METRORail University Line

[ricco67]

Seems to me they make a pretty good case for abandonig light rail all together, what with low ridership and high costs . . . just a thought.

I beg to differ. I've ridden the rail quite a few times, and it's already been rather full at times.

If you used that argument in the past, the New York transit system wouldn't have been built! You have to remember, at one point in NYC's history, the transit systems were built in very remote areas and the population increased around those areas.

The same thing could have also been said for the early freeway system. Usage increases over time and as the Houston population increases, so will the usage.

[tierwestah]

Aftonag is just an old schooler who doesn't care about the future generations and the future of Houston. Face it Aftonag, you're yesteryear, you're almost out of here. Step aside and let the younger generations reap the benefits. You're time is about up!

[Pumapayam]

Aftonag is just an old schooler who doesn't care about the future generations and the future of Houston. Face it Aftonag, you're yesteryear, you're almost out of here. Step aside and let the younger generations reap the benefits. You're time is about up!

Things like that are better said in a PM or not at all, I think we tend to cycle back and forth to start a flame war. If it does not directly relate to the subject, try your best not to add anything if it adds no value to the topic at hand.

Seems to me they make a pretty good case for abandonig light rail all together, what with low ridership and high costs . . . just a thought.

I could have sworn METRO was touting the highest ridership on one of the shortless lines in the nation.

I would say that at 2275 posts the posters have affirmed their approval of this thread, so why change now. I have gained plenty of insight from others' comments on this thread.

I'd rather read 10 items about progress on the project or recent changes rather than silly opinions that have be tired for months now.

AftonAg and all the arguments with him about Afton Oaks gets old real fast, I'd rather just avoid it and talk about something else since it constantly reverts to a flame war and childish name calling.

[AftonAg]

Things like that are better said in a PM or not at all, I think we tend to cycle back and forth to start a flame war. If it does not directly relate to the subject, try your best not to add anything if it adds no value to the topic at hand.

I could have sworn METRO was touting the highest ridership on one of the shortless lines in the nation.

I'd rather read 10 items about progress on the project or recent changes rather than silly opinions that have be tired for months now.

AftonAg and all the arguments with him about Afton Oaks gets old real fast, I'd rather just avoid it and talk about something else since it constantly reverts to a flame war and childish name calling.

and to think I was just kidding, what was I thinking? I forgot that I am not allowed that luxury on this forum.

[TheNiche]

You give them far too much credit. If that was the case how does the mayor and city council figure into it - are they part of this conspiracy theory as well? I am sending an e-mail to Wayne Dolcefino . . . we will get to the bottom of this.

How do you think they even managed to get this far? Even you've argued that they manipulated the outcome of the vote by using ambiguous or disingenuous wording or language, by incorporating light rail into a vote on other more effective transit solutions, and by using their funds to advertise their stance in local media outlets. I think that your arguments and criticisms along those lines have validity, but they also illustrate METRO's willingness and ability to play politics. And I think that you and I can also agree that they play politics a whole lot better than they build LRT. So having established all these points on which we agree that there seems to be a theme, can you really consider my hypothesis as being completely implausible? Honestly?

And as for the mayor and city council...well it seems to me that Mayor White has been pretty hands-off about the process. He doesn't seem too eager to get involved and just states that he wants what the people want. To me, that kind of language doesn't sound very powerful. And city council is a mixed bag--go figure, given that there's so many.

[TheNiche]

I beg to differ. I've ridden the rail quite a few times, and it's already been rather full at times.

If you used that argument in the past, the New York transit system wouldn't have been built! You have to remember, at one point in NYC's history, the transit systems were built in very remote areas and the population increased around those areas.

The same thing could have also been said for the early freeway system. Usage increases over time and as the Houston population increases, so will the usage.

Ridership or capacity are not comprehensive indicators of demand. Ridership can be engineered within the larger context of the structure of the multi-modal transit system, frequently at the cost of METRO's users as a result of inefficient routing or excessive numbers of transfers. Capacity can be engineered by not running enough vehicles.

Considering that the residential density around the Red Line is highest in proximity to Reliant Park, where ridership numbers are the lowest, and is the next highest is around the Museum District, where ridership numbers aren't incredibly better and density at that point is only in the 5k to 8k persons per square mile, you'll just have to forgive me if I am suspicious of the techniques utilized to stimulate such high ridership and capacity on a line that has already been established as the shortest stand-alone LRT line in the nation.

It is also not a very solid analogy to compare Houston in the 21st century with NYC in the 19th century. The technological environments are vastly different.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

...you'll just have to forgive me if I am suspicious of the techniques utilized to stimulate such high ridership and capacity on a line that has already been established as the shortest stand-alone LRT line in the nation.

Actually, I think Buffalo's line is shorter: 6.2 miles, or something like that.

[musicman]

I could have sworn METRO was touting the highest ridership on one of the shortless lines in the nation.

looking at ridership is one thing but determining how the number was calculated is another. I have to agree that the ridership was definitely engineered by METRO. Removing bus routes, changing bus routes to feed into the system, eliminating the med center buses from the outlying parking lots are just a few of the things done to increase ridership numbers. This results in longer ride times plus a less efficient route because it must remain at ground level. This results in interaction with vehicular traffic which causes an increase in travel times for vehicles.

So for all commuters has there been a net decrease in travel times as a result of the light rail system? I'm sure the answer will NEVER be on the METRO website.

[lockmat]

looking at ridership is one thing but determining how the number was calculated is another. I have to agree that the ridership was definitely engineered by METRO. Removing bus routes, changing bus routes to feed into the system, eliminating the med center buses from the outlying parking lots are just a few of the things done to increase ridership numbers. This results in longer ride times plus a less efficient route because it must remain at ground level. This results in interaction with vehicular traffic which causes an increase in travel times for vehicles.

So for all commuters has there been a net decrease in travel times as a result of the light rail system? I'm sure the answer will NEVER be on the METRO website.

It only makes sense to take away and adjust other bus routes if the Rail will accomodate previous routes, doesn't it? If that makes Rail ridership look good, so be it. They're not going to keep those same routes that the Rail will take care of. If they did that, there was no purpose in building it.Was ridership up overall? That's my question.

And I know we've all already had this discussion about route manipulations, so...whatever

[musicman]

It only makes sense to take away and adjust other bus routes if the Rail will accomodate previous routes, doesn't it? If that makes Rail ridership look good, so be it. They're not going to keep those same routes that the Rail will take care of. If they did that, there was no purpose in building it.Was ridership up overall? That's my question.

The factor that attracts the new rider is savings in time. So does it make sense to increase travel times?

[KinkaidAlum]

There isn't just ONE factor, musicman.

There are many people who simply prefer to transit by rail rather than by bus. There are others who are attracted to the relative ease of transit by rail compared to bus. Additionally, others are attracted to the much more frequent service of rail over a bus route. Still more are attracted to the designs of stations and less frequent stops of light rail. Some are also attracted to the fact that light rail is not nearly as affected by major delays due to traffic snarls. Even more are attracted to the fact that light rail vehicles are a much more energy efficient means of travel than a bus.

[musicman]

There isn't just ONE factor, musicman.

There are many people who simply prefer to transit by rail rather than by bus. There are others who are attracted to the relative ease of transit by rail compared to bus. Additionally, others are attracted to the much more frequent service of rail over a bus route. Still more are attracted to the designs of stations and less frequent stops of light rail. Some are also attracted to the fact that light rail is not nearly as affected by major delays due to traffic snarls. Even more are attracted to the fact that light rail vehicles are a much more energy efficient means of travel than a bus.

Yes some of these are secondary reasons however to actually have a real gain in ridership, saving time is going to be the most important factor. As for being much more energy efficient, that is not the case. As an aside, METRO is also attempting to investigate the large electrical loss in the system. It seems it wasn't built per spec and therefore energy is just being drained into the earth.

[KinkaidAlum]

Nonsense.

Saving time might be your most important factor but you cannot make blanket statements for the rest of the world. For me, when I lived in Houston for 2 years from summer 2004 to summer 2006, convenience was my most important reason for riding the rail. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about parking downtown. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about a designated driver. It offered me the option of riding to Reliant for the Rodeo, a soccer match, a Texans game, and a UH game without having to pay for parking. It allowed me to take my niece and nephew to the Children's Museum, the Holocaust Museum, Hermann Park, and the Zoo without having to navigate the streets.

For several of my friends who work in the Medical Center, even though most drove to work, it offered them the opportunity to ride the rail at lunchtime to midtown or downtown whereas before the rail they were basically stuck on the TMC campus.

For my mother, it meant she could ride the rail for her treatments at Methodist Hospital and not have to deal with parking at the TMC.

Of course, we lived along the rail line. That's why it's IMPORTANT to expand the rail lines so that more people can utilize the system as we did. Light rail isn't simply a means of transporting commuters to and from work. It's a means to get people out of their cars who LIVE IN THE CITY. In order to do so, we MUST complete the expansions with RAIL (not some glorified bus).

[AftonAg]

How do you think they even managed to get this far? Even you've argued that they manipulated the outcome of the vote by using ambiguous or disingenuous wording or language, by incorporating light rail into a vote on other more effective transit solutions, and by using their funds to advertise their stance in local media outlets. I think that your arguments and criticisms along those lines have validity, but they also illustrate METRO's willingness and ability to play politics. And I think that you and I can also agree that they play politics a whole lot better than they build LRT. So having established all these points on which we agree that there seems to be a theme, can you really consider my hypothesis as being completely implausible? Honestly?

And as for the mayor and city council...well it seems to me that Mayor White has been pretty hands-off about the process. He doesn't seem too eager to get involved and just states that he wants what the people want. To me, that kind of language doesn't sound very powerful. And city council is a mixed bag--go figure, given that there's so many.

That they understand politics is likely, but that they used "Westpark Corridor" in the ballot language, spent all of that time and money researching ridership, and planning the route, held the numerous town meetings, produced all of the alternate routes and performed studies on them, etc all just to manipulate 2300 highly vocal AO residents to action in order to cover their weaknesses, shortcomings, and errors seems to be a bit of stretch don't you think? On the other hand it might make a good book if the perpetrators of this enormous conspiracy were congressmen, senators, or city council members, and the base subject was something besides mass transit. Sorry I just don't buy into "let's analyze all events, no matter how mundane" in the hope of uncovering a conspiracy. Seems like "Tabloid" thinking to me. But then I am an old schooler that doesn't have much time left. (Avg life expectancy for males in my family going back three generations was 94 yrs 8 mos) Y'all may just be stuck with me for awhile hehehe

Nonsense.

Saving time might be your most important factor but you cannot make blanket statements for the rest of the world. For me, when I lived in Houston for 2 years from summer 2004 to summer 2006, convenience was my most important reason for riding the rail. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about parking downtown. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about a designated driver. It offered me the option of riding to Reliant for the Rodeo, a soccer match, a Texans game, and a UH game without having to pay for parking. It allowed me to take my niece and nephew to the Children's Museum, the Holocaust Museum, Hermann Park, and the Zoo without having to navigate the streets.

For several of my friends who work in the Medical Center, even though most drove to work, it offered them the opportunity to ride the rail at lunchtime to midtown or downtown whereas before the rail they were basically stuck on the TMC campus.

For my mother, it meant she could ride the rail for her treatments at Methodist Hospital and not have to deal with parking at the TMC.

Of course, we lived along the rail line. That's why it's IMPORTANT to expand the rail lines so that more people can utilize the system as we did. Light rail isn't simply a means of transporting commuters to and from work. It's a means to get people out of their cars who LIVE IN THE CITY. In order to do so, we MUST complete the expansions with RAIL (not some glorified bus).

all valid points kinkaid, but as a long time continuous resident of Houston I have to agree with music - the vast majority of Houstonians are more concerned with how long it takes. As an example ask several Houston Residents that drive how far they live from the Galleria, or some other major landmark in Houston and most will answer in minutes, not miles.

[KinkaidAlum]

all valid points kinkaid, but as a long time continuous resident of Houston I have to agree with music - the vast majority of Houstonians are more concerned with how long it takes. As an example ask several Houston Residents that drive how far they live from the Galleria, or some other major landmark in Houston and most will answer in minutes, not miles.

Which is the REAL beauty of rail transit.

IMAGINE in 15 years:

"How far do you live from downtown?"

"8 stops on the rail line."

"How long does it take you to get to the Menil Collection?"

"10 minutes on the U Line"

"What's the best way from my downtown hotel to the UH campus?"

"Take the Red Line to Wheeler and transfer to the U Line."

[AftonAg]

Which is the REAL beauty of rail transit.

IMAGINE in 15 years:

"How far do you live from downtown?"

"8 stops on the rail line."

"How long does it take you to get to the Menil Collection?"

"10 minutes on the U Line"

"What's the best way from my downtown hotel to the UH campus?"

"Take the Red Line to Wheeler and transfer to the U Line."

And 1500 years from now that conversation won't happen because we will be able to teleport anywhere at the speed of light. RIGHT NOW, Houstonians measure distance in minutes, driving minutes. (NOTE: This post in no way implies that I am in agreement that the U-Line will be finished in 15 years.)

[WesternGulf]

Houstonians measure distance in minutes, driving minutes.

Why are you speaking as if this is the end all and be all of this city? It would be great if some residents had the option first. The Red Line totally contradicts the attitude that you try to paint on so many citizens.

[TheNiche]

It only makes sense to take away and adjust other bus routes if the Rail will accomodate previous routes, doesn't it? If that makes Rail ridership look good, so be it. They're not going to keep those same routes that the Rail will take care of. If they did that, there was no purpose in building it.Was ridership up overall? That's my question.

And I know we've all already had this discussion about route manipulations, so...whatever

Yes and no. A bus route that parallels the Red Line should be eliminated, but one that takes a jog up the Red Line for a short distance but that is more generally an east/west line should be preserved (and many were not). Transfers are very bad. They waste riders' time where it would've been more efficient in many cases to simply keep the original route intact, even if it paralleled another route for a short distance.

As far as whether systemwide ridership was up, I do not know. I would expect the answer to be yes, but would consider the reason to be very ambiguous. Economic and population growth, illegal immigration that isn't accounted for in official population growth figures, level of service provided that is apart from the LRT-served areas, traffic congestion, etc. are all key variables that lead to increased ridership and that would need to be resolved to get at a meaningful answer.

[lockmat]

And 1500 years from now that conversation won't happen because we will be able to teleport anywhere at the speed of light. RIGHT NOW, Houstonians measure distance in minutes, driving minutes. (NOTE: This post in no way implies that I am in agreement that the U-Line will be finished in 15 years.)

I used to think this was mostly exclusive to Houstonians and us in Texas. But I've lived in LA and now Albuqueruqe, and have met people from many different places in the US. Everyone uses minutes instead of miles.

[TheNiche]

Nonsense.

Saving time might be your most important factor but you cannot make blanket statements for the rest of the world. For me, when I lived in Houston for 2 years from summer 2004 to summer 2006, convenience was my most important reason for riding the rail. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about parking downtown. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about a designated driver. It offered me the option of riding to Reliant for the Rodeo, a soccer match, a Texans game, and a UH game without having to pay for parking. It allowed me to take my niece and nephew to the Children's Museum, the Holocaust Museum, Hermann Park, and the Zoo without having to navigate the streets.

For several of my friends who work in the Medical Center, even though most drove to work, it offered them the opportunity to ride the rail at lunchtime to midtown or downtown whereas before the rail they were basically stuck on the TMC campus.

For my mother, it meant she could ride the rail for her treatments at Methodist Hospital and not have to deal with parking at the TMC.

Of course, we lived along the rail line. That's why it's IMPORTANT to expand the rail lines so that more people can utilize the system as we did. Light rail isn't simply a means of transporting commuters to and from work. It's a means to get people out of their cars who LIVE IN THE CITY. In order to do so, we MUST complete the expansions with RAIL (not some glorified bus).

So your reasons in support of LRT are:

1) Avoid parking downtown, at the TMC, or at special events.

2) You don't need a designated driver.

3) Less need to "navigate the streets".

4) Provide the option for TMC employees to eat lunch elsewhere.

You'll forgive me if these aren't particularly convincing when capital costs by themselves exceed $360 million for a 7.5-mile segment of track. How many parking garages could we have built for that amount to solve #1? Who wants to publicly subsidize drinking to excess? Navigating the streets is a necessity, whether you are a driver or pedestrian, and the placement of LRT makes it MORE difficult for streets to be navigated, so that's out. And I've walked all through the TMC...there are plenty of good places to eat, and even if TMC employees have the option to spend 30 minutes getting to and from Midtown or Downtown for lunch, the option is meaningless if it doesn't get used frequently and by many people.

So you'll have to forgive me if I side with Musicman on this: time savings are the primary motivating factor, not only for riders, but for the general population.

[AftonAg]

Why are you speaking as if this is the end all and be all of this city? It would be great if some residents had the option first. The Red Line totally contradicts the attitude that you try to paint on so many citizens.

You took it the wrong way - I am not condoning it, I am not endorsing it, I am not saying it is good or bad or anything, other than fact. The majority of Houstonians RIGHT NOW, that drive, measure distance in how many minutes it takes to drive from A to B, this has been the case for the last 30 years at least. In 10 years or 20 years if Houston does come up with a Mass Transit system that is in general use by the population, and the "drive my car" mentality diminishes dramatically I would expect that people would begin to use the number of stops, or transfers to measure distance. I have never seen so many people so eager to put words in my mouth.

[lockmat]

So your reasons in support of LRT are:

1) Avoid parking downtown, at the TMC, or at special events.

2) You don't need a designated driver.

3) Less need to "navigate the streets".

4) Provide the option for TMC employees to eat lunch elsewhere.

You'll forgive me if these aren't particularly convincing when capital costs by themselves exceed $360 million for a 7.5-mile segment of track. How many parking garages could we have built for that amount to solve #1? Who wants to publicly subsidize drinking to excess? Navigating the streets is a necessity, whether you are a driver or pedestrian, and the placement of LRT makes it MORE difficult for streets to be navigated, so that's out. And I've walked all through the TMC...there are plenty of good places to eat, and even if TMC employees have the option to spend 30 minutes getting to and from Midtown or Downtown for lunch, the option is meaningless if it doesn't get used frequently and by many people.

So you'll have to forgive me if I side with Musicman on this: time savings are the primary motivating factor, not only for riders, but for the general population.

I'm no tree hugger, but a big reason for LRT as well is air quality. It's a good reason too.

We're going to have to displace any kind of commuter, whether they're commuting for work or lunch. And Houston must plan for the future and not be shortsighted.

[TheNiche]

I'm no tree hugger, but a big reason for LRT as well is air quality. It's a good reason too.

We're going to have to displace any kind of commuter, whether they're commuting for work or lunch. And Houston must plan for the future and not be shortsighted.

Most people working in the TMC or DT tend not to take their cars out for lunch because it is way too much of a hassle (and when they do, they frequently carpool). Providing them with an option to be able to get to Midtown or wherever else there happen to be restaurants (which seem to be pretty sparse along the LRT anyway) may provide some benefit, but because the vast majority those few people that would take the LRT for lunch aren't being displaced from car trips it does next to nothing to remove vehicles from the road.

[Pumapayam]

I'm no tree hugger, but a big reason for LRT as well is air quality. It's a good reason too.

We're going to have to displace any kind of commuter, whether they're commuting for work or lunch. And Houston must plan for the future and not be shortsighted.

That is a very valid point that got lost in this message. Less pollution in the neighborhood and the electricty can technically come from clean burning or renewal sources.

[musicman]

We're going to have to displace any kind of commuter, whether they're commuting for work or lunch. And Houston must plan for the future and not be shortsighted.

Concur. Planning is something that should have been done......prior to the election. I am not against rail. I just want it to actually make a difference so that people will ride it. The current line is just plagued by too many interactions with vehicular traffic. Closed too many streets. And the current line doesn't even go through neighborhoods. So what do you think the proposed university line will do since it will be going through areas that are always busy? My first guess will be slow driving times for area drivers.

[lockmat]

Concur. Planning is something that should have been done......prior to the election. I am not against rail. I just want it to actually make a difference so that people will ride it. The current line is just plagued by too many interactions with vehicular traffic. Closed too many streets. And the current line doesn't even go through neighborhoods. So what do you think the proposed university line will do since it will be going through areas that are always busy? My first guess will be slow driving times for area drivers.

Logistically, how? Because they won't be able to make turns left? I'm asking.

And it's not like it takes as long for LRT to cross a street as a freight train. It's less time than a normal stop light.

[TheNiche]

That is a very valid point that got lost in this message. Less pollution in the neighborhood and the electricty can technically come from clean burning or renewal sources.

And how much pollution do you think is required in the process of constructing the LRT line? There's nothing quite like the course particulate matter generated by breaking up concrete and hauling it off. For that matter, for all the heavy equipment that's necessary to get materials and labor on- and off-site. And then there's the pollution created from having to manufacture and fabricate all the materials at off-site locations. Concrete and steel manufacturing are dirty processes, as are the mining of the raw materials necessary to even get that far. And of course, once it is in operation, the line has to be maintained and supplied with electric power for operation...and power plants have to be built, fueled, and maintained, themselves.

So what is the marginal impact on pollution as compared to the no-build scenario?

And it's not like it takes as long for LRT to cross a street as a freight train. It's less time than a normal stop light.

Yes, however the LRT throws off any attempt to time lights, which has another negative impact on mobility. This is most evident downtown, where every single light on an east/west street can be green EXCEPT for Main Street, but I run into the problem all the time in the Midtown and TMC areas, where attempts to time lights to reduce congestion are also ineffective.

[lockmat]

And how much pollution do you think is required in the process of constructing the LRT line? There's nothing quite like the course particulate matter generated by breaking up concrete and hauling it off. For that matter, for all the heavy equipment that's necessary to get materials and labor on- and off-site. And then there's the pollution created from having to manufacture and fabricate all the materials at off-site locations. Concrete and steel manufacturing are dirty processes, as are the mining of the raw materials necessary to even get that far. And of course, once it is in operation, the line has to be maintained and supplied with electric power for operation...and power plants have to be built, fueled, and maintained, themselves.

So what is the marginal impact on pollution as compared to the no-build scenario?.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those one-time costs as opposed to driving a car which will pollute every single day?

[Pumapayam]

And how much pollution do you think is required in the process of constructing the LRT line? There's nothing quite like the course particulate matter generated by breaking up concrete and hauling it off. For that matter, for all the heavy equipment that's necessary to get materials and labor on- and off-site. And then there's the pollution created from having to manufacture and fabricate all the materials at off-site locations. Concrete and steel manufacturing are dirty processes, as are the mining of the raw materials necessary to even get that far. And of course, once it is in operation, the line has to be maintained and supplied with electric power for operation...and power plants have to be built, fueled, and maintained, themselves.

That is a one time event, and to be logical about this, ANYTHING you build will have polluting contruction machinery and concrete debris.

Homes, Freeways, Wal-marts, Stadiums, Bridges. . .need I go further. :closedeyes:

Even road repair causes those same issues, and Richmond needs it.

[TheNiche]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those one-time costs as opposed to driving a car which will pollute every single day?

Yes, although the construction process doesn't just happen overnight, either.

In the context of pollution externalities by themselves, it is more accurate to think of it in a time-series analysis where there are two scenarios. There is the baseline (no-build) scenario, where the cost of pollution is forecasted to worsen simply as a matter of congestion as years go by, and then there is a build scenario where there are an initial number of periods of extremely high pollution (caused both by construction activity and by increased congestion in the mean time) followed initially by some amount of pollution that is lower than when the project was initially undertaken. LRT doesn't cure pollution entirely, but merely reduces it because it takes busses and some cars off of the road (although that action is offset slightly by the need for electricity and maintenance). As time goes on, the number of vehicles on the road continues to increase, although at a slower rate than in the no-build scenario, but congestion gets worse at rate that is likely at or above the no-build rate because there are fewer and narrower vehicle lanes to accomodate traffic.

Once we've got a working forecast of the difference between the build and no-build scenarios and can assign a value to the cost of each unit of pollution in all time periods, it is a matter of plugging it in to a present value formula to see what the marginal benefit of the project would be. That also tells us how much we'd be willing to pay to implement the build scenario with respect to pollution.

ANYTHING you build will have polluting contruction machinery and concrete debris.

Yes, and this is why the matter should be examined for ANYTHING that is proposed.

Even road repair causes those same issues, and Richmond needs it.

That's true of Richmond, but the LRT/BRT debate extends further than Richmond.