BRT for Houston... a better solution than rail?

[totheskies]

This is an issue that has come up before, but it's very intriguing. I understand METRO's viewpoint with having Light Rail lines for places like the East End and Southeast, but I often wonder if BRT would be a cheaper investment at this stage. Especially if we do it right and provide grade separated guideways, it would be a whole lot more cost effective to build now, and it would serve as infrastructure to convert to rail in the future. The projected ridership of these rail corridors is very low, and I think it would be worth it (before the lines are fully built) to re-investigate BRT as an effective planning tool for some of these areas. Your thoughts?

[AtticaFlinch]

This is an issue that has come up before, but it's very intriguing. I understand METRO's viewpoint with having Light Rail lines for places like the East End and Southeast, but I often wonder if BRT would be a cheaper investment at this stage. Especially if we do it right and provide grade separated guideways, it would be a whole lot more cost effective to build now, and it would serve as infrastructure to convert to rail in the future. The projected ridership of these rail corridors is very low, and I think it would be worth it (before the lines are fully built) to re-investigate BRT as an effective planning tool for some of these areas. Your thoughts?

The problem with BRT is in exactly what you state: it's a cheaper investment at this stage. The problem with this logic is if your planning extends beyond the five year mark, and if you intend to add rail when the neighborhood is more dense anyhow, you've essentially wasted tax dollars on useless infrastructure that'll need to be rebuilt anyhow. Why wouldn't city planners rather build the rail when the land is less expensive and fewer homes and businesses would need to be relocated?

If I remember correctly, ten years before our current red line LRT was even approved, there was another voter initiative which failed that would essentially have built the current line plus a Galleria line on elevated tracks for roughly the same price as what just the red line cost. My memory may be hazy about that, and some of the details might not be right, but I think most of that's true.

[Highway6]

I think the BRT-LRT debate happened 3 years ago and that it's pretty damn pointless to bring it up again after the engineering has been done and demo/construction has started.

[AtticaFlinch]

I think the BRT-LRT debate happened 3 years ago and that it's pretty damn pointless to bring it up again after the engineering has been done and demo/construction has started.

Good call.

[rsb320]

The problem with BRT is in exactly what you state: it's a cheaper investment at this stage. The problem with this logic is if your planning extends beyond the five year mark, and if you intend to add rail when the neighborhood is more dense anyhow, you've essentially wasted tax dollars on useless infrastructure that'll need to be rebuilt anyhow. Why wouldn't city planners rather build the rail when the land is less expensive and fewer homes and businesses would need to be relocated?

If I remember correctly, ten years before our current red line LRT was even approved, there was another voter initiative which failed that would essentially have built the current line plus a Galleria line on elevated tracks for roughly the same price as what just the red line cost. My memory may be hazy about that, and some of the details might not be right, but I think most of that's true.

Imagine what we would have now if the initiative had been approved 25 years ago? At least I know, I voted yes way back then.

[ricco67]

BRT would be a good solution for lines to intersect to current and future lines.

Parts of kirby, Braeswood, Macgregor, Westhiemer, memorial, and Allen Parkway would be good options for it.

The lines can be built out in relatively small sections and convertered as needed.

Once the ridership numbers and density increases, the funding for a proper system would be easier to get for elevated, or perhaps a subway system.

[august948]

Are there any cities that already have BRT? If so, anyone have any experience with it?

[N Judah]

To do it correctly is to basically make a LRT line but with buses instead of trains as the only difference. That is how it has been done in places that BRT proponents like to use as examples (such as Curitaba, Brazil). It will be compromised down if such a thing were to ever happen here and will probably look a lot like that bus line that goes down Bellaire that has slightly nicer stops and an occasional logo on the ground in its (shared, non-separated) lane. If anti-LRT people genuinely cared about BRT they would not have waited until LRT was proposed to suddenly decide that BRT is a good thing.

In response to the original poster, I don't see the value in putting buses in instead of trains and then converting it once ridership increases (if that is what you are proposing). Why not just put in trains from the start?

[citykid09]

BRT would be a good solution for lines to intersect to current and future lines.

Parts of kirby, Braeswood, Macgregor, Westhiemer, memorial, and Allen Parkway would be good options for it.

The lines can be built out in relatively small sections and convertered as needed.

Once the ridership numbers and density increases, the funding for a proper system would be easier to get for elevated, or perhaps a subway system.

I agree, BRT should not replace LRT in Houston. BRT should be used in addition I think though. It would be good to see BRT running down Hwy 6 through 1960. Or somewhere like the Westchase district. I don't understand why you would want to deprive the 4th largest in America of any type of inner city rail transit. Its already getting short handed with a street level system. Let it be!

[lockmat]

Answer to your thread title. Of course it is!

[Highway6]

It would be good to see BRT running down Hwy 6 through 1960. Or somewhere like the Westchase district. I don't understand why you would want to deprive the 4th largest in America of any type of inner city rail transit. Its already getting short handed with a street level system. Let it be!

I am Hwy6 and I do NOT approve of this message.

Hwy6/1960 isn't inner city. How many people do you see walking on 6/1960 or to 6/1960 from their nearby residences ?

[JLWM8609]

I am Hwy6 and I do NOT approve of this message.

Hwy6/1960 isn't inner city. How many people do you see walking on 6/1960 or to 6/1960 from their nearby residences ?

And on top of that, what would BRT accomplish that a regular old bus wouldn't?

[BryanS]

Houston already has BRT... there are dedicated HOV lanes... inbound in the morning... outbound in the evening.

Except, we are missing the "rapid" part of BRT.

All we need to do is bar all vehicles - except METRO buses - from the existing HOV infrastructure...

...and then tell the METRO bus drivers to step on it... and wrap it up tight, to the tune of 105 MPH.

Let's get there.

[JLWM8609]

All we need to do is bar all vehicles - except METRO buses - from the existing HOV infrastructure...

...and then tell the METRO bus drivers to step on it... and wrap it up tight, to the tune of 105 MPH.

Let's get there.

I think that's how the HOV lanes operated in the first few years of their existence. And the bus operators are already stepping on it, those buses are limited to top speeds of 65-75 mph. I think they have rev limiters or something like that. So when you see a METRO bus going with the flow down the freeway, odds are they're probably flooring it.

[kdog08]

Whats the difference between BRT and the Quickline on Bellaire? On a side note, I hope Westheimer gets a Quickline service.

[musicman]

Whats the difference between BRT and the Quickline on Bellaire? On a side note, I hope Westheimer gets a Quickline service.

BRT has a dedicated lane, Quickline doesn't.

[AtticaFlinch]

Houston already has BRT... there are dedicated HOV lanes... inbound in the morning... outbound in the evening.

Except, we are missing the "rapid" part of BRT.

All we need to do is bar all vehicles - except METRO buses - from the existing HOV infrastructure...

...and then tell the METRO bus drivers to step on it... and wrap it up tight, to the tune of 105 MPH.

Let's get there.

The problem with this is sometimes I just want to turn right. I gum up the works with my right turnin'.

[samagon]

Houston already has BRT... there are dedicated HOV lanes... inbound in the morning... outbound in the evening.

Except, we are missing the "rapid" part of BRT.

All we need to do is bar all vehicles - except METRO buses - from the existing HOV infrastructure...

...and then tell the METRO bus drivers to step on it... and wrap it up tight, to the tune of 105 MPH.

Let's get there.

yeah, they'd have to do 'in flight' refueling, either that or replace the back 8 rows of seating with a high capacity fuel tank, cause at that speed these buses would get like 5 gallons per mile.

oh, and put up those big chain link barrier things like they have in NASCAR, just in case one of these buses lose control and eat it, you contain the carnage to just the HOV area.

[totheskies]

I think the BRT-LRT debate happened 3 years ago and that it's pretty damn pointless to bring it up again after the engineering has been done and demo/construction has started.

Thanks

My point being was this... some of our lines are obviously "ready for LRT"... such as the Uptown and the University Line. But I'm beginning to get the impression that we are over-building our system, and settling for sub-par light rail lines on all five corridors. There is not enough grade separation and ROW in these areas to constitute a significant trip-time improvement over the current cus routes. Yes it's going to get riders because of rail bias, and because it's nice and new, but we would be better served by building a few high quality LRT lines than by building lots of "ok" lines. If the Southeast and East End lines are only going to have 10,000 riders per day, they would be better served by a BRT system. THAT's my point.

[AtticaFlinch]

Thanks

My point being was this... some of our lines are obviously "ready for LRT"... such as the Uptown and the University Line. But I'm beginning to get the impression that we are over-building our system, and settling for sub-par light rail lines on all five corridors. There is not enough grade separation and ROW in these areas to constitute a significant trip-time improvement over the current cus routes. Yes it's going to get riders because of rail bias, and because it's nice and new, but we would be better served by building a few high quality LRT lines than by building lots of "ok" lines. If the Southeast and East End lines are only going to have 10,000 riders per day, they would be better served by a BRT system. THAT's my point.

Why? If the intention is to build it eventually, wouldn't it be better (and more cost effective in the long-term) to... oh, I don't know... build it?

And for clarification purposes, can you define the difference between an "ok" line and a "high quality" line? Does one end at TJ Maxx and the other at Nordstrum?

[Highway6]

Thanks

My point being was this... some of our lines are obviously "ready for LRT"... such as the Uptown and the University Line. But I'm beginning to get the impression that we are over-building our system, and settling for sub-par light rail lines on all five corridors. If the Southeast and East End lines are only going to have 10,000 riders per day, they would be better served by a BRT system. THAT's my point.

Metro Eng 1 (Jack) : "Oh crap Jason, Looks like they're debating BRT again over on HAIF"

Metro Eng 2 ( Jason): "Wow.. well, maybe we should go backwards a few years and look at BRT again"

Metro Eng 1: "Hello, Mr Wilson?, Yes, This is Jack down in engineering.. Look, sir, those guys over at HAIF, well they're debating BRT again. We think we should probably stop everything and consider the pros and cons of BRT just one more time for the East and Southeast lines"

Frank Wilson: Listen son, after all the work you guys have done down there, that would put us back years. We have already begun utility work and razed numerous buildings for Pete's sake.

Metro Eng 1: Yes sir, I know.. but It's Haif..... and they're debating.

Frank Wilson: .....*long pause*..... You're right. Do it.

If you would like to discuss the merits of BRT over LRT for future Phase III corridors such as Washington Ave... that would be appropriate. Knock yourself out.

[RedScare]

Thanks

My point being was this... some of our lines are obviously "ready for LRT"... such as the Uptown and the University Line. But I'm beginning to get the impression that we are over-building our system, and settling for sub-par light rail lines on all five corridors.

Perhaps it is because I haven't had my coffee yet, but is it possible to "over-build our system" and "settle for sub-par light rail lines" at the same time?

[citykid09]

Thanks

My point being was this... some of our lines are obviously "ready for LRT"... such as the Uptown and the University Line. But I'm beginning to get the impression that we are over-building our system, and settling for sub-par light rail lines on all five corridors. There is not enough grade separation and ROW in these areas to constitute a significant trip-time improvement over the current cus routes. Yes it's going to get riders because of rail bias, and because it's nice and new, but we would be better served by building a few high quality LRT lines than by building lots of "ok" lines. If the Southeast and East End lines are only going to have 10,000 riders per day, they would be better served by a BRT system. THAT's my point.

Since you put it that way I would agree with you. If the BRT was to have its own right of way, weather it be elevated or on unused land, I think that would be a much better option for now and then convert it to LRT in place of. I agree that what is being built is as cheap as you can get with rail because its completely non grade separate.

[musicman]

There is not enough grade separation and ROW in these areas to constitute a significant trip-time improvement over the current bus routes.

remember that the new lines will not be designed/operated with priority over other traffic per city council ordinance.

[SaintCyr]

Does anyone have any info on "phase III"? I'm interested in mass transit for mainly one reason. My wife works in the medical district and we are looking for an easy way for her to get to work from the Heights. If at all possible we'd like to get rid of or not drive our 2nd car at all. I know its a ways off but I still like to know the options and when everything is coming about so I can get involved.

[Highway6]

Does anyone have any info on "phase III"? I'm interested in mass transit for mainly one reason. My wife works in the medical district and we are looking for an easy way for her to get to work from the Heights. If at all possible we'd like to get rid of or not drive our 2nd car at all. I know its a ways off but I still like to know the options and when everything is coming about so I can get involved.

Phase II lines took 9 years from the 2003 referendum to the 2012 projected opening date. LRT won't be reaching the Heights till about 2020.

The Metro 26 Bus runs down Shepherd from the Heights to the TMC

[JamesL]

My wife works in the medical district and we are looking for an easy way for her to get to work from the Heights.

The 26/27 Outer/Inner loop bus is a possibility. Check out the 34 Montrose as well. Obviously the bus is going to be slower than driving, but I prefer it since I can read and relax.

[totheskies]

Metro Eng 1 (Jack) : "Oh crap Jason, Looks like they're debating BRT again over on HAIF"

Metro Eng 2 ( Jason): "Wow.. well, maybe we should go backwards a few years and look at BRT again"

Metro Eng 1: "Hello, Mr Wilson?, Yes, This is Jack down in engineering.. Look, sir, those guys over at HAIF, well they're debating BRT again. We think we should probably stop everything and consider the pros and cons of BRT just one more time for the East and Southeast lines"

Frank Wilson: Listen son, after all the work you guys have done down there, that would put us back years. We have already begun utility work and razed numerous buildings for Pete's sake.

Metro Eng 1: Yes sir, I know.. but It's Haif..... and they're debating.

Frank Wilson: .....*long pause*..... You're right. Do it.

If you would like to discuss the merits of BRT over LRT for future Phase III corridors such as Washington Ave... that would be appropriate. Knock yourself out.

Ok... I get your point. But the lines aren't built YET... just being constructed. Maybe continuing the conversation about why sub-par lines are being built will shed some light on the situation, and cause METRO to find better solutions. Frankly, I'm tired of having to settle for the cheap way out for Houston.

[Highway6]

Ok... I get your point. But the lines aren't built YET... just being constructed.

We're not talking the paint colors on the station awnings here. You're talking literally about the foundation of the project.

That's like deciding you want to change the location of the parking lot after pouring the building slab. Or deciding after 3 years worth of time and money go into your retail development planning that what you really wanna build is a high rise. You don't go back and change step 5 when you're on step 85.

No, you don't get it.

Hey, I have an idea... how bout we debate McCain vs Obama while we're at it.

Frankly, I'm tired of having to settle for the cheap way out for Houston.

Then why are you now advocating for an inferior system? There is nothing in the definition of BRT that dictates it must be grade separated. BRT is LRT but with wheels instead of tracks. Either can be elevated or not elevated, grade separated or not grade separated. If we couldnt afford to elevate LRT, we certainly couldnt afford to elevate the BRT. When we had BRT spec'd for those two lines, it wasnt elevated. With the money we have to spend on these lines, it's never going to be elevated.. advocating for BRT is the cheaper way out.

[totheskies]

We're not talking the paint colors on the station awnings here. You're talking literally about the foundation of the project.

That's like deciding you want to change the location of the parking lot after pouring the building slab. Or deciding after 3 years worth of time and money go into your retail development planning that what you really wanna build is a high rise. You don't go back and change step 5 when you're on step 85.

No, you don't get it.

Hey, I have an idea... how bout we debate McCain vs Obama while we're at it.

Then why are you now advocating for an inferior system? There is nothing in the definition of BRT that dictates it must be grade separated. BRT is LRT but with wheels instead of tracks. Either can be elevated or not elevated, grade separated or not grade separated. If we couldnt afford to elevate LRT, we certainly couldnt afford to elevate the BRT. When we had BRT spec'd for those two lines, it wasnt elevated. With the money we have to spend on these lines, it's never going to be elevated.. advocating for BRT is the cheaper way out.

It has to do with money appropriation. We're building 5 at-grade lines, instead of focusing on one or two grade-separated lines. The question is, do we need all 5 at-grade lines, or would it be better to make a proper investment in the University Line, and "hold off" on the others?? I'm well aware of the reality of the situation, and I have no plans of going out and picketing METRO, but there's no reason that we can't have an informed discussion about the alternatives just because "a plan is being carried out". BTW everything about the lines has NOT been decided yet... they haven't even purchased all of the land for construction. And the East End is still battling the decision to build an overpass.