METRORapid University Corridor

[mattyt36]

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?

[HouTXRanger]

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.

[mattyt36]

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?

[004n063]

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?

[mfastx]

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.

[JClark54]

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 March 17 by JClark54

[004n063]

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.

[mattyt36]

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.

[mfastx]

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. 

[mattyt36]

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.

[chempku]

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. 

[TacoDog]

LRT > BRT

[mattyt36]

12 hours ago, TacoDog said:

LRT > BRT

Well, I guess that settles it.

17 hours ago, chempku said:

Ligh rail/subway based TOD can succeed, just like what happened to many other nations.

Is anyone saying TOD can't succeed?  

[IWantTransit555]

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

[mfastx]

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 March 20 by mfastx

[samagon]

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 March 20 by samagon

[chempku]

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? 

 

 

Edited March 20 by chempku

[samagon]

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? 

 

 

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.

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

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

[mfastx]

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? 

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. 

[chempku]

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? 

 

[mattyt36]

18 hours ago, mfastx said:

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. 

@mfastx buddy, you're being disingenuous (the above comment is in fact "all out of thin air," as some would say).  What I wrote was:

On 3/17/2023 at 2:23 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). 

Please respond to the above instead of pointing out superficially that Uptown is the second largest employment center in Houston as if that "fast fact" counteracts the substance of the above.  What do you specifically disagree with?  You're running buses to connect parking lots.  It's called the gravity model.  This stuff isn't difficult, which I'm sure you know.

18 hours ago, mfastx said:

Voters don't have to approve, Metro elects do hold these referendums.

I have no idea what the above means.  But if there is going to be a large bond issue for transit (read: any bond issue needed for light rail), it needs to be approved by voters.  Are you saying that the Board members can unilaterally decide to issue additional debt that is secured by property taxes paid by residents of Harris County?  If so, you are factually wrong (and thank God you are).

18 hours ago, mfastx said:

Also, voters voted for rail numerous times.

Sure, at a certain pricetag.  What is the pricetag for what you want think is a substantive and useful rail transit system in Houston?  And how confident are you that voters will approve it?

18 hours ago, mfastx said:

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. 

No, I am not.  Of course transportation is not profitable in and of itself--it is the textbook definition of a derived demand.  What I am saying is all of the posters on here bellyaching about underinvestment in transit have zero appreciation as to how it works--why can you not acknolwedge that funds are severely constrained under the current system?  The argument is "Transit is good, we need more transit, people don't ride transit because it's not on a steel track, so we need to build more steel track, because that will make more people ride than if it were a bus, and yes, I know that even when we build it it won't have the greatest ridership numbers, but really the problem is that it wasn't built in the exactly perfect way, going to exactly the right places, so let's just build more and maybe we can get there, by the way have you been to Cleveland?  Even THEY have a train to the airport."  I mean that is seriously the undertone of every conversation about transit.  It is the epitome of banality.

If you want to build more transit, change the funding system at the state and federal level.  That's where the focus should be--this is NOT the fault of local political leaders--in fact we should be absolutely grateful that they don't mortgage the future of the metro area willy nilly because someone rode a train from the Cleveland Airport to their hotel downtown and thought, man, what a fun time, we should do it too!

18 hours ago, mfastx said:

In addition, you're treating transit like a business - which it's not.

Followed by

18 hours ago, mfastx said:

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. 

If you don't see the inherent contradiction between those two statements, then, I don't know what to tell you.  

10 hours ago, mfastx said:

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. 

I actually agree, we are not in much fundamental disagreement--if money is no object, then sure, build a world class heavy rail (who needs LRT or BRT, really!?) system inside the loop with crosstown light rail lines down every arterial in Harris County!  Sign me up!  I’ll even buy the board game … Ticket to Ride Harris County Edition!

But that won't pay the bonds off.

Edited March 21 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

18 hours ago, samagon said:

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.

Sammy, thanks for the shout out YET AGAIN, what do I do to deserve such attention?! I’ll put a reminder on my calendar to think of you, too, as this shouldn’t be such a one-way relationship! We all need validation!

❤️

 

[mfastx]

5 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

@mfastx buddy, you're being disingenuous (the above comment is in fact "all out of thin air," as some would say).  What I wrote was:

Please respond to the above instead of pointing out superficially that Uptown is the second largest employment center in Houston as if that "fast fact" counteracts the substance of the above.  What do you specifically disagree with?  You're running buses to connect parking lots.  It's called the gravity model.  This stuff isn't difficult, which I'm sure you know.

Yup, that's what I thought, no counterexamples. 

15 hours ago, chempku said:

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

Lmao, so that's what's required to post on HAIF, a peer reviewed research paper? Gimme a break .. 

[chempku]

3 hours ago, mfastx said:

Lmao, so that's what's required to post on HAIF, a peer reviewed research paper? Gimme a break .. 

Of course it's not required. 

But since most voters and experts believe BRT is better than LRT for Houston (otherwise the BRT-emphasized METRONEXT won't be planned and approved), and it seems you don't quite agree with it, apparently it would benefit a lot if you can elaborate why you believe LRT will be a better option, using more concrete numbers, examples, and arguments? The majority could be wrong of course. 

[mattyt36]

4 hours ago, mfastx said:

Yup, that's what I thought, no counterexamples. 

Lmao, so that's what's required to post on HAIF, a peer reviewed research paper? Gimme a break .. 

Whoa boy … Irony is dead (as is often the case with the transit crowd).

[004n063]

6 hours ago, chempku said:

Of course it's not required. 

But since most voters and experts believe BRT is better than LRT for Houston (otherwise the BRT-emphasized METRONEXT won't be planned and approved), and it seems you don't quite agree with it, apparently it would benefit a lot if you can elaborate why you believe LRT will be a better option, using more concrete numbers, examples, and arguments? The majority could be wrong of course. 

Wait no. I'm not anti-BRT at all but the voters never expressed a preference for BRT over LRT. We expressed a preference for BRT over nothing.

[004n063]

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

Wait no. I'm not anti-BRT at all but the voters never expressed a preference for BRT over LRT. We expressed a preference for BRT over nothing.

That said, I think it's worth reminding ourselves that there are many much more significant factors that affect ridership for a transit line than vehicle type. 

Vehicle type affects comfort to some degree, but not notably more, in my experience, than vehicle age (ahem, CTA/MTA), station aesthetics, proximal sidewalk width, trees/shade, etc.

The much more important factors fall under the categories of cost and convenience. 

Obviously, using transit is much cheaper than owning a car, but its cost advantage over driving a car is not as obvious, nor as universally true (e.g. when opportunity costs and time value are considered). Thus the most critical element in cost is network coverage and efficiency; does it really make it easy to live car-free, or will it feel like something you have to pay for in addition to car ownership.

This (network coverage) brings us to the next category: convenience. This can be further broken down into speed, connectivity, frequency, and reliability.

First, speed: an at-grade line, even one with its own lanes, is going to have a hard time maintaining an average velocity north of 20mph. So its discretionary ridership potential is maximized only when it is able to maintain those speeds through congested traffic. That's where separated lanes and especially transit-prioritizing signal optimization come in. This is part of the Silver line's underperformance: despite its separate signal cycles, its intersection optimization is quite poor.

Next, connectivty: every transit line is limited by its connections to other transit lines; there just aren't many people who can do most of the things they generally want to do along a single corridor. This is also a part of why the silver line lags so far behind the others, despite being in a denser corridor than the Green or Purple lines: it's isolated.

But even more important than connectivity is frequency: a ride that comes every few minutes will eat up many more of the aligned trips - particularly walkers - than will a ride that you have to wait 10-20 minutes for. People will arrange a daily commute of 20+ miles around a train's timetable. They're not gonna do the same for a 1.5 mile lift up Post Oak for lunch. 

Finally, the line's gotta be reliable. I actually think Metro has a pretty great record of reliability within its limited capacity. Service interruptions are pretty minimal here compared to a lot of other cities. Where that falls apart is when our buses get stuck in traffic, or when a car does something dumb on a track.

 

So, with all of those factors in mind, how does the University Line stack up? 

Cost: cost advantage of the bus is increased by reducing time cost.

Convenience/Speed: It won't be as fast as a grade-separated train, but it should be comparable to a light rail. Slower than driving in light to no traffic, faster than driving in heavy traffic. 

Convenience/Connectivity: While I'm sure we all wish it'd just stay on Richmond, this line will connect four univerisities, four rapid transit lines, and some of the cities densest neighborhoods.

Convenience/Frequency: they've said six minutes several times, publicly. If they can make that happen, that's huge. That alone will blow the Green and Purple lines' ridership out of the water - probably combined. Wouldn't be shocked if it competes with the red line.

Convenience/Reliability: If they don't drop the ball on signal cycle optimization, this'll be better than rail, due to availability of adjacent lanes to get around a stopped vehicle, (and the utility of the general bus fleet as backup vehicles).

I love grade-separated metros and regional rail networks. I love trams in walkable areas. This is neither of those, I will acknowledge.

But for every aspect of this project that I do take issue with, there are several other aspects that are just plain excellent. This is a dynamite project.

[chempku]

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Wait no. I'm not anti-BRT at all but the voters never expressed a preference for BRT over LRT. We expressed a preference for BRT over nothing.

I agree that there isn't a referendum asking voters to approve LRT, but the referendum had gone a long process, including community engagements, etc., before it finally went on the ballet. There will of course be people who wouldn't or couldn't participate in these processes got dissatisfied about the METRONEXT referendum, but there is always a trade-off between fairness and efficiency. 

In fact METRO has tried a couple of times through the years to expand the LRT network (e.g. the Washington Corridor) but were not successful, before all the BRT conversations. 

[004n063]

7 hours ago, chempku said:

there is always a trade-off between fairness and efficiency. 

That is true, but I think that points to a need for better publicity on Metro's part. I was not a HAIFer back then, and I never heard about anything other the BRT project.

7 hours ago, chempku said:

METRO has tried a couple of times through the years to expand the LRT network (e.g. the Washington Corridor

**throws computer to the ground in a fit of rage**

[mfastx]

20 hours ago, chempku said:

But since most voters and experts believe BRT is better than LRT for Houston (otherwise the BRT-emphasized METRONEXT won't be planned and approved), and it seems you don't quite agree with it, apparently it would benefit a lot if you can elaborate why you believe LRT will be a better option, using more concrete numbers, examples, and arguments? The majority could be wrong of course. 

You just pulled that out of your ass... not remotely true. 

19 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Whoa boy … Irony is dead (as is often the case with the transit crowd).

The irony here is that you haven't brought anything concrete to the discussion besides your opinions, and are criticizing me for that while I actually cited ridership data. And for that, I will excuse myself from this useless discussion. 

Edited March 22 by mfastx

[chempku]

2 hours ago, 004n063 said:

That is true, but I think that points to a need for better publicity on Metro's part. I was not a HAIFer back then, and I never heard about anything other the BRT project.

Maybe METRO didn't try hard enough, but they for sure tried selling the LRT before the BRT. Wikipedia has a page for METRORail, citing some of the efforts and challenges. 

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, mfastx said:

You just pulled that out of your ass... not remotely true. 

The irony here is that you haven't brought anything concrete to the discussion besides your opinions, and are criticizing me for that while I actually cited ridership data. And for that, I will excuse myself from this useless discussion. 

Careful . . . she's getting upset!

[004n063]

For the sake of moving on, here's a fun question for the group:

Should this eventually become a two-branch line, with a second line that continues on Richmond? Would serve two primary functions: 1) giving a much wider swathe of the west side access to rapid transit, and 2) sticking it to Afton Oaks.

(Also, yes, I think we should try to get LRT on Westheimer/Elgin from Main Street to at least Fondren.)

Edited March 22 by 004n063

[j_cuevas713]

The people of Houston already voted to have light rail running along Richmond and Post Oak over a decade ago. The ONLY thing that stopped it from happening was Sen. Culberson. I don't now why Metro couldn't have just adjusted the route and moved forward with construction but he stopped it dead in it's tracks (no pun intended). At the end of the day this isn't a debate about Houston supporting one mode over another, it all comes down to the cost of light rail. Metro was smart to go the cheaper route to get some concrete infrastructure approved that can be upgraded in the future. I'm not sure about the Inner Katy Line being upgradable, but I think upgrading the University Line is much more feasible. Either way BRT is a great mode of transit and once these two lines are built I believe it's going to have just as huge an impact as light rail would in terms of development.

Edited March 22 by j_cuevas713

[samagon]

4 hours ago, 004n063 said:

For the sake of moving on, here's a fun question for the group:

Should this eventually become a two-branch line, with a second line that continues on Richmond? Would serve two primary functions: 1) giving a much wider swathe of the west side access to rapid transit, and 2) sticking it to Afton Oaks.

(Also, yes, I think we should try to get LRT on Westheimer/Elgin from Main Street to at least Fondren.)

the probability of BRT, or LRT going through Afton Oaks is about 0. additionally, an alignment of any BRT, or LRT on Westheimer is about 0. east of Shephard the ROW is so narrow they can barely fit the traffic lanes. west of Shepherd River Oaks would be as welcoming as Afton Oaks was towards mass transit.

it would be great to see the Silver line go along the same ROW as the University BRT, and then turn south on Chimney Rock, or Renwick. perhaps it could even do a circuit at that part, go west from the transit center, south on Renwick, east on Gulfton, north on Chimney Rock and then back to the transit center.

 

[mfastx]

34 minutes ago, samagon said:

the probability of BRT, or LRT going through Afton Oaks is about 0. additionally, an alignment of any BRT, or LRT on Westheimer is about 0. east of Shephard the ROW is so narrow they can barely fit the traffic lanes. west of Shepherd River Oaks would be as welcoming as Afton Oaks was towards mass transit.

it would be great to see the Silver line go along the same ROW as the University BRT, and then turn south on Chimney Rock, or Renwick. perhaps it could even do a circuit at that part, go west from the transit center, south on Renwick, east on Gulfton, north on Chimney Rock and then back to the transit center.

Yea, I was going to mention that the Silver Line and University Line should overlap, so you can take a one-seat ride from the Galleria area towards downtown along Richmond. 

[004n063]

1 hour ago, mfastx said:

Yea, I was going to mention that the Silver Line and University Line should overlap, so you can take a one-seat ride from the Galleria area towards downtown along Richmond. 

It'll be Westpark to Edloe, so from the Galleria you'd have to take the Silver line to the transit center first, then transfer to the University line. Can't imagine anybody doing that. Hopefully the #25 is able to keep running up to Edloe.

[004n063]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

the probability of BRT, or LRT going through Afton Oaks is about 0. additionally, an alignment of any BRT, or LRT on Westheimer is about 0. east of Shephard the ROW is so narrow they can barely fit the traffic lanes. west of Shepherd River Oaks would be as welcoming as Afton Oaks was towards mass transit.

Yeah, it's pie-in-the-sky. I just generally think transit should be where the people and/or stuff is. Wesleyan to Edloe is a dense section of Richmond, as is Post Oak to Chimney Rock; Westheimer is dense pretty much all the way. I actually think the section east of Shepherd should (eventually) be turned into a pedestrian + transit zone. 

But yeah, never gonna happen.

[IWantTransit555]

22 hours ago, 004n063 said:

proximal sidewalk width, trees/shade

The city (and greater region) has a lot of work to do on this front.

22 hours ago, 004n063 said:

grade-separated metros and regional rail networks

Despite what others may say, I think the greater Houston area (6 million people!) needs heavy rail.

20 hours ago, chempku said:

In fact METRO has tried a couple of times through the years to expand the LRT network (e.g. the Washington Corridor) but were not successful, before all the BRT conversations. 

The Washington Ave corridor seems perfect for light rail! I am still mad that it never happened. Maybe it could have been built on center street.

[samagon]

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Yeah, it's pie-in-the-sky. I just generally think transit should be where the people and/or stuff is. Wesleyan to Edloe is a dense section of Richmond, as is Post Oak to Chimney Rock; Westheimer is dense pretty much all the way. I actually think the section east of Shepherd should (eventually) be turned into a pedestrian + transit zone. 

But yeah, never gonna happen.

I'd think west of the Galleria area, maybe starting at Chimney Rock, Westheimer would be prime for BRT.

Bellaire from 59 to highway 6 would be good too.

[chempku]

3 hours ago, IWantTransit555 said:

The Washington Ave corridor seems perfect for light rail! I am still mad that it never happened. Maybe it could have been built on center street.

Maybe because local people will get madder if it's built, .. LRT is not a bike lane or a car travel lane, it need to be connected to somewhere, also it need platforms and wider sidewalks. Squeezing in LRTs in narrower streets essentially kills most car traffic. 

Note that some existing LRT segments spread into two adjacent streets where the ROW is not wide enough (e.g. the Green/Purple line in downtown, the Red line in museum district). 

[mfastx]

14 hours ago, 004n063 said:

It'll be Westpark to Edloe, so from the Galleria you'd have to take the Silver line to the transit center first, then transfer to the University line. Can't imagine anybody doing that. Hopefully the #25 is able to keep running up to Edloe.

Yup exactly, but if some of the Silver Line buses took a left turn at Westpark and continued down towards the center of town, I think more people would rather take a one seat ride than transfer to the 25 at Richmond. 

11 hours ago, samagon said:

I'd think west of the Galleria area, maybe starting at Chimney Rock, Westheimer would be prime for BRT.

Bellaire from 59 to highway 6 would be good too.

Man the Westheimer corridor is the most prime spot in Houston for rail/subway IMO. It's by far the highest ridership bus route. 

[Houston19514]

15 hours ago, 004n063 said:

It'll be Westpark to Edloe, so from the Galleria you'd have to take the Silver line to the transit center first, then transfer to the University line. Can't imagine anybody doing that. Hopefully the #25 is able to keep running up to Edloe.

I don't think it's so hard to imagine anyone doing the transfer at the transit center.  I look forward to it, myself.  In any event, I thought I had seen some mention of interlining the Silver line and University line.

But how would transferring to the #25 be better than transferring to the University line?

Edited March 23 by Houston19514

[cspwal]

13 hours ago, mfastx said:

Man the Westheimer corridor is the most prime spot in Houston for rail/subway IMO. It's by far the highest ridership bus route. 

I think Westheimer only gets a rapid transit route as a subway, and that's only happening with drastically reduced construction costs for subways.  A subway line there could be the backbone of the western metro network if it existed, but it would be easily $100 billion 

[mfastx]

10 hours ago, cspwal said:

I think Westheimer only gets a rapid transit route as a subway, and that's only happening with drastically reduced construction costs for subways.  A subway line there could be the backbone of the western metro network if it existed, but it would be easily $100 billion 

The most expensive subway in the US was the 2nd Ave subway in NYC, $2.5 billion/mile. So, even assuming that exorbitant price, it'd be about a tenth of that cost. But yes - super expensive for sure. I'd serve the region well for centuries however. 

[Jay123]

Westheimer should at least get a quickline.I've taken the 82 from downtown to the beltway it easily takes up more than an hour.Metro had mentioned a signature bus for the westheimer, but ended up with a boost corridor.But only for part of the route.

Edited March 25 by Jay123
Mispelling.

[j_cuevas713]

On 3/17/2023 at 11:16 AM, 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?

I'm scratching my head wondering how it couldn't be converted. You would already have the dedicated space to lay down tracks. 

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm scratching my head wondering how it couldn't be converted. You would already have the dedicated space to lay down tracks. 

That makes two of us.

[chempku]

The following is generated by ChatGPT. LRT advocates, try provide an argument against it: 

"The choice between bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT) depends on various factors, such as cost, capacity, travel time, environmental impact, and accessibility. However, in the case of a car-dependent city like Houston, BRT might be a better option for the following reasons:

Cost-effectiveness: BRT is generally less expensive to build and operate than LRT. BRT systems require less infrastructure, such as tracks, overhead wires, and stations, which can significantly reduce construction costs. Additionally, BRT vehicles are often less expensive than LRT trains.

Flexibility: BRT can be more flexible than LRT in terms of routes, frequency, and service hours. BRT vehicles can operate on existing roads and highways, allowing for greater route flexibility and faster implementation. BRT can also be implemented incrementally, allowing for a phased approach to expanding the system as demand grows.

Faster travel times: BRT systems can achieve faster travel times than LRT systems in certain situations. BRT can use dedicated lanes or signal priority to bypass traffic congestion, resulting in faster and more reliable service. In contrast, LRT often operates in mixed traffic, which can lead to slower speeds and longer travel times.

Lower environmental impact: BRT can have a lower environmental impact than LRT due to its smaller infrastructure footprint and lower energy consumption. BRT vehicles can be powered by electricity or natural gas, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution than diesel-powered LRT trains.

While LRT might have higher capacity than BRT, it may not be the most cost-effective or practical option for a car-dependent city like Houston. BRT can offer many of the benefits of LRT, such as faster travel times and increased transit access, while being more cost-effective and flexible. Ultimately, the decision between BRT and LRT should be based on a thorough analysis of the specific needs and characteristics of the city."

 

[rechlin]

This sounds like ChatGPT being confidently wrong, again.

While it's true that BRT is less expensive to build than LRT, LRT is usually cheaper to operate.

And there's no reason LRT would operate in mixed traffic any more than BRT, so BRT should not be inherently faster.  Both can operate in mixed traffic but it's a terrible idea (see the Green/Purple line downtown and the turn lanes along the Red line in the TMC).

It's also totally wrong on environmental impact.  LRT is normally electric powered, not diesel powered.  And our BRT line is powered by diesel (I believe), not electricity.

The advantage of BRT is it is cheaper to implement than LRT, while providing some of the benefits of LRT.  LRT still has a smoother ride (due to using rails), handles more riders (at least in our implementation), is better for the environment (because we aren't using electric power for our BRT buses), and has lower operating costs, though.  But BRT has the advantage of being able to divert to route around incidents, which LRT cannot do (I'm surprised the bot didn't mention that).