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 .. 

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. 

Any year now, Mr. Crane.. 

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. 

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. 

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.

17 hours ago, chempku said:

The key is any type of public transit need to somehow compete against cars. Any arguments about cost, capacity, etc., go down to this. 

Cities like Houston don't need the capacity LRT provides most of the times, since the city is just not as dense (despite I wish it could be denser)

Check out the Inner Katy BRT, METRO clearly stated that P&R will be using the BRT line. 

BRT does not generate the same ridership as LRT, so if you want to have something that competes against cars, rail is the superior mode given that it attracts more riders. 

Obviously, Houston may not need the capacity of LRT right now, but these lines will be in place for 100+ years. What will Houston, especially west inner-loop, look like then? Those lines' utilization will continue to increase over the decades. 

I understand they'll be using the new lanes, but I do not recall seeing any plans for them to actually stop at the BRT stations. 

22 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

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

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

11 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

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

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

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

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

9 minutes ago, Justin Welling said:

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

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

9 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Thank you, except your link doesn't work.

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

38 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

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

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

25 minutes ago, chempku said:

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

I'm not sure I follow. In Houston, significant development has sprouted around the light rail, particularly in midtown and even in the extremely underdeveloped northern, eastern and southeastern areas of town where the new lines went. How would BRT spur better development in Houston? 

14 minutes ago, chempku said:

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

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

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

4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

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

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

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

Just now, samagon said:

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

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

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

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

17 hours ago, chempku said:

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

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

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

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

They are only considering BRT due to its lower initial capital cost, LRT is the superior mode, generating about twice as much ridership in a vacuum and would generate more development benefits/revenue generation for the city. I wonder if that dirty Culberson law is still in effect preventing rail on Richmond. 

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

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

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

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

18 hours ago, bookey23 said:

Based on the current map available on the TXDOT website, they will be leaving up the portion of the Pierce Elevated from Brazos to Chenevert. So, as currently planned, they will not really be removing the barrier between Downtown and Midtown.

Um that's not a portion, that's the entire thing! 

Who says light rail doesn't spur development! . 

While we're young, hopefully! 

On 1/16/2023 at 8:03 PM, MaxConcrete said:

Bottom line: rail transit is obscenely expensive and has low ridership. It's much wiser to build resources that are much less expensive and can be used by multiple modes, including buses, carpools and SOVs. That means managed lanes, as TxDOT is trying to build on the North Freeway.

Ha, you sound like a highway lobbyist. You are aware that we've been doing just that for the last 50+ years, correct? Do you know how much money we've spent on the HOV lanes? 

Rail transit is obscenely expensive, I'll give you that. But it also has by far higher ridership, moves people more efficiently on an operating cost basis, and generates far greater economic benefits than a normal bus line. 

13 hours ago, Ross said:

What happens to all of the normal traffic, and the businesses on the street, while the 5 years to dig a cut and cover tunnel is ongoing?

They did cut and cover all around the central areas of DC and it turned out just fine. 

Looks great, I really can't wait until those other two lots are developed... 🤤

I'm down for the parking idea. And then build mixed use on all the surface lots... 🤤

1 hour ago, editor said:

It's nice when there's one or two of them, but in some cities this design is taking over, and when you have a whole block of them it looks very Soviet.

Agreed, variation is always ideal! 

Looks like something you'd see in Brooklyn, I like.