Old METRORail Plan

[Houston19514]

Your argument was that there was high ridership and therefore that the line was successful. You didn't mention other factors in your premise, so...

They put emphasis on ridership studies because that is how federal funding can be obtained and rankings are often shown on the basis of ridership because the issue is far too complicated for laymen to wrap their mind around, and ridership is an intuitive measurement. But the Feds don't make sense, and intuitive measures aren't by themselves indicative of an objective outcome.

ROFL

In other words, you don't have a clue, as usual.

What posble measure of transit performance could possibly be more important than ridership? Try to wrap your mind around that question, if you can untangle yourself from your pedantic and meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Houston19514

[Trae]

Where the hell does Dallas and DART get the funding for the expansion (click the DART link)? They have BRT has an addition to their main light rail system. Houston has BRT has a major component to its transit system.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Trae

[RedScare]

Same place as Houston and Atlanta. Fare revenue from transit users, a 1% sales tax in their service area, and federal funding for capital spending projects.

[Trae]

METRO must be spending the money on pizza then.

[RedScare]

Or, maybe you just cannot read a budget. You have not made a correct statement about any of the 3 transit agencies yet in this thread. You have ignored the realities of the 3 systems, including when, where and how each system has been built, and what is under construction. You, along with citykid, have no idea how the FTA decides on funding, how they influence which routes and which technologies are built, and how political realities influence what the transit systems can do. The two of you have your heads so far up Atlanta's butt you cannot even look at anything else in a realistic manner. Frankly, both of you sound like the high schoolers you are. Try doing your research before hitting the keyboard, and some of us might take you seriously.

[Trae]

Sorry I'm not 40 yet like you, no disrespect. I don't know as much about all that. If you could explain, I will surely listen...

Oh, and how do I have my head up Atlanta's butt again? I haven't went all out negative on my hometown, Houston, like Citykid has.

[RedScare]

Sorry I'm not 40 yet like you, no disrespect. I don't know as much about all that. If you could explain, I will surely listen...

None taken, since I am actually 47.

When looking at these transit systems, you have to look at when they were built to understand why they look the way they do. MARTA was designed and built in the 1970s and early 80s, when heavy rail was the way transit was built. Houston proposed a heavy rail system back then, too. It was short and incredibly expensive. The voters said no.

In the 90s, light rail was seen as much less expensive to build and operate than heavy railed subways. Since the FTA is funding these projects, it started pushing for light rail. Transit systems started designing light rail, including DART, which opened in 1996. METRO started designing its light rail in the 90s, as well.

During the Bush Administration, the FTA started pushing BRT technology. They changed the funding formulas to give preference to better cost/benefit ratios. Basically, if you use BRT, FTA will give you funding. If you want light rail, you better have a great ridership projection. If you want subways, go do it yourself.

This has forced all transit systems to start looking closely at BRT, if they want to expand. Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are ALL looking at it. METRO is looking at LRT for the University Line because ridership numbers will support it. All of the other lines would not get funding if METRO insisted on LRT. Which would you rather have, BRT or NOTHING? METRO said BRT. DART got funding a little earlier, so they squeezed in some more LRT. If they asked for LRT today, they would not get federal funding. Ridership on the DART system is only 1,345 per mile daily. This is one fourth of METRO. Because of that, DART is exploring BRT for expansion to get federal dollars.

MARTA has had very little expansion in the last 15 years, and none since a couple of stations in 2000. It costs $100 million dollars per mile to build a subway. The feds won't fund it. So, now they are looking to BRT and trolleys, which are smaller than LRT, and therefore less expensive, to qualify for federal dollars.

Will this change when Bush leaves office? Maybe. Maybe not. There are a lot more cities asking for transit dollars than back in the 70s and 80s. That means the FTA won't give money to a city that is going to waste it. Subways are a waste of money, even if some people think they are cool. This is about transit, not cool...and when the federal government is giving out the money, you follow their rules...that means BRT.

[citykid09]

Sorry I'm not 40 yet like you, no disrespect. I don't know as much about all that. If you could explain, I will surely listen...

Oh, and how do I have my head up Atlanta's butt again? I haven't went all out negative on my hometown, Houston, like Citykid has.

Uh, Trae I don't live in Houston.

[Trae]

Thanks for summing that up Red. I didn't know about 80% of that. I would love subways in Houston, but looks like they are too expensive. I really just want them because of the "coolness" factor that comes with them. Didn't realize DART ridership per mile was so pathetic. Once ridership is up on the BRT lines, how much would it cost to convert them to LRT?

Uh, Trae I don't live in Houston.

I know.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Trae

[citykid09]

Thanks for summing that up Red. I didn't know about 80% of that. I would love subways in Houston, but looks like they are too expensive. I really just want them because of the "coolness" factor that comes with them. Didn't realize DART ridership per mile was so pathetic. Once ridership is up on the BRT lines, how much would it cost to convert them to LRT?

I know.

I don't mean to sound even more negative, but don't you think if they really intended to have Light Rail that they would go a head with it instead of spending money on BRT and then on converting it to light Rail? Thats why there saying they will convert it later to shut people like you up about it. But the truth is it will never happen, atleast not in our life time.

[musicman]

Didn't realize DART ridership per mile was so pathetic.

to quote trae "Well, DART rail ridership sure is rising every month, so people are taking notice. "

[Trae]

DART overall ridership sounds get, but when you take it mile per mile, that's when it looks pathetic.

[TheNiche]

ROFL

In other words, you don't have a clue, as usual.

What posble measure of transit performance could possibly be more important than ridership? Try to wrap your mind around that question, if you can untangle yourself from your pedantic and meaningless mumbo jumbo.

There are dozens of factors, many describing the differential sources of ridership in a build vs. no-build analysis that have small incremental effects, but that far exceed just the ridership figures by themselves. For instance, with the folks that used a shuttle to get from Smithlands to the TMC, they receive relatively little actual time savings from the LRT being in place, and in fact many that don't work immediately along the LRT line still have to transfer to a shuttle at the TMC Transit Center--and that they have to use multiple modes to get where the could previously go with only one mode actually makes them worse off than before. So what was the marginal benefit for the average Smithlands-to-TMC transit rider by implementing LRT? VERY LOW, if any. Yet, the cost of providing that service was quite high. Cases like that can create situations where the cost/benefit ratios are really very low even with high levels of ridership. The same applies to a lot of Midtowners that had their trolley service cut. And frankly, any good analysis would include a measure of the net differential impact to congestion levels.

Frankly, if you want a single variable that is more important than ridership in the analysis, cost is it. There are just way to many contributing variables to the benefit side of the equation.

I could be far more explicit and pedantic, believe me, but I am not so inclined. If you don't get at least the jist of what I'm saying by now, with as many posts as I've already made explaining these points, fine. Feel free to wallow in dull simplicity. I can't help you.

[VicMan]

Now, what TheNiche describes could be a possibility in many rail scenarios.

But, almost all of the facilities of the Texas Medical Center are along or reasonably close to the rail line and the three TMC stops. This HISD map shows locations of hospitals and the rail system: http://dept.houstonisd.org/ab/schoolbounda...s/RobertsES.pdf

TheNiche, what was/were the shuttle route(s)? We can compare it to this map

There are dozens of factors, many describing the differential sources of ridership in a build vs. no-build analysis that have small incremental effects, but that far exceed just the ridership figures by themselves. For instance, with the folks that used a shuttle to get from Smithlands to the TMC, they receive relatively little actual time savings from the LRT being in place, and in fact many that don't work immediately along the LRT line still have to transfer to a shuttle at the TMC Transit Center--and that they have to use multiple modes to get where the could previously go with only one mode actually makes them worse off than before. So what was the marginal benefit for the average Smithlands-to-TMC transit rider by implementing LRT? VERY LOW, if any. Yet, the cost of providing that service was quite high. Cases like that can create situations where the cost/benefit ratios are really very low even with high levels of ridership. The same applies to a lot of Midtowners that had their trolley service cut. And frankly, any good analysis would include a measure of the net differential impact to congestion levels.

Frankly, if you want a single variable that is more important than ridership in the analysis, cost is it. There are just way to many contributing variables to the benefit side of the equation.

I could be far more explicit and pedantic, believe me, but I am not so inclined. If you don't get at least the jist of what I'm saying by now, with as many posts as I've already made explaining these points, fine. Feel free to wallow in dull simplicity. I can't help you.

[TheNiche]

Now, what TheNiche describes could be a possibility in many rail scenarios.

But, almost all of the facilities of the Texas Medical Center are along or reasonably close to the rail line and the three TMC stops. This HISD map shows locations of hospitals and the rail system: http://dept.houstonisd.org/ab/schoolbounda...s/RobertsES.pdf

TheNiche, what was/were the shuttle route(s)? We can compare it to this map

http://www.ridemetro.org/pdf/routes/tmccirculator.pdf

http://www.ridemetro.org/pdf/routes/320-tmc.pdf

Interestingly, the Red Shuttle seems to have been reconnected back to Smithlands, creating one parallel service. I don't recall that being the case the last time I looked at these routes, which was almost a couple years back, and unfortunately I do not have saved versions of the old system maps. All of the shuttles and circulators seem to provide service that is overlapping to some extent. But it is easy to justify them, as people would otherwise have to use the rail exclusively, which doesn't effectively serve many central and eastern parts of the TMC within a distance that most pedestrians would consider acceptable. Remember that rail is not accessible along a corridor, but from nodes where there are platforms. The positioning of those platforms greatly influences the level of service provided by LRT.

[Houston19514]

There are dozens of factors, many describing the differential sources of ridership in a build vs. no-build analysis that have small incremental effects, but that far exceed just the ridership figures by themselves. For instance, with the folks that used a shuttle to get from Smithlands to the TMC, they receive relatively little actual time savings from the LRT being in place, and in fact many that don't work immediately along the LRT line still have to transfer to a shuttle at the TMC Transit Center--and that they have to use multiple modes to get where the could previously go with only one mode actually makes them worse off than before. So what was the marginal benefit for the average Smithlands-to-TMC transit rider by implementing LRT? VERY LOW, if any. Yet, the cost of providing that service was quite high. Cases like that can create situations where the cost/benefit ratios are really very low even with high levels of ridership. The same applies to a lot of Midtowners that had their trolley service cut. And frankly, any good analysis would include a measure of the net differential impact to congestion levels.

Frankly, if you want a single variable that is more important than ridership in the analysis, cost is it. There are just way to many contributing variables to the benefit side of the equation.

I could be far more explicit and pedantic, believe me, but I am not so inclined. If you don't get at least the jist of what I'm saying by now, with as many posts as I've already made explaining these points, fine. Feel free to wallow in dull simplicity. I can't help you.

Entertaining as always. Pointless, as always. This has got to be one of the funniest lines I've ever read on any board: The Niche saying: "I could be far more explicit and pedantic, believe me, BUT I AM NOT SO INCLINED." Too rich.

[musicman]

Interestingly, the Red Shuttle seems to have been reconnected back to Smithlands, creating one parallel service. I don't recall that being the case the last time I looked at these routes, which was almost a couple years back, and unfortunately I do not have saved versions of the old system maps.

that is a change. notice it only runs for a portion of the day though

[TheNiche]

Entertaining as always. Pointless, as always. This has got to be one of the funniest lines I've ever read on any board: The Niche saying: "I could be far more explicit and pedantic, believe me, BUT I AM NOT SO INCLINED." Too rich.

Whatever. What I said is the truth. I could care less if you find it entertaining or not; I've made my point. [shrug]

[VicMan]

that is a change. notice it only runs for a portion of the day though

I noticed that the METRORail trains become crowded during rush hour. Maybe that is part of the reason why the shuttles were re-established.

[Trae]

Link: http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/...ns-Pay-Off.aspx

Trains Pay Off

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:26 PM

Is it worth it to build trains in a city?

Economically, yes.

A June 2007 article in Railway Age cites a new study by the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development and Research that concludes rail transit has a big payoff.

In fact, the payoff is potentially bigger than the costs to build and expand rail.

For example, the 45-mile Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) will trigger more than $8.1 billion in economic activity, plus more tax revenue and labor income. All that from an investment of $4.86 billion in the light rail system. Dallas is also planning a 48-mile extension.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Trae

[TheNiche]

Link: http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/...ns-Pay-Off.aspx

I'm browsing the economic impact reports at UNT's Center for Economic and Development Research, but they don't seem all that more useful than studies conducted by the Port of Houston or other entities in assessing the economic feasibility of any particular thing. The analysis of capital and operating expenditures only indicates the amount of money that changes hands is not an indicator of net benefit. Someone may as well try to argue that when the government gives away money as welfare, the economic impact is equal to the amount that was given and the amount that was spent giving, when in reality, those resources had to have come from someone else in one form or another. The fiscal analysis of transit oriented development (which was not considered in either the Railway Age magazine or the METRO blog, although it actually is somewhat relevant as an indicator of social benefit) is also superficial. It cites the impacts to the tax base of development along the rail line, but seems to operate under a fundamentally flawed assumption that the development would not have taken place at all if DART hadn't been built. In truth, Dallas' economic growth would have likely justified the same projects, even if they had occurred elsewhere and in a different form. To be clear, I'm not trying to argue that TOD is lacking benefit of any sort, but am just making a case for marginalism.

In any case, I have difficulty justifying the claim on the METRO blog using the Railway Age magazine article that used UNT's research conclusions.

[zaphod]

Just curious, how does BRT stack up to LRT, Niche?

Im curious to hear from someone who is obviously knowledgable on this sort of thing

Ive become partial to BRT over time after seeing it in person, and I think it can be just as good as LRT for a better price.

[citykid09]

For those of you who have never been to Atlanta and have never seen how MARTA works, here is a video:

Video inside a newer MARTA train (look at how fast it goes):

Here is one from the middle of the tollway, I think its Georgia 400???:

This one shows some street life in downtown Atlanta:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WejLmT7lZFs...ted&search=

[Jax]

This one shows some street life in downtown Atlanta:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WejLmT7lZFs...ted&search=

Wow, retail on the street. What a novel idea! Downtown Houston has what, like 3 stores on street level? An African Boutique, a creepy t-shirt/wig store and a CVS. They really need to fill in some of those abandoned clubs/bars on main with some retail. Sorry for getting off topic.

Edited July 5, 2007 by Jax

[musicman]

Just curious, how does BRT stack up to LRT, Niche?

Im curious to hear from someone who is obviously knowledgable on this sort of thing

Ive become partial to BRT over time after seeing it in person, and I think it can be just as good as LRT for a better price.

PRICE is its major advantage which is why it seems to be the way to go when you're talking federal funding.

[Trae]

I guess the only reason why I want LRT is because it looks cool and feels more urban than riding a bus in its own lane. They both serve the same purpose, but one just feels better (LRT).

[musicman]

I guess the only reason why I want LRT is because it looks cool and feels more urban than riding a bus in its own lane. They both serve the same purpose, but one just feels better (LRT).

your rationale of "feeling better" isn't likely to win funding.

[citykid09]

Wow, retail on the street. What a novel idea! Downtown Houston has what, like 3 stores on street level? An African Boutique, a creepy t-shirt/wig store and a CVS. They really need to fill in some of those abandoned clubs/bars on main with some retail. Sorry for getting off topic.

I know, and when I here people from there complaining about how downtown is empty, I laugh, because Houston's downtown is what you would call empty. But on the other hand, Houston's downtown at night is alive and Atlanta's is not, I have been there at like 11:00 at night and no one is out there.

[Trae]

your rationale of "feeling better" isn't likely to win funding.

Well no ____. Damn.

I know, and when I here people from there complaining about how downtown is empty, I laugh, because Houston's downtown is what you would call empty. But on the other hand, Houston's downtown at night is alive and Atlanta's is not, I have been there at like 11:00 at night and no one is out there.

Because they'll get shot!

Edited July 5, 2007 by Trae

[Houston19514]

Wow, retail on the street. What a novel idea! Downtown Houston has what, like 3 stores on street level? An African Boutique, a creepy t-shirt/wig store and a CVS.

LOL Those stores sound remarkably similar to what we saw in that downtown Atlanta video. (Except the CVS would really class up that street in Atlanta.)

We all know downtown Houston is not exactly teeming with street-level retail, but three stores? Get serious, man. Macy's (downtown Atlanta, I believe, has zero department stores). Joseph A. Bank. I can think of several others off the top of my head, but their names escape me at the moment. And lots more on the way, relatively soon.