mentioned before, that job center circulation is not comparable to what rail offers, but to what people have to do after they get off the rail at the single station on the north edge of downtown. Buses can do this because they're small enough that they can fill up at a single P&R lot and don't need to stop at other P&R lots along the way, and yet they can still offer frequent service. A train is huge, with large capacity, and must stop multiple times along the route to fill up and yet still offer frequent service.

[ToryGattis]

We made that change when we started building the highway system 50+ years ago. You can locate anywhere you want, but you still have to pay more in time and money the farther you are from the highway. Since express buses also have limited stops, I'm not sure how different this really is since you are either going to be driving to a bus stop or driving to a rail stop.

Yes, but we *already* have the freeways, HOV lanes, and buses. That is what our city is and how it evolved. Why chuck it for rail at astronomical cost?

It is different because you should be able to drive to the single P&R lot near you and find express buses to all of the major job centers running at frequent intervals, as opposed to driving to a rail stop with a single line only serving a couple of job centers at most, and even those will require transfers and long walks.

[RedScare]

Yes, but we *already* have the freeways, HOV lanes, and buses. That is what our city is and how it evolved. Why chuck it for rail at astronomical cost?

It is different because you should be able to drive to the single P&R lot near you and find express buses to all of the major job centers running at frequent intervals, as opposed to driving to a rail stop with a single line only serving a couple of job centers at most, and even those will require transfers and long walks.

Commuter rail is not "astronomical cost". $3 Billion to rebuild Katy Freeway is astronomical, considering the increase in capacity was only 30,000 vehicles per day. Likewise, another $3 Billion to rebuild 290 is astronomical. When are you going to decree the wasted tax dollars there?

A casual look at the 290 corridor reveals park & ride lots at 4 locations along the freeway. A 5th stop is at the Morthwest Transit Center. An apples to apples comparison would look at a commuter rail system that replaces those 4 stops with rail stations. A 5th rail station would be at the NWTC. Because the train never mixes with vehicular traffic, does not have to stop at intersections, and has the same top speed as the bus, it is a mathematical impossibility to make it slower than the bus...without adding some illogical impediment to the train, such as making it stop more often than the bus.

As for your circulator plan, they already exist. TMC has a circulator. Greenway doesn't need one. Downtown busses stop every two blocks, and the rail does too.

The commuter rail has the added benefit of adding capacity to the corridor that is currently unused. The rail line sits empty while 290 is full. We already know that we must expand 290. There is enough traffic to do both. Taking the busses off the HOT lane gives it more capacity. More importantly, people want the trains. They want the comfort, added services and added capacity that they provide. There is an inherent bias toward trains. If the goal is to increase the number of commuters, and more commuters will ride the trains, why not add the trains? You seem to use that argument to puch for more freeways and HOT lanes. Why is it not a valid argument for commuter trains? Why do you get to spend $6 Billion to rebuild two westside freeways, but we can't spend a few hundred million to build rail? You seem to be all about saving tax dollars for transit modes that you won't use, but all about the benefits of blowing wads of cash on modes that suit you.

Your arguments continue to impose differing standards on the different transit modes.

[august948]

Yes, but we *already* have the freeways, HOV lanes, and buses. That is what our city is and how it evolved. Why chuck it for rail at astronomical cost?

I can't imagine that the current road network would ever be chucked. That represents a sunk cost that we can continue to benefit from, even if we choose to spend expansion money on alternate forms of transport. It's not an either/or debate since bus and rail can and do coexist in a comprehensive system. How we manage it is up to us. But, the reason to build rail is what I stated before. Predictability. In order to evolve to meet what I believe are going to be much higher energy costs and still remain a vibrant city we are going to have to adapt. That's going to mean evolution towards more density in the city and also in outlying communities. People and businesses are going to cluster around the transport network that affords the least personal cost.

It is different because you should be able to drive to the single P&R lot near you and find express buses to all of the major job centers running at frequent intervals, as opposed to driving to a rail stop with a single line only serving a couple of job centers at most, and even those will require transfers and long walks.

It's not going to be pretty, but I don't believe the future holds the same convenience of transport that the post WW2 era held. I would think, though, that express and local buses would be used in conjunction with rail to get people where they want to go. Who knows, we might even see the re-advent of private bus or shuttle services that compete or complement the existing public system.

[ToryGattis]

A casual look at the 290 corridor reveals park & ride lots at 4 locations along the freeway. A 5th stop is at the Morthwest Transit Center. An apples to apples comparison would look at a commuter rail system that replaces those 4 stops with rail stations. A 5th rail station would be at the NWTC. Because the train never mixes with vehicular traffic, does not have to stop at intersections, and has the same top speed as the bus, it is a mathematical impossibility to make it slower than the bus...without adding some illogical impediment to the train, such as making it stop more often than the bus.

I think I see the confusion. Yes, there are 4 P&R lots, but a bus leaving from one of them does *not* stop at the other three. It goes directly to the NW transit center and then downtown. The rail would stop at all 4, therefore, yes, in general, it should be slower.

[moni]

Thanks for the answer Tory. I usually don't see the people who argue in favor of rail making much of an argument past "I want it". I'm really curious what their reasons are.

Does it save them money or time? Would rail transit in Houston save a large segment of the population money or time? I think when we talk about rail transit in Houston we are assuming that it will take people downtown. How much of the metro area would this benefit? What is the percentage of the population that works or lives downtown?

Carbon emissions???

[RedScare]

I think I see the confusion. Yes, there are 4 P&R lots, but a bus leaving from one of them does *not* stop at the other three. It goes directly to the NW transit center and then downtown. The rail would stop at all 4, therefore, yes, in general, it should be slower.

Except that we know from looking at the TRE transit times that it is still faster than individual busses. A train leaving the Cypress lot and running non-stop to downtown would arrive in almost half the time it takes the bus. Even with stopping at all 4 stops, it will likely average 9 mph faster than the bus. The TRE, as explained several posts earlier, averages 40 mph WITH 9 STOPS along its 38 mile route. The Cypress Park&Ride only averages 31 mph with no intermediate stops.