can Houston learn to love light rail?

[cloud713]

sorry if this has been posted before. i just saw it today..

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/04/can-houston-learn-love-light-rail/8820/

[Slick Vik]

I read it good article

[Marcus Allen]

I am just going to get this off my chest, and I will take the guff which will probably come my way. It is ridiculous to try to stymie a world class city from providing more transportation options to it's citizens. It is a FACT that any successful civilization flourishes when transportation and communication advance technologically. IMO, there is a market for light rail transit along the major corridors. I would love to see something connecting MT to DT to UT then branch out to Westchase area and Memorial City, City Center, then follow along the Energy Corridor. Houstonian planners need to kick their visionary skills in gear. We are barely past the first decade of the 21st century. Does anyone really think automobiles are going to be the answer 50 years from now? Come on HTown! Do us proud and show that we can and will do what it takes to make our city greater still!

[arche_757]

While I don't think automobiles will simply vanish, I do think there will be a potentially rough-ish transition between extremely high fuel prices and the next generation of cars.  I see my family in 2040 having maybe 1 vehicle.  Out of necessity most likely.

 

I don't see why Houston can't have both a reliance on freeways and use transit.  Lightrail - upon full buildout - should be something similar to what the old trolley lines of the 1900s were.  The trick is implementing that system without too much disruption to existing traffic and more importantly business.  Density will come - though there are plenty on here who tend to think otherwise.  It will come through both want and necessity.  Traffic will continue to be bad even as more large job centers are created around the city in places like Sugar Land, The Woodlands, Pearland, Westchase etc.

 

I see a lightrail centric system that will eventually grow and have commuter rail and even heavy rail (to connect far off cities and towns).  This will augment the freeways and the bus rapid transit systems elsewhere.

 

**********This will take decades to implement!  I'm NOT advocating that we spend $100 billion dollars overnight on this.************

[IronTiger]

I saw that article. It's the typical hack piece on transit. When I saw the related articles on things like "making driving less appealing", it confirmed my suspicions. Nevertheless, I predict that this thread will be "de-railed" and go on for another 7 pages.

[arche_757]

"making driving less appealing"

 

That's going to happen.  I'm not an advocate of that - far from it - but I honestly see some administration down the road passing some sort of mandate that makes it costly to drive.  Or I should say - more costly to drive.

 

Regardless, I think Houstonians can love rail, and will provided it is done correctly.  METRO on the other hand... we shall see if they can rebuild the trust of the people.  Sadly I believe transit options for cities are probably out of the reach of private interests, which means that a government body will need to build/run any sort of transit in urban areas.

 

[Slick Vik]

I saw that article. It's the typical hack piece on transit. When I saw the related articles on things like "making driving less appealing", it confirmed my suspicions. Nevertheless, I predict that this thread will be "de-railed" and go on for another 7 pages.

Typical hack piece? You basically discredit anything you don't like. Did you even read it? Both sides were interviewed, rail lovers and haters.

[HoustonIsHome]

Just about everytime I ride the rail I encounter people riding the rail fir the first time and from their comments it seems that they all think its neat.

So the question really isnt if they love it or not. They do. For many of these first time riders the rail is just a novelty like an amusement park ride. Yes they liked partaking in a ride every nite and then; they don't mind paying the $1.25 to get on, but they sure don't want to fund the darn thing.

I don't think people are against rail. Many just don't want to pay for it

[IronTiger]

That's going to happen. I'm not an advocate of that - far from it - but I honestly see some administration down the road passing some sort of mandate that makes it costly to drive. Or I should say - more costly to drive.

Pro-transit people would rather manipulate cars, roads and highways rather than natural growth and density necessitate rail. It's crap like that why I tend to dislike transit in general, even though I tend to like rail-based transportation. It's a shame it's been co-opted by radicals!

[samagon]

I don't think anyone has to 'make driving less appealing' that is happening, and will continue to happen without influence.

 

operating costs, traffic, all that stuff is getting worse on its own, no outside influence necessary. Of course, anti-rail types are certainly doing their part to help in both of those departments. no rail means the alternatives to driving are worse, so more people stay in their cars, raising demand for fuel, and with more people opting to stay in their cars due to lack of option, there's more traffic.

 

I guess, in the long term game, people who are for rail should thank all the politicos who won't pony up for rail.

[IronTiger]

Typical hack piece? You basically discredit anything you don't like. Did you even read it? Both sides were interviewed, rail lovers and haters.

I don't (by the way, you've ignored counter-links, so don't be a hypocrite). I did read it, and once again, it paints Culberson as anti-rail, when he actually doesn't want it on Richmond (which is a valid complaint), and that caused all the pro-transit rail to accuse him of being "anti-rail". You probably think of me as anti-rail (click here to read my views on the subject, which explains how I'm not anti-rail but am rather opinionated)

I also remember when you went berserk because I pointed out an article that was an extended interview with Peter Brown disguised as legitimate journalism.

[Slick Vik]

The reason why it went down Richmond is that is the route that got the highest ridership.

[IronTiger]

The reason why it went down Richmond is that is the route that got the highest ridership.

Purportedly. I wouldn't bet my career on it, though.

If I recall, you grossly mis-quoted the ridership ("they'd have to run buses every two minutes due to demand right now!"), and even allowing the possibility that you just mis-read something (an honest mistake), you also started to fabricate reasons to argue your position ("Afton Oaks residents are racists!")

[arche_757]

^I don't see why this gets so antagonistic?  Transit discussions on this forum seem to turn angry very quickly.

[IronTiger]

Yes, I pointed that out in the "giant cross" thread. For some, rail mass transit is Serious Business and they won't have it any other way. It's certainly not unique, fandoms of franchises can be set off by the most innocuous thing said.

[mfastx]

I never understood why people are so against spending "their taxpayer dollars" on a train that they don't have any intention of riding.  

 

But these people don't ride the bus either, so they are just fine with "their taxpayer dollars" supporting a bus system they don't ride?  Why does it matter if there's a rail component? 

 

Federal funds used to construct capital projects will be used on other cities if Houston rejects the funds.  You're paying the same either way. 

[arche_757]

^Greedo missed!

[IronTiger]

But these people don't ride the bus either, so they are just fine with "their taxpayer dollars" supporting a bus system they don't ride? Why does it matter if there's a rail component?

Federal funds used to construct capital projects will be used on other cities if Houston rejects the funds. You're paying the same either way.

If it's "their taxpayer dollars", why is money going away if it's not being used for rail? Why can't it be used to upgrade the aging bus fleet, or make improvements to city roads?

[Slick Vik]

Purportedly. I wouldn't bet my career on it, though.

If I recall, you grossly mis-quoted the ridership ("they'd have to run buses every two minutes due to demand right now!"), and even allowing the possibility that you just mis-read something (an honest mistake), you also started to fabricate reasons to argue your position ("Afton Oaks residents are racists!")

Jamesl had a long post explaining that demand. More detailed than anything you and cinco have ever come up with.

If it's "their taxpayer dollars", why is money going away if it's not being used for rail? Why can't it be used to upgrade the aging bus fleet, or make improvements to city roads?

That's what the FTA wants

[IronTiger]

Jamesl had a long post explaining that demand. More detailed than anything you and cinco have ever come up with.

That was disproved, and the many posts which explain things to you you've ignored, and a lot of people have given up.

Your strategy is pretty good: post a bunch of random links that support your viewpoint, ignore any and all criticisms and counter arguments, then throw in some fabrications, wait until people call you out, and annoy people until they leave the thread (or HAIF). Congratulations, you "win".

[Slick Vik]

That was disproved, and the many posts which explain things to you you've ignored, and a lot of people have given up.

Your strategy is pretty good: post a bunch of random links that support your viewpoint, ignore any and all criticisms and counter arguments, then throw in some fabrications, wait until people call you out, and annoy people until they leave the thread (or HAIF). Congratulations, you "win".

It was never disproved.

[IronTiger]

It was never disproved.

49000 weekday boardings in 2030. That's not "right now" by any means.

[HoustonIsHome]

I never understood why people are so against spending"their taxpayer dollars" on a train that they don't have any intention of riding.

But these people don't ride the bus either, so they are just fine with "their taxpayer dollars" supporting a bus system they don't ride? Why does it matter if there's a rail component?

Federal funds used to construct capital projects will be used on other cities if Houston rejects the funds. You're paying the same either way.

I think the difference is they have grown used to subsidizing the buses. The rail is new so it is a more recent assault on the pockets.

also, the street bound rail generated some bad press when it first started up because of all the people running into it. Some saw it as a nuisance because of the confusion.

I think people will warm up to it as the years go by

[HoustonIsHome]

If it's "their taxpayer dollars", why is money going away if it's not being used for rail? Why can't it be used to upgrade the aging bus fleet, or make improvements to city roads?

Not sure if that's true but the rail to me seems more efficient than the buses.

As for the roads, if the rails do their job and take wheels off the road then I guess the roads would last longer.

I wonder how many square miles of road we have. It must be really taxing to maintain all these miles of streets. I don't think there are many cities that have multiple streets approaching 20 miles long. We probably have dozens of them.

We do need to keep both car passengers and public transit customers satisfied, but there will be a time when the share miles of street that need upgrading while become unbearable.

[Dakota79]

Not sure if that's true but the rail to me seems more efficient than the buses.

As for the roads, if the rails do their job and take wheels off the road then I guess the roads would last longer.

I wonder how many square miles of road we have. It must be really taxing to maintain all these miles of streets. I don't think there are many cities that have multiple streets approaching 20 miles long. We probably have dozens of them.

We do need to keep both car passengers and public transit customers satisfied, but there will be a time when the share miles of street that need upgrading while become unbearable.

[Dakota79]

Your quote above that says it must be taxing to maintain them is funny on two points.

1. It is extremely taxing. Taxing to death, in fact.

2. We could only wish they were maintained. The only roads they are repairing are the feeders on 59 in Upper Kirby. Geez, they were absolutely the only ones without potholes!

[mfastx]

If it's "their taxpayer dollars", why is money going away if it's not being used for rail? Why can't it be used to upgrade the aging bus fleet, or make improvements to city roads?

 

More of their taxpayer dollars go to roads in Houston than any other major city.  

 

And the money isn't going away, it's being used to subsidize a low ridership and inefficient bus system.  25% of which (at least) is going towards roads anyway.  

[Slick Vik]

49000 weekday boardings in 2030. That's not "right now" by any means.

49,000 boardings. A bus holds about 20 people. That's 2,450 buses. That's 144 buses per hour for a 17 hour bus day, 72 in each direction. Can any bus system handle that? Even if a bus rapid transit system puts two buses together, how many people can that hold?

[livincinco]

49,000 boardings. A bus holds about 20 people. That's 2,450 buses. That's 144 buses per hour for a 17 hour bus day, 72 in each direction. Can any bus system handle that? Even if a bus rapid transit system puts two buses together, how many people can that hold?

 

Actually a standard 45' bus carries 60-70 passengers seated and standing. An 80' articulated bus has a total capacity of 110-130 passengers.

 

Estimated practical capacity for a system with designated lanes is 18,000/hour with peak capacity 19,500/hour. 

 

Of course, those numbers are from the official FTA guidelines on bus rapid transit.  I'm sure that "back of the napkin" calculations that you and JamesL did are much more accurate.

 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT.pdf

(BRT capacity figures are found in Exhibit 3-22)

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Actually a standard 45' bus carries 60-70 passengers seated and standing. An 80' articulated bus has a total capacity of 110-130 passengers.

Estimated practical capacity for a system with designated lanes is 18,000/hour with peak capacity 19,500/hour.

Of course, those numbers are from the official FTA guidelines on bus rapid transit. I'm sure that "back of the napkin" calculations that you and JamesL did are much more accurate.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT.pdf

(BRT capacity figures are found in Exhibit 3-22)

I ride a standard bus every day. There is no way it fits 60-70 people. It has 39 seats (20 was a guess last night I admit) and sometimes less since 6 are reserved for the disabled. But I'm sure you knew that, a bus expert rides the bus right? 60-70 people is if you have an additional 20-30 people standing together like sardines, I think maybe 10 people would even be able to fit standing anyway, 15 absolute max. I don't ride articulated buses but I doubt your numbers on those too. Explain how 19,000 people could ride in an hour on those sized buses. That means 9500 each way, 158 per minute. Does that make any sense to you? Even with your unrealistic bus capacity, it's not feasible.