mikehouston

[Response directed at Niche]

You don't need numbers to determine that METRO's proposed light rail will have more ridership than DART's. It's common sense. Use your brain. Why don't you "run" the numbers yourself? Try starting with our existing line, which has over five times the ridership per mile that DART has.

My point is that if you have one bus line, and replace it with a rail line, ridership for that corridor will be higher with the rail line versus the bus line. More people will use it. More humans, as you like to say.

Why don't you let the current METRO board determine what they can and can't afford? Or maybe you should contact METRO with your concerns. Have you studied METRO's 2011 finances? Do you realize that not building what they can't afford is exactly what METRO is doing by waiting until proper funding to start work on the Uptown and University lines? Let's say that METRO abandons the rail system they are building, and builds your BRT system that you want. If that would be cheaper, then how would METRO ever receive more funding? Why would we increase funding for a transit system if they don't need it? That's exactly why $0.25 was taken away from METRO's sales tax in the first place, because they didn't "need" it.

So if my arguments are contrived and single-minded, then why is every major transit agency in the Unites States interested in building more rail? I guess they're all wrong, and that transit agencies like San Antonio's are the only ones doing it right, right? All major transit agencies expanding their rail systems are contrived and single minded. Ok, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

@mfastx - I agree with virtually everything you are writing, except that nobody cares in Houston. Obviously people care about this issue, enough to pass the referendum expanding our light rail service. And if you look at the data from Klineberg's city surveys, I think support for mass transit has gone up pretty consistently.

I would be in favor of Houston doing something like LA, and doing a 30/10 plan where we increase sales taxes and build "30 years" worth of mass transit in 10. But I suspect it will take different leadership at the Mayor's office to make something like that happen.

I think most of the cost effectiveness arguments are just a trap - and you shouldn't really pay them much mind - the key is in thinking of transit as a valuable service. What is the cost effectiveness of our public schools? What is the cost effectiveness of our military? Any data looking at cost per passenger mile, for instance, is inherently flawed because "per mile" measurements reward sprawl in the first place. I would rather focus on building the network than debating the right-wing, who are dying off and becoming less powerful with each passing year anyway. They can only stand in the way of better transit for so long.

Unless you believe yourself able to predict the far-flung future, inflexibility is a risk and not any sort of advantage.

I don't think it takes much predictive ability to understand that certain corridors in Houston, like the Main St. corridor, make sense for grade-separated, long-term, fixed investments such as rail and commuter rail.

Inflexibility can be a risk, but permanence can also be an advantage.

I like toll roads, too. I also like trains. Not that what I like matters. What I do NOT like is intellectual dishonesty. And claims that there is a difference between toll roads built with taxpayer money (as opposed to the tolls) and commuter rail also built with taxpayer money (instead of the fares) is intellectually dishonest. Ideology does that to people.

Agreed. I think the main intellectually dishonest assumption here is the idea that a toll road will necessarily be profitable, or that rail will necessarily lose money. I see no inherent reason why rail is destined to lose money, or any inherent reason why tolls would always be profitable. To me, the profit or loss would be based more on 1) quality of service, 2) the necessity of service, and 3) whether the provider of the service cares about profitability (many governments probably don't necessarily care too much if they are running some programs that lose money, as long as they are providing a public good).

Personally, I would much rather see the $350 million go towards local road improvements inside Beltway 8, and rail studies / development of commuter rail options in the Houston area.

Also - just wondering - is the Grand Parkway extension actually projected to be profitable? If Beltway 8 is the only profitable toll road in Houston, then it seems like Grand Parkway would probably not be projected to turn a profit for quite some time.

A single at-grade east/west light rail line is hardly supportive of a comprehensive transit system. (If it were, the high ridership and necessary frequency of light rail vehicles along the line would effectively prevent auto traffic from crossing Richmond, making "Full Regional Mobility" unattainable.)

This is a ridiculous argument.

If the University line is so successful that it has to be run more frequently than is desired, you think that means we'd throw in the towel on our plans for "Full Regional Mobility"? Hmm... maybe we'd take that as an opportunity to invest in a line on Westheimer, Washington, or Bellaire to offload some traffic (in addition to lines on Kirby, Wesleyan, Montrose, etc), or start building some elevated transit lines or subway - or even elevate the University Line at particular intersections - or build tunnels under Richmond at certain points. I'd love to start with a fully grade separated and more comprehensive system now but unfortunately it is going to take the wild success of our inner city transit system to build support for this - and that requires some patience. Just as we didn't start out by building I-10 and 610 but local roads, and just as our highway system has taken nearly three-quarters of a century to build now, our transit system in Houston is not going to get built overnight.

The University line is a major step in the right direction for Houston's long term mobility. To expect the system to be flawless from the outset is unrealistic - and to assume that we won't have the ability to adapt the system much in the same way we've adapted our existing infrastructure over time seems completely myopic to me.