Operating cost of Light Rail cheaper than Buses?

[TheNiche]

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 West Loop was built with re-striping in mind. It's just that we can't do so with federal approval until we meet EPA attainment goals. (Which is bizarre since free-flowing traffic actually reduces air pollution.)

Do you realize we have one of the lowest transit riderships out of any large city in the nation?

Questions. What's your source? Why is transit ridership a goal? That's being myopic. Shouldn't the goal be minimizing commute cost (also factoring in time as an opportunity cost)? And even if cost minimization is the goal of transportation agencies, isn't their larger purpose to enable people to enjoy their lives according to their highest preferences?

[ToryGattis]

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.

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.

HOT the left diamond lane and it will carry a maximum load of cars + buses at full flow speeds, so no loss of capacity. In fact, it's a net gain with the speed.

Feds are paying about half for 3 of the 5 lines (assuming the come through). The other two lines are all ours.

Upgrade our transit system: I do, I just want to do it differently (i.e. spend the money differently), focused on express commuter bus service from all neighborhoods to all job centers + increased signature bus in the core (instead of LRT lines). I do somewhat support the University LRT line.

I just presented at TEDxHouston on this. Check out slides 17 to 24 in this pdf: http://sayabit.com/tgattis/XRf0CF

(the link can also be found on my HoustonStrategies.com blog on the top-right column under Links)

[samagon]

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.

Yep, and most of our city is still served by bus, and it wouldn't be too hard to put a bus on the rail route when needed, in fact, I've seen them do this already while repairs are made.

[mfastx]

The West Loop was built with re-striping in mind. It's just that we can't do so with federal approval until we meet EPA attainment goals. (Which is bizarre since free-flowing traffic actually reduces air pollution.)

I still don't understand the concept of reducing main lane traffic to three lanes. Isn't that basically what the Katy Freeway was before it expanded? That didn't seem to work out so well.

Questions. What's your source? Why is transit ridership a goal? That's being myopic. Shouldn't the goal be minimizing commute cost (also factoring in time as an opportunity cost)? And even if cost minimization is the goal of transportation agencies, isn't their larger purpose to enable people to enjoy their lives according to their highest preferences?

My source is the APTA quarterly ridership report. Transit ridership is a goal because the more people that use transit, the less people there are using cars and creating traffic. For example, if we had a higher transit ridership, we wouldn't need to keep spending billions expanding our freeways. Minimizing commute cost for whom? The commuter? Many people, even though it takes longer, will take transit (if reliable service is available, which generally in Houston, it is not) due to convenience, safety, and the ability to focus on other things (not driving) while on the way to work.

HOT the left diamond lane and it will carry a maximum load of cars + buses at full flow speeds, so no loss of capacity. In fact, it's a net gain with the speed.

Well, conisdering that it is already consistently backed up already, I can' t imagine that HOT the left diamond lane will all of the sudden speed things up. I don't think that the majority of people will be willing to pay a toll on such a used highway, especially since much of the traffic uses the West Loop for short trips, for example just coming off of the 59 interchange and exiting Westheimer or San Filepe. I don't think that traffic will be able to utilize a left lane HOT.

Feds are paying about half for 3 of the 5 lines (assuming the come through). The other two lines are all ours.

Half? It was my understanding that the feds would be paying for the North, Southeast, and University lines. Can you link me to a source that says that they will only be paying for half of these lines?

Upgrade our transit system: I do, I just want to do it differently (i.e. spend the money differently), focused on express commuter bus service from all neighborhoods to all job centers + increased signature bus in the core (instead of LRT lines). I do somewhat support the University LRT line.

Well I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement is. IMO, "upgrading" to signature bus service doesn't have nearly as many benefits as upgrading to light rail corridors. I think that there would be more ridership, better service, and more efficiency in major inner city light rail lines than inner city signature bus service lines. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But the fact remains that METRO is (trying their hardest) to go foward with these LRT lines, so there really isn't any sense in arguing over something that is already being built.

I just presented at TEDxHouston on this. Check out slides 17 to 24 in this pdf: http://sayabit.com/tgattis/XRf0CF

(the link can also be found on my HoustonStrategies.com blog on the top-right column under Links)

Interesting, however those slides deal with the argument of commuter rail vs. park and ride buses, not inner city light rail vs. buses. Interesting arguments, however I think that some of the slides have generalized and exaggerated information on them. For example "non-stop 65 mph service." Isn't there more than one park and ride transit center that most buses stop at? How would that be any different than commuter rail stops? And IIRC the proposed commuter rail for Houston would run at 90 mph, not "30-40 mph."

[ToryGattis]

Well, conisdering that it is already consistently backed up already, I can' t imagine that HOT the left diamond lane will all of the sudden speed things up. I don't think that the majority of people will be willing to pay a toll on such a used highway, especially since much of the traffic uses the West Loop for short trips, for example just coming off of the 59 interchange and exiting Westheimer or San Filepe. I don't think that traffic will be able to utilize a left lane HOT.

Half? It was my understanding that the feds would be paying for the North, Southeast, and University lines. Can you link me to a source that says that they will only be paying for half of these lines?

Interesting, however those slides deal with the argument of commuter rail vs. park and ride buses, not inner city light rail vs. buses. Interesting arguments, however I think that some of the slides have generalized and exaggerated information on them. For example "non-stop 65 mph service." Isn't there more than one park and ride transit center that most buses stop at? How would that be any different than commuter rail stops? And IIRC the proposed commuter rail for Houston would run at 90 mph, not "30-40 mph."

Toll is set to maximize throughput.

Chronicle articles say half (roughly).

I believe most park-and-ride buses leave from a single location and go nonstop to their job center.

90mph is the top speed between stops. Once you factor in stops every couple of miles, it is much, much slower on a net basis.

[samagon]

I believe most park-and-ride buses leave from a single location and go nonstop to their job center.

90mph is the top speed between stops. Once you factor in stops every couple of miles, it is much, much slower on a net basis.

I think the 65mph for a bus is also going to be max speed, not average. considering they have to slow down for portions of the trip, both before they enter, and then after they get out of the HOV, and then for random slow downs in the HOV itself.

Anyone here travel P&R want to give us an average time it takes from when the doors close on the bus to when the doors open again, along with the specific distance traveled? We can easily figure out the average speed knowing that.

[mfastx]

Toll is set to maximize throughput.

Chronicle articles say half (roughly).

I believe most park-and-ride buses leave from a single location and go nonstop to their job center.

90mph is the top speed between stops. Once you factor in stops every couple of miles, it is much, much slower on a net basis.

If you look at routes, many P & R have stops, just as a commuter rail system would. A commuter rail system would have a similar number of stops to a P & R system. Likewise, factor in the stops, it is not "nonstop 65 mph service." It works both ways. Try looking up average speed of a P & R bus, it is defiantly not 65 mph.

Are you sure they don't say roughly half of the TOTAL cost? That's what I read.

[ToryGattis]

Are you sure they don't say roughly half of the TOTAL cost? That's what I read.

Items #2 and 5 here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6922730.html

[mfastx]

Items #2 and 5 here:

http://www.chron.com...ok/6922730.html

Do you mind me asking what Mr. King's source on this is? Every other article I have read mentions the $900 million from the FTA paying for the North and Southwest lines, not half of them. After reading that article (which I remember reading it when it first was published) I have to say that Mr. King is very unimformed. I could sit here and write this long write-up about how each of his points are flawed, but I won't bore you.

Maybe you should let METRO's board make the decision on whether or not they can afford the light rail expansion. Have you talked to any of their board members about this?

BTW, about the west loop HOT lanes: it would take a lot more than a simple "re-striping" to configure the west loop to carry METRO buses in the HOT lanes. First of all, what routes currently utilize the West Loop for a long distance?

[TheNiche]

My source is the APTA quarterly ridership report.

Your source contradicts you. Dallas is just as large yet METRO has about 38% more ridership per the APTA report you cited. Worse still, my preferred source is the Census because it counts people who use transit rather than merely the number of times someone boards a transit vehicle. (Again, it is about the human, not the utilization of the machine!)

According to the Census, 2.7% of Houstonians rode public transit compared to 1.6% in Dallas; that's 69% better than Dallas. What that tells me is that not only is bus-dominated Houston better in terms of sheer ridership, but our routes are far more efficient, meaning that people transfer less frequently.

Yet, Dallas' average commute time is 26.5 minutes compared to Houston's 28.2 minutes.

Transit ridership is a goal because the more people that use transit, the less people there are using cars and creating traffic. For example, if we had a higher transit ridership, we wouldn't need to keep spending billions expanding our freeways. Minimizing commute cost for whom? The commuter? Many people, even though it takes longer, will take transit (if reliable service is available, which generally in Houston, it is not) due to convenience, safety, and the ability to focus on other things (not driving) while on the way to work.

Yet, Dallas' average commute time is 26.5 minutes compared to Houston's 28.2 minutes. Chicago is 30.9 minutes. New York City is 34.5 minutes. Clearly, transit is not the answer; it is a last resort. It is what should be built when physical constraints prevent further road construction.

But probably the worst possible scenario is Atlanta, a smaller city where transit use is high at 3.6% and transit spending is about double that of Houston per capita, yet commute time is 30.5 minutes, on par with Chicago. That's pathetic. For a whole host of reasons, we should not seek to emulate Atlanta's folly.

[mfastx]

Your source contradicts you. Dallas is just as large yet METRO has about 38% more ridership per the APTA report you cited. Worse still, my preferred source is the Census because it counts people who use transit rather than merely the number of times someone boards a transit vehicle. (Again, it is about the human, not the utilization of the machine!)

If you care to read my post, you'll notice that I said one of the lowest transit riderships out of any large city. Well I prefer to use official transit boardings, since Census numbers are flawed. Just because there are a certain number of people in a city's metro area, that does not mean that all of those people have access to transit.

According to the Census, 2.7% of Houstonians rode public transit compared to 1.6% in Dallas; that's 69% better than Dallas. What that tells me is that not only is bus-dominated Houston better in terms of sheer ridership, but our routes are far more efficient, meaning that people transfer less frequently.

Again, are those numbers from the whole metro area? Because DART doesn't cover Dallas's whole metro area, so those numbers are flawed.

Yet, Dallas' average commute time is 26.5 minutes compared to Houston's 28.2 minutes. Chicago is 30.9 minutes. New York City is 34.5 minutes. Clearly, transit is not the answer; it is a last resort. It is what should be built when physical constraints prevent further road construction.

Transit is NOT a last resort, it is an alternative. In fact, its kind of pitiful how Houston's commute times are only 6 minutes less than New York's, considering New York is about 4 times as large as Houston, and much denser.

But probably the worst possible scenario is Atlanta, a smaller city where transit use is high at 3.6% and transit spending is about double that of Houston per capita, yet commute time is 30.5 minutes, on par with Chicago. That's pathetic. For a whole host of reasons, we should not seek to emulate Atlanta's folly.

Well if Atlanta's commute times are so long due to transit, why are people still riding the transit sytem? Per capita of what? Per rider? Operating costs per rider in Atlanta are less than Houston, take a look at the document in the OP. The fact is that Atlanta has almost double transit ridership than we do, even though many of Atlanta's suburbs (a majority of the metro area population) choose not to be in MARTA's service area, I am assuming they don't want to pay the tax. It's pretty bold to say that Atlanta's transit system is a "folly" considering it carries much more riders than ours does.

[TheNiche]

If you care to read my post, you'll notice that I said one of the lowest transit riderships out of any large city. Well I prefer to use official transit boardings, since Census numbers are flawed. Just because there are a certain number of people in a city's metro area, that does not mean that all of those people have access to transit.

Again, are those numbers from the whole metro area? Because DART doesn't cover Dallas's whole metro area, so those numbers are flawed.

Transit is NOT a last resort, it is an alternative. In fact, its kind of pitiful how Houston's commute times are only 6 minutes less than New York's, considering New York is about 4 times as large as Houston, and much denser.

Yes, let's all just ignore the closest city in terms of size, density, state-mandated financing mechanisms and regulations, geographic proximity, and climate. We'll also ignore that whether we use the ATPA's number for boardings of transit vehicles as a proxy for ridership or we use the Census' counts of actual numbers of people...whether expressed in percentage terms or actual numbers.

Let's all presume that metropolitan areas are dissimilar in that only a portion of them are served by transit. It's easier than looking at system maps and realizing that even huge swaths of land area within a most transit authorities' jurisdictions are not served very well at all by transit. Let's presume that nobody has access to transit unless it is within walking distance. And let's presume that Houston's case is unusual in such a way as would favor your argument. Because your argument is the default. The burden of proof is mine...because you want RAIL.

The fact is, numbers don't matter. You want a train. You want it bad. The technology is what matters. Not people. ____ people! They must board the train. Trip that sensor. Feed data to the ATPA. Justify the machine.

And don't forget, the transit is there as an option. It's for the sake of variety. For the sake of the machine.

Well if Atlanta's commute times are so long due to transit, why are people still riding the transit sytem? Per capita of what? Per rider? Operating costs per rider in Atlanta are less than Houston, take a look at the document in the OP. The fact is that Atlanta has almost double transit ridership than we do, even though many of Atlanta's suburbs (a majority of the metro area population) choose not to be in MARTA's service area, I am assuming they don't want to pay the tax. It's pretty bold to say that Atlanta's transit system is a "folly" considering it carries much more riders than ours does.

People ride transit in Atlanta because the roads are sucky and bottlenecked.

I've gone through the cost and usage data for you on Atlanta before. It is a horrible place to be a commuter. Do your own research and report back, or go look up my data to refresh your memory. (You should have to justify your opinion critically, not rely on me to invalidate it.) And don't just cite operating expenses as though infrastructure costs nothing. Cite total expenses, which indicate loan payment on the infrastructure.

[samagon]

Yet, Dallas' average commute time is 26.5 minutes compared to Houston's 28.2 minutes. Chicago is 30.9 minutes. New York City is 34.5 minutes. Clearly, transit is not the answer; it is a last resort. It is what should be built when physical constraints prevent further road construction.

But probably the worst possible scenario is Atlanta, a smaller city where transit use is high at 3.6% and transit spending is about double that of Houston per capita, yet commute time is 30.5 minutes, on par with Chicago. That's pathetic. For a whole host of reasons, we should not seek to emulate Atlanta's folly.

What good is knowing the average commute time without knowing the average commute distance?

I used to have an average commute time of 1 hour. about 2.5 years ago that average commute time dropped to 20 minutes. How precisely did I gain that efficiency? As a matter of fact, I am less efficient (43 mph average speed compared to 46mph), but because I travel about 13 miles rather than 46 my average commute distance has been cut by 2/3. I may at some point switch to bicycle to commute, which will be vastly less efficient, but it will be cheaper than driving my car (so from that angle it will be more efficient).

So I guess if you want to talk about efficient, examine as well the average car commuter spends vs the average a public transit user spends getting to work each day. Right now, I just fill my tank, I have to use premium and I get 21.2 mpg (as per the trip computer on my dash), no parking expense. Right this very second I spend $4.50 each day to get to and from work (26 miles total, 21.2 mpg = 1.22 gallons of gasoline used * 3.75/gallon of premium). That is just on gasoline, it doesn't account for regular maintenance accrued because of commuting, it doesn't factor changing gas prices, and as I don't pay to park as many do, my costs are significantly low. I could get a power bar for the morning and afternoon ride, and spend $3 to fuel me for my bike. Metro is even cheaper ie more efficient.

Anyway, last time I was in Dallas, Chicago, NY, Atlanta (well, I haven't actually been to NY, but I watched Ghostbusters 1 and 2 so I feel as though I am an authority on the place) they all use buses in addition to their fixed guide-way solutions.

[mfastx]

Yes, let's all just ignore the closest city in terms of size, density, state-mandated financing mechanisms and regulations, geographic proximity, and climate. We'll also ignore that whether we use the ATPA's number for boardings of transit vehicles as a proxy for ridership or we use the Census' counts of actual numbers of people...whether expressed in percentage terms or actual numbers.

I'm not ignoring Dallas. But the fact is that the rail system we are building isn't the same type of system as Dallas's rail system. But I suppose you are ignoring that too.

Let's all presume that metropolitan areas are dissimilar in that only a portion of them are served by transit. It's easier than looking at system maps and realizing that even huge swaths of land area within a most transit authorities' jurisdictions are not served very well at all by transit. Let's presume that nobody has access to transit unless it is within walking distance. And let's presume that Houston's case is unusual in such a way as would favor your argument. Because your argument is the default. The burden of proof is mine...because you want RAIL.

I am not presuming. If you actually do some research about MARTA, you'll find out that large parts of Atlanta are not within MARTA's service area. You cannot take a whole metropolitan area's population in terms of measuring how many people ride transit. Houston's numbers are also flawed. For example, how are people going to ride METRO in Galveston? They can't, so the population of Galveston shouldn't be included in your analysis.

The fact is, numbers don't matter. You want a train. You want it bad. The technology is what matters. Not people. ____ people! They must board the train. Trip that sensor. Feed data to the ATPA. Justify the machine.

Numbers do matter. Ridership, capacity, reliability, and efficiency all matter to me. I want what I think would make the city of Houston a better place to live. And rail has proven to have an advantage over buses in all of the categories I just mentioned. Building a rail system isn't going to force people to do anything. It will just give them a better option over buses, which would probably result in more people riding the system. (BTW, its APTA, American Public Transit Association, not ATPA, lol)

And don't forget, the transit is there as an option. It's for the sake of variety. For the sake of the machine.

What are you saying? That a rail system is more machine-like? I do not understand this point you are trying to make.

People ride transit in Atlanta because the roads are sucky and bottlenecked.

What exactly do you mean by "sucky?"

I've gone through the cost and usage data for you on Atlanta before. It is a horrible place to be a commuter. Do your own research and report back, or go look up my data to refresh your memory. (You should have to justify your opinion critically, not rely on me to invalidate it.) And don't just cite operating expenses as though infrastructure costs nothing. Cite total expenses, which indicate loan payment on the infrastructure.

Well maybe you should go tell everyone in Atlanta that they should move somewhere else, then. Yes, infrastructure is expensive. I could go on a rant about how the government pours massive subsidies into building highways and airports. How total expenses for highways trump our rail system that we are building. Highways and airports need those subsidies, as does rail. Infrastructure is expensive, regardless the mode. We could build a cheap(er) bus system, but it wouldn't be as effective, or efficient. Do you want to save money now, by building a bus system (I though we already had a bus system?) or do you want to save money for the future, by building a rail system?

[mfastx]

Some other interesting statistics: MARTA pays about 900,000 yearly in operating costs per rail car, and about 400,000 per year for each bus. But there are almost 3 times as many buses in Atlanta as their are rail cars. Also interesting to see that for MARTA's buses, it costs $2.80 per ride, but only $2.00 per ride for their heavy rail. Likewise, MARTA pays only $0.30 per passenger mile for rail, and $0.70 per passenger mile for buses.

On the other hand, METRO pays about 900,000 per rail car in yearly operating expense, but only about 300,000 in yearly operating expense per bus. But METRO has about 50 times as many buses as rail cars.

So there's another interesting twist on the bus vs. rail argument. Rail costs more to operate per car, but you need more buses to have the same coverage as a rail line. It appears that rail is more efficient due to the fact that more people are on those rail cars.

Now let's take a look at DART's numbers, since they are compared to METRO so much around here. For DART, the numbers between bus and light rail are more similar. Per passenger trip, DART pays $9.00 each for commuter rail, $5.50 each for light rail, and $5.40 each for buses. However, when you look at how much DART pays per passenger mile, rail is still more efficient. Per passenger mile, DART pays only $0.80 for commuter rail, $0.80 for light rail, and $1.30 for buses. This is probably because the average rail trip is longer than the average bus trip.

Just thought I would post this, in case you don't feel like looking through the whole document. I have to say I find this really interesting.

[TheNiche]

What good is knowing the average commute time without knowing the average commute distance?

I found that data on another thread where mfastx kept parroting his inane objections (over and over), and Houston did quite well in terms of average velocity as well. That's kind of intuitive if you consider our high rate of carpooling and that our infrastructure rewards such behaviors.

[TheNiche]

I'm not ignoring Dallas. But the fact is that the rail system we are building isn't the same type of system as Dallas's rail system. But I suppose you are ignoring that too.

I am actual comparing data from actual transit systems, not your ambitions for what might be.

I am not presuming. If you actually do some research about MARTA, you'll find out that large parts of Atlanta are not within MARTA's service area. You cannot take a whole metropolitan area's population in terms of measuring how many people ride transit. Houston's numbers are also flawed. For example, how are people going to ride METRO in Galveston? They can't, so the population of Galveston shouldn't be included in your analysis.

That was my point. Transit thins out with population density. This is consistent between metro areas. Some metro areas have multiple transit agencies, however, and I included the Trinity Express in my figures for Dallas because they were material to the analysis. I ignored Denton, Lewisville, and Galveston (and ignored that your inherently flawed source didn't provide numbers for East Harris County Transit) because they are so small as to be immaterial, and a wash.)

Numbers do matter. Ridership, capacity, reliability, and efficiency all matter to me. I want what I think would make the city of Houston a better place to live. And rail has proven to have an advantage over buses in all of the categories I just mentioned. Building a rail system isn't going to force people to do anything. It will just give them a better option over buses, which would probably result in more people riding the system. (BTW, its APTA, American Public Transit Association, not ATPA, lol)

Saying it does not make it so.

What are you saying? That a rail system is more machine-like? I do not understand this point you are trying to make.

My point is that you care more about having a particular kind of infrastructure than you care about the people that use it.

What exactly do you mean by "sucky?"

It sucks.

Well maybe you should go tell everyone in Atlanta that they should move somewhere else, then. Yes, infrastructure is expensive. I could go on a rant about how the government pours massive subsidies into building highways and airports. How total expenses for highways trump our rail system that we are building. Highways and airports need those subsidies, as does rail. Infrastructure is expensive, regardless the mode. We could build a cheap(er) bus system, but it wouldn't be as effective, or efficient. Do you want to save money now, by building a bus system (I though we already had a bus system?) or do you want to save money for the future, by building a rail system?

You should rant, then. Just be sure that you're comparing apples to apples by taking into account all costs for all modes. Also express your findings in terms of present value, utilizing a defensible discount rate.

[mfastx]

Sometimes you can't compare transit systems based on only data. Like you said, its about the human, right? Well use some common sense and think about how METRO and DART are NOT identical transit systems in terms of infrastructure.

Of course transit thins out with population density. However, METRO has park and rides in the suburbs, while MARTA does not. MARTA has tried to expand their rail, but the majority of the suburbs do not want to pay for it. Even though Atlanta's and Houston's metro areas are roughly the same size, METRO has almost double the service area of MARTA.

Of course saying it doesn't make it so, I am just telling you my opinion which should explain why I would rather have a light rail system in addition to our bus system. That's why I said they all matter to me.

If I didn't care about the people (like myself) who use it, why would I want to improve METRO's infrastructure? That doesn't make sense. One of the reasons I am pro rail is that I ride the buses and I wish we had a better, more reliable service. The main reason that I am in favor if this project is because I am one of those people that use it.

I am not going to rant, that would be off topic. Do your own research about it.

[kdog08]

sigh... mfastx... no use in arguing. Some people like to bet that Houston will never densify to the point where bus will no longer be an intelligent option and I guess we Houstonians can only happily await our rapid bus transit system that will serve us...

[TheNiche]

Sometimes you can't compare transit systems based on only data. Like you said, its about the human, right? Well use some common sense and think about how METRO and DART are NOT identical transit systems in terms of infrastructure.

Um, yeah. That's key to my point.

Of course transit thins out with population density. However, METRO has park and rides in the suburbs, while MARTA does not. MARTA has tried to expand their rail, but the majority of the suburbs do not want to pay for it. Even though Atlanta's and Houston's metro areas are roughly the same size, METRO has almost double the service area of MARTA.

Atlanta has multiple large transit agencies. The suburbs want transit; they don't want MARTA.

Of course saying it doesn't make it so, I am just telling you my opinion which should explain why I would rather have a light rail system in addition to our bus system. That's why I said they all matter to me.

If I didn't care about the people (like myself) who use it, why would I want to improve METRO's infrastructure? That doesn't make sense. One of the reasons I am pro rail is that I ride the buses and I wish we had a better, more reliable service. The main reason that I am in favor if this project is because I am one of those people that use it.

What you propose will only improve the fixed-in-place infrastructure. They have a limited budget, and my argument is based on the opportunity cost of using funds for one thing rather than another.

I am not going to rant, that would be off topic. Do your own research about it.

I have. I've been posting it in both original form and as rebuttal; you have been ignoring it.

[mfastx]

[Response directed at Niche]

So you are acknowledging that DART's rail system and METRO's rail system that is under construction have different qualities. Then why do you assume ridership numbers will be similar to DART's?

The suburbs have ineffective bus systems. One could say that if MARTA had been allowed to expand rail to more of the metro area, then ridership would be higher throughout the metro area. Becasue transit ridership certainly is higher in central Atlanta than it is in central Houston.

I believe I have said something like this before, but if you believe they have insufficient funds, why don't you argue that METRO recieve more funding rather than build an inferior transit system?

You have never acknowledged the fact that we spend many billions more on highways and airports than we do on transit.

[TheNiche]

[Response directed at Niche]

So you are acknowledging that DART's rail system and METRO's rail system that is under construction have different qualities. Then why do you assume ridership numbers will be similar to DART's?

So you acknowledge that some forms of light rail can be a distraction to a transit agency that are not cost-effective? How much more effective do you think at-grade light rail will be? Quantify and qualify your estimate.

The suburbs have ineffective bus systems. One could say that if MARTA had been allowed to expand rail to more of the metro area, then ridership would be higher throughout the metro area. Becasue transit ridership certainly is higher in central Atlanta than it is in central Houston.

There's that word again! The Census data demonstrates that ridership (i.e. physical boardings of individual machines) does not necessarily correlate with transit use by individual people.

I believe I have said something like this before, but if you believe they have insufficient funds, why don't you argue that METRO recieve more funding rather than build an inferior transit system?

I have argued this, but it is not a realistic expectation. Capital investments must be made on the basis of reasonable expectations of their revenue stream.

You have never acknowledged the fact that we spend many billions more on highways and airports than we do on transit.

You have never acknowledged the fact that we spend many billions more on transit than we spend on water taxis (and for canals for water taxis). And the airlines are really missing the boat by not developing fully-submersible nuclear-powered cruise ships.

[mfastx]

[Response directed at Niche]

At-grade light rail will be more effective in this case, simply because that's where the people are. DART rail was built in old right of ways, which generally aren't where the people are.

Well census data shows that there are more humans riding the transit where the rail is, since it carries more people. So you are saying that if MARTA expanded their rail, like Washington, DC., they wouldn't have more ridership? They wouldn't have more humans riding transit?

It is a realistic expectation, if enough people are behind it. Of course, nobody gives two shits about transit here in Houston, so I guess it is a lost cause. I guess you are just going with the flow. METRO's revenue stream wasn't great with a bus only system either.

We are not talking about water taxis. I do acknowledge it, but a good transit system in Houston would do more than good water taxis.

This is ridiculous. Sometimes I think you argue just to argue, that part of you does agree with me, but you just like to argue.

[TheNiche]

[Response directed at Niche]

At-grade light rail will be more effective in this case, simply because that's where the people are. DART rail was built in old right of ways, which generally aren't where the people are.

How much more effective? Pick a number (any number) and I'll run it for you.

Well census data shows that there are more humans riding the transit where the rail is, since it carries more people. So you are saying that if MARTA expanded their rail, like Washington, DC., they wouldn't have more ridership? They wouldn't have more humans riding transit?

Census data also reflects that more people ride the bus where buses run. What's your point?

It is a realistic expectation, if enough people are behind it. Of course, nobody gives two shits about transit here in Houston, so I guess it is a lost cause. I guess you are just going with the flow. METRO's revenue stream wasn't great with a bus only system either.

I'm for giving them more money. I'm not in favor of them spending what they don't have. So yeah, if going with the flow means not putting METRO on a path to insolvency, I suppose that means that I'm that guy.

We are not talking about water taxis. I do acknowledge it, but a good transit system in Houston would do more than good water taxis.

This is ridiculous. Sometimes I think you argue just to argue, that part of you does agree with me, but you just like to argue.

The water taxi thing was sarcasm. And no, I argue with you to point out how extraordinarily contrived, single-minded, and poorly structured your arguments are. You're discrediting your own cause. I'm merely pointing it out as a community service.

[samagon]

Capital investments must be made on the basis of reasonable expectations of their revenue stream.

Do roads fit in this? What about military?

Besides, unless I was reading the front page wrong, buses have a higher long term capital investment cost, for the same or lower revenue stream.

People who proclaim to not want rail based on ROI alone should look at the ROI buses give them over a 20 year period, vs the ROI of rail in the same period.

[mfastx]

[Response directed at Niche]

You don't need numbers to determine that METRO's proposed light rail will have more ridership than DART's. It's common sense. Use your brain. Why don't you "run" the numbers yourself? Try starting with our existing line, which has over five times the ridership per mile that DART has.

My point is that if you have one bus line, and replace it with a rail line, ridership for that corridor will be higher with the rail line versus the bus line. More people will use it. More humans, as you like to say.

Why don't you let the current METRO board determine what they can and can't afford? Or maybe you should contact METRO with your concerns. Have you studied METRO's 2011 finances? Do you realize that not building what they can't afford is exactly what METRO is doing by waiting until proper funding to start work on the Uptown and University lines? Let's say that METRO abandons the rail system they are building, and builds your BRT system that you want. If that would be cheaper, then how would METRO ever receive more funding? Why would we increase funding for a transit system if they don't need it? That's exactly why $0.25 was taken away from METRO's sales tax in the first place, because they didn't "need" it.

So if my arguments are contrived and single-minded, then why is every major transit agency in the Unites States interested in building more rail? I guess they're all wrong, and that transit agencies like San Antonio's are the only ones doing it right, right? All major transit agencies expanding their rail systems are contrived and single minded. Ok, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Simbha]

@mfastx: I've been watching this thread since it started and I agree with many of your comments, but I'd like to point out that just because "every major transit agency in the Unites States [is] interested in building more rail" doesn't necessarily make it right - for them, and especially for Houston. I'm not saying I wouldn't support more rail in Houston - but I don't think we should build it because other metro areas are doing so. Our geography, cityscape and culture are different than most - if not all - other cities in the US, and so we should develop transportation infrastructure to match our own needs.

So if my arguments are contrived and single-minded, then why is every major transit agency in the Unites States interested in building more rail? I guess they're all wrong, and that transit agencies like San Antonio's are the only ones doing it right, right? All major transit agencies expanding their rail systems are contrived and single minded. Ok, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Simbha]

Regardless of whether we build more rail (than is already planned or under construction), I'd like to also suggest something else. (I believe I've posted this elsewhere, but I've failed to find it on this forum.)

Several other cities in the world have extensive bus systems with what I think is a benefit to the riders - that is, a system by which riders at a stop can know when a bus is actually arriving (or when it's delayed). I visit Valencia, Spain often, so I'll use that as an example. When I'm at the bus station in Valencia, there's a monitor that indicates when the next bus is scheduled to arrive - and even when the bus is approaching. I believe this makes the system safer to ride, and more 'user-friendly'.

It seems that a city as massive as Houston really does need an extensive bus system, but I think there are ways (such as the above) to improve the system we have. I have no idea what the costs of such a system would be, but I can't imagine it would be exorbitantly expensive. One could even argue that we could take it a step further by developing a mobile phone application that provides the same information, but I don't know what proportion of bus riders would own smart phones - probably a smaller proportion than for the general population.

[mfastx]

Regardless of whether we build more rail (than is already planned or under construction), I'd like to also suggest something else. (I believe I've posted this elsewhere, but I've failed to find it on this forum.)

Several other cities in the world have extensive bus systems with what I think is a benefit to the riders - that is, a system by which riders at a stop can know when a bus is actually arriving (or when it's delayed). I visit Valencia, Spain often, so I'll use that as an example. When I'm at the bus station in Valencia, there's a monitor that indicates when the next bus is scheduled to arrive - and even when the bus is approaching. I believe this makes the system safer to ride, and more 'user-friendly'.

It seems that a city as massive as Houston really does need an extensive bus system, but I think there are ways (such as the above) to improve the system we have. I have no idea what the costs of such a system would be, but I can't imagine it would be exorbitantly expensive. One could even argue that we could take it a step further by developing a mobile phone application that provides the same information, but I don't know what proportion of bus riders would own smart phones - probably a smaller proportion than for the general population.

Well, first of all, I agree 100% with your proposition. In fact, I find myself waiting at bus stops for 30-45 min wondering when the next bus will show up. Having a display (similar to what is used by METRO's Quickline service) would instantly improve the system. I would also argue that we should have displays showing when the next train will arrive at rail stations as well. We already have the LCD display at all rail stations, why not put the time until the next train is arriving? Washington, DC has this in their metro rail stations, and it really is a nice feature.

Second, I understand that we shouldn't build something because other transit agencies are building it. But on the other hand, if most transit agencies are building something, and that something is improving their transit system, then why not incorporate that into our transit system?

[ricco67]

Regardless of whether we build more rail (than is already planned or under construction), I'd like to also suggest something else. (I believe I've posted this elsewhere, but I've failed to find it on this forum.)

Several other cities in the world have extensive bus systems with what I think is a benefit to the riders - that is, a system by which riders at a stop can know when a bus is actually arriving (or when it's delayed). I visit Valencia, Spain often, so I'll use that as an example. When I'm at the bus station in Valencia, there's a monitor that indicates when the next bus is scheduled to arrive - and even when the bus is approaching. I believe this makes the system safer to ride, and more 'user-friendly'.

It seems that a city as massive as Houston really does need an extensive bus system, but I think there are ways (such as the above) to improve the system we have. I have no idea what the costs of such a system would be, but I can't imagine it would be exorbitantly expensive. One could even argue that we could take it a step further by developing a mobile phone application that provides the same information, but I don't know what proportion of bus riders would own smart phones - probably a smaller proportion than for the general population.

I was at the Metro meeting last week for the Harrisburg RR bridge discussion, and one of the things that were said is that, depending on which "option" to build, it will affect some other projects around the city and metro.

The "Bare" option would be a LR only Bridge and that is completely funded.

If the additional options for complete traffic over, under AND a pedestrian tunnel, then two other projects (which escapes me) would be on hold, and this very technology would be on hold until funds become available again.