BarryKlein

During Superbowl in January 2004 only about 10% of Metro riders used rail....the rest used Metro buses. They could have planned to use buses only, dropped the rail program back in year 2000, and saved $300 million. A packed rail car, it should be pointed out, is much more tempting to a terrorist than a bus...More bang for the buck. Tory is right. No light rail in the US has headways less than 6 or 7 minutes and Houston is just about there.

A few more comments... 1. The Infrastructure Lobby is a powerful force in Houston and Texas politics. Much of its influence rests on the flawed annual Mobility Reports put out by the Texas Transportation Institute which exaggerates the cost of congestion as it pumps up motorists' fear of "gridlock". The TTI methodology has changed over the years as criticisms rolled in. One of the best was published in 2006 by the office of Transport Canada Environmental Affairs. Look on pages 6, 7, 8 of "The Cost of Urban Congestion in Canada" (http://www.gatewaycouncil.ca/downloads2/Cost_of_Congestion_TC.pdf). This one is ignored by TTI. 2. Census bureau data shows that the average commuter travel time for Houston area workers remains under half an hour decade after decade (28 minutes in the latest) a fact which is true for most urban areas. This is a reflection of mankind's wish to limit time spent commuting. In fact, "congestion is self limiting" was the conclusion of legendary planning academic Melvin Webber. Some researchers conclude that workers commuting choices are shaped by two constraints, time and money, and that humans actual enjoy travel. in the opinion of some, commuters have TWO TRAVEL BUDGETS. In their view, we spend on average a little more than a hour a day in travel, and we try to limit expenses to a range (drawing from memory here) between 9 and 14% of our annual incomes. You can find more about this by reading at these links: http://www.uctc.net/access/access17lite.pdf (page 2, Melvin Webber opinion) http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v38y2004i9-10p643-675.html http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/describing_problem.htm (note section: "Is congestion the same everywhere", and these words: "travelers have indicated that more important than the severity, magnitude, or quantity of congestion is the reliability of the highway system. People in a large metropolitan area may accept that a 20 mile freeway trip takes 40 minutes during the peak period, so long as this predicted travel time is reliable and is not 25 minutes one day and 2 hours the next." Yacov Zahavi (a pioneer in this area of research. He actually spent time in Houston working with H-GAC transportation head Alan Clark in the 1970s): http://www.surveyarchive.org/zahavi.html It's my view that the endless construction occurring on the road system, due to utility work, rail installation, and road repair and expansion, are what leads to the unpredictability of travel times. By looking at the pie chart on that FHWA document a little bit of math is enlightening. Incidents, such as accidents, account for 25% of traffic congestion, and bottlenecks, which are partly due to reduced lanes in construction zones, add 40% to the congestion picture. Thus one can see that 65% of "congestion", which we should understand is a subjective experience, is not due to excessive cars on the road but to incidents and bottlenecks. 3. I believe infrastructure is overfunded and I am supported in this view by the work of Oxford scholar, Bent Flyvbjerg, famous for his critiques of large and costly infrastructure which he calls "mega-projects". He asserts that deliberate deception is typically used to move them to the decision stage. http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/ http://www.st-annes.ox.ac.uk/about/people/profile/details/bent-flyvbjerg.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Flyvbjerg The more broadly the above information is understood the more likely the Texas Establishment can be upended and rationality brought to transportation policy debates. 4. To those that think most US transit agencies are adequately funded, I again refer you to the speech by Peter Rogoff, FTA administrator, which I linked to in my prior post. (See: Video of Rogoff's speech and his speech notes: http://www.fta.dot.g...ents_11682.html) In there you will find this statement: "First, when you expand the universe of transit agencies studied from the seven largest rail operators to 690 separate rail and bus systems, the estimated funding shortfall to bring the entire transit system in a state of good repair grows from $50 billion to $78 billion." Deferred maintenance is a growing problem. We should all recall the horrific accident in DC a few years ago. That system has a $12 billion dollar backlog of repairs and needs new equipment. Thus a rail car in need of replacement packed with commuters crashed with almost 80 people injured and nine killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_29,_2009_Washington_Metro_train_collision#November_29.2C_2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124573949695640729.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907095,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528203,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/us/suits-settled-in-washington-dc-metro-train-crash.html 5. Finally, as I wrote yesterday: I'll point out that in my 30 years of involvement in transit questions I have never encountered a transportation economist who endorses the decision of cities to convert bus-only systems to bus and rail, and they always point to the OPPORTUNITY COST, how much service and ridership could have been expanded if rail programs had never been launched. This is the underlying theme in the landmark 2010 speech by Peter Rogoff, head of the Federal Transit Administration, when he urged cities to abandon their plans for "shiny" new rail lines and focus on bus service.

A few points about Metro promises, and a correction: 1. Metro could not assume in 1978 that all of Harris County would be in the district since voting was done by enclaves. Furthermore, the 29 page REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN, released in July of that year, made no differentiation about performance commitments based on which enclaves voted YES and which voted NO, such as Pasadena and Baytown. Metro is stuck with its "promises", for whatever they are worth. 2. In that 1978 report, Metro states it will first maximize the utilization of existing transportation facilities (p.9) and promote private transportation (jitneys are mentioned) (see pp. 9 and 16). Of course it quickly veered from that promise when it began issuing rail design contracts in 1979. 3. Metro committed to pay-as-you-go funding capital projects to save on interest charges (p. 26). Another promise abandoned. 4. And, here's a statement that must have had them chuckling: "The MTA Board has recognized that the availability of federal tax dollars is no reason to construct a costly and unused system as has occurred in other cities" (p. 26). Before 1978 had ended Metro was preparing a federal grant request for funds to build a CBD people mover, such as we see (unused) in Detroit and Miami. Community outrage, including a harsh press release from the League of Women Voters, a Metro ally who helped sell voters on the plan, made them back down. 5. A CORRECTION: I see now that I wrongly stated that Metro's annual report shows states that Metro costs the average family $500 annually...that is my calculation based in part on the sales tax revenue number given in the reports. Metro would NOT be so foolish as to put a number like that in its annual report.