Rail Ridership Breezes Past Other Cities

[MontroseNeighborhoodCafe]

Jan. 17, 2005, 1:15AM

Rail ridership breezes past other cities

Report has officials glowing, but critics point to total usage and high collision rate

By LUCAS WALL

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

One year into passenger operation, ridership on the Main Street light rail is the highest in the United States per route mile.

But MetroRail also has established itself as one of the most collision-prone American rail lines, recording 63 crashes that involved an injury or at least $1,000 in property damage in its first year of revenue service.

Critics point out the trains move less than 1 percent of Houstonians each day.

The most common way to measure the success of a mass-transit line is by how many people use it. The Main Street line saw its average daily ridership skyrocket 172 percent in its inaugural 10 months, from 12,102 in January 2004 to 32,941 in October.

"We've been told by people around the country that this is one of the most successful light rail lines ever," said David Wolff, Metropolitan Transit Authority chairman.

The passenger count dropped off in November and December

[Talbot]

Great news. And the lady that says she alway's see's the cars empty must be blind, whenever I am on one of the trains there are plenty of riders on it. Unfortunately if the egghead in congress doesnt hurry up and approve our request for funding than momentum and enthusiasm will start to decline.

Right now is the perfect time to get the rail lines rolling, if only they would realize already how many people the lines have affected in their daily routines.

[UrbaNerd]

Every time I see a train,and the time I rode on one, it was crowded. The only time it was not crowded was when the train pulled up to Fannin South- all because there really isnt anything there!

Still, just take a look at any of the trains passing through the TMC. All full.

OH, and another thing..How much money did Metro make off of rail tickets?

[ssullivan]

During the business day it's usually very full. Weekends and evenings after 7:30/8:00 trains aren't so full, but that's to be expected.

I've noticed in the last week I've seen a few trains during evening rush hour running with two cars. That's a very good thing, because it's a sign that ridership is justifying increasing capacity during peak periods. However, the one car trains I've been on during the evening rush hour lately have been sometimes uncomfortably packed. I hope we see a lot more two car trains during peak weekday periods soon.

[MidtownCoog]

Duh!

We took the buses off Main.

"as someone said, canibalized the buses in the name of rail"

[westguy]

They don't need to have both.

[midtown_resident]

Duh!

We took the buses off Main.

"as someone said, canibalized the buses in the name of rail"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What exactly did you mean when you said DUH?

There's no need to have buses and rail on the same corridor. Rail has proven that to be the case. You need to have the cross lines going east-west, but not at all on the north/south. Meanwhile, there are enough local bus lines to serve as an effective component to the rail system.

The contstant droning of anti-rail in this town is unbelievable. The upside of this sort of development is tremendous. It does cost money and it does take time. There are some realities to be dealt with. But tell me this, how can you possibly compare buses and the rail system? Apples and oranges.

Somehow, i think we've had this conversation before....

[ssullivan]

Duh!

We took the buses off Main.

"as someone said, canibalized the buses in the name of rail"

I think the rail line is carrying far more people than the buses it replaced. And, before the rail line was built, there were 1,200+ bus runs a day through the Main St. corridor. That's roughly a bus every minute running someplace down Main St., if you count the 20 hours a day that MetroRail is in service. A slow moving, loud, traffic blocking, diesel-fume spewing bus every minute. Now while that sounds like more frequent service than what MetroRail is providing, keep in mind those buses had to stop for every traffic light. They had stops on every other block. They took longer for people to board. And the average bus in Metro's fleet only seats about 40 passengers, with room for no more than another 15-20 standing. A single car MetroRail train can seat over 70 and at maximum crush load can carry about 200 passengers. Trains don't stop for most traffic lights, and boarding is much faster. And drivers in the corridor aren't forced to wait on slow moving buses to stop and pick up passengers, blocking a lane of traffic every time they do so. Also, while many of the passengers on the rail line are people who would have been on a bus if the rail wasn't there, many other passengers would be in a car or not make the trip at all if the rail line didn't exist. And best of all, the current MetroRail line is no where near capacity. Running all two car trains could easily accomodate twice the current riders, and the signal system is designed for trains to run up to every three minutes, allowing for close to four times the current daily ridership if needed. Four times the old bus capacity would mean close to 5,000 daily bus trips down Main St. With that many buses on Main St., walking would probably be faster. How is that better or more efficient?

I challenge critics of the rail line to find a more efficient way of moving over 30,000 people a day, with most of them riding between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., through the Main St. corridor. I don't think they'll be able to come up with a solution that is as quiet, clean, reliable, and fast as the light rail line is, unless it involves some other form of rail transit (elevated light rail, subway, monorail). And all of those would have easily cost twice what the current line cost to build.

Yes we canibalized bus service in the Main St. corridor in the name of rail. But what an improvement it is.

[N Judah]

It seems like that's the conservative line nowadays -- to claim that rail is bad because it "replaced" buses, and then throw in something random about helping the elderly.

www.lonestartimes.com/index.php?id=0,1505,0,0,1,0

This guy used to have his own blog which was extremely critical of rail. I think he has even written editorials for the Chron on the subject. If he ever does write another editorial, it probably will be rehashed info from his many blog posts. So basically by reading his posts you can see what he's planning ahead of time.

[midtown_resident]

It seems like that's conservative line nowadays -- to claim that rail is bad because it "replaced" buses, and then throw in something random about helping the elderly.

www.lonestartimes.com/index.php?id=0,1505,0,0,1,0

This guy used to have his own blog which was extremely critical of rail.  I think he has even written editorials for the Chron on the subject.  If he ever does write another op-ed, it probably will be rehashed info from his many blog posts.  So basically by reading his posts you can see what he's planning ahead of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just fedup with the 'talking points' that some of these anti-rail folks come up with. They're just that - talking point - and phrases. They carry absolutely no substance and are intended only to provide baseless criticism of the metro project.

If you want to see points in case - look at the Washington DC area 25 years after rail has started. Everyone takes it for granted now...but in the mid 70s, people were raising a ruckus over whether or not it would be 'appropriate' for DC.

Example - if you go to Washington DC as a tourist, you'll likely use metro to see all parts of Washington like the Smithsonian, monuments, WH, capital etc. However, you won't be able to take it to the tourist mecca of Georgetown. Why? Because during planning, G'town residents were irrate about the idea of a train system coming through their neighborhood, brining in a 'bad element' and such. So the federal funding wasn't applied to G'town. NOW they are lobbying for a station - and congressional response has been tepid - essentially saying that if they want a station, the residents and businesses are going to have to sustain increased taxation.

This constant anti-rail bias that i see, read and hear everyday in the press/media is absolute bunk. Houston can't expect things to happen overnight and must understand that it takes a generation cycle to truly build a great city. We get to experience some of the initial successes and celebrate them witih fervor. However, it's our children that truly get the benefit...

[fewellman]

i have mixed feeling about the light rail. i think they are cool looking and are very futuristic in design. and i defantly think that we need mass transit. but i think it is retarted that they stop at red lights. that is like the whole pupose of taking the stupid thing is so you dont have to stop. I dont even use it any more because i can get down town just as fast in my car. they need to make the trains be able to be able to make direct trips. honestly what train stops at red lights. it is stupid. and i think they should be consintrating more on comuter trains. more people live outside the loop then inside the loop. they need trains down the freeways. they need comuter lines down all freeways with small light rail lines built above or underground down major roads like westimer richmond and hwy 6. we need something to relieve traffic. large freeways dont get it done. they build it bigger but more people move here and then it is cloged up again. i would love to be able to walk to the train and take a nice little 15 minute ride from sugar land to downtown on a train then sit in traffic for a hour.

[MidtownCoog]

What's anit-rail about stating the truth? People moved from the Bus to the train. It's not like they had a choice.

Print It - Duh!

[713 To 214]

i have mixed feeling about the light rail.

[MidtownCoog]

but, as we all know, that is a result of the poor planning that went into building an "all-at-grade" line

More like a bus on rails. Sure it's more quiet, boards faster, and pollutes less.

That being said, I do like it, but right now its more of a novelty.

[ssullivan]

I think the faster than an auto argument applies to MetroRail in some - not all - situations. I know for me to drive from where I live to downtown and park takes about the same amount of time as it does for me to walk outside, get on a bus to the TMC Transit Center, and take a train the rest of the way downtown. The car may save 10-15 minutes but no more than that, and during rush hour, the train may actually be faster, as in the car I'd either have to get through the Rice Village area on Kirby or the Medical Center on Main or Fannin, and both areas can be very slow going by car. This of course assumes the bus I catch is running on time, which it usually is, and I've checked the schedule so I can walk out just a few minutes before it's due to come by, which I always do. I could certainly see how a trip downtown would be faster by rail for some Museum District residents within a few blocks of a rail station, and possibly the same would apply for some in Midtown. With driving you have to factor in the time it takes to park and walk to your destination, which can sometimes take a while.