Study recommends rail on US 290 and Texas 3

[ricco67]

....and even add weekend trips or trips for special events (Texans and Astros like we do for the Rodeo)...

THAT is something I agree with. At least run one trip an hour on a weekend to see how that goes, but until all HOV's get two lanes, only a bidirectional HOV would be able to increase capacity enough where weekend usage would be necessary.

But then you also limit the time for maintenance.

[RedScare]

This has been discussed a number of times here. Surely you know better than your question suggests... It is obvious that a "22-lane freeway" is not flexible. But then, nobody is talking about building 22-lane freeways for P&R buses. More importantly, it's the P&R bus system that is more flexible than a commuter rail system, not the particular concrete it is driving on. In the medium to long run, P&R buses and their systems can easily adapt to changing circumstances, by going off the dedicated busway, adding and subtracting stops as demand dictates. Commuter rail, not so much.

Furthermore, on a day-to-day basis, a P&R system can provide better service because of its flexibility by sending one bus with 50 passengers to the Northwest Transit Center while another bus with another 50 passengers can be routed directly downtown, where more than one stop can be made, avoiding further transfers, and another directly Uptown and another directly to the TMC. It is not really possible to do that with commuter rail. Commuter rail will have 200 passengers going to the northwest transit center, where 100 of them get off and transfer to another train or bus to get to Uptown or TMC and the other 100 wait for the train to proceed to its single stop downtown, where most of them will also have to transfer to another bus or light rail.

I am certainly not anti-rail. That's a cheap rhetorical device.

Disingenuous arguments call for cheap rhetorical devices.

I have lived in Houston for 31 years. In all of that time, I have never seen a freeway shut down or moved due to lack of use. I have never seen a Park&Ride lot shut down or moved. I have never seen an HOV lane shut down or moved. The simple fact is, flexibility is a term that is thrown into the debate as if it is a wonderful charecteristic of busses, yet it is utterly worthless in real life transit, as suburban commuter routes do not change. The whole reason for picking the route in the first place is that there is a large potential ridership along the proposed route. If that population disappears, one could simply stop running the trains, just as one would stop running the busses. The money spent on the HOV and the rail would be lost. But, their is no more flexibility in a Park&Ride system than there is a commuter rail system. Both require huge parking lots and loading stations. Busses require entrance ramps and HOV lanes. The trains require track. Busses can be added or subtracted to meet demand. Additional rail cars, or entire trainsets can be added to meet demand. Additionally, commuter trains can run on a tighter schedule, since they are not slowed by heavy HOV traffic or accidents in the HOV lane.

More importantly, "flexibility" is a problem, not a benefit. Everyone knows where the train is, and when it runs. It does not change. Because of this familiarity, ridership is encouraged. Because city bus routes are routinely changed, it can have a deadening effect on ridership. If one is not sure where or when the bus runs, one is tempted to use alternative means of transit.

It should be noted that the Park&Rides do not change like the city bus routes do. They have large well known lots that allow commuters to have certainty that the route will not change, and the bus will run on time. In that sense, they are more like commuter rail. However, even though this certainty is a benefit of the Park&Ride, that benefit is achieved by the Park&Ride's INFLEXIBLE nature, not the other way around.

[memebag]

Rail is much more energy efficient than bus.

[houstonmacbro]

Looks are subjective, the newer P&R buses we have on the 217 line are quite nice.

A train is more modern than a bus...

were you being sarcastic? My interweb sarcasm skills aren't that great...

I was being silly, but not sarcastic. Trains do look sleek, modern, chic.

Buses just look ... old school.

I think people are not seeing the potential of a P&R system to evolve into a true mass transit system. P&R I think has a lot of untapped potential and now is having record ridership. I think there is opportunity to lengthen HOV lanes, add routes, add more buses to current routes, further segregate the buses from cars to improve trip time, improve pick up stops downtown by expanding the covered areas, improve existing P&R facilities (the newest ones at Cypress and Katy are awesome), and even add weekend trips or trips for special events (Texans and Astros like we do for the Rodeo)...

Honestly, wouldn't care if it was a bus or a train. Let's just get it built.

As I have mentioned before, this debate has been going on since I moved here in 2004. And we STILL don't have anything.

In fact, I am pretty sure no ground has been broken for BRT or rail ... am I correct on this?

how superficial. is that how you vote too?

Get a grip and lighten up.

[Houston19514]

Disingenuous arguments call for cheap rhetorical devices.

I have lived in Houston for 31 years. In all of that time, I have never seen a freeway shut down or moved due to lack of use. I have never seen a Park&Ride lot shut down or moved. I have never seen an HOV lane shut down or moved. The simple fact is, flexibility is a term that is thrown into the debate as if it is a wonderful charecteristic of busses, yet it is utterly worthless in real life transit, as suburban commuter routes do not change. The whole reason for picking the route in the first place is that there is a large potential ridership along the proposed route. If that population disappears, one could simply stop running the trains, just as one would stop running the busses. The money spent on the HOV and the rail would be lost. But, their is no more flexibility in a Park&Ride system than there is a commuter rail system. Both require huge parking lots and loading stations. Busses require entrance ramps and HOV lanes. The trains require track. Busses can be added or subtracted to meet demand. Additional rail cars, or entire trainsets can be added to meet demand. Additionally, commuter trains can run on a tighter schedule, since they are not slowed by heavy HOV traffic or accidents in the HOV lane.

More importantly, "flexibility" is a problem, not a benefit. Everyone knows where the train is, and when it runs. It does not change. Because of this familiarity, ridership is encouraged. Because city bus routes are routinely changed, it can have a deadening effect on ridership. If one is not sure where or when the bus runs, one is tempted to use alternative means of transit.

It should be noted that the Park&Rides do not change like the city bus routes do. They have large well known lots that allow commuters to have certainty that the route will not change, and the bus will run on time. In that sense, they are more like commuter rail. However, even though this certainty is a benefit of the Park&Ride, that benefit is achieved by the Park&Ride's INFLEXIBLE nature, not the other way around.

and of course, trains NEVER have accidents... ;-)

You seem to have ignored the flexibility the P&R buses have at the end of the route. For example, the ease of adding additional stops in downtown if required. You also completely ignored the entire second paragraph of my post. One of the areas where rail loses flexibility is because it emphasizes the "Mass" part of "mass transit" more than the "transit" part. A P&R system can much more efficiently and easily provide point-to-point service to multiple locations, whereas commuter rail is stuck with the old-fashioned hub-and-spoke system.

Even if your argument that rail is as flexible as a P&R system were true (and it pretty clearly is not), that would not lead to a conclusion that rail is better than a P&R system; it would merely provide an argument that rail might be as good as a P&R system. We're still waiting for any way in which a commuter rail system would be better than a P&R bus system. Anyone?

[houstonmacbro]

and of course, trains NEVER have accidents... ;-)

We're still waiting for any way in which a commuter rail system would be better than a P&R bus system.

No, we're just waiting for something to get us from here to there, quickly and efficiently.

METRO can't seem to do that very well with buses. Maybe there really is no hope that it can happen with buses.

[Houston19514]

No, we're just waiting for something to get us from here to there, quickly and efficiently.

METRO can't seem to do that very well with buses. Maybe there really is no hope that it can happen with buses.

Really? The popularity of the P&R buses suggests otherwise.

[houstonmacbro]

Really? The popularity of the P&R buses suggests otherwise.

Along certain corridors maybe. But try getting AROUND Houston on the bus and check back with us. Let us know how that goes for you.

[Houston19514]

Along certain corridors maybe. But try getting AROUND Houston on the bus and check back with us. Let us know how that goes for you.

We're talking about commuter rail vs P&R buses. If you want to have a discussion about inner-city rail, I'm sure there's another thread covering that.

FWIW, I did try out taking the bus to work last week. It was clean, on-schedule, and comfortable.

[houstonmacbro]

We're talking about commuter rail vs P&R buses. If you want to have a discussion about inner-city rail, I'm sure there's another thread covering that.

FWIW, I did try out taking the bus to work last week. It was clean, on-schedule, and comfortable.

Cool.

[dbigtex56]

Park and Ride buses have only one narrow entrance, which involves climbing stairs, and fares are collected as passengers board.

Trains have multiple, wide entrances flush with the boarding platform, and fares are collected prior to the arrival of the train.

These features may not seem very important - especially to those who are not elderly, handicapped, or who never take public transportation, anyway - but for those of us who have ridden each, and have seen the delays and hassles caused by the intrinsically poor design of buses, we'll take the train, hands down.

[RedScare]

and of course, trains NEVER have accidents... ;-)

You seem to have ignored the flexibility the P&R buses have at the end of the route. For example, the ease of adding additional stops in downtown if required. You also completely ignored the entire second paragraph of my post. One of the areas where rail loses flexibility is because it emphasizes the "Mass" part of "mass transit" more than the "transit" part. A P&R system can much more efficiently and easily provide point-to-point service to multiple locations, whereas commuter rail is stuck with the old-fashioned hub-and-spoke system.

Even if your argument that rail is as flexible as a P&R system were true (and it pretty clearly is not), that would not lead to a conclusion that rail is better than a P&R system; it would merely provide an argument that rail might be as good as a P&R system. We're still waiting for any way in which a commuter rail system would be better than a P&R bus system. Anyone?

The P&R runs the same route downtown that the light rail does. No more, no less. A point-to-point option means nothing if there is never enough ridership to justify doing it....as has been the case for the entire 25 year existence of the P&R system. The only 3 locations served by the P&R busses will all be served by light rail.

Additionally, there is absolutely no reason why METRO should do away with P&R once commuter rail begins operation. While commuter rail services the high ridership routes, the P&R system will still serve the routes where ridership or population density or lack of ROW do not justify rail. In fact, the study only proposed 3 initial routes. P&R would still serve the other areas.

IF there were some justification for a point-to-point transit service, there is no reason why METRO could not dedicate a van or two to cover this need.

Now, it might bear repeating (I've been saying it on this forum for years) that I am a big fan of the Park&Ride. I was probably riding the 202 to law school before you even knew where Houston was. I have many fond memories of eyeballing the secretaries while wearing my walkman. But, I am also a fan of commuter rail for many reasons. It is not suitable for all corridors, only the most populated ones. I think 290 and Galveston are good choices. Westpark, 45, and someday, 59 are possible. While acknowledging its greater initial expense, it may have more value in drawing ridership. I merely find the flexibility argument disingenuous, and as I said before, potentially a flaw in the argument for busses.

[dbigtex56]

I looked it up: busses is an acceptable alternative spelling of buses. Either plural of bus is correct.

Isn't it nice to know that, just this once, we can express ourselves differently without someone being proven wrong?

[CDeb]

Park and Ride buses have only one narrow entrance, which involves climbing stairs, and fares are collected as passengers board.

Trains have multiple, wide entrances flush with the boarding platform, and fares are collected prior to the arrival of the train.

These features may not seem very important - especially to those who are not elderly, handicapped, or who never take public transportation, anyway - but for those of us who have ridden each, and have seen the delays and hassles caused by the intrinsically poor design of buses, we'll take the train, hands down.

THANK YOU for providing a benefit of rail over buses.

Whether it justifies the added expense is debateable, but at least someone finally offered a good reason.

[RedScare]

I looked it up: busses is an acceptable alternative spelling of buses. Either plural of bus is correct.

Isn't it nice to know that, just this once, we can express ourselves differently without someone being proven wrong?

I am hurt that you doubted me.

Oh, and just for you, CDeb....

http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html

[cnote]

THANK YOU for providing a benefit of rail over buses.

Whether it justifies the added expense is debateable, but at least someone finally offered a good reason.

See post #54 regarding rubbernecking and traffic on and getting to the HOV lane. Trains won't rubberneck and won't sit in traffic waiting to get on track.

[Houston19514]

The P&R runs the same route downtown that the light rail does. No more, no less. A point-to-point option means nothing if there is never enough ridership to justify doing it....as has been the case for the entire 25 year existence of the P&R system. The only 3 locations served by the P&R busses will all be served by light rail.

Additionally, there is absolutely no reason why METRO should do away with P&R once commuter rail begins operation. While commuter rail services the high ridership routes, the P&R system will still serve the routes where ridership or population density or lack of ROW do not justify rail. In fact, the study only proposed 3 initial routes. P&R would still serve the other areas.

IF there were some justification for a point-to-point transit service, there is no reason why METRO could not dedicate a van or two to cover this need.

Now, it might bear repeating (I've been saying it on this forum for years) that I am a big fan of the Park&Ride. I was probably riding the 202 to law school before you even knew where Houston was. I have many fond memories of eyeballing the secretaries while wearing my walkman. But, I am also a fan of commuter rail for many reasons. It is not suitable for all corridors, only the most populated ones. I think 290 and Galveston are good choices. Westpark, 45, and someday, 59 are possible. While acknowledging its greater initial expense, it may have more value in drawing ridership. I merely find the flexibility argument disingenuous, and as I said before, potentially a flaw in the argument for busses.

Again, you have failed to provide us with ANY reason that commuter rail is better than a P&R bus system. Except that you're a fan of commuter rail "for many reasons". Can you share some of those reasons with us?

I think you misunderstood my comments about point-to-point service. With a P&R system, people at a particular P&R lot can get on one bus that goes directly downtown, another bus that goes directly to Uptown, another that goes directly to TMC, perhaps another that goes directly to Greenway Plaza, and so on. That is a level of flexibility and convenience that is impossible for commuter rail to ever match. The only way a commuter rail system can serve such multiple locations is with a hub and spoke system requiring transfers (and perhaps multiple transfers). The commuter rail will always be a hub-and-spoke system where you get on at a station and you get off at the other end, or perhaps at an intervening station, and switch to another train or other mode of transportation. Perhaps there is not sufficient ridership to run buses to all places from all P&R lots, but I'm pretty sure there are lots with buses running to more than one place. And again, that is a flexibility we have and can use going forward with the P&R system that a commuter rail system will never be able to match. (and if there is not sufficient ridership for direct point-to-point P&R service, why would we think there will be sufficient ridership of a much more expensive commuter rail system offering less convenient service?)

Also, your saying that the only 3 locations served by P&R buses will all be served by light rail misses the point, or perhaps makes my point. The P&R buses can (and do) make more than one stop in their destination areas. As you acknowledged, the P&R buses make several stops throughout downtown, matching the service of the red line. But the P&R riders don't have to transfer from a train to the red line to get to their destination. Anyone taking a commuter rail to downtown will have to transfer to the light rail to get to their final destination. Again, how does that provide better transit service?

While we are establishing our bona fides, let me just say I am far from "anti-rail". I have been one of the staunchest supporters of Metro's light rail efforts on these boards and I am open minded about commuter rail. But so far, there has been a dearth of evidence that commuter rail would provide better transit than is already being provided by P&R buses.

[dbigtex56]

THANK YOU for providing a benefit of rail over buses.

Whether it justifies the added expense is debateable, but at least someone finally offered a good reason.

You're welcome, and that was very gracious of you to remark on it.

Most (all?) of us have entered this conversation already holding an opinion about the desirablilty of rail. Perhaps it's human nature to defend one's position rather than change it. For example, as a rail proponant, I've been hoping that no one would bring up the matter of rail's vulnerability to sabotage. Yet, it's a legitimate concern.

I'm of the opinion that our lives should not be controlled by fear of terrorism. To use a cliche' which was tired five years ago, to do so "means the terrorists have won." But, golly. If I set out to commit a terroristic act, a train would be more tempting than some stupid bus.

(Disclaimer: I have no plans or desires to commit terroristic acts.)

[cnote]

Again, you have failed to provide us with ANY reason that commuter rail is better than a P&R bus system. Except that you're a fan of commuter rail "for many reasons". Can you share some of those reasons with us?

I think you misunderstood my comments about point-to-point service. With a P&R system, people at a particular P&R lot can get on one bus that goes directly downtown, another bus that goes directly to Uptown, another that goes directly to TMC, perhaps another that goes directly to Greenway Plaza, and so on. That is a level of flexibility and convenience that is impossible for commuter rail to ever match. The only way a commuter rail system can serve such multiple locations is with a hub and spoke system requiring transfers (and perhaps multiple transfers). The commuter rail will always be a hub-and-spoke system where you get on at a station and you get off at the other end, or perhaps at an intervening station, and switch to another train or other mode of transportation. Perhaps there is not sufficient ridership to run buses to all places from all P&R lots, but I'm pretty sure there are lots with buses running to more than one place. And again, that is a flexibility we have and can use going forward with the P&R system that a commuter rail system will never be able to match. (and if there is not sufficient ridership for direct point-to-point P&R service, why would we think there will be sufficient ridership of a much more expensive commuter rail system offering less convenient service?)

They could do that, but that is not the way the system works. You have to transfer buses to get to most of the areas you mentioned from P&R locations.

[Houston19514]

Park and Ride buses have only one narrow entrance, which involves climbing stairs, and fares are collected as passengers board.

Trains have multiple, wide entrances flush with the boarding platform, and fares are collected prior to the arrival of the train.

These features may not seem very important - especially to those who are not elderly, handicapped, or who never take public transportation, anyway - but for those of us who have ridden each, and have seen the delays and hassles caused by the intrinsically poor design of buses, we'll take the train, hands down.

Interesting thought. However, I think you will be confronted with stairs on most commuter rail cars (and relatively narrow entrances as well.) Take a look at the TRE rail cars. As for collecting fares, well the Q card pretty much makes that a non-issue.

[Trae]

Subway, no, tunnel yes. You see, they have to go through a small mountain and across 3 rivers to get into the city.

They didnt do it for the "cool" factor like you might belive.

You really do not know what you are talking about. Pittsburgh's has a subway in its Downtown. A place where it could easily be at street level.

[Houston19514]

They could do that, but that is not the way the system works. You have to transfer buses to get to most of the areas you mentioned from P&R locations.

Downtown, TMC and Uptown are all served by Park & Ride buses. I just threw Greenway Plaza in there as an additional area to which service could easily be added, demonstrating the system's flexibility. Certainly, not every P&R lot has direct service to each of those areas. More to the point, if demand develops, service from individual P&R lots and Transit Centers could easily be added. Again, far more flexibility that could ever be achieved with a commuter rail system, it seems to me. And in the meantime, service is available to those areas through transfers, which is all a commuter rail system would ever provide.

[RedScare]

Certainly, not every P&R lot has direct service to each of those areas.

That is the point cnote and I have been trying to make to you. Both of us are unaware of a single P&R route that goes directly to TMC or Greenway. They all go downtown, and a few of them then go to Greenway AFTER serving downtown. In fact, I am unaware of a single P&R that goes to TMC. Only a couple go to Greenway after going through downtown. The Woodlands Express has a few that go to TMC and Greenway AFTER going through downtown, but METRO has VERY FEW. They require you to transfer to rail to continue to TMC, just like commuter rail would.

So, again, what use is flexibility if it is never used? The ridership clearly doesn't justify it now, and probably won't then. Interestingly, it would be quicker to transfer from commuter rail to light rail at the MW transit center to get to Greenway, than to go all the way to downtown, go through downtown, then out to Greenway.

[musicman]

That is the point cnote and I have been trying to make to you. Both of us are unaware of a single P&R route that goes directly to TMC or Greenway.

there are direct TMC routes from the se side.

[Mr. Chenevert]

You really do not know what you are talking about. Pittsburgh's has a subway in its Downtown. A place where it could easily be at street level.

It must be new. I lived there from '96 to 2000

[Trae]

It must be new. I lived there from '96 to 2000

I guess it is new (to you). You learn something new everyday.

Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Light_Rail

And weren't you the one earlier that didn't know Pittsburgh had a light rail system (that was built) in the 80s? How could you live there for four years not knowing that?

[Houston19514]

That is the point cnote and I have been trying to make to you. Both of us are unaware of a single P&R route that goes directly to TMC or Greenway. They all go downtown, and a few of them then go to Greenway AFTER serving downtown. In fact, I am unaware of a single P&R that goes to TMC. Only a couple go to Greenway after going through downtown. The Woodlands Express has a few that go to TMC and Greenway AFTER going through downtown, but METRO has VERY FEW. They require you to transfer to rail to continue to TMC, just like commuter rail would.

So, again, what use is flexibility if it is never used? The ridership clearly doesn't justify it now, and probably won't then. Interestingly, it would be quicker to transfer from commuter rail to light rail at the MW transit center to get to Greenway, than to go all the way to downtown, go through downtown, then out to Greenway.

So, again, how would a commuter rail serve any of those areas better than a P&R system? And before spending untold hundreds of millions of dollars on commuter rail, it might be wise to stop and ask ourselves... if there is not sufficient demand to justify direct P&R bus service to these areas, why are we to believe that masses of passengers are going to jump aboard a commuter rail service that will provide less convenient service.

[Houston19514]

That is the point cnote and I have been trying to make to you. Both of us are unaware of a single P&R route that goes directly to TMC.

Take a look at Nos. 292, 297, 298. Three P&R routes that appear to directly serve the TMC.

And the 170. Make that four P&R routes that appear to directly serve the TMC.

[Houston19514]

So, again, what use is flexibility if it is never used? The ridership clearly doesn't justify it now, and probably won't then. Interestingly, it would be quicker to transfer from commuter rail to light rail at the MW transit center to get to Greenway, than to go all the way to downtown, go through downtown, then out to Greenway.

There is also at least one P&R route directly serving Uptown (with continuing same-bus service to Greenway Plaza). Apparently, when the demand is there, Metro is using the flexibility it has.

[TheNiche]

Like you have shown any.

My premises are rooted in physical and economic efficiency. Whether you believe them correct or not, they are at least on point. A premise to your counterargument is that my argument is "just stupid".

You can better further your position by letting RedScare handle the inane rhetoric. He's much better at it.