METRO Works To Make Bus System Easier To Use

[mfastx]

there's no argument. the line is dead as is the uptown line. METRO dropped the ball on that one too.

 

Eh, I think the economy tanking had more to do with those lines being delayed than METRO.

[Subdude]

The political discussion belongs in the Politics sub-forum. 

 

 

[kdog08]

there's no argument. the line is dead as is the uptown line. METRO dropped the ball on that one too.

 

And that's the sad thing. We've had a public transit agency that has the dropped the ball a lot due to incompetence and corruption. We've had a general public that has become very cynical and ignorant about moving people in a city. It's 2013 and we're still sitting here having discussions about whether BRT or LRT is better which should have been decided and implemented at the very least a decade ago and that's being damn generous. All the while, the anti- rail or anti-non car based alternative crowd or cheapos (libertarian type folks) have achieved making the Houston region one of the most costliest metros for commuting while simultaneously not being able to afford to maintain and expand this costly road system. Brilliant. 

[livincinco]

And that's the sad thing. We've had a public transit agency that has the dropped the ball a lot due to incompetence and corruption. We've had a general public that has become very cynical and ignorant about moving people in a city. It's 2013 and we're still sitting here having discussions about whether BRT or LRT is better which should have been decided and implemented at the very least a decade ago and that's being damn generous. All the while, the anti- rail or anti-non car based alternative crowd or cheapos (libertarian type folks) have achieved making the Houston region one of the most costliest metros for commuting while simultaneously not being able to afford to maintain and expand this costly road system. Brilliant.

One of the costliest metros to commute in, but one of the cheapest metros to live in. Commuting costs may have gone up because of the road system, but housing prices have stayed down because of it.

I'm completely in favor for mass transit and I don't think that it's unreasonable at all to have a conversation about the most effective way to spend money allocated to transit.

[august948]

And that's the sad thing. We've had a public transit agency that has the dropped the ball a lot due to incompetence and corruption. We've had a general public that has become very cynical and ignorant about moving people in a city. It's 2013 and we're still sitting here having discussions about whether BRT or LRT is better which should have been decided and implemented at the very least a decade ago and that's being damn generous. All the while, the anti- rail or anti-non car based alternative crowd or cheapos (libertarian type folks) have achieved making the Houston region one of the most costliest metros for commuting while simultaneously not being able to afford to maintain and expand this costly road system. Brilliant. 

No argument on general incompetence at METRO in recent years, but I'm not so sure about the costliest metro for commuting. Here's an article from just over a month ago, citing US census data, that shows that some of the worst commutes are in the Northeast and in California where, strangely enough, they have much more extensive rail systems.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/05/worst-commutes-new-york-san-francisco-louisiana

Also, strangely, Houston doesn't show up in the article at all, but NYC, DC, Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco all make the top ten worst commute times. Could it be that focusing more resources on an extensive highway system and less on rail could actually reduce commute times (gasp!)?

[IHB2]

No argument on general incompetence at METRO in recent years, but I'm not so sure about the costliest metro for commuting. Here's an article from just over a month ago, citing US census data, that shows that some of the worst commutes are in the Northeast and in California where, strangely enough, they have much more extensive rail systems.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/05/worst-commutes-new-york-san-francisco-louisiana

Also, strangely, Houston doesn't show up in the article at all, but NYC, DC, Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco all make the top ten worst commute times. Could it be that focusing more resources on an extensive highway system and less on rail could actually reduce commute times (gasp!)?

 

If you want a costliest comparison that means something re commuting try comparing the cost of any housing location in the Houston metro area that would reduce your commute to say 20 minutes or less with a similar distance from work in the other major metro areas.

 

Using that comparison, my housing is 1/3 or less the cost of similar size/location dwellings in any other big metro outside of Texas. And I gain many hours of productive and/or leisure personal time per year in addition to the $$$ savings.

 

That is where the Houston advantage really lies. Choosing to live so many miles from where you work that you have to use freeways/tollways/P&R rather than surface streets means choosing the commute that comes with it.

[livincinco]

No argument on general incompetence at METRO in recent years, but I'm not so sure about the costliest metro for commuting. Here's an article from just over a month ago, citing US census data, that shows that some of the worst commutes are in the Northeast and in California where, strangely enough, they have much more extensive rail systems.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/05/worst-commutes-new-york-san-francisco-louisiana

Also, strangely, Houston doesn't show up in the article at all, but NYC, DC, Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco all make the top ten worst commute times. Could it be that focusing more resources on an extensive highway system and less on rail could actually reduce commute times (gasp!)?

 

It's pretty much universally acknowledged that mass transit increases commute times.

[Slick Vik]

No argument on general incompetence at METRO in recent years, but I'm not so sure about the costliest metro for commuting. Here's an article from just over a month ago, citing US census data, that shows that some of the worst commutes are in the Northeast and in California where, strangely enough, they have much more extensive rail systems.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/05/worst-commutes-new-york-san-francisco-louisiana

Also, strangely, Houston doesn't show up in the article at all, but NYC, DC, Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco all make the top ten worst commute times. Could it be that focusing more resources on an extensive highway system and less on rail could actually reduce commute times (gasp!)?

 

What about the personal cost of driving against the cost of taking mass transit? If you use the IRS measure for cents per mile, it's no contest which one is cheaper, on your wallet and the environment too by taking more drivers off the road.

[kylejack]

Are you including the personal cost of taxes used to fund the transit system?

[august948]

What about the personal cost of driving against the cost of taking mass transit? If you use the IRS measure for cents per mile, it's no contest which one is cheaper, on your wallet and the environment too by taking more drivers off the road.

If you happen to have a link to a study showing the total cost of driving vs mass transit, cost and time, taxes, infrastructure, etc, the whole ball of wax please post it. If you can make an argument backed by independent research for shifting dollars from highways to rail other than rail's just way cooler, I'd like to hear it.

[Slick Vik]

Are you including the personal cost of taxes used to fund the transit system?

 

Are you including the personal cost of texas used to fund the highway system?

[kylejack]

Are you including the personal cost of texas used to fund the highway system?

 

Am I including it in what? You're saying it's no contest and I'm asking what your comparison incorporates. I haven't made any comparisons, so no, I'm not including anything in anything.

 

To be clear, I'm asking you an actual question, not a rhetorical one.

[livincinco]

If you want a costliest comparison that means something re commuting try comparing the cost of any housing location in the Houston metro area that would reduce your commute to say 20 minutes or less with a similar distance from work in the other major metro areas.

 

Using that comparison, my housing is 1/3 or less the cost of similar size/location dwellings in any other big metro outside of Texas. And I gain many hours of productive and/or leisure personal time per year in addition to the $$$ savings.

 

That is where the Houston advantage really lies. Choosing to live so many miles from where you work that you have to use freeways/tollways/P&R rather than surface streets means choosing the commute that comes with it.

 

Prices in Houston are cheaper in most areas of the metro in comparison to other out of state areas and that extends to housing prices in the suburbs as well.  I think that a more telling question is the cost of the house without commute vs. the cost with a commute.  I expect that you'll find that housing prices in the suburbs are proportionately cheaper than costs in closer areas, so a percentage of "commuting costs" are offset as a result.  I don't believe that is considered in most studies on commuting costs.

 

If you hypothetically spend $1000/year in commuting cost, but save $1000/year in housing costs, your personal commuting costs are functionally zero.  Perceived societal costs and value of time spent are subjective costs that are going to vary by individual.

[august948]

If you want a costliest comparison that means something re commuting try comparing the cost of any housing location in the Houston metro area that would reduce your commute to say 20 minutes or less with a similar distance from work in the other major metro areas.

 

Using that comparison, my housing is 1/3 or less the cost of similar size/location dwellings in any other big metro outside of Texas. And I gain many hours of productive and/or leisure personal time per year in addition to the $$$ savings.

 

That is where the Houston advantage really lies. Choosing to live so many miles from where you work that you have to use freeways/tollways/P&R rather than surface streets means choosing the commute that comes with it.

There's a caveat to that and it's the upper limit of what you can reasonably afford for a house. Some (many?) families can't afford to pay for an inner-loop house (if they are commuting downtown) in order to have a reasonably short commute time (20 mins) of the same size.

Of course, some also choose a longer commute because they specifically DON'T want to live in the city. It's no accident that there's a Starbucks with a drive-thru in Brenham just off the feeder to 290 heading towards Houston. There are a fair number of people who prefer to live in the country and commute in to their jobs an hour or more.

Bringing us back to the original topic of how Metro can make the bus system easier (and better), my thought is that Metro should look at expanding the park and ride system, something that doesn't require as much capital outlay as rail or brt and is far more flexible.

[Slick Vik]

Prices in Houston are cheaper in most areas of the metro in comparison to other out of state areas and that extends to housing prices in the suburbs as well.  I think that a more telling question is the cost of the house without commute vs. the cost with a commute.  I expect that you'll find that housing prices in the suburbs are proportionately cheaper than costs in closer areas, so a percentage of "commuting costs" are offset as a result.  I don't believe that is considered in most studies on commuting costs.

 

If you hypothetically spend $1000/year in commuting cost, but save $1000/year in housing costs, your personal commuting costs are functionally zero.  Perceived societal costs and value of time spent are subjective costs that are going to vary by individual.

 

There is a value of time as well, and quality of life. You can't say that hundreds of thousands of hours spent commuting have no value, because there is an opportunity cost. That time could be spent doing something else and possibly productive. Also, some people are willing to pay higher cost of housing because they like living in that particular area. New York City, San Francisco, Vancouver, come to mind, among many cities.

[august948]

There is a value of time as well, and quality of life. You can't say that hundreds of thousands of hours spent commuting have no value, because there is an opportunity cost. That time could be spent doing something else and possibly productive. Also, some people are willing to pay higher cost of housing because they like living in that particular area. New York City, San Francisco, Vancouver, come to mind, among many cities.

And for New Yorkers and San Franciscans they get to pay a much higher price for housing AND get to have a longer commute to boot.

[livincinco]

There is a value of time as well, and quality of life. You can't say that hundreds of thousands of hours spent commuting have no value, because there is an opportunity cost. That time could be spent doing something else and possibly productive. Also, some people are willing to pay higher cost of housing because they like living in that particular area. New York City, San Francisco, Vancouver, come to mind, among many cities.

 

I agree, but those are both subjective costs that vary from individual to individual.  Thousands of hours is probably overstated though.  The average commute from the suburb areas in Houston is 30-35 minutes each direction according to the census.  Figure that in comparison to a "short" commute of 15 minutes each way, then the average individual is spending approx. an extra 125 hours/year commuting.  How much that costs is a value judgement that is made at an individual level (probably with a high coorelation to commute length).

 

Same is true in cities like New York and San Francisco.  There's a large number of people that place a high value in living in those cities and the costs for housing reflect those costs.  That's the point that I'm trying to make.  Trying to assign a cost to commuting is pointless because it's dynamic.  The market factors it into the cost of housing in respective areas.

[musicman]

And that's the sad thing. We've had a public transit agency that has the dropped the ball a lot due to incompetence and corruption.

You know it's a great place to work when they don't fire the CEO for going onto porn sites using work resources.

[mfastx]

Also, strangely, Houston doesn't show up in the article at all, but NYC, DC, Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco all make the top ten worst commute times. Could it be that focusing more resources on an extensive highway system and less on rail could actually reduce commute times (gasp!)?

 

Or maybe it's the fact that Houston is one of the least dense major cities in the country? 

[Slick Vik]

And for New Yorkers and San Franciscans they get to pay a much higher price for housing AND get to have a longer commute to boot.

You are exaggerating. The list you provided includes far out suburbs such as Fremont, Oakland, and the state of New Jersey.

They also live in more interesting cities. Houston is one of the most boring cities on the planet.

[livincinco]

You are exaggerating. The list you provided includes far out suburbs such as Fremont, Oakland, and the state of New Jersey.

They also live in more interesting cities. Houston is one of the most boring cities on the planet.

 

I truly say this with full sincerity, but maybe you should just consider moving.  You seem like you are very frustrated that this city isn't what you want it to be, but there are lots of cities that are.  It is well on its way to being a great city, but its not for everybody and it's never going to be San Francisco or New York.

[IHB2]

I truly say this with full sincerity, but maybe you should just consider moving.  You seem like you are very frustrated that this city isn't what you want it to be, but there are lots of cities that are.  It is well on its way to being a great city, but its not for everybody and it's never going to be San Francisco or New York.

 

I don't think Slick Vik lives in the 8 county Houston metro area. He will correct me if I'm wrong. 

[RedScare]

You are wrong. Houston metro is 10 counties.

[august948]

You are exaggerating. The list you provided includes far out suburbs such as Fremont, Oakland, and the state of New Jersey.

They also live in more interesting cities. Houston is one of the most boring cities on the planet.

 

I'm not sure what the exaggeration is.  I know from first-hand experience that house prices are astronomical out past Dublin in the bay area, far beyond Oakland, and that it's easily 45 mins to an hour to downtown San Francisco from there, even when it's not rush hour.  I'm going to guess that the NYC area is the same way.  So we have high prices even far out and long commutes.  Where's the exaggeration?

[Slick Vik]

I don't think Slick Vik lives in the 8 county Houston metro area. He will correct me if I'm wrong.

I've lived in Harris county since 1990, save a few years in Austin for college.

[kdog08]

One of the costliest metros to commute in, but one of the cheapest metros to live in. Commuting costs may have gone up because of the road system, but housing prices have stayed down because of it.

I'm completely in favor for mass transit and I don't think that it's unreasonable at all to have a conversation about the most effective way to spend money allocated to transit.

 

 

It's pretty much universally acknowledged that mass transit increases commute times.

 

 

Prices in Houston are cheaper in most areas of the metro in comparison to other out of state areas and that extends to housing prices in the suburbs as well.  I think that a more telling question is the cost of the house without commute vs. the cost with a commute.  I expect that you'll find that housing prices in the suburbs are proportionately cheaper than costs in closer areas, so a percentage of "commuting costs" are offset as a result.  I don't believe that is considered in most studies on commuting costs.

 

If you hypothetically spend $1000/year in commuting cost, but save $1000/year in housing costs, your personal commuting costs are functionally zero.  Perceived societal costs and value of time spent are subjective costs that are going to vary by individual.

 

I love this type of reasoning! A champion for the status quo. Heaven forbid we invent in other options besides roads and highways that would slightly tilt the equation in favor of a less costly commute and slightly higher cost of living. The funny thing about the status quo, is we can't even afford to do it! We've been adding ~1  million people to the metro per decade and we'll probably add another million or so between 2010-2020! But hey lets keep trying to build highways with money we don't have because we are cheap and let's keep throwing whatever money is left over to public transit because we are cheap. Houston is a cheap city period. I've been here for about 24 years and can appreciate the grittiness that this cheap city has produced but the less provincial I become the more I realize how Houston is just settling for the status quo. 

 

Houston is getting more expensive, it's requiring more green space, more large public projects, and rents and housing prices are increasing along with the cost of commuting. At some point (assuming Houston continues to grow and become more wealthy long term) the cheap status quo will no longer be applicable and we'll be in a jam. 

[kdog08]

I'm not some ideologue wanting some Utopian vision. I am a pragmatic person.

 

We certainly need to continue to add and upgrade roads and highways (290 and 288 needs to happen now), but we as a city and state have been cutting off our noses to spite our faces when it comes to transit. 

 

We don't need no stinking studies to show how efficient and a good alternative mass transit can be, just do some traveling. OUR problem isn't mass transit, it's the implementation of it. Building the Main St. line at the expense of having buses to support and feed the rail and other areas is STUPID. Building out our rails lines and quadrupling park and ride service and local bus service is the way to go. 

 

Lastly, I'm not ignorant to the political and financial realities. However, the only REAL thing from stopping us from investing in this metro is ourselves. With the bond support for more parks and schools, maybe this metro can stomach soemthing along the lines as what LA's mayor did to get money for transit. 

 

 

[kdog08]

And for New Yorkers and San Franciscans they get to pay a much higher price for housing AND get to have a longer commute to boot.

 

Yes.... and they generally make more money and enjoy more public amenities. And you are comparing San Francisco and NYC to Houston..... 

 

Some cities work well because they offer more to their citizens.... Some cities work well because they let their citizens figure out it themselves.... 

[musicman]

Building the Main St. line at the expense of having buses to support and feed the rail and other areas is STUPID.

What is the other option in a city this size?

[kdog08]

What is the other option in a city this size?

 

In a city this size? We should have had the Main st., University, and Uptown built along with quadrupling park&ride and local bus to feed into the light rail. Along with completing I10 and other highways and road projects. But that's in hindsight to adding over a million people between 2000-2010 along with the highly lucrative shale boom. Who wants to wager 2010-2020 will see similar population growth?