can Houston learn to love light rail?

[IronTiger]

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.

According to this article, the current standard 40' buses fit 37 seating, 65 standing (that's presumably a "safe" estimate, more could be crammed on). The new articulated 60' buses have 62/85 people. Peak capacity of 19,500/hour takes into a lot of factors that you're not considering:

• That "19,500" figure comes into play in Istanbul, wherein both their woefully underbuilt highways and the fact that their BRT is super-crammed (the standing figures, according to livincinco's link, is 3 people/one square meter). Assuming that's one way, that's 100 people on a bus (197 buses running at peak time), which makes sense since countries overseas are not known for a lot of safety/fire code limitations and it is peak times.

• Unless it functions as a point A to point B commuter bus, it accounts to who gets on and off, leading to a greater number. 300 people are not going to hop on and off every minute. That's how ridership numbers often get screwed around is because of this oversight.

• Assuming that it is just one line, the bus runs both ways, which would lessen that.

• If your "the bus needs to run every 2 minutes to meet demand" theory is true than that means that assuming we were using 40' buses at 60 people, there would need to be a crowd of at least two dozen at the absolute minimum seconds after the last bus leaves.

Test this theory for yourself: drive down the Richmond, and count how many people are waiting for a bus at each stop? I remember at the airport, southbound JFK near Beltway 8 (or World Houston Parkway), across from Hot Biscuit, there were maybe 5-6 people there. Granted, it's not the University Line, but check it out for a ballpark estimate.

Like my notes on "studies" that you constantly quote, in terms of math, does your answer make sense?

[arche_757]

Attitudes aside...

 

I think a better question to ask is this:  Would people rather ride rail or bus?  Simple question, we all know the answer.

 

Would a rail line end up with higher ridership than a bus route?  Simple question, we all know the answer.

 

I agree we shouldn't build everywhere right away.  We should however start setting aside ROW and other particulars needed for rail, as there will come a time when the density is there and the demand is high enough.   Failure to understand that is baffling.

 

Like a flood control project, you don't wait until the flood waters are rising to build something to control it.  Of course that's not really how we do things over here - we wait till we get a multi-billion dollar flood THEN we spend billions more trying to build improvements that could have been built in initially at much lower cost.

[samagon]

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.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

How often does this 19000 per hour bus line stop? How many buses? 

 

what good does it do to have a number of 19000 boarding per hour, or 158 per minute if we don't have the full story?

 

I mean, if the line has 20 buses that stop every 5 minutes, then you'd have to average 39.5 people (call it 40) get on and off at each stop. Is that unreasonable? Here's the math:

 

P = people per minute (158)

M = minutes between stops (5)

B = number of buses (20)

X = average number of people that have to get on and off each bus at ever stop (39.5)

 

(P * M) / B = X

 

You can plug it whatever way you want, it's 7th grade algebra. If you feel comfortable knowing you only want 20 people getting on and off each stop, you can calculate how many buses you need, or add more frequent stops. See how long it takes to make the situation ludicrous. 

 

but then even that is kind of a pointless exercise without knowing how long the bus line is. if it's a 30 mile line, only 20 buses seems a bit thin in that situation. so you go up to 30 buses, and you're now loading/unloading 26 people on average per stop.

 

The other question is, let's assume the 60-70 passenger bus exists in Houston, what percentage of the passengers getting on/off is considered optimal for a bus with that many passengers?

 

Keep in mind that the time it takes to load/unload passengers doesn't really matter, so long as the loading/unloading and getting to the next stop can all happen in that 5 minute interval.

[Slick Vik]

According to this article, the current standard 40' buses fit 37 seating, 65 standing (that's presumably a "safe" estimate, more could be crammed on). The new articulated 60' buses have 62/85 people. Peak capacity of 19,500/hour takes into a lot of factors that you're not considering:

• That "19,500" figure comes into play in Istanbul, wherein both their woefully underbuilt highways and the fact that their BRT is super-crammed (the standing figures, according to livincinco's link, is 3 people/one square meter). Assuming that's one way, that's 100 people on a bus (197 buses running at peak time), which makes sense since countries overseas are not known for a lot of safety/fire code limitations and it is peak times.

• Unless it functions as a point A to point B commuter bus, it accounts to who gets on and off, leading to a greater number. 300 people are not going to hop on and off every minute. That's how ridership numbers often get screwed around is because of this oversight.

• Assuming that it is just one line, the bus runs both ways, which would lessen that.

• If your "the bus needs to run every 2 minutes to meet demand" theory is true than that means that assuming we were using 40' buses at 60 people, there would need to be a crowd of at least two dozen at the absolute minimum seconds after the last bus leaves.

Test this theory for yourself: drive down the Richmond, and count how many people are waiting for a bus at each stop? I remember at the airport, southbound JFK near Beltway 8 (or World Houston Parkway), across from Hot Biscuit, there were maybe 5-6 people there. Granted, it's not the University Line, but check it out for a ballpark estimate.

Like my notes on "studies" that you constantly quote, in terms of math, does your answer make sense?

65 houstonians on a standard bus? Hahahahaha. Fattest city in the nation, won't and can't happen.

Again, explain how 9500 people will go in one direction in one hour using those buses. The majority of buses aren't the big ones. And say they were, could you run 95 buses an hour in each direction? That's assuming 100 mostly obese houstonians on the bus which isn't realistic either. No. It's not possible.

[IronTiger]

65 houstonians on a standard bus? Hahahahaha. Fattest city in the nation, won't and can't happen.

Again, explain how 9500 people will go in one direction in one hour using those buses. The majority of buses aren't the big ones. And say they were, could you run 95 buses an hour in each direction? That's assuming 100 mostly obese houstonians on the bus which isn't realistic either. No. It's not possible.

According to the 2014 USA Today numbers, Houston area isn't even in the top 10.

Who said that 9500 people will go in one direction in one hour? Are there really dozens of people crowding each bus stop on the Richmond corridor?

[Slick Vik]

According to the 2014 USA Today numbers, Houston area isn't even in the top 10.

Who said that 9500 people will go in one direction in one hour? Are there really dozens of people crowding each bus stop on the Richmond corridor?

There are in downtown.

[Slick Vik]

Houston ranking number 1 ccording to this link Also the most fast food joints.

http://www.mensfitness.com/weight-loss/burn-fat-fast/the-fittest-and-fattest-cities-in-america

[IronTiger]

There are in downtown.

Sorry, the bus terminal doesn't count.

Houston ranking number 1 ccording to this link Also the most fast food joints.

Wow, one thing from a glossy magazine mentions it, who knows how old it is. It also attempts to relate the obesity level with the lack of a good mass transit system, right up your alley. No wonder you like using this source.

[arche_757]

Houston has plenty of fat people, but its getting better and honestly I don't really see as many "fat" people as we used to in 2001 or 2005 or whenever the first issue of Mens Health came out with that.

 

To even bring up how fat we are is absurd.  It detracts from your point.

[arche_757]

Houston ranking number 1 ccording to this link Also the most fast food joints.

http://www.mensfitness.com/weight-loss/burn-fat-fast/the-fittest-and-fattest-cities-in-america

 

More than LA or NYC?  Doubtful.  Houston (the city) is much, much bigger than Boston, or Charlotte, or Atlanta or any other city mentioned save LA, Chicago and NYC.  To casually gloss over that fact is silly.  Furthermore what constitutes fast food?  Do they list the number of restaurants they classify as fast food?  Does a NYC sidewalk vendor not count?  I'll wager taco trucks do... for their metrics.

 

[IronTiger]

You made up some lofty ridership numbers, swore up and down by them, and then when some statistics are actually offered, you switch to "That's impossible" and start rambling on about obesity rates.

So...you admit you were wrong?

[Subdude]

Guys, back off from the personal attacks and keep it on topic. 

 

[livincinco]

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.

 

To clarify, these aren't my numbers.  These are the official capacity numbers of the Federal Transit Administration.  If you have an issue with those numbers, take it up with them. 

 

I will add that I find it absolutely hilarious that the numbers cited in the official federal guidelines from the US Department of Transportation are being written off as unrealistic due to personal observation of "the bus I ride everyday".

 

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Sorry, the bus terminal doesn't count.

Wow, one thing from a glossy magazine mentions it, who knows how old it is. It also attempts to relate the obesity level with the lack of a good mass transit system, right up your alley. No wonder you like using this source.

I don't have any personal bias for men's health magazine.

Also I'm not talking about just downtown transit center.

To clarify, these aren't my numbers. These are the official capacity numbers of the Federal Transit Administration. If you have an issue with those numbers, take it up with them.

I will add that I find it absolutely hilarious that the numbers cited in the official federal guidelines from the US Department of Transportation are being written off as unrealistic due to personal observation of "the bus I ride everyday".

Get on a bus, see how much space there is. I don't think 60-70 people can fit on one realistically.

You made up some lofty ridership numbers, swore up and down by them, and then when some statistics are actually offered, you switch to "That's impossible" and start rambling on about obesity rates.

So...you admit you were wrong?

I said that's why we need rail on the university corridor because no form of buses will be able to handle that kind of ridership.

[Slick Vik]

Houston has plenty of fat people, but its getting better and honestly I don't really see as many "fat" people as we used to in 2001 or 2005 or whenever the first issue of Mens Health came out with that.

To even bring up how fat we are is absurd. It detracts from your point.

My point was how many houstonians can fit on a bus. That is the reality that we have a high percentage of obese people.

[arche_757]

I don't have any personal bias for men's health magazine.

Also I'm not talking about just downtown transit center.

Get on a bus, see how much space there is. I don't think 60-70 people can fit on one realistically.

I said that's why we need rail on the university corridor because no form of buses will be able to handle that kind of ridership.

Realistically it can be done, however it is quite uncomfortable as no one wants to sit/stand on top of each other.  I've waited for the next train before (and even a bus once) when it was so full I would end up sitting on someone's lap.

 

My point was how many houstonians can fit on a bus. That is the reality that we have a high percentage of obese people.

We have a percentage of obese people, yes.  I don't think our obesity rate lowers our transit ridership numbers.  I feel that out of 50 people the 17 or so that are overweight (to varying degrees) won't cause too much disruption (assuming 50 is a full, yet comfortable bus).

[IronTiger]

Many of the "high ridership" numbers, especially in other countries, are going to be extremely crowded.

However, a quick browse down Richmond on Street View had an empty bus shelter along the way with no recent bus in sight. Just a brief snapshot indicates that the Richmond corridor isn't as desperate as you paint it to be.

While I think that your numbers are off, to put it kindly, I believe there is some pent-up demand for the line that would increase. (Just like all modes of transportation, like freeways)

[HoustonIsHome]

Realistically it can be done, however it is quite uncomfortable as no one wants to sit/stand on top of each other.

I have experienced it on the Bissonett, Bellaire, and Richmond buses before they built the rail

It was indeed uncomfortable, especially when the ac in the bus would mess up.

I can't say how many people was actually on the bus, but I have seen at least 20 people standing. It used to get so bad where there would be 7 or 8 people standing in the raised portion at the back. If the buses have 38 seats I can easily see the 60 people figure.

I remember the bissonnett buses in the afternoon rush hours were the double buses and there were times when people would be standing from the front all the way to the back.

I don't know if they still get that packed, but after the rail went in the congestion eased greatly. I guess it was because the buses routes were shortened so they could make more frequent trips

[livincinco]

My point was how many houstonians can fit on a bus. That is the reality that we have a high percentage of obese people.

Whether Houstonians are obese is a ridiculous argument and is irrelevant as well. The numbers provided by the FTA far exceed the projected demand for the corridor. Additionally, the weight of individuals is irrelevant because it would reduce the capacity of light rail by an identical proportion, unless you're now going to claim that LRT riders are skinnier than BRT riders and can meet the vehicle capacity as a result.

[Slick Vik]

Whether Houstonians are obese is a ridiculous argument and is irrelevant as well. The numbers provided by the FTA far exceed the projected demand for the corridor. Additionally, the weight of individuals is irrelevant because it would reduce the capacity of light rail by an identical proportion, unless you're now going to claim that LRT riders are skinnier than BRT riders and can meet the vehicle capacity as a result.

Are you saying buses and light rail have the same capacity? I don't think it's a ridiculous argument that the majority of houstonians are obese, it's not an argument, it's true.

[IronTiger]

The numbers provided by the FTA far exceed the projected demand for the corridor

Wait, shouldn't it be the other way around or something?

 

Are you saying buses and light rail have the same capacity? I don't think it's a ridiculous argument that the majority of houstonians are obese, it's not an argument, it's true.

Even if the highest number was true (38%, I think?) that's still not a majority. A majority, by definition, is anything over 50%. The actual number rests around 25%, maybe, and "obese" by definition doesn't actually mean morbidly obese.

[livincinco]

Are you saying buses and light rail have the same capacity? I don't think it's a ridiculous argument that the majority of houstonians are obese, it's not an argument, it's true.

  

No, I'm saying that if you feel that BRT capacity is overstated because of obese people, then LRT capacity is equally overstated by the same people. As IronTiger pointed out, it's not true that the majority of Houstonians are obese, but that's not even relevant to your point. Your point is that the FTA has overstated capacity for BRT because it's not considering that people in Houston are obese. The only thing that you've offered to support that is personal observation.

Wait, shouldn't it be the other way around or something? 

Yeah, probably. Transit with a capacity of 18,000/hour is pretty easily capable of handling a demand of 49,000/day.

[arche_757]

Wait, shouldn't it be the other way around or something?

 

Even if the highest number was true (38%, I think?) that's still not a majority. A majority, by definition, is anything over 50%. The actual number rests around 25%, maybe, and "obese" by definition doesn't actually mean morbidly obese.

 

Yep.  That was my initial thinking.  I think Slick can admit (and rightly) that there are plenty of people in Houston who are overweight, but to claim a majority is false.  Also, to claim that there are so many fat people around it fills our buses (and rail) up more quickly and with fewer people is also false.  I do tend to lean towars what Slick is saying that the total number of people those buses can hold (based on what the manufacturer says) is very high and that trends to the realm of being very uncomfortable and very close to one another.  Too close!  So the actual prefered/comfortably full bus or rail car is probably 10-15 people fewer than what is quoted.

[Slick Vik]

Yep. That was my initial thinking. I think Slick can admit (and rightly) that there are plenty of people in Houston who are overweight, but to claim a majority is false. Also, to claim that there are so many fat people around it fills our buses (and rail) up more quickly and with fewer people is also false. I do tend to lean towars what Slick is saying that the total number of people those buses can hold (based on what the manufacturer says) is very high and that trends to the realm of being very uncomfortable and very close to one another. Too close! So the actual prefered/comfortably full bus or rail car is probably 10-15 people fewer than what is quoted.

I guess there is a difference between overweight and obese.

[arche_757]

I guess there is a difference between overweight and obese.

 

I think so.  Technically *most* of us are probably a little overweight (by 10-15 pounds), but that doesn't mean we're fat or obese.

 

[IronTiger]

I guess there is a difference between overweight and obese.

There is, it's based on BMI (height/weight/gender). Being overweight may not especially obvious and can be hidden to some extent (shapewear for women, larger t-shirts in general--the less convincing it is, the fatter they are)

[livincinco]

Attitudes aside...

I think a better question to ask is this: Would people rather ride rail or bus? Simple question, we all know the answer.

Would a rail line end up with higher ridership than a bus route? Simple question, we all know the answer.

I agree we shouldn't build everywhere right away. We should however start setting aside ROW and other particulars needed for rail, as there will come a time when the density is there and the demand is high enough. Failure to understand that is baffling.

Like a flood control project, you don't wait until the flood waters are rising to build something to control it. Of course that's not really how we do things over here - we wait till we get a multi-billion dollar flood THEN we spend billions more trying to build improvements that could have been built in initially at much lower cost.

Would more people ride a train than a bus is not a simple question, it's a simplistic question.

You state that there will be a time that the density will be there and the demand will be high enough. I agree with that point related to heavy rail, but the capacity question regarding BRT and LRT is much more of a debate as most real world numbers attest.

You make several statements that I think would require much more detailed discussion than you attribute in your statement. I totally agree with you about setting aside ROW, but if demand isn't sufficient today to support a line, I would suggest that it's entirely appropriate to identify when demand will be sufficient and target construction to be closer to that timeframe. If demand in a corridor isn't projected to be sufficient to require rail for 30 years as an example, wouldn't it make more sense to set aside ROW now and have that line ready for use in 25 years which would still be well before the time that the projected demand exists?

I also question the statement that we need to build now because it will cost so much in the future. That's a huge economic assumption that doesn't consider inflation, long term interest costs, potential technology improvements, and operating losses that occur due to unused capacity during the interim. It also ignores whether it's the best current use of the money. I think that we all agree that there are large opportunity for improvement in current METRO coverage. Why should METRO divert money that could be used to improve current usage to fund projected future demand that may not be required for decades? Why not budget for future construction at the appropriate time?

I think that these are all reasonable questions to ask rather than just saying more people will ride rail than buses. Of course, these all assume that a government agency is capable of making rational long term decisions and that might be the most questionable assumption of all.

[arche_757]

Would more people ride a train than a bus is not a simple question, it's a simplistic question.

You state that there will be a time that the density will be there and the demand will be high enough. I agree with that point related to heavy rail, but the capacity question regarding BRT and LRT is much more of a debate as most real world numbers attest.

You make several statements that I think would require much more detailed discussion than you attribute in your statement. I totally agree with you about setting aside ROW, but if demand isn't sufficient today to support a line, I would suggest that it's entirely appropriate to identify when demand will be sufficient and target construction to be closer to that timeframe. If demand in a corridor isn't projected to be sufficient to require rail for 30 years as an example, wouldn't it make more sense to set aside ROW now and have that line ready for use in 25 years which would still be well before the time that the projected demand exists?

I also question the statement that we need to build now because it will cost so much in the future. That's a huge economic assumption that doesn't consider inflation, long term interest costs, potential technology improvements, and operating losses that occur due to unused capacity during the interim. It also ignores whether it's the best current use of the money. I think that we all agree that there are large opportunity for improvement in current METRO coverage. Why should METRO divert money that could be used to improve current usage to fund projected future demand that may not be required for decades? Why not budget for future construction at the appropriate time?

I think that these are all reasonable questions to ask rather than just saying more people will ride rail than buses. Of course, these all assume that a government agency is capable of making rational long term decisions and that might be the most questionable assumption of all.

 

1) It is a simple question... but I think one could even informally take a poll (on here) if people would rather ride rail or bus.

 

2) Setting aside ROW (that process could take years in and of itself) is a good idea.  I doubt that density will take 30 years (that would be 2044) to get there in the areas where I'm thinking - and I'm speaking mostly of inner Beltway areas.

 

3) Well, like I've said in however many posts I've made about this subject... building now (meaning start setting aside land/row/whatever start the design process, then getting bids for construction, then starting construction) will take years to progress.  That's why I want to start now in some areas.  The university line (for example) down Richmond or where ever needs to be done, but that process (to do it correctly) should and will take many years to achieve.

 

4) Higher density = higher property costs, which is not always true but generally a given.  I don't see an event that will happen in the future of this country that will make things cheaper in regards to construction costs/land costs etc.  If that event does happen we probably aren't worried about getting to and from job centers as much as we are simply worried about jobs, or health and home.

 

Again ***and I stress this emphatically*** any worthwhile transit line, whether it is bus or rail, should take at the least half a decade to design and implement (rail will obviously take longer).  I am not advocating that we go out in June and spend $2 billion.  I'm saying that the process needs to - no must - begin as soon as possible.  Phase it out if need be.  Study the heck out of it, but study it.  Right now I'm guessing there's a little room somewhere in METROs HQ that has 4 peons working on this, where they ought to have 40.  The way I see it we won't have a fully system until 2044 - but I'll wager we will need it well before that.

 

[livincinco]

I think that those are fair points and I think that the city is taking the right steps by starting to do some real long term planning. Most of my concerns about rail relate to my views on future technology. I do a lot of work with companies related to long term logistics planning and I truly believe that we are in the starting stages of a transportation revolution that will match what occurred with the implementation of the automobile in the early part of the last century. I think that anyone that is old enough recognizes that the last couple of decades have resulted in a communication and information revolution that are comparable to any shift in human history. As that technology continues to be implemented across transportation, we are going to see huge shifts as a result. I have a lot of difficulty believing that 50-100 year infrastructure investments in light rail are appropriate at this point given the potential impact of these changes.

I think that the same thing is true of energy generation as well, but that's a subject for another post and thread.

[Slick Vik]

I think that those are fair points and I think that the city is taking the right steps by starting to do some real long term planning. Most of my concerns about rail relate to my views on future technology. I do a lot of work with companies related to long term logistics planning and I truly believe that we are in the starting stages of a transportation revolution that will match what occurred with the implementation of the automobile in the early part of the last century. I think that anyone that is old enough recognizes that the last couple of decades have resulted in a communication and information revolution that are comparable to any shift in human history. As that technology continues to be implemented across transportation, we are going to see huge shifts as a result. I have a lot of difficulty believing that 50-100 year infrastructure investments in light rail are appropriate at this point given the potential impact of these changes.

I think that the same thing is true of energy generation as well, but that's a subject for another post and thread.

Total speculation.

It will cost more to build later than now. Costs of everything are only going up. Your strategy is to push it off in the hopes that rail isn't necessary anymore. Which is basically a stalling tactic.