chempku

On 1/20/2024 at 1:23 AM, emmanume said:

Despite the presence of almost 40 retail concepts, there's still a noticeable absence of stores offering fresh food or basic grocery items, such as produce (like apples), pantry staples, or a bakery (for bread).

Most grocery retail has razor thin margins, I wonder if someone would make it work here, given the already abundant choices nearby, many being/will be walkable/bikable. 

8 hours ago, xbryanisbeastx said:

I'm sure we've been over this many times but I wish they woulda just extended the green or purple line down washington :(

By doing this you ends up having maybe 100x more protests than the current BRT route. 

1 hour ago, IWantTransit555 said:

Maybe it could be built on Center Street?

Try design something within ~50' ROW. I am curious to know how this can be done. 

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."

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). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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? 

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? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

There will be a Gong Cha near the Kroger on Shepherd also. Go to Chinatown, you'll find like 10~20 different bubble tea stores. 

On 2/7/2023 at 3:01 PM, s3mh said:

There was a plan to build a medical office on the north side of the street, but it was met with opposition when the plans had the main driveway crossing the hike and bike path.  It fizzled and nothing has happened since then.

Why not? If someone on the trail got hit by a car while crossing 11th St, s/he immediately get taken care of here. 

2 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I guess my only fear is how much they are going to cut the system down. Right now about half the stations are shut down.

If they would redirect the fund to improve multimodal transit in other more efficient ways, I'd be glad. 

If article summarized the numbers correctly, that's $80 per bike per month, or nearly $1k per bike per year. 

37 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm not sure how to take this. Is this a good thing or bad thing?

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/BCycle-Houston-bike-share-program-short-trips-17723037.php

Looks good. Other bike sharing programs like citibike thrive when they work well with public transpotation. 

I am glad the officials clearly know the limitations of docked bike sharing. As reported: 

”The existing system is used mostly recreationally, bike sharing officials have said, with locations such as Herman Park and Buffalo Bayou Park along Sabine Street as the most heavily-used stations. “ "Metro’s chief financial officer, said the current system, when fully operational, costs about $80,000 a month, with only a fraction of that coming from the rental costs or annual memberships." "To trim costs, 75 of the 153 kiosks were turned off in November, largely reducing the system to its core around downtown, Midtown and Montrose."

For those who posted in this forum arguing if BCycle can be used cost-effectively as a mainstream commute option, this is a good read. 

On 1/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Ross said:

Some of those side streets have stop signs almost every block, which is a disincentive for cyclists. And, part of the RoW is consumed by drainage ditches, which the City has shown no interest in replacing.

How much does this 11th St road diet cost, do you have a rough idea? I tried to find some numbers but don't have any thing that seems reliable. Meanwhile for drainage and pavement projects, it costs roughly $8M per mile for a typical 50' ROW neighborhood street. I am curious about how they compare. The city does have a couple of drainage & pavement projects in the pipeline though. 

11 hours ago, Texasota said:

Interesting that you mentioned that "The cost IS an issue for people whose only option is to cycle to work" as a negative about bike share and are now suggesting charging a fee for bike parking. 

The profiles for cyclists can be more diverse than the profiles for drivers. The needs for cyclists can also be quite diverse.

When I say charging a fee for bike parking, I am under the context of how to potentially gather data for private bike parking. A fee could be required to fund tracking and related infrastructure, even if it is only attractive to a small group of users, it's still possible to apply statistics to draw some conclusions about entire cyclist population. 

When I say cost can be an issue for docked bike-share, I was saying it can be the challenge to scale cheaply, to become an mainstream commute option in cities like Houston. Being attractive to a small group of users may not be enough. 

On 1/10/2023 at 2:20 PM, s3mh said:

I have been in that traffic jam many times.  Once you get past the light at TC Jester, traffic flows just fine.  Bike lanes have nothing to do with it.  

Bike lanes on 11th st made sense because 11th st had become like FM 1960 with people hauling ass at 40-45 mph and weaving in an out of lanes.  Crossing the street at the bike path on Nicholson and just about anywhere else between Shep and Michaux was a nightmare.  

Also, putting bike lanes on 10th or 12th would have been exponentially more expensive and may not have even been feasible if they wanted to do it.  Those streets have minimal ROW and the ROW is all messed up in spots where fence lines are right up to the drainage ditches with no sidewalks on parts of the street.  And then there are utility poles all over the place in the ROW.  You would probably have to curb and gutter the street to be able to install bike lanes next to the sidewalks.  

"Those streets have minimal ROW”

Not true. The ROW is never an issue for shared-use trails. 11th appears to be wider, however ROW width is not pavement width. If you measure it on HCAD maps, you will know the ROW for 10/11/12th streets are all 70'. In fact, 10' shared-use trails have been planed in streets only have 50' ROW in nearby neighorhoods. The only need is to cover the open ditches. 

Having cut-through bicycle traffic in those neighorhood streets are way better than cut-through motorvehicle traffic. I feel sorry for them for the lost opportunity. 

58 minutes ago, Texasota said:

I think editor is referring to public bike parking for privately owned bikes, not Citi Bike stations.

That would be incredibly difficult to track because it's so decentralized.

 

Technology could help. Maybe the city could incentivice building the "safe harbors" bike racks that with security cameras equipped. This should be feasible at least for some store fronts since they may need security cameras anyway even without the racks. Then the bicycles can be counted over time via AI. Just like what has been done to track the railway crossing blockages. 

Or build some Netherlands style bike parking at key transit stations, charge a fee, so that whoever want to commute with their fancy bikes have the peace of mind. Data can also be acquired this way. 

2 hours ago, editor said:

It seems to me that it wouldn't take too much money and effort to pair bCycle locations with regular bike racks.  They could be built onto the other side of the rack with lots of space, like above, or extended lengthwise if it's on a sidewalk.

Perhaps the thought shouldn't be "Put bike rental docks around town" and instead should be "Put bicycle oases around town."  Places where people who choose to cycle can know there is safe harbor, whether they rent a bike by the hour, or own one of their own.

I lived a couple of blocks from one once.  It was staffed, included a shower, a repair shop, and bike storage for people who lived in apartments nearby.  It was owned by the parks department, but funded by McDonald's in exchange for naming rights.

I think all of that is a little ambitious for Houston at this point in its evolution.  But I don't see why amenities for non-renters couldn't be included with or near the bCycle stations to make them bike islands.

FWIW, there's a new (to me) public bicycle rack across the street from the one pictured above at One Shell Plaza.  There was an electric scooter locked to it when I took the picture.

I'm frequently surprised by how much bCycles get used.  Sometimes I see entire groups of friends, or families using them.  I wonder if there's some public information about use.

As for tracking the availability of public bicycle parking, is that a thing?  Is there a system the city can buy, or is it something that has to still be invented?

Citi bike in NYC publish data like this pretty often AFAIK.