All aboard for commuter rail

[ToryGattis]

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.

26 miles in 40 min is 39 mph. 40 min is the best time, which it should be able to achieve regularly once the HOV->HOT conversions are done. So that's roughly a speed match. But at the end of that time, the bus is circulating you to your building, while the rail line is dumping you on the far northern edge of downtown.

Also, under my system, rather than having a single bus stop at both the NW transit center (for transfers) and downtown, there would be two buses, one to each job center, and they would circulate without transfers. That would improve the speeds substantially for both sets of riders, esp. if there were a direct ramp from the 290 HOV onto 10 without the NWTC stop.

[rsb320]

This evening P&R buses going I-45N had to be rerouted because Travis was closed at White Oak Bayou (water on the road). A rail line would most likely be at an elevation that would not flood.

Ever heard of express trains? Not all trains have to stop at all stops, especially when no one is likely getting off at many. Besides, trains would fill on the north end pretty quickly.

Trains have no emissions, wheels don't blow out like tires, they are more energy efficient, hold more people and car life far exceeds that of a bus.

[RedScare]

26 miles in 40 min is 39 mph. 40 min is the best time, which it should be able to achieve regularly once the HOV->HOT conversions are done. So that's roughly a speed match. But at the end of that time, the bus is circulating you to your building, while the rail line is dumping you on the far northern edge of downtown.

That HOV to HOT conversion would be done as part of the $3 Billion rebuild of 290. So, $3 Billion to achieve roughly a speed match for a less comfortable and less popular mode of transit. Bear in mind how much slower the P&R system gets DURING the 6-8 years of construction. On the other hand, a commuter train could actually help REDUCE congestion during the rebuild, with no slower trip times.

Also, under my system, rather than having a single bus stop at both the NW transit center (for transfers) and downtown, there would be two buses, one to each job center, and they would circulate without transfers. That would improve the speeds substantially for both sets of riders, esp. if there were a direct ramp from the 290 HOV onto 10 without the NWTC stop.

So, you recommend DOUBLING the cost of the P&R in order to run two sets of buses, or do you recommend HALVING P&R service so that buses can go to two different destinations? Alternatively, buses OR trains can allow riders to take light rail to the Galleria or Greenway from the NWTC, or to Downtown or TMC from the intermodal terminal, transit options that already exist, and do not cost extra.

It seems to me that all of your solutions require new infrastructure or massive increases in rolling stock and drivers. This decreases any supposed cost advantage that buses have over the trains. Since the trains are more popular, faster and more comfortable, why not just build them instead of spending all of that money to expand the bus service?

[citykid09]

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.

You have just said what I have been trying to tell these people on here for years. Thanks!

[ToryGattis]

That HOV to HOT conversion would be done as part of the $3 Billion rebuild of 290. So, $3 Billion to achieve roughly a speed match for a less comfortable and less popular mode of transit. Bear in mind how much slower the P&R system gets DURING the 6-8 years of construction. On the other hand, a commuter train could actually help REDUCE congestion during the rebuild, with no slower trip times.

So, you recommend DOUBLING the cost of the P&R in order to run two sets of buses, or do you recommend HALVING P&R service so that buses can go to two different destinations? Alternatively, buses OR trains can allow riders to take light rail to the Galleria or Greenway from the NWTC, or to Downtown or TMC from the intermodal terminal, transit options that already exist, and do not cost extra.

No, Metro is doing the HOV to HOT conversion independent of any 290 rebuild. They already have the federal funds to do it, and expect it to be done over the next year or two.

Trains have much more capacity than buses - the equivalent of at least 2 busloads per train car. But the downside is they run less frequently because they take longer to fill up. One train of 500 can go along one route, while 10 50-person busloads can leave from 10 different P&Rs to 10 different destinations (or offer twice the frequency to 5 destinations), taking people directly where they want to go instead of slow transfers. Yes the operator cost is higher, but never enough to come close to the capital and maintenance cost of trains (look at the undermaintained, falling-apart systems in Chicago, NYC, and DC). Trains really only make sense if you're trying to get a ton of people into one destination, but in Houston we're trying to get a ton of people to many destinations.

BTW, the transfer and ride time from the north intermodal to TMC would be on the order of a half-hour, as would NWTC to Greenway - and that's *after* they already drove to the P&R and rode the 30-40mph train (another 30-45 mins minimum). Remember that LRT is not as fast as grade-separated subways. Are people going to really tolerate commutes that take that long?

[ToryGattis]

This evening P&R buses going I-45N had to be rerouted because Travis was closed at White Oak Bayou (water on the road). A rail line would most likely be at an elevation that would not flood.

Ever heard of express trains? Not all trains have to stop at all stops, especially when no one is likely getting off at many. Besides, trains would fill on the north end pretty quickly.

Trains have no emissions, wheels don't blow out like tires, they are more energy efficient, hold more people and car life far exceeds that of a bus.

The train plans are at grade, and cannot be rerouted around water like that bus was.

As long as Texas is a mostly coal-fired electricity state, trains have plenty of emissions. The data I've seen say, based on average real ridership, that they actually use more energy per passenger than buses or cars. It's not about holding more people or car-life, it's the total cost per *actual* passenger-mile (not theoretical capacity, and inc. capital and maintenance costs), and buses win hands down.

[kdog08]

I think the biggest hurdle is making commuter rail connect to LRT in fashion that gets people to all the destinations. I'm in favor of doing commuter rail right, and if commuter rail down 290 means ending at the NW transit center or God forbid a bus transfer from commuter rail to LRT, then it's really not worth it. Getting commuter rail to downtown will get more people on rail and get them closer to the up and coming 2nd largest employment center, TMC.

[RedScare]

No, Metro is doing the HOV to HOT conversion independent of any 290 rebuild. They already have the federal funds to do it, and expect it to be done over the next year or two.

Trains have much more capacity than buses - the equivalent of at least 2 busloads per train car. But the downside is they run less frequently because they take longer to fill up. One train of 500 can go along one route, while 10 50-person busloads can leave from 10 different P&Rs to 10 different destinations (or offer twice the frequency to 5 destinations), taking people directly where they want to go instead of slow transfers. Yes the operator cost is higher, but never enough to come close to the capital and maintenance cost of trains (look at the undermaintained, falling-apart systems in Chicago, NYC, and DC). Trains really only make sense if you're trying to get a ton of people into one destination, but in Houston we're trying to get a ton of people to many destinations.

BTW, the transfer and ride time from the north intermodal to TMC would be on the order of a half-hour, as would NWTC to Greenway - and that's *after* they already drove to the P&R and rode the 30-40mph train (another 30-45 mins minimum). Remember that LRT is not as fast as grade-separated subways. Are people going to really tolerate commutes that take that long?

I notice that you still have not given any source for your statements. To answer your last question first, Yes, people really ARE going to tolerate commutes that take that long, as they already do so. Looking at METRO's schedules and maps, there are buses running from NWTC to both Greenway and TMC. Trip times are easily ascertainable from the schedules. What we find is that it takes 26 minutes for a bus to run from NWTC to Greenway. It takes 36 minutes to go to TMC. The distance from NWTC to the Intermodal is 5.5 miles for a train. It could make that run at 45 mph in 8 minutes or less. The Red Line runs from UH Downtown to TMC in 21 minutes. The average wait for a train running every 6 minutes is 3 minutes. So, from NWTC to TMC by commuter rail and light rail is 32 minutes...4 minutes LESS than by bus.

Same goes for Greenway. Light rail from NWTC to Greenway will probably take 18-21 minutes to traverse the 4 mile Uptown line and 1.5 miles of the University line. No transfer will be required to get from NWTC to Greenway. By contrast, the bus trip takes 26-28 minutes.

So, using readily available maps and schedules, we are able to see that the trains will probably take no more time to ride than the buses already do, and likely will take several minutes less than the bus in more comfort with better and more services. We also know that improvements to the bus services will incur significant expenditures, and still not necessarily make them any faster than trains. And, finally, trains allow full use of the HOV lanes for carpools and toll-paying drivers.

This may not be the best solution on every corridor, but you have yet to show that it is not the best solution for the 290 corridor. Frankly, you have yet to show a single statistic at all, instead simply making general statements and guesses as to times. I do want to thank you though. Before being forced to look up these numbers to refute your statements, I was less convinced of commuter rail's viability on 290. I now believe that it will be faster, more convenient, more comfortable, and provide commuter transit during the horrendous mess that rebuilding 290 will be. I look forward to this project moving ahead.

[JLWM8609]

Trains have no emissions, wheels don't blow out like tires, they are more energy efficient, hold more people and car life far exceeds that of a bus.

I'm not sure about that. Electric cable run light rail trains, yeah, but diesel powered locomotives are the backbone of commuter rail lines such as the Trinity Railway Express.

[jgriff]

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.

Carbon emissions???

Neither of these arguments do it for me.

Carbon emissions can be reduced in cheaper ways. I also don't see myself suffering any economic or quality of life problems that will be solved by lower carbon emissions. I'd rather have higher carbon emissions and more money. I can see a lot of quality of life that I could buy with more money.

Business owners and residents already have predictability. We can predict that freeways and roads can get us to any residence or business in Houston, rail can't do that. I'm not convinced that rail would get people to their destinations much faster than bus either.

I still don't see what the fascination with rail is. How is it going to improve your life? If it's being built to get people from places like Sugarland, The Woodlands, etc... into downtown then I assume the benefit people are expecting would be shorter commute times. We already have an answer for that... move closer to downtown. That's what I did. I sacrificed square footage for more free time. Now I'm expected to pay for rail that will shorten commute times for people who never made this sacrifice? I think if we get commuter rail then people in The Woodlands and Sugarland should pay for it. People who live inside the loop don't need it.

[BryanS]

Neither of these arguments do it for me.

Carbon emissions can be reduced in cheaper ways. I also don't see myself suffering any economic or quality of life problems that will be solved by lower carbon emissions. I'd rather have higher carbon emissions and more money. I can see a lot of quality of life that I could buy with more money.

Business owners and residents already have predictability. We can predict that freeways and roads can get us to any residence or business in Houston, rail can't do that. I'm not convinced that rail would get people to their destinations much faster than bus either.

I still don't see what the fascination with rail is. How is it going to improve your life? If it's being built to get people from places like Sugarland, The Woodlands, etc... into downtown then I assume the benefit people are expecting would be shorter commute times. We already have an answer for that... move closer to downtown. That's what I did. I sacrificed square footage for more free time. Now I'm expected to pay for rail that will shorten commute times for people who never made this sacrifice? I think if we get commuter rail then people in The Woodlands and Sugarland should pay for it. People who live inside the loop don't need it.

...yes... let's cram 4 million people inside of 610. That'll work...

[kylejack]

As long as Texas is a mostly coal-fired electricity state, trains have plenty of emissions.

Its not, there's more natural gas generation than coal. And regardless of the distribution now, the transit authority can choose where to get the power from. Wind is now very nearly competitive with other forms of power generation.

[jgriff]

...yes... let's cram 4 million people inside of 610. That'll work...

Why don't we just not do that? Why do we need more growth inside the loop? It's not going to do me any good.

[LTAWACS]

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.

I wager that county judge good ol boi is batting for whichever option is good for the tollways.

[samagon]

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 think you miss the point of LRT, I don't think I've ever seen anything anywhere that states that LRT will completely overtake and remove buses. Every successful system is a compliment of different types of mass transit. Look at the biggest city in the world, they have an extensive subway system, an extensive commuter rail system and still there are buses that travel through the streets.

However, there aren't as many of them, and they don't run on the same routes as the different rail systems would take them.

LRT has very good benefits over buses.

First and foremost reason is that bus drivers are horrid in this city. they do not follow many of the laws of the road, and I find myself calling into the hotline to 'tattle' on drivers who speed, tailgate, make illegal turns (I see this mostly in downtown, where they will turn right out of a lane that is 2 or 3 lanes towards the left), and a host of other things that are just not safe. A huge brick on wheels going 75 mph is not good for gas mileage, not to mention the safety issues.

True, rail operators may not be any better, but at least I know they can't make unpredictable maneuvers, or tailgate, or speed (as they are regulated to a max).

Anyway, I don't think the plan is to bring in LRT and remove buses, the idea is to use them together to make the system work more efficiently.

...yes... let's cram 4 million people inside of 610. That'll work...

wow, when you put it like that, it really makes the inadequacies of this town stand out, doesn't it?

[ToryGattis]

I notice that you still have not given any source for your statements. To answer your last question first, Yes, people really ARE going to tolerate commutes that take that long, as they already do so. Looking at METRO's schedules and maps, there are buses running from NWTC to both Greenway and TMC. Trip times are easily ascertainable from the schedules. What we find is that it takes 26 minutes for a bus to run from NWTC to Greenway. It takes 36 minutes to go to TMC. The distance from NWTC to the Intermodal is 5.5 miles for a train. It could make that run at 45 mph in 8 minutes or less. The Red Line runs from UH Downtown to TMC in 21 minutes. The average wait for a train running every 6 minutes is 3 minutes. So, from NWTC to TMC by commuter rail and light rail is 32 minutes...4 minutes LESS than by bus.

Same goes for Greenway. Light rail from NWTC to Greenway will probably take 18-21 minutes to traverse the 4 mile Uptown line and 1.5 miles of the University line. No transfer will be required to get from NWTC to Greenway. By contrast, the bus trip takes 26-28 minutes.

So we're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to provide service that is only a few minutes faster than existing bus service?

You have picked the right corridor to argue from, though. The lack of HOV lanes on the west loop makes express bus service from the north side of town to the south (Greenway, TMC) problematic. If the same money could build those lanes with connecting ramps (probably elevated down the median), I think they would be a better investment. Then you could have nonstop 65mph express buses/vanpools from all over northwest Houston nonstop to Uptown, Greenway, and TMC - and those travel times would blow away what you're describing.

A while back I was co-author on a Chron op-ed that called for a "Brain Train" from Galveston UTMB all of the way to College Station TAMU, ideally via the 249 route rather than 290 because there is no freeway/HOV access to the core from the 249 corridor (it would offer completely new access rather than compete with an existing HOV). This was proposed by one of my co-authors (Christof), and despite my skepticism on the economics, I went along with it because it just *might* make cost-benefit sense if done just right (all of the right connections and stops, as well as low costs and hefty federal support). I continue to raise my commuter rail concerns because I want them thought-about by the decision-makers before we blow a lot of money on something that might actually offer worse service than we currently have with the affordable express bus service.

[RedScare]

So we're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to provide service that is only a few minutes faster than existing bus service?

You have picked the right corridor to argue from, though. The lack of HOV lanes on the west loop makes express bus service from the north side of town to the south (Greenway, TMC) problematic. If the same money could build those lanes with connecting ramps (probably elevated down the median), I think they would be a better investment. Then you could have nonstop 65mph express buses/vanpools from all over northwest Houston nonstop to Uptown, Greenway, and TMC - and those travel times would blow away what you're describing.

A while back I was co-author on a Chron op-ed that called for a "Brain Train" from Galveston UTMB all of the way to College Station TAMU, ideally via the 249 route rather than 290 because there is no freeway/HOV access to the core from the 249 corridor (it would offer completely new access rather than compete with an existing HOV). This was proposed by one of my co-authors (Christof), and despite my skepticism on the economics, I went along with it because it just *might* make cost-benefit sense if done just right (all of the right connections and stops, as well as low costs and hefty federal support). I continue to raise my commuter rail concerns because I want them thought-about by the decision-makers before we blow a lot of money on something that might actually offer worse service than we currently have with the affordable express bus service.

Considering the fact that you spent all of this time claiming that the buses were faster than trains, I'll take this post as a capitulation.

To answer your choices of spending hundreds of millions of dollars (unknown source) to implement commuter rail versus spending hundreds of millions of dollars tearing up our newly rebuilt freeways to crowd in HOV lanes with flyover ramps for your buses...yes, absolutely would I choose the trains. They are more convenient, more comfortable, would allow for services such as wifi, would provide commuters an option during the 6 years or more of construction on 290, would be a starter line for regional rail service, and would draw more riders than buses, due to rail bias.

Raising your rail concerns is one thing. Throwing up unsupported statements that are easily refuted is quite the other. In this multi-post debate we've had, you have not cited one source for your statements. In fact, most of your claims were easily refuted using bus and train schedules and maps for already existing service in Houston or Dallas, a very similarly populated city. I don't know the cost of providing rail on 290. It might be prohibitive. But, the debate has shifted. No longer are $3 Billion road projects considered "necessary", while $100 million rail projects considered a "waste of tax dollars". And, commuters are demanding that their needs be considered. If we can spend $3 Billion for a smoother I-10 for drivers, maybe "hundreds of millions" for a more comfortable train is not a waste of money at all. It is good to see that transit options are being considered.

[ToryGattis]

Considering the fact that you spent all of this time claiming that the buses were faster than trains, I'll take this post as a capitulation.

To answer your choices of spending hundreds of millions of dollars (unknown source) to implement commuter rail versus spending hundreds of millions of dollars tearing up our newly rebuilt freeways to crowd in HOV lanes with flyover ramps for your buses...yes, absolutely would I choose the trains. They are more convenient, more comfortable, would allow for services such as wifi, would provide commuters an option during the 6 years or more of construction on 290, would be a starter line for regional rail service, and would draw more riders than buses, due to rail bias.

Nope, sorry.

The way it would work on 290 is they would build the HOT lanes first down the Hempstead corridor, then start 290 reconstruction. The express service would be available throughout construction.

Wifi is perfectly doable by buses, and done by all sorts of super-cheap ultra-luxury bus services in the northeast, which, btw, are competing quite effectively with Amtrak, including Acela.

I believe the fastest service will draw the most riders, and, in general, across Houston, nonstop buses in express lanes will be faster than commuter rail with connections.

[JamesL]

Wifi is perfectly doable by buses, and done by all sorts of super-cheap ultra-luxury bus services in the northeast, which, btw, are competing quite effectively with Amtrak, including Acela.

Boltbus and Megabus may compete with Amtrak Regional service, but definitely not Acela. Those are two distinct markets. The wifi features the bus operators offer are nice, but I am quite slender and still have trouble fitting my laptop between me and the seat in front. This reinforces the comfort factor that favors trains. It's also only a matter of time until Amtrak implements wifi.

[ToryGattis]

Boltbus and Megabus may compete with Amtrak Regional service, but definitely not Acela. Those are two distinct markets. The wifi features the bus operators offer are nice, but I am quite slender and still have trouble fitting my laptop between me and the seat in front. This reinforces the comfort factor that favors trains. It's also only a matter of time until Amtrak implements wifi.

It's sad that Amtrak hasn't yet, but not surprising. Sounds like the buses need to offer a "business class" section with better spacing at a slightly higher price.

[AtticaFlinch]

It's sad that Amtrak hasn't yet, but not surprising. Sounds like the buses need to offer a "business class" section with better spacing at a slightly higher price.

Or... we can just do trains.

Amtrak is doomed to failure, no matter what. They're on the same rails as freight and freight has priority. If passenger lines had a separate infrastructure and lower prices than air, everybody would choose rail.

[IronTiger]

Or... we can just do trains.

Amtrak is doomed to failure, no matter what. They're on the same rails as freight and freight has priority. If passenger lines had a separate infrastructure and lower prices than air, everybody would choose rail.

Isn't kind of the goal of high-speed rail anyway, or would costs be astronomical for that?

[AtticaFlinch]

Isn't kind of the goal of high-speed rail anyway, or would costs be astronomical for that?

Yes, it'll be expensive, but it'll be even more expensive in another 30 or 40 years when we'll do it anyhow.

It's before most everybody's time on this board (including my own), but for a full forty years prior to Ike's Interstate Highway system, politicians hemmed and hawed over spending such a huge sum of money on something the public didn't need, didn't want, wouldn't be willing to pay for, wouldn't use, didn't need as much of, should be handled by local governments and should be tolled. Build it smaller, they said. Only build them to connect vital military resources, they said. It costs too much money, they said. Three east/west and three north/south is all they need, they said. Make them pay a per mile charge to use it, they said.

Next time you drive from Houston to San Antonio in two and a half hours rather than six or more, think about how foolish those opponents to a national highway system from the past look in today's light.

[samagon]

Next time you drive from Houston to San Antonio in two and a half hours rather than six or more, think about how foolish those opponents to a national highway system from the past look in today's light.

And then curse them on the way back for not being forward thinking enough to make it 3 lanes. don't worry, you'll have plenty of time while you're stuck in the totally stopped traffic

[Talbot]

And then curse them on the way back for not being forward thinking enough to make it 3 lanes. don't worry, you'll have plenty of time while you're stuck in the totally stopped traffic

You really need 3 lanes going through mostly country land? Traffic isn't that bad out there.

[IronTiger]

In terms of commuter rail, couldn't they just build a separate line paralleling the freight line for commuter use? That would make sense to me...

[LTAWACS]

In terms of commuter rail, couldn't they just build a separate line paralleling the freight line for commuter use? That would make sense to me...

Good luck getting through all the red tape and land rights and eminent domain, blah blah blah...

UGH.

[musicman]

In terms of commuter rail, couldn't they just build a separate line paralleling the freight line for commuter use? That would make sense to me...

the point of commuter rail is to use existing tracks so that costs are limited.

[AtticaFlinch]

the point of commuter rail is to use existing tracks so that costs are limited.

Half-assed measures doom these projects to failure. The only way passenger rail can be efficient enough to be successful is either with dedicated tracks or priority over freight (which is highly unlikely). You know the aphorism, "You get what you pay for."? Same thing applies to rail. Too much capitulation to the penny-pinchers leads to a worthless product. If rail can't deliver people from one place to another in about the same amount of time as a car, then no one will use it. If a commuter car has to sit idle on a side track for 30 minutes while a freight car barrells past, and commute times can't be reasonably assured, then what's the point? There aren't as many ROW issues as you might suppose with a commuter track parallel to a freight track. That land is already owned. The big issue is construction costs, though since the land is already owned, a huge chunk of money has already been taken off the top.

[kylejack]

If rail can't deliver people from one place to another in about the same amount of time as a car, then no one will use it.

Not true, the Red Line is highly successful despite being significantly slower than a car for most point-to-points.