Jump to content

METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion


Recommended Posts

I am referring to the undeniable fact that in the 2003 Solutions Plan the voting public/taxpayers were promised 5 operational LR lines in 2012.

If it were up to METRO, they would be running by now. Unfortunately, due to strong plolitical opposition and Buy America controversies, that isn't happing sadly. Just because they aren't built on time doesn't mean they shouldn't be built at all.

Now 3 lines are under construction and may be operational by 2014 (however just this weekend we learned UH is not willing to allow the SE line on its property as designed, so it's back to negotiation/planning/court for the damn ROW).

They will be. I talked with someone that does real estate for METRO, and she said that this isn't coming from UofH. She wouldn't specify where exactly it was coming from, but it's clearly just another attempt to delay light rail construction.

The other 2 lines, including the "spine" of the entire system are on indefinite hold and have been for 2 years. According to Greanias just last week, if everything goes perfect with the tax referendum METRO may be able to break ground on the Univ Line in 2015, Uptown Line - no timetable for even breaking ground. Greanias's other 2 scenarios are no further expenditures on either line until 2018-2020 at best or the worst-case the 2 lines will be built around 2030 (!).

Well then in that case I am extremely in favor of the tax referendum and will vote for it. Again, just because they are delayed doesn't mean they shouldn't be built.

Almost a decade into the Solutions Plan, given this level of incompetence, occasional lawlessness (the Spanish railcar procurement), accounting chicanery,and utter waste of literally 10s of millions of tax $, METRO taxpayers should be skeptical of anything METRO proposes re: LRT don't you think?

No, not at all. Just because METRO has other problems, doesn't mean that LRT isn't an effective solution to transit. Look at numbers, look at other cities that are building similar light rail that we are, just look around. It's obvious LRT is more effective than buses, and if you ride public transportation you'll realize that first hand like I do. All other large cities are scrambling to build rail - does that mean they are all corrupt? Is rail some huge conspiracy?

We all got bent over by METRO management & Board and didn't even get a kiss...

Well hopefully we will be getting a better transit system, and we are well on our way to that if we give METRO more funding to build the lines.

You keep mentioning numbers but you haven't shown me very much, and the numbers you are showing me don't make any sense. What's 230,000? Is that daily, monthly, or yearly boardings? Make yourself clear.

That is daily boardings. Buses around the city of Houston (including Park and Ride buses) average about 230,000 boardings daily. Rail averages around 40,000. Additionally, there are 20,000 new transit riders riding METRORail since it opened. That means that people ride transit now that didn't ride transit before the rail was built. Ridership loss has been elsewhere before the rail started.

Also, the rail ridership is so high because that's the only way into downtown if you're coming from south/southwest via the bus. A number of high ridership bus lines were truncated in 2004 so the passengers could make bus to rail transfers to justify building the line in the first place. And, those bus to rail transfers are inefficient because now instead of a one seat ride into downtown, I have to transfer to a rail line that isn't much faster, and in some instances slower, than the bus I just got off of. And God forbid I miss the rail connection. That means I'll have to wait another six minutes. And if you know Metro, six minutes can mean meeting your connection or missing it.

What routes were cancelled? I can think of one or two routes that don't go all the way into downtown (65 is an example) and some were re-routed off of Main street, but what routes were cancelled? Building the rail has obviously been justified and not because of one or two re-routed bus routes. More people are riding light rail because it is simply a superior form of transportation. It is more reliable, more comfortable, and carries more riders. It's undeniably better than buses. In fact so many people are using it that they are ordering more cars. They certainly weren't having any of those problems before the rail line was built, lol.

You also say there is no demand for bus service. How do qualify that statement?

Because a large percentage of buses in Houston are empty. Take a look at some efficiency numbers. It costs $5 per rider to operate the buses. Why? Because the buses are so empty that METRO has to pay a lot to carry those few riders. For METRORail, that number is $1 per rider. Meaning that much more people ride the rail and METRO pays less per person to operate the rail. In other words, rail has a higher farebox recovery of its operating costs.

Metro ridership was breaking records up until about 2001, when MetroRail construction began in earnest and then came the massive service cuts. Why would you cut bus service when you are breaking ridership records? Explain that.

Well why don't you explain the "massive cuts" you are talking about. What routes were cut? If it's just a few inefficient routes then they aren't "massive cuts." Ridership was roughly 300,000 at its peak. Hardly anything to write home about. If all the METRORail lines are built, I bet that rail ridersip on those few lines alone would be more than half that. METRO cut inefficient routes so that they can have a balanced budget. Putting money into building rail might cause cancellation of a few low ridership routes, but in the long run, the public transportation system will be better. Sometimes you have to take one step back before you take three steps forward.

Also, explain the demand for rail? You seem to site ridership numbers. Those numbers are the result of forced transfers. That's not demand, that's necessity; if I don't transfer to the rail line then I can't get downtown.

Not entirely. In fact the majority of rail riders don't have "forced" transfers. How do you know that high bus ridership isn't a result of forced transfers? If one person transfers between buses, that counts as two boardings. You don't think that a large percentage of people transfered between buses before light rail opened? Regardless of mode, there will be transfers. It doesn't matter if it's light rail to light rail, bus to light rail, or bus to bus, there will be many tranfers in all cases.

There are many bus lines that go straight into downtown, what in the hell are you talking about, lol. Have you looked at a map of the bus routes? There are many bus routes that go into downtown that are parallel to the light rail in fact. Look at the map, I can post a pic of it here if you want me to. Those parallel bus routes aren't getting nearly the same ridership that the light rail is getting.

Not to mention we have't even seen what could be considered a fraction of the 50% increase in bus service.

METRO will implement new bus routes when they can be justified. Take the Airport Direct service for example. That was an increase in bus service, and it failed miserably.

The Quickline and other bus routes have been created, hopefully those work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

mfastx, I just noticed your New England HAIFer classification. Do you live in Boston, or do you live in the METRO service area?

I am currently enrolled at Boston University and am going to school there, so I live there the majority of the year.

But I am in Houston during the summer and lived all of my life in Houston before going to school in Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently enrolled at Boston University and am going to school there, so I live there the majority of the year.

But I am in Houston during the summer and lived all of my life in Houston before going to school in Boston.

cool. congrats on BU. me gusta Boston, but I'm a native born Houstonian, so have gotten very strange looks every time I speak aloud on my many visits there. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sheer madness that we can't cobble together the funding needed to balance the transportation needs of one of the fastest growing metros. We need more highway and road infrastructure as well expanding mass transit options. Concerning our mass transit options we need to be build our light rail system plain and simple. It could connect our largest employments and activity centers together with suburban commuters on an expanded park&ride system. Houston could actually build a transit system where commuters use express bus to get to connect to destinations in uptown, greenway plaza, st.thomas university/menil, museum district, HCC central, Med Center, Reliant, Minute Maid, TSU, UH, Rice, BBVA Compass Stadium, Downtown, and major parks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cool. congrats on BU. me gusta Boston, but I'm a native born Houstonian, so have gotten very strange looks every time I speak aloud on my many visits there. :D

Thanks! Yeah I get some people talking about my accent, but their accents are pretty strong too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mfastx, before I address your other points, I need you to clarify something; you say there is no demand for bus service, correct? So why do you think it's prudent for Metro to outlay funds for high capacity and cost intensive rail? What's the justification? Where's the demand for rail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mfastx, before I address your other points, I need you to clarify something; you say there is no demand for bus service, correct? So why do you think it's prudent for Metro to outlay funds for high capacity and cost intensive rail? What's the justification? Where's the demand for rail?

We have one of the most heavily traveled light rail lines in the country. It seems to be in demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have one of the most heavily traveled light rail lines in the country. It seems to be in demand.

That wasn't my question.

But to address your particular point; on it's own there is no demand for, nor justification for a light rail line. It's not efficient as seven bus lines were truncated for the purpose of forced transfers which take time, more time than it would to just stay on the bus and ride into downtown. It's not more efficient when it comes to overall speed either. To get from the station at Foley's to the TMC Transit Center it takes anywhere from 15 minutes (on a good day) to about 18-20 minutes (on an average day). Between those two destinations, the train makes a total of eight stops and has the right of way at most intersections. In comparison the old 4 - Beechnut (pre truncation) took about 25 minutes to travel the same distance, making many more stops (thus increasing dwell time) and being subject to the same traffic laws as your average car. The entire length of the light rail line is 7.5 miles and it takes about 32 minutes end to end making 16 stops along the way. You're telling me a bus couldn't do that?

The light rail line has about 40,000 boardings per day. Now, remember, we're trying to justify the expenditure for building this rail line. A number of those 40,000 boardings are TMC employees using it as a shuttle between Dryden and Smithlands lot. Is it safe to say that those same people would not have just taken a contract parking van had it been available instead of the light rail line? Do those boardings justify the cost of the light rail line? Next, we have the forced transfers. The 2 - Bellaire, 4 - Beechnut, 8 - S. Main, 14 - Hiram Clarke (15 - Hiram Clarke pre truncation), 25 - Richmond, 65 - Bissonnet, and the 132 - Harwin Express were all truncated so the passengers headed downtown would be forced to use the rail line. With the exception of the 132, these were all moderately high to very high ridership lines. You're gaining thousands of boardings through these forced transfers and you're not providing a benefit to the rider. Once again, do those forced transfers justify the cost of the rail line?

The last major group of boardings come from the Fannin South Park and Ride Lot. These passengers are most likely going to the TMC or Downtown. Was there a demand for a rail line to serve this particular group of passengers? Why not just create a Park and Ride route, better yet, why not utilize a current one i.e. the 170 - Missouri City Express which at one time served both the TMC and Downtown before it was truncated at the TMC TC so the passengers would have to transfer to the rail line.

So yes, the light rail gets a ton of ridership, but so too did the eight routes that were truncated in favor of the rail line, so too would a contract parking shuttle, and so too would a Park and Ride bus from Fannin South. And I'm not against light rail in the least. I support it. But I don't support the starvation of the bus system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have one of the most heavily traveled light rail lines in the country. It seems to be in demand.

The bus and shuttle routes that preceded it were also in demand. But hey, demand for transportation along routes between downtown and the TMC is a given. It's par for the course. It's obvious. There's also demand for transportation within Tomball; not much, but it qualifies just the same as does the Red Line. Even if it's not realized in a particular locale, there is still demand. The thing is, demand for transportation does not imply a mandate for the construction of light rail (either to the exclusion of other technologies or for the sake of providing additional options). Whatever your bogus argument may be, "demand," does not cut it. Nor does, "raise taxes."

The only justification for ANY modal technology to be chosen over another is a comparative analysis of costs relative to benefits achieved. Light rail will fail some of these analyses. It is not divine. If it will fail some of the time, then it is worth analyzing all of the time. The problem is, I see about as much intellectually honest analysis of light rail on this forum as I'd expect from Seimens' lobbyist in Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh Niche, when we see eye to eye I love the way your arguments flow....

But anyway, another thing light rail zealots fail to see is that trying to shoehorn passengers into the rail line can be particularly damaging when your ridership isn't exactly a captive audience like on the local bus routes. Remember the Downtown Trolleys? Metro took the marginal Texas Special routes, which would only fill up half a 47 seat RTS bus at lunch time, and turned them into a bustling and very popular trolley system. Only to ruin it by re-routing all the trolley lines to feed the rail line with more of those lovely forced transfers. No one needed a Bell St. trolley, well, except Metro so someone, ANYONE, could use the urban wasteland of a station located on Bell. And to add insult to injury, not only do they destroy the trolley lines, they have the nerve to charge you for the "privilege" of using the "improved" service. The trolley lines were dead within a year and Downtown was without shuttle service for the first time in 30 years. That's what happens when you try to create "demand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mfastx, before I address your other points, I need you to clarify something; you say there is no demand for bus service, correct? So why do you think it's prudent for Metro to outlay funds for high capacity and cost intensive rail? What's the justification? Where's the demand for rail?

Let me correct myself. There is demand for public transportation service within the Houston area, especially inside the loop and in urban areas. However, in suburban areas, the demand for public transportaiton just isn't there, so no matter what service, whether it be bus or rail, ridership probably won't be nearly as high. You still didn't say which routes were cut. While I acknowledge that some routes were shortened due to rail, which important routes did METRO cut?

But to address your particular point; on it's own there is no demand for, nor justification for a light rail line.

Sorry but that's simply not true. So you're saying that there is demand for buses, but not for a light rail line? There are many riders who just take light rail for their trip without taking a bus. Not every rail rider transfers from a bus. In fact I'd say that most don't.

It's not efficient as seven bus lines were truncated for the purpose of forced transfers which take time, more time than it would to just stay on the bus and ride into downtown.

Light rail replaces bus lines. Shortening those bus lines and not routing them through downtown increases on time performance on those lines. It's redundant to have bus lines going to downtown and a light rail line. However, since light rail is the superior form of transportation, it takes precedent. I have transfered from a bus to light rail and I am not unsatisfied with the service. So what, it adds a few minutes to the commute? You are talking about a minority of passengers who transfer from bus lines to light rail to go downtown. It's too small of a percentage to simply not build it because of a few riders.

It's not more efficient when it comes to overall speed either. To get from the station at Foley's to the TMC Transit Center it takes anywhere from 15 minutes (on a good day) to about 18-20 minutes (on an average day). Between those two destinations, the train makes a total of eight stops and has the right of way at most intersections. In comparison the old 4 - Beechnut (pre truncation) took about 25 minutes to travel the same distance, making many more stops (thus increasing dwell time) and being subject to the same traffic laws as your average car. The entire length of the light rail line is 7.5 miles and it takes about 32 minutes end to end making 16 stops along the way. You're telling me a bus couldn't do that?

Yes that's exactly what I'm telling you. A bus could not travel the same distance in 30 minutes in rush hour. Not only is it faster and makes fewer stops, it is also more reliable as it is on time more often. You are also forgetting the vast increase in capacity that light rail brings. Light rail has roughly 40,000 boardings/day. That's over 4 times as much as the highest ridership bus route. It's undeniable that light rail is not only a superior form of transportation, but it also carries more riders, is faster especially during rush hour (during a saturday or sunday the speeds are closer), and more reliable. So you are saying you want to throw all of those benefits out the window simply because a few riders have to make an extra transfer to get downtown? Are you nuts?! Transfers are part of public transportation.

The light rail line has about 40,000 boardings per day. Now, remember, we're trying to justify the expenditure for building this rail line. A number of those 40,000 boardings are TMC employees using it as a shuttle between Dryden and Smithlands lot.

Great, that means that the light rail is doing what it's intended to do. The point of light rail, and public transportation in general, is to allow people to get to employment centers without driving. Now if TMC employees are driving to Smithlands lot, then that's a lot better than them driving in the TMC and adding to congestion there isn't it?

Is it safe to say that those same people would not have just taken a contract parking van had it been available instead of the light rail line? Do those boardings justify the cost of the light rail line?

Perhaps, but you are implying that only TMC employees are light rail riders. Yes some of them park at the Smithlands lot, but others board the train from elsewhere. A shuttle van would get caught in the rush hour TMC traffic on Fannin and not be as effective. There were bus routes from Smithlands to the TMC and ridership wasn't as high.

Next, we have the forced transfers. The 2 - Bellaire, 4 - Beechnut, 8 - S. Main, 14 - Hiram Clarke (15 - Hiram Clarke pre truncation), 25 - Richmond, 65 - Bissonnet, and the 132 - Harwin Express were all truncated so the passengers headed downtown would be forced to use the rail line. With the exception of the 132, these were all moderately high to very high ridership lines. You're gaining thousands of boardings through these forced transfers and you're not providing a benefit to the rider. Once again, do those forced transfers justify the cost of the rail line?

No they don't by themselves, but again, forced transfers do not represent a majority of light rail ridership. I'm not sure you understand this, but again, shortening those bus routes and allowing passengers to connect to a reliable light rail line 1) increases on time performance of the bus routes and 2) frees up downtown streets to bus routes that do not parallel a light rail line. So actually, you are benefiting lots of riders. You are providing a reliable, better form of transportation downtown, and you are increasing reliablility on those bus lines. Forced transfers only provide a small number of light rail riders. Buses are *not* superior, nor are they even close, to rail. Especially when you are talking about inner-city transit. Transfers aren't the end of the world, and there is no way that a small number of riders having to make a transfer justify not building the line at all. Right now there is only one line, but when the others get built, there will be more ridership and transit will just simply be better for more people. To suggest that buses are a superior form of transportation to light rail is just disengenious, perhaps you should study transportation more.

Look at the numbers of those bus lines. Their riderhsip was nowhere near the light rail line.

The last major group of boardings come from the Fannin South Park and Ride Lot. These passengers are most likely going to the TMC or Downtown. Was there a demand for a rail line to serve this particular group of passengers? Why not just create a Park and Ride route, better yet, why not utilize a current one i.e. the 170 - Missouri City Express which at one time served both the TMC and Downtown before it was truncated at the TMC TC so the passengers would have to transfer to the rail line.

Yes there is demand obviously, due to the high ridership of the line. METRO already had buses running from Fannin South to TMC, and ridership wasn't as high.

I'm not sure why you are so against having bus routes funnel into the light rail line. Why have a bunch of bus routes parallel to each other going into downtown? It's far more efficient to just have a higher capacity line replace all of those bus routes. Use the buses for lower ridership corridors, and use rail for corridors that have high ridership. It's not a big deal to transfer to a rail line from a bus, people do it all the time in other cities too. Rail carries more passengers more efficiently than buses. Eliminating redundant bus routes parallel to each other and allowing those buses to beef up routes that the light rail doesn't serve is smart thinking to me. Look at it like this: why have a whole bunch of parallel surface streets running to the same place when you could build a highway and eliminate all of those redundant surface streets? Sure, people might have to 'transfer' to the highway, but the highway carries more cars and has more capacity for future growth.

It's very similar with rail vs. buses. Rail carries more riders and is more efficient, and it simply attracts more riders as well. Buses, while cheaper, carry less riders and have less capacity for future growth. Some transit corridors in Houston are underserved by bus routes, and a new higher capacity route can be put in place that increases efficiency and is simply better.

So yes, the light rail gets a ton of ridership, but so too did the eight routes that were truncated in favor of the rail line, so too would a contract parking shuttle, and so too would a Park and Ride bus from Fannin South. And I'm not against light rail in the least. I support it. But I don't support the starvation of the bus system.

Not true at all. There are roughly 20,000 rail riders that didn't ride the bus before rail opened. So that's proof right there that rail attracts more riders. All of the park and ride buses combined don't have as much ridership as the light rail, so I'm 100% sure that a P&R bus from Fannin South wouldn't carry as much riders. People get on at other stops than Fannin South and Smithlands.

Okay, so how do you think light rail should be implemented in Houston? Do you think that there should be numberous redundant bus routes parallel to the light rail? Do you realize that the 1 - Hospital parallels the light rail for much of its route, yet gets a small fraction of the ridership that rail gets?

The bus and shuttle routes that preceded it were also in demand. But hey, demand for transportation along routes between downtown and the TMC is a given. It's par for the course. It's obvious. There's also demand for transportation within Tomball; not much, but it qualifies just the same as does the Red Line. Even if it's not realized in a particular locale, there is still demand. The thing is, demand for transportation does not imply a mandate for the construction of light rail (either to the exclusion of other technologies or for the sake of providing additional options). Whatever your bogus argument may be, "demand," does not cut it. Nor does, "raise taxes."

It didn't have as much riderhsip that the rail does though. Are you saying that light rail is not a superior form of transportation over buses?

The only justification for ANY modal technology to be chosen over another is a comparative analysis of costs relative to benefits achieved. Light rail will fail some of these analyses. It is not divine. If it will fail some of the time, then it is worth analyzing all of the time. The problem is, I see about as much intellectually honest analysis of light rail on this forum as I'd expect from Seimens' lobbyist in Washington.

Well I disagree there. The fact that light rail is far superior, carries more riders, is more reliable, and attracts more riders is justification enough for me. Also the fact that light rail more efficiently carries riders than buses demonstrates to me that rail is worth the initial investment.

Ahhh Niche, when we see eye to eye I love the way your arguments flow....

But anyway, another thing light rail zealots fail to see is that trying to shoehorn passengers into the rail line can be particularly damaging when your ridership isn't exactly a captive audience like on the local bus routes. Remember the Downtown Trolleys? Metro took the marginal Texas Special routes, which would only fill up half a 47 seat RTS bus at lunch time, and turned them into a bustling and very popular trolley system. Only to ruin it by re-routing all the trolley lines to feed the rail line with more of those lovely forced transfers. No one needed a Bell St. trolley, well, except Metro so someone, ANYONE, could use the urban wasteland of a station located on Bell. And to add insult to injury, not only do they destroy the trolley lines, they have the nerve to charge you for the "privilege" of using the "improved" service. The trolley lines were dead within a year and Downtown was without shuttle service for the first time in 30 years. That's what happens when you try to create "demand."

Wow man crush much? LOL

I guess you're ignoring the fact that another downtown shuttle service has opened. You are putting far too much weight into the 'forced transfers' argument and it is ridiculous. I still can't believe that you would rather have redundant parallel bus lines running right next to each other downtown when you could replace those lines for a more efficient, higher capacity technology.

Please explain how other transit agencies in other cities manage to have such high transit ridership despite 'funneling' riders on rail lines. Take Atlanta's MARTA for example. Their transit ridership is almost double ours. Care to explain the relative success of that system relative to ours despite the travesty of funneling transit riders onto rail lines?

Every single city that has high transit riderhsip has bus lines that feed into rail lines. It's not just us. Perhaps you should start studying other cities' transit system and what makes them so successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in suburban areas, the demand for public transportaiton just isn't there

Are you familiar with Metro's park and ride services?

Also, you claim that of the 40,000 boardings, only a minority are bus to rail transfers. Define minority. What numbers do you have to back up these claims. I can't address the rest of your post until you clear up where you get your information from. Are these observations? Do you currently reside in Houston?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I disagree there. The fact that light rail is far superior, carries more riders, is more reliable, and attracts more riders is justification enough for me. Also the fact that light rail more efficiently carries riders than buses demonstrates to me that rail is worth the initial investment.

You state that light rail is superior. In most instances, I disagree. Specifically:

* Light rail does not carry more riders. The majority of boardings onto METRO vehicles are for bus routes. A huge number of boardings onto the light rail are from bus routes that were truncated (as MetroMogul pointed out) or that are associated with TMC shuttles. If money spent on light rail were instead spend on increasing the number of bus routes, their frequency, or the qualitative aspects of the vehicles themselves, then bus ridership would've been improved, too. You have no basis from which to suggest that the money that had been spent on light rail was spent in the best possible way. (If you were addressing the higher capacity of light rail, then I would remind you that many routes will never--or perhaps only sporadically, if we are to be optimistic--utilize the full capacity. Excess capacity is waste.)

* Light rail is not more reliable. I had this happen to me on a Saturday in April. I took an eight-mile stroll through Montrose, 4th Ward, and Downtown from my apartment. Exhausted, I tried to go home on the light rail. The line was shut down. METRO was running buses instead. (They were just as fast.) The problem is, it is rare when a light rail car breaks down on the line. However, it is not rare that there is somewhere on the line that requires a total shutdown for a period of time; when that happens, there is no accounting for reliability in the same manner that METRO accounts for a break-down. What's more is that every advantage that is afforded light rail (such as signal prioritization) can be afforded BRT...at lower cost. And if there's a breakdown on a BRT guideway, then a bus with tires can actually pull off to the side and the next bus can keep running. And if there's construction, then the buses can vary from the guideway and detour around it seemlessly. No need for a shutdown or for pulling from the rest of the fleet to fill a void. So even if light rail is by some measures more reliable than local bus service, it still has no particular advantage over BRT.

* Light rail probably does attract more riders than local buses and arguably more than BRT. That is plausible. Quantify it, though. If the cost of light rail were spent on more buses or fancier buses, would that bridge the gap? Quantify that, too.

* You've said that light rail is more efficient, but you have not defined efficiency. I would define it by a ratio of benefits to costs as compared to the same ratio that can be developed by analyzing how the same amount of money might have been applied to alternative investments on a system-wide basis, both now and in the future using a DCF approach with a low discount rate. How do you approach efficiency? With a LRT vehicle manufacturer's brochure, perchance? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche, I think he was referencing that light rail has the capability to carry more riders on fewer vehicles. Thus being a more efficient method of transit.

I've had less luck catching the bus, therefore I feel it's less reliable than rail. The good thing about the rail is that they typically plan the outages in advance for maintenance and make it known in advance as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche, I think he was referencing that light rail has the capability to carry more riders on fewer vehicles. Thus being a more efficient method of transit.

That's a poor definition of efficiency as it relates to public transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my question.

But to address your particular point; on it's own there is no demand for, nor justification for a light rail line. It's not efficient as seven bus lines were truncated for the purpose of forced transfers which take time, more time than it would to just stay on the bus and ride into downtown.

Speaking as a person who is the demand commuting from downtown to the Med Center for work, I will have to respectfully disagree. The buses were unreliable and didn't hit their timetables hardly ever. It's not good to have to go to the stop 45 minutes earlier just to make absolutely sure that I get to work on time. The rail was fairly consistent about keeping to the every six minutes schedule, and even if it ran a few minutes late, 10 minutes isn't too bad.

It's not more efficient when it comes to overall speed either. To get from the station at Foley's to the TMC Transit Center it takes anywhere from 15 minutes (on a good day) to about 18-20 minutes (on an average day). Between those two destinations, the train makes a total of eight stops and has the right of way at most intersections. In comparison the old 4 - Beechnut (pre truncation) took about 25 minutes to travel the same distance, making many more stops (thus increasing dwell time) and being subject to the same traffic laws as your average car. The entire length of the light rail line is 7.5 miles and it takes about 32 minutes end to end making 16 stops along the way. You're telling me a bus couldn't do that?

No, I'm telling you that it isn't about speed primarily. It is about trip time (leaving my door til walking into work), about frequency, and about reliability. I need to get to work on time, and I wish to spend as little time possible standing around waiting. The park and ride commuter buses seem to keep their time tables well, but the buses that duplicated rail work (1 Hospital, 25 Richmond, etc) did not. 1 Hospital still goes from downtown to the Med Center, but do you think I ever take it? Hell no. It's not likely to pass by when it says it will, and I think the buses are maybe 25 minutes apart while trains run every six minutes during the day.

The light rail line has about 40,000 boardings per day. Now, remember, we're trying to justify the expenditure for building this rail line. A number of those 40,000 boardings are TMC employees using it as a shuttle between Dryden and Smithlands lot. Is it safe to say that those same people would not have just taken a contract parking van had it been available instead of the light rail line? Do those boardings justify the cost of the light rail line? Next, we have the forced transfers. The 2 - Bellaire, 4 - Beechnut, 8 - S. Main, 14 - Hiram Clarke (15 - Hiram Clarke pre truncation), 25 - Richmond, 65 - Bissonnet, and the 132 - Harwin Express were all truncated so the passengers headed downtown would be forced to use the rail line. With the exception of the 132, these were all moderately high to very high ridership lines. You're gaining thousands of boardings through these forced transfers and you're not providing a benefit to the rider. Once again, do those forced transfers justify the cost of the rail line?

Any rail line built in virtually any city is going to duplicate bus routes and lead to bus routes being re-routed, and therefore the forced transfers. But the rail line built in this city manages to have one of the highest boardings per mile of any light rail line. Those other cities are dealing with the same duplication of service issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a poor definition of efficiency as it relates to public transit.

Doing more with less is a poor definition of efficiency??

As it relates to transit, there's less vehicles on the road, that's good for traffic, it's good for maintenance costs. There's more i could think of, but ive got one day left in Europe and everyone is ready to start the day. I eagerly look forward to what you think is a good definition of efficiency for public transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've said that light rail is more efficient, but you have not defined efficiency. I would define it by a ratio of benefits to costs as compared to the same ratio that can be developed by analyzing how the same amount of money might have been applied to alternative investments on a system-wide basis, both now and in the future using a DCF approach with a low discount rate...

that is the essential point that remains a fatal flaw IMO to the pro-LRT argument as it specifically relates to the City of Houston today, Houston's current and projected public transit needs, and METRO's efforts to complete the LRT component of the 2003 Solutions Plan.

No one has been able to quantify, based on METRO's actual performance to date on implementing the Solutions plan, that giving METRO more local tax $$$ to spend on LRT rather than some more flexible and cheaper/mile alternative will without doubt result in METRO actually completing the project on time and on budget.

Given that we are still in the middle of the worst economic meltdown since the Depression, with all that implies about projecting both federal and local tax revenues and signing on to tax increases for non-essential things like LRT over some cheaper alternative, pro-rail advocates need to present a more persuasive argument than the coolness of rail and "walkable" TOD development, and the superior comfort, capacity, and on-time characteristics of LRT.

Until pro-rail advocates can make a solid economic case for METRO's recapture of the .25%, some pro-rail (and neutral rail) folks like me will continue to appear to be anti-rail and anti-METRO when in reality what we are is taxpayers who are serious about holding govt accountable for budgets in tough times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with Metro's park and ride services?

Yes, that is a commuter service, not a local bus service. I was referring to a local bus service.

Also, you claim that of the 40,000 boardings, only a minority are bus to rail transfers. Define minority. What numbers do you have to back up these claims. I can't address the rest of your post until you clear up where you get your information from. Are these observations? Do you currently reside in Houston?

Minority is less than half. I have the ridership of the local bus routes you were talking about. Before rail opened their ridership was so low on those bus routes that it's impossible that 20,000 or more of them rode those bus routes into downtown. I currently reside in Boston but I spend a lot of time in Houston and have lived there my whole life outside of a couple of years.

You state that light rail is superior. In most instances, I disagree. Specifically:

* Light rail does not carry more riders. The majority of boardings onto METRO vehicles are for bus routes. A huge number of boardings onto the light rail are from bus routes that were truncated (as MetroMogul pointed out) or that are associated with TMC shuttles. If money spent on light rail were instead spend on increasing the number of bus routes, their frequency, or the qualitative aspects of the vehicles themselves, then bus ridership would've been improved, too. You have no basis from which to suggest that the money that had been spent on light rail was spent in the best possible way. (If you were addressing the higher capacity of light rail, then I would remind you that many routes will never--or perhaps only sporadically, if we are to be optimistic--utilize the full capacity. Excess capacity is waste.)

False. Light rail does carry more riders. Of course total ridership is higher, but if there are roughly 800 buses in maximum revenue service, and only 17 light rail cars in maximum revenue service, then it's obvious that light rail has more ridership over a similar bus route.

Do you have anything to back that up? How about some numbers? I know that riderhsip on those truncated routes were miniscule compared with the current light rail line. Do you have any facts of how many riders on that route were heading into downtown before the light rail was built?

Perhaps bus ridership would increase if money were invested, but investing in buses like that severely limits future growth of the city. Buses can only carry so many riders, and they get caught in the same traffic as cars. There are many advantages to light rail that you are ignoring.

Our current light rail lines is almost at capacity currently. In fact we are ordering more cars for the red line because we have capacity issues. Do you recall an instance where we had to order more buses because we have capacity issues on a certain bus line?

* Light rail is not more reliable. I had this happen to me on a Saturday in April. I took an eight-mile stroll through Montrose, 4th Ward, and Downtown from my apartment. Exhausted, I tried to go home on the light rail. The line was shut down. METRO was running buses instead. (They were just as fast.) The problem is, it is rare when a light rail car breaks down on the line. However, it is not rare that there is somewhere on the line that requires a total shutdown for a period of time; when that happens, there is no accounting for reliability in the same manner that METRO accounts for a break-down. What's more is that every advantage that is afforded light rail (such as signal prioritization) can be afforded BRT...at lower cost. And if there's a breakdown on a BRT guideway, then a bus with tires can actually pull off to the side and the next bus can keep running. And if there's construction, then the buses can vary from the guideway and detour around it seemlessly. No need for a shutdown or for pulling from the rest of the fleet to fill a void. So even if light rail is by some measures more reliable than local bus service, it still has no particular advantage over BRT.

Oops! False again, sorry. On time performance is far better for light rail than it is for buses. It is rare that part of the light rail line is shutdown. But if it is, it's almost always on a weekend where shuttle buses can carry riders almost as fast due to the low traffic. If BRT is on it's own guideway, it cannot just simply steer away from it. If BRT can just move around the problem on the guideway, then it is implied that the BRT is mixed with auto traffic, therefore rendering it no better than local buses.

* Light rail probably does attract more riders than local buses and arguably more than BRT. That is plausible. Quantify it, though. If the cost of light rail were spent on more buses or fancier buses, would that bridge the gap? Quantify that, too.

Well I am not going to spend the large amount of time quantifying that, but it seems like common sense to me. You seem to automatically give buses the benefit of the doubt while always criticizing rail. You are the one asserting that buses can attract as much ridership as light rail if given the proper funding, perhaps you should be the one to quantify it? ;)

* You've said that light rail is more efficient, but you have not defined efficiency. I would define it by a ratio of benefits to costs as compared to the same ratio that can be developed by analyzing how the same amount of money might have been applied to alternative investments on a system-wide basis, both now and in the future using a DCF approach with a low discount rate. How do you approach efficiency? With a LRT vehicle manufacturer's brochure, perchance? ;)

I define efficiency as the ability to carry more riders at a lower cost per rider. That's a simple and widely used definition. Have you done this analysis and determined that investing in buses would have the same impact on transportation in Houston?

That's a poor definition of efficiency as it relates to public transit.

What's your definition of efficiency? So you are saying that buses costing taxpayers $5 per rider is more efficient than a light rail costing taxpayers $1 per rider? Explain that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche, I think he was referencing that light rail has the capability to carry more riders on fewer vehicles. Thus being a more efficient method of transit.

You may be correct. But if we're going to implement his idea of efficiency, then someone needs to tell College Station to prep Easterwood Airport for the new Airbus A380. They're larger, thus more efficient. And since they're more efficient, regional and commuter airlines are bound to start using them. Right? :huh:

And just imagine, flights to B/CS with 853 people at a time! Think of all the tourism spend. It's an economic development proposition, surely worthy of a bond issue. Right? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define efficiency as the ability to carry more riders at a lower cost per rider. That's a simple and widely used definition.

The number of seats on wheels irrespective of ridership, distance, velocity, frequency, or systemic impacts, eh? That is a simple definition. But very well then. How much capacity would've been brought to muster had we invested the capital and operating costs of LRT in local buses, BRT, or vanpooling?

Can you give me a straightforward answer? No. And that's why I'm winning the argument.

I am a proponent of analysis, of asking questions as a matter of strategic public policy wherein the optimal outcome might be vanpools instead of light rail, or light rail instead of water taxis, but wherein the project is presented as a system rather than as a route, and wherein proposed uses of funds are understood in the context of financing sources that are lawful and realistic. (This is a stance that is consistent with the topic of this thread.)

You are an apologist for your technology, and therefore you oppose me. You do this by using a multitude of red herrings to steer threads off-topic and into a dark place. If one of your red herrings doesn't stick, then no worries...there are a half dozen more that surely will appeal to someone. And so the conversation devolves into the most simplistic of drivel...and lots of it. You're an LRT troll. Troll, begone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be correct. But if we're going to implement his idea of efficiency, then someone needs to tell College Station to prep Easterwood Airport for the new Airbus A380. They're larger, thus more efficient. And since they're more efficient, regional and commuter airlines are bound to start using them. Right? :huh:

And just imagine, flights to B/CS with 853 people at a time! Think of all the tourism spend. It's an economic development proposition, surely worthy of a bond issue. Right? :huh:

Makes no sense. The cost per rider would be too high to justify it. Just because something is larger doesn't mean it's more efficient. Ridership has to be there for it to be efficient. And riderhsip would't be there on an A380 flight to college station.

The number of seats on wheels irrespective of ridership, distance, velocity, frequency, or systemic impacts, eh? That is a simple definition. But very well then. How much capacity would've been brought to muster had we invested the capital and operating costs of LRT in local buses, BRT, or vanpooling?

No that's not what I said. When did I say the number of seats per vehicle? Did you actually read my post? Address my point and don't put words in my mouth.

Can you give me a straightforward answer? No. And that's why I'm winning the argument.

LOL, alright big guy. I already told you that I have not done your analyses that you came up with and therefore I do not know the answer to your question. Can you give me a straightforward answer to your own question?

No, and that's why I'm winning the argument. :P

I am a proponent of analysis, of asking questions as a matter of strategic public policy wherein the optimal outcome might be vanpools instead of light rail, or light rail instead of water taxis, but wherein the project is presented as a system rather than as a route, and wherein proposed uses of funds are understood in the context of financing sources that are lawful and realistic. (This is a stance that is consistent with the topic of this thread.)

Hmmmm so explain why you think that investing in buses would improve our transit system. Where is the proof that investing and beefing up the bus system would generate the same ridership and have the same positive externalities as light rail? I don't deny that ridership would improve, but I'm skeptical that it would increase at the same rate as it would with rail, and I am also skeptical that it would have the same positive externalities that rail does. Convince me that buses can do that, and provide examples.

You are an apologist for your technology, and therefore you oppose me. You do this by using a multitude of red herrings to steer threads off-topic and into a dark place. If one of your red herrings doesn't stick, then no worries...there are a half dozen more that surely will appeal to someone. And so the conversation devolves into the most simplistic of drivel...and lots of it. You're an LRT troll.

Uh ok. I am opposing you in this case because you don't believe that light rail (or rail in general for that matter) works in Houston and I disagree. You also oppose giving METRO more funding and I also disagree with that too. I am straightforwardly answering your questions and addressing your points.

Accross the world, rail is proven to carry more riders and have more of an impact than a bus line. This is purely an observation of mine looking at ridership numbers, and efficiency numbers. It has nothing to do with what mode of transit is 'cooler' than the other or which one I personally prefer (although I admit I personally prefer riding rail over buses due to personal experience).

Let me ask you something. Why did you try to take the light rail home? Why was it your first thought to go to a light rail station as opposed to a bus stop? I'm sure that you could get home using a bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the proof that investing and beefing up the bus system would generate the same ridership and have the same positive externalities as light rail? I don't deny that ridership would improve, but I'm skeptical that it would increase at the same rate as it would with rail, and I am also skeptical that it would have the same positive externalities that rail does. Convince me that buses can do that, and provide examples...

That there are externalities associated with all modes of public transit is certain, but can you show net positive externalities with every proposed rail line? If so I would enjoy seeing that list.

I'm on the record on HAIF and with METRO (since 2005) as skeptical that the University Line as currently planned can operate without having significant negative consequences for general mobility in Upper Kirby/Greenway from Kirby to Cummins, and along Westpark from Weslayan to S Rice in Bellaire. The Uptown Line as currently planned promises to be even worse.

I guess I'm waiting to be convinced that the externalities associated with building LRT where and how we're building it actually is a net positive. So far a case can be made for the Red Line, but no other line links such close and densely populated work centers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes no sense. The cost per rider would be too high to justify it. Just because something is larger doesn't mean it's more efficient. Ridership has to be there for it to be efficient. And riderhsip would't be there on an A380 flight to college station.

Obviously, yes. You missed the sarcasm in a response not directed at you.

No that's not what I said. When did I say the number of seats per vehicle? Did you actually read my post? Address my point and don't put words in my mouth.

You speak in vagaries. If I misunderstand what you mean to say, it's your problem not mine.

LOL, alright big guy. I already told you that I have not done your analyses that you came up with and therefore I do not know the answer to your question. Can you give me a straightforward answer to your own question?

No, and that's why I'm winning the argument. :P

My argument is that questions should be asked, so I'm asking questions. Your argument is that you want something more or less specific to come about, but you can't explain why (except in vagaries).

Hmmmm so explain why you think that investing in buses would improve our transit system. Where is the proof that investing and beefing up the bus system would generate the same ridership and have the same positive externalities as light rail? I don't deny that ridership would improve, but I'm skeptical that it would increase at the same rate as it would with rail, and I am also skeptical that it would have the same positive externalities that rail does. Convince me that buses can do that, and provide examples.

No. A career could be built upon that endeavor. Its not my job to develop a specific system-wide plan for optimization across five dimensions (space, time, budget). That is the subject of this thread, and you are off topic.

Uh ok. I am opposing you in this case because you don't believe that light rail (or rail in general for that matter) works in Houston and I disagree. You also oppose giving METRO more funding and I also disagree with that too. I am straightforwardly answering your questions and addressing your points.

Accross the world, rail is proven to carry more riders and have more of an impact than a bus line. This is purely an observation of mine looking at ridership numbers, and efficiency numbers. It has nothing to do with what mode of transit is 'cooler' than the other or which one I personally prefer (although I admit I personally prefer riding rail over buses due to personal experience).

You are mischaracterizing my input and are not addressing my points. I think that light rail can work in a limited capacity in Houston, but not if we carry forward as it has been implemented to date. It will not always work in every instance along every alignment or in any configuration. And moreover, it performs differently in different cities. But again, my point is that we should seek system optimization; not that there should be light rail or BRT or water taxis or whatever.

I propose that any additional funding for METRO should be tied to reforms within its organization and to its charter. I say this because I have increasingly come to believe that METRO is obsolete as an entity. A regional transportation authority should be considered, perhaps under the umbrella of H-GAC or as its own separate entity. In either case, its leadership should be voted for by constituents. And since the effects of efficient transportation are directly influenced by land value, I would also suggest that such an organization should receive non-farebox revenue through property taxation of the land value component of appraised property values.

Let me ask you something. Why did you try to take the light rail home? Why was it your first thought to go to a light rail station as opposed to a bus stop? I'm sure that you could get home using a bus.

I was on foot downtown and I live in the Museum District area. I was exhausted and it was there, albeit nonfunctional. I've ridden it twice this year because that's about how frequently I travel back and forth between destinations on the route. And besides, I usually just prefer to walk, get the exercise, and not pay. I'd rather buy better beer (then walk it off) than buy better transit...even if the fare is already massively subsidized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of seats on wheels irrespective of ridership, distance, velocity, frequency, or systemic impacts, eh? That is a simple definition. But very well then. How much capacity would've been brought to muster had we invested the capital and operating costs of LRT in local buses, BRT, or vanpooling?

Was it even possible to spend the federal money on those things? Wasn't the money allocated specifically for the rail project? Is the federal government likely to give the same millions for LRT BRT vanpooling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding bus service would limit the growth of the city? Well what was Houston before the light rail line opened, a backwater? Did we just magically become the fourth largest city overnight with the opening of the rail line?

No rail apologist has answered the fundamental question; what transit issue can light rail solve that no alternative measure can that would justify it's cost.

You can't come up with that answer and that's why the pro rail crowd is intellectually dishonest in their arguments. They don't care about better transit in Houston. If so, they would first advocate for better local bus service, better working conditions for transit workers and an expansion of the existing bus system. All important factors for the betterment of mass transit in Houston all cheaper than light rail.

If you just want a cool train gliding down the street because you will feel that much closer to your urban Utopia just say as much. But don't try to argue for rail using vague numbers and outright lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it even possible to spend the federal money on those things? Wasn't the money allocated specifically for the rail project? Is the federal government likely to give the same millions for LRT BRT vanpooling?

Federal funding is available for BRT and vanpool programs. It was also made available for the Woodlands Waterway water taxi. I think that it's most important that we just know what we want and are asking for from our congressional delegation and that they be on board with the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't come up with that answer and that's why the pro rail crowd is intellectually dishonest in their arguments. They don't care about better transit in Houston. If so, they would first advocate for better local bus service, better working conditions for transit workers and an expansion of the existing bus system. All important factors for the betterment of mass transit in Houston all cheaper than light rail.

If you just want a cool train gliding down the street because you will feel that much closer to your urban Utopia just say as much. But don't try to argue for rail using vague numbers and outright lies.

Why argue for better bus service if it can never provide the same reliability and frequency? Are there bus routes in other cities on 6 minute intervals? As someone who uses both bus and rail often, I've come to rely on the rail far more, and I'm not seeing how advocating for better bus service will ever surpass the reliability of rail (aside from those rare incidents where the rail is disabled).

Rail on a bad day has been better for me than buses on any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In New York there are routes that are on 1 minute intervals. Metro has run downtown and TMC shuttles on 5 minute intervals. Before the truncation of the 2, 4, 8, and 15 you had four routes (along with the 1 Hospital) that operated between downtown and the TMC at intervals of 6-10 minutes during rush hours making your wait time for a bus less than current wait times for a train and providing alternatives in case one route was late, delayed etc.

Once again you have not provided an example of an issue that light rail can solve that investment in the rehabilitation of the bus system cannot. Frequencies and trip times can be adjusted and dispatchers can be placed along bus routes to make sure they are operating as expected.

What can rail do that other cheaper options cannot?

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...