METRO Ridership From 1997 To 2012

[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,

Edited July 27, 2012 by kdog08

[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

Edited July 27, 2012 by RedScare

[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.

Edited July 27, 2012 by kdog08

[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

[Houston19514]

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.

Very interesting and useful discussion. But I'm trying to make sense of your schedule numbers. Some of them appear to be incorrect.

Metro P&R: The 7:58 Kingsland P&R bus is scheduled to arrive at Smith & Prairie at 8:28. Exactly 30 minutes; not 34 minutes. Assuming your 26.6 miles is accurate, that gives us 53.2 MPH, not, the 46.9 MPH you quoted.

TRE: I can't determine which stations you are proposing to travel between in your TRE example because there is no 7:41 westbound departure in the TRE schedule. It seems reasonable to compare full route to full route. So I looked at going from Dallas Union Station to the Ft. Worth Intermodal Transportation Center. The distance between the Dallas and Ft. Worth stations (straight shot along I-30, not following the train tracks, because that the straight shot distance is what the passenger is interested in travelling; the fact that the train takes a slightly roundabout route and covers more miles is irrelevant to the passenger) is 31.5 miles. The 7:45 train from Union Station takes 1:02 to get to Fort Worth T&P Station. 30.5 MPH.

Union Station to the Hurst/Bell Station is closer to the mileage you quoted (I will use your 27.2 miles) and it would be 7 stations total, as you discussed. But the travel time at 7:45 AM is 41 minutes, not 38. 39.8 MPH, not 42.9.

Real Numbers from Real Life. ;-)

[ToryGattis]

Thanks for the hard numbers, Houston19514. Also, I'd like to point out that the Kingsland P&R scenario gets people to an actual destination downtown with numerous office buildings within a few blocks. The old I10 commuter rail idea would have stopped at a station at the very northern edge of downtown, requiring either a very long walk or a local transfer. Add 10-15 minutes, minimum.

[RedScare]

Yeah, Houston 19514 really busted me. I decided to show the 7:05 am leg in order to show that the HOT lane bogs down during the heaviest rush hour, making the bus trip longer, but at 11:47 pm, I didn't change all of my data points. The 7:58 am leg is indeed 30 minutes, but the 7:05 am leg is 33 minutes, for an average speed of 48.3 mph. The afternoon rush hour is worse, taking 35 minutes, for an average speed of 45.6 mph.

As for the Trinity Railway, I used Victory Station instead of Union Station, since they are less than a mile apart, and I thought even Tory would not wish to so slant the numbers as to artificially deflate them with 2 stops right next to each other. Apparently, Houston 19514 doesn't mind doing that though. Remember, this entire exercise is premised on Tory's bus being a non-stop starting and ending right next to a freeway. And it only beats the multi-stop train by a few minutes. Remember, Tory said "half the time" and "much much faster". Neither phrase is accurate.

However, I also wish to thank Houston 19514 for actually doing the math as opposed to giving his opinion based on what he wanted the numbers to be. That was the whole point of my post.

Edited July 27, 2012 by RedScare

[ToryGattis]

Remember, this entire exercise is premised on Tory's bus being a non-stop starting and ending right next to a freeway.

Remember, Tory said "half the time" and "much much faster". Neither phrase is accurate.

Almost all P&Rs are right next to or very close to the freeway. I am not counting on it ending next to a freeway, since the bus can circulate among the buildings of a job center - a major advantage over rail.

I still believe that both of those statements are approximately true when you consider the total time of getting to the typical actual end point office building destination, considering all transfers and walks that would be required from commuter rail.

[mfastx]

Almost all P&Rs are right next to or very close to the freeway. I am not counting on it ending next to a freeway, since the bus can circulate among the buildings of a job center - a major advantage over rail.

I still believe that both of those statements are approximately true when you consider the total time of getting to the typical actual end point office building destination, considering all transfers and walks that would be required from commuter rail.

My question is: are they efficient? As mentioned numerous times, the P&R system cost METRO a billion dollars. And yet the number of riders it carries quite frankly isn't that much, less than the light rail in fact. Not sure if that's enough riders to justify spending billions of dollars.

And I also would like to know how efficient the P&R buses are in terms of operating costs. Yes, they can circulate through job centers and drop off passengers in front of their buildings, but can they do that efficiently? If each P&R bus has its own specific route through a cluster of buildings, then it would seem like it would only cater to a few passengers. On the other hand, one commuter rail line to Downtown, Uptown, or the TMC would cater to a much larger spectrum of passengers. Therefore, commuter rail, while requiring a transfer in most cases, transports passengers more efficiently than specialized buses.

Have you thought about that?

[RedScare]

Almost all P&Rs are right next to or very close to the freeway. I am not counting on it ending next to a freeway, since the bus can circulate among the buildings of a job center - a major advantage over rail.

I still believe that both of those statements are approximately true when you consider the total time of getting to the typical actual end point office building destination, considering all transfers and walks that would be required from commuter rail.

So, after using a non-stop bus to show that it beats a commuter train making 6 stops by 4 or 5 minutes in order to make your point, you now want to pull a bait and switch and claim the bus can make numerous stops and still be quicker than the train? Nope. Not gonna happen. Again, I refer you to the actual bus schedule that shows the trip to TMC takes an hour and 13 minutes. A person can take the P&R to downtown, transfer to the Red Line and be at the TMC in 53 minutes...59, if they have to wait the entire 6 minutes for the train.

Regardless your beliefs, today, in Houston, the train is faster than the P&R.

[ToryGattis]

My question is: are they efficient? As mentioned numerous times, the P&R system cost METRO a billion dollars. And yet the number of riders it carries quite frankly isn't that much, less than the light rail in fact. Not sure if that's enough riders to justify spending billions of dollars.

And I also would like to know how efficient the P&R buses are in terms of operating costs. Yes, they can circulate through job centers and drop off passengers in front of their buildings, but can they do that efficiently? If each P&R bus has its own specific route through a cluster of buildings, then it would seem like it would only cater to a few passengers. On the other hand, one commuter rail line to Downtown, Uptown, or the TMC would cater to a much larger spectrum of passengers. Therefore, commuter rail, while requiring a transfer in most cases, transports passengers more efficiently than specialized buses.

Have you thought about that?

I actually don't know what the P&R system cost. It would be very difficult to tease out from the general freeway construction, as well as take in account all the cars and vanpools that also use it.

One of the other great things about buses is the relatively small increments of people (vs. trains), so they can run more frequently and have differing routes based on demand, serving the exact destinations people need. That also means that you can design the bus route to attract a full bus load, whether that means a single stop at the job center, or circulating to multiple stops. And you can add more buses easily if the route grows in popularity.

BTW, from what I've seen in the past, commuter rail is only more cost efficient when the massive capital expenses are excluded and they run nearly full. This often leads to hard tradeoffs like running them less frequently but full for efficiency, or more frequently but not full for convenience. Again, buses can be deployed in more finely grained increments.

So, after using a non-stop bus to show that it beats a commuter train making 6 stops by 4 or 5 minutes in order to make your point, you now want to pull a bait and switch and claim the bus can make numerous stops and still be quicker than the train? Nope. Not gonna happen. Again, I refer you to the actual bus schedule that shows the trip to TMC takes an hour and 13 minutes. A person can take the P&R to downtown, transfer to the Red Line and be at the TMC in 53 minutes...59, if they have to wait the entire 6 minutes for the train.

Regardless your beliefs, today, in Houston, the train is faster than the P&R.

TMC is one of the job centers that I mentioned being grossly underserved by the existing downtown-centric HOV/HOT network, which needs improvement.

[MetroMogul]

The park and ride system costs Metro a billion dollars? COME ON

Oh, and on the original subject of Metro bus ridership numbers, you know, the topic before this turned into the usual bus vs. rail catfight (don't worry girls, I got the oil ready), it just vindicates what I've said in previous threads; once Metro shifted focus from a multi-modal, bus focused transit agency to an agency that's deluded itself into believing it runs a rail empire, bus service was cut and ridership suffered. I remember our friend mfastx stated that if bus service increased there would be NO additional ridership, none. But just looking at these figures one has to think that if when you reduce bus service ridership drops, shouldn't it too increase if you expand service? I know that line of thinking is probably some form of logical fallacy but it makes sense on even the most base level, if you build it someone will come. Now whether it's worth building for these somebodies we can argue all day and night about, and depending on what's being built, we will.

[RedScare]

Actually, the park & ride system has very likely cost well in excess of $1 Billion to build. Consider that there are 29 park & ride lots, virtually all impressively built, with paved parking lots, covered waiting areas, many with concrete flyovers to HOV lanes, all of which were originally built to serve the park & ride fleet. The park & ride system began in the early 1980s, and has been continually upgraded ever since. If it is not a multi-billion dollar investment at this point, I would be stunned.

And, make no mistake. It is very likely the best money METRO has ever spent. Nothing METRO has ever done rivals the success of the park & ride system. This brings us to an important point. None of my previous posts should be construed as slamming the park & ride system. Far from it. I am a big supporter of the park & ride, and have been ever since I used to use the Kuykendahl bus to attend law school downtown in 1984. I have fond memories of the bus ride.

However, the park & ride has its limitations,,,as do commuter trains. The bus, by virtue of its interaction with vehicular traffic, bogs down when traffic bogs down. And HOV lanes built to handle buses are not free. There is infrastructure involved in park & rides, just as there is in commuter rail. My annoyance comes when advocates of one or the other attempt to ignore, or outright fabricate statements that one mode or the other does not have its obvious limitations. When that happens, I tend to respond, sometimes forcefully. When someone claims that a bus in traffic is faster than a train on a dedicated track, I call it out. When someone tries to ignore the substantial upfront investment in rail infrastructure, it should be called out. But, we shouldn't act like the park & ride infrastructure was free either. The Katy Freeway HOV/HOT lanes are 4 lanes wide, with 2 shoulder lanes. That is a total of 6 freeway lanes 23 miles long dedicated to HOV. When you consider that the mainlanes consist of 5 lanes each direction plus 4 shoulder lanes, then 6 of 20 total lanes are dedicated to HOV. That's 30% of the total cost of the Katy renovation.

In assessing the value of commuter rail, it cannot be justified to spend money simply to replace an already built and paid for HOV and park & ride system. The justification for commuter rail must come from future transit needs. All of Houston's freeways will eventually reach capacity. If the population growth predictions for the area are true, we will add several million people by 2030. Most will end up in the north, northwest, west and southwest part of the metro, meaning that I-45, 290, I-10 and 59 will be over capacity. Given that land condemnation for the Katy cost $500 million 5 years ago, how many billion will it take to acquire land to expand 45, 59, 290, and 10 again? That's before any concrete is poured. Does $554 million for a fully functional commuter train sound worth it now?

A commuter train can carry 600 passengers or more per train. They can take every single bus off the HOV, allowing more passenger vehicles to use it, in addition to the fewer traffic lanes needed by commuters who take the train. Those who believe that we will be able to continually expand the freeways in the face of our projected population increases have their heads in the sand, or are being intentionally ignorant, or both.

[mfastx]

The park and ride system costs Metro a billion dollars? COME ON

It did easily.

Oh, and on the original subject of Metro bus ridership numbers, you know, the topic before this turned into the usual bus vs. rail catfight (don't worry girls, I got the oil ready), it just vindicates what I've said in previous threads; once Metro shifted focus from a multi-modal, bus focused transit agency to an agency that's deluded itself into believing it runs a rail empire, bus service was cut and ridership suffered. I remember our friend mfastx stated that if bus service increased there would be NO additional ridership, none. But just looking at these figures one has to think that if when you reduce bus service ridership drops, shouldn't it too increase if you expand service? I know that line of thinking is probably some form of logical fallacy but it makes sense on even the most base level, if you build it someone will come. Now whether it's worth building for these somebodies we can argue all day and night about, and depending on what's being built, we will.

Haha, oh come on now!!

Of course there may be some ridership increase, but not any meaningful increase. Simply adding buses isn't going to increase ridership. We have been doing that for 30 years.

Buses have had their chance since 1978. It's time to try something new.

[TheNiche]

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.

Yes, the NTD stats only consider operating costs, not capital costs. I'm asking for a less superficial analysis of the issues.

[TheNiche]

Regardless your beliefs, today, in Houston, the train is faster than the P&R.

Well yeah, that's your opponent's point is that the buses would be perfectly competitive (and serving a larger area) if money had not been allocated to light rail.

[RedScare]

Yes, the NTD stats only consider operating costs, not capital costs. I'm asking for a less superficial analysis of the issues.

Here are the results of one blogger's attempt to quantify these costs. The blogger is the Anti-Planner, no less, and his research showed that bus operating cost are as much as double those for commuter rail on a per passenger mile basis. While capital costs are nearly double ($0.26 to $0.14), when combined with the operating costs, commuter rail ends up less expensive on a cost per passenger mile basis, at $0.65 to $0.92.

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=88

You can use that as a starting point. But, certainly, any argument for commuter bus service that includes running the buses down a dedicated HOV/HOT lane in order to improve its average speed must include the cost of designing and building that HOV/HOT lane, as well as the cost of additional land required to place those lanes in the middle of the freeway. Attempts to ignore those costs are intellectually dishonest, since any rail discussion pretty much begins and ends with the capital costs. This is all to common in discussions involving highways and buses. It is similar to the hidden cost of suburban living, where home buyers seldom consider the cost of travelling back into town to work.

[MetroMogul]

It did easily.

Haha, oh come on now!!

Of course there may be some ridership increase, but not any meaningful increase. Simply adding buses isn't going to increase ridership. We have been doing that for 30 years.

Buses have had their chance since 1978. It's time to try something new.

Do you know how much Metro's ridership increased in the first twenty years of bus only options? The staggering, year by year, decreases in ridership come only after Metro focuses on building out the rail system to the detriment of the bus system. The numbers, of which you are so fond of, do not lie.

Metro's investment in buses bore fruit to the tune of 100 million boardings at it's peak. Metro's foray into rail empires has only produced resentment, bungling, scandal, low morale and decreased ridership.

[TheNiche]

Here are the results of one blogger's attempt to quantify these costs. The blogger is the Anti-Planner, no less, and his research showed that bus operating cost are as much as double those for commuter rail on a per passenger mile basis. While capital costs are nearly double ($0.26 to $0.14), when combined with the operating costs, commuter rail ends up less expensive on a cost per passenger mile basis, at $0.65 to $0.92.

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=88

You can use that as a starting point. But, certainly, any argument for commuter bus service that includes running the buses down a dedicated HOV/HOT lane in order to improve its average speed must include the cost of designing and building that HOV/HOT lane, as well as the cost of additional land required to place those lanes in the middle of the freeway. Attempts to ignore those costs are intellectually dishonest, since any rail discussion pretty much begins and ends with the capital costs. This is all to common in discussions involving highways and buses. It is similar to the hidden cost of suburban living, where home buyers seldom consider the cost of travelling back into town to work.

Good article! Interesting that it seems to independently conclude that reforms to the way that we do transit need to be the priority. It's nice to have a little independent validation on one of my key points about METRO, its organization, and its funding.

That said, it is difficult to say anything about P&R costs by looking at bus costs cited within. I know that P&R operating costs and local bus service will have vastly different cost characteristics. (I used to have a huge spreadsheet from METRO, a draft document for internal use only, that broke out the operating costs for P&R from buses. Unfortunately, that hard drive crashed.) As for the capital costs, it's just too difficult to tease P&R away from the HOV program (which is also METRO's responsibility but for which no official ridership data is available), as well as from HCTRA involvement and also just the general project costs...of which a portion of those costs are fixed costs or variable costs that use different coefficients.

So here's my thinking. If HOV lanes make sense on their own without a P&R program, and there's spare capacity on HOV lanes even with a P&R program that is sufficient enough to open them up to toll-paying single-occupant vehicles, then essentially the P&R program would have the same capital costs as local buses and probably much lower operating costs per mile or per passenger mile. If the infrastructure would already be there, then we should use it. The same could be said if the reverse case were true, that HOV were an added benefit of a P&R program on its own guideway. Whatever the case, its possible that these P&R, HOV, and HOT programs only make sense if they are bundled and make no sense if they are un-bundled. And if commuter rail is preferable to P&R (and I'm not conceding that it is), it could still unravel the bundle.

If, then, maybe. It's all reasoned speculation, but that much would be true for both sides. Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

[RedScare]

Good points, but there are some obvious obstacles to "free" HOV lanes for P&R buses. Primarily, buses take up space that could be used by toll paying vehicles. The P&R buses travel free, are larger and more cumbersome in operating characteristics, and so therefore, reduce HOT lane capacity. There is, of course, some obvious capital costs for P&Rs. There are the buses, complete with maintenance and limited lifespans. There are parking lots, with cost of land , as well as paving, structures and flyovers to the HOV lanes.

So, there are not insignificant cost to the P&R that are largely ignored when trumpeting their efficiency. Not to mention that if P&R buses were dispatched to various employment centers and buildings, as advocated by Mr. Gattis, efficiencies will drop substantially. Currently, the buses run almost exclusively to downtown. There are enough riders to keep most of the buses full. They do not run all day. But, vary from that efficient model by running to smaller markets, and the efficiency crashes. Again, this is not an insignificant cost, as more buses and more labor is required to carry small numbers of people. They also have to run often enough to allow flexible ridership options.

That is a bit off the current topic of how to gauge the cost of the current P&R, but since it is often trumpeted as an advantage, it should be noted. Honestly, the need for the University and Uptown rail lines is most pronounced when discussing commuter rail/P&R options. Both buses and trains could stop at the Northwest Transit Center and Downtown to feed the light rail system, getting more commuters to more employment centers. Free trolleys in downtown, TMC and Uptown (Greenway doesn't need one) could drop commuters very close to their building. A comprehensive plan like that could get suburban commuters excited about transit.

Edited July 28, 2012 by RedScare

[Pleak]

Somewhat related question. The new HOT lanes on the Southwest and Gulf Freeways. Are they a Metro creation? Or a HCTRA creation?

[ToryGattis]

Here are the results of one blogger's attempt to quantify these costs. The blogger is the Anti-Planner, no less, and his research showed that bus operating cost are as much as double those for commuter rail on a per passenger mile basis. While capital costs are nearly double ($0.26 to $0.14), when combined with the operating costs, commuter rail ends up less expensive on a cost per passenger mile basis, at $0.65 to $0.92.

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=88

You can use that as a starting point. But, certainly, any argument for commuter bus service that includes running the buses down a dedicated HOV/HOT lane in order to improve its average speed must include the cost of designing and building that HOV/HOT lane, as well as the cost of additional land required to place those lanes in the middle of the freeway. Attempts to ignore those costs are intellectually dishonest, since any rail discussion pretty much begins and ends with the capital costs. This is all to common in discussions involving highways and buses. It is similar to the hidden cost of suburban living, where home buyers seldom consider the cost of travelling back into town to work.

First, it's worth keeping in mind that those bus numbers include low efficiency local routes that cover a transit agency's service area. They run the buses as a public service even if there are only a handful of riders. This should not be the case with P&R, where schedules and routes should be adjustable to keep the buses reasonably full. If Metro encouraged more private operators, we might see smaller buses/shuttles that could more effectively serve the thinner routes. And I'd love to see 80+ person double-decker buses like Megabus has on the stronger routes.

Second, in Houston's specific case, we do have consider that the HOV/HOT lane network is an existing sunk cost, whereas commuter rail would be all new spending. It just makes sense to squeeze everything possible out of that lane network with incremental capital costs.

Third, keep in mind that the heavy/commuter rail numbers in that table are averages based on routes that can support that kind of investment, mostly in NYC, DC, Boston, and Chicago - older, denser cities with a far higher concentration of jobs downtown than Houston. Just because we decide to build commuter rail doesn't mean we can hit those cost numbers if we can't fill the trains - and run them frequently - the way those cities do to amortize those high capital costs. It's also worth pointing out here that HGAC forecasts show almost no job growth in downtown Houston over the next decade or two - it's almost all at the other job centers and spread around the metro area. In fact, if trends continue, the Med Center may eventually pass up downtown in total job count - and probably already surpasses downtown in total daily passenger trips (including non-employees like patients and visitors).

Fourth, I was surprised that the light rail numbers were so much higher than the heavy rail numbers. Seems counter-intuitive at first glance, but I guess not once you consider the street tracks vs. normal railroad rights of way.

Somewhat related question. The new HOT lanes on the Southwest and Gulf Freeways. Are they a Metro creation? Or a HCTRA creation?

Metro, with some federal funding and an agreement to use HCTRA's EZ-Tag system.

Edited July 28, 2012 by ToryGattis

[mfastx]

Do you know how much Metro's ridership increased in the first twenty years of bus only options? The staggering, year by year, decreases in ridership come only after Metro focuses on building out the rail system to the detriment of the bus system. The numbers, of which you are so fond of, do not lie.

I know that ridership hit its peak at just over 300,000, and it was at that level years after the light rail opened. I'd love to see numbers throughout the '80s as they don't seem to be available. I think there's many reasons why ridership has declined in recent years. I think in the long run, METRO will have a better transit system if they have a core high capacity rail system with buses complimenting it, and other cities have shown this to be true.

I am in favor of light rail and I am in favor of improving the bus system. I think that if we build light rail now, we can later make improvements to the bus system and end up with a better transit system than we would if we simply made improvements to the bus system.

Metro's investment in buses bore fruit to the tune of 100 million boardings at it's peak. Metro's foray into rail empires has only produced resentment, bungling, scandal, low morale and decreased ridership.

Haha, well I wouldn't go that far. I think that bad management has produced all of those things, not rail construction.

Second, in Houston's specific case, we do have consider that the HOV/HOT lane network is an existing sunk cost, whereas commuter rail would be all new spending. It just makes sense to squeeze everything possible out of that lane network with incremental capital costs.

Agreed, but we shall also consider future costs of maintaining/expanding the HOV network and determine if those costs would be greater than the one time capital cost of commuter rail. And we shall determine if in the long run, maintaining and operating a commuter rail system would be greater or less than doing the same for a P&R system. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, so I am on the fence about commuter rail vs. P&R, I'd have to do more research. Based on what I know now, I'd lean towards commuter rail for specific routes (like 290/Galveston) and P&R for other routes.

Third, keep in mind that the heavy/commuter rail numbers in that table are averages based on routes that can support that kind of investment, mostly in NYC, DC, Boston, and Chicago - older, denser cities with a far higher concentration of jobs downtown than Houston. Just because we decide to build commuter rail doesn't mean we can hit those cost numbers if we can't fill the trains - and run them frequently - the way those cities do to amortize those high capital costs. It's also worth pointing out here that HGAC forecasts show almost no job growth in downtown Houston over the next decade or two - it's almost all at the other job centers and spread around the metro area. In fact, if trends continue, the Med Center may eventually pass up downtown in total job count - and probably already surpasses downtown in total daily passenger trips (including non-employees like patients and visitors).

Actually Chicago is the same age as us but I get your point. Although those cities mentioned have many commuter rail lines, and here in Houston we are only proposing a few (lines where we think would generate the ridership to justify it. I keep going back to the 290 commuter rail line because it can take both commuters to Uptown and downtown. Uptown is the perfect place for light rail because it's linear, one light rail line and you can access most of Uptown from the Northwest transit center.. and downtown has the trolley (as mentioned by Red) and another light rail line.

Fourth, I was surprised that the light rail numbers were so much higher than the heavy rail numbers. Seems counter-intuitive at first glance, but I guess not once you consider the street tracks vs. normal railroad rights of way.

Well there are two types of "heavy rail." Commuter rail will generally have less riderhsip than a local rail system, whether it be light rail or heavy rail. While commuter rail is "heavy" rail, "heavy rail" is usually referred to a local METRORail system, like the ones in DC, Atlanta, Miami, New York, etc.

Edited July 28, 2012 by mfastx

[kylejack]

You guys hotlinked those charts of ridership. They've been deleted and are no longer available. Better to upload them to an image host, like imgur.com.

[mfastx]

You guys hotlinked those charts of ridership. They've been deleted and are no longer available. Better to upload them to an image host, like imgur.com.

Sorry about that, I'm the only one that created charts, lol. I'll re-upload them.

[Slick Vik]

Actually, the park & ride system has very likely cost well in excess of $1 Billion to build. Consider that there are 29 park & ride lots, virtually all impressively built, with paved parking lots, covered waiting areas, many with concrete flyovers to HOV lanes, all of which were originally built to serve the park & ride fleet. The park & ride system began in the early 1980s, and has been continually upgraded ever since. If it is not a multi-billion dollar investment at this point, I would be stunned.

And, make no mistake. It is very likely the best money METRO has ever spent. Nothing METRO has ever done rivals the success of the park & ride system. This brings us to an important point. None of my previous posts should be construed as slamming the park & ride system. Far from it. I am a big supporter of the park & ride, and have been ever since I used to use the Kuykendahl bus to attend law school downtown in 1984. I have fond memories of the bus ride.

However, the park & ride has its limitations,,,as do commuter trains. The bus, by virtue of its interaction with vehicular traffic, bogs down when traffic bogs down. And HOV lanes built to handle buses are not free. There is infrastructure involved in park & rides, just as there is in commuter rail. My annoyance comes when advocates of one or the other attempt to ignore, or outright fabricate statements that one mode or the other does not have its obvious limitations. When that happens, I tend to respond, sometimes forcefully. When someone claims that a bus in traffic is faster than a train on a dedicated track, I call it out. When someone tries to ignore the substantial upfront investment in rail infrastructure, it should be called out. But, we shouldn't act like the park & ride infrastructure was free either. The Katy Freeway HOV/HOT lanes are 4 lanes wide, with 2 shoulder lanes. That is a total of 6 freeway lanes 23 miles long dedicated to HOV. When you consider that the mainlanes consist of 5 lanes each direction plus 4 shoulder lanes, then 6 of 20 total lanes are dedicated to HOV. That's 30% of the total cost of the Katy renovation.

In assessing the value of commuter rail, it cannot be justified to spend money simply to replace an already built and paid for HOV and park & ride system. The justification for commuter rail must come from future transit needs. All of Houston's freeways will eventually reach capacity. If the population growth predictions for the area are true, we will add several million people by 2030. Most will end up in the north, northwest, west and southwest part of the metro, meaning that I-45, 290, I-10 and 59 will be over capacity. Given that land condemnation for the Katy cost $500 million 5 years ago, how many billion will it take to acquire land to expand 45, 59, 290, and 10 again? That's before any concrete is poured. Does $554 million for a fully functional commuter train sound worth it now?

A commuter train can carry 600 passengers or more per train. They can take every single bus off the HOV, allowing more passenger vehicles to use it, in addition to the fewer traffic lanes needed by commuters who take the train. Those who believe that we will be able to continually expand the freeways in the face of our projected population increases have their heads in the sand, or are being intentionally ignorant, or both.

Excellent post

[MetroMogul]

I know that ridership hit its peak at just over 300,000, and it was at that level years after the light rail opened.

2001 Q1 Daily Boardings = 361,600

2012 Q1 Daily Boardings = 276,500

That's a loss of 85,100 daily boardings. By the logic you have used in this and other threads, overall ridership should have increased instead of decline.

[kdog08]

Do you know how much Metro's ridership increased in the first twenty years of bus only options? The staggering, year by year, decreases in ridership come only after Metro focuses on building out the rail system to the detriment of the bus system. The numbers, of which you are so fond of, do not lie.

Metro's investment in buses bore fruit to the tune of 100 million boardings at it's peak. Metro's foray into rail empires has only produced resentment, bungling, scandal, low morale and decreased ridership.

Now only if our transit agency and city had the competence and foresight to simultaneously fund and expand both our bus and light rail system over decades.

[TheNiche]

2001 Q1 Daily Boardings = 361,600

2012 Q1 Daily Boardings = 276,500

That's a loss of 85,100 daily boardings. By the logic you have used in this and other threads, overall ridership should have increased instead of decline.

That's a superficial analysis, too. Even a reasonable correlation does not prove causation. It might be that the number of vehicles per household has increased as household incomes have increased or because newer vehicles have longer life expectancies...or perhaps it's the increasing necessity of a car to find employment...or perhaps because transit is inherently less convenient than single-occupant automotive transport under most circumstances.

To veer back on-topic, maybe the stats indicate that METRO is an increasingly obsolete entity. Perhaps our approaches to transportation should be wholly rethought so as to be more in line with the revealed preferences of commuters and employers in our region. Maybe we need more roads and less transit in general. At least for now...until transit utilization starts growing again.

[TheNiche]

Now only if our transit agency and city had the competence and foresight to simultaneously fund and expand both our bus and light rail system over decades.

I am wholly in disagreement with the notion that governmental bankruptcies should be allowed, and so I am in disagreement with you on this notion.

[Slick Vik]

That's a superficial analysis, too. Even a reasonable correlation does not prove causation. It might be that the number of vehicles per household has increased as household incomes have increased or because newer vehicles have longer life expectancies...or perhaps it's the increasing necessity of a car to find employment...or perhaps because transit is inherently less convenient than single-occupant automotive transport under most circumstances.

To veer back on-topic, maybe the stats indicate that METRO is an increasingly obsolete entity. Perhaps our approaches to transportation should be wholly rethought so as to be more in line with the revealed preferences of commuters and employers in our region. Maybe we need more roads and less transit in general. At least for now...until transit utilization starts growing again.

Are you Bob Lanier? And how can transit utilization grow without proper transit for the people?

[mfastx]

2001 Q1 Daily Boardings = 361,600

2012 Q1 Daily Boardings = 276,500

That's a loss of 85,100 daily boardings. By the logic you have used in this and other threads, overall ridership should have increased instead of decline.

Have you ever considered that METRO has lost ridership due to simply bad management? Perhaps this "New METRO" just doesn't know how to run a bus system. Ridership was holding steady at around 300,000+ until the whole Buy America scandal and the "New METRO" came about. That's when ridership declined.

In this thread, I made the point that aggressively expanding a rail system results in an increase in ridership. That logic doesn't apply to METRO, since we have not aggressively expanded our rail system yet.

I don't think building or investing in rail causes a decrease in bus ridership. If it did, we would be seeing declining ridership all over the country. We aren't. Everywhere else, both total riderhsip and bus riderhsip increase when rail is expanded. It's just declining lately here (and we haven't even expanded our rail yet). At this point we just have to ask ourselves what we are doing wrong. Investing in and expanding rail is not the problem.

Edited July 29, 2012 by mfastx

[IHB2]

Have you ever considered that METRO has lost ridership due to simply bad management? Perhaps this "New METRO" just doesn't know how to run a bus system. Ridership was holding steady at around 300,000+ until the whole Buy America scandal and the "New METRO" came about. That's when ridership declined...I don't think building or investing in rail causes a decrease in bus ridership...At this point we just have to ask ourselves what we are doing wrong. Investing in and expanding rail is not the problem.

By that logic, anyone that votes to give New METRO a .25% increase in taxpayer's money is a fool

[MetroMogul]

The "Buy America" scandal happened under the Wilson/Wolff regime, the "old" Metro. How can anyone take you seriously if you can't even get these simple facts straight?

[kylejack]

The "Buy America" scandal happened under the Wilson/Wolff regime, the "old" Metro. How can anyone take you seriously if you can't even get these simple facts straight?

The poster did not say it happened under the New Metro, he said that ridership declined when the Buy America scandal and the New Metro rebranding happened. That's two separate events he was referring to, both of which happened in 2011.

[MetroMogul]

I see. But he needs to be a bit more clear. He chastises the new Metro administration but brings up a scandal from the old one.

Most of what the new Metro has done has been related to cleaning up the mess left behind by the rail centric regime before it. How is that bad management? How does that relate to a decline in bus ridership?

His arguments aren't coherent.

[mfastx]

The "Buy America" scandal happened under the Wilson/Wolff regime, the "old" Metro. How can anyone take you seriously if you can't even get these simple facts straight?

... Wow man c'mon. I know that the "Buy America" scandal happened under Wilson/Wolff. I said that after "Buy America" and the "New Metro" came about (which was right after Buy America) was when riderhsip declined. The "Buy America" stuff came out in late 2009 or early 2010, I forget exactly when. And during that time period ridership dropped a lot. It's just a theory man lol.

By that logic, anyone that votes to give New METRO a .25% increase in taxpayer's money is a fool

Haha, well it's all just speculation. That's all we're doing here. In time, they will learn. Our METRO system will improve if we give it more funding. I know that for sure.

Edited July 29, 2012 by mfastx

[mfastx]

I see. But he needs to be a bit more clear. He chastises the new Metro administration but brings up a scandal from the old one.

I never "chastised" them, I said it was possible that the "New Metro" does not properly know how to run a bus system. Remember that Grenias said himself that he didn't know anything about transit when he was appointed by Parker.

Most of what the new Metro has done has been related to cleaning up the mess left behind by the rail centric regime before it. How is that bad management? How does that relate to a decline in bus ridership?

... Wait what?? LOL, so this "mess" was caused by them wanting to expand rail? How about the fact that the previouis administration just did illegal activities? Why are you always trying to tie things back to rail? And how were they "rail centric?" There are many competent transit agencies in many other cities that are expanding rail. Are they all creating "mess" just because they are expanding rail?

I don't think you understand that the "old" Metro created a "mess" not because they wanted to expand rail, but because they were crooks. Those are independent things.

Again, I am theorizing that a possible reason for a decline in bus ridership (there are many) is because the "New Metro" does't have experience running a transit system. Which person from the "New Metro" has experience running a transit system? It relates to a decline in bus ridership because while Metro's image has improved and they have become more transparent, the current administration might not have the experience in running a transit system, therefore the decrease in bus ridership.

His arguments aren't coherent.

I think that if you actually read my posts you'll find that I have very coherent arguments. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them incoherent.

Again, there are numerous reasons why there has been a decrease in ridership, and I am giving my theories as to why that has happened.

Likewise, there are many things that could increase ridership. In this thread I have written what I think would increase transit ridership, and I think that one, all, or any combination of the following would work:

1) Constructing a core high capacity and higher quality (in this case rail) system to attract more riders.

2) Managent with more experience running a transit system (which I think the current administration is capable of achieving given time).

3) More funding.

4) Improvements in our bus system (new buses, better bus displays, better bus stops, better routes, etc.)

If any of the above (ideally all of the above) happen, I think you'll see an increase in transit ridership.

Edited July 29, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

Your arguments aren't coherent because they aren't coherent, not because I don't agree. You're not consistent from post to post. You state that ridership dropped after the Buy America scandal and the New Metro regime took over. But in the first post you stated the ridership peaked in 2001 and has declined ever since. Your words, not mine. The site where you got your data verifies this.

And the Wilson administration was very rail centric. Chairman Wolff is the one who stated that "there's no demand" for the 50% increase in bus service that was promised and help sell the 2003 Solutions plan. Wilson and Wolff both led the agency during unprecedented bus service reductions while overseeing and bungling the build out of the rail system. Wilson was brought in to see the Solutions plan to fruition, the whole plan, but he and his regime totally tossed out the bus portion and reduced already existing bus services, some decades old. Also, the Buy America scandal occurred because of procurement violations regarding the purchase of RAIL CARS. So yes, they were crooks, rail centric crooks.

[kdog08]

I am wholly in disagreement with the notion that governmental bankruptcies should be allowed, and so I am in disagreement with you on this notion.

Well first of all, we would just get bailed out.

Lastly, why would we go bankrupt if we incrementally build our infrastructure, possibly using funds at every level? Are you just assuming complete incompetency?

[kdog08]

Your arguments aren't coherent because they aren't coherent, not because I don't agree. You're not consistent from post to post. You state that ridership dropped after the Buy America scandal and the New Metro regime took over. But in the first post you stated the ridership peaked in 2001 and has declined ever since. Your words, not mine. The site where you got your data verifies this.

And the Wilson administration was very rail centric. Chairman Wolff is the one who stated that "there's no demand" for the 50% increase in bus service that was promised and help sell the 2003 Solutions plan. Wilson and Wolff both led the agency during unprecedented bus service reductions while overseeing and bungling the build out of the rail system. Wilson was brought in to see the Solutions plan to fruition, the whole plan, but he and his regime totally tossed out the bus portion and reduced already existing bus services, some decades old. Also, the Buy America scandal occurred because of procurement violations regarding the purchase of RAIL CARS. So yes, they were crooks, rail centric crooks.

Yes but it's not rail's fault, it's man's.

Edited July 30, 2012 by kdog08

[mfastx]

Your arguments aren't coherent because they aren't coherent, not because I don't agree. You're not consistent from post to post. You state that ridership dropped after the Buy America scandal and the New Metro regime took over. But in the first post you stated the ridership peaked in 2001 and has declined ever since. Your words, not mine. The site where you got your data verifies this.

Did you actually read my first post? Yes, I stated that ridership peaked in 2001, but I also said that ridership held steady at over 300,000 until about 2008 or so. Can you quote me on exactly where I contradict myself? Me saying that ridership declined due to an inexperienced administration was just me pointing out different possibilities to you on why ridership declined. You need to consider more things othe than rail to explain the decline of our bus system's ridership. Can you provide me with an expample of another city where rail expansion caused bus and overall ridership to decline?

And the Wilson administration was very rail centric. Chairman Wolff is the one who stated that "there's no demand" for the 50% increase in bus service that was promised and help sell the 2003 Solutions plan. Wilson and Wolff both led the agency during unprecedented bus service reductions while overseeing and bungling the build out of the rail system. Wilson was brought in to see the Solutions plan to fruition, the whole plan, but he and his regime totally tossed out the bus portion and reduced already existing bus services, some decades old. Also, the Buy America scandal occurred because of procurement violations regarding the purchase of RAIL CARS. So yes, they were crooks, rail centric crooks.

Bus ridership didn't really drop for most of the Wilson/Wolff administration though. Can you prove that there was indeed "demand" for a 50% increase in bus service? Perhaps the 50% increase in bus service was meant to come after the rail lines were built when there actually would be more demand? I certainly don't see a demand for more bus service. Most of those buses out there are empty.

Yes, Wilson/Wolff screwed the pooch. But it was strictly legal technicalities where they f***** up. They tried to cut corners and they were caught. You really think that other transit agencies don't do the same crap? Wilson has been proven to be able to run a transit agency well, as he has managed other much better agencies than METRO. Which agencies have Grenias/Garcia ran?

Ever consider that the reduction in bus service was due to the routes being extremely inefficient?

Do you think that if we build all of the proposed rail lines, ridership will drop?

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

Once again, you are being inconsistent. On one hand you state that bus ridership didn't really drop under the Wilson administration (a lie), yet you say that there was no demand for expanded bus service because the buses are/were empty. Which is it? And while we're on the subject, where are you getting this data from? Do you live in Houston? How do you know the buses are empty? Do you ride them? Do you have ridership numbers for individual routes? You've repeated this claim again and again and you've never provided any proof to back up that claim. And you ask me to prove there is a demand for a 50% increase in bus service, I point you to the original 2003 Solutions plan. There was obviously enough demand to package it with the rail expansion. Prove to me there isn't demand for a bus expansion, yet demand for a rail expansion. Rail is supposed to expand capacity. Obviously there is excess capacity if buses are "empty" as you claim so why do we need a multi billion dollar rail expansion? Because you want it?

Also, what transit agencies did Wilson run "well?" When he was in New Jersey he had another procurement scandal regarding that states EZ tag system. Trouble seems to follow the guy. And your justification for these scandals is "well other agencies do it tooooooo." What a childish argument.

[mfastx]

Once again, you are being inconsistent. On one hand you state that bus ridership didn't really drop under the Wilson administration (a lie), yet you say that there was no demand for expanded bus service because the buses are/were empty. Which is it?

I said throughout most of the Wilson administration, ridership held relatively steady at over 300,000. I've maintained that throughout this thread. I'm saying that while ridership held steady at ~340,000 throughout his administration, I don't see anything to believe that there was demand for a 50% bus increase. It's both. Yes, the last year or two under the Wilson administration saw a large drop-off in ridership accross the board.

And while we're on the subject, where are you getting this data from? Do you live in Houston? How do you know the buses are empty? Do you ride them? Do you have ridership numbers for individual routes?

The data that the buses are, for the most part, empty? Efficiency statistics. As I've said numerous times, each bus rider has a $5 subsidy. Do you understand that concept? If we are paying a lot of money for each rider to ride the system, that means that there are few riders riding the system. I've lived in Houston all my life outside of a year. I've ridden METRO buses for years.

And yes I have seen ridership numbers for individual routes. They aren't impressive. You can find them on METRO's website I think.

You've repeated this claim again and again and you've never provided any proof to back up that claim. And you ask me to prove there is a demand for a 50% increase in bus service, I point you to the original 2003 Solutions plan. There was obviously enough demand to package it with the rail expansion. Prove to me there isn't demand for a bus expansion, yet demand for a rail expansion. Rail is supposed to expand capacity. Obviously there is excess capacity if buses are "empty" as you claim so why do we need a multi billion dollar rail expansion? Because you want it?

Rail can do something that just simply adding more buses can't do, and that's to attract riders.

Building a network of rail lines has shown to attract more riders. Don't take my word for it, look at other agencies expanding their rail. I want a better bus system too. But I understand that at this point, getting a core rail system in place is more important for METRO. And I understand that investing in rail now will pay off in the future. Transit dollars go further with rail than local buses.

Also, what transit agencies did Wilson run "well?" When he was in New Jersey he had another procurement scandal regarding that states EZ tag system. Trouble seems to follow the guy. And your justification for these scandals is "well other agencies do it tooooooo." What a childish argument.

He ran BART didn't he? That's a pretty good agency. Childish? Uh alrightie then whatever you say but we both know it's true so I'm not sure what your point is.

This is the last time I am going to respond to you in this thread. You have not brought anything valuable to the discussion. You are insulting me, twisting my words to make it seem like I contradict myself, and have not made any decent proposals on what you think METRO should do instead of expanding rail. Nor have you acknowledged any of the points I made in my previous posts. It's getting to the point where I'm just repeating myself over and over to you because you simply are ignoring my points. I'm obvously not going to change your mind.

Go ahead and have the last word if you want. Call me "childish" or a "poor immigrant," whatever you want.

Good day.

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfastx