Stop the Rail Plans!

[Trae]

sounds like they know rail isn't the solution to their problem so they are going to implement rapid bus lines in areas where density won't support LRT and expand their HOV system.

Los Angeles has a ton of subway and heavy rail/light rail lines planned for completetion by 2012. BRT is just filler for them.

even before that, the FTA references METRO's own numbers on the change from BRT to LRT.

it said you could build a minute maid park every 2 miles, not 1.

No, John Culberson and family made METRO change to BRT (block federal funding unless it was BRT). METRO rightfully in October voted to change it back to what the voters wanted....LRT.

You lose.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Trae

[jfre81]

so numbers from the governing organization mean nothing? yet a presentation by a pro-transportation group is valid?

OK....I think we've got a disconnect here. I do not dispute METRO's numbers or that they are increased significantly from their initial estimate. I expect them to be, considering inflation is such that greenbacks will be fueling fireplaces soon and costs for materials and construction are going up. I do not question METRO's numbers. I question the people (e.g. these bloggers) who are not looking at the future, looking to go as cheap as possible now and then having to build something more expensive in the longer term, like LA will be doing with its current BRT lines.

And I think we're all "pro-transportation." We wouldn't get a lot done if we didn't get around anywhere.

[musicman]

Los Angeles has a ton of subway and heavy rail/light rail lines planned for completetion by 2012. BRT is just filler for them.

I'm looking at the article. it sure doesn't use the word subway or say that brt is just filler.

No, John Culberson and family made METRO change to BRT (block federal funding unless it was BRT). METRO rightfully in October voted to change it back to what the voters wanted....LRT.

You lose.

the question posed was how much cost difference is brt vs lrt. not sure i'm losing, but sounds like you're lost.

[musicman]

OK....I think we've got a disconnect here. I do not dispute METRO's numbers or that they are increased significantly from their initial estimate. I expect them to be, considering inflation is such that greenbacks will be fueling fireplaces soon and costs for materials and construction are going up. I do not question METRO's numbers.

understand.

I question the people (e.g. these bloggers) who are not looking at the future, looking to go as cheap as possible now and then having to build something more expensive in the longer term, like LA will be doing with its current BRT lines.

And I think we're all "pro-transportation." We wouldn't get a lot done if we didn't get around anywhere.

I don't think anyone is looking to go as cheaply as possible but rather want to ensure that whatever is built will actually make a difference transit-wise. does it not concern you that METRO actually proposed to end a line at a train track because it didn't propose a bridge/underpass bypassing the train track so it could continue to a transit center?

Edited April 9, 2008 by musicman

[jfre81]

I don't think anyone is looking to go as cheaply as possible but rather want to ensure that whatever is built will actually make a difference transit-wise. does it not concern you that METRO actually proposed to end a line at a train track because it didn't propose a bridge/underpass bypassing the train track so it could continue to a transit center?

Well, it looks like it's gonna go over the tracks now, doesn't it?

BRT doesn't have the track record of bringing in people who currently don't use transit, which in Houston is most people. The bus is for "poor" people but "normal" people ride rail. I don't like that mentality, but it's there.

[TheNiche]

The bus is for "poor" people but "normal" people ride rail. I don't like that mentality, but it's there.

You've never heard of Park and Ride, then, have you?

I agree that there is "rail bias", but I think that the term is a misnomer for a bigger concept. It is quality bias. People like forms of transportation that suck less. P&R busses are better than regular busses.

[jfre81]

You've never heard of Park and Ride, then, have you?

I agree that there is "rail bias", but I think that the term is a misnomer for a bigger concept. It is quality bias. People like forms of transportation that suck less. P&R busses are better than regular busses.

So we'd have to make these BRT routes not suck to make them work....

Also the P&R's go directly to downtown or wherever. No stopping through the parts of town that make suburbanites wet their pants, like the ones the Southeast and North lines are to go through...

All bias and what people want aside, LRT is more efficient. Every bus needs a driver but you can train several rail cars with one operator. And what are these buses running on? Diesel? Hybrid? Diesel is expensive and will pollute the air just as much as more freeways.

[musicman]

Well, it looks like it's gonna go over the tracks now, doesn't it?

hopefully in the end yes, so far they are still short on funding. this is an example of something that troubles me about the design on the university line. the eastside has complained for yrs about delays caused by trains. while it will be much shorter delay, the congested westside will have to deal with a train running down a major thoroughfare. METRO could propose a few elevated portions over some of the busier crossings (Shepherd and Kirby come to mind) to minimize disturbances but common sense probably won't prevail.

BRT doesn't have the track record of bringing in people who currently don't use transit, which in Houston is most people.

It will be interesting to see how many new riders the proposed lines will attract. METRO used quite a few tactics to force riders on the red line. Eliminating bus routes, eliminating the trolley, etc. The new lines don't offer as many options for METRO. If ridership doesn't respond positively, it doesn't bode well for expansion.

[TheNiche]

So we'd have to make these BRT routes not suck to make them work....

Also the P&R's go directly to downtown or wherever. No stopping through the parts of town that make suburbanites wet their pants, like the ones the Southeast and North lines are to go through...

All bias and what people want aside, LRT is more efficient. Every bus needs a driver but you can train several rail cars with one operator. And what are these buses running on? Diesel? Hybrid? Diesel is expensive and will pollute the air just as much as more freeways.

All other factors held constant, BRT sucks more than LRT and less than P&R or local bus. But suckage in and of itself is inadequate as an investment criterion. It is merely a variable that feeds into ridership, and even then, ridership is only part of the calculation of social benefit (and a smaller part than it is given credit for).

As for comparative capital and operating costs, this GOA document ought to give you a general idea. Yes, the costs will have gone up, but that'll be for both kinds of system, so quit with the inflation angle...it has no legs.

[jfre81]

But suckage in and of itself is inadequate as an investment criterion.

What do you mean? If it "sucks" then nobody will ride it and it's then the big waste of money the anti-transit people claim it is. A "boondoggle" if you will.

so quit with the inflation angle...it has no legs.

It's got more legs than a millipede as long as we're sitting around debating on it instead of turning over dirt.

[Trae]

hopefully in the end yes, so far they are still short on funding. this is an example of something that troubles me about the design on the university line. the eastside has complained for yrs about delays caused by trains. while it will be much shorter delay, the congested westside will have to deal with a train running down a major thoroughfare. METRO could propose a few elevated portions over some of the busier crossings (Shepherd and Kirby come to mind) to minimize disturbances but common sense probably won't prevail.

It will be interesting to see how many new riders the proposed lines will attract. METRO used quite a few tactics to force riders on the red line. Eliminating bus routes, eliminating the trolley, etc. The new lines don't offer as many options for METRO. If ridership doesn't respond positively, it doesn't bode well for expansion.

You'll be dissapointed.

[jfre81]

I'm all for grade separations - like editor and I both suggested in this thread, it might be feasible with the current cost estimates to look at going underground - but it sounds like we have a lot of people balking at big numbers to the point that they'd rather see nothing done. I always felt like there were at-grade intersections on the Red Line because people wouldn't support paying for rail overpasses/underpasses/whatever. But at the same time people act like we're the only city with rail transit at street level. Have these people ever been to San Francisco?

[Jax]

It will be interesting to see how many new riders the proposed lines will attract. METRO used quite a few tactics to force riders on the red line. Eliminating bus routes, eliminating the trolley, etc. The new lines don't offer as many options for METRO. If ridership doesn't respond positively, it doesn't bode well for expansion.

I've heard that a lot of people started using the Metro Rail who didn't used to ride the busses before. That means people moved in to apartments near the Metro Rail because it was an alternative to driving to work every day (medical center employees for example). They liked it better than the local bus. I wish I could cite a source on that but I can't...

I've got no idea what the numbers are, but most people I talk to seem to like the rail better than the local busses.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Jax

[musicman]

You'll be dissapointed.

you don't have faith in METRO either?

[Trae]

you don't have faith in METRO either?

People will ride the new lines. All new light rail lines have some bus routes eliminated, and other bus routes transfer at rail lines. Don't see what the problem is, but you gripe at every damn thing.

[wernicke]

I've heard that a lot of people started using the Metro Rail who didn't used to ride the busses before. That means people moved in to apartments near the Metro Rail because it was an alternative to driving to work every day (medical center employees for example). They liked it better than the local bus. I wish I could cite a source on that but I can't...

I've got no idea what the numbers are, but most people I talk to seem to like the rail better than the local busses.

As anecdotal evidence. I started med school at UT in 8/05 and moved to Lanesborough across from the Smithlands stop b/c of the rail, then moved to the Calais in Midtown with my fiance b/c rail is within walking distance. I ride it into the TMC daily, unless I'm out at LBJ. I drive very little during the week. I essentially never used a Metro bus previously.

The TMC drives a huge portion of rail usage... and the rail has certainly impacted the construction boom of the TMC (there simply is not enough parking in TMC for 120K employees plus patients). I definitely think it may be more difficult to achieve the rapid success of the Red line on the other lines, but it will likely spur development in the long run.

[TheNiche]

What do you mean? If it "sucks" then nobody will ride it and it's then the big waste of money the anti-transit people claim it is. A "boondoggle" if you will.

No. I mean that commuting in any way sucks, but that different ways of commuting suck more than others. The greater the suckage of a form of commuting, the more averse people are to using it. Something with enormous suckage may still be quite viable insofar as lower costs in other categories act to offset that suckage.

[musicman]

People will ride the new lines.

just like people ride the bus now.

All new light rail lines have some bus routes eliminated, and other bus routes transfer at rail lines. Don't see what the problem is, but you gripe at every damn thing.

of course but when trip durations are lengthened as a result, it discourages ridership.

[Trae]

How are travel times increased? Buses usually take longer than trains to get from point A to point B.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Trae

[TheNiche]

How are travel times increased? Buses usually take longer than trains to get from point A to point B.

See the GOA document for data. And even that doesn't factor in issues surrounding transfers, which are even more impactful.

[urbancowboy]

name='TheNiche' date='Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 @ 11:45pm' post='241208'

I agree with this statement. Trying to implement rapid transit without being able to force development around it fails to produce TOD in any reasonable period of time. Furthermore, as that TOD develops, it may not be in a maximally synergistic form by way of which an activity cluster of critical mass can be attained.

This is a premise of mine on why METRO's implementation of rapid transit was short-sighted.

Induced demand is the intent (not the unintended consequence) of adding capacity to transporation projects. It is caused when private consumers experience higher total trip costs in period 0, before the expansion project, and lower costs in period 1, after the project. When costs for a good are lower, the quantity demanded of that good increases.

In freeway expansion projects, the typical basis for lower costs are time savings and a reduction in out-of-pocket costs, such as that better mpg can be attained when not sitting in congestion. But time savings are the big one.

Please support your assertion.

LOL, I already have! Freeway expansions create a situation in which more cars can fit on a road therefore every negative externalities will increase as well (i.e. pollution to air and water), eventually there will be too many cars on the road leading to congestion. So the expansion increases supply which induces demand, however demand will increase faster than supply and there you have the Southwest Freeway, North Freeway, The Gulf Freeway, Sam Houston Parkway West. These have all been expanded in the last 5-20 years and have severe rush hour congestion. I know these road are designed for 20-30 years, but that is still a fraction of lifespan and efficiency of a rapid transit way (i.e. the Philadelphia Market-Frankford EL 100 years).

I don't doubt this. However, the kind of development that you advocate 1) doesn't exist yet, meaning that there are legacy issues that'll likely stick around for the next century or so whether you like it or not, and 2) that it would be more impactful doesn't make it better. You've got to think of the costs along with the benefits.

Well, they did come out with this study in September of 2007. Here is the link to the Baltimore Sun article, (I hope it still works)

Nat'l Center for Smart Growth

I'd suspect that sustainable development is often more easily built from scratch to exacting specifications than within the context of existing infrastructure.

Not really, part of what makes infill sustainable is the fact the that it uses existing infrastructure and causes minimal expansion on the city's foot print. Many of the older urban places and small towns were built during a time when cities and towns were transit friendly walkable, these attributes are still true today.

Point Blank, cars is not a sustainable way to move people around, the space cars and storage take up is enormous; autocentric cities create a situation inwhich people must own cars to live and that isn't fair nor the best way to spend money; and countless other environmental, economic, and social cost. Oh and the Park and Ride System is great, I took the Route 214 from Jones Road into the City everyday, but I must say a train would have been that much faster.

[jfre81]

No. I mean that commuting in any way sucks, but that different ways of commuting suck more than others. The greater the suckage of a form of commuting, the more averse people are to using it. Something with enormous suckage may still be quite viable insofar as lower costs in other categories act to offset that suckage.

Fair enough. So let's go with rail and a smoother ride than a bus in a bus lane that will get potholed like any other paved surface in Houston. That sucks less, IMO.

[TheNiche]

Fair enough. So let's go with rail and a smoother ride than a bus in a bus lane that will get potholed like any other paved surface in Houston. That sucks less, IMO.

Read the second sentence of the quote of mine to which you replied.

Urbancowboy, your posts require some degree of concentration to respond to. I'll pay you the honor of a sober reply...some time tomorrow evening, more likely than not.

[jfre81]

Read the second sentence of the quote of mine to which you replied.

You mean read it again? OK, for the sake of posterity...

And once again, for good measure....build light rail so it will "suck" less and people will be less averse to taking it. Smooth, efficient ride. That doesn't "suck" so bad. The idea, after all, is to get people to ride this expensive thing we're talking about. If the idea is how to get people to not ride it, it must be John Culberson's idea.

[Rail]

What the heck? I've never heard of LRT costing more per mile than what's typical for heavy rail!

[woolie]

Well, how about some numbers Niche. Ellie Lofts type of structure vs. typical 3-story TMC garden apartments. I'm not saying it's going to be 1:1, but in the same neighborhood.

ps. some of your attitude lately is a real test against your sig line.

Edited April 10, 2008 by woolie

[N Judah]

You believe it to be an expensive paradigm. I believe it to be a lucrative opportunity. A quick Google search reveals that researchers at the Brookings Institute seem to agree with me.

I'm not denying that access to an automobile can be important in a society built around the personal-vehicle paradigm. I'm just not sure why you need to sell the freeways to private firms to do it. Why not skip the middle man and just use the gas tax (or some other kind of tax) to subsidize your program?

[N Judah]

I started a thread somewhere else about the BRT in Colombia, and if you click on the link there are some good discussions which made it clear to me that BRT done *correctly* (in the manner of the specific South American exampes relentlessly touted by BRT advocates) essentially approximates LRT with the only difference being wheels vs. tracks. Since BRT buses last a third as long as LRT trains and hold fewer people, in the long run the difference in cost is not so great. Also, a rail bias exists in terms of ridership and development which will increase development, ridership, tax revenues, civic happiness blah blah blah.

[lockmat]

A lot of a certain person's ramblings seem to ignore the fact that the majority electorate of Houston voted for Metro's LRT expansion in 2003. We live in a democracy and LRT is what the people want.

In my view, the only remaining questions have to do with planning and implementation.

Somebody mentioned the same thing last week. I agree. I guess most, including myself, are just speaking in hypotheticals.

[musicman]

How are travel times increased? Buses usually take longer than trains to get from point A to point B.

trae, some routes that previously went directly to downtown were shortened by forcing people to get on the lrt for the ultimate portion of the ride. they have to get off, wait for train, and then continue on their journey downtown.

buses in a controlled access lane don't take as long as buses that interact with traffic, hence the brt. because the lrt here interacts with traffic travel times are increased from what they could be if a better design was implemented.