Houstonians Now Want More Tranist and Less Roads!

[FoUTASportscaster]

U.S. Cities Traffic Problems

Houston ranks 5th worst in traffic congestion and we have only 7.5 miles of rail. DFW ranks 6th and boasts of 45 miles or so of rail. We all know SF, DC and Atlanta have great rail systems (especially SF with its MUNI, BART and Cable cars). But unless we build a sophisticated underground subway system like NY, we'll probably not move up in the ranks by building a few light rail lines. Not that I am against rail, I think it has its place. Interestingly enough, here are the worst cities for traffic congestion:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.

2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.

3. Washington, D.C.

4. Atlanta

5. Houston

6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.

7. Chicago.

The city of LA has 173 miles of freeway. Houston has 200. Dallas has 148. These are just the cities. The number is obviously greater in the region. Why o why does the rail system in Houston not take raffic off of 610. I just don't understand.

All sarcasm aside, it is rediculous to say DART doesn't relieve congestion because it ranks 6 with 45 miles of LRT. Now, when rail parallels I-35, 114, 635, DNT, I-30, 408, I-20, etc, then lets talk. We all are so far behind on transit options that we have a long way to go.

As an aside, Arlington is on the list and they don't even belong to a transit agency at the moment.

The economic feasibility of DART was (and even remains) legitimately in question. However, DART has been implemented in a much more effective configuration than the Red Line or the planned expansions. The DCTA painstakingly acquired and preserved numerous rights of way for over 15 years before construction began.

Ours, as implemented, is (and most likely will continue to be) possibly even counterproductive--it hurts mobility, yet we paid about $368 million for it without matching federal dollars. Ours is a joke. [Niche hangs head in shame]

Wow, there is soooo much wrong with this I just have to dive in.

Economic feasability is in question? How? If it based on income, the one cent sales tax is pretty set in stone. If it is costs, LRT has been proven to have lower operating costs than buses, as one driver can move hundreds of people at once, while in bus it does about 40 at capacity, which it rarely is anyway compared to the LRT system.

I do agree that the configuration is great. However in Houston, if drivers were to obey the rules of the road, the configuration would be fine.

The DCTA was formed in 2003 and replaced the city of Denton's system which began in 2002. They had nothing to do with preservation of ROW. DART actually owns the line, and if Metro wanted to, they could buy ROW or lease space for trains. It is relatively easy.

I wouldn't call the system a joke. I think it is admirable and actually, that system has more riders per mile than any other LRT system in the US besides Boston. It is a little misleading, as it serves the urban core only, but to be ranked that high is an achievement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...ms_by_ridership

concur. i'll bet just finishing the katy freeway will drop us a notch.

I suggest you look into something called the Induced Traffic Principle. In essence, drivers congestion limit is stop and go traffic. Any less than that they seek alternate routes/options. When a freeway/roadway is widened, capacity is increased to the point of congestion, as more people whose limit is stop and go get on. Like I said, Houston has 200 freeway miles in the city and over 500 in the region. That alone should be proof that you can't build your way out of congestion. Lord knows Houston has been trying, yet they still rank 5th. Sounds like wasted money to me.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The best thing to happen to Dallas is the relocation of major oil companies.

Edited March 21, 2007 by FoUTASportscaster

[musicman]

The city of LA has 173 miles of freeway. Houston has 200. Dallas has 148. These are just the cities. The number is obviously greater in the region. Why o why does the rail system in Houston not take raffic off of 610. I just don't understand.

totally different transit corridors. they don't serve the same type of transit customer.

Economic feasability is in question? How? If it based on income, the one cent sales tax is pretty set in stone. If it is costs, LRT has been proven to have lower operating costs than buses, as one driver can move hundreds of people at once, while in bus it does about 40 at capacity, which it rarely is anyway compared to the LRT system.

the one cent sales tax doesn't come near to covering operating costs for METRO.

I suggest you look into something called the Induced Traffic Principle. In essence, drivers congestion limit is stop and go traffic. Any less than that they seek alternate routes/options. When a freeway/roadway is widened, capacity is increased to the point of congestion, as more people whose limit is stop and go get on. Like I said, Houston has 200 freeway miles in the city and over 500 in the region. That alone should be proof that you can't build your way out of congestion. Lord knows Houston has been trying, yet they still rank 5th. Sounds like wasted money to me.

i know when txdot widened the sw freeway outside beltway 8, travel times dropped 15 mins. with the sheer volume of cars, that results in quite a gas savings. yes people will seek the fastest/most convenient alternatives for transportation whatever that may be.

Edited March 21, 2007 by musicman

[CDeb]

I suggest you look into something called the Induced Traffic Principle. In essence, drivers congestion limit is stop and go traffic. Any less than that they seek alternate routes/options. When a freeway/roadway is widened, capacity is increased to the point of congestion, as more people whose limit is stop and go get on. Like I said, Houston has 200 freeway miles in the city and over 500 in the region. That alone should be proof that you can't build your way out of congestion. Lord knows Houston has been trying, yet they still rank 5th. Sounds like wasted money to me.

Your statement is misleading at best, as it takes a very narrow view. It is foolish to say that adding capacity will not improve the overall transportation system. What your statement is attempting to describe is known as triple convergence. When a primary route is congested past a traveler's tolerance for congestion, they seek alternate modes, alternate routes, or travel at alternate times. When a capacity improvement is made (be it a widened freeway or a new rail line), travelers will converge on the new capacity from those other modes, routes and times because it provides them with a better travel time. Therefore, that new capacity will quickly fill up and peak-period congestion is just as bad as it was before the improvement.

So one could say that no improvement has been made, right? Hardly. Those added travelers had to come from somewhere. And the modes, routes and times that they abandoned are less congested than they were before. Alternate roads have cleared considerably. There's more room for others in the rail car. The freeway is free flow at 6 a.m. when it used to be a parking lot at a quarter 'till. Overall, the transportation system has improved considerably.

"You can't build your way out of congestion" is a cute saying, but it's incomplete. It should be, "You can't build your way out of peak period congestion," because peak-period congestion will always be with us, no matter how many miles of rail line or freeway lane-miles we build. But that doesn't mean that we can't make the peak period shorter, or have it occur in fewer places or on fewer modes.

Besides, isn't adding 100 miles of rail line also an attempt to "build your way out of congestion?" Added capacity is added capacity, be the tires rubber or steel.

Also, you fail to consider context. Houston is fifth and it has a ton of freeway lane miles. But is it fifth because it has a ton of freeway miles, as you imply? What else is at work here? Land use patterns? Local driver behavior? Local job distribution? Each one of those cities on that list is very different from all the others. So to attempt to correlate a single variable with their placement on the list is inappropriate.

[musicman]

^

^

^

good post CDeb

Edited March 21, 2007 by musicman

[Vertigo58]

^

^

^

good post CDeb

Here's my proposal for new transportation...

Edited March 21, 2007 by Vertigo58

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Houston's economy is growing along with its population and job opportunities. Wider freeways and more roads are not there to just benefit the everyday Joe. They are there to grow and support commerce in the city and region. Dont believe me? Next time you are on a freeway in a traffic jam, start to count the number of 18 wheelers and other large trucks. Im sure you will lose count very fast.

Along with this growing economy comes growing salaries and lots of them. I cannot see those people readily turning thier backs on thier own cars by choosing less roads and supporting thier own personal daily use of mass transit. Thats absolute absurdity! Unlike many other cities in the USA, which rely heavily on mass transit, Houston has ample room for growth. We are not trapped in a bowl or a restrictive ditch which prohibits the growth of roads and highways.

I have no objection to growing roads, highways and mass transit at the same time. I do have a strong objection to growing mass transit over roads and highways, especially when a decision like that would be based on a LIE.

[lockmat]

Your statement is misleading at best, as it takes a very narrow view. It is foolish to say that adding capacity will not improve the overall transportation system. What your statement is attempting to describe is known as triple convergence. When a primary route is congested past a traveler's tolerance for congestion, they seek alternate modes, alternate routes, or travel at alternate times. When a capacity improvement is made (be it a widened freeway or a new rail line), travelers will converge on the new capacity from those other modes, routes and times because it provides them with a better travel time. Therefore, that new capacity will quickly fill up and peak-period congestion is just as bad as it was before the improvement.

So one could say that no improvement has been made, right? Hardly. Those added travelers had to come from somewhere. And the modes, routes and times that they abandoned are less congested than they were before. Alternate roads have cleared considerably. There's more room for others in the rail car. The freeway is free flow at 6 a.m. when it used to be a parking lot at a quarter 'till. Overall, the transportation system has improved considerably.

"You can't build your way out of congestion" is a cute saying, but it's incomplete. It should be, "You can't build your way out of peak period congestion," because peak-period congestion will always be with us, no matter how many miles of rail line or freeway lane-miles we build. But that doesn't mean that we can't make the peak period shorter, or have it occur in fewer places or on fewer modes.

Besides, isn't adding 100 miles of rail line also an attempt to "build your way out of congestion?" Added capacity is added capacity, be the tires rubber or steel.

Also, you fail to consider context. Houston is fifth and it has a ton of freeway lane miles. But is it fifth because it has a ton of freeway miles, as you imply? What else is at work here? Land use patterns? Local driver behavior? Local job distribution? Each one of those cities on that list is very different from all the others. So to attempt to correlate a single variable with their placement on the list is inappropriate.

This kind of debate kills me, and it happens all the time on here. One person will swoop in, correcting someones previous statement, show how they're wrong and then present "the truth" as if they're the authority of the subject. Hardly anyone has an opinion because we have so many know-it-alls. And the thing is, this process will happen four, five times over.

I'd like to trust all you guys, but it seems like the next person just trumps the next.

I think if everyone listed their occupation or something in their profiles, that would bring some credibility to our discussions.

I have no problems saying that all my knowledge comes from what I think is "common sense" and things I have read from books. But at the same time, I don't usually say that I'm correct and someone is wrong.

Of course these are complicated matters, so I also know that sometimes yall are just piggy-backing and adding more info to anothers thread and bringing the matter to a more clear understanding.

All in all, I still enjoy reading the insight and analyzing it.

Edited March 21, 2007 by lockmat

[musicman]

I think if everyone listed their occupation or something in their profiles, that would bring some credibility to our discussions.

I have no problems saying that all my knowledge comes from what I think is "common sense" and things I have read from books. But at the same time, I don't usually say that I'm correct and someone is wrong.

Of course these are complicated matters, so I also know that sometimes yall are just piggy-backing and adding more info to anothers thread and bringing the matter to a more clear understanding.

All in all, I still enjoy reading the insight and analyzing it.

you have to read the info and process the information and hopefully come to your own conclusion. if the person's argument didn't trump the previous one then who would you believe? this IS a forum remember.

[lockmat]

you have to read the info and process the information and hopefully come to your own conclusion. if the person's argument didn't trump the previous one then who would you believe? this IS a forum remember.

True, and they may just be different schools of thought. But much of what's put out seems very credible to me if read in a vacume. Since I'm not experienced or formally educated in the fields, it can be tough to process the information when I have nothing to compare it to from personal experiences. Sometimes the difference in opinions are like night and day, which makes it harder to decide. I don't think it would be too much to ask if sometimes someone included a little something like, "My training as tought me...," "I read here..." or even "I work in this field, so..."

You know what I mean?

And yeah, it's a forum, so I guess it's something I'll just have to deal with.

[musicman]

True, and they may just be different schools of thought. But much of what's put out seems very credible to me if read in a vacume. Since I'm not experienced or formally educated in the fields, it can be tough to process the information when I have nothing to compare it to from personal experiences. Sometimes the difference in opinions are like night and day, which makes it harder to decide. I don't think it would be too much to ask if sometimes someone included a little something like, "My training as tought me...," "I read here..." or even "I work in this field, so..."

You know what I mean?

And yeah, it's a forum, so I guess it's something I'll just have to deal with.

i believe cdeb is about to graduate and is studying traffic mgmt, highways, etc.

yes there are different schools of thought but hopefully we can all come to a conclusion as a result of the information presented. we have to make decisions like this everyday. it is hard for everyone to grasp certain things. at least it is for me.

[ricco67]

There is also something to be said about real world experience.

It's a safe bet that I put more miles in the streets any quite a number of you every day, so I have a unique perspective on the various woes around town and how traffic moves.

The only way a person to get any more information is to have a few poor souls perched over and near certain areas for 10-12 hrs a day for a couple of weeks several times a year to get a proper study on how traffic moves (or not).

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

It's a safe bet that I put more miles in the streets any quite a number of you every day,

Thats a safe bet when its put against me. My auto is approaching 3 years old and it only has about 13,800 miles on it. I put more miles on airplanes than my car

[lockmat]

There is also something to be said about real world experience.

It's a safe bet that I put more miles in the streets any quite a number of you every day, so I have a unique perspective on the various woes around town and how traffic moves.

The only way a person to get any more information is to have a few poor souls perched over and near certain areas for 10-12 hrs a day for a couple of weeks several times a year to get a proper study on how traffic moves (or not).

There's probably some validity to that. But sometimes experience in traffic still doesn't help, not for me at least I'll be sittin there in traffic, and then it's gone, and I still can't figure out what was going on and why.

Of course, that's me.

[desirous]

There's probably some validity to that. But sometimes experience in traffic still doesn't help, not for me at least I'll be sittin there in traffic, and then it's gone, and I still can't figure out what was going on and why.

Of course, that's me.

If it's the North Freeway, the definitive reason is the humps.

If you work in an office tower with a freeway view, look out the window at around the time rush hour starts, for about half an hour. Most traffic jams have no real reason for starting, often just a misjudged lane change or a tailgater slamming the brakes.

[ricco67]

There's probably some validity to that. But sometimes experience in traffic still doesn't help, not for me at least I'll be sittin there in traffic, and then it's gone, and I still can't figure out what was going on and why.

Of course, that's me.

Just sitting in traffic in the route to and from your home/drinking spot isn't a way figure out the traffic solution. I've spent the past few years dodging and weaving around traffic. I've also stood in some office towers (and city streets) for an hour or so cooling my heels and looking at traffic. I've actually seen traffic jams downtown two blocks away and affect traffic for 4 blocks because some idiot turned the wrong way down a one way street.

[musicman]

Just sitting in traffic in the route to and from your home/drinking spot isn't a way figure out the traffic solution. I've spent the past few years dodging and weaving around traffic. I've also stood in some office towers (and city streets) for an hour or so cooling my heels and looking at traffic. I've actually seen traffic jams downtown two blocks away and affect traffic for 4 blocks because some idiot turned the wrong way down a one way street.

go get put on the red light camera committee. i was driving on scott at 610 and they installed one there. it would only let 3 cars through before the light changed. took 10-15 mins to get thru the intersection

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

go get put on the red light camera committee. i was driving on scott at 610 and they installed one there. it would only let 3 cars through before the light changed. took 10-15 mins to get thru the intersection

Based on what you say here, it sounds to me like the makings of a city cash cow in tickets.

[musicman]

Based on what you say here, it sounds to me like the makings of a city cash cow in tickets.

at least at that intersection yes! i know the vehicle next to me went thru way after the light so he could make a right turn. i just noticed they put one at monroe and 45. luckily it is going in the opposite direction i frequently take.

[TheNiche]

Wow, where do I begin? Well let me start with a correction: I erred by using "DCTA", but it always slips my mind what Dallas' METRO equivalent is called. That is the last correction you'll hear from me.

Economic feasability is in question? How? If it based on income, the one cent sales tax is pretty set in stone. If it is costs, LRT has been proven to have lower operating costs than buses, as one driver can move hundreds of people at once, while in bus it does about 40 at capacity, which it rarely is anyway compared to the LRT system.

First of all, there is a difference between financial feasibility and economic feasibility. Very few transit projects are financially feasible, and that is frequently done purposefully by transit agencies. If we basically got rid of the FTA and all non-local transit funding, you'd see more consideration for financial feasibility in such a way that the difference between financial and economic feasibility would essentially disappear...but that'll never happen. The market for transit is far too distorted at this point.

With that in mind, the source of funding for projects is usually irrelevant unless they create significant secondary distortions or carry a high probability of inducing financial distress within particular entities. What matters are the real capitalized initial costs and the fixed and variable operating costs that will be borne by society in one form or fashion. These can be applied to a demand model from which conclusions can be made about the benefits and costs of implementing a new system.

The problem with LRT is that it takes most of its passengers from bus systems that are already in place. Some bus routes are then eliminated, others reduced, and still others remain but get less ridership. Here's a simplified example: if you're just taking riders off of a bus system that cost you $0.65 per passenger mile (which is the average, nationally as of 2002) and put them onto LRT at an operating cost of $0.60 per passenger mile (which is the average for DART as of 2002), then all that you've saved are $0.05 per passenger mile. If DART then services 75 million passenger miles annually, the net savings to society is only about $3.75 million per year. If that is the annual savings to society, the time value of money is 3%, and the system has an expected lifespan of 45 years, the most that should be paid in up-front capital costs is only about $92 million, which is the present value of the net benefit to society. I can assure you that DART had spent more than that building their system as of 2002.

But there is another problem, one that eats away at the marginal benefit and is frequently observed but studied very little because the data is hard to reliably compute: bus routes must be adapted to LRT. LRT proponents believe that this allows many routes to be eliminated, resulting in pure savings, such as is shown in the simple example above. The truth is that adding LRT creates a demand generator for bus transit because relatively few people ever live and work along any given corridor! Even if parallel routes are eliminated or scaled back (which isn't necessarily desirable depending upon the distance between LRT stations, Dallas being a good example), in an efficient transit system, perpendicular routes would need to be expanded to handle any increased demand for the LRT corridor.

As an aside, it should be noted that the operating cost of light rail by passenger mile varies widely from city to city. It is absolutely not assured that LRT operating costs per passenger mile will be lower than the bus alternative.

I do agree that the configuration is great. However in Houston, if drivers were to obey the rules of the road, the configuration would be fine.

The Dallas configuration has many grade seperations and as such has less of an adverse impact on traffic. The Houston configuration can cause significant mobility disruptions, especially at peak hours. The Mayor himself was quoted in a recent Chronicle article stating that the City's attempts at timing street lights have been hurt by the Red Line. Any car needing to cross the line has about a 25% chance of having to stop and wait for a LRT vehicle, but at peak times, spots like Fannin & South Loop require a very long wait as LRT vehicles dart by with high frequency, blocking turns to the west. There are also fewer places to cross the LRT line than there had been, which funnels more cars into fewer intersections, causing peak-period congestion, more road miles travelled to make the detour, more emissions, and more wasted time. The problem isn't just felt by drivers, but also with the LRT vehicles themselves. LRT vehicles often have to stop where cars are blocking the route or where the signal timing is off (which is frequently). LRT drivers are also overly cautious at times.

The root of the problem is poor design and implementation, and there do not appear to be any signs of a shift in thinking on the part of METRO. Dallas' configuration is superior and will without a doubt remain superior as Houston's system expands.

DART actually owns the line, and if Metro wanted to, they could buy ROW or lease space for trains. It is relatively easy.

What are you smoking! It isn't easy at all to lease freight tracks. Union Pacific and BNSF haven't exactly been very amenable to the idea where it has been brought up in the past. Either METRO has to pay them hefty use fees and agree to shift commuter operations so as not to interfere with freight traffic, or they have to pay the rail company compensation for having to shift freight traffic around. Houston is already something of a bottleneck in the national freight rail system, too, so it isn't as though there is a whole lot of spare capacity to go around.

Negotiations of this sort are long and tedious. Ultimately, they are always costly. In some cases, it may even require METRO to build a whole new set of tracks.

I wouldn't call the system a joke. I think it is admirable and actually, that system has more riders per mile than any other LRT system in the US besides Boston. It is a little misleading, as it serves the urban core only, but to be ranked that high is an achievement.

Ridership of the LRT system is skewed by bus riders that now have to use LRT as an intermediate leg of a longer trip (which causes frustration among certain groups of predominantly poor inner city transit users). Ridership is also skewed by those who park at Smithlands and previously used an inexpensive shuttle service to get them to the main TMC campus. The shuttles still exist, but now you have to park, walk to the LRT station, wait, ride the LRT north, get off, wait, get on a shuttle, go into the heart of the TMC, and walk to your final destination. Intermediate transfers make up a large amount of ridership.

This is to be expected however, since the line doesn't actually serve any sizable residential areas or poor neighborhoods where transit use is higher.

I suggest you look into something called the Induced Traffic Principle. In essence, drivers congestion limit is stop and go traffic. Any less than that they seek alternate routes/options. When a freeway/roadway is widened, capacity is increased to the point of congestion, as more people whose limit is stop and go get on. Like I said, Houston has 200 freeway miles in the city and over 500 in the region. That alone should be proof that you can't build your way out of congestion. Lord knows Houston has been trying, yet they still rank 5th. Sounds like wasted money to me.

CDeb provided an excellent summary of the forces at work here.

[citykid09]

The way Houston built its METRO Rail doesn't make since to me. The damn trains stop traffic and cause accidents. They should have taken the thing off of the busy streets giving it its own right of way or elevate the damn thing. I keep hearing people talk about Richmond, Richmond, put it on Richmond! But why? Having the rail down Richmond will cause more wrecks and traffic having to stop due to the train. Rail should be fast and take people to destinations without interrupting other things. Here are better ways:

Elevating the line

Partial or full subway

Own right of way.

These alternatives will allow for longer trains, carry more people, NOT stop traffic, and NOT cause wrecks or major accidents.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The way Houston built its METRO Rail doesn't make since to me. The damn trains stop traffic and cause accidents. They should have taken the thing off of the busy streets giving it its own right of way or elevate the damn thing. I keep hearing people talk about Richmond, Richmond, put it on Richmond! But why? Having the rail down Richmond will cause more wrecks and traffic having to stop due to the train. Rail should be fast and take people to destinations without interrupting other things. Here are better ways:

Elevating the line

Partial or full subway

Own right of way.

These alternatives will allow for longer trains, carry more people, NOT stop traffic, and NOT cause wrecks or major accidents.

Trains dont cause wrecks, irresponsible drivers do. The ridership of said trains are on the ground not in some elevated path in the sky. Having these trains as high speed vehicles is stupid. They are in place to serve the inner city riders which would require frequent stops to serve those riders more effectively.

[citykid09]

Trains don't cause wrecks, irresponsible drivers do. The ridership of said trains are on the ground not in some elevated path in the sky. Having these trains as high speed vehicles is stupid. They are in place to serve the inner city riders which would require frequent stops to serve those riders more effectively.

But they shouldn't be on the streets like they are.

[ricco67]

But they shouldn't be on the streets like they are.

Several cities in europe (and canada, but they're not a real country anyway) have their rail systems on streets and seem to get along with them just fine. in fact, some allow you to interact with them and share space.

It can't be helped if some drivers are just this side of the darwinian side.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

But they shouldn't be on the streets like they are.

Right. Lets elevate them because everyone knows no one lives, works or walks on the ground...............

[The Voice of University Oaks]

The problem with LRT is that it takes most of its passengers from bus systems that are already in place. Some bus routes are then eliminated, others reduced, and still others remain but get less ridership. Here's a simplified example: if you're just taking riders off of a bus system that cost you $0.65 per passenger mile (which is the average, nationally as of 2002) and put them onto LRT at an operating cost of $0.60 per passenger mile (which is the average for DART as of 2002), then all that you've saved are $0.05 per passenger mile.

Just to be fair, I'd argue against comparing national statistics for one mode to local statistics for another mode. In 2002, according to the National Transit Database, DART's operating expense per passenger mile for bus was $0.89. That's a savings of $0.29 per passenger mile, which at 75 million passenger miles annually represents a net savings of $21.75 million per year.

Now, the end result of your equation will probably still be that the capital cost of DART's light rail system is greater than its amortized savings by putting bus riders on trains, and I wouldn't argue with you (I generally don't get into arguments about the efficacy of rail systems, as they tend to be mind-numbingly tedious). However, I just think that apples should be compared to apples.

As an aside, it should be noted that the operating cost of light rail by passenger mile varies widely from city to city. It is absolutely not assured that LRT operating costs per passenger mile will be lower than the bus alternative.

This is true. It's also true that operating costs by passenger mile can vary wildly from year to year. Both sides of the "rail-versus-bus" argument need to be careful when using these numbers, as they are highly volatile and what's true one year might not be true the next.

The Dallas configuration has many grade seperations and as such has less of an adverse impact on traffic. The Houston configuration can cause significant mobility disruptions, especially at peak hours. The Mayor himself was quoted in a recent Chronicle article stating that the City's attempts at timing street lights have been hurt by the Red Line. Any car needing to cross the line has about a 25% chance of having to stop and wait for a LRT vehicle, but at peak times, spots like Fannin & South Loop require a very long wait as LRT vehicles dart by with high frequency, blocking turns to the west. There are also fewer places to cross the LRT line than there had been, which funnels more cars into fewer intersections, causing peak-period congestion, more road miles travelled to make the detour, more emissions, and more wasted time. The problem isn't just felt by drivers, but also with the LRT vehicles themselves. LRT vehicles often have to stop where cars are blocking the route or where the signal timing is off (which is frequently). LRT drivers are also overly cautious at times.

The root of the problem is poor design and implementation, and there do not appear to be any signs of a shift in thinking on the part of METRO. Dallas' configuration is superior and will without a doubt remain superior as Houston's system expands.

Yep. Dallas built light rail. We built a glorified streetcar.

Which is frustrating. I don't dislike the Red Line by any means, in fact I use it whenever I can, but it was clearly designed and built "on the cheap." I'm not saying that the whole thing should be grade separated, but what about at least providing some key separations at key locations? Main and Richmond/Wheeler is a disaster, for example. Or the Texas Medical Center. The fact is, there are so many constraints inherent with operating a line entirely at grade (for example, the capacity of the line is severely limited by downtown and midtown block lengths which essentially dictate that nothing longer than a two-car consist will every be able to regularly operate along the line) that the overal efficacy of the system is hindered; in some cases, severely. And you can bet that METRO won't do anything different for Richmond.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Wow, where do I begin? Well let me start with a correction: I erred by using "DCTA", but it always slips my mind what Dallas' METRO equivalent is called. That is the last correction you'll hear from me.

First of all, there is a difference between financial feasibility and economic feasibility. Very few transit projects are financially feasible, and that is frequently done purposefully by transit agencies. If we basically got rid of the FTA and all non-local transit funding, you'd see more consideration for financial feasibility in such a way that the difference between financial and economic feasibility would essentially disappear...but that'll never happen. The market for transit is far too distorted at this point.

Well, you did use the two agencies in the same paragraph.

The market became distorted long ago when private run transit providers were put out of buisness by government subsidized roads and freeways promoting auto use.

The problem with LRT is that it takes most of its passengers from bus systems that are already in place. Some bus routes are then eliminated, others reduced, and still others remain but get less ridership. Here's a simplified example: if you're just taking riders off of a bus system that cost you $0.65 per passenger mile (which is the average, nationally as of 2002) and put them onto LRT at an operating cost of $0.60 per passenger mile (which is the average for DART as of 2002), then all that you've saved are $0.05 per passenger mile. If DART then services 75 million passenger miles annually, the net savings to society is only about $3.75 million per year. If that is the annual savings to society, the time value of money is 3%, and the system has an expected lifespan of 45 years, the most that should be paid in up-front capital costs is only about $92 million, which is the present value of the net benefit to society. I can assure you that DART had spent more than that building their system as of 2002.

Your first point is absolutely wrong under any circumstance. LRT does what buses can't, and that's lure choice riders, those that can take cars. During rush hour, LRT's choice riders are greater than 75%, meaning those people under most circumstances would take the car over the bus. The following ridership of express buses at three transit centers that were replaced with rail's arrival. Ridership is taken from 2003 or immediately after it debuted. It replaced buses that had been in service for almost two decades.

Station Express Bus LRT Ridership

Parker Rd. 896 2,478

Arapahoe 722 2,247

Dntn Garland 656 1,444

So in conclusion, it is false to say that rail replaces bus. What it does is provide a faster, more convienient, more efficient mode of transportation over bus.

So that said, your numbers, which are faulty to begin with, are further skewed when ridership increases are factored in. I currently live in downtown, I recently joined a growing number of people in my building and the area when I gace up the car. The reason is always DART Rail. Something the bus that was replaced never did.

But there is another problem, one that eats away at the marginal benefit and is frequently observed but studied very little because the data is hard to reliably compute: bus routes must be adapted to LRT. LRT proponents believe that this allows many routes to be eliminated, resulting in pure savings, such as is shown in the simple example above. The truth is that adding LRT creates a demand generator for bus transit because relatively few people ever live and work along any given corridor!

This is already skewed. Mockingbrd Station is one of the finest examples of TOD in the nation. It wasn't there when the stationed opend in 1996. It opened in 2001 and wouldn't have done so without rail. As TOD, like downtown, the Cedars, downtown Plano, Galatyn Park, downtown Garland etc keep growing, then the need for buses doesn't exist and at the same time, economic growth continues.

Toronto is a great example of a mature system. Skyscrapers surround stations all along their line. Those weren't there when the stations opened decades ago.

Even if parallel routes are eliminated or scaled back (which isn't necessarily desirable depending upon the distance between LRT stations, Dallas being a good example), in an efficient transit system, perpendicular routes would need to be expanded to handle any increased demand for the LRT corridor.

Again false. The Red line north is a great example. Look it up.

As an aside, it should be noted that the operating cost of light rail by passenger mile varies widely from city to city. It is absolutely not assured that LRT operating costs per passenger mile will be lower than the bus alternative.

In Dallas it is and I beg you to find one example that proves the point.

The Dallas configuration has many grade seperations and as such has less of an adverse impact on traffic. The Houston configuration can cause significant mobility disruptions, especially at peak hours. The Mayor himself was quoted in a recent Chronicle article stating that the City's attempts at timing street lights have been hurt by the Red Line. Any car needing to cross the line has about a 25% chance of having to stop and wait for a LRT vehicle, but at peak times, spots like Fannin & South Loop require a very long wait as LRT vehicles dart by with high frequency, blocking turns to the west. There are also fewer places to cross the LRT line than there had been, which funnels more cars into fewer intersections, causing peak-period congestion, more road miles travelled to make the detour, more emissions, and more wasted time. The problem isn't just felt by drivers, but also with the LRT vehicles themselves. LRT vehicles often have to stop where cars are blocking the route or where the signal timing is off (which is frequently). LRT drivers are also overly cautious at times.

DART downtown has the same thing, yet you hear nothing about it here.

The root of the problem is poor design and implementation, and there do not appear to be any signs of a shift in thinking on the part of METRO. Dallas' configuration is superior and will without a doubt remain superior as Houston's system expands.

Possibly, however, should drivers obey the law, they'd be fine. Plus it is difficult to say what METRO will do. Prior to DART's opening, there were a lot of naysayers proclaiming gloom and doom for the system, just like I am hearing about Metro's system.

What are you smoking! It isn't easy at all to lease freight tracks. Union Pacific and BNSF haven't exactly been very amenable to the idea where it has been brought up in the past. Either METRO has to pay them hefty use fees and agree to shift commuter operations so as not to interfere with freight traffic, or they have to pay the rail company compensation for having to shift freight traffic around. Houston is already something of a bottleneck in the national freight rail system, too, so it isn't as though there is a whole lot of spare capacity to go around.

Yet, somehow DART and the T are able to negotiate with those same freight companies and things get done. The T's Cotton belt line will use of the most congested lines in the nation when it enters UP's section near downtown FW.

Ridership of the LRT system is skewed by bus riders that now have to use LRT as an intermediate leg of a longer trip (which causes frustration among certain groups of predominantly poor inner city transit users). Ridership is also skewed by those who park at Smithlands and previously used an inexpensive shuttle service to get them to the main TMC campus. The shuttles still exist, but now you have to park, walk to the LRT station, wait, ride the LRT north, get off, wait, get on a shuttle, go into the heart of the TMC, and walk to your final destination. Intermediate transfers make up a large amount of ridership.

I will have to take your word for it, as I haven't studied the issue to hard. I do know that if the line is allowed to expand, real world practice shows some of those issues fall away.

Edited March 22, 2007 by FoUTASportscaster

[musicman]

Yep. Dallas built light rail. We built a glorified streetcar.

Which is frustrating. I don't dislike the Red Line by any means, in fact I use it whenever I can, but it was clearly designed and built "on the cheap." I'm not saying that the whole thing should be grade separated, but what about at least providing some key separations at key locations? Main and Richmond/Wheeler is a disaster, for example. Or the Texas Medical Center. The fact is, there are so many constraints inherent with operating a line entirely at grade (for example, the capacity of the line is severely limited by downtown and midtown block lengths which essentially dictate that nothing longer than a two-car consist will every be able to regularly operate along the line) that the overal efficacy of the system is hindered; in some cases, severely. And you can bet that METRO won't do anything different for Richmond.

this is a big problem. METRO hasn't even considered elevating portions unless they have to for other reasons, like going over 59. i can only imagine what will happen to richmond/wheeler when the university line is built. i think lack of grade separation will be particularly important on portions of the line that cut through existing neighborhoods. vehicular traffic will only become worse!

[musicman]

Your first point is absolutely wrong under any circumstance. LRT does what buses can't, and that's lure choice riders, those that can take cars. During rush hour, LRT's choice riders are greater than 75%, meaning those people under most circumstances would take the car over the bus. The following ridership of express buses at three transit centers that were replaced with rail's arrival. Ridership is taken from 2003 or immediately after it debuted. It replaced buses that had been in service for almost two decades.

Station Express Bus LRT Ridership

Parker Rd. 896 2,478

Arapahoe 722 2,247

Dntn Garland 656 1,444

So in conclusion, it is false to say that rail replaces bus. What it does is provide a faster, more convienient, more efficient mode of transportation over bus.

to say that 75% are choice riders is a misnomer, esp based on your info. what happened in dallas has nothing to do with with is happening here. spending millions to move ~6000 people doesn't even appear economically sound. i rode the bus/rail last week and was talking to a driver from the polk garage, she definitely mentioned that because of the rail, the bus trips now take longer because forced transfers occur. longer travel times would tend to lose ridership, not gain it.

Toronto is a great example of a mature system. Skyscrapers surround stations all along their line. Those weren't there when the stations opened decades ago.

you have a different beast when you're trying to build a system in the middle of an existing city. if the areas were undeveloped previously, then development can be done to minimize interference. we don't have that option and should therefore add some grade separations to prevent some problems like we have along the red line.

[ricco67]

Well, you did use the two agencies in the same paragraph.

Yet, somehow DART and the T are able to negotiate with those same freight companies and things get done. The T's Cotton belt line will use of the most congested lines in the nation when it enters UP's section near downtown FW.

I will have to take your word for it, as I haven't studied the issue to hard. I do know that if the line is allowed to expand, real world practice shows some of those issues fall away.

Looks like The Niche' as a new sparring partner.

Great post and welcome to the system.

[TheNiche]

It can't be helped if some drivers are just this side of the darwinian side.

Yes it can. Public infrastructure that carries risk should be built with the top fraction of a percent of careless users in mind.

They may be evidence of Darwinism, but in the mean time, they take a massive toll on the rest of society. ...but they can't be stopped from driving, so the next best alternative is to accomodate them and minimize their external effects.