Study recommends rail on US 290 and Texas 3

[TheNiche]

The aggressive freeway expansion in the 80s and 90s got out ahead of the congestion, so why can't rail do the same thing?

Getting out ahead of congestion was easy to do when the transportation infrastructure being built was developed in the 80's was premised upon the rate of growth of the 70's.

Generally speaking, getting ahead of ourselves in any kind of infrastructure outlay is not desirable.

[Trae]

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.

And that is what I have been doing. He can explain it better than I ever could.

[TheNiche]

I keep reading the term "less flexible" by the anti-railers. Would anyone care to explain to me how a 22 lane freeway is "more flexible"?

Infrastructure that can be utilized by many independently-controlled vehicles allows those vehicles to go wherever their operator likes, and at any time, in any order, and with the capability to detour around congestion or accidents. That is highly flexible. Short of getting shuttled around in a helicopter, it is hard to imagine an infrastructure that is more flexible.

Busses are constrained because they must adhere to routes on a day-to-day basis and usually cannot take detours, but those routes and the quality or quantity of service can be very easily changed on relatively little notice to meet changing demand characteristics, all without a major capital investment or a construction project that in and of itself creates congestion.

Rail infrastructure goes in only one or two directions along a fixed route. And because it is typically implemented in a single-use right of way that could otherwise be shared by different sorts of independently-controlled vehicles and busses and prevents or eliminates road crossings, grade-level rail actually has an adverse effect upon the flexibility of interacting road systems.

[TheNiche]

No one solution is great for everyone, the trick here is to be able to find something that works for everyone.

Beam me up Scotty. I want transporters. That is what works for me.

Therefore the whole of society must fund research to that effect, and if successful, must also fund several nuclear power plants near where I live so as to power the personal transporter device.

A transporter device available for use by the icky general public wouldn't work for me. It must be installed in my coat closet. Only that will work for me.

[crunchtastic]

Infrastructure that can be utilized by many independently-controlled vehicles allows those vehicles to go wherever their operator likes, and at any time, in any order, and with the capability to detour around congestion or accidents. That is highly flexible. Short of getting shuttled around in a helicopter, it is hard to imagine an infrastructure that is more flexible.

Busses are constrained because they must adhere to routes on a day-to-day basis and usually cannot take detours, but those routes and the quality or quantity of service can be very easily changed on relatively little notice to meet changing demand characteristics, all without a major capital investment or a construction project that in and of itself creates congestion.

Rail infrastructure goes in only one or two directions along a fixed route. And because it is typically implemented in a single-use right of way that could otherwise be shared by different sorts of independently-controlled vehicles and busses and prevents or eliminates road crossings, grade-level rail actually has an adverse effect upon the flexibility of interacting road systems.

So to sum up,

where tf is my flying car?

[RedScare]

Infrastructure that can be utilized by many independently-controlled vehicles allows those vehicles to go wherever their operator likes, and at any time, in any order, and with the capability to detour around congestion or accidents. That is highly flexible. Short of getting shuttled around in a helicopter, it is hard to imagine an infrastructure that is more flexible.

Busses are constrained because they must adhere to routes on a day-to-day basis and usually cannot take detours, but those routes and the quality or quantity of service can be very easily changed on relatively little notice to meet changing demand characteristics, all without a major capital investment or a construction project that in and of itself creates congestion.

Rail infrastructure goes in only one or two directions along a fixed route. And because it is typically implemented in a single-use right of way that could otherwise be shared by different sorts of independently-controlled vehicles and busses and prevents or eliminates road crossings, grade-level rail actually has an adverse effect upon the flexibility of interacting road systems.

Where ya been, niche? I've been waiting all night for you to come repeat what everyone else already said in your own special way. And, I'll tell you the same thing I told them. Flexibility means nothing if it is never used. 290 and Gulf freeway will always be major transit corridors. A train running next to the HOV lane need be no more flexible than the bus in the middle of the freeway. You can write all night long (and I won't disagree), but it flat does not matter. Neither the train routes nor the P&R routes are changing.

Not that this will stop you and 19514 from having a pedant fest over it.

[TheNiche]

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.

Well that's just the thing is that we aren't talking necessarily about what is, but about what should be...going forward from present.

It strikes me as though what METRO really ought to do immediately is to provide consistent bi-directional express P&R service from every single lot to each of our major employment and activity subcenters (Downtown, TMC, Greenway, Uptown, Westchase/T&C, Energy Corridor, Greenspoint/IAH, Hobby Airport, HP Campus, Johnson Space Center, Galveston). In the more spread out destination areas, like the Energy Corridor, either the P&R busses ought to circulate upon arrival or an efficient shuttle service such as connects the TMC or UH to their outlying parking lots needs to be available to quickly complete the trip.

This approach will most definitely result in quite a few underutilized routes, but because the destinations and quality of service would be uniform among all P&R lots, rider uncertainty that you had mentioned as a drawback can be effectively mitigated. And to the extent that any particular routes are underutilized, METRO can run smaller busses or even vans until such time as those routes warrant larger vehicles.

No commuter rail system could ever provide such tremendous suburb-to-suburb or reverse-commuter service (and that's just the kind of trip that is increasingly common in this polycentric region of ours). I would be willing to consider commuter rail along a few of the spokes, but if and only if 1) sidings could be developed that would allow for express service, 2) the rail vehicle achieved average speeds that surpassed speeds on HOT lanes with properly-implemented congestion pricing, which by default means that grade seperations are necessary at least at most major intersections, and 3) efficient circulator shuttles were implemented to complete trips (and LRT being nearby is inadequate because it only serves corridors effectively and because our employment and activity subcenters aren't only confined to corridors). The price tag would be high, but if commuter rail is going to be developed in such a way as is a substantial improvement over P&R, there's just not much of a way around that.

[TheNiche]

where tf is my flying car?

$3k will buy you this airplane.

[RedScare]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. Commuter rail should only be utilized on those corridors where ridership will support it, whether existing ridership or combined with the expected rail bias increase. But, P&R service to some lesser employment centers should also be implemented. The killer will be fuel cost. I don't think they can get federal dollars for P&R service (definitely not for operating costs), but they can get New Starts funds to build rail or BRT. As far as local cost, those fed dollars don't count, even though they are still taxpayer dollars.

[Trae]

Obama supports transit, so hopefully this helps METRO in their approach at getting more rail (only if, well, when Obama is elected).

[TheNiche]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. Commuter rail should only be utilized on those corridors where ridership will support it, whether existing ridership or combined with the expected rail bias increase. But, P&R service to some lesser employment centers should also be implemented. The killer will be fuel cost. I don't think they can get federal dollars for P&R service (definitely not for operating costs), but they can get New Starts funds to build rail or BRT. As far as local cost, those fed dollars don't count, even though they are still taxpayer dollars.

I'm quick to conceed that FTA and othere government funding guidelines don't necessarily mirror reality...but I would suspect that if The Woodlands' water taxi can get funding, so can extensive P&R service.

All I can really do about the political constraints is argue for what makes sense operationally. Beyond that, how funds are disbursed has to be considered an exogenous variable, inexplicable and subject to change in any given fiscal year.

But Red, I do appreciate that you and I are at least able to put aside the extreme partisan tone and rhetoric typical of this thread and find some middle ground subject to a few reasonable contingencies. This is productive, and I like it.

[houstonmacbro]

$3k will buy you this airplane.

Okay, so I am gonna use my subdivision street as a runway?

I don't think so...

[Houston19514]

Where ya been, niche? I've been waiting all night for you to come repeat what everyone else already said in your own special way. And, I'll tell you the same thing I told them. Flexibility means nothing if it is never used. 290 and Gulf freeway will always be major transit corridors. A train running next to the HOV lane need be no more flexible than the bus in the middle of the freeway. You can write all night long (and I won't disagree), but it flat does not matter. Neither the train routes nor the P&R routes are changing.

Not that this will stop you and 19514 from having a pedant fest over it.

And it certainly won't stop you from ignoring the facts and arguments that don't suit you. As I have demonstrated, Metro IS using some of that flexibility. NONE of which would be available in a commuter rail system.

And still we wait for any reason, any reason at all, that we should prefer commuter rail over a P&R bus system. Anyone? I'm all eyes.

[Mr. Chenevert]

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?

Yes, and I still dont believe that Pittsburgh has a light rail system. I guess we are splitting hairs over what we call light rail.

I consider what Pittsburgh has a trolley system.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I have enjoyed reading this discussion on commuter rail versus the current P&R system. Allow me to verify a couple of points mentioned, however:

1) 280-series buses directly serve the Uptown and/or Greenway Plaza areas (example: 286 W. Little York / Uptown / Greenway); 290 series buses directly serve the TMC (example: 298 Addicks-NWTC/TMC). In some cases, these routes make "pit stops" along the way but their ultimate destinations are Uptown and/or Greenway Plaza and the TMC.

2) METRO HAS re-routed or even shut down completely not just P&R routes but some lots as well. The last major lot closure was the West Belt Park & Ride lot (210 Westbelt) in about 2003, I believe. METRO has had to re-route several P&R routes over the years (especially during the Cotswold, Transit Streets and METRORail construction projects) and the results have usually been poor from a ridership impact standpoint. METRO typically experiences some level of ridership decline when they've had/chosen to re-route a P&R route.

3) METRO has reconfigured some P&R service in order to try to enhance the route. In 2006, METRO ended the 201 North Shepherd and replaced most of that service with the 108 Express, which they re-routed to serve the North Shepherd Lot.

And so on...

Now, in my view, commuter rail can offer the following benefits over the current P&R system:

1) Less likely to be delayed due to road conditions such as but not limited to an accident or emergency construction efforts.

2) Can move a larger number of people at a single time more efficiently.

3) Longterm operating costs are lower due to fewer operators needed and less fuel required to operate the vehicles (and not to mention the vehicles themselves typically require less maintenance).

I do, however, agree with 19514 in that the current infrastructure allows more flexibility with the buses. Once a commuter rail line is established, you're not going to see it changed very much, and certainly not in terms of where it's going. With the P&R system, routes can be adjusted and so on.

I've not seen a strong argument that supports getting rid of one in favor of the other. Both in conjunction with the other would seem to provide optimal service for commuters.

[Trae]

Yes, and I still dont believe that Pittsburgh has a light rail system. I guess we are splitting hairs over what we call light rail.

I consider what Pittsburgh has a trolley system.

So what do you call this?

http://www.portauthority.org/paac/default.aspx

This is Pittsburgh's trolley you are talking about:

Damn.

[RedScare]

And it certainly won't stop you from ignoring the facts and arguments that don't suit you. As I have demonstrated, Metro IS using some of that flexibility. NONE of which would be available in a commuter rail system.

And still we wait for any reason, any reason at all, that we should prefer commuter rail over a P&R bus system. Anyone? I'm all eyes.

I have given my opinion and you have given yours. Apparently, neither has been persuasive, as neither of us has changed our opinion. As for your attempt to goad me into participating in one of your tortured thread fights, it won't happen. Your IAH expansion argument and the Chicago/Houston argument are a couple of HAIF's most tormented threads. I will not provide fodder for another one that you clearly appear to be spoiling for. You're on your own.

[musicman]

Now, in my view, commuter rail can offer the following benefits over the current P&R system:

1) Less likely to be delayed due to road conditions such as but not limited to an accident or emergency construction efforts.

2) Can move a larger number of people at a single time more efficiently.

3) Longterm operating costs are lower due to fewer operators needed and less fuel required to operate the vehicles (and not to mention the vehicles themselves typically require less maintenance).

I do, however, agree with 19514 in that the current infrastructure allows more flexibility with the buses. Once a commuter rail line is established, you're not going to see it changed very much, and certainly not in terms of where it's going. With the P&R system, routes can be adjusted and so on.

I've not seen a strong argument that supports getting rid of one in favor of the other. Both in conjunction with the other would seem to provide optimal service for commuters.

one thing that is being ignored is that converting the hov lane to rail for instance, results in a wasted lane basically because the trains will only be using it periodically. the optimal use would be to maximize the number of vehicles while not allowing speeds to drop dramatically. you have to consider the system as a whole not just rail vs HOV buses when you're talking traffic numbers.

based on March 2003 morning data,

katy north

buses 40 43

car/vanpools 1283 1350

buses % total vehicles 3% 3%

So buses (which would run more frequently than a train) are only 3% of the total vehicles. assuming only 2 people in the car/vanpool, at least 2500 more cars would be put on the freeway lanes. of course, this is a low estimate because more than 2 are usually in vanpools. there are many factors involved.

EDIT: sorry for bad formatting. there WERE 2 columns here. my bad.

[Highway6]

Zero to do with commuter rail specifically but I'll share anyways.

ABCnews.com currently has a front page article on gas prices driving people to mass transit and it is using a photo of one of our downtown LRT stations to go along with the article.

[Trae]

Damn. Is that a recent photo? Looks like cold weather.

[musicman]

Damn. Is that a recent photo? Looks like cold weather.

opening day

[editor]

Damn. Is that a recent photo? Looks like cold weather.

And with that post, Trae becomes the second winner in the HAIF Summer Post Card contest.

Your prize:

The reverse of the card reads:

NIGHT VIEW FROM VIADUCT

DALLAS, TEXAS - 85

Dallas is the Nation's largest inland cot-

ton market -- practically one-half of the cotton

crop of the Nation is produced within twelve

hours' ride. Dallas leads the world as an oil

center -- more than 65% of the oil of the Uni-

ted States is produced within easy overnight

travel by rail.

PM me your mailing address and I'll get it out to you.

[Highway6]

Trae.. feel free to send me half the postcard for the assist.

[Trae]

Trae.. feel free to send me half the postcard for the assist.

Haha. Sure.

[RedScare]

Trae.. feel free to send me half the postcard for the assist.

I can't believe that the Editor is rewarding off-topic posts with free gifts!

[VelvetJ]

... still waiting for someone to show us how commuter rail is an improvement over P&R buses with HOV lanes... (and getting to add pretty colored lines to the fun map on radicalcartography.com isn't good enough... we could make our own fun map showing routes and miles of efficient and flexible P&R bus systems and overshadow every other city in North America.)

Well, I will simply say gasoline. Commuter rail will use less gasoline than a fleet of P & R buses, which I believe will be imperative in the future. Besides, people tend to look more favorably at trains over buses, which is why I personally have found that there are those who will not take a bus but are willing to take a train. If Houstonians had a train option to Galveston versus a Bus Option, most would probably choose the train option. People like trains. Gas prices would push people to commuter rail, however the fact that it is a train in of itself would attract even more riders, which lead to less cars on the roads, which lead to less gasoline consumption.

Rail IS NOT CHEAP, but will be worth the investment tomorrow and 100 years from now. P&R is cheaper yes, but neglecting rail because of that fact is irresponsible and short-sighted. In my eyes it's like building a 64 story office building out of wood and building one out of steel. Will the wooden building be cheaper and basically function the same, yes.....but in the long run the steel building will serve as the better choice despite it being more expensive.

More rail in Houston is practically inevitable, and continuing to delay it over and over again due to short-sighted folks who say it's too expensive, will only cause us to pay more for it when it is eventually built. We have got to stop looking at our future with eyes of the status quo.

[memebag]

And still we wait for any reason, any reason at all, that we should prefer commuter rail over a P&R bus system. Anyone? I'm all eyes.

I already gave you the reason. Rail is more fuel efficient than bus. Usually by an order of magnitude.

[TheNiche]

Well, I will simply say gasoline. Commuter rail will use less gasoline than a fleet of P & R buses, which I believe will be imperative in the future.

They will utilize the same amount of gasoline, and I can prove it --> neither busses or commuter rail use gasoline.

Besides, people tend to look more favorably at trains over buses, which is why I personally have found that there are those who will not take a bus but are willing to take a train. If Houstonians had a train option to Galveston versus a Bus Option, most would probably choose the train option. People like trains.

Provided an apples-to-apples Commuter Rail vs. P&R option, I'd take the train, too. But the criticism is that obtaining that apples-to-apples comparison translates to a huge differential in cost. And I'm not just considering the commuter that is actually using the transit in my assessment, but also the external impacts to commuters that are not using transit.

Gas prices would push people to commuter rail, however the fact that it is a train in of itself would attract even more riders, which lead to less cars on the roads, which lead to less gasoline consumption.

P&R does that too, just far less expensively. And after all, what if we simply used the cost savings from going with a P&R route rather than a commuter rail route to double or triple the frequency of service? Don't you think that that would overcome the rail bias?

Well, I will simply say gasoline. Commuter rail will use less gasoline than a fleet of P & R buses, which I believe will be imperative in the future. Besides, people tend to look more favorably at trains over buses, which is why I personally have found that there are those who will not take a bus but are willing to take a train. If Houstonians had a train option to Galveston versus a Bus Option, most would probably choose the train option. People like trains. Gas prices would push people to commuter rail, however the fact that it is a train in of itself would attract even more riders, which lead to less cars on the roads, which lead to less gasoline consumption.

Ummm...building a 64-story building of wood would be ridiculously more expensive than steel and incredibly unsafe; even if you could prevent it from collapsing under its own weight, the amount of reinforcement necessary to do so would place severe spatial limitations on the usable floorplates. And even a small fire could lead to disasterous consequences.

[TheNiche]

I already gave you the reason. Rail is more fuel efficient than bus. Usually by an order of magnitude.

From Chapter 2 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Transportation Energy Data Book, I found this table:

What it shows very well is that commuter rail consumes only 26.5% fewer BTUs per passenger mile than the average car. And commuter rail consumes 40.5% less than the average city bus. BUT! Commuter rail consumes 98.5% more BTUs per passenger mile than a vanpool! And because P&R busses have very few stops as compared to their traditional brethren and typically are not subject to congestion, I submit to you that it is plausible and even probable that P&R busses are more energy efficient than commuter rail.

I furthermore submit to you that by operating P&R busses on HOT lanes which are shared with car traffic, there will be substantially less congesion in the main lanes, thereby increasing fuel efficiency among auto drivers by a substantial margin, and also that when there is an accident, that the HOT lanes serve as a way to divert auto drivers around that accident, and that by doing so their fuel efficiency is made better than if that potential HOT right of way were turned into single-use commuter rail trackage.

[memebag]

From Chapter 2 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Transportation Energy Data Book, I found this table:

What it shows very well is that commuter rail consumes only 26.5% fewer BTUs per passenger mile than the average car. And commuter rail consumes 40.5% less than the average city bus. BUT! Commuter rail consumes 98.5% more BTUs per passenger mile than a vanpool!

So you win the argument because ... we should use vanpools instead of P&R or trains?

And because P&R busses have very few stops as compared to their traditional brethren and typically are not subject to congestion, I submit to you that it is plausible and even probable that P&R busses are more energy efficient than commuter rail.

Pure speculation, based on the lack of data in the numbers you quoted.

I furthermore submit to you that by operating P&R busses on HOT lanes which are shared with car traffic, there will be substantially less congesion in the main lanes, thereby increasing fuel efficiency among auto drivers by a substantial margin, and also that when there is an accident, that the HOT lanes serve as a way to divert auto drivers around that accident, and that by doing so their fuel efficiency is made better than if that potential HOT right of way were turned into single-use commuter rail trackage.

You're stretching.