METRO Works To Make Bus System Easier To Use

[Slick Vik]

Metro works to make bus system easier to use Metro plans on rebuilding its bus system, from restructuring routes to creating a more efficient network to boost ridership By Christof Spieler | March 21, 2013 | Updated: March 23, 2013 10:42pm

 

In the last decade, Metro's local bus ridership has dropped by a third. But, just as the new Metro has put the agency on a sound financial footing, secured federal funds to build 15 more miles of light rail, and brought transparency to budgets and decisions, we're addressing this problem. Metro is undertaking an unprecedented re-imagining of our entire transit system, and we're asking for your help.

 

So, why is our bus ridership falling while other cities see their ridership growing?

 

It isn't because Houstonians don't want to use transit. Where we provide high-quality service, we get strong ridership. Over half of the downtown employees who live near our park-and-ride system utilize the service to get to work. Our light rail line carries more people per mile than any other in America except Boston. Neither has seen the ridership decline that local bus service has over the same time period.

 

It's not because of the economy. Ridership went down in 2008 and 2009 as unemployment rose, but now the local economy has recovered and ridership hasn't.

 

It's not because of service cuts. We're actually providing more service today than we did in 2006, when ridership peaked.

The problems, we believe, are more fundamental.

 

 

First, in many cases, transit doesn't go to the right places. Over time, Houston's population has shifted as the urban core has redeveloped, older suburbs have changed, and new areas have appeared. But the local bus system, with routes that trace their origins to Houston's streetcar network of the 1920s, has not changed. Nor has it adapted to a city that now has multiple job centers: It connects well to downtown and the Texas Medical Center, but not as well to Greenway Plaza and Uptown.

 

Second, our bus system discourages new riders. Where routes are frequent and clear, as on West­heimer, buses are packed. But buses on most routes are infrequent, so you need to plan your life around their schedules. They're complicated, jumping from one street to another and branching to multiple destinations rather than following straightforward, predictable paths. They're also hard to understand: Nothing at a typical bus stop tells you which destinations a route serves, which direction a bus is going, or how frequent the buses are.

 

The system works well for people who make the same trip at the same time every day. For everyone else, it can be intimidating. As a frequent bus rider, I understand why people who want to use public transportation can't figure out how to use the local bus system.

 

So, we are starting with a blank sheet to create a more effective bus system. Rather than follow past practices of just tweaking today's routes, we're going to look at where people live and where people work, and then design the system that serves them best.

The first step is defining what our goals are. This isn't simple. It appears obvious that we want to move as many people as possible and serve as many places as possible. But those are actually contradictory goals. To cover as much area as possible, we would need to reduce the bus frequency in the areas with the highest number of potential riders. This dramatically reduces ridership. These are not easy policy trade-offs, but we need to acknowledge them and make thoughtful decisions.

 

We can't make those decisions without involving the public. We'll talk with the community to learn what their priorities are, then develop a network to address those priorities. A task force representing neighborhoods, employment centers, educational institutions, health care facilities, local governments and other stakeholders will drive the process. At every step, we'll have opportunities for public participation - including surveys and online forums.

 

I know we can develop a better bus system to attract new riders, while providing service enhancements for current riders. New freeways or rail lines can take a decade to plan and build. But with the bus system, we can restructure the network in the next two or three years and see significant increases in ridership. And, we can accomplish this without new taxes.

 

We want to spend our existing funds and the additional resources voters approved in November more effectively. That's good public policy. Most important, it will make the everyday lives of our residents better by making it easier to get to work, school, the store, church, the doctor, the park and all the other places we want to go.

 

Spieler is a Metro board member.

 

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Metro-works-to-make-bus-system-easier-to-use-4374720.php

[august948]

How about direct bus service from various, or at least selected, park and rides to UH?

[mfastx]

I'm interested/excited about the changes.  Hopefully the bus system really improves. 

 

I'd love to get around Houston reliably without a car.

[august948]

What's the timeline on this?

[Slick Vik]

This is just deja vu. Houston had a great bus system in the 80's. But a bus system can only go so far. You need rail and bus rapid transit as well to maximize efficiency.

[august948]

Well, while we wait for rail to run out to Highway 6, we ought to be looking at some interim solutions, don't ya think?

[MetroMogul]

Well, while we wait for rail to run out to Highway 6, we ought to be looking at some interim solutions, don't ya think?

 

Thank you. God forbid we invest in what consists of about 90% of the system.  And Vic, you're right, Houston did have a good bus system in the 1980s, well it's 2013 and it's in bad shape.  It needs reinvestment.  

[musicman]

why did harrisburg get so hard to cross?  the train hasn't even started running but the light has already been timed poorly.  no wonder ridership is down.

[Slick Vik]

Thank you. God forbid we invest in what consists of about 90% of the system. And Vic, you're right, Houston did have a good bus system in the 1980s, well it's 2013 and it's in bad shape. It needs reinvestment.

A bus system is limited

[RedScare]

A bus system is limited

 

That's pretty funny. Your obsession with rail has you unable to see that your statements are 180 degrees backward. A rail system is limited by the track that it runs on. A bus system however, is limited only by the roads that it runs on, making it virtually unlimited in its potential scope.

 

I like rail, but am not so blinded by it that I cannot see the value in other forms of transit...such as a bus system.

[MetroMogul]

A bus system is limited

 

A rail system is limited when the bus system that it depends upon is crippled and deteriorating.  It's like focusing on the usefulness of the three fingers while the rest of your body atrophies.  

[Slick Vik]

That's pretty funny. Your obsession with rail has you unable to see that your statements are 180 degrees backward. A rail system is limited by the track that it runs on. A bus system however, is limited only by the roads that it runs on, making it virtually unlimited in its potential scope.

I like rail, but am not so blinded by it that I cannot see the value in other forms of transit...such as a bus system.

Name one great transit system in the world with only buses. The biggest problems particularly in large cities is that buses are subject to traffic.

[livincinco]

There are a number of cities that have successfully implemented BRT as the primary form of transit. The most widely used example is CuritIba, Brazil with a daily usage of 2.3 million passengers per day. Approx 75% of the population uses the bus system to get to work.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/curitibaatms-bus-rapid-transit-23-million-passengers-a-day.html

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2026474_2026675_2069055,00.html

[Slick Vik]

There are a number of cities that have successfully implemented BRT as the primary form of transit. The most widely used example is CuritIba, Brazil with a daily usage of 2.3 million passengers per day. Approx 75% of the population uses the bus system to get to work.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/curitibaatms-bus-rapid-transit-23-million-passengers-a-day.html

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2026474_2026675_2069055,00.html

And then there are cities like bogota or Leon where BRT is a short term band aid on a gaping wound. I've been to both and seen the deficiencies of BRT as a long term solution first hand.

[livincinco]

If you're doing a light rail to BRT comparison, I don't see how you can dismiss the numbers that those BRT systems generate.

Let's take Bogota as an example. Their system covers 54 miles and has a daily ridership of 1.6 million. Approx 29,600 passengers/mile/day. Let's compare that to Houston's current light rail - the red line draws 36,000/day on a 7.5 mile line or 4,800 passengers/mile/day and it's widely expected that the per mile numbers will drop with expansion.

How would Bogota be better served with a 54 mile light rail system?

[Slick Vik]

If you're doing a light rail to BRT comparison, I don't see how you can dismiss the numbers that those BRT systems generate.

Let's take Bogota as an example. Their system covers 54 miles and has a daily ridership of 1.6 million. Approx 29,600 passengers/mile/day. Let's compare that to Houston's current light rail - the red line draws 36,000/day on a 7.5 mile line or 4,800 passengers/mile/day and it's widely expected that the per mile numbers will drop with expansion.

How would Bogota be better served with a 54 mile light rail system?

Because the buses are totally full. At that point rail is a more effective form of transit because it can take more people more often faster.

[livincinco]

Because the buses are totally full. At that point rail is a more effective form of transit because it can take more people more often faster.

 

But Bogota's BRT currently achieves far higher ridership than any of the LRT systems in North America.  No LRT system even comes close in either total daily or per mile numbers.  Additionally, their achieved capacity (43,000 ppdph on their busiest line) is higher than any numbers that I could find for either actual or even proposed capacity for LRT.

 

I understand that theoretically LRT has a higher capacity than BRT, but Bogota achieves numbers that are far higher than any prior expectation of BRT.  If the actual capacity that Bogota achieves are higher than the proposed capacity of LRT, I don't see how that improves the effectiveness of their system.

[Slick Vik]

But Bogota's BRT currently achieves far higher ridership than any of the LRT systems in North America. No LRT system even comes close in either total daily or per mile numbers. Additionally, their achieved capacity (43,000 ppdph on their busiest line) is higher than any numbers that I could find for either actual or even proposed capacity for LRT.

I understand that theoretically LRT has a higher capacity than BRT, but Bogota achieves numbers that are far higher than any prior expectation of BRT. If the actual capacity that Bogota achieves are higher than the proposed capacity of LRT, I don't see how that improves the effectiveness of their system.

I'm not sure if bogota wants LRT or heavy rail but the sense is the people are tired of an imitation rail system. That being said its fairly obvious that a rail that accelerates and decelerates faster than a bus, and can hold more people than a bus, will have more riders than a bus when demand is so high. From what you're saying I don't understand why if demand stays the same ridership would be less with rail. Also can the same comparisons you made to LRT be made to other BRT systems as well? I would think so.

[mfastx]

I'd just like to chime in and say that Bogota's BRT is certainly an exception, not the rule.  Replacing the proposed light rail lines in Houston with BRT would, in this case, generate less, not more ridership. 

[RedScare]

I'm not sure if bogota wants LRT or heavy rail but the sense is the people are tired of an imitation rail system. 

 

This statement sounds completely fabricated. Not only have I seen nothing to support this statement...surveys show 75% approval of the BRT system...but there is no practical way you could know what the "sense" of the Bogota commuters is without going there and interviewing them. Perhaps you have a link to a study or some other source for this comment?

[RedScare]

I'd just like to chime in and say that Bogota's BRT is certainly an exception, not the rule.  Replacing the proposed light rail lines in Houston with BRT would, in this case, generate less, not more ridership. 

 

Given that current ridership on the proposed light rail lines is 0, and will be for years, replacing those plans with BRT would most certainly not generate less ridership than this.

[livincinco]

I'd just like to chime in and say that Bogota's BRT is certainly an exception, not the rule. Replacing the proposed light rail lines in Houston with BRT would, in this case, generate less, not more ridership.

I was talking about capacity not demand, but I think that it depends on what type of BRT was implemented. There's clearly a lot of variables, but the reason that I think BRT would be more successful in Houston is the lower upfront costs that provide the ability to increase the network more rapidly.

If you assume static dollars for mass transit and you could have a BRT that was 2-3x more extensive than LRT, is that a better investment? I know that there is a ton of assumptions in that statement and other variables involved, but my feeling is that building an extensive BRT network that covers the key areas of the city is a better investment for this city than building a limited LRT network. For example, I would much rather have BRT down Post Oak and take the rest of the money and build BRT to IAH or Hobby instead of running LRT down Post Oak.

[Slick Vik]

This statement sounds completely fabricated. Not only have I seen nothing to support this statement...surveys show 75% approval of the BRT system...but there is no practical way you could know what the "sense" of the Bogota commuters is without going there and interviewing them. Perhaps you have a link to a study or some other source for this comment?

 

#1 I've been to Bogota and actually spoken to many residents there about this. There have even been riots over the Transmilenio. People want rail there, and it's been that way for decades, a lot to due with jealousy over Medellin having a METRO.

 

#2 There are several articles backing up my point

 

http://thecityfix.com/blog/transmilenio-the-good-the-bus-and-the-ugly/

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/03/why-are-people-rioting-over-bogotas-public-transit-system/1537/

 

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2009/may/21/lessons-of-urban-transit-from-bogota/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/americas/06bogota.html?_r=0

[Slick Vik]

I was talking about capacity not demand, but I think that it depends on what type of BRT was implemented. There's clearly a lot of variables, but the reason that I think BRT would be more successful in Houston is the lower upfront costs that provide the ability to increase the network more rapidly.

If you assume static dollars for mass transit and you could have a BRT that was 2-3x more extensive than LRT, is that a better investment? I know that there is a ton of assumptions in that statement and other variables involved, but my feeling is that building an extensive BRT network that covers the key areas of the city is a better investment for this city than building a limited LRT network. For example, I would much rather have BRT down Post Oak and take the rest of the money and build BRT to IAH or Hobby instead of running LRT down Post Oak.

 

It really depends on the demand. If BRT buses are full, then it becomes a hassle to ride them. Such systems are rife with pickpockets, and many times you have to keep waiting for another bus until you can squeeze on. If the rail/buses aren't full, then BRT could be a solution. Also, it depends on the construction. If there aren't any tunnels or bridges, BRT is cheaper. But if you have to make special bridges and tunnels for BRT, the cost value is irrelevant at that point. if anything, the BRT can be a good way to gauge demand to see if an LRT can be made in the fixed guideways in the future. However, I never believe this would happen in Houston, because we have HOV lanes that were built 30 years ago that could have rail down them, but instead are heavily underutilized by cars and buses.

[livincinco]

It really depends on the demand. If BRT buses are full, then it becomes a hassle to ride them. Such systems are rife with pickpockets, and many times you have to keep waiting for another bus until you can squeeze on. If the rail/buses aren't full, then BRT could be a solution. Also, it depends on the construction. If there aren't any tunnels or bridges, BRT is cheaper. But if you have to make special bridges and tunnels for BRT, the cost value is irrelevant at that point. if anything, the BRT can be a good way to gauge demand to see if an LRT can be made in the fixed guideways in the future. However, I never believe this would happen in Houston, because we have HOV lanes that were built 30 years ago that could have rail down them, but instead are heavily underutilized by cars and buses.

 

The hassles of riding are a problem with all mass transit options regardless of type and aren't specific to BRT.  I've been in situations on European trains where I really started to wonder whether I was going to make it out alive.  In that instance, I would have been safer on a bus because the driver would have been visible.

 

I agree with your point about tunnels and bridges and the good news in Houston is that there isn't a lot of demand for tunnels.  I would think that a conversion of existing HOV lanes to BRT would be relatively inexpensive.

 

The big question about rail in my mind though is the one that I don't see a lot of people asking (and this should probably be a separate thread).  As new technologies come on line in the next 30 - 50 years, what is the impact on rail?  I would argue that the future of transit is going to shift more to providing energy efficient, decentralized point to point group transportation and that's exactly what rail is incapable of doing.  If that's correct, I'll bet that a lot of the rail that is currently getting put down across the US gets ripped back out.

[mfastx]

Given that current ridership on the proposed light rail lines is 0, and will be for years, replacing those plans with BRT would most certainly not generate less ridership than this.

 

Dude, seriously?  You know what I meant.   Building the University/Uptown lines as BRT would be great, but I can't imagine it would generate the ridership that rail would. 

 

If you assume static dollars for mass transit and you could have a BRT that was 2-3x more extensive than LRT, is that a better investment? I know that there is a ton of assumptions in that statement and other variables involved, but my feeling is that building an extensive BRT network that covers the key areas of the city is a better investment for this city than building a limited LRT network. For example, I would much rather have BRT down Post Oak and take the rest of the money and build BRT to IAH or Hobby instead of running LRT down Post Oak.

 

Those are good points.  I'd love to see some more BRT in Houston, not the cheap solution we have as the Quickline.  However that will cost a lot of money, and I think it will be more expensive to build true BRT here than many think, especially if we get federal dollars involved. 

 

I do think that rail is more likely to attract more riders than BRT is, especially in a city like Houston.  I think a BRT to one of the airports would not generate nearly the ridership a rail line with limited stops would.  In this country, people are more likely to ride a rail line than a BRT, even though there are some excellent BRT systems in Latin American cities. 

[RedScare]

Dude, seriously?  You know what I meant.   Building the University/Uptown lines as BRT would be great, but I can't imagine it would generate the ridership that rail would. 

 

I only responded to what you wrote. Besides, "what you meant" is an absolute guess on your part, and I do not agree with that guess at all. In fact, I believe that METRO should look into running BRT on the U Line and Washington Ave in order to get people used to those routes while we wait for funding. It sounds like you and Vic would rather have gaps in the system for 20 years.

[Slick Vik]

The hassles of riding are a problem with all mass transit options regardless of type and aren't specific to BRT.  I've been in situations on European trains where I really started to wonder whether I was going to make it out alive.  In that instance, I would have been safer on a bus because the driver would have been visible.

 

I agree with your point about tunnels and bridges and the good news in Houston is that there isn't a lot of demand for tunnels.  I would think that a conversion of existing HOV lanes to BRT would be relatively inexpensive.

 

The big question about rail in my mind though is the one that I don't see a lot of people asking (and this should probably be a separate thread).  As new technologies come on line in the next 30 - 50 years, what is the impact on rail?  I would argue that the future of transit is going to shift more to providing energy efficient, decentralized point to point group transportation and that's exactly what rail is incapable of doing.  If that's correct, I'll bet that a lot of the rail that is currently getting put down across the US gets ripped back out.

 

That's all dependent on frequency. The more often a train runs, (hopefully) they aren't all totally packed. However, I've been to some cities where they run every 2-3 minutes and are still full. At that point, you're out of luck I suppose. In Houston I think the only area where tunnels are required at freight rail crossings, and there are quite a bit of those. For example, the millions that will be spent on the East End for an underpass. And as far as your last point, I suppose we should stop building freeways because we possibly won't need cars in the future? I suppose car companies should stop making gasoline powered cars because hydrogen fuel cell will power cars in the future (psyche)? That's not a fair argument imo. This same argument may have been made 80 years ago yet the rails are being put back down where they were ripped out in the first place.

[IHB2]

In fact, I believe that METRO should look into running BRT on the U Line and Washington Ave in order to get people used to those routes while we wait for funding. It sounds like you and Vic would rather have gaps in the system for 20 years.

 

 

Washington Ave could certainly add BRT, but I'm not sure it would be feasible to run BRT on the current version of the Univ Line route, which requires elevation over the SW Fwy and a portion of Westpark, as well as 1 new bridge next to the existing Westpark overpass.

 

That means a route through Afton Oaks (  ) to the SW Fwy underpass to Wpark, or choosing to come under the SW Fwy to connect to Westpark on an existing street with sufficient width - only Kriby & Buffalo Spdwy fit that requirement, but then you miss Greenway Plaza...

[mfastx]

I only responded to what you wrote. Besides, "what you meant" is an absolute guess on your part, and I do not agree with that guess at all. In fact, I believe that METRO should look into running BRT on the U Line and Washington Ave in order to get people used to those routes while we wait for funding. It sounds like you and Vic would rather have gaps in the system for 20 years.

 

My "guess" is backed up by every transit system here in the US.  BRT lines simply don't generate the same ridership that a rail line along the same route would.  People can say "well, look at Bogota, their BRT system is great" and sure, it is great, but Bogota is not Houston.  The city is nowhere near the same as Houston.

 

One could easily make the argument that BRT is better suited for the North, East, and Southeast lines, but regardless, ridership will still be higher now that light rail is being constructed. 

 

If you can provide me with an example of a BRT line in the US that has higher ridership than a similar rail line, then I'll change my stance.  But at this point, rail is a great option for connecting Uptown, Greenway plaza, Downtown, and the TMC. 

 

BRT down streets like Washington and Westheimer is a great idea and I fully support it.  But spending resources to build BRT connecting major employment centers is a waste IMO, because those areas will still remain underserved by transit.  I'd rather see the money spent on other lines than BRT down Richmond.