Jump to content

METRORapid University Corridor


BeerNut

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, chempku said:

Check out the Inner Katy BRT, METRO clearly stated that P&R will be using the BRT line. 

 

I'm gonna have to ask you to cite a source on that. P&Rs connect to several stations along the BRT corridors, but as far as I'm aware, the P&R vehicles will continue to use the HOV lanes on the highways, not the BRT lanes. 

The Inner Katy line is very nearly an express line, but the University Line route is modeled more after a local metro than a suburban commuter.

That said, a west-side suburbanite who works in Greenway may find this service quite useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I-10 inside 610 has no Hov lane until it’s about 2 miles from downtown. Letting P&R buses use the new Katy BRT lanes would greatly improve their timetable and could be the difference between [friend] driving himself and using the P&R bus to TMC

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, chempku said:

The key is any type of public transit need to somehow compete against cars. Any arguments about cost, capacity, etc., go down to this. 

Cities like Houston don't need the capacity LRT provides most of the times, since the city is just not as dense (despite I wish it could be denser)

Check out the Inner Katy BRT, METRO clearly stated that P&R will be using the BRT line. 

BRT does not generate the same ridership as LRT, so if you want to have something that competes against cars, rail is the superior mode given that it attracts more riders. 

Obviously, Houston may not need the capacity of LRT right now, but these lines will be in place for 100+ years. What will Houston, especially west inner-loop, look like then? Those lines' utilization will continue to increase over the decades. 

I understand they'll be using the new lanes, but I do not recall seeing any plans for them to actually stop at the BRT stations. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mfastx said:

BRT does not generate the same ridership as LRT, so if you want to have something that competes against cars, rail is the superior mode given that it attracts more riders. 

Obviously, Houston may not need the capacity of LRT right now, but these lines will be in place for 100+ years. What will Houston, especially west inner-loop, look like then? Those lines' utilization will continue to increase over the decades. 

I understand they'll be using the new lanes, but I do not recall seeing any plans for them to actually stop at the BRT stations. 

Houston, along with many American cities, don't have the density to make LRT the best option in most cases, period. Any public transit needs to be as fast as cars, from door to door, to effectively attract the middle class (who have cars!). It's simply too expensive to achieve this for LRT without enough population density. 

"The lines can stay for long time", so are the existing buildings and infrastructure that limits population density. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2023 at 2:57 PM, Some one said:

The light rail in DFW fails because DART was more focused on building them in old ROW rather than where the people were. It's the very same reason why the Houston metrorail, despite not covering as many areas as DART does, has almost as much riders as DART does.

Yet they literally follow major freeway corridors, therefore providing the literal "choice" that transit promoters say people supposedly want and will supposedly use in large numbers if given to them.  "If only people had a choice . . . ", right?  (Incidentally, yet another persistent example of transit promoters saying even when transit is built that it doesn't work because it just wasn't done perfectly, which as far as I can tell basically translates into, "If money were no object and you didn't have to worry about any political considerations, everything would be perfect!"  This way of thinking would definitely give me a migraine--not sure how it doesn't give others the same.)

On 3/14/2023 at 12:05 PM, Some one said:

What's even more annoying is the fact that the Silver Line, which was supposed to be light rail, was later changed to BRT due to cost. And this was before the Metronext plan was approved. So Metro is really inconsistent with these things. Not to mention that a common complaint about the transit plan was that there was not enough rail, especially on the west side. 

Well the referendum had a dollar amount associated with it, right?  Are you suggesting METRO should have risked going back to the voters?  (That assumes they even had the bonding capacity to begin with--did you consider that?)

On 3/15/2023 at 8:26 AM, mfastx said:

They are only considering BRT due to its lower initial capital cost, LRT is the superior mode, generating about twice as much ridership in a vacuum and would generate more development benefits/revenue generation for the city.

Examples?

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 11:45 AM, mfastx said:

I'm not sure I follow. In Houston, significant development has sprouted around the light rail, particularly in midtown and even in the extremely underdeveloped northern, eastern and southeastern areas of town where the new lines went. 

Examples?

On 3/15/2023 at 11:45 AM, mfastx said:

How would BRT spur better development in Houston? 

How would it not?  I mean, you really haven't shared anything stating otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mfastx said:

BRT does not generate the same ridership as LRT, so if you want to have something that competes against cars, rail is the superior mode given that it attracts more riders. 

That's at least somewhat spurious, isn't it?  I mean, surely there are planning guidelines for which mode is more appropriate given forecast demand.  To the extent BRT is determined to have a greater benefit-cost on segments with lower demand and therefore is the mode of choice for that particular segment, have you proven BRT attracts fewer riders or rather that LRT is not cost-effective for lower demand segments?

Not to mention, is it really in the best interest of citizens to say, spend multiple times the amount of capital for a project that is ultimately subsidized simply because they have some sort of rail bias?  Seems like if similar levels of service can be realized in terms of travel times, the hundreds of millions saved on the front end could be used to offer service in more corridors and run basic PSA campaigns saying "bus is just as good as rail and here's why."  You'll still get the same dedicated transit riders you always would--the only people you are losing are middle-upper income people who probably aren't that jazzed about using transit anyway.  (I mean the implicit statement, "I'd ride transit in Houston if only we had a real subway like Washington, DC" is just beyond ridiculous.  I don't even think the statement should be taken at face value.)

In other words, all these people who say they have a rail bias don't seem to be willing to pay the fares associated with ensuring the perceived higher level of service comes even close to breaking even.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Yet they literally follow major freeway corridors, therefore providing the literal "choice" that transit promoters say people supposedly want and will supposedly use in large numbers if given to them.  "If only people had a choice . . . ", right?  (Incidentally, yet another persistent example of transit promoters saying even when transit is built that it doesn't work because it just wasn't done perfectly, which as far as I can tell basically translates into, "If money were no object and you didn't have to worry about any political considerations, everything would be perfect!"  This way of thinking would definitely give me a migraine--not sure how it doesn't give others the same.)

 

  I never said they should follow major freeway corridors. I actually think its foolish to put rail where the freeway is, especially since a lot of them have stations that are difficult to get to. I'd rather they put them where the people are. That's why the Houston METRO, despite being slow, has about as riders than the DART rail in Dallas. Because Metro was more focused on building rail where the people were (between districts and neighborhoods) rather than where the ROW was.

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well the referendum had a dollar amount associated with it, right?  Are you suggesting METRO should have risked going back to the voters?  (That assumes they even had the bonding capacity to begin with--did you consider that?)

Examples?

I never suggested that. I understand the constraints METRO has. The plan we have now is still much better than having no transit plan. I just wish they were a little clearer about the BRT not being convertible.

Edited by Some one
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Some one Matty36 has a MO of changing the subject when it's one he doesn't agree with, but can't really refute.

there is no doubt that fixed right of way high volume transit options increase development and density. every freeway is high volume transit, albeit one of the most inefficient. so yeah, build a freeway, and developers build apartments, big box stores and other things with huge parking lots to service those transit corridors. in the suburbs, the freeways weren't built in such a manner as to service the higher density that already existed. they were built in pastures and the developers built single family homes on 10,000 sf of land, apartments and malls and big box stores next to the freeways because that freeways makes it a mass transit corridor.

and there's proof right here in Houston that regardless of the mode of fixed mass transit you build (thereby creating a mass transit corridor), whether it is freeway, or light rail, with enough bake time, the higher density developments come. every freeway spurs higher development than was there previously that's without dispute, well, so does light rail, and the density it builds is even greater. look up and down the red line, which has had 20 years to mature, the transformation of density along that corridor is clear. and you can start to see the same transformation along the green and purple lines. 

and it's important to note you can't count just buses riding on a normal street as transit that creates density along that corridor. Metro can redraw the bus map tomorrow along whatever corridor it wants, but TXDoT can't just move a freeway overnight, nor can Metro move the red, green, purple, or silver line easily, where a bus stop on a street corner isn't permanent, freeways, LRT and BRT are a very permanent statement to developers of higher density. 

the irony of it all is you have people like Matty36 who are so quick to speak volumes about how one form of mass transit corridor (freeways) can create higher density and serve so many, but at the same time they decry every other form of mass transit as something that doesn't work. it's kind of silly, if you think about it.

regarding converting BRT to LRT, I agree, it is very disappointing. I recall at some point during the process of the line in the Galleria area when it was switched from LRT to BRT it was stated that they were building it in such a way so that it could be converted to LRT in the future. I guess it's just easy to presume that if that is indeed how they built it, that any future BRT corridor would be the same. long term, I think it's a poor decision, but at the end of the day, the University line is going to be transformational, whether it is LRT, BRT that can later be LRT, or just BRT in perpetuity.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, samagon said:

@Some one Matty36 has a MO of changing the subject when it's one he doesn't agree with, but can't really refute.

Everything I wrote is literally directly in response to something someone else wrote.  maybe if i did it all in lowercase it would register, sammy.  (BTW, I thought you were ignoring me?)

2 hours ago, samagon said:

the higher density developments come. every freeway spurs higher development than was there previously that's without dispute, well, so does light rail, and the density it builds is even greater. look up and down the red line, which has had 20 years to mature, the transformation of density along that corridor is clear. and you can start to see the same transformation along the green and purple lines. 

Give me a break.  The type of development you see along the light rail and mistakenly attribute (well, wholly attribute to it) is the same type of development you are seeing in other major Inner Loop corridors.  The Heights has to be one of the most densifying neighborhoods and it doesn't have an inch of light rail.  The East End is developing because of its proximity to downtown and the price of land.  It's one of those things you learn in elementary school, sammy--correlation does not imply causation.  Or, perhaps better stated in your case--just because you write it doesn't make it true.

2 hours ago, samagon said:

the irony of it all is you have people like Matty36 who are so quick to speak volumes about how one form of mass transit corridor (freeways) can create higher density and serve so many, but at the same time they decry every other form of mass transit as something that doesn't work. it's kind of silly, if you think about it.

I have not once, ever, made an argument about a freeway causing higher density.  All of the arguments have been one of practicality.  You can't build something that most people don't want, or stated better, don't want to pay for.  Freeways are popular.  That's a reality.  Put a comprehensive transit system and the associated price tag here to a vote.  I can assure you it will never pass.  I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand.  How about trying to refute that simple fact?

Moreover, there's this pipe dream that if you just put people in traffic they'll somehow all move into the City center to homes they can't afford or otherwise don't want and have their kids go to schools that they deem to be severely underperforming.  That is juvenile, Mickey Mouse logic.  What is more likely is that businesses and eventually people move OUT.  If you want a great transit system, move to DC, NYC, or Chicago and pay the associated price.  There you can pretend that these sprawling metro areas don't have freeways and suburbs.  Or maybe LA or Dallas . . . ah, wait, I forgot they didn't do it right, right?

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Some one said:

  I never said they should follow major freeway corridors. I actually think its foolish to put rail where the freeway is, especially since a lot of them have stations that are difficult to get to. I'd rather they put them where the people are. That's why the Houston METRO, despite being slow, has about as riders than the DART rail in Dallas. Because Metro was more focused on building rail where the people were (between districts and neighborhoods) rather than where the ROW was.

@Some one I never said you did (note I did not say "you," I said "transit promoter"), I used your comment to illustrate a point about one of the many elementary arguments people make about why people don't use transit today but would tomorrow if one just built rail, i.e., "people just need a choice."

16 hours ago, Some one said:

 I just wish they were a little clearer about the BRT not being convertible.

I've heard this bandied about so often and must say I don't get it.  BUT, I confess I am ignorant on the topic.  What could METRO have done differently to make it convertible to LRT?  What exactly is preventing it from being converted to LRT in the future?  Has anything been constructed today in connection with the Silver Line that would make it more cost-prohibitive than before to build LRT in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

@Some one I never said you did (note I did not say "you," I said "transit promoter"), I used your comment to illustrate a point about one of the many elementary arguments people make about why people don't use transit today but would tomorrow if one just built rail, i.e., "people just need a choice."

I've heard this bandied about so often and must say I don't get it.  BUT, I confess I am ignorant on the topic.  What could METRO have done differently to make it convertible to LRT?  What exactly is preventing it from being converted to LRT in the future?  Has anything been constructed today in connection with the Silver Line that would make it more cost-prohibitive than before to build LRT in the future?

They'd have to rebuild the stations, all the bridges, tear up all the roads to put tracks in, tear down more trees for the wire poles, etc. All the while somehow not disrupting the BRT operations since, I assume, there will be enough passengers to warrant the light rail and therefore enough passengers to be really pissed off if they closed the route for 5+ years for all this construction. In the end it wouldn't be that much cheaper than building a line from scratch. Cheaper certainly, since certain studies won't have to be redone on some segments and METRO will still have accurate maps of the utilities from when the BRT was put in. But in terms of materials and labor, about the same.

However, I do think it is very cheap Politically to do this since METRO will already own the right of way.* It's much easier to get people against this sort of thing to agree to a BRT now, and then agree to a BRT>Rail decades later.

In terms of how to make the LRT cheaper in the future through the design of the BRT now, there really isn't much they can do. All that would possibly help is just ROW. The more room METRO owns through the BRT lanes, median, curbs, and station, is all room that METRO would desperately need to fit a train through, and any more ROW they take is an additional political complication. And although that ship has sailed, the bridge over the train tracks by Harrisburg would have been easier to convert if it was a tunnel instead. I'd bet you a nickle that the BRT bridge will be simply incapable of holding the weight of a light rail, and will have to be torn down and rebuilt when the time comes.

*METRO will have to buy more ROW at some intersections if they convert to rail, since the trains can't take some corners as tightly as busses. See: Redline in near northside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, HouTXRanger said:

They'd have to rebuild the stations, all the bridges, tear up all the roads to put tracks in, tear down more trees for the wire poles, etc. 

So, if I translate, this means what they didn't do was (1) design the stations with longer platform lengths; and (2) didn't design the bridges (how many are there?) to accommodate the weight of the light rail vehicles?  I'm not sure why one would want to tear down trees now or construct utility lines for what may not ever happen in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, I was in Eastwood the other day, and if the signs are any indication, there's a lot of opposition to the overpass on Lockwood approaching Harrisburg.

I hope this does not hold up the project significantly, but I wonder if the Eastwood Civic Association and its anti-overpass members might be more amenable to the following changes (which seem plausible to me, but may not actually be):

1) Mural the hell out of it. Really try to make it a vibrant focal piece for the neighborhood.

2) Build withpedestrian (or maybe even car?) crossing underneath at approximately Rusk. At Walker, I'm assuming that you'd need to dig down, and I don't see that happening, so I think the Walker crossing is kaput. But if they can maintain some form of access at both McKinney and Rusk, that's not bad.

I know this came up in the virtual public meeting video, but it was passed over pretty quickly. Anybody on here have a better sense of where the Eastwood Civic Association and its allies are at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2023 at 2:12 PM, chempku said:

Houston, along with many American cities, don't have the density to make LRT the best option in most cases, period. Any public transit needs to be as fast as cars, from door to door, to effectively attract the middle class (who have cars!). It's simply too expensive to achieve this for LRT without enough population density. 

"The lines can stay for long time", so are the existing buildings and infrastructure that limits population density. 

In most places yes, but the western corridors like Richmond and Westheimer absolutely have enough population to make rail work. Instead, Metro built rail in the less-dense, underdeveloped eastern and northern areas of Houston. Just backwards - it'll take a long times for development to densify in those areas and for those lines to be well utilized (decades if not more). 

On 3/16/2023 at 4:25 PM, mattyt36 said:

Examples?

How would it not?  I mean, you really haven't shared anything stating otherwise.

Let's take a look at the first fully BRT route in Houston, the Silver line. Right now it carries 849 riders on an average weekday, according to Metro's data. The Green line in a much less developed area of east Houston? About 3,600 riders a weekday. That's almost 4x as much. Obviously, even when putting LRT in an area that doesn't have the density to fully utilize it, the returns are much better than BRT ridership wise. The Red line, which actually goes through some employment centers, carriers around 32,900 riders/weekday. 

On 3/16/2023 at 4:34 PM, mattyt36 said:

To the extent BRT is determined to have a greater benefit-cost on segments with lower demand and therefore is the mode of choice for that particular segment, have you proven BRT attracts fewer riders or rather that LRT is not cost-effective for lower demand segments?

Not to mention, is it really in the best interest of citizens to say, spend multiple times the amount of capital for a project that is ultimately subsidized simply because they have some sort of rail bias?  Seems like if similar levels of service can be realized in terms of travel times, the hundreds of millions saved on the front end could be used to offer service in more corridors and run basic PSA campaigns saying "bus is just as good as rail and here's why."  You'll still get the same dedicated transit riders you always would--the only people you are losing are middle-upper income people who probably aren't that jazzed about using transit anyway.  (I mean the implicit statement, "I'd ride transit in Houston if only we had a real subway like Washington, DC" is just beyond ridiculous.  I don't even think the statement should be taken at face value.)

In other words, all these people who say they have a rail bias don't seem to be willing to pay the fares associated with ensuring the perceived higher level of service comes even close to breaking even.

See ridership numbers above. All modes of transportation are subsidized, so there's not point in discussing your second point. Rail, on an operating cost basis, is subsidized less per rider than bus modes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears the hope is for an underpass. Requests have been made for streetscape enhancements, such as wider sidewalks and pedestrian crossings on Lockwood. METRO appears to have acknowledge the sidewalks but I gather it's noncommittal on others. 

It's well documented that METRO sees an overpass as the path forward. 

Edited by JClark54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

It appears the hope is for an underpass. Requests have been made for streetscape enhancements, such as wider sidewalks and pedestrian crossings on Lockwood. METRO appears to have acknowledge the sidewalks but I gather it's noncommittal on others. 

It's well documented that METRO sees an overpass as the path forward. 

Hmm. Yeah I don't see an underpass happening. Allegedly the tracks function as a flood gate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mfastx said:

Let's take a look at the first fully BRT route in Houston, the Silver line. Right now it carries 849 riders on an average weekday, according to Metro's data. The Green line in a much less developed area of east Houston? About 3,600 riders a weekday. That's almost 4x as much. Obviously, even when putting LRT in an area that doesn't have the density to fully utilize it, the returns are much better than BRT ridership wise. The Red line, which actually goes through some employment centers, carriers around 32,900 riders/weekday. 

In other words, you run a transit line through an area with a transit-dependent population and ridership is higher.  Quelle surprise.

5 minutes ago, mfastx said:

See ridership numbers above. All modes of transportation are subsidized, so there's not point in discussing your second point. Rail, on an operating cost basis, is subsidized less per rider than bus modes.

There's no point in discussing the second point when you totally omit the order-of-magnitude larger capital costs and the associated annual debt service?  If you move into a more energy-efficient house which cuts your electricity bill by 25% but your mortgage more than doubles in the process, do you actually think you're saving money?  Shirley, you can't be serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mattyt36 said:

In other words, you run a transit line through an area with a transit-dependent population and ridership is higher.  Quelle surprise.

There's no point in discussing the second point when you totally omit the order-of-magnitude larger capital costs and the associated annual debt service?  If you move into a more energy-efficient house which cuts your electricity bill by 25% but your mortgage more than doubles in the process, do you actually think you're saving money?  Shirley, you can't be serious.

Which transit dependent populations does the original Red line (not north side extension) traverse? 

If you read my earlier post in the thread, you'd see that I acknowledged the high initial capital costs associated with rail. You get what you pay for - if you want more transit ridership, need to pay for better infrastructure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mfastx said:

Which transit dependent populations does the original Red line (not north side extension) traverse? 

The Red Line serves two enormous and dense employment centers that, while they may have plenty of parking spaces, they aren't cheap to park at.  Moreover, ridership is boosted by sporting and other major events and taking Medical Center employees from surface parking to the hospitals.

The Silver Line connects two park and rides less than 5 miles away from each other.  The ridership depends on suburbanites driving 30 minutes, parking, and waiting for the bus.  It shouldn't be a surprise that people choose to just drive the last mile, even if it takes marginally longer (which I'm not entirely sure is the case).  Compare the ridership to a normal crosstown bus line.  This stuff is not that difficult to understand.

6 minutes ago, mfastx said:

If you read my earlier post in the thread, you'd see that I acknowledged the high initial capital costs associated with rail. You get what you pay for - if you want more transit ridership, need to pay for better infrastructure. 

You just don't get it, @mfastx, plenty of people (read: voters who have to approve such things by law since they are the ones paying for it) explicitly don't want (or care about) more transit ridership, and even those that do (or are indifferent), don't want it at the associated cost levels.  Again, this is not difficult to understand--do you think $1.4 billion in construction costs to serve 7,000 riders per day on the Green and Purple lines is some sort of a winning argument?  Surely you understand that any life-cycle cost analysis is going to heavily weight construction costs today versus operating cost savings in the future--that's the whole concept of net present value.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 3:46 PM, mfastx said:

In most places yes, but the western corridors like Richmond and Westheimer absolutely have enough population to make rail work. Instead, Metro built rail in the less-dense, underdeveloped eastern and northern areas of Houston. Just backwards - it'll take a long times for development to densify in those areas and for those lines to be well utilized (decades if not more). 

I believe it's the right thing to build rail in underdeveloped eastern and northern areas of Houston. People over there are more in need of transit options. You may have underestimated the challenges to get ROW from private parties, even just a few small parcels. Look at what happened to projects like NHHIP and Texas LSR. 

Ligh rail/subway based TOD can succeed, just like what happened to many other nations. Watch some related Strong Towns videos if you have further doubts about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 5:23 PM, mattyt36 said:

The Red Line serves two enormous and dense employment centers that, while they may have plenty of parking spaces, they aren't cheap to park at.  Moreover, ridership is boosted by sporting and other major events and taking Medical Center employees from surface parking to the hospitals.

The Silver Line connects two park and rides less than 5 miles away from each other.  The ridership depends on suburbanites driving 30 minutes, parking, and waiting for the bus.  It shouldn't be a surprise that people choose to just drive the last mile, even if it takes marginally longer (which I'm not entirely sure is the case).  Compare the ridership to a normal crosstown bus line.  This stuff is not that difficult to understand.

 

The Silver Line serves the second largest employment center. If you're not going to contribute a counter example which proves my comment about LRT generating more ridership than BRT wrong, then I can't take your comments (which are all out of thin air) seriously. 

On 3/17/2023 at 5:23 PM, mattyt36 said:

You just don't get it, @mfastx, plenty of people (read: voters who have to approve such things by law since they are the ones paying for it) explicitly don't want (or care about) more transit ridership, and even those that do (or are indifferent), don't want it at the associated cost levels.  Again, this is not difficult to understand--do you think $1.4 billion in construction costs to serve 7,000 riders per day on the Green and Purple lines is some sort of a winning argument?  Surely you understand that any life-cycle cost analysis is going to heavily weight construction costs today versus operating cost savings in the future--that's the whole concept of net present value.

Voters don't have to approve, Metro elects do hold these referendums. Also, voters voted for rail numerous times. I agree that LRT on the east side, lower density areas wasn't the best investment, the money would have been much better spent in higher density areas of Houston where it would have generated more ridership. You're switching goalposts now. In addition, you're treating transit like a business - which it's not. No form of transportation in and of itself is profitable. However, dollars invested in transit have proven to generate economic benefits, there's been numerous studies on the subject if you'd like to educate yourself. 

On 3/18/2023 at 6:39 PM, chempku said:

I believe it's the right thing to build rail in underdeveloped eastern and northern areas of Houston. People over there are more in need of transit options. You may have underestimated the challenges to get ROW from private parties, even just a few small parcels. Look at what happened to projects like NHHIP and Texas LSR. 

Just because they're in need of transit options (I'm weary of making that blanket assumption but alright) doesn't mean we have to build them the most expensive option available. LRT provides way more capacity than what the Green and Purple lines currently carry. The east side lines were originally proposed as BRT - which I feel makes sense given the lower density and population of those areas. 

Edited by mfastx
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, IWantTransit555 said:

mattyt36 is a troll. Just ignore him and stop trying to answer his ridiculous questions.

life on this forum is better, of course I still have to see matty when others quote him, but at least I don't have to see everything.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mfastx said:

Just because they're in need of transit options (I'm weary of making that blanket assumption but alright) doesn't mean we have to build them the most expensive option available. LRT provides way more capacity than what the Green and Purple lines currently carry. The east side lines were originally proposed as BRT - which I feel makes sense given the lower density and population of those areas. 

You may not realize the "capacity" you tout about is just one of many metrics planners need to consider. Most of the times the LRT systems in car-dependent cities are highly under utilized. New LRT systems will be under utilized even more, since existing lines already took the best routes. 

The reality: 

METRO provides ridership reports every months, free of charge. I randomly select some pre-pandemic numbers, in the pictures below. The busiest P&R stations scores ~2600 per day, which is on-par with many LRT stations. (Actually the ave boardings per mile per day of METRORail is about 2650, which translates to roughly 1400 per station per day.)

If the capacity of LRT is so meaningful, P&R should all be converted to light rails, and people rides P&R should have been complaining about the lack of capacity. But is this the case? 

image.png.0c9615d1ad61c65a199be615e78f7c6a.png

image.png.f2f48c42383d016b6a3caebb46fb99e2.png

 

 

Edited by chempku
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, chempku said:

You may not realize the "capacity" you tout about is just one of many metrics planners need to consider. Most of the times the LRT systems in car-dependent cities are highly under utilized. New LRT systems will be under utilized even more, since existing lines already took the best routes. 

The reality: 

METRO provides ridership reports every months, free of charge. I randomly select some pre-pandemic numbers, in the pictures below. The busiest P&R stations scores ~2600 per day, which is on-par with many LRT stations. (Actually the ave boardings per mile per day of METRORail is about 2650, which translates to roughly 1400 per station per day.)

If the capacity of LRT is so meaningful, P&R should all be converted to light rails, and people rides P&R should have been complaining about the lack of capacity. But is this the case? 

image.png.0c9615d1ad61c65a199be615e78f7c6a.png

image.png.f2f48c42383d016b6a3caebb46fb99e2.png

 

 

the red line numbers are inflated by the Rodeo, looking at Jan '23 (most recent) the average weekday boardings for the red line are almost 32,900, green and purple are 3600 and 3800 respectively, average weekday boardings.

I wish the previous year growth tables showed more than 5 years, everything is thrown off by covid, all of the lines are still down from pre-covid levels.

the one thing that is true of the monthly 5 year is that all of the services are seeing growth, across the board. which is great.

image.png.445dba72069b96eb7cd6d575b5f8ecec.png

pretty handy to have the link for the ridership reports as well:

https://metro.resourcespace.com/pages/collections_featured.php?parent=16661

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chempku said:

You may not realize the "capacity" you tout about is just one of many metrics planners need to consider. Most of the times the LRT systems in car-dependent cities are highly under utilized. New LRT systems will be under utilized even more, since existing lines already took the best routes. 

I'm well aware of all of this .. I really don't think we're in much disagreement, but if you're saying LRT should be built in lower density areas, and BRT should be built in higher density areas, then that's where we disagree. 

Any new system built today will continue to appreciate in value over the next several decades, including the LRT lines in east Houston. My point was, that building rail in more densely populated areas and connecting employment centers would yield faster positive returns. I don't see how that's a controversial statement. 

2 hours ago, chempku said:

The reality: 

METRO provides ridership reports every months, free of charge. I randomly select some pre-pandemic numbers, in the pictures below. The busiest P&R stations scores ~2600 per day, which is on-par with many LRT stations. (Actually the ave boardings per mile per day of METRORail is about 2650, which translates to roughly 1400 per station per day.)

I'm well aware of ridership reports, having sourced them in this very thread just a few posts up. 

2 hours ago, chempku said:

If the capacity of LRT is so meaningful, P&R should all be converted to light rails, and people rides P&R should have been complaining about the lack of capacity. But is this the case? 

image.png.0c9615d1ad61c65a199be615e78f7c6a.png

image.png.f2f48c42383d016b6a3caebb46fb99e2.png

You're comparing entire P&R routes to one single metrorail station, which is not remotely an apples to apples comparison. If you're asking whether P&R routes would have higher ridership if they were converted to rail, the answer is most likely yes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mfastx said:

Any new system built today will continue to appreciate in value over the next several decades, including the LRT lines in east Houston. My point was, that building rail in more densely populated areas and connecting employment centers would yield faster positive returns. I don't see how that's a controversial statement. 

Do you have some financial analysis that supported by realistic numbers and assupmtions? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...