Systemwide Data On LRT And Bus Ridership

[KinkaidAlum]

Sporting events are among the poorest justifications for light rail ever to be implemented. Almost as bad as airports. This matter has been hashed out and rehashed.

Likewise, non-commuter trips have a much lower propensity to take light rail and are relatively few in number (as a whole) as compared to commuter trips.

Boston is not relevant to a discussion about mass transit in Houston. Never will be. Don't take this the wrong way, but your personal behavior is particularly irrelevant.

I didn't take it the wrong way. You have a tendancy to respond as such when you are losing an argument.

As for Musicman and his "falling ridership numbers for Boston between 2001 and 2005, do you know the local market?

Do you know that Boston was hit hard after 9-11? Do you know that the Tech Bust cost Boston a ton of jobs? Do you realize that the city is estimated to have stopped growing during this time period? Do you know that fares have risen across the board in Boston over the last 4 years for every type of transit option (bus, commuter rail, subway, trolley, water taxi, and bus rapid transit)?

Do you know that even after all of that, the MBTA is the nation's 4th largest transit system and it serves less than 4.4 million people?

[musicman]

I didn't take it the wrong way. You have a tendancy to respond as such when you are losing an argument.

As for Musicman and his "falling ridership numbers for Boston between 2001 and 2005, do you know the local market?

Do you know that Boston was hit hard after 9-11? Do you know that the Tech Bust cost Boston a ton of jobs? Do you realize that the city is estimated to have stopped growing during this time period? Do you know that fares have risen across the board in Boston over the last 4 years for every type of transit option (bus, commuter rail, subway, trolley, water taxi, and bus rapid transit)?

Do you know that even after all of that, the MBTA is the nation's 4th largest transit system and it serves less than 4.4 million people?

they aren't MY ridership numbers. from the data it appears that your rising fares argument isn't valid for the bus/commuter rail. i'd have to assume the subway is having some issues with a loss of over 50000 riders.

IF it is like houston, perhaps those who are afraid to ride buses and who will only ride light rail are having good fortune and found other means to get to work (by driving). i am only surmising.

[RedScare]

...and btw, I was the first to admit (in the initial post, of all places) that I hadn't reviewed the data yet, and my comments were based only upon the summary of the person who posted the data. So you are correct that I have an anti-METRO bias, not that it invalidates my criticism. And you are correct that my comments are subject to revision. In the mean time, you have not effectively provided a very good reason that they might be false.

Well, these being my only points, I am done. There is not enough data for me to prove anything, either. I never tried to prove anything. I was only pointing out the fabrication with equally unsupportable fabrications.

We now return to your regularly scheduled anti-METRO rhetoric.

[TheNiche]

I was only pointing out the fabrication with equally unsupportable fabrications.

Sure is funny how you waited so long and wasted so much time arguing unsupportable positions before falling back on a defense that is (for the moment) impenetrable...it almost comes across as a form of desperation...especially when you could've just presented the impenetrable defense in very simple terms right from the start.

We now return to your regularly scheduled anti-METRO rhetoric.

Btw, I provide more than anti-METRO rhetoric. I consistently provide arguments that they're a closed-off bureaucracy led by politicians lacking vision, any ability or desire to adhere to their mission, or basic competency. I only do so because the empirical and anecdotal evidence is overwhelming, and because I fear what they will do to the city in which I am a stakeholder.

And to be clear, I like transit when it is implemented effectively. I just don't like METRO. You might say that they have a bad track record...but I wouldn't. I don't care much for puns.

EDIT: By sheer coincidence, the textbook I used at UH's economics department that I mentioned was at home (and from which I've quoted on HAIF in the past was written by this guy.

[ricco67]

Visitors don't ride busses unless they're part of a refugee population.

I've got an Urban Economics textbook at home that says otherwise, citing a Ph.D. economist that has made a career of such matters. Upon what do you base your assertion?

You are correct. In fact, one of the better sources of ridership is between Smithlands and the TMC stations. These were previously served by short shuttles (that still exist to get people from the LRT to their final destination). That and extremely expensive TMC area parking helps inflate LRT ridership a lot.

Hate to squash your bubble, but when I went to Chicago, I used the Red line (Subway) from O'hare to Downtown. My flight arrived at 9pm and quite a few other passengers from the airport hopped on board and got off at various stations along the way. We also made extensive use of it going to various parts of Chicago. I don't consider myself a refugee.

If you wish to cite sources, please use it like the bible that you seem to claim it as it is and cite chapter and verse and I'll add it to my reading pile.

Yes, there are people get that on Smithlands and go to the TMC and hop off there. so what? The Smithlands is a public parking lot and is used by alot of non med center people as well.

Sporting events are among the poorest justifications for light rail ever to be implemented. Almost as bad as airports. This matter has been hashed out and rehashed.

Likewise, non-commuter trips have a much lower propensity to take light rail and are relatively few in number (as a whole) as compared to commuter trips.

Boston is not relevant to a discussion about mass transit in Houston. Never will be. Don't take this the wrong way, but your personal behavior is particularly irrelevant.

While ONLY having a light rail for sporting events may seem fairly idiotic (which I believe is true), having one pass by a major sports venue makes a great amount of sense. While heading towards the game at Wrigley field, it seemed like a good sized percentage used the Red line to get to the games. While talking to one of the few non-hostile cubs fans (I was wearing my astros gear) some took it from a substantial distance because the parking was a pain, expensive, and he planned on getting totally drunk (considering the flow of people from the subways, I wasn't in the least bit surprised).

On the way to the airport we simply left the hotel, Walked a quarter mile (in the cold!) to the red station, as we were waiting for the light to change, we were surprised how many cabs were unloading at the station for people to complete the 2nd leg of their journey to the airport. At the end of the line, I estimated a couple of hundred people (at 8am) were getting off at O'Hare for work/travel.

While I'm not saying Houston is Chicago or will be turned into Chicago, as the density increases and parking gets to be more prohibitive, people will take alternative transportation (Rail/Taxi) when it's possible and/or the cost/benefit ratio justifies it.

[musicman]

While I'm not saying Houston is Chicago or will be turned into Chicago,.....people will take alternative transportation (Rail/Taxi) when the cost/benefit ratio justifies it.

this is what it basically comes to.

[GovernorAggie]

Niche,

I'm shocked and disappointed in you. If I'd expect anyone on this forum to take and objective rather than subjective look at a matter, it'd be you. Now you admit to anti-METRO bias AND you rely on text written by Randal O'Toole, a known proud opponent of urban rail? I would have expected you to at least measure his data and the like against data put out from sources such as APTA, and then figure out the holes in their data. After all, the saying goes "Lies, Darn Lies, and Statistics" (I'd rather not use profanity--there's too many other words in the English language to use). I'm sure you know that saying by heart, as well as the author of it.

Just pokin' a little fun atcha, man. Seriously though, you're obviously a detailed researcher; maybe you should use that same zeal to research all sides of an argument?

What I will say though is that IMO economics is not the be-all end all, nor should it be. It's probably more economical for Weingarten (and in turn COH for increased tax revenue) to demolish River Oaks Shopping Center and build their new complex, but does that make it the right answer? And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't an increase in the number of people admitted to hospitals and put on needless prescriptions improve the national economic numbers? (This is partly why it bothers me that TMC--while impressive to watch--has the "need" to continually build so many medical facilities).

--------------------------------

On a separate note, HCTRA may be more "efficient" but aren't they even a problem since the original Beltway should have been paid for several times already by now? The segment from 290 to 59 alone collects over $300M a year IIRC. But then again, if they keep debt, they can keep charging tolls. They also don't have to go through a messy, expensive, public, and time consuming environmental process before building their projects. Thus, you hear very few complaints regarding their projects, even though they build their facilities right up against people's properties and homes.

[KinkaidAlum]

they aren't MY ridership numbers. from the data it appears that your rising fares argument isn't valid for the bus/commuter rail. i'd have to assume the subway is having some issues with a loss of over 50000 riders.

IF it is like houston, perhaps those who are afraid to ride buses and who will only ride light rail are having good fortune and found other means to get to work (by driving). i am only surmising.

Actually, it means that there are a lot less jobs for people to commute too. The Tech bubble burst was huge here. Thousands of jobs were lost, mainly in central Boston and Cambridge. With fewer jobs and stagnant population growth, it is logical for there to be a drop in ridership numbers.

Boston is just now starting to recover after a 5 year slump following the events of 9-11 and the local economy busting.

Additionally, tourism to Boston and large trade shows TANKED after 9-11. The difference in passenger numbers at Logan Airport from 2000 to 2002 came out to 4,355,937 passengers per year. Boston is a city where you will find tons of tourists using public transportation to get around because it is easy and convenient. Passenger numbers to Boston were lower in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 than they were in 2000. 2005 numbers came in almost exactly the same as 2000 (35,827 more in 2005). It wasn't until last year that Boston showed significant growth in air travel (673,000 more people using Logan than in 2000). That is way behind the national curve.

For me, I'd want to see the 2006 numbers for MBTA ridership. I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers higher than 2005 as a general reflection of the VERY slowly improving local market.

Stats do not exist in a vacuum.

[dbigtex56]

Visitors don't ride busses unless they're part of a refugee population.

You know, I ride the rail on a fairly regular basis and see many visitors (out-of-towners, tourists, what have you.)

Your assertion is just flatout wrong, false, unsubstantiated, based on faulty data, ignorant, biased, bigoted and silly. If you could pry your nose out of statistical tables long enough to actually ride the train, your eyes could tell you what your mind seems incapable of grasping: the train works. People ride it because it works. Especially visitors.

I've got an Urban Economics textbook at home that says otherwise, citing a Ph.D. economist that has made a career of such matters.

So he makes a career of such matters. That means he's doing it for the money, right? Is it possible that he (or she) is not a person of integrity?You can get people to say just about anything...if you pay them. A whore "makes a career" too, but that doesn't mean she's in love with those who pay her.

Any fool can publish a textbook, and several have.

[musicman]

Actually, it means that there are a lot less jobs for people to commute too. The Tech bubble burst was huge here. Thousands of jobs were lost, mainly in central Boston and Cambridge. With fewer jobs and stagnant population growth, it is logical for there to be a drop in ridership numbers.

if there are a lot less jobs for people to commute to, wouldn't it be logical for the ridership drops to be across the board as well? the bus/commuter rail ridership went up slightly during this period.

[musicman]

hus, you hear very few complaints regarding their projects, even though they build their facilities right up against people's properties and homes.

building roads against homes and businesses is one thing, taking them by eminent domain is another. On 60 mins there were several stories regarding this. Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.

The cities claimed they were doing it for public good, but if you were a home/business owner i'm sure you wouldn't agree.

article

[KinkaidAlum]

EDIT: By sheer coincidence, the textbook I used at UH's economics department that I mentioned was at home (and from which I've quoted on HAIF in the past was written by this guy.

Wow. I used to at least respect your opinion (although rarely agree) but if you are using Mr. Ima Tool as your guide for railing against public transportation then you just lost that respect.

The man has a clear agenda and his ties to corporations and people like ExxonMobil, Phillip Morris, American International Group, and Rupert Murdoch are very well known.

What a coinkidink that from 1998 to 2004, over a tenth of the budget for the Cato Institute came from ExxonMobil alone. I guess it's a real shocker then that the Cato supports more roads and less "waste" on transit!

What a coinkidink that the Cato Institute received large amounts of money from the American International Group and then supports the privatization of Social Security. I mean, it's not like the A.I.G. is involved in private retirment wealth management or anything like that!

What a shock that in the 1990s, the Cato received a lot of money from tobacco companies and then they lambasted the 1998 settlement signed with U.S. States by said industries.

Of course, since all of these corporate ties were uncovered, the Cato now receives the bulk of their money from "individual donations" instead. Seems like the ole Cato Institute isn't so different from the government "shills" they seem to detest...

[GovernorAggie]

building roads against homes and businesses is one thing, taking them by eminent domain is another. On 60 mins there were several stories regarding this. Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.

The cities claimed they were doing it for public good, but if you were a home/business owner i'm sure you wouldn't agree.

article

I don't totally disagree, but just because a home isn't required for ROW acquisition, it still doesn't mean that it's the best idea for a high-speed tollway to be a handful of feet from a person's back WINDOW, let alone back yard, as shown on the north side of Westpark heading toward Ft. Bend County. You just lowered that person's property values as well as their quality of life. Since the project is not federal but paid for by tolls, no mitigation (read: noise walls) is required.

Speaking of that, Christof posted some interesting info on his blog about some propsed new tollways (or ability to constrcut new tollways). I'll start a new topic with his link. One of the proposed tollways is an extension of Westpark east to Kirby as an elevated facility. So the question is (IHB2) which is worse, LRT or Westpark Tollway. My cynical instincts tell me that Sunset Terrace might just prefer the tollway over LRT.

[TheNiche]

Ricco: I live in Houston, not Chicago. I'm not going to make any argument against light rail or other forms of rapid guided transit in that city on account of that it is among the few where such investments are justified. In Houston, they are marginal at best, and by "at best," I mean if METRO implements them in a sane way. That's just not going to happen.

GovernorAggie: I have an anti-METRO bias because they screw things up. I'm not alone in this opinion; even folks at the City and in other related governmental entities have made very disparaging remarks about trying to work with METRO in a productive way. I have in the past relied on O'Toole because that was the textbook from which I was taught Urban Economics. It is the one that I own because it is the one that I was made to own. And so it has been the one I use. Until this point, there has been no reason to believe that there is any bias...and honestly, that he takes an unpopular opinion and is an economist is not at all unusual. Bias isn't bad if the biased person is right. It will take more than lipservice to effectively discredit him as a source, and so far, that's all I've seen.

Btw, there is a difference between economics and finance. I majored in both, but they are absolutely seperate fields. Economics is the one that looks at social outcomes, and it is the one that provides end-all-be-all solutions to matters such as historical preservation.

I'd like to thank you, Governor, for forming a cogent argument and keeping your head about you. Some people on this forum have problems with that (see below).

Bigtex: I wasn't talking about tourists on rail. I was talking about them on busses. Please read before you type.

Also, your feeble attempt at discrediting the arguer but failing to discredit the argument is (once again) duely noted. You seem to make a habit out of this fallacious approach. Please think before you type.

Kinkaid: How about you read the article, toward the bottom, where Sallee asks O'Toole about the funding. Please reference the latter part of my reply to Bigtex.

[KinkaidAlum]

I read the entire article. All that quote does is prove that they are hiding those donations the same way the Republicans and Democrats both do; behind the veil of "individual gifts."

Seems as if the Libs are finally hitting the big time!

[woolie]

O'Toole is discredited because he's ideologically driven, and opposes transit in principle. People like that will find whatever conclusion they like in their "data." Books and newspaper articles aren't peer reviewed.

[ricco67]

Ricco: I live in Houston, not Chicago. I'm not going to make any argument against light rail or other forms of rapid guided transit in that city on account of that it is among the few where such investments are justified. In Houston, they are marginal at best, and by "at best," I mean if METRO implements them in a sane way. That's just not going to happen.

I got news for you: I live in Houston as well. I was merely relaying my observations as a visitor to chicago and their transit system as seen from an outsider. I think that the argument applies in our city because of the various arguments made here (i.e. visitors don't use transit) as well.

While we may not have the density of Chicago (But I believe a few users on here are), it is possible for such a plan to exist as long as it's implemented wisely.

it's just the NIMBY's that don't make it easy.

[GovernorAggie]

[GovernorAggie: I have an anti-METRO bias because they screw things up. I'm not alone in this opinion; even folks at the City and in other related governmental entities have made very disparaging remarks about trying to work with METRO in a productive way.

Maybe they do but what makes them unique? People in many cities complain about their transit agencies. If you go to SSP, you'll see people in Toronto (which I'm sure you'll agree is a viable city for transit) complaining about transit, people in Chicago have complained about CTA, people in Philadelphia actually borderline hate SEPTA. Folks in DC complain about WMATA. And on and on and on.

Folks will complain about transit agencies because transit tends to be such a 'niche' industry--one that you can't use the same measures against that you use for regular infrastructure programs. For instance, transit is the only mode of throughput where being below capacity is a BAD thing. However, having extra room is a GOOD thing for freeways, water mains, power lines, etc. People complain about empty buses at 9pm at night but are glad to see an empty freeway at 9pm. If a transit agency says "hey, let's add to our system" and their vehicles aren't full ALL hours of the day, people respond with "you don't use up what you have, why add more", whereas people sitting in traffic on a freeway say "we need to add lanes to this freeway" even though the traffic eventually dies down leaving plenty of room for everyone in the existing facility.

Transit is a different animal. We can't look at it with the same efficiency standards as other modes. After all, after $3B is spent of I-10, will we call it a waste of money because it's not packed end to end with vehicles at 1 am? Conversely, will we think was a good investment only after the thing fills up with traffic again? Likely not. At least folks in T.O. also voice displeasure in Ontario's transportation ministry, Chitown folks are upset with IDOT, and Philly folks have problems with PennDOT. In Houston, people make it out to seem like Metro is the only transportation body that is a problem while HCTRA and TxDOT are golden. It just shouldn't be that way. All agencies work within the paramenters they have. Here, TxDOT seems to be the Boss, and HCTRA seems to be quickly becoming its right-hand-man (according to Christof's blog). Of course the City people you mentioned aren't gonna complain about working with them as much as they do with Metro--because what's their alternative? Say no to TxDOT? No to HCTRA? They could say no to TxDOT but somehow they will pay for it adversely in the future (lack of funding requests being met for example), and HCTRA will do what they want because they can (no environmental process).

[musicman]

Transit is a different animal. We can't look at it with the same efficiency standards as other modes. After all, after $3B is spent of I-10, will we call it a waste of money because it's not packed end to end with vehicles at 1 am? Conversely, will we think was a good investment only after the thing fills up with traffic again? Likely not. At least folks in T.O. also voice displeasure in Ontario's transportation ministry, Chitown folks are upset with IDOT, and Philly folks have problems with PennDOT. In Houston, people make it out to seem like Metro is the only transportation body that is a problem while HCTRA and TxDOT are golden. It just shouldn't be that way. All agencies work within the paramenters they have. Here, TxDOT seems to be the Boss, and HCTRA seems to be quickly becoming its right-hand-man (according to Christof's blog). Of course the City people you mentioned aren't gonna complain about working with them as much as they do with Metro--because what's their alternative? Say no to TxDOT? No to HCTRA? They could say no to TxDOT but somehow they will pay for it adversely in the future (lack of funding requests being met for example), and HCTRA will do what they want because they can (no environmental process).

METRO IS making investments in areas that actually do ameliorate the traffic situation such as the park n ride system. It is the investments in areas that actually hinder traffic that is causing their problems such as LRT

[tommyboy444]

Great post Gov

Maybe they do but what makes them unique? People in many cities complain about their transit agencies. If you go to SSP, you'll see people in Toronto (which I'm sure you'll agree is a viable city for transit) complaining about transit, people in Chicago have complained about CTA, people in Philadelphia actually borderline hate SEPTA. Folks in DC complain about WMATA. And on and on and on.

Folks will complain about transit agencies because transit tends to be such a 'niche' industry--one that you can't use the same measures against that you use for regular infrastructure programs. For instance, transit is the only mode of throughput where being below capacity is a BAD thing. However, having extra room is a GOOD thing for freeways, water mains, power lines, etc. People complain about empty buses at 9pm at night but are glad to see an empty freeway at 9pm. If a transit agency says "hey, let's add to our system" and their vehicles aren't full ALL hours of the day, people respond with "you don't use up what you have, why add more", whereas people sitting in traffic on a freeway say "we need to add lanes to this freeway" even though the traffic eventually dies down leaving plenty of room for everyone in the existing facility.

Transit is a different animal. We can't look at it with the same efficiency standards as other modes. After all, after $3B is spent of I-10, will we call it a waste of money because it's not packed end to end with vehicles at 1 am? Conversely, will we think was a good investment only after the thing fills up with traffic again? Likely not. At least folks in T.O. also voice displeasure in Ontario's transportation ministry, Chitown folks are upset with IDOT, and Philly folks have problems with PennDOT. In Houston, people make it out to seem like Metro is the only transportation body that is a problem while HCTRA and TxDOT are golden. It just shouldn't be that way. All agencies work within the paramenters they have. Here, TxDOT seems to be the Boss, and HCTRA seems to be quickly becoming its right-hand-man (according to Christof's blog). Of course the City people you mentioned aren't gonna complain about working with them as much as they do with Metro--because what's their alternative? Say no to TxDOT? No to HCTRA? They could say no to TxDOT but somehow they will pay for it adversely in the future (lack of funding requests being met for example), and HCTRA will do what they want because they can (no environmental process).

[dbigtex56]

Bigtex: I wasn't talking about tourists on rail. I was talking about them on busses. Please read before you type.

Actually, you were talking about "1) we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a poorly-implemented light rail system that made transit LESS convenient..." I made the mistake of thinking that you intended your reply to RedScare as a rebuttal, rather than supporting the example he gave (of his brother). So what the hell were you trying to say? Is there a point?

Also, your feeble attempt at discrediting the arguer but failing to discredit the argument is (once again) duely noted. You seem to make a habit out of this fallacious approach. Please think before you type.

Well gee, Niche. You seem peeved. I was merely pointing out that citing an unnamed source doesn't lend creedence to your argument. And aren't you the fellow who states that he thinks for himself? Why are you (once again) relying on Mr. (whoever)'s expertise?

[GovernorAggie]

Great post Gov

Thanks.

[TheNiche]

I read the entire article. All that quote does is prove that they are hiding those donations the same way the Republicans and Democrats both do; behind the veil of "individual gifts."

Seems as if the Libs are finally hitting the big time!

So...basically all charity of any kind means that the person to whom the charity is given should have their ideas discredited because they are undoubtedly being bought off by subversive political movements posing as civic-minded individuals???

I stand by my criticism of your criticsm. If you can rebut his ideas, I'll consider that. If you just try to destroy his character, I could personally care less. He could be a bisexual transvestite alien prostitute with herpes from the fifth moon of Jupiter, but if he can make a credible argument, I'll listen. If all you can do is point out the person making the argument...sorry.

O'Toole is discredited because he's ideologically driven, and opposes transit in principle. People like that will find whatever conclusion they like in their "data." Books and newspaper articles aren't peer reviewed.

This is false. He likes busses very much. Says so in his own textbook.

He even likes forms of rail-based transit in Chicago and NYC...he recognizes that transit is entirely context-sensitive.

I got news for you: I live in Houston as well. I was merely relaying my observations as a visitor to chicago and their transit system as seen from an outsider. I think that the argument applies in our city because of the various arguments made here (i.e. visitors don't use transit) as well.

Like I told bigtex, I was specifically referring to busses and not rail.

[TheNiche]

Maybe they do but what makes them unique? People in many cities complain about their transit agencies. If you go to SSP, you'll see people in Toronto (which I'm sure you'll agree is a viable city for transit) complaining about transit, people in Chicago have complained about CTA, people in Philadelphia actually borderline hate SEPTA. Folks in DC complain about WMATA. And on and on and on.

I could care less that other people complain about their transit agencies. Let Toronto, Chicago, Philly, and DC continue to be disatisfied with the implementation of transit in their cities but keep on funding the beast that screws it up! Houston should rebuild METRO from the ground up before giving it any more money IMO.

Folks will complain about transit agencies because transit tends to be such a 'niche' industry--one that you can't use the same measures against that you use for regular infrastructure programs. For instance, transit is the only mode of throughput where being below capacity is a BAD thing. However, having extra room is a GOOD thing for freeways, water mains, power lines, etc. People complain about empty buses at 9pm at night but are glad to see an empty freeway at 9pm. If a transit agency says "hey, let's add to our system" and their vehicles aren't full ALL hours of the day, people respond with "you don't use up what you have, why add more", whereas people sitting in traffic on a freeway say "we need to add lanes to this freeway" even though the traffic eventually dies down leaving plenty of room for everyone in the existing facility.

Transit is a different animal. We can't look at it with the same efficiency standards as other modes. After all, after $3B is spent of I-10, will we call it a waste of money because it's not packed end to end with vehicles at 1 am? Conversely, will we think was a good investment only after the thing fills up with traffic again? Likely not. At least folks in T.O. also voice displeasure in Ontario's transportation ministry, Chitown folks are upset with IDOT, and Philly folks have problems with PennDOT. In Houston, people make it out to seem like Metro is the only transportation body that is a problem while HCTRA and TxDOT are golden. It just shouldn't be that way. All agencies work within the paramenters they have. Here, TxDOT seems to be the Boss, and HCTRA seems to be quickly becoming its right-hand-man (according to Christof's blog). Of course the City people you mentioned aren't gonna complain about working with them as much as they do with Metro--because what's their alternative? Say no to TxDOT? No to HCTRA? They could say no to TxDOT but somehow they will pay for it adversely in the future (lack of funding requests being met for example), and HCTRA will do what they want because they can (no environmental process).

It seems that your argument is that people complain so much about transit because there are so many more things to screw up and that the more complicated a system is, the more likely it is to fail with greater frequency. Valid observation.

I don't much like TxDOT, either, btw. They respond too easily to political pressure...and frankly, they outright f***ed up the 59/527 interchange intentionally and very possibly in a way that could get someone sent to jail if a particular engineer would come out to someone more influential than just me and a few other marginally-influential individuals... Also, I have problems with the way that TxDOT does its Major Investment Studies. It is less a matter of rebuilding TxDOT, though, than repealing some extremely stupid laws about the way that it is supposed to make investments, and then weeding out the bad individuals within its ranks. ...easier said than done, though.

Of all the transportation providers, HCTRA is perhaps the best because they aren't so greatly constrained by public input or "environmental impact" of all things. They tend to build where it makes sense as opposed to where special interest groups want it...likewise, they tend to build it in a form that makes sense. Moreover, I like toll roads. People should pay for the public assets that they use.

METRO IS making investments in areas that actually do ameliorate the traffic situation such as the park n ride system. It is the investments in areas that actually hinder traffic that is causing their problems such as LRT

Concur.

[TheNiche]

Actually, you were talking about "1) we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a poorly-implemented light rail system that made transit LESS convenient..." I made the mistake of thinking that you intended your reply to RedScare as a rebuttal, rather than supporting the example he gave (of his brother). So what the hell were you trying to say? Is there a point?

I stated "Visitors don't ride busses unless they're part of a refugee population." You replied in part that: "The train works".

Busses ≠ train.

Well gee, Niche. You seem peeved. I was merely pointing out that citing an unnamed source doesn't lend creedence to your argument. And aren't you the fellow who states that he thinks for himself? Why are you (once again) relying on Mr. (whoever)'s expertise?

Its a friggin textbook, man! It was assigned reading. Neither the textbook or the professor made a point to say that the author was in any way controversial. I haven't made a habit in the past of citing textbook authors unless I'm specifically quoting them...and incidentally, I have cited O'Toole at some point many months ago in a conversation with lockmat, and nobody said anything at all.

Frankly, if I'd thought that there were this many people on HAIF that would spend so much time arguing against the person, completely ignoring his ideas, I'd never have said who it was in the first place. Circumstantial ad hominems are a waste of bandwidth.

[KinkaidAlum]

"Circumstantial ad hominems are a waste of bandwidth."

That's an instant Niche-classic!

You are too much.

[Jax]

I just wanted to add that I love the metro rail. When I first moved here I relied on busses. I know most people don't use them so some of you don't realize how much better the metro rail is than the bus.

Busses in Houston are slow, they often show up late (30 minutes is pretty common, I've even had a bus show up 45 minutes late) and sometimes they don't stop when you're waiting on the street because the driver is late and wants to make up for time. You can't rely on them to get to work unless you leave an hour early incase the bus you want doesn't show up on time. In short, the busses suck.

Now I have a car but I also live near the light rail and my wife takes the metro rail to work every day (medical center). It's always on time (every 6 minutes during the day) and it's fast. It's had to beat that. As a student I have a 1 year metro pass for $50, and you can't beat that either. I use it to meet her for lunch sometimes in the medical center or to go downtown.

Anyways, when people say the metro rail is poorly implemented, maybe it isn't as good as NYC or Chicago's subway but it's a LOT better than Houston's bus service.

[CDeb]

Anyways, when people say the metro rail is poorly implemented, maybe it isn't as good as NYC or Chicago's subway but it's a LOT better than Houston's bus service.

Generally, they aren't referring to the operation of the LRT system itself, but its impact on the street network in which it resides.

[RedScare]

Houston should rebuild METRO from the ground up before giving it any more money IMO.

Moreover, I like toll roads. People should pay for the public assets that they use.

Concur.

These are two statements that go a long way to explain the constant harrassment METRO gets from certain segments of the community. The second statement by Niche is not a gripe with METRO at all, but ALL public transit. Houston has a rather large population of people that only want projects funded that THEY will use. They disagree completely with the concept of providing public transportation for the economically disadvantaged. The fact that they can afford or prefer to drive their own vehicles means (in their minds) that only roads should be built. If public transit is provided at all, it should only be busses, since they are cheap (they think) and that is all the poor deserve. Trains infuriate them for several reasons, not the least of which is that trains draw riders and support from additional wealthier demographics, making them harder to defeat.

The first statement is completely derived from the second, and is the reason for my initial post. Numerous studies reveal METRO to be one the most efficient and best run transit agencies in the country. Its bus system consistently gets high marks. Additionally, its initial rail line is the most successful LRT line implemented in the country. To state that an agency should be rebuilt when it is considered one of the best run systems shows the overwhelming bias of the author against public transit of any kind, not just METRO.

This is why I made my first post, and is why I will continue to point out these flawed arguments. I believe that public transit is necessary for several reasons. I also believe rail transit can be viable in Houston, partly because of its attractiveness to a larger demographic. It makes no sense for a public entity to refuse to give the public what it demands. I do not support rail for rail's sake, or rail that does not serve the public. But, if a larger percentage of the public will use rail, then rail is what should get built, regardless of Niche's libertarian agenda.

[GovernorAggie]

I could care less that other people complain about their transit agencies. Let Toronto, Chicago, Philly, and DC continue to be disatisfied with the implementation of transit in their cities but keep on funding the beast that screws it up! Houston should rebuild METRO from the ground up before giving it any more money IMO.

It seems that your argument is that people complain so much about transit because there are so many more things to screw up and that the more complicated a system is, the more likely it is to fail with greater frequency. Valid observation.

I don't much like TxDOT, either, btw. They respond too easily to political pressure...and frankly, they outright f***ed up the 59/527 interchange intentionally and very possibly in a way that could get someone sent to jail if a particular engineer would come out to someone more influential than just me and a few other marginally-influential individuals... Also, I have problems with the way that TxDOT does its Major Investment Studies. It is less a matter of rebuilding TxDOT, though, than repealing some extremely stupid laws about the way that it is supposed to make investments, and then weeding out the bad individuals within its ranks. ...easier said than done, though.

Of all the transportation providers, HCTRA is perhaps the best because they aren't so greatly constrained by public input or "environmental impact" of all things. They tend to build where it makes sense as opposed to where special interest groups want it...likewise, they tend to build it in a form that makes sense. Moreover, I like toll roads. People should pay for the public assets that they use.

Concur.

To your first point, pull back from the trees and look at the forest. My point about all of those cities complaining about their transit agencies was that those are cities with well-established rail-based transit systems, and honestly I pointed them out because I would think that even the biggest LRT opponents (or Metro opponents) in this town would point to those places and say, "these places got it right...Metro should be more like them." SO, the goal was to show that even transit systems that apparently comparatively "got it right" have their issues in their own towns. THAT was the point. And furthermore, how would you rebuild Metro--given the parameters set by agencies like FTA and the State even before you contemplate such a move?

Secondly, thanks for calling what you perceived as my observation as valid; however I think you missed some of that point as well. My point there was (and still is) that transit HAS to be looked at from a different pair of glasses because a lot of its measures of "efficiency" are in some ways diametrically opposed to other infrastructure.

Face this, Niche, LRT measurements and observations in Houston are only 3 years old now. I know typical Houston nature is to expect results even before the improvement is completed, but we don't know everything locally yet. It just hasn't been long enough. Sure traffic is an issue with it today, but the question is, without it would traffic have become is issue on its own by 2025? 2035? I know, I know Niche--address it then, right? Well, what about the cost? A $300 Million line in 2004 would cost well above that in 2025 in hard capital costs as well as soft costs like lane rents, salaries for construction workers, and bought time from utilities to move their infrastructure. This gets even higher in 2035. At least the thing was built while traffic impacts would be comparatively low to the future potentially. SH6 probably seemed like a good idea when it was built, but years later it's a beast. Grand Parkway is gonna get built when it does because it has to beat the traffic chronologically--and it'll be cheaper now than later (even at $4B). Why should LRT be different?

Thirdly, you like HCTRA--but you like it for the reasons that you don't like Metro and TxDOT, no stupid, uninformed, loud, messy public citizens to deal with. This is a serious issue. An agency with eminent domain powers SHOULD have to deal with the public. Do you not think that TxDOT and Metro would be more efficient and better agencies if they had HCTRA's power and money source WITH eminent domain power? Of course they would. TxDOT would have tolled everything by now (they've been building toll roads since the 60s with I-30 in DFW being the first) if they weren't so "handcuffed" by the public. I remember reading an editorial last year that said in the early 80s Metro had money IN PLACE from Congress (the late Sen. Benson) to build heavy rail with SUBWAY through downtown, but again the "stupid" local public got in the way and turned that money down, calling it unnecessary (interestingly enough, people keep asking why Metro won't build subway). The day HCTRA has to deal with the public (as they should with, I say again, EMINENT DOMAIN POWER) is the day their efficiency goes down.

Debates like ours keep what may be good projects from happening because we armchair-quarterback the thing to death. Architects and planners in this forum wouldn't dare try to tell economists what's right or wrong about economic theories or whatever. Maybe economists should consider the same about planners and architects. Oh that's right, the forum is a place for an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. But according to you, transferring that to the process of building public projects is not ideal and should be avoided or ignored all together (just ask HCTRA).