Study recommends rail on US 290 and Texas 3

[TheNiche]

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

Do we necessarily prefer than more people be moved in the same vehicle at the same time, when it comes to transit? Or with respect to peoples' time, do we prefer greater frequency of service and likely more direct service with fewer stops?

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.

I accept that operator costs would be lower, but as I proved in an earlier post, it is not necessarily true that energy use is lower in commuter rail than in P&R.

And I am dubious about maintenance, as well. I think you're probably dead wrong about that. It would be counter-intuitive that a vehicle with more bells and whistles would have fewer maintenance problems. And I'm also thinking that rail stations would be more expensive to maintain than just P&R lots. To the extent that commuter rail might exist because there were more people to serve, and that the maintenance costs can be spread around, it may very well turn out that empirical data shows that maintenance costs per passenger mile are lower...but in an apples-to-apples comparison I can't imagine commuter rail being less expensive in that way.

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.

I think that there may at some point be justification for heavy or commuter rail, but not in its traditional form. And t certainly isn't something that ought to be pursued now...except for acquiring right of way, which we need to take on at a regional level.

[TheNiche]

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

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

You're stretching.

OK, so there is insufficient data to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. But that's not how I framed my criticism of your totally unsupported statement that P&R is less fuel efficient than commuter rail. I used the words plausible and probable.

Apply some intuitive reasoning.

[Houston19514]

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.

Sooooo... Instead of presenting ANY argument whatsoever in favor of commuter rail, you have resorted to personal attacks and posting bad information. I must say I'm disappointed in you, Red. But whatever, I suppose we'll manage to carry on without you.

I might add, I gave a lot more than opinion... I posted facts, some of which were necessary to correct your misinformation. ;-)

[Houston19514]

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.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Finally, someone has made an honest, rational attempt to answer the question. (although we could have done without the editorializing at the end... ;-) )

You may be right about the fuel efficiency argument, although I'm not certain that it's an absolute slam dunk... I don't know. I'd be interested in learning more on that topic. Also, in the long rain, we are led to believe, the investment in rail cars is more efficient than investing in buses because they last longer and require less maintenance. (At least that's what we're told regarding light rail vs. bus and BRT).

I am also familiar with the train bias, but I'm not entirely convinced that with a good system and marketing that could not be overcome (in fact, I think Metro has gone a long way in overcoming that with it's very successful park & ride system. I mean, who would have thought, say 20 years ago, that this many Houston suburbanites would ride buses from far suburbs to downtown. Unthinkable.

I don't doubt that most would choose a train over a bus for the same route. The problem with that, though, is two-fold. (1) That totally ignores the relative costs of the two systems (I believe a commuter rail system is still a LOT more expensive). (2) They would not necessarily run the same route. For example. current commuter buses run from northwest Houston to multiple stops in downtown Houston. Passengers drive to the P&R lot, ride a single bus and walk a short distance to their downtown office. The proposed commuter rail would take them to the northwest transit center, where they could transfer to MetroRail and transfer to at least one more MetroRail line, and then get off downtown for a short walk to their office. Are very many people really going to prefer a train over a bus in that scenario?

And that, in the end is probably my biggest concern with this proposal. I believe stopping any commuter rail line at the Northwest Transit Center is Short-Sighted with two capital S's. It seems to me that if they can't build it all way to downtown, we are better off sticking with the P&R bus system (for the reasons mentioned above, to-wit: the current P&R bus system simply provides better service than a commuter train terminating at the Northwest Transit Center ever could.

I like the idea of train service to Galveston too. But if they could provide service with P&R buses, personally, I'd be happy to take that to Galveston on a weekend.

[roadrunner]

I heard on the radio that city council is voting on the northwest and Galveston lines today? Does anyone know if this is true? I didn't really believe the radio when I heard it.

[Highway6]

I heard on the radio that city council is voting on the northwest and Galveston lines today? Does anyone know if this is true? I didn't really believe the radio when I heard it.

How would HGAC and the county have the authority to move this along so fast without imput from Metro?

Even supposing the above radio announcement is not true, judge emmet has made it clear he wants commuter rail and he wants it now.

Does Metro have to be involved? Does the county have the authority to build rail in the city?

Can the County build a commuter system then have Metro manage it ?

Would this be beneficial if we run the risk of having 2 systems run by two groups ?

[CDeb]

Would this be beneficial if we run the risk of having 2 systems run by two groups ?

Transit in Chicago is run by three seperate agencies, but the three agencies are overseen by one body (Regional Transportation Authority), so it's probably not a good analogy.

[TheNiche]

I heard on the radio that city council is voting on the northwest and Galveston lines today? Does anyone know if this is true? I didn't really believe the radio when I heard it.

I seriously doubt that this is THE vote. They don't even have a DEIS or FEIS on any proposed routes yet. If there's any truth to what you heard on the radio, they probably meant to say that the vote will be on whether to allocate funds to perform preliminary engineering and environmental studies.

[TheNiche]

Looks to have been the go-ahead vote on light rail that you had heard about. It was approved.

[Trae]

Good.

[CDeb]

Council approves METRO light rail agreement

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5844396.html

[roadrunner]

What is the timetable for federal funding approval?

[The Great Hizzy!]

As I posted in another thread, METRO Pres. & CEO Frank Wilson announced that groundbreaking for the East End (read: Harrisburg) line is scheduled for Friday, June 27.

I also repeat the idea that since construction is set to begin (at least on one of the lines), we might want to have a sticky thread for each rail line so as to better organize rail discussion topics (and potentiall eliminate duplicate threads).

[Trae]

So the vote passed 13-2. Nice.

[TheNiche]

As I posted in another thread, METRO Pres. & CEO Frank Wilson announced that groundbreaking for the East End (read: Harrisburg) line is scheduled for Friday, June 27.

I also repeat the idea that since construction is set to begin (at least on one of the lines), we might want to have a sticky thread for each rail line so as to better organize rail discussion topics (and potentiall eliminate duplicate threads).

Can a moderator move these OT posts to the appropriate thread?

And Hizzy, I think we've already got threads on most or all of the proposed lines. Perhaps we need a subfolder specifically for light rail threads, though.