Jump to content

Operating cost of Light Rail cheaper than Buses?


Recommended Posts

According to the National Transit Database, METRO's operating cost for light rail is $0.60 per passenger mile for light rail, and $0.70 per passenger mile for bus. In addition, operating expenses for buses are $4.60 per unlinked passenger trip, compared to only $1.40 per passenger trip for light rail. Could operating expenses (per passenger) for light rail really be less than buses?

You can view data for METRO, and other transit agencies here. From this page, under 2009, open "Data Tables - Complete Set" and unzip the link to the folder of your choice. After it is unzipped, click on the document called "T27_Service_Ratio" and there will you find a massive table of each transit company with their operating expenses. As you can see, for most (if not all) transit agencies, the operating cost of rail is CHEAPER than buses.

You have no idea how hard this was to find. It's no wonder everyone thinks that operating costs for rail is higher, and that buses are cheaper. How could they know? This data is not easy to find.

So what do you guys think about this? For those of you against rail expansion in Houston, does seeing this change your mind? Or do you still think buses are cheaper?

EDIT: 9:18PM to include more data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

According to the National Transit Database, METRO's operating cost for light rail is $0.60 per passenger mile for light rail, and $0.70 per passenger mile for bus. Could operating expenses for light rail really be less than buses?

You can view data for METRO, and other transit agencies here. From this page, under 2009, open "Data Tables - Complete Set" and unzip the link to the folder of your choice. After it is unzipped, click on the document called "T27_Service_Ratio" and there will you find a massive table of each transit company with their operating expenses.

You have no idea how hard this was to find. It's no wonder everyone thinks that operating costs for rail is higher, and that buses are cheaper. How could they know? This data is not easy to find.

So what do you guys think about this? For those of you against rail expansion in Houston, does seeing this change your mind? Or do you still think buses are cheaper?

So you're just going to ignore capital and financing expenses? And you're going to ignore the time value of money, the delayed gratification inherent to light rail planning and construction, as well as the political bungling inherent to forseeable and entirely predictable regime changes? And you're no doubt going to ignore issues of long-term physical and functional obsolecensce; as part of this, you'll ignore the inflexibility of the system and you will idealize growth patterns a la Sim City.

And when challenged on any of these subjects, you'll repeat yourself over and over. From time to time, you'll produce inherently flawed data supporting your claim such as that a traffic count on a single section of freeway is a measure of the entire freeway's use. And I'd like to think that you'll throw red herrings out there and erect numerous straw men intentionally, although it probably is not intentional.

.

So, yeah. My beef isn't with operating expenses.

EDIT: And btw, I am not so intractable as that I would say that light rail never makes sense. It's only that it makes sense under an extremely limited set of circumstances, where the issue is of sheer capacity being needed to meet a demand that is already present (not needing to be reconfigured into existence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're just going to ignore capital and financing expenses? And you're going to ignore the time value of money, the delayed gratification inherent to light rail planning and construction, as well as the political bungling inherent to forseeable and entirely predictable regime changes? And you're no doubt going to ignore issues of long-term physical and functional obsolecensce; as part of this, you'll ignore the inflexibility of the system and you will idealize growth patterns a la Sim City.

And when challenged on any of these subjects, you'll repeat yourself over and over. From time to time, you'll produce inherently flawed data supporting your claim such as that a traffic count on a single section of freeway is a measure of the entire freeway's use. And I'd like to think that you'll throw red herrings out there and erect numerous straw men intentionally, although it probably is not intentional.

.

So, yeah. My beef isn't with operating expenses.

EDIT: And btw, I am not so intractable as that I would say that light rail never makes sense. It's only that it makes sense under an extremely limited set of circumstances, where the issue is of sheer capacity being needed to meet a demand that is already present (not needing to be reconfigured into existence).

Long term physical and functional obsolensce? Really? You really think that buses last longer than rail cars? Or that roads stay in good condition longer than rails? Or that rail ridership, efficiency, and effectiveness depreciates in the long term? What cities has this happened in? Usually its exactly the opposite. I don't get it. :huh:

Yes, rail has a high capital cost. But over the long run, rail is a cheaper way to move people. If the goal of expanding transit is to get more people to ride the system, rail will do that more effectively than buses. So you're just going to ignore the taxpayer cost of the roads and freeways that the buses use? The billions of dollars we will spend expanding every section of freeway in Houston? So you're just going to always have a shortsighted view of transit and infrastructure?

The only reason there's political "bungling" is because people are uninformed. They do not know that more people will ride rail than buses. They do not know that rail costs less in the long run. They only see capital cost. The do not know that we spend many times what is proposed for rail on freeways. The reason for polital bungling is because of people like you. You need to stop being so shortsighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long term physical and functional obsolensce? Really? You really think that buses last longer than rail cars? Or that roads stay in good condition longer than rails? Or that rail ridership, efficiency, and effectiveness depreciates in the long term? What cities has this happened in? Usually its exactly the opposite. I don't get it. :huh:

Yes, rail has a high capital cost. But over the long run, rail is a cheaper way to move people. If the goal of expanding transit is to get more people to ride the system, rail will do that more effectively than buses. So you're just going to ignore the taxpayer cost of the roads and freeways that the buses use? The billions of dollars we will spend expanding every section of freeway in Houston? So you're just going to always have a shortsighted view of transit and infrastructure?

The only reason there's political "bungling" is because people are uninformed. They do not know that more people will ride rail than buses. They do not know that rail costs less in the long run. They only see capital cost. The do not know that we spend many times what is proposed for rail on freeways. The reason for polital bungling is because of people like you. You need to stop being so shortsighted.

Whereas a bus fleet can phase in newer models efficiently, smoothly, with minimal disruption, and on a fairly predictable time-table, and the only constraints are that they must fit on the roadway and not be so tall as to hit stoplights or powerlines...light rail has lots and lots and lots of constraints and is much more of an all-or-nothing proposition. And after all, you're advocating a system with a life span measured in decades and that can only fulfill one dedicated purpose along one particular route. (Streets, otherwise known as flat surfaces, are far more flexible in terms of how they can be utilized.) Unless you believe yourself able to predict the far-flung future, inflexibility is a risk and not any sort of advantage.

Beyond your first paragraph, you're just resorting to the same kinds of drivel/filler that you usually do. This was expected and thoroughly expounded upon earlier, so I won't address it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the fixed cost issue, you're comparing the operating expense per passenger on one of the most successful light rail lines in the country - a short line in a high-density area with many popular destinations along its length as well as acting as a parking shuttle for the med center (i.e. perfectly optimized to minimize the cost per passenger mile - many passengers, few miles) - vs. a bus network that covers most of Harris County, including many, many thin routes that carry few passengers but we offer it as a public service to the poor. Unfortunately, the planned future LRT lines will add many more miles but nowhere near as many passengers as the Main St. line (by Metro's own estimates), which will kill the illusionary statistical advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you believe yourself able to predict the far-flung future, inflexibility is a risk and not any sort of advantage.

I don't think it takes much predictive ability to understand that certain corridors in Houston, like the Main St. corridor, make sense for grade-separated, long-term, fixed investments such as rail and commuter rail.

Inflexibility can be a risk, but permanence can also be an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas a bus fleet can phase in newer models efficiently, smoothly, with minimal disruption, and on a fairly predictable time-table, and the only constraints are that they must fit on the roadway and not be so tall as to hit stoplights or powerlines...light rail has lots and lots and lots of constraints and is much more of an all-or-nothing proposition. And after all, you're advocating a system with a life span measured in decades and that can only fulfill one dedicated purpose along one particular route. (Streets, otherwise known as flat surfaces, are far more flexible in terms of how they can be utilized.) Unless you believe yourself able to predict the far-flung future, inflexibility is a risk and not any sort of advantage.

The life span of light rail is only decades? So I guess you forgot about Boston's light rail line which has been open for more than ten decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the fixed cost issue, you're comparing the operating expense per passenger on one of the most successful light rail lines in the country - a short line in a high-density area with many popular destinations along its length as well as acting as a parking shuttle for the med center (i.e. perfectly optimized to minimize the cost per passenger mile - many passengers, few miles) - vs. a bus network that covers most of Harris County, including many, many thin routes that carry few passengers but we offer it as a public service to the poor. Unfortunately, the planned future LRT lines will add many more miles but nowhere near as many passengers as the Main St. line (by Metro's own estimates), which will kill the illusionary statistical advantage.

Why don't you look at the document yourself? I'll upload it tonight if you don't feel like looking for it, but if you care to actually look at it, you'll find that in almost ALL transit systems around the country, rail is more efficient. Why don't you actually look at the document before you assume that rail is only more efficient in Houston? This is the case all over the country, it is not just Houston.

Also, you never addressed the price per passenger trip. How do you explain the fact that it cost about four times as much for a rider to take a trip on a bus as opposed to rail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the National Transit Database, METRO's operating cost for light rail is $0.60 per passenger mile for light rail, and $0.70 per passenger mile for bus. In addition, operating expenses for buses are $4.60 per unlinked passenger trip, compared to only $1.40 per passenger trip for light rail. Could operating expenses (per passenger) for light rail really be less than buses?

You can view data for METRO, and other transit agencies here. From this page, under 2009, open "Data Tables - Complete Set" and unzip the link to the folder of your choice. After it is unzipped, click on the document called "T27_Service_Ratio" and there will you find a massive table of each transit company with their operating expenses. As you can see, for most (if not all) transit agencies, the operating cost of rail is CHEAPER than buses.

You have no idea how hard this was to find. It's no wonder everyone thinks that operating costs for rail is higher, and that buses are cheaper. How could they know? This data is not easy to find.

So what do you guys think about this? For those of you against rail expansion in Houston, does seeing this change your mind? Or do you still think buses are cheaper?

EDIT: 9:18PM to include more data.

I looked at the link, but couldn't find this, are these strictly operational costs, or are the maintenance costs built in?

Niche brings up some good points, but fails to see that light rail can also be upgraded with technology, new more efficient motors could be developed, the energy source that powers the line could be upgraded, transmissions lines, lots of things to increase the efficiency of the system, comparable to buses, only that they usually go through the process of upgrading parts on the current rolling stock, and not having to buy all new trains, where it's cheaper to just replace the whole bus than to upgrade pieces at a time (this really depends on the upgrade).

I can't find solid numbers here, but what I did find, but can't provide a credible reference, is that the operational life of a bus is about 15 years, and a light rail vehicle is about 30 years. As I mentioned above, it is cost effective to upgrade some systems (motors, etc) on light rail vehicles, and this may extend the life beyond that, but I can't really find references for that either.

Then there's the initial expense for light rail can be specifically quantified because you have the line, and it is specifically for use with the light rail only, where buses share space on the road with cars. of course, if you don't consider the fact that you aren't running buses down roads (and thus increasing the operational life of the road) you have to consider that money saved, plus if you have more people riding the rail, and leaving the car at home, you don't have to fund a road expansion project. It then becomes fuzzy for the true expense of light rail too, cause you can factor the cost saved against that.

There's a lot of reasons light rail doesn't win against buses, but I think cost is not one of those areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the link, but couldn't find this, are these strictly operational costs, or are the maintenance costs built in?

Niche brings up some good points, but fails to see that light rail can also be upgraded with technology, new more efficient motors could be developed, the energy source that powers the line could be upgraded, transmissions lines, lots of things to increase the efficiency of the system, comparable to buses, only that they usually go through the process of upgrading parts on the current rolling stock, and not having to buy all new trains, where it's cheaper to just replace the whole bus than to upgrade pieces at a time (this really depends on the upgrade).

I can't find solid numbers here, but what I did find, but can't provide a credible reference, is that the operational life of a bus is about 15 years, and a light rail vehicle is about 30 years. As I mentioned above, it is cost effective to upgrade some systems (motors, etc) on light rail vehicles, and this may extend the life beyond that, but I can't really find references for that either.

Then there's the initial expense for light rail can be specifically quantified because you have the line, and it is specifically for use with the light rail only, where buses share space on the road with cars. of course, if you don't consider the fact that you aren't running buses down roads (and thus increasing the operational life of the road) you have to consider that money saved, plus if you have more people riding the rail, and leaving the car at home, you don't have to fund a road expansion project. It then becomes fuzzy for the true expense of light rail too, cause you can factor the cost saved against that.

There's a lot of reasons light rail doesn't win against buses, but I think cost is not one of those areas.

There was a news release by metro recently (1 or two years ago) that they are in the process of getting the youngest bus fleet in the nation. I have forgotten the numbers that they were delivering , but this thread has me curious as to how much the initial cost of the bus, the yearly average maintenance, and finally the typical age a bus will be replaced. Then of course, you multiply that by the size of a bus fleet.

Maybe that would give a realistic cost/benefit comparison between the bus and rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the link, but couldn't find this, are these strictly operational costs, or are the maintenance costs built in?

Hmmm, not sure about that good question.

There's a lot of reasons light rail doesn't win against buses, but I think cost is not one of those areas.

Oh? Interesting, what reasons would those be?

I don't get the argument that light rail doesn't provide flexibility. Is central Houston just going to move all of the sudden? Is the Galleria going to move? Why would central city light rail lines ever have the need to move? What city has this already happened in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, you never addressed the price per passenger trip. How do you explain the fact that it cost about four times as much for a rider to take a trip on a bus as opposed to rail?

For the same reasons: lots of passengers making short trips on our 7-mile LRT line make the cost per trip cheap, while few passengers on long, thin bus routes make the cost per trip expensive. The LRT looks especially good because thousands of med center employees park remotely and ride the LRT a couple of stops up to the med center every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, not sure about that good question.

Oh? Interesting, what reasons would those be?

I don't get the argument that light rail doesn't provide flexibility. Is central Houston just going to move all of the sudden? Is the Galleria going to move? Why would central city light rail lines ever have the need to move? What city has this already happened in?

Short term it is exceedingly cheaper than rail. In a perfect world it is exceedingly flexible. In a city that is built around cars, buses are an easy sell as they don't take lanes away from cars. They don't introduce stopping and waiting for them to cross when you wouldn't have to normally stop. They also don't shut down streets from crossing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of all this is moot, because anyone who follows long-term macro trends knows that in a generation, roughly 25% of the population won't work at all unless they create their own employment. The good news is that Texas' future uneducated masses will still be able to get loans, thanks to the banking lobby. With little government spending of any kind, and no revenue source to pay for it anyway, transit will have no choice to go not only private but micro, in the form of jitneys and private cab service.

I don't know about you, but I'm already thinking of a brand and paint job for my bus. I can probably pick up a school bus converted to pollo estilio Monterrey bus, convert it back to passenger seating, plus put in a diesel-cooking oil conversion kit for under 10 grand, and be ready to roll before Metro even thinks about actually laying track down Harrisburg. Gotta think 2 steps ahead, y'all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the same reasons: lots of passengers making short trips on our 7-mile LRT line make the cost per trip cheap, while few passengers on long, thin bus routes make the cost per trip expensive. The LRT looks especially good because thousands of med center employees park remotely and ride the LRT a couple of stops up to the med center every day.

So how do you explain the fact that nearly every rail system around the country is more efficient than their bus counterparts? What makes you think that building more inner city rail lines will be any less efficient? We aren't building "long and thin" rail lines. We are building inner-city lines. If you yourself say that they will be efficient because they are inner-city lines, why are you opposed to light rail expansion in Houston?

What would your plan be to improve inner-city tranist? A less efficient bus system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short term it is exceedingly cheaper than rail. In a perfect world it is exceedingly flexible. In a city that is built around cars, buses are an easy sell as they don't take lanes away from cars. They don't introduce stopping and waiting for them to cross when you wouldn't have to normally stop. They also don't shut down streets from crossing.

I've had buses block me and slow me down many times while driving. They are as much of a nuisance to me as any light rail train could be. Cars have to stop at red lights anyway, why does it make a difference if they're stopping for a train rather than for other cars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The life span of light rail is only decades? So I guess you forgot about Boston's light rail line which has been open for more than ten decades.

At-grade? Yes. It's going to be subject to at least as much wear-and-tear as public streets, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the link, but couldn't find this, are these strictly operational costs, or are the maintenance costs built in?

Niche brings up some good points, but fails to see that light rail can also be upgraded with technology, new more efficient motors could be developed, the energy source that powers the line could be upgraded, transmissions lines, lots of things to increase the efficiency of the system, comparable to buses, only that they usually go through the process of upgrading parts on the current rolling stock, and not having to buy all new trains, where it's cheaper to just replace the whole bus than to upgrade pieces at a time (this really depends on the upgrade).

Some upgrades are feasible, others are not. The problems are that new or upgraded LRT vehicles are limited to what the infrastructure can support and that we cannot forsee the needs of the future. Fewer constraints are better than more constraints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the argument that light rail doesn't provide flexibility. Is central Houston just going to move all of the sudden? Is the Galleria going to move? Why would central city light rail lines ever have the need to move? What city has this already happened in?

Take the Harrisburg line as an example. Lots of people would've preferred it to be on Navigation because the cost would've been much lower, it wouldn't have required as many eminent domain takings (particularly in old downtown Magnolia Park, where ROW acquisition and a quarter-mile bridge kill the pre-existing pedestrian friendliness), and because Navigation has a huge number of large tracts suitable for large-scale urban redevelopment, densification, and/or new recreational areas. I still think that Navigation has more potential than the areas within walking distance of Harrisburg. As that potential is realized (more slowly than it might have been), it will be a lost opportunity for light rail.

As for naming other cities where this has happened, the only other cities where this could happen have land use controls (or in places that have no growth, and hence no changes such as cannot be anticipated). They can force development patterns with a sense of urgency. The best Houston can do is to nudge developers in that direction by giving them money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you explain the fact that nearly every rail system around the country is more efficient than their bus counterparts? What makes you think that building more inner city rail lines will be any less efficient? We aren't building "long and thin" rail lines. We are building inner-city lines. If you yourself say that they will be efficient because they are inner-city lines, why are you opposed to light rail expansion in Houston?

What would your plan be to improve inner-city tranist? A less efficient bus system?

I'm opposed because of the multi-billion dollar capital expense that will hobble Metro financially for decades (while providing service for relatively few riders that aren't already on buses), when it should be investing in a vastly expanded HOV/HOT lane network and express commuter bus service from all neighborhoods to all job centers. The new lines may be "inner city", but they won't connect anywhere near the density of important locations as the Main St. line. Inner-city transit should be improved with more signature bus lines. The one new LRT line that might make sense would be the University line, giving us an east-west backbone to go with the north-south Main St. line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With little government spending of any kind, and no revenue source to pay for it anyway, transit will have no choice to go not only private but micro, in the form of jitneys and private cab service.

If this happens, I'm going over to the Philippines and buying a fleet of Jeepneys to import and operate over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At-grade? Yes. It's going to be subject to at least as much wear-and-tear as public streets, after all.

How quickly and often do potholes form on roads after they have been constructed and buses use them regularly?

How often are streets completely redone that buses operate on?

How quickly and often are track repairs needed after they have been constructed and light rail use them regularly?

How often are light rail lines completely redone?

It costs more to lay the line in the ground than it does to build a road, but my understanding is that the track that is laid for the light rail will last for quite a while before it needs to be replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm opposed because of the multi-billion dollar capital expense that will hobble Metro financially for decades (while providing service for relatively few riders that aren't already on buses), when it should be investing in a vastly expanded HOV/HOT lane network and express commuter bus service from all neighborhoods to all job centers. The new lines may be "inner city", but they won't connect anywhere near the density of important locations as the Main St. line. Inner-city transit should be improved with more signature bus lines. The one new LRT line that might make sense would be the University line, giving us an east-west backbone to go with the north-south Main St. line.

What is the price tag on the "vastly expanded HOV/HOT lane network?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At-grade? Yes. It's going to be subject to at least as much wear-and-tear as public streets, after all.

Are you saying that the actual rails will have wear and tear? Maybe the brick and pavement surrounding the rails, but I doubt that the rails will have wear and tear. So just re-do the pavement around the rails at the same time they re-do the street. Not really a problem.

Take the Harrisburg line as an example. Lots of people would've preferred it to be on Navigation because the cost would've been much lower, it wouldn't have required as many eminent domain takings (particularly in old downtown Magnolia Park, where ROW acquisition and a quarter-mile bridge kill the pre-existing pedestrian friendliness), and because Navigation has a huge number of large tracts suitable for large-scale urban redevelopment, densification, and/or new recreational areas. I still think that Navigation has more potential than the areas within walking distance of Harrisburg. As that potential is realized (more slowly than it might have been), it will be a lost opportunity for light rail.

As for naming other cities where this has happened, the only other cities where this could happen have land use controls (or in places that have no growth, and hence no changes such as cannot be anticipated). They can force development patterns with a sense of urgency. The best Houston can do is to nudge developers in that direction by giving them money.

This is all just speculation. I doubt major development will occur on a corridor adjacent to a major transit line, and if there is in fact development on Navigation, I would assume there would also be development on the main transit line as well.

I'm opposed because of the multi-billion dollar capital expense that will hobble Metro financially for decades (while providing service for relatively few riders that aren't already on buses), when it should be investing in a vastly expanded HOV/HOT lane network and express commuter bus service from all neighborhoods to all job centers. The new lines may be "inner city", but they won't connect anywhere near the density of important locations as the Main St. line. Inner-city transit should be improved with more signature bus lines. The one new LRT line that might make sense would be the University line, giving us an east-west backbone to go with the north-south Main St. line.

If METRO pays for it using federal funds, how will it hobble METRO for decades? Who would pay for this "vastly expanded HOV/HOT lane network?" TxDOT? They are as financially hobbled as anyone. If the project is being payed for by federal funds (which all large scale transit projects are) how would it financially hobble METRO? Perhaps building nothing but less efficient buses will also financially hobble METRO in the long term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the actual rails will have wear and tear? Maybe the brick and pavement surrounding the rails, but I doubt that the rails will have wear and tear. So just re-do the pavement around the rails at the same time they re-do the street. Not really a problem.

Every single component of the LRT system is subject to entropy and has a non-infinite life expectancy that will vary from component to component based on that component's engineering, use patterns, and less predictable factors (i.e. flooding, stray electrical current, damage to the overhead electrical system, or the intallation of new intersecting infrastructure). You cannot simply cite the life expectancy of the most durable component, cite cost and performance indicators from during the initial period of peak operating efficiency, and proclaim the system to be forever awesome.

This is all just speculation. I doubt major development will occur on a corridor adjacent to a major transit line, and if there is in fact development on Navigation, I would assume there would also be development on the main transit line as well.

The reason Navigation will densify more rapidly is that it has numerous large inexpensive parcels of vacant land or land that is occupied by physically, functionally, and economically obsolete structures. These are the kinds of circumstances that keep a developer's per-unit costs under control, and initial low costs are going to drive both supply and demand in densifying the East End. It also helps that the Navigation corridor is something more of a cultural blank slate and that it is already gaining numerous recreational amenities, including museums, bars, parks, and bike trails. Harrisburg has a couple of similar sites, but they're spoken for by an uninspired strip center developer and by METRO itself for its rail maintenance facility...and then there's a highly active and very noisy couple of freight rail lines just block over, impeding pedestrian access from the south. The urbanistas are just going to adore that. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single component of the LRT system is subject to entropy and has a non-infinite life expectancy that will vary from component to component based on that component's engineering, use patterns, and less predictable factors (i.e. flooding, stray electrical current, damage to the overhead electrical system, or the intallation of new intersecting infrastructure). You cannot simply cite the life expectancy of the most durable component, cite cost and performance indicators from during the initial period of peak operating efficiency, and proclaim the system to be forever awesome.

This is absolutely true of any infrastructure, rail not withstanding. How many times are intersections without rail going through them re-engineered?

I (and possibly the reason others did as well) have focused on the actual rail itself is that I assume this is the most cost intensive component of the system itself. Repairing a damaged overhead electrical wire is going to be significantly cheaper than digging in the ground to repair the track.

I'd also venture a guess that it is no more cost intensive to repair/replace portions of the rail infrastructure that are not the actual rail itself than doing the same for standard support infrastructure of vehicular travel. light poles, intersection signals, blinky lights for school zones. That's probably cost comparable to repairing electrical system damage to the light rail.

The reason Navigation will densify more rapidly is that it has numerous large inexpensive parcels of vacant land or land that is occupied by physically, functionally, and economically obsolete structures. These are the kinds of circumstances that keep a developer's per-unit costs under control, and initial low costs are going to drive both supply and demand in densifying the East End. It also helps that the Navigation corridor is something more of a cultural blank slate and that it is already gaining numerous recreational amenities, including museums, bars, parks, and bike trails. Harrisburg has a couple of similar sites, but they're spoken for by an uninspired strip center developer and by METRO itself for its rail maintenance facility...and then there's a highly active and very noisy couple of freight rail lines just block over, impeding pedestrian access from the south. The urbanistas are just going to adore that. :wacko:

As I'm just an amateur at this, I certainly can't give a solid reason why, other than it's nice that it appears able to service more people between 45 and the bayou, than if it were on Navigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the price tag on the "vastly expanded HOV/HOT lane network?"

Very cheap if they diamond existing left lanes, more expensive if they want to separate them or elevate them. Mostly we need them on the 610 loop, esp the western half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If METRO pays for it using federal funds, how will it hobble METRO for decades? Who would pay for this "vastly expanded HOV/HOT lane network?" TxDOT? They are as financially hobbled as anyone. If the project is being payed for by federal funds (which all large scale transit projects are) how would it financially hobble METRO? Perhaps building nothing but less efficient buses will also financially hobble METRO in the long term?

The Feds will pay less than half the capital cost, and none of the operating costs. Metro will float a huge bond issue as well as tying up revenues for a dozen+ years to pay for the rail construction - all to provide service for a handful of miles in the core already well served by bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely true of any infrastructure, rail not withstanding. How many times are intersections without rail going through them re-engineered?

The great thing about a flat concrete surface is that detours can be effected with plastic orange barrels. And to the extent that congestion results, individuals can take alternate routes. Detours are far more tedious with fixed guideways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very cheap if they diamond existing left lanes, more expensive if they want to separate them or elevate them. Mostly we need them on the 610 loop, esp the western half.

There are only 4 lanes on the exesting west loop. Diamond the left lanes, and that only leaves three lanes for regular traffic? Not the best idea, considering there are already backups all day, every day. I suppose we can expand it for a few billion dollars, though.

The Feds will pay less than half the capital cost, and none of the operating costs. Metro will float a huge bond issue as well as tying up revenues for a dozen+ years to pay for the rail construction - all to provide service for a handful of miles in the core already well served by bus.

Less than half? I thought that they were paying for three of the five lines, how does that equate to less than half? Well served by bus? Do you realize we have one of the lowest transit riderships out of any large city in the nation? I don't think ANY of the Houston area is "well served" by transit, maybe save for park and rides and our lone light rail corridor.

I don't understand why you would want to keep a less efficient, lower capacity, less reliable system rather than upgrade our transit system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...