Metro Wants $104 Million!

[MontroseNeighborhoodCafe]

May 20, 2005, 12:24AM

Metro wants $104 million for Main rail line

CEO proposes to add 15 trains and fix errors of construction

By RAD SALLEE

Read More...

[Talbot]

So are they planning on doing this first or adding more lines first? because i cant see the FTA giving them money for both at the same time.

[Lowbrow]

Will this in anyway make the ride from Reliant to UHD any faster?

[2112]

I miss Houston Jack. This thread would have been irresistable to him. I miss the challenge.

[GovernorAggie]

Well, I would hope to see them ask Congress for the money. And then I would like to see DeLay and Culberson's reactions to this. Are they going to say--

"METRO, we won't give you the money because you weren't responsible enough to realize that you will have more riders than forecasted?? You need to show us better and more accurate models first."

or

"METRO, you can't have the money because you invested in materials that couldn't handle the loads you underforecasted."

I have to wonder if METRO took the lowest forecasted ridership numbers and presented those in their plans. In the past, agencies put the highest possible in their forecasts to improve their chances for New Starts money. However, if METRO used their highest ridership projections, then this is great news for Houston. I would like to think that this would improve chances for the other rail lines.

On a related note, I took METRORail for the first time on Wednesday. The segment from Reliant to TMC to irritatingly long to me, but the rest to downtown was timely, IMO.

[N Judah]

Looks like they took a page from the Katy Freeway expansion's playbook...Actually when I saw the headline I thought they were asking for money to put the whole line underground (in response to recent safety issues). That would have been awesome.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

A few things...

I don't think METRO purposely understated ridership numbers - they expected the line to carry about 32k boardings per weekday after one year of full operations and that seems to be right on target (has anybody seen April's numbers yet?). However, if I recall correctly, the original order of 18 Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) was based on ridership forecasts done in the late '90s, which may not have taken into account all the development that was occurring (or about to occur) in downtown, midtown, etc., or the construction of Reliant Stadium, which is a major special event trip generator. With that said, it's clear that more rolling stock will be needed in the near future in order for the line to operate at its full capacity.

It's also possible that METRO originally wanted to order more than 18 LRVs, but reduced their order to cut costs.

Anyway, if it takes 32 minutes to operate a train in one direction from UH-D to Fannin South (or vice versa), and METRO's goal is to provide two-car consists running at six-minute headways (which is essentially the maximum capacity of the Red Line; 3-car consists are all but impossible due to block lengths in downtown/midtown and I doubt METRO is going to acheive headways substantially shorter than six minutes given the street-level, mixed-traffic conditions in which the line operates), then:

32 min / 6 min = 5.33 trains per direction x two cars per train = 10.66 cars needed per direction x 2 directons = 21.333 vehicles need to provide full capacity. Add in the industry-standard spare ratio of 20% -- 21.333 x .2 = 4.27 -- and 4.27 + 21.33 = 25.6, rounded up to 26 LRVs needed in order for the Red Line to function at full capacity with an appropriate amount of spare LRVs available.

Thus, it would appear that only 8 LRVs are needed above the existing 18 to provide full capacity. I personally suspect that the reason Wilson wants 15 is for future expansions of the line itself. The more cars Wilson can buy with METRO money now, the fewer cars he will need to include in the New Starts requests to the FTA, and the lower the overall cost to the feds (which, in turn, makes METRO's new starts apps look better in the eyes of the FTA).

The Chronicle article almost makes it sound like this $104 million figure should be considered an overrun to the line's original $324 million price tag, which I don't think is true. The Red Line is complete and fully operational and could continue to function as it is functioning now without any additional expenditures. The vast majority of the $104 million METRO wants to spend is for upgrades: increase capacity by buying more rolling stock, upgrading the Rail Operations Center, extend the lease with Union Pacific on the test track running parallel to Holmes Road, etc. Only $16 million is being spent to fix problems with the train, such as the drainage problems with the switches, the stray current problem, and the upgrade of the signal system (which will hopefully improve the running time of the train, since the existing signal synchronization system isn't working as well as it should). I was hoping that money would be spent to install additional crossing gates or other safety devices and perhaps even grade-separate a problem intersection or two, but that appears not to be the case.

Stray current is a problem for electified rail lines, the same way that potholes are big problems for highways. You can try your hardest to prevent them when you initially build, but sooner or later leaks invariably pop up and need to be fixed. This is essentially a maintenance cost.

The Chronicle, of course, always has to get opposing quotes from either anti-everything zealot Barry Klein or anti-rail shill David Hutzelman whenever they report on the train. I got a snicker or two out of Klein's quotes; the poor guy always seems to think he knows what he's talking about.

Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association, said he found it puzzling that Metro was claiming higher ridership to justify buying more rail cars.

Klein, who opposed the rail line, said Metro is carrying fewer riders on bus and rail combined than it used to carry on buses alone.

"By our calculations, they're down by 3 percent from before they started" the rail line, Klein said.

Um, Barry? It ain't about systemwide ridership (which has been decreasing since 2001 due to a variety of factors, many of which have nothing to do with the train). It's about ridership on the rail line itself. More riders on the train = more cars needed for the train. It has nothing to do with systemwide ridership. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.

Klein noted that some of the line's switches had been installed high enough above ground level to escape flooding and questioned why the transit system did not elevate the others.

"It's a mystery to me why they couldn't see that coming" and elevate the others, he said.

I'm not sure what Klein meant by "high enough," but the fact is that it doesn't matter how "high" something is if the drainage system connected to them is insufficient. I could put a bathtub on stilts 50 feet off the ground, and if the drainpipe connected to it isn't properly sized the tub is still going to overflow when it rains.

The switch drainage problem is a big "lesson learned" for METRO. It's unfortunate that it happened, but that's the nature of construction: what looks good in design doesn't always work in reality.

And finally...

Opponents who campaigned hard against MetroRail had contended that its riders would be drawn largely from people who already use the bus. [...]In May 2004, Metro changed several routes to make them connect to the rail line, a move critics say inflates the numbers of MetroRail boardings.

This is a favorite argument of the rail-hating lobby: forced transfers from buses "inflate" rail ridership. Well, DUH!!! One of the key reasons for building high-capacity transit is in order to replace a bunch of bus lines that previously ran along the same corridor. You're basically "bundling" a bunch of bus lines into a train, which improves operating efficiency. Why would METRO (or any other transit agency in the world, for that matter) build high-capacity transit (like light rail) if they weren't going to eliminate some or all of the redundant bus lines that run parallel to it?

The downside is that people who used to have a one-seat ride into downtown now have to transfer at TMC or Wheeler Station. Oh, the horror!

Oh, yeah: and a survey last fall indicated that 78% of METRORail riders reported that they have at least one working vehicle available to them. Of that 78%, over 62% said that they could have used said vehicle(s) to make their trip instead of riding the train. This means, then, that over half of the riders on the train are so-called

[ssullivan]

Great post, University Oaks! I agree with your points 100%. You are probably right about Wilson wanting more LRVs than are absolutely necessary to boost capacity on the current line to its maximum. Another factor with going ahead and getting more LRVs now, instead of later, is that it will take several years for all of them to be delivered. If METRO waits to place an order until construction of the first extension is underway, then it's possible they might not have all of the needed LRVs on time. When the current line opened Siemens had not yet delivered all of the original order; it was several months before they were all in Houston and in service. And with the current fleet being completely utilized for weekday service, when one of those idiots runs a red light and hits a train everyone who uses MetroRail pays for the next few days, or even weeks, while that LRV is out of service for repairs. In the worst of the accidents (the UP employee who lifted the crossarm to drive into the path of an oncoming MetroRail LRV on its test track) the LRV involved was out of service for about a year because the damage was so extensive.

[ricco67]

I agree with your excellent post as well, UO (can I call you UO? It saves on typing).

How long is the turnaround time for LRV Delivery anyway? 6 months or something?

Ricco

[The Voice of University Oaks]

In the worst of the accidents (the UP employee who lifted the crossarm to drive into the path of an oncoming MetroRail LRV on its test track) the LRV involved was out of service for about a year because the damage was so extensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. The collision warped the entire front end of that particular vehicle, chassis and all. My understanding is that it had to be sent back to the Siemens plant in Sacramento for repairs.

I know my handle is a bit long. Just call me Vox UO if you don't want to type the whole thing!

[VelvetJ]

Vox and ssullivan, you both are absolutely correct, but I'm afraid the issue may be the general public doesn't know that information and unfortunately may view this request as a "complete failure of rail in Houston and are just asking for more of our tax money".

[The Great Hizzy!]

FTA would much rather fund systems that are exceeding capacities than system that are working either AT capacity or (in the case of most new rail systems) below capacity.

The fact that they've never really given METRO money for the current system and the system was the nation's most efficient light rail system after one year of service would lead any fair-minded purse holder to fork over some cash for said system.

Especially since many of the requests for funding center around improving the safety of the system as well as increase the ability to meet demand.

I can pretty much guarantee you that FTA loves to have the problem of funding "better-than-expected" systems versus the typical "not-performing-up-to-expectations" systems.

[kjb434]

^^^

such a good statement.

Many light rail systems in the US constantly underperform their expectations.

Metro has reorganize their bus lines so the rail removes buses but keeps capacity in the system. I shows how effect they are planning ahead. Just wait until the southeast line gets build and more bus lines are canceled and reorganized to move passengers to the rails.

Many cities don't build light rail to complement their bus routes, but instead as an alternative. That strategy ensures the rail will not achieve ridership. The using of the bus lines to get neighborhoods to the light rail so the rail can assist in finishing the trip is using the resources of Metro more efficiently.