METRO Ridership From 1997 To 2012

[Houston19514]

Please research what has happened to Bogota. BRT is only a temporary solution. They are wanting rail now after only a few years. It's a band aid on a gaping wound.

Why don't you just tell us what happened to Bogota BRT?

[mfastx]

Why don't you just tell us what happened to Bogota BRT?

Bogota is famous for its BRT system. While it is a great system, now there are major capacity issues with it.

I think either earlier this year or last year there were major riots due to overcrowding.

[Slick Vik]

Bogota is famous for its BRT system. While it is a great system, now there are major capacity issues with it.

I think either earlier this year or last year there were major riots due to overcrowding.

It worked for a while but now they see rail is the long term solution.

[ToryGattis]

We're getting to the point of just agreeing to disagree on our opinions. A few items:

- Midtown has grown pretty much totally independently of the rail, and seems to be connected in almost no way. I discern no difference in its growth pattern before and after the LRT opened.

- I think it is crazy to expect commuters to ride heavy rail downtown at net speeds of 30-40mph, then transfer to ~17mph light rail to get to their actual job center (TMC, Uptown, Greenway). Commutes would easily top more than an hour each way, when an express bus could get them there in half that time, and get them right to their building as well without the walks and waits for transfers and stops.

- Bogota has a much, much larger transit dependent population, thus outstripping BRT capacity. Houston doesn't have that issue. Build it as BRT, if it's full in a couple decades, upgrade it to LRT and redeploy the BRT vehicles to new routes.

[TheNiche]

Please research what has happened to Bogota. BRT is only a temporary solution. They are wanting rail now after only a few years. It's a band aid on a gaping wound.

Bogota averages 11,162 residents per square mile over a land area of 613 square miles. That's about the same as the 3-square-mile zip code for Gulfton, 77081, the densest part of Houston. Houston averages 3,563 residents per square mile over a land area of 602 square miles. METRO's service area is 1,285 square miles, wherein the population density is far less; only 0.2% of that service area is as dense as all of Bogota.

If Bogota had a bad experience with BRT as their core transit network, I could certainly begin to understand why. It probably should not inform a decision that would affect Houston, Texas.

[RedScare]

- I think it is crazy to expect commuters to ride heavy rail downtown at net speeds of 30-40mph, then transfer to ~17mph light rail to get to their actual job center (TMC, Uptown, Greenway). Commutes would easily top more than an hour each way, when an express bus could get them there in half that time, and get them right to their building as well without the walks and waits for transfers and stops.

Why not? That is what they do every single day, twice a day now...on a bus. If you would actually look at the Park & Ride schedules, you'd see that the buses average 35-40 mph from the parking lot to the first stop in Downtown. They then proceed through Downtown at speeds equal to or slower than light rail. Anyone going to Uptown, TMC or Greenway must transfer to another bus to get there, with the exception of a couple of routes south and west. And the park & ride buses are at the mercy of every HOV accident, a not uncommon occurrence.

Every time you tout buses over rail, you suggest that buses average 60 mph, when that is in fact top speed on Houston freeways, and the buses travel city streets at either end of the route. You also try to depress train speeds by claiming they have to make too many stops, when commuter trains have limited stops. But, METRO has a park&ride schedule that sets the record straight every time. By the way, the Kingsland to TMC route takes well in excess of an hour, topping out at 1 hour 21 minutes during rush hour. How long would it take to take Kingsland to downtown, and light rail to TMC? 62 minutes, a savings of 19 minutes over your "express bus". This is already occurring daily, not a blog fantasy.

Kingsland - TMC

http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/Pdfs/tmccorridor.pdf

Kingsland/Downtown - Light Rail to TMC

http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/Pdfs/katycorridor.pdf

http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/Pdfs/700-redline.pdf

[ToryGattis]

Why not? That is what they do every single day, twice a day now...on a bus. If you would actually look at the Park & Ride schedules, you'd see that the buses average 35-40 mph from the parking lot to the first stop in Downtown. They then proceed through Downtown at speeds equal to or slower than light rail. Anyone going to Uptown, TMC or Greenway must transfer to another bus to get there, with the exception of a couple of routes south and west. And the park & ride buses are at the mercy of every HOV accident, a not uncommon occurrence.

Every time you tout buses over rail, you suggest that buses average 60 mph, when that is in fact top speed on Houston freeways, and the buses travel city streets at either end of the route. You also try to depress train speeds by claiming they have to make too many stops, when commuter trains have limited stops. But, METRO has a park&ride schedule that sets the record straight every time. By the way, the Kingsland to TMC route takes well in excess of an hour, topping out at 1 hour 21 minutes during rush hour. How long would it take to take Kingsland to downtown, and light rail to TMC? 62 minutes, a savings of 19 minutes over your "express bus". This is already occurring daily, not a blog fantasy.

Kingsland - TMC

http://www.ridemetro...tmccorridor.pdf

Kingsland/Downtown - Light Rail to TMC

http://www.ridemetro...atycorridor.pdf

http://www.ridemetro...700-redline.pdf

That's my point. We need a better lane network that can sustain higher speeds to non-downtown job centers and better nonstop options, optimally provided by private operators rather than Metro.

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2010/09/better-vision-for-metro.html

[RedScare]

That's my point. We need a better lane network that can sustain higher speeds to non-downtown job centers and better nonstop options, optimally provided by private operators rather than Metro.

http://houstonstrate...-for-metro.html

I see. We should spend $4 Billion redoing 290 so the buses can go faster, instead of $500 million for a train that is not burdened by the limited intelligence of driving commuters.

Sounds cost efficient to me.

[ToryGattis]

I see. We should spend $4 Billion redoing 290 so the buses can go faster, instead of $500 million for a train that is not burdened by the limited intelligence of driving commuters.

Sounds cost efficient to me.

Obviously, the 290 project is a general widening, not an HOV/HOT project. But even if you used those numbers and changed them to cost per passenger mile, I think you'd find the 290 project much, much cheaper than the train.

[RedScare]

But it won't make the buses any faster, a falsehood you've been repeating for years.

[kdog08]

That's my point. We need a better lane network that can sustain higher speeds to non-downtown job centers and better nonstop options, optimally provided by private operators rather than Metro.

http://houstonstrate...-for-metro.html

Look Tory, I've respected your blog for many years but you are increasingly trying to make the world fit into your own ideology. I'm not sure why you are stuck on promoting one form of transit besides that libertarians for whatever reason love buses.

[ToryGattis]

But it won't make the buses any faster, a falsehood you've been repeating for years.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that any bus that goes immediately from a P&R into an HOV/HOT lane and goes nonstop in a protected lane to its job center is going to be much, much faster than commuter rail with stops every few miles, not to mention if any transfers are involved. If they have bottlenecks or slow areas, those are the network improvements I'm talking about.

Look Tory, I've respected your blog for many years but you are increasingly try to make the world fit into your own ideology. I'm not sure why you are stuck on promoting one form of transit besides that libertarians for whatever reason love buses.

Actually, I think Metro and other transit agencies are the ones stuck on a single form of transit - rail. They all have New York envy. I'm just trying to work out the most efficient and cost-effective solutions. Occasionally, that's even rail, witnessed by my support of the Main St. and Universities LRT lines. But generally, for a decentralized, low density, post-WW2 city like Houston, it's not.

[kylejack]

Actually, I think Metro and other transit agencies are the ones stuck on a single form of transit - rail.

They continue to promote light rail, bus service, and vanpools. I'm glad they do, because all three benefit me personally.

[kdog08]

Actually, I think Metro and other transit agencies are the ones stuck on a single form of transit - rail. They all have New York envy.

Perhaps. But you are certainly with them. It's not New York envy, it's just that buses aren't sexy. But let's not act like rail is some on size fits all solution or that BRT is.

I'm just trying to work out the most efficient and cost-effective solutions. Occasionally, that's even rail, witnessed by my support of the Main St. and Universities LRT lines. But generally, for a decentralized, low density, post-WW2 city like Houston, it's not.

Yes but are you focusing on today or tomorrow? I don't have any notions that Houston will develop New Yorkesque. But I actually do see LAesque in its future. We don't have the overall density or geographic constraints, but we do have a mini LA inside the beltway.

Personally, I believe Houston needs to finish the rail expansion (I could have certainly done with only Main St, University, and Uptown Lines), at least double P&R (expanding it to Westchase, Energy Corridor, and Greenspoint for starters), and increase bus service. Not to mention our highway and road infrastructure needs to get upgraded and expanded. It will cost a lot of money, no doubt. I don't see the point in your strategy Tory, it's stuck in today. I'd rather bet that Houston will continue to grow and bet for the future.

[TheNiche]

Look Tory, I've respected your blog for many years but you are increasingly try to make the world fit into your own ideology. I'm not sure why you are stuck on promoting one form of transit besides that libertarians for whatever reason love buses.

"Look kdog08, I've respected your comments for many days but you are increasingly try to make the world fit into your own ideology. i'm not sure why you are stuck on promoting one form of transit besides that [Republi-crat-ian-ists] for whatever reason like [whatever you like as an individual]."

^ See, now doesn't that kind of a statement seem silly? You hold reasoned opinions, and so does Tory. You don't see eye to eye, and therefore each of you appears biased because you actually are both biased in favor of the opinions that you hold.

It is my opinion that abortions have the long-term effect of lowering crime, reducing mental illness, increasing wage rates, decreasing the cost of healthcare, and reducing demand for government services, which means that there can be less spending, and that we can expect lower taxes. It probably would be worthwhile to provide public subsidy. And the sorts of people that would most typically use abortion tend not to vote Republican; their children probably wouldn't either. So...any relevant political party should support abortion for the sake of both principle and reasoned self-interest. Instead, if there were an opinion poll, I'd be despised by all of America and would be labeled every which way, accused of bias in favor of my own opinion on behalf of the people that individuals have convinced themselves that they should despise.

It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs of this thread, interactive media, and our society as a whole that such a tremendous amount of oppositional thought goes toward subverting intellectual thought.

[RedScare]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that any bus that goes immediately from a P&R into an HOV/HOT lane and goes nonstop in a protected lane to its job center is going to be much, much faster than commuter rail with stops every few miles, not to mention if any transfers are involved. If they have bottlenecks or slow areas, those are the network improvements I'm talking about.

Then why don't you prove it with real life examples and schedules, like I did on your blog (which you ignored) several years ago. But, since you probably don't remember, and most posters here do not read you blog, I'll post them again. Now, keep in mind that you must slant every advantage in favor of buses that you can think of, such as non-stop, HOT lanes, and the bus parking lot right next to the freeway, while giving commuter rail every disadvantage, such as stops every few miles. But, I will go with your apples to oranges comparison.

Kingsland P&R to Smith at Prairie via Houston's most modern freeway, the $2.8 Billion Katy.

Distance: 26.6 miles

Trip time at 7:58 am: 34 minutes

Avg. speed: 46.9 mph

Trinity Rail Express

Distance: 27.2 miles

Trip time at 7:41 am: 38 minutes

Avg. speed: 42.9 mph

So, the non-stop bus arrives 4 minutes sooner than the commuter train that serves 7 STATIONS. I'd hardly call that "much much faster". Make sure that when you give your next presentation on how cheap buses are, you include 5 extra bus routes to make it apples to apples.

Trinity Railway heading east to Dallas is even faster. From Richland Hills to Victory Station is 28.6 miles. The trip takes 37 minutes during rush hour, an average speed of 46.3 mph. That is nearly identical to the Kingsland non-stop, even though the train serves 7 stations.

Now, let's look at that same Kingsland P&R that stops at just 2 extra stops, while still using the Katy HOT lane.

Trip time: 40 minutes

Avg. speed: 39.9 mph

So, the commuter rail serving 7 stations is still faster than the bus serving only 4. And, this is on Houston's best freeway. The Cypress P&R, travelling 27.7 miles, takes 44 minutes, for a 37.7 mph average. Not only is it not "much much faster", it is much slower.

Real numbers from real life.

[TheNiche]

Then why don't you prove it with real life examples and schedules, like I did on your blog (which you ignored) several years ago. But, since you probably don't remember, and most posters here do not read you blog, I'll post them again. Now, keep in mind that you must slant every advantage in favor of buses that you can think of, such as non-stop, HOT lanes, and the bus parking lot right next to the freeway, while giving commuter rail every disadvantage, such as stops every few miles. But, I will go with your apples to oranges comparison.

Kingsland P&R to Smith at Prairie via Houston's most modern freeway, the $2.8 Billion Katy.

Distance: 26.6 miles

Trip time at 7:58 am: 34 minutes

Avg. speed: 46.9 mph

Trinity Rail Express

Distance: 27.2 miles

Trip time at 7:41 am: 38 minutes

Avg. speed: 42.9 mph

So, the non-stop bus arrives 4 minutes sooner than the commuter train that serves 7 STATIONS. I'd hardly call that "much much faster". Make sure that when you give your next presentation on how cheap buses are, you include 5 extra bus routes to make it apples to apples.

Now, let's look at that same Kingsland P&R that stops at just 2 extra stops, while still using the Katy HOT lane.

Trip time: 40 minutes

Avg. speed: 39.9 mph

So, the commuter rail serving 7 stations is still faster than the bus serving only 4. And, this is on Houston's best freeway. The Cypress P&R, travelling 27.7 miles, takes 44 minutes, for a 37.7 mph average. Not only is it not "much much faster", it is much slower.

Real numbers from real life.

Eight hundred sixty three is a real number, too, at least in my life.

So how about you compare the capital and operating costs of those two modes of transportation, allocating the costs of P&R guideways so as to exclude non-P&R traffic that shares the same infrastructure? Accounting for that, what is the comparative cost per passenger and passenger-mile of each technology? What is the threshold of passenger volume at which one technology overtakes the other in terms of efficiency? Given changes to historical commuting patterns and patterns of real estate development for any given route, how long would it take for the technology that is more efficient when used at higher capacities to become more efficient in practice than the rival technology (or has that point already been reached)?

Let's say that rail costs more in most circumstances than P&R using buses. What if the difference between them was still budgeted for so that we can compare the benefits achieved by the same increment of expenditure. What would the difference buy for the rival technology? Perhaps it would increase the frequency of the more efficient mode. Perhaps it could be spent on advertising and public relations. For P&R, perhaps there would be an option of running vanpools in the same P&R lots and guideways...sort of like commuter-piloted short-buses for people that don't want to wait or that want to go directly to the same fairly obscure employment center (like Brookhollow or Allen Parkway). Let's weigh all the options.

[RedScare]

Why change the subject? Tory claimed buses were faster than commuter rail. I addressed his actual statements, rather than move the goalposts, as he and now you, are doing. Is bus transit so indefensible that you guys have to keep changing the rules and equations to make it look good?

[TheNiche]

Why change the subject? Tory claimed buses were faster than commuter rail. I addressed his actual statements, rather than move the goalposts, as he and now you, are doing. Is bus transit so indefensible that you guys have to keep changing the rules and equations to make it look good?

I don't care. You were talking to Tory. Now I'm talking to you.

[kdog08]

"Look kdog08, I've respected your comments for many days but you are increasingly try to make the world fit into your own ideology. i'm not sure why you are stuck on promoting one form of transit besides that [Republi-crat-ian-ists] for whatever reason like [whatever you like as an individual]."

^ See, now doesn't that kind of a statement seem silly? You hold reasoned opinions, and so does Tory. You don't see eye to eye, and therefore each of you appears biased because you actually are both biased in favor of the opinions that you hold.

Well see Niche, there is something called context. In this context I was referring to the individual Tory who maintains a blog about Houston Strategies. A blog that I've read over the years and enjoyed. I was merely commenting about this individual's increasingly narrow focus. Considering I've spoken for finding a compromise between the sides I found it amusing you make such a comment since I don't maintain any sort Houston strategies type blog that I am aware of. But hey nice try butting in.

It is my opinion that abortions have the long-term effect of lowering crime, reducing mental illness, increasing wage rates, decreasing the cost of healthcare, and reducing demand for government services, which means that there can be less spending, and that we can expect lower taxes. It probably would be worthwhile to provide public subsidy. And the sorts of people that would most typically use abortion tend not to vote Republican; their children probably wouldn't either. So...any relevant political party should support abortion for the sake of both principle and reasoned self-interest. Instead, if there were an opinion poll, I'd be despised by all of America and would be labeled every which way, accused of bias in favor of my own opinion on behalf of the people that individuals have convinced themselves that they should despise.

It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs of this thread, interactive media, and our society as a whole that such a tremendous amount of oppositional thought goes toward subverting intellectual thought.

Kay.

[kdog08]

I don't care. You were talking to Tory. Now I'm talking to you.

No you're butting in again and trying to change the discussion. The goal posts were set momentarily, as Redscare alluded to, but we can move them for you if you need,

[TheNiche]

No you're butting in again and trying to change the discussion. The goal posts were set momentarily, as Redscare alluded to, but we can move them for you if you need,

Yes please. Distort your general reality by way of my special reality at my beck and call.

[mfastx]

We're getting to the point of just agreeing to disagree on our opinions. A few items:

Yup, that's basically what it boils down to every time. I don't think anyone's mind has ever changed on a forum.

- I think it is crazy to expect commuters to ride heavy rail downtown at net speeds of 30-40mph, then transfer to ~17mph light rail to get to their actual job center (TMC, Uptown, Greenway). Commutes would easily top more than an hour each way, when an express bus could get them there in half that time, and get them right to their building as well without the walks and waits for transfers and stops.

I will say that the 290 line would have a stop at the Northwest transit center where riders could take the Uptown line down a few stops to the Galleria area. So they wouldn't have to go all the way into downtown.

I think the point of commuter rail is to transport riders more efficiently, not necessarily to transport them faster. I do think you might be exaggerating a bit on saying that P&R buses take half the time, but that's just my opinion.

Cheers

[mfastx]

Obviously, the 290 project is a general widening, not an HOV/HOT project. But even if you used those numbers and changed them to cost per passenger mile, I think you'd find the 290 project much, much cheaper than the train.

One last point - I believe that in "cost per passenger mile" commuter rail has an advantage over buses. I recall seeing that in the NTD statistics for 2010.

[Slick Vik]

Why change the subject? Tory claimed buses were faster than commuter rail. I addressed his actual statements, rather than move the goalposts, as he and now you, are doing. Is bus transit so indefensible that you guys have to keep changing the rules and equations to make it look good?

These people don't even ride the bus

[RedScare]

One last point - I believe that in "cost per passenger mile" commuter rail has an advantage over buses. I recall seeing that in the NTD statistics for 2010.

If you factor the added costs to build the HOV/HOT lanes into the Katy Freeway versus the daily users of the lanes, you'll find that the "cost per user" likely far exceeds that of commuter rail. Of the $2.8 Billion total cost of rebuilding the Katy Freeway, $500 million went for buying additional land along the feeder roads for expansion. Additionally, HCTRA chipped in $500 million for HOV/HOT lane construction. Since there would have been little need for additional right of way if the expansive HOV/HOT lanes were not added (look at Google Maps to see how much space HOT lanes take up), it can be argued that the added cost of HOT lanes was $1 Billion at minimum.

Commuter rail compares very favorably, at $544 million in construction costs. And, commuter rail has higher capacity. The HOT lanes carry 1,500 vehicles during rush hour. Any more vehicles causes a rather drastic drop in average speeds. Even at that volume, vehicle speeds drop to about 56 mph during rush hour. The Trinity Railway in Dallas/Fort Worth reaches speeds of 63 mph, with plans to reach 79 mph. These speeds are unaffected by rush hour, as no other vehicles are on the track. Further restrictions on HOT lane capacity come from the number of single occupant vehicles using the lane.

Left unsaid is the loss of revenue from the nearly 40% of daily users who do not pay the HOT lane tolls, further lowering any perceived advantage of HOT lanes over commuter rail.

Source for speed and usage numbers: http://houstonvaluepricing.tamu.edu/reports/documents/techmemo_1.pdf

[kdog08]

Yes please. Distort your general reality by way of my special reality at my beck and call.

Haha. So you got nothing then...

[IHB2]

These people don't even ride the bus

haha so true!

but, "these people" pay taxes that not only pay for the bus/train/whatever and whatever they roll on, but also subsidize the riders of these systems.

so discussion, even argument, seems like an absolutely necessary exercise.

[kdog08]

haha so true!

but, "these people" pay taxes that not only pay for the bus/train/whatever and whatever they roll on, but also subsidize the riders of these systems.

so discussion, even argument, seems like an absolutely necessary exercise.

Of course it's necessary, but now is not the time to go cheap with exclusively buses.

[Slick Vik]

Of course it's necessary, but now is not the time to go cheap with exclusively buses.

It's an issue of right of way and comfort as well