METRO Transit Center- Downtown

[Houston19514]

ROFLMAO

Thanks for the fact check Great Hizzy.

Cat got your tongue, Metro Mogul? My comments about your observational skills stand confirmed.

[MetroMogul]

Nope. I was wrong about what the vans are used for, but for the most part the Great Hizzy has vindicated my stance on this issue. Metro didn't buy the vans, instead they entered into a contract with Super Shuttle to provide early morning and late evening service on the route. I guess this saves money as they won't have to operate the large MCI coaches. However, how much money is saved depends on the cost of the contract with the Super Shuttle and if operating their own mini buses would have been cheaper.

As far as the building goes; if this service fails, it will be sold at a loss. In theory, it can be used for something else, but it won't. It's specifically for this service and it's continued use depends upon whether or not the Airport Direct reaches that magic number of 100 riders.

Using the MCIs on the route is a waste of money. For 100 riders per day, using buses that hold 55 people per bus is throwing money into a sinkhole. The buses are transferable to other routes, but in the meantime, they are being wasted on this route and money wasted keeping them operating on this route.

The meat and potatoes of my argument he agreed with; my OBSERVATION that for 100 riders per day Metro was wasting money while critical local service with tens of thousands of riders was being neglected. And, when all things considered, that's the most important observation of all.

So, RMAOLMAOLOLloooolz2006~!LMBAO at YOU my friend.

P.S.

Quick observation; you look like a fool bowing at the feet of The Great Hizzy as if he vanquished the beast that is I when he agreed with my argument against the service (not to say he agreed that the service was bad in his eyes, in case you can't read between the lines). Your observational skills are looking a bit fuzzy there pal. Get some new glasses.

HAR HAR HAR.

[Houston19514]

Nope. I was wrong about what the vans are used for, but for the most part the Great Hizzy has vindicated my stance on this issue. Metro didn't buy the vans, instead they entered into a contract with Super Shuttle to provide early morning and late evening service on the route. I guess this saves money as they won't have to operate the large MCI coaches. However, how much money is saved depends on the cost of the contract with the Super Shuttle and if operating their own mini buses would have been cheaper.

As far as the building goes; if this service fails, it will be sold at a loss. In theory, it can be used for something else, but it won't. It's specifically for this service and it's continued use depends upon whether or not the Airport Direct reaches that magic number of 100 riders.

Using the MCIs on the route is a waste of money. For 100 riders per day, using buses that hold 55 people per bus is throwing money into a sinkhole. The buses are transferable to other routes, but in the meantime, they are being wasted on this route and money wasted keeping them operating on this route.

The meat and potatoes of my argument he agreed with; my OBSERVATION that for 100 riders per day Metro was wasting money while critical local service with tens of thousands of riders was being neglected. And, when all things considered, that's the most important observation of all.

Apparently, it has escaped your notice that I have never argued with your opinion. So, Great Hizzy's opinion on the utility of the service was not of any great moment to me. I was merely applauding him for having done some basic fact-checking and honest observation. My argument with you is entirely regarding your use of "facts" that are simply wrong, wild assumptions based on nothing, and bad observations (or plain dishonesty, from this distance I can't really tell which it is). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts."

Again, assumptions do not equal fact-checking.

You ASSUMED the vans were for shuttling people to downtown. You assumed wrong. You ASSUMED Metro had purchased a bunch of vans for this service. You assumed wrong. The facts are that Metro is contracting for the van use, not purchasing the vans (thus avoiding investing a lot of capital in this service, which an honest critic would at least acknowledge, if not praise). The facts are that the vans are being used for the service to IAH (thus avoiding an even bigger capital cost of investing in VERY expensive buses, allowing the buses to be used in other service, which an honest critic would acknowledge, if not praise.)

You ASSUMED and stretched the truth to claim that Metro has sunk a whole bunch of capital buying and improving real estate for this service. The facts are that Metro is leasing the land, and instead of building an actual building (as you implied), they parked a trailer on the land; both the lease and the trailer (rather than an actual building) again avoiding huge capital investments, which, once again, an honest critic, especially one whose point is that Metro should be investing their resources elsewhere, would surely acknowledge, if not praise.

Now, you continue with your baseless assumptions: That Metro will not be able to use the trailer anywhere else. That they will necessarily have to sell it at a loss. Even that they purchased the trailer. It is very possible that they are merely leasing the trailer as well. You claim to have been told by some horse that they expect only 100 riders a day. Sorry if I don't necessarily put a lot of weight on anything you post, with the track record of bad assumptions, faulty observations, and obfuscation. I'm not buying that Metro has set up this service planning for only 100 riders per day. If the horse indeed told you they expect only 100 riders per day, I think maybe your were talking to the wrong end of the horse. ;-)

[editor]

Let's get it back on track and stop commenting on other people's commenting abilities.

[editor]

Here's a question -- why is this even a Metro function? What is it about IAH, or Houston, or whatever that is keeping the private sector from filling this need?

CoachUSA operates the airport service at Newark Liberty, Toronto Pearson, and both airports in Chicago. Other companies do it in other markets. Maybe Metro should put it out for bid.

[MetroMogul]

I have no idea. Metro has contracted out a few trips to Super Shuttle, but other than that they are footing the bill for most of the operations. Of course, there is a rumor that CO is sponsoring the service and Metro is not paying anything out of pocket. But someone heard a bus driver say that so who knows. I'm sure they may pay something for the ads on the sides of the buses.

[MetroMogul]

Apparently, it has escaped your notice that I have never argued with your opinion. So, Great Hizzy's opinion on the utility of the service was not of any great moment to me. I was merely applauding him for having done some basic fact-checking and honest observation. My argument with you is entirely regarding your use of "facts" that are simply wrong, wild assumptions based on nothing, and bad observations (or plain dishonesty, from this distance I can't really tell which it is). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts."

Again, assumptions do not equal fact-checking.

You ASSUMED the vans were for shuttling people to downtown. You assumed wrong. You ASSUMED Metro had purchased a bunch of vans for this service. You assumed wrong. The facts are that Metro is contracting for the van use, not purchasing the vans (thus avoiding investing a lot of capital in this service, which an honest critic would at least acknowledge, if not praise). The facts are that the vans are being used for the service to IAH (thus avoiding an even bigger capital cost of investing in VERY expensive buses, allowing the buses to be used in other service, which an honest critic would acknowledge, if not praise.)

You ASSUMED and stretched the truth to claim that Metro has sunk a whole bunch of capital buying and improving real estate for this service. The facts are that Metro is leasing the land, and instead of building an actual building (as you implied), they parked a trailer on the land; both the lease and the trailer (rather than an actual building) again avoiding huge capital investments, which, once again, an honest critic, especially one whose point is that Metro should be investing their resources elsewhere, would surely acknowledge, if not praise.

Now, you continue with your baseless assumptions: That Metro will not be able to use the trailer anywhere else. That they will necessarily have to sell it at a loss. Even that they purchased the trailer. It is very possible that they are merely leasing the trailer as well. You claim to have been told by some horse that they expect only 100 riders a day. Sorry if I don't necessarily put a lot of weight on anything you post, with the track record of bad assumptions, faulty observations, and obfuscation. I'm not buying that Metro has set up this service planning for only 100 riders per day. If the horse indeed told you they expect only 100 riders per day, I think maybe your were talking to the wrong end of the horse. ;-)

I guess in your mind leasing equals free. Leasing land and a trailer plus buying whatever is in the trailer IS a a huge capital investment. Having staff on hand to arrange trips and load luggage IS a huge capital investment. And since the Super Shuttle vans only operate early mornings and late evenings, VERY expensive MCI buses are used for the BULK of the service, another HUGE capital investment. Metro hasn't even reached it's projected ridership. The Metro Blog states that ridership for one particular day was 33. So, for 33 people, tell me how you can justify sinking that much capital into leases and contracts and praise them for it.

[editor]

I guess in your mind leasing equals free. Leasing land and a trailer plus buying whatever is in the trailer IS a a huge capital investment. Having staff on hand to arrange trips and load luggage IS a huge capital investment. And since the Super Shuttle vans only operate early mornings and late evenings, VERY expensive MCI buses are used for the BULK of the service, another HUGE capital investment. Metro hasn't even reached it's projected ridership. The Metro Blog states that ridership for one particular day was 33. So, for 33 people, tell me how you can justify sinking that much capital into leases and contracts and praise them for it.

Seriously, Mogul... take it down a notch. Breathe deeply. It's all going to be OK.

[Houston19514]

I'm sure it's painfully obvious to anyone reading this forum (except, I guess, MetroMogul) that Metro does not plan to operate this service for 33 passengers a day. That number of passengers was of course on one of the very first days of service, and before the official kick-off of service.

After reviewing the actual facts of the service, it is also very obvious Metro has no intent whatsoever of continuing this service come hell or high water, as MetroMogul told us they would in his first post here. The very reason for leasing the land (rather than purchasing it), parking a (probably leased) trailer (rather than building a building), contracting vans for part of the service (rather than buying buses for the full service) is to test the service for a time to see if it works before making the full up-front capital investment required to buy the land, build a building and purchase additional buses.

[editor]

Unless there's some federal incentive to continue it. There are lots of transit projects around the country that don't make sense from either a financial or ridership point of view, but the feds fund them so they keep going.

[MetroMogul]

I'm sure it's painfully obvious to anyone reading this forum (except, I guess, MetroMogul) that Metro does not plan to operate this service for 33 passengers a day. That number of passengers was of course on one of the very first days of service, and before the official kick-off of service.

After reviewing the actual facts of the service, it is also very obvious Metro has no intent whatsoever of continuing this service come hell or high water, as MetroMogul told us they would in his first post here. The very reason for leasing the land (rather than purchasing it), parking a (probably leased) trailer (rather than building a building), contracting vans for part of the service (rather than buying buses for the full service) is to test the service for a time to see if it works before making the full up-front capital investment required to buy the land, build a building and purchase additional buses.

Quite an ASSUMPTION there buddy. This is not a test. If it were a test Metro would be operating the service using all vans or mini-buses from the Downtown transit center. They set the bar low for this waste of money. The projected ridership is 100 people, they are at 33 right now. The expenditures put forth for this service are for 100 people. It's a waste of money providing a niche service when their job is to provide services for a broad spectrum of people. It seems you cannot or just outright refuse to grasp that point.

[Houston19514]

Quite an ASSUMPTION there buddy. This is not a test. If it were a test Metro would be operating the service using all vans or mini-buses from the Downtown transit center. They set the bar low for this waste of money. The projected ridership is 100 people, they are at 33 right now. The expenditures put forth for this service are for 100 people. It's a waste of money providing a niche service when their job is to provide services for a broad spectrum of people. It seems you cannot or just outright refuse to grasp that point.

It is not an assumption. It is what Metro has said. Until you provide a direct verifiable source for your claim that their ridership projection is 100 per day, I am certainly not buying it, and I doubt anyone here who has paid any attention to ANY of your previous posts about Metro will be believing it either.

(And by the way, it seems you cannot or refuse to grasp the point that I am not and have never been arguing with your conclusion that this is not a service Metro should be spending money on... I am only arguing with your use of bad assumptions, lies, misstatements, and misunderstandings to "support" your conclusion". I can imagine an honest critic could make a reasonable argument for your position using actual facts and truth. Maybe you could give that a try some time.)

[HTX]

I just tried to use the service and the math just does not work. Taking a 3 day trip I can drive to IAH and remote park for $8 or round it out for 20 bucks. To use the service its 30 plus cab fare of about 10 r/t for me.

Metro are you listening?

[Houston19514]

I just tried to use the service and the math just does not work. Taking a 3 day trip I can drive to IAH and remote park for $8 or round it out for 20 bucks. To use the service its 30 plus cab fare of about 10 r/t for me.

Metro are you listening?

Agreed. I think even $10 each way would be a LOT more attractive.