Jump to content

Commuter Rail in Houston


cloud713

Recommended Posts

i count at least 8 (unless you arent counting NJ and NY as separate.. you did say metro i guess).

top 8.. (keep in mind 5 of the 8 are metros with lower populations than Houston)

NYC

Chicago

(NYC again.. different rail operator)

NJ

Boston

Philly

San Fran/San Jose

LA

Baltimore

the one i find most impressive is Caltran in San Francisco/San Jose.. 77 miles of track, moves over 47,000 people a day. 

 

You have to look at these as CMAs, not MSAs.   The list in fact constitutes a list of the 7 largest CMAs in the country, the smallest of which (Philadelphia) has 800,000 more people than the Houston CMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I agree mass transit generally serves more of the poor people. But taking first time visitors of our city through those decrepit areas seems counter productive to the impression we want to give of our city. Idk, the undesirable areas are a small concern. More importantly taking the light rail into the city from hobby would take 45 minutes or so. As long as some of the shorter flights.. A direct line down 45 and Broadway would be much faster. Or down Mykawa and then over on airport blvd.

 

Or they could do both. Even in new york and san francisco and LA all the trains go through bad areas, but if you're not getting out it shouldn't affect you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to look at these as CMAs, not MSAs.   The list in fact constitutes a list of the 7 largest CMAs in the country, the smallest of which (Philadelphia) has 800,000 more people than the Houston CMA.

Not really.

 

The 2010 census showed that Philly had only had ~44,000 more people than greater Houston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

 

As you'll see the 2012 census projections show that Houston is now larger, and we are growing at a much faster rate... at least until Philly gets that supertall (when that happens 95% of this forum will move out there to be around taller buildings).

 

Oh you're referring to CMA's... I think that number paints a false picture - Baltimore/Washington are a combined area, but each city is seperate from the other.  Philly and Willmington (and other minor outlying cities) area the same way.  Boston includes Providence and other enclaves.  NONE of those cities are really a singular part of a single metropolitan area.  For transit concerns Philly needn't spend money on connecting to Willmington and Boston on connecting to Providence.  State and Federal transit intitiatives should focus more on that.   Houston is unique among major US cities (speaking the largest metros) in that it is the ONLY city of any real size inside that msa/csa area...  I mean Houston's big additions to the list include these behemoths: El Campo, Brenham, Bay City and Huntsville.  None of those cities are larger than 50,000 people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i disagree however that there arent enough potential transit riders that far out. Houston has almost 4 million people living outside the city. if they were able to reroute the busses that were taken off the roads by rail, to spiderweb outward from each station to serve the local areas so that people were within "walking distance" of the busses, and thus the train stations, it may help boost numbers. also its a pretty common notion that trains are more appealing than busses. not to mention the whole "reverse white flight" phenomenon thats predicted to happen in the coming decades as the inner cities gentrify and home values go up, forcing the poor out to the suburbs.

The reason I suggest that there are less potential transit riders in the 'burbs is because the lower density allows most people to own and operate a car cheaply. Cars become inconvenient once you get in the city center where parking is a hassle and traffic is worse.

Certain lines might be worth the investment for commuter rail, or hybrid commuter rail like the 90A line you mentioned. The reason I hesitate advocating for commuter rail is because traditional commuter rail means trains go to a central station and passengers then have to transfer to a bus or light rail the rest of the way. Our bus and light rail network is quite slow in comparison to most heavy rail subway systems in cities with high commuter rail ridership.

Now what I WOULD be in favor of would be a commuter rail type network that doubles as a subway system in the inner city. Exhibit A is Washington DCs system, which is a subway in the central areas of the city but further out stops are far apart and it's more like commuter rail. That would allow people to go straight to their area of employment with minimal transfers (and even if there is a transfer, at most it would be a couple minutes and require no walking). The advantage of this system is better connectivity between suburban areas and employment centers, easier transfers, higher frequencies, higher ridership (both capacity and actual), better cost efficiency, and room for future ridership growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the major issue is (for Houstonian's):  Cost+Construction Time vs doing nothing (which is free).

 

Waiting until we have total gridlock is foolish, since then we will end up waiting another 10 years or so for full buildout.

 

And for anyone to think that Houston with 6 million people is not big enough/populated enough for commuter rail to work is silly.  Just how many millions more do we need until we are no longer the exception to the norm?

 

I understand that you're saying that you believe that it's foolish to think that commuter rail is "foolish" to think commuter rail might fail.  I'm more than happy to lay out my concerns about commuter rail. 

 

- The plans that I've seen are a "hub and spoke" system focused around getting commuters to downtown.  METRO's statistics show that 53% of downtown workers already utilize public transit or rideshare.  Assuming those numbers are correct, then downtown is pretty adequately serviced by public transit and isn't the issue.  Providing transit to other areas is the issue.

 

- I do not agree with assumptions that people will connect to the network of public transit and connect to other job centers.  Doing that significantly increases transit time to the end destination.  The average commute time in Houston is currently 28 min.  Using commuter rail and transferring between lines will almost certainly end up increasing commute times.

 

- Assumptions that commuter rail will drive development back into downtown are questionable.  Houston has no commuter rail and downtown is booming.  Dallas' has commuter rail and a 30% vacancy rate in downtown.  It's just not that simple.

 

- Further on the Dallas example, Dallas' commuter rail line carries about 8,000 daily riders and has plateaued in ridership for about three years.  That's only marginally better than the Katy Park & Ride line at a much larger expense.  We may disagree on this, but I wouldn't consider 8,000 daily riders on a commuter rail line to be a success.

 

In light of those comments, I would be very curious to hear why you think it would succeed other than just saying it's "foolish".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that commuter rail certainly sounds great: although the Westpark and Katy lines have been dismantled, there are existing rail corridors that stretch out to Cypress (and beyond, Hempstead and College Station), Sugar Land (and beyond, Rosenberg and Sealy), and other destinations.

There's a few problems with that, though: the lines are owned by UP, which means that they'll have priority in freight traffic, even in double-tracked areas, so the areas that aren't double tracked will have to be, resulting in major investment. That cuts into the "pre-existing network". Secondly, they start in the suburbs, where do they go?

Even if UH-D became a transit center where you could switch commuter rail to light rail, the main destination isn't downtown in most cases. Where else would you have the 290 commuter trains stop? The Northwest Transit Center? Those transfers will build up average commuting time (and frankly, I think ~30 minutes average is great) and probably won't noticeable impact in gridlock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, some interesting statistics regarding commute methods are found in the following.  If you want to test yourself, I've listed stats for three cities below - Houston, Dallas, Austin.  Pick the city first and then look at the report and see how correct you were.  If you're feeling really brave, post your answers before you look at the report.  :)

 

http://demographia.com/db-jtwmma2012.pdf

 

City A

79.7% commute in car alone

11.0% car pool

  3.5% work from home

  2.6% use mass transit

  1.4% walk

  0.3% bike

  1.6% other

 

City B

81.0% commute in car alone

10.1% car pool

  4.6% work from home

  1.5% use mass transit

  1.1% walk

  0.2% bike

  1.5% other

 

City C

76.3% commute in car alone

11.1% car pool

  6.4% work from home

  2.3% use mass transit

  2.1% walk

  0.8% bike

  1.1% other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

 

The 2010 census showed that Philly had only had ~44,000 more people than greater Houston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

 

As you'll see the 2012 census projections show that Houston is now larger, and we are growing at a much faster rate... at least until Philly gets that supertall (when that happens 95% of this forum will move out there to be around taller buildings).

 

Oh you're referring to CMA's... I think that number paints a false picture - Baltimore/Washington are a combined area, but each city is seperate from the other.  Philly and Willmington (and other minor outlying cities) area the same way.  Boston includes Providence and other enclaves.  NONE of those cities are really a singular part of a single metropolitan area.  For transit concerns Philly needn't spend money on connecting to Willmington and Boston on connecting to Providence.  State and Federal transit intitiatives should focus more on that.   Houston is unique among major US cities (speaking the largest metros) in that it is the ONLY city of any real size inside that msa/csa area...  I mean Houston's big additions to the list include these behemoths: El Campo, Brenham, Bay City and Huntsville.  None of those cities are larger than 50,000 people.

 

 

Yes, I understand that Baltimore and Washington are separate.  But the commuter rail system numbers shown are not separate, so we have to look at the population of the CMA, not the MSA.  Likewise for the  other metro areas on the list.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Where there is nothing now - there is room for something in the future.  No reason to not see Houston having commuter rail 20-30 years down the road.  The biggest problem is it is almost* a generational sort of investment.  If we started to build commuter rail today it would be at least a 1/2 decade before the first segments of that first line open - more than likely even longer.  For a full implementation of commuter rail to all suburbs/surrounding cities it would take a couple of decades (not unlike LR investment inside the city core).

 

The problem with Houstonian's against LRT/HR/BRT etc. is they want a 50% reduction in traffic overnight.  They don't want to see 7% or even 12-15% reduction in traffic on weekdays commuting to town.  To them those numbers aren't worth the expense.  The problem is the money MUST be spent since there is a limit to how much road surface we can construct in town (eg: I-45s Pierce Elevated, 610-West Loop etc).  While I've no doubt Heavy Rail or Commuter Rail (what ever its called) would be a success to The Woodlands/Conroe, Galveston/League City, Sugar Land, Pearland, Katy and other areas, I do know that it wouldn't be an immediate overnight success story.  We - Houstonian's - are so impatient we're neglectful.  The mantra that "It takes too long to build it" is absurd.  Not building it takes even longer!

 

What reason is there to think that replacing our park & ride system with commuter rail would result in anything close to a 12-15%, or even 7% reduction in traffic in weekday commuting?

 

In the listing of top commuter rail systems in the US discussed above, only one of those top 7 metros is remotely similar to Houston --  Los Angeles.  LA's 388-mile commuter rail system serving a population almost 3 times that of Houston manages to pull only 42,700 riders per day.  Washington/Baltimore, which has an extensive and pretty long-standing commuter rail system, only has 55,400 riders.  And after those top 7 metros, commuter rail system ridership drops off a cliff.   Even in Chicago, with almost 600 miles of commuter rail, less than 5% of workers use commuter rail.

 

8.   Miami -- 15,000 riders

9.   Salt Lake City -- 13,000 riders

10. Seattle -- 11,300

11. DFW -- 9,500

12. San Diego -- 5,300

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you're saying that you believe that it's foolish to think that commuter rail is "foolish" to think commuter rail might fail.  I'm more than happy to lay out my concerns about commuter rail. 

 

- The plans that I've seen are a "hub and spoke" system focused around getting commuters to downtown.  METRO's statistics show that 53% of downtown workers already utilize public transit or rideshare.  Assuming those numbers are correct, then downtown is pretty adequately serviced by public transit and isn't the issue.  Providing transit to other areas is the issue.

 

- I do not agree with assumptions that people will connect to the network of public transit and connect to other job centers.  Doing that significantly increases transit time to the end destination.  The average commute time in Houston is currently 28 min.  Using commuter rail and transferring between lines will almost certainly end up increasing commute times.

 

- Assumptions that commuter rail will drive development back into downtown are questionable.  Houston has no commuter rail and downtown is booming.  Dallas' has commuter rail and a 30% vacancy rate in downtown.  It's just not that simple.

 

- Further on the Dallas example, Dallas' commuter rail line carries about 8,000 daily riders and has plateaued in ridership for about three years.  That's only marginally better than the Katy Park & Ride line at a much larger expense.  We may disagree on this, but I wouldn't consider 8,000 daily riders on a commuter rail line to be a success.

 

In light of those comments, I would be very curious to hear why you think it would succeed other than just saying it's "foolish".

 

- does the highway hub and spoke system not work for getting people to other destinations besides downtown? i havent really seen any commuter rail system plans for Houston besides the fantasy/ideal ones on here, but most of those implement current rail or open corridors with available ROW. many of these transit lines would have stops/connect into the light rail system and other popular areas besides downtown.

- i didnt notice anyone assume commuter rail would drive development downtown. especially since it would serve much more than just downtown, and lines like Westpark and 90A couldnt even go to downtown.

- i look at Dallas' LRT to be more like commuter rail, in that it extends out to the suburbs, has fewer stops, and its own grade separate ROW throughout much of the lines. those 85 miles carry over 100,000 people. and many of DARTs lines were built through some rather desolate places in hopes to spur development, or else they would surely have a higher ridership.

 

I agree that commuter rail certainly sounds great: although the Westpark and Katy lines have been dismantled, there are existing rail corridors that stretch out to Cypress (and beyond, Hempstead and College Station), Sugar Land (and beyond, Rosenberg and Sealy), and other destinations.

There's a few problems with that, though: the lines are owned by UP, which means that they'll have priority in freight traffic, even in double-tracked areas, so the areas that aren't double tracked will have to be, resulting in major investment. That cuts into the "pre-existing network". Secondly, they start in the suburbs, where do they go?

Even if UH-D became a transit center where you could switch commuter rail to light rail, the main destination isn't downtown in most cases. Where else would you have the 290 commuter trains stop? The Northwest Transit Center? Those transfers will build up average commuting time (and frankly, I think ~30 minutes average is great) and probably won't noticeable impact in gridlock.

what do you mean they start in the suburbs, where do they go? into the city of course..

there are talks of possibly extending the uptown line to Northwest Mall.. if that happened, there could be a stop there, serving the uptown destinations. then there could be a stop where the rail line from Memorial Park (could be a future connector from the Hempstead line to the Westpark line and then down to the 90A line) hits the Hempstead line, northwest of the TxDot building, before continuing on to the Hardy Yards or Post Office site/UH-D. yes those transfers may add a little bit of time to take another form of transit to your final destination, but this whole commuter rail proposition would be planning for the future. when Houston has 10+ million people in 2040 traffic will be a ****storm and commute times will likely be at least double what they are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- does the highway hub and spoke system not work for getting people to other destinations besides downtown? i havent really seen any commuter rail system plans for Houston besides the fantasy/ideal ones on here, but most of those implement current rail or open corridors with available ROW. many of these transit lines would have stops/connect into the light rail system and other popular areas besides downtown.

- i didnt notice anyone assume commuter rail would drive development downtown. especially since it would serve much more than just downtown, and lines like Westpark and 90A couldnt even go to downtown.

- i look at Dallas' LRT to be more like commuter rail, in that it extends out to the suburbs, has fewer stops, and its own grade separate ROW throughout much of the lines. those 85 miles carry over 100,000 people. and many of DARTs lines were built through some rather desolate places in hopes to spur development, or else they would surely have a higher ridership.

 

what do you mean they start in the suburbs, where do they go? into the city of course..

there are talks of possibly extending the uptown line to Northwest Mall.. if that happened, there could be a stop there, serving the uptown destinations. then there could be a stop where the rail line from Memorial Park (could be a future connector from the Hempstead line to the Westpark line and then down to the 90A line) hits the Hempstead line, northwest of the TxDot building, before continuing on to the Hardy Yards or Post Office site/UH-D. yes those transfers may add a little bit of time to take another form of transit to your final destination, but this whole commuter rail proposition would be planning for the future. when Houston has 10+ million people in 2040 traffic will be a ****storm and commute times will likely be at least double what they are today.

 

As I've stated before, I fully support METRO investing money to buy ROW to potentially, I just don't agree with putting the rail in before the demand supports it.

 

In my opinion, DART is a cautionary tale that Houston needs to look at carefully.  DART invested their money heavily in rail and I hear all the arguments that DART has "invested for the future", but I think that it's relevant to look at what else has happened as a result.

 

- DART has increased their LRT ridership from 2008 to 2012 (the most recent actuals listed in the 2014 DART financial plan), but the total system ridership decreased by more than 10% in that same time period.  I frequently hear rail advocates argue that rail bolsters the entire system, but that's not what has happened in Dallas.  Interestingly enough, although the bus system has suffered continues declines during that time period, the biggest decline was in users of the HOV and it occurred at the same time that the Orange Line was opened.  It's not a stretch to then conclude that ridership on the Orange Line pulled heavily from people that were already carpooling with little impact on those who drive alone.

 

- Rail proponents frequently talk about the lower operating costs for rail, and DART has a 2014 budget for operating costs of $238 million for buses and $184.5 million for rail.  However, they generally don't include the debt service that is incurred by the large capital outlays of rail.  DART will pay an additional $180 million in debt service in 2014 due to the bonds issued to construct rail.  That makes the annual outlay to support the rail system $364.5 million in comparison to $238 million for buses.  Additionally, that plan under funds operations by $178 million with no indication as to how that gap will be made up.

 

- DART has a long term financial burden that is going to impact their ability to operate their existing system for years.  DART has budgeted between $200 - $300 million/year in revenue to pay down the debt incurred from the initial construction a total of $4.66 billion over the next 20 years and that is a severely underfunded plan.  Long term debt in 2014 at the start of 2014 is 3.59 billion and at the end of 2033 is still 3.09 billion.  That means that DART is going to pay $4.66 billion in the next 20 years to reduce their overall debt by only $500 million.  To be fair, part of that is due to an additional $1.1 billion in bond measures that are projected to be issued in 2025, but those are to keep the system in a "good state" and are not designed to provide further service enhancements.  Capital outlays drop dramatically during the next 10 years indicating that the agency has no ability to make further investments.

 

So what's the end result?  Houston has had a horribly mismanaged transit agency for years, Dallas has a rail network that makes many on this side envious.  So who's further ahead?

 

- Which metro has a higher percentage of transit usage - Houston

- Which metro has a higher percentage of drivers commuting alone - Dallas

 

You can draw your own conclusions, but I'm not particularly anxious to follow the path of Dallas.

 

http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/debtdocuments/BusinessPlanFY14.pdf?nocache=1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do you mean they start in the suburbs, where do they go? into the city of course..

there are talks of possibly extending the uptown line to Northwest Mall.. if that happened, there could be a stop there, serving the uptown destinations. then there could be a stop where the rail line from Memorial Park (could be a future connector from the Hempstead line to the Westpark line and then down to the 90A line) hits the Hempstead line, northwest of the TxDot building, before continuing on to the Hardy Yards or Post Office site/UH-D. yes those transfers may add a little bit of time to take another form of transit to your final destination, but this whole commuter rail proposition would be planning for the future. when Houston has 10+ million people in 2040 traffic will be a ****storm and commute times will likely be at least double what they are today.

Well sure, there's downtown, but not everyone works downtown. Overall, I think the only viable commuter rail is on the 290 corridor, with an Austin commuter rail like "toy train" stopping at downtown, Northwest Mall or a spur to the Northwest Transit Center, Jersey Village, Cypress, Fairfield with occasional service even to College Station perhaps.

Other than that, it becomes far more troublesome. Building a line from Sugar Land to downtown, starting from 90-A and US-59 is at least 24 miles versus 18 miles, with additions depending on how many stations you want to add.

Rough truth for everyone is that it needs more highway lines--and in hurricane evacuations, the more highway lanes you have, the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've stated before, I fully support METRO investing money to buy ROW to potentially, I just don't agree with putting the rail in before the demand supports it.

 

In my opinion, DART is a cautionary tale that Houston needs to look at carefully.  DART invested their money heavily in rail and I hear all the arguments that DART has "invested for the future", but I think that it's relevant to look at what else has happened as a result.

 

- DART has increased their LRT ridership from 2008 to 2012 (the most recent actuals listed in the 2014 DART financial plan), but the total system ridership decreased by more than 10% in that same time period.  I frequently hear rail advocates argue that rail bolsters the entire system, but that's not what has happened in Dallas.  Interestingly enough, although the bus system has suffered continues declines during that time period, the biggest decline was in users of the HOV and it occurred at the same time that the Orange Line was opened.  It's not a stretch to then conclude that ridership on the Orange Line pulled heavily from people that were already carpooling with little impact on those who drive alone.

 

- Rail proponents frequently talk about the lower operating costs for rail, and DART has a 2014 budget for operating costs of $238 million for buses and $184.5 million for rail.  However, they generally don't include the debt service that is incurred by the large capital outlays of rail.  DART will pay an additional $180 million in debt service in 2014 due to the bonds issued to construct rail.  That makes the annual outlay to support the rail system $364.5 million in comparison to $238 million for buses.  Additionally, that plan under funds operations by $178 million with no indication as to how that gap will be made up.

 

- DART has a long term financial burden that is going to impact their ability to operate their existing system for years.  DART has budgeted between $200 - $300 million/year in revenue to pay down the debt incurred from the initial construction a total of $4.66 billion over the next 20 years and that is a severely underfunded plan.  Long term debt in 2014 at the start of 2014 is 3.59 billion and at the end of 2033 is still 3.09 billion.  That means that DART is going to pay $4.66 billion in the next 20 years to reduce their overall debt by only $500 million.  To be fair, part of that is due to an additional $1.1 billion in bond measures that are projected to be issued in 2025, but those are to keep the system in a "good state" and are not designed to provide further service enhancements.  Capital outlays drop dramatically during the next 10 years indicating that the agency has no ability to make further investments.

 

So what's the end result?  Houston has had a horribly mismanaged transit agency for years, Dallas has a rail network that makes many on this side envious.  So who's further ahead?

 

- Which metro has a higher percentage of transit usage - Houston

- Which metro has a higher percentage of drivers commuting alone - Dallas

 

You can draw your own conclusions, but I'm not particularly anxious to follow the path of Dallas.

 

http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/debtdocuments/BusinessPlanFY14.pdf?nocache=1

 

Houston isn't following Dallas's path at all, it has laid down new track for all of its lines and is building them in the inner city in dense corridors, whereas Dallas did for some but also used abandoned right of way for a lot of it to get more built quicker and they all go out to the suburbs. Now Dallas is working on a streetcar system within the city to help people get around once they arrive. Also I guarantee if there was an east west line, perhaps on 635 from Irving to 75, ridership would go up a lot. Its potential is limited when everything is north south.

 

Also regarding your costs, it seems you are not aware that costs of building goes up over the long run. It will be interesting to see how much more it costs Houston to build its system compared to Dallas who is done with theirs. Your plan of saving money now for buses could backfire in the long run because costs will be so much higher later any potential savings are offset. But then again you've basically admitted you're anti-rail and want to push it off as long as possible, which sounds like a lot of ordinary and politicial people in Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then again you've basically admitted you're anti-rail and want to push it off as long as possible, which sounds like a lot of ordinary and politicial people in Houston.

Just because livincinco doesn't want to build lots of rail ASAP doesn't mean he's anti-rail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've stated before, I fully support METRO investing money to buy ROW to potentially, I just don't agree with putting the rail in before the demand supports it.

 

In my opinion, DART is a cautionary tale that Houston needs to look at carefully.  DART invested their money heavily in rail and I hear all the arguments that DART has "invested for the future", but I think that it's relevant to look at what else has happened as a result.

 

- DART has increased their LRT ridership from 2008 to 2012 (the most recent actuals listed in the 2014 DART financial plan), but the total system ridership decreased by more than 10% in that same time period.  I frequently hear rail advocates argue that rail bolsters the entire system, but that's not what has happened in Dallas.  Interestingly enough, although the bus system has suffered continues declines during that time period, the biggest decline was in users of the HOV and it occurred at the same time that the Orange Line was opened.  It's not a stretch to then conclude that ridership on the Orange Line pulled heavily from people that were already carpooling with little impact on those who drive alone.

 

- Rail proponents frequently talk about the lower operating costs for rail, and DART has a 2014 budget for operating costs of $238 million for buses and $184.5 million for rail.  However, they generally don't include the debt service that is incurred by the large capital outlays of rail.  DART will pay an additional $180 million in debt service in 2014 due to the bonds issued to construct rail.  That makes the annual outlay to support the rail system $364.5 million in comparison to $238 million for buses.  Additionally, that plan under funds operations by $178 million with no indication as to how that gap will be made up.

 

- DART has a long term financial burden that is going to impact their ability to operate their existing system for years.  DART has budgeted between $200 - $300 million/year in revenue to pay down the debt incurred from the initial construction a total of $4.66 billion over the next 20 years and that is a severely underfunded plan.  Long term debt in 2014 at the start of 2014 is 3.59 billion and at the end of 2033 is still 3.09 billion.  That means that DART is going to pay $4.66 billion in the next 20 years to reduce their overall debt by only $500 million.  To be fair, part of that is due to an additional $1.1 billion in bond measures that are projected to be issued in 2025, but those are to keep the system in a "good state" and are not designed to provide further service enhancements.  Capital outlays drop dramatically during the next 10 years indicating that the agency has no ability to make further investments.

 

So what's the end result?  Houston has had a horribly mismanaged transit agency for years, Dallas has a rail network that makes many on this side envious.  So who's further ahead?

 

- Which metro has a higher percentage of transit usage - Houston

- Which metro has a higher percentage of drivers commuting alone - Dallas

 

You can draw your own conclusions, but I'm not particularly anxious to follow the path of Dallas.

 

http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/debtdocuments/BusinessPlanFY14.pdf?nocache=1

 

thanks for the very informative response. it is interesting to know that DART wont have much funding for expansion for the next 20 years (though Houstons not supposed to get more rail funding till 2025, according to that law last year, right?), but they have already built out their planned system, whereas Houston still has over 15 more miles to build before its original 5 line system plan is built out (a plan less than half the size of DART), and considering the Culberson mess with the other 2 lines, and the law we passed a year ago keeping METRO tax money from going to rail until 2025, by the time we get around to building the additional light rail, it will probably cost close to 200 million a mile.. or $3 billion total.. on top of the 2.5 billion or so weve spent for the first 3 lines. almost 6 billion for 40 miles of light rail. if the "initial construction cost estimates" you quoted were the total construction costs to build out DART, not just the balance they still have to pay, then they built a system over twice as large for over a billion dollars cheaper.

i agree, i wouldnt of gone with DARTs approach to build where they hope future development will happen along the rail lines, instead of building where the people and the development already are, like METRO did with its first line. but they certainly were able to get it built much cheaper and in the long run will have a larger system with more destination options than our system could ever provide (unless we plan to add 100+ miles of commuter rail)..

and btw, im not saying we need all of this commuter rail now, im saying we need to be planning for the future by reserving vacant ROWs and start acquiring additional ROW alongside current corridors [like alongside the Hempstead line, or the future Hardy downtown connector {acquiring ROW through land purchases or eminent domain can be the toughest part of building new rail}], like you are advocating. though i certainly wouldnt mind seeing a commuter rail line or two along certain corridors once METRO finishes the LRT system (of course by the time METRO finishes the university and uptown lines well probably actually need commuter rail).

 

Well sure, there's downtown, but not everyone works downtown. Overall, I think the only viable commuter rail is on the 290 corridor, with an Austin commuter rail like "toy train" stopping at downtown, Northwest Mall or a spur to the Northwest Transit Center, Jersey Village, Cypress, Fairfield with occasional service even to College Station perhaps.

Other than that, it becomes far more troublesome. Building a line from Sugar Land to downtown, starting from 90-A and US-59 is at least 24 miles versus 18 miles, with additions depending on how many stations you want to add.

Rough truth for everyone is that it needs more highway lines--and in hurricane evacuations, the more highway lanes you have, the better.

i agree not everyone works downtown, which is why there would be that stop at the extended uptown LRT spur from Northwest TC to Northwest Mall for people who work around Uptown, or for people to transfer over on to get to the University Line, or a particular bus route, to get to other nearby areas like Greenway/Upper Kirby.

what makes you say 290 is the only viable corridor? i think Westpark would make a great starter commuter rail line. it would pass within half a mile from Westchase, hit the Hilcroft TC, have a stop at Post Oak/Westpark to transfer to uptown, and have a stop at Greenway/Upper Kirby, before ending at Wheeler Station, just a short LRT ride from downtown/museum district/medical center..

and i assume you meant Prairie View (or Hempstead?), not Fairfield (which is on i45, ~90 mi south of Dallas).. but i wouldnt waste the money double tracking the current Hempstead/Hwy 6 rail line all the way out to Prairie View/Hempstead, and especially not all the way to College Station. that would be 100 miles of commuter rail, compared to 26 miles running it from downtown (Post Office site/UH-D or Hardy yards) to Cypress. the largest population between Cypress and College Station is Hockley, with 23,000 people.. every other town between the two is less than 10,000 people. i just dont think its worth another 74 miles of commuter rail (or at least 740 million, at the conservative 10 million a mile estimate, not counting costs to acquire additional ROW) to connect a metro of less than 250,000 people, when we could use that money to connect larger populations (and destinations that are likely to be commuted to/from) here in Houston. 

how would a line from Sugarland get to downtown? the METRO study has the line ending at Fannin South station/TC. i guess it could jump over to 288 and run up the median to 59 (and over to Wheeler station?), but once you get to 59 there isnt really any available ROW to run rail into downtown. its about 12.5 miles from 90A/59 to Fannin South station. 

i think we all agree Houston needs more lanes of highway.. but most of us realize we cannot continue pouring concrete and asphalt until our highways all merge into each other and there is no land left for development/people to live. at some point we are going to have to start seriously considering alternate modes of transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think Westpark would make a great starter commuter rail line. it would pass within half a mile from Westchase, hit the Hilcroft TC, have a stop at Post Oak/Westpark to transfer to uptown, and have a stop at Greenway/Upper Kirby, before ending at Wheeler Station, just a short LRT ride from downtown/museum district/medical center..

and i assume you meant Prairie View (or Hempstead?), not Fairfield (which is on i45, ~90 mi south of Dallas)

Fairfield the master planned community on 290, not Fairfield, Texas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah.. Fairfield the community (sorry, i had family driving back from Dallas today in the nasty weather and was thinking of the other Fairfield), i have rail extended out to the outlet mall/neighborhood there in my little fantasy plans. but beyond the Grand Parkway i dont see the point in wasting money to connect any further out. we might as well build a commuter rail to Beaumont (which i dont think we should do) if were going to build one to College Station. its a shorter distance than College Station, and the Beaumont metro is larger than Bryan-CS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things:  In response to all the people who've copied and pasted and replied here...

 

1) I'm in favor of more transit options.  Never did I ever say we should build this and destroy that.  The more the merrier.  Keep the park n' rides!  Build rail!

 

2) I think the hub and spoke system is the best alternative.  What do you propose?

 

3) Dallas - while usually a good comparisson to Houston, is not Houston.  Houston is a singular city.  We do not have Arlington, Fort Worth and Plano (plus others) pulling commuting numbers away from our largest employment areas.  And the major employment areas are: Downtown, Uptown and The Medical Center - All of those employment areas contain large numbers of commuters.  Our geography is largley a spoke.  Even our major suburbs lie at the edge of those spokes and we needn't build some rather convoluted system like DART.  Dallas grows north/northwest/northeast, with most of the city stopping a few miles south of downtown.  You've all seen it.  Houston on the other hand has grown not quite evenly, but much more so than Dallas.

 

4) My argument that we should build now - is again missed largely by you who fail to see that it will take 10-15 years to complete these projects.  By that time the average daily commute time will move well north of the 28 min. we're looking at now.

 

5) Daily commute times are also calculated by those who travel 15 minutes from Upper Kirby to Downtown (or similar neighborhoods) versus those who are spending 1 hour from Cypress to Downtown.  Those average out to be 28 minutes, that in no way reflects all commuters!  And as inner city streets fill with more and more traffic those numbers will skew more and more towards a longer commute time.  Fair to say we saw the numbers drop in the 2000s because of the influx of workers from the suburbs back into the inner city.

 

Think of it like this:  Houston needs a new power plant, not because we are currenlty at capacity but because we will be soon.  So would you risk brownouts and electrical disruptions over building something that will be needed?  I think not.

 

Honestly, rail - done right will help commuters in Houston.  Futhermore it will allow continued linear development down our major corridors and allow quick non-vehicular transit options to those who want it.  The need will still be there for buses, park and rides, private cars and the like.

 

Noah didn't build the ark because it was raining.  He built it because it would rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the very informative response. it is interesting to know that DART wont have much funding for expansion for the next 20 years (though Houstons not supposed to get more rail funding till 2025, according to that law last year, right?), but they have already built out their planned system, whereas Houston still has over 15 more miles to build before its original 5 line system plan is built out (a plan less than half the size of DART), and considering the Culberson mess with the other 2 lines, and the law we passed a year ago keeping METRO tax money from going to rail until 2025, by the time we get around to building the additional light rail, it will probably cost close to 200 million a mile.. or $3 billion total.. on top of the 2.5 billion or so weve spent for the first 3 lines. almost 6 billion for 40 miles of light rail. if the "initial construction cost estimates" you quoted were the total construction costs to build out DART, not just the balance they still have to pay, then they built a system over twice as large for over a billion dollars cheaper.

i agree, i wouldnt of gone with DARTs approach to build where they hope future development will happen along the rail lines, instead of building where the people and the development already are, like METRO did with its first line. but they certainly were able to get it built much cheaper and in the long run will have a larger system with more destination options than our system could ever provide (unless we plan to add 100+ miles of commuter rail)..

and btw, im not saying we need all of this commuter rail now, im saying we need to be planning for the future by reserving vacant ROWs and start acquiring additional ROW alongside current corridors [like alongside the Hempstead line, or the future Hardy downtown connector {acquiring ROW through land purchases or eminent domain can be the toughest part of building new rail}], like you are advocating. though i certainly wouldnt mind seeing a commuter rail line or two along certain corridors once METRO finishes the LRT system (of course by the time METRO finishes the university and uptown lines well probably actually need commuter rail).

 

i agree not everyone works downtown, which is why there would be that stop at the extended uptown LRT spur from Northwest TC to Northwest Mall for people who work around Uptown, or for people to transfer over on to get to the University Line, or a particular bus route, to get to other nearby areas like Greenway/Upper Kirby.

what makes you say 290 is the only viable corridor? i think Westpark would make a great starter commuter rail line. it would pass within half a mile from Westchase, hit the Hilcroft TC, have a stop at Post Oak/Westpark to transfer to uptown, and have a stop at Greenway/Upper Kirby, before ending at Wheeler Station, just a short LRT ride from downtown/museum district/medical center..

and i assume you meant Prairie View (or Hempstead?), not Fairfield (which is on i45, ~90 mi south of Dallas).. but i wouldnt waste the money double tracking the current Hempstead/Hwy 6 rail line all the way out to Prairie View/Hempstead, and especially not all the way to College Station. that would be 100 miles of commuter rail, compared to 26 miles running it from downtown (Post Office site/UH-D or Hardy yards) to Cypress. the largest population between Cypress and College Station is Hockley, with 23,000 people.. every other town between the two is less than 10,000 people. i just dont think its worth another 74 miles of commuter rail (or at least 740 million, at the conservative 10 million a mile estimate, not counting costs to acquire additional ROW) to connect a metro of less than 250,000 people, when we could use that money to connect larger populations (and destinations that are likely to be commuted to/from) here in Houston. 

how would a line from Sugarland get to downtown? the METRO study has the line ending at Fannin South station/TC. i guess it could jump over to 288 and run up the median to 59 (and over to Wheeler station?), but once you get to 59 there isnt really any available ROW to run rail into downtown. its about 12.5 miles from 90A/59 to Fannin South station. 

i think we all agree Houston needs more lanes of highway.. but most of us realize we cannot continue pouring concrete and asphalt until our highways all merge into each other and there is no land left for development/people to live. at some point we are going to have to start seriously considering alternate modes of transportation.

 

Appreciate the opportunity to have a serious discussion about this as it seems that you are clearly interested in discussing the nuances rather than just posting rhetoric as too frequently happens in this forum.

 

I think that you raise valid points regarding building earlier vs. later, however I do think that there are additional costs related to building early that you might not be considering.  The first is that while rail's operating costs are clearly lower than bus, I do think that they are frequently understated by rail proponents.  In keeping with the focus on Dallas, I agree that there's some advantage to having built the system early and the lower construction costs that were incurred, but it's also relevant to consider the operating costs that DART has to absorb on an annual basis.  In 2012 (the most recent full year financials available), DART generated $80m in operating revenue and suffered an operating loss of $565m across the year.  Their financial projections don't look like they improve anytime in the near future either.  So you can argue that maybe they save a billion in capital costs by building their system before there was sufficient demand to support it, but I'd argue that it's costing them multiple billions to support that system with minimal return in revenue to due insufficient ridership.  I'm not necessarily opposed to subsidizing the operating costs of a transportation system, but $80m in operating revenue and $645m in operating costs is pretty extreme.

 

I understand your point about Dallas having their system in place, but I do think that it's very relevant that most of us agree that they built the wrong system and that's my concern with rail in Houston.  I completely agree that rail is the right approach for cities that have dense employment centers that are concentrated in a downtown area, but I don't see that ever happening in either Houston or Dallas.  I would expect that employment in both cities (and throughout most Sunbelt cities) will continue to fragment through an increasing number of job centers as long as those cities continue to grow.

 

In my opinion, both cities really need a transit network that looks more like a spiderweb than a hub and spoke system.  Which allows multiple points of access to any job center rather than a single line of connections from point to point and that kind of system is much better served by bus than by rail.  That type of system generates lower traffic on any single corridor, but provides better access to most locations.  Building that kind of system by rail would be both prohibitively expensive and would provide honestly more capacity than the city needs.

 

Bus provides far more options because of the lower up front investment.  It's very easy to convert a standard bus line to a "Quickline" type of service and then continue to upgrade features to various levels of BRT, until you move to a dedicated BRT if ridership demands it.  If ridership gets really strong, then you already have ROW to build rail.

 

The same is true with commuter rail - Carpool lanes and Park & Ride already service a far higher percentage of the population than transit does and they have corridors established.  It wouldn't be difficult to convert those corridors to rail, but why do it if there isn't anywhere close to sufficient ridership to support it?  Why not take LA's much more successful approach of establishing transit once the demand actually exists? 

 

LA built it's first rail line in 1990 and then has built their system out from that point with great success.  However, the population of the Greater LA area in 1990 was 14.5 million, more than double the current population of Houston.  Their system has been successful because their population and density was sufficient to support it at the point that they built it.

 

As I've mentioned before, I just don't see rail as being the right tool to improve Houston's transit issue in the forseeable future.  We would be much better served by providing reliable extensive coverage that while it wouldn't generate the same ridership in individual corridors, it would provide higher overall ridership numbers at a lower cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you livincinco on the facts that Houston needs to build the right system - not just rush into and build something that later will be less effective.  I also agree with the spider web, however a spoke is derived from a spider web.

 

I don't agree that sunbelt cities will lack a large downtown.  Downtown Houston is quite large, smaller than Chicago, NYC and perhaps DC and Philly, but growing and large.  Add in the fact the other 2 major employment areas are within 5-7 miles of Downtown (roughly an area the size of Manhattan)..and the fact the Inner Loop is growing more dense each year and I'm not sure how you can adequately make that argument?  Also LA in 1990 was mired in traffic.  LA in 2014 is still mired in traffic.  Perhaps its a successful light rail system but it is not adequate for that city.

 

BRT is the way to achieve what most of us are talking about, and add in the heavier rail down the road.  Arguably certain areas will be served better by rail than bus.  Westheimer should probably have a rail line all the way out to the Sam Houston Tollway.  That would have been a great starter line for LR or even a heavier elevated or subway line...but that's a different topic (of sorts).

 

Furthermore my system (which is a 2030 or so full implementation kind of wishful thinking) - would utilize commuter rail down major freeways to large suburban areas, with LR in place along large high volume streets inside the Beltway and BRT running down other streets, and tieing into the systems from the perpendicular (your spiders web).  That is what I think we will eventually need.  PnR and standard busing will still exist and run as it currently does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you livincinco on the facts that Houston needs to build the right system - not just rush into and build something that later will be less effective.  I also agree with the spider web, however a spoke is derived from a spider web.

 

I don't agree that sunbelt cities will lack a large downtown.  Downtown Houston is quite large, smaller than Chicago, NYC and perhaps DC and Philly, but growing and large.  Add in the fact the other 2 major employment areas are within 5-7 miles of Downtown (roughly an area the size of Manhattan)..and the fact the Inner Loop is growing more dense each year and I'm not sure how you can adequately make that argument?  Also LA in 1990 was mired in traffic.  LA in 2014 is still mired in traffic.  Perhaps its a successful light rail system but it is not adequate for that city.

 

BRT is the way to achieve what most of us are talking about, and add in the heavier rail down the road.  Arguably certain areas will be served better by rail than bus.  Westheimer should probably have a rail line all the way out to the Sam Houston Tollway.  That would have been a great starter line for LR or even a heavier elevated or subway line...but that's a different topic (of sorts).

 

Furthermore my system (which is a 2030 or so full implementation kind of wishful thinking) - would utilize commuter rail down major freeways to large suburban areas, with LR in place along large high volume streets inside the Beltway and BRT running down other streets, and tieing into the systems from the perpendicular (your spiders web).  That is what I think we will eventually need.  PnR and standard busing will still exist and run as it currently does.

 

I agree on most of your points.  There's certainly a requirement for arterial corridors in any transit system, the question is whether you try to funnel traffic to those corridors, which is the current bus/rail methodology, or maintain multiple corridors that exist with lower traffic.  I tend to feel that multiple corridors is a better approach.

 

I don't mean to minimize Downtown Houston at all.  My point is more that METRO currently indicates that about 40% of the Downtown population currently utilizes METRO to get to work.  If transit penetration is about 2.5% through the region and Downtown is at 40%, that indicates to me that Downtown isn't really the problem and that solutions should focus on the balance of the region rather than taking Downtown from 40% to 60% (which would only be about 30,000 additional users).

 

Regarding LA traffic, certainly agree with your points and in fact, left LA because of how horrible traffic got.  I'd also point out though that Dallas built their system in advance of need and their traffic is horrible too.  I honestly don't know of anywhere that a good transit system has improved traffic.  Everywhere that I know of that has successful transit has high density; is completely gridlocked; and derives high usage because driving is so painful.  I'd also point out that at no point did LA's traffic problems really impact its growth.  If you look at population levels by decade, it continued to grow rapidly throughout that time period in spite of its horrible traffic.

 

You might be right, by 2030 there might be enough ridership to justify commuter rail on multiple routes.  I just question the value of building it before there is a quantifiable need for it.  There are plenty of immediate needs.  Let's address those first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between BRT and a regular bus. Buses are slow and prone to delays because they are not separated from traffic, BRT is not. However BRT requires right of way acquisition which a big cost of light rail as well, but makes the biggest difference in performance.

Also I believe that Jamesl posted earlier that the university line corridor would require buses every 2 minutes to meet demand, that seems like sufficient demand to build rail. The uptown corridor as we all know is horrendous as well. Those two lines are the last two lines that should be built for now with one down Washington to connect to the north station of uptown line. I agree after this lets sit and see what we can do to expand whether it's BRT or rail, however detractors don't even want these two lines to be built either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also a large part of DART funding came from fuss that were intended for Houston, due to politics here. So in a sense you can blame us for their system being built the way it was; they had a quick turnaround to use funds and made routes as quick as possible.

That's one thing people don't understand. If we fight federal funding here IT'S STILL GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE. That tax money we pay to federal funds isn't disappearing because they aren't being used here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with your point (livincinco), and I see what you are saying in regards to DT...

 

Dallas' DART is a great lesson to be learned by San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, RGV and lastly Houston.  For DARTs great intentions the system is not a foolproof design.  In fact my travels to-from Dallas (in and around the Mockingbird Station area/Downtown/Lovers Lane etc for a family wedding) I actually only saw 1 train.  And I was looking for them!  I never saw anyone waiting for the train(s) and never saw one in Downtown despite being there on a Saturday night.

 

My point(s) boil down to one single idea:  Houston will approach ~10-11 million by 2030 (the metro area) and without building a system that will meet that demand we will be mired in total gridlock with no way to get around.  We need BRT/LRT/CR/HR and everything in between to help move people around.  We also need to have that system designed properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with your point (livincinco), and I see what you are saying in regards to DT...

 

Dallas' DART is a great lesson to be learned by San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, RGV and lastly Houston.  For DARTs great intentions the system is not a foolproof design.  In fact my travels to-from Dallas (in and around the Mockingbird Station area/Downtown/Lovers Lane etc for a family wedding) I actually only saw 1 train.  And I was looking for them!  I never saw anyone waiting for the train(s) and never saw one in Downtown despite being there on a Saturday night.

 

My point(s) boil down to one single idea:  Houston will approach ~10-11 million by 2030 (the metro area) and without building a system that will meet that demand we will be mired in total gridlock with no way to get around.  We need BRT/LRT/CR/HR and everything in between to help move people around.  We also need to have that system designed properly.

 

Agreed and that's why I'm such a big fan of BRT.  There are multiple levels of BRT and that provides a high level of flexibility in development.  It can be enhanced at relatively low cost to match the relative demand.  If demand is demonstrated to meet sufficient levels, the corridors can be further adapted to rail.

 

If you build rail, you're locked into a big upfront cost without substantiated demand and potentially end up in a Dallas situation. 

 

It's nice to think that Houston would get all the money that it wants to build the perfect system, but the reality is that isn't going to happen and that we should look at the best way to utilize the funds that we do receive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed and that's why I'm such a big fan of BRT.  There are multiple levels of BRT and that provides a high level of flexibility in development.  It can be enhanced at relatively low cost to match the relative demand.  If demand is demonstrated to meet sufficient levels, the corridors can be further adapted to rail.

 

If you build rail, you're locked into a big upfront cost without substantiated demand and potentially end up in a Dallas situation. 

 

It's nice to think that Houston would get all the money that it wants to build the perfect system, but the reality is that isn't going to happen and that we should look at the best way to utilize the funds that we do receive.

 

If you are buying right of way for BRT, it's not really that flexible. Also, it's hard to take your notions of being a fan of BRT being that you've made it clear you want to push off rail as long as possible due to your dislike of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are buying right of way for BRT, it's not really that flexible. Also, it's hard to take your notions of being a fan of BRT being that you've made it clear you want to push off rail as long as possible due to your dislike of it.

 

Bus/BRT is far more flexible than rail because you have the option to initiate a number of different levels of service on it utilizing either dedicated or not dedicated right of way considering the amount of congestion or demand in the area.  Additionally, BRT allows the ability to add features to individual stations progressively if volume increases on a particular route.  As a result, it's much more cost-efficient especially when trying to build a large network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... To play the Devils Advocate:  One can like a car, but dislike pickups.  It doesn't mean they hate all automobiles, just larger ones.  Same with people who like buses (since they are quite a bit cheaper) compared to trains.

 

BRT is flexible.  You can buy a lot less land/roadway than for rail.  That is a given.

 

People can also be swayed a little in each direction when it comes to opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that if we are talking about LA and their transit solutions (or at least, transit answers), some of their BRT is on old railroad ROWs.

I think we should convert the Columbia Tap Rail Trail to BRT (with leaving some extra ROW for bikes, like LA does). This line would give buses a connection to TSU and 5th Ward and link 288 and 45 together. Plus, it leaves that space on 288 free for other uses (including the inevitable widening). While I understand that BRT and buses are different things, METRO should upgrade the bus stock (they look they haven't been updated in a while) to be "BRT-compatible". The BRT lane would have stoplights/gates to keep people off of the track just like trains would. Or we could dispense the bike trail entirely since so much trouble has happened there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate the opportunity to have a serious discussion about this as it seems that you are clearly interested in discussing the nuances rather than just posting rhetoric as too frequently happens in this forum.

 

I think that you raise valid points regarding building earlier vs. later, however I do think that there are additional costs related to building early that you might not be considering.  The first is that while rail's operating costs are clearly lower than bus, I do think that they are frequently understated by rail proponents.  In keeping with the focus on Dallas, I agree that there's some advantage to having built the system early and the lower construction costs that were incurred, but it's also relevant to consider the operating costs that DART has to absorb on an annual basis.  In 2012 (the most recent full year financials available), DART generated $80m in operating revenue and suffered an operating loss of $565m across the year.  Their financial projections don't look like they improve anytime in the near future either.  So you can argue that maybe they save a billion in capital costs by building their system before there was sufficient demand to support it, but I'd argue that it's costing them multiple billions to support that system with minimal return in revenue to due insufficient ridership.  I'm not necessarily opposed to subsidizing the operating costs of a transportation system, but $80m in operating revenue and $645m in operating costs is pretty extreme.

 

I understand your point about Dallas having their system in place, but I do think that it's very relevant that most of us agree that they built the wrong system and that's my concern with rail in Houston.  I completely agree that rail is the right approach for cities that have dense employment centers that are concentrated in a downtown area, but I don't see that ever happening in either Houston or Dallas.  I would expect that employment in both cities (and throughout most Sunbelt cities) will continue to fragment through an increasing number of job centers as long as those cities continue to grow.

 

In my opinion, both cities really need a transit network that looks more like a spiderweb than a hub and spoke system.  Which allows multiple points of access to any job center rather than a single line of connections from point to point and that kind of system is much better served by bus than by rail.  That type of system generates lower traffic on any single corridor, but provides better access to most locations.  Building that kind of system by rail would be both prohibitively expensive and would provide honestly more capacity than the city needs.

 

Bus provides far more options because of the lower up front investment.  It's very easy to convert a standard bus line to a "Quickline" type of service and then continue to upgrade features to various levels of BRT, until you move to a dedicated BRT if ridership demands it.  If ridership gets really strong, then you already have ROW to build rail.

 

The same is true with commuter rail - Carpool lanes and Park & Ride already service a far higher percentage of the population than transit does and they have corridors established.  It wouldn't be difficult to convert those corridors to rail, but why do it if there isn't anywhere close to sufficient ridership to support it?  Why not take LA's much more successful approach of establishing transit once the demand actually exists? 

 

LA built it's first rail line in 1990 and then has built their system out from that point with great success.  However, the population of the Greater LA area in 1990 was 14.5 million, more than double the current population of Houston.  Their system has been successful because their population and density was sufficient to support it at the point that they built it.

 

As I've mentioned before, I just don't see rail as being the right tool to improve Houston's transit issue in the forseeable future.  We would be much better served by providing reliable extensive coverage that while it wouldn't generate the same ridership in individual corridors, it would provide higher overall ridership numbers at a lower cost.

wow, those DART numbers are extreme. (though to be fair, no one ever said this transit system would be profitable.. as i dont even think the NYC system is profitable) but to counter that, what about all the development those rail lines have brought to the area? there was an article recently about how over the last 10 years DART has attracted 7 billion dollars in development along its rail lines. one could say by having an extensive transit system in place, it makes your city more attractive to developers and potential new residents, driving more growth to your city. that 7 billion dollars is more than enough to counteract the 5.65 billion loss over 10 years in the profits vs operating costs. 

yes jobs are spreading out, but they are doing so along established corridors (for the most part), so rail could theoretically have stops at those job centers (if there are rail lines near/along those corridors, like Westpark, 290/Hempstead, and i10 would be, if they decided to put that planned rail down the middle of 10 that they strengthened the new bridges for).

heh.. funny you mention that. i believe ive used "spiderweb" to describe my plan in this very thread. or maybe it was over in the ideal transit plan, but i completely agree. thats what the busses are for that are being taken off the highways with the rail system in place. all those P&R busses could be rerouted to spiderweb out from the rail stations into the surrounding areas, so that people dont have to find their own way or walk long distances, to get from the rail station to their final destination (or from their starting point).

and yeah the ease of BRT to LRT conversion is why im fine with building the richmond/westpark (hopefully?) and uptown lines as BRT initially, since culberson is blocking LRT.

i dont think HOV lanes should be used for commuter rail. i love the HOV system. i just think commuter rail would take all the busses and more of those commuters out of the HOV lanes, freeing them up for the expanding population increase we are having.. the HOT lane conversions already slowed down many HOV lanes apparently, with all the additional vehicles. it would be the same effect with the population boom, just slower, over a longer period of time. but its still going to happen, and i dont want our HOV system to be rendered useless (if that ever happens, then by all means im down to throw commuter rail lines down every HOV lane in Houston, lol).. 

and yeah, it would be nice to build rail when its needed, but by 1990 LA was far and away the largest city in the US without rail. just as before 2004 Houston was the largest city without rail.. its just more expensive to acquire the ROW in the future, so im all for acquiring that ROW now to reserve it for when its needed. but as arche pointed out, it takes years to build this type of stuff, so we need to technically start before its actually "needed". otherwise all the heavy traffic and lack of any alternative ways of getting around town is going to hinder our growth as the traffic/area becomes less attractive to potential new residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...