METRORapid University Corridor

[IWantTransit555]

1 hour ago, HouTXRanger said:

They are planning on completely rebuilding the street along the entire alignment. So should include utility undergrounding if needed, sidewalk reconstruction, new crossings, better crosswalks, better drains, etc

Why is this done with all of our major transit projects? Would this not just drive up the price?

[cspwal]

For this project it is probably due to the current condition of the roads. You also need good sidewalks leading to stations for transit to be useful

[004n063]

6 hours ago, cspwal said:

For this project it is probably due to the current condition of the roads. You also need good sidewalks leading to stations for transit to be useful

It's also an investment in the corridor that, done right, could transform or accelerate development patterns for the next few decades.

[004n063]

10 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

They plan for 6-minute frequency during peak hours, just like the redline (why doesn't the silver line BRT run this frequent?).

Just a guess, but I think the main purpose of the original silver line was more beta (and advertising) for the UL and IK lines than anything else. Make it look nice, test how the signal priority works, etc., but don't piss off too many people by making traffic in the Galleria even worse without providing much of a commute solution (route-wise, at least).

It wouldn't surprise me if they increase the frequency on the silver line once the IK extension is up and running.

Six minutes on the UL is great, though. I hope they're willing to do the signal prioritization necessary to make that work.

[004n063]

10 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

The alignment between the Wheeler Transit Center and UH is now as follows: directly east on Wheeler to Ennis Street, north on Ennis Street to Elgin, east on Elgin Street until it turns into Lockwood when it crosses 45. They said this was changed after feedback to serve the residents of 3rd Ward better instead of just trying to get from Wheeler to UH as directly as possible.

My understanding is that the previous route proposal went south at Almeda to Blodgett, so Wheeler-to-Ennis actually straightens the line a bit.

[004n063]

University Corridor project awarded $150M in funding from the federal govt

[hindesky]

"Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, in a Thursday announcement, said the Metropolitan Transit Authority project will receive $150 million in the upcoming budget of the Federal Transit Administration."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-brt-fta-buttigieg-17830013.php

[samagon]

 

19 hours ago, hindesky said:

"Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, in a Thursday announcement, said the Metropolitan Transit Authority project will receive $150 million in the upcoming budget of the Federal Transit Administration."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-brt-fta-buttigieg-17830013.php

it's important to note this still needs to pass congress for those funds to get allocated, this is President Biden's proposed budget.

it's great news that we are 1 of 9 transit projects that are part of this budget.

Quote

The approval, subject to Congress passing the overall budget, marks the first federal funds dedicated to the line...

...one of nine chosen nationally for new funding...

anyway, good news, and based on the wording of the bolded section, there is potential for more funding.

[004n063]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

anyway, good news, and based on the wording of the bolded section, there is potential for more funding.

Yeah, to have more than 10% of the expected cost appropriated from a federal budget at this stage seems good to me, though I could be dead wrong as I have absolutely zero expertise in this.

[004n063]

Metro released a video of the virtual meeting on their YouTube channel. Not much in there that hasn't been covered here, but a couple of details stood out to me:

 

1) They were quite firm in stating that BRT could not be converted to rail in the future. They said it was going to be BRT because that's what the voters wanted, which rubbed me the wrong way: the choice presented to voters in 2018 was BRT or nothing, not BRT or rail.

2) Metro will be constructing a 10-ft multiuse pathway along the Westpark segment only. This is not insignificant; it'll connect to the extension of the Braes Bayou trail, and if they can find a way to extend the Newcastle trail a half mile or so, that will form a (very windy, I expect) closed loop. But while the rest of the route will have improved sidewalks at least 6 feet wide (with possible exceptions for tree preservation?), it won't all be very bike-friendly. Oh well.

3) Though they are not yet at 30% designed, they did include some updated renderings that show the medians between regular traffic and the bus lane as either just a painted buffer or a very minor barrier. This isn't shocking: a) 25 miles of pristine landscaping like silver line would be a tall order, b) Richmond doesn't have the ROW that Post Oak has, and c) that will make it easier for emergency vehicles to use the lane, which they mentioned as an added benefit. However, I suspect we'll see more private vehicles in the lanes as well. Enforcement may need to be stepped up.

4) It appears from those same renderings that they will use dual-sided stations, rather than one on each side of the intersection (though that could just be true for some stations and not others; I'm guessing it was a cost-saving measure that they can only apply where the medians are widest).

5) They mentioned multiple times that the line will have 40 stations, but to my knowledge there is not yet a comprehensive list of those stations.

Edited March 14 by 004n063
Added a bit

[mfastx]

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

1) They were quite firm in stating that BRT could not be converted to rail in the future. They said it was going to be BRT because that's what the voters wanted, which rubbed me the wrong way: the choice presented to voters in 2018 was BRT or nothing, not BRT or rail.

This is really annoying. Voters already approved rail multiple times, most recently in 2003, smh. 

[Some one]

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. 

Edited March 14 by Some one

[samagon]

I'd prefer light rail, vs BRT.

there's a lot of good reasons for this, primary being that when developers see very permanent transit (and tracks in the ground vs curbs on the street are a bit more permanent), they are going to invest in high density that takes advantage of that permanent transit solution.

anyway, BRT still gives a fixed guideway, hopefully with reliable short wait time transit, is cheaper to implement, and at some point in the future, perhaps the hardware can't be upgraded easily, but the ROW will be there for light rail once our future of single occupant BEV (vs ICE cars) cannot be realized with our current 'drive everywhere' mindset.

and that's really the thing, if the future of our world is to move everyone into BEV, we cannot sustain the overall mileage we currently do as a country, there needs to be a disruptive technology change in batteries, and the grid needs a serious overhaul to carry the additional needed capacity to charge those batteries. either that, or we need to stop sprawling, start densifying, and building out serious mass transit solutions so we aren't forced to maintain such mileage needs.

Edited March 14 by samagon

[Justin Welling]

12 minutes ago, samagon said:

there's a lot of good reasons for this, primary being that when developers see very permanent transit (and tracks in the ground vs curbs on the street are a bit more permanent), they are going to invest in high density that takes advantage of that permanent transit solution.

Apologies if I am misinterpreting your comment, are you saying rail would spur more development than BRT because tracks are more "permanent" than curbs and paint?

BRT will look just as permanent as rail does with dedicated lanes, curbs, and distinct stations. Take a look at all of these cross sections and renderings: 

 

METRORapid University Public Meeting Presentation (resourcespace.com) 

[004n063]

3 minutes ago, Justin Welling said:

Apologies if I am misinterpreting your comment, are you saying rail would spur more development than BRT because tracks are more "permanent" than curbs and paint?

BRT will look just as permanent as rail does with dedicated lanes, curbs, and distinct stations. Take a look at all of these cross sections and renderings: 

 

METRORapid University Public Meeting Presentation (resourcespace.com) 

I'd say the jury is still out on the development effect of BRT vs. rail, but my intuition is that BRT will have to "prove itself" more than rail would in order to spur transformative development. 

The plans - 6min headways, redline-esque signal priority, off-board payment, bike-on-board vehicles, etc. - are for a legitimately high-quality transit experience that would likely only be excelled (locally) by the red line. But all of that is so dependent on operational logistics, and the Silver (aka beta test) line probably hasn't convinced anybody yet.

If the University Line works as well as Metro hopes, though, then I think we will see intensifying development near stops. I just don't really expect that construction to start - in earnest, anyway - simultaneously with the construction of the line.

[HoustonBoy]

There is a novelty to boarding a train that doesn't exist with BRT. I know that BRT is solving a legitimate transit need, but many people will simply refuse to get on a bus rather than a train. I don't know if it's an aesthetic issue, or a mental block, but trains give mass transit a certain level of validity that I don't think BRT can ever offer. Obviously, we on HAIF know that mass transit can be successful with busses, but does the common Houstonian agree? It's hard to imagine many people giving up driving to get on a bus. Since there are so many people going into the city from the West I hope that this line can be successful due to its convenience, but after the silver line I don't know how much faith I have in anything other than rail in Houston. My two cents 

[chempku]

For the BRT vs. Rail debate, I highly recommend visiting the DFW area to get an idea on how light rail fails to compete against "highly congested" highways. Dedicated bus lanes always have the flexibility and potential to carry people faster than light rails. 

Money talks. The state and federal governments have way more instruments funding highway construction than transit programs. So we'd be realistic, don't waste precious local tax money on something that will deprecate from day one. 

 

 

[Some one]

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.

Edited March 14 by Some one

[Justin Welling]

BRT works wonderfully when it is part of a network. The Silver Line is missing out on that right now. With those who are worried this will be like the Silver Line, keep in mind that the Silver Line is still incomplete. Right now, the purpose of the Silver Line is just for Uptown, which had decent transit demand pre-COVID, but the office district has struggled to bounce back with remote work with COVID. Additionally, the route it replaced, the 33 Post Oak, went further south into Gulfton terminating at Bellaire TC, so it was a great frequent route connecting Gulfton (Bellaire TC) to Northwest TC. The Silver Line misses out on those riders with most having moved to the 20, 49, or 309/310. 

Here is how the Silver Line will be a GAME CHANGER.....METRO is in the design process for two extensions: 1) the Inner Katy to Downtown (currently known as Inner Katy BRT), and 2) an extension further southwest through Gulfton terminating at Hillcroft at Beechnut (known as the Gulfton Extension). Both of these extensions would connect the Silver Line to more destinations and more riders and more frequent bus routes. This is when the Silver Line will flourish. 

Luckily for the University Corridor BRT, it already has multiple destinations, so it will get the riders. It will also connect to the Silver Line, which will benefit the ridership on that corridor as well. It will also connect to all three rail lines. It will also connect to SEVEN Metro facilities (park and ride/transit centers). I really do have faith in the University Corridor BRT and all I can say is trust the process and be ready to ride it when it is ready :). 

Edited March 14 by Justin Welling

[004n063]

33 minutes ago, HoustonBoy said:

There is a novelty to boarding a train that doesn't exist with BRT. I know that BRT is solving a legitimate transit need, but many people will simply refuse to get on a bus rather than a train. I don't know if it's an aesthetic issue, or a mental block, but trains give mass transit a certain level of validity that I don't think BRT can ever offer. Obviously, we on HAIF know that mass transit can be successful with busses, but does the common Houstonian agree? It's hard to imagine many people giving up driving to get on a bus. Since there are so many people going into the city from the West I hope that this line can be successful due to its convenience, but after the silver line I don't know how much faith I have in anything other than rail in Houston. My two cents 

I ride a local bus (the #25) daily, I ride the Red and Green rail lines frequently, and I've ridden the Silver line a couple of times. Based on that experience, I largely disagree with your assessment.

What you are right about is that the riding experience of BRT is closer to a typical bus than rail in terms of smoothness and mechanical noise (though the stretch of Richmond between Hillcroft and Dunvale is another story, and BRT is much closer to rail than it is to that). But the boarding experience of the Silver line is much closer - virtually identical, in fact - to the boarding experience on METRORail than regular bus, with designed and landscaped stations, off-board payment, bike aboard, and all that jazz. For that reason, I think whatever novelty exists that may make bus-averse people open to trams will still exist for the BRT lines.

The most salient aspect of any transit service, though, is and always will be convenience. With at-grade services, this really comes down to logistics and signalization more than anything else. If they have that part down, this will be a successful line.

Here's the thing that a casual outside observer may not realize: the #25 local is pretty much always full at peak hours. A remarkable number of people (myself included) are willing to walk to a stop, wait for potentially 15 minutes or more for a pair of backed-up buses to arrive simultaneously, and then sit in traffic for 45 minutes or more, possibly to then transfer to another bus at Wheeler or Eastwood TC. And while not all of those people will be able to easily switch to the U-Line (the Westpark section leaves out a lot of Richmond riders), there will be a lot of new catchment on the south side of Westpark in the Harwin and Gulfton areas. Combine that with the increasing density on Richmond along that segment of the route, as well as the fact that this line has transfers to all other rapid transit lines (including eventual airport extensions on the Green and Purple) and you've got the makings for what I personally expect will be the most heavily used transit route in the city.

I understand the misgivings after the underwhelming performance of the initial Silver line segment. But I'll be honest - as much as I love rail, I don't think a rail version of the silver line would have been any more successful than what we are seeing today. It's a shuttle service that connects two park-and-rides along a beautified stroad with six general travel lanes and gargantuan parking lots, it runs on 15-minute intervals, and while yes, it has its own lanes and signal cycles, it does not have (or, at least, does not apply) true signal priority at its major intersections.

The plan for the U-line is to have signal prioritization like that on the red line, plus six-minute headways all day. If it implements those two elements successfully, it'll do well.

[004n063]

25 minutes ago, Justin Welling said:

BRT works wonderfully when it is part of a network. The Silver Line is missing out on that right now. With those who are worried this will be like the Silver Line, keep in mind that the Silver Line is still incomplete. Right now, the purpose of the Silver Line is just for Uptown, which had decent transit demand pre-COVID, but the office district has struggled to bounce back with remote work with COVID. Additionally, the route it replaced, the 33 Post Oak, went further south into Gulfton terminating at Bellaire TC, so it was a great frequent route connecting Gulfton (Bellaire TC) to Northwest TC. The Silver Line misses out on those riders with most having moved to the 20, 49, or 309/310. 

Here is how the Silver Line will be a GAME CHANGER.....METRO is in the design process for two extensions: 1) the Inner Katy to Downtown (currently known as Inner Katy BRT), and 2) an extension further southwest through Gulfton terminating at Hillcroft at Beechnut (known as the Gulfton Extension). Both of these extensions would connect the Silver Line to more destinations and more riders and more frequent bus routes. This is when the Silver Line will flourish. 

Luckily for the University Corridor BRT, it already has multiple destinations, so it will get the riders. It will also connect to the Silver Line, which will benefit the ridership on that corridor as well. It will also connect to all three rail lines. It will also connect to SEVEN Metro facilities (park and ride/transit centers). I really do have faith in the University Corridor BRT and all I can say is trust the process and be ready to ride it when it is ready :). 

The fully realized Gulfton-Downtown Silver/Inner Katy line could be awesome, but I hope they work on the frequencies and signal priority through uptown. I'd assume they will - from what I could tell talking to a Metro guy at a U-line meeting in July, those were both reversible choices made due to a perceived demand cap in the with the current configuration.

[mfastx]

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. I wonder if that dirty Culberson law is still in effect preventing rail on Richmond. 

It really is so typically backwards that Houston constructed LRT on lines in lower density areas where BRT would have made more since, while it's constructing BRT on the more dense, higher ridership potential areas in west Houston that connect employment centers (a proven area of demand for transit). 

[samagon]

18 hours ago, Justin Welling said:

Apologies if I am misinterpreting your comment, are you saying rail would spur more development than BRT because tracks are more "permanent" than curbs and paint?

BRT will look just as permanent as rail does with dedicated lanes, curbs, and distinct stations. Take a look at all of these cross sections and renderings: 

 

METRORapid University Public Meeting Presentation (resourcespace.com) 

fair point, I got it from this article:https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2011/02/lrt-or-brt-it-depends-potential-corridor/

I confess, I didn't do a heap of research, and that article is from 2011. I changed some search criteria for my googling and it looks like some additional studies have been done and it's generally believed that BRT will also generate density and increase property values (taxes for the city), but whether it can create more density and higher property values that LRT, that study I can't find, but yeah, to the point...

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/01/12/new-evidence-that-bus-rapid-transit-done-right-spurs-development/

http://websites.umich.edu/~econdev/brt/index.html

 

[mfastx]

17 hours ago, chempku said:

For the BRT vs. Rail debate, I highly recommend visiting the DFW area to get an idea on how light rail fails to compete against "highly congested" highways. Dedicated bus lanes always have the flexibility and potential to carry people faster than light rails. 

Money talks. The state and federal governments have way more instruments funding highway construction than transit programs. So we'd be realistic, don't waste precious local tax money on something that will deprecate from day one. 

Are you claiming that if DFW built dedicated bus lanes, it would generate more ridership than its light rail? Because Houston actually built a Park & Ride bus system with dedicated lanes, but that generated only about 31,000 boardings/day pre-COVID (significantly less so now). Dallas' LRT system averages over 60,000 boardings/day and that's right now, with the post-COVID decline. 

Also, the University Line isn't competing against highways, it's an inner-city transit line, not a line to the suburbs. 

[samagon]

4 minutes ago, 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. I wonder if that dirty Culberson law is still in effect preventing rail on Richmond. 

this is 100% true, BRT is cheaper to build, but not cheaper to operate. I wonder what the break even time is?

https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/introduction/why/designing-move-people/

Quote

A reasonable planning-level capacity for a dedicated transit lane is 80 buses per hour; assuming 100 riders per vehicle (a comfortable articulated bus capacity), 8,000 riders per hour can be moved through a single transit lane. At two-minute headways (or 30 buses per hour), a standard 40-foot bus, assuming 60 passengers, moves 1,800 passengers per hour.

High-capacity LRVs, running four cars per train with a capacity of 125 riders, have a capacity of 15,000 passengers per hour.

so yeah, from that perspective, I guess it remains to be seen. BRT is proven to spur development and raise property values, but can it raise them as much as LRT, which has far higher capacities?

[mfastx]

Just now, samagon said:

this is 100% true, BRT is cheaper to build, but not cheaper to operate. I wonder what the break even time is?

https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/introduction/why/designing-move-people/

Yep, exactly. Rail is always more efficient, once constructed, in operating costs on a per rider basis. Anyone can see this by viewing National Transit Database statistics. 

The initial price tag scares people off, but once it's built it is more efficient to operate and generates significant economic benefits for decades/centuries. 

[chempku]

2 hours ago, mfastx said:

Yep, exactly. Rail is always more efficient, once constructed, in operating costs on a per rider basis. Anyone can see this by viewing National Transit Database statistics. 

The initial price tag scares people off, but once it's built it is more efficient to operate and generates significant economic benefits for decades/centuries. 

The public transit system needs to be compatible with real estate development styles and policies. Unlike New York, most U.S. cities won't have the policies that make mass LRT efficient. Houston is actually doing a great job on accommodating high/mid density housing, however it is sadly not enough. 

 

[chempku]

2 hours ago, mfastx said:

Are you claiming that if DFW built dedicated bus lanes, it would generate more ridership than its light rail? Because Houston actually built a Park & Ride bus system with dedicated lanes, but that generated only about 31,000 boardings/day pre-COVID (significantly less so now). Dallas' LRT system averages over 60,000 boardings/day and that's right now, with the post-COVID decline. 

Also, the University Line isn't competing against highways, it's an inner-city transit line, not a line to the suburbs. 

I agree that the P&R in Houston is way better than the LRT in DART. An added benefit of BRT is it creates more synergy with the current P&R system than light rail. It is not designed to accommodate P&R buses for now, but it always has the potential to do so. 

The transit systems being built, including the Uptown BRT, Inner Katy BRT, a part of the University BRT, and the LRT of DART, ARE competing against highways, unless you believe they should only be designed for people who cannot use cars. I-610 is the reason why the Uptown BRT has such a low ridership now: sitting in the traffic is still faster and more convenient than taking a bus ride for most people. Similarly, the University line compete against I-69 and such. 

[Houston19514]

3 hours ago, mfastx said:

Are you claiming that if DFW built dedicated bus lanes, it would generate more ridership than its light rail? Because Houston actually built a Park & Ride bus system with dedicated lanes, but that generated only about 31,000 boardings/day pre-COVID (significantly less so now). Dallas' LRT system averages over 60,000 boardings/day and that's right now, with the post-COVID decline.

That's not a solid comparison, as you surely know.  DART LRT serves as both commuter and local transit. It would be close to impossible to tease out the numbers of people who use DART in a manner comparable to Metro's park and ride services (e.g., how many people ride from Parker Road to Downtown Dallas, etc).

Curious where you got the 60,000 per day for Dallas' LRT system.  The last report I can find (for FY 2021) was 44,800. I don't doubt the number but just wondered where you found it.

Edited March 15 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

There are several claims in the preceding conversation about both BRT and LRT spurring development and boosting property values and claiming that LRT does more of that than does BRT.  Can anyone point us to any studies that support those claims?

[mfastx]

25 minutes ago, chempku said:

The public transit system needs to be compatible with real estate development styles and policies. Unlike New York, most U.S. cities won't have the policies that make mass LRT efficient. Houston is actually doing a great job on accommodating high/mid density housing, however it is sadly not enough. 

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. How would BRT spur better development in Houston? 

14 minutes ago, chempku said:

I agree that the P&R in Houston is way better than the LRT in DART. An added benefit of BRT is it creates more synergy with the current P&R system than light rail. It is not designed to accommodate P&R buses for now, but it always has the potential to do so. 

The transit systems being built, including the Uptown BRT, Inner Katy BRT, a part of the University BRT, and the LRT of DART, ARE competing against highways, unless you believe they should only be designed for people who cannot use cars. I-610 is the reason why the Uptown BRT has such a low ridership now: sitting in the traffic is still faster and more convenient than taking a bus ride for most people. Similarly, the University line compete against I-69 and such. 

I'm not sure how you could argue a system with less ridership and connectivity is superior to the LRT in Dallas. Metro has no plans to interconnect the P&R buses with BRT. I guess theoretically they could, but the reason people use P&R buses to begin with is the direct, express service to downtown. The BRT lines have too many stops along their routes. 

4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

That's not a solid comparison, as you surely know.  DART serves as both commuter and local transit. It would be close to impossible to tease out the numbers of people who use DART in a manner comparable to Metro's park and ride services (e.g., how many people ride from Parker Road to Downtown Dallas, etc).

Curious where you got the 60,000 per day for Dallas' LRT system.  The last report I can find (for FY 2021) was 44,800. I don't doubt the number but just wondered where you found it.

I'm not the one that made the comparison. DART has more intermediate stops and obviously serves more people than the P&R service. I said that because it was suggested that Dallas shouldn't have built rail and should have instead built express bus lanes. The latest APTA 4Q 2022 numbers show about 61,000 daily boardings for DART and 41,000 daily boardings for Metro. You can see the latest ridership report here: APTA 4Q 2022 Ridership Report

[mfastx]

38 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

There are several claims in the preceding conversation about both BRT and LRT spurring development and boosting property values and claiming that LRT does more of that than does BRT.  Can anyone point us to any studies that support those claims?

Unfortunately, there aren't many apples to apples comparisons of BRT vs LRT lines in similar areas with good data. Here is a GAO 2012 study on BRT with a focus on its (positive) impacts on economic development. The focus here is on BRT, but it's referenced numerous times in the article that local officials and transit experts believe that rail transit offers greater economic benefits, with the report saying that "rail-like" features can enhance BRT's positive economic impacts. 

[Justin Welling]

14 minutes ago, mfastx said:

Metro has no plans to interconnect the P&R buses with BRT.

There are multiple park and ride routes that allow transfers with the Silver Line today. The 292 (Southwest Fwy Corridor) connects to the Silver Line at Lower Uptown TC. The 298 (Katy Corridor) and 214/216/217 (Northwest Cypress Corridor) connects to the Silver Line at Northwest TC. Additionally, you would have the Gulf Corridor (routes 244, 246, 247, and 248) connect to the University Line at Eastwood TC, and hopefully the 236 (East Fry Corridor) at Denver Harbor TC and the 255, 256, and 257 (Eastex Corridor) at Tidwell TC. 

 

[Houston19514]

5 minutes ago, mfastx said:

Unfortunately, there aren't many apples to apples comparisons of BRT vs LRT lines in similar areas with good data. Here is a GAO 2012 study on BRT with a focus on its (positive) impacts on economic development. The focus here is on BRT, but it's referenced numerous times in the article that local officials and transit experts believe that rail transit offers greater economic benefits, with the report saying that "rail-like" features can enhance BRT's positive economic impacts. 

Thank you, except your link doesn't work.

[mfastx]

9 minutes ago, Justin Welling said:

There are multiple park and ride routes that allow transfers with the Silver Line today. The 292 (Southwest Fwy Corridor) connects to the Silver Line at Lower Uptown TC. The 298 (Katy Corridor) and 214/216/217 (Northwest Cypress Corridor) connects to the Silver Line at Northwest TC. Additionally, you would have the Gulf Corridor (routes 244, 246, 247, and 248) connect to the University Line at Eastwood TC, and hopefully the 236 (East Fry Corridor) at Denver Harbor TC and the 255, 256, and 257 (Eastex Corridor) at Tidwell TC. 

I think the user I was responding to wasn't talking about transfers, but rather the P&R Buses operating within the BRT right of way. Perhaps I was mistaken though. I am aware of the current and proposed transfers the new BRT lines would offer. 

9 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Thank you, except your link doesn't work.

Sorry, maybe try this? https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-811 

[Houston19514]

29 minutes ago, mfastx said:

I think the user I was responding to wasn't talking about transfers, but rather the P&R Buses operating within the BRT right of way. Perhaps I was mistaken though. I am aware of the current and proposed transfers the new BRT lines would offer.

Not sure what you are trying to say.  FWIW, P&R buses that operate in the Katy Freeway and Northwest Freeway corridors will use the Inner Katy BRT right-of-way.  They won't stop at the stations, but they'll use the elevated transitway.

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, mfastx said:

Unfortunately, there aren't many apples to apples comparisons of BRT vs LRT lines in similar areas with good data. Here is a GAO 2012 study on BRT with a focus on its (positive) impacts on economic development. The focus here is on BRT, but it's referenced numerous times in the article that local officials and transit experts believe that rail transit offers greater economic benefits, with the report saying that "rail-like" features can enhance BRT's positive economic impacts. 

44 minutes ago, mfastx said:

 

Sorry, maybe try this? https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-811 

Thank you for that.  (Not intending to attack you as the messenger.)  Even for government work, that was pretty weak. It seems to have been more of a survey than a study.  It merely reported that a bunch of local officials "believe" that "BRT projects are contributing to localized economic development" and "believe" that "rail transit has a greater economic development potential than BRT".  When they provide an example of the local development "believed" to have been provided by BRT, it becomes even more lame.  ". . .  officials in Cleveland told us that between $4 and $5 billion was invested near the Healthline BRT project—associated with major hospitals and universities in the corridor." Does anyone really believe those healthcare/hospital and university investments were driven by the existence of the BRT?  (The full report suggests not.)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that BRT is inherently less-likely to spur development than LRT.  I suspect the difference between full BRT and LRt is probably very little to nothing.  (And I think the economic development created by LRT is routinely exaggerated as well.)

Edited March 15 by Houston19514

[mfastx]

22 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Not sure what you are trying to say.  FWIW, P&R buses that operate in the Katy Freeway and Northwest Freeway corridors will use the Inner Katy BRT right-of-way.  They won't stop at the stations, but they'll use the elevated transitway.

The user I was responding to seemed to think that the P&R system would not only use the BRT busways but also stop at their stations, or at least that's what I interpreted from their post. 

11 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Thank you for that.  (Not intending to attack you as the messenger.)  Even for government work, that was pretty weak. It seems to have been more of a survey than a study.  It merely reported that a bunch of local officials "believe" that "BRT projects are contributing to localized economic development" and "believe" that "rail transit has a greater economic development potential than BRT".  When they provide an example of the local development "believed" to have been provided by BRT, it becomes even more lame.  ". . .  officials in Cleveland told us that between $4 and $5 billion was invested near the Healthline BRT project—associated with major hospitals and universities in the corridor." Does anyone really believe those healthcare/hospital and university investments were driven by the existence of the BRT?  (The full report suggests not.)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that BRT is inherently less-likely to spur development than LRT.  I suspect the difference between full BRT and LRt is probably very little to nothing.  (And I think the economic development created by LRT is routinely exaggerated as well.)

BRT certainly can spur economic/land development as we've seen from multiple projects over the last decade or so. I'm not discounting that. Most of my preference for LRT over BRT is the actual transit aspect - higher ridership/utilization and greater capacity/ability to handle future demand increases. I'm still in support of BRT over nothing and am excited about the project. 

Of course, HRT (heavy rail) is superior to all modes and it's a damn shame that Houston never built the 1980 proposed system but no use arguing for it since it's not an option Metro is considering now. 

[Justin Welling]

33 minutes ago, mfastx said:

I think the user I was responding to wasn't talking about transfers, but rather the P&R Buses operating within the BRT right of way. Perhaps I was mistaken though. I am aware of the current and proposed transfers the new BRT lines would offer. 

Ahhh okay. My apologies. 

[chempku]

3 hours ago, 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. How would BRT spur better development in Houston? 

I'm not sure how you could argue a system with less ridership and connectivity is superior to the LRT in Dallas. Metro has no plans to interconnect the P&R buses with BRT. I guess theoretically they could, but the reason people use P&R buses to begin with is the direct, express service to downtown. The BRT lines have too many stops along their routes. 

I'm not the one that made the comparison. DART has more intermediate stops and obviously serves more people than the P&R service. I said that because it was suggested that Dallas shouldn't have built rail and should have instead built express bus lanes. The latest APTA 4Q 2022 numbers show about 61,000 daily boardings for DART and 41,000 daily boardings for Metro. You can see the latest ridership report here: APTA 4Q 2022 Ridership Report

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. 

 

Edited March 15 by chempku

[004n063]

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.

[cspwal]

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

[mfastx]

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. 

[chempku]

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. 

[mattyt36]

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 March 16 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

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.

[mattyt36]

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.

[Some one]

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 March 16 by Some one

[samagon]

@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 March 17 by samagon

[mattyt36]

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 March 17 by mattyt36