Operating cost of Light Rail cheaper than Buses?

[Simbha]

I was at the Metro meeting last week for the Harrisburg RR bridge discussion, and one of the things that were said is that, depending on which "option" to build, it will affect some other projects around the city and metro.

The "Bare" option would be a LR only Bridge and that is completely funded.

If the additional options for complete traffic over, under AND a pedestrian tunnel, then two projects other projects (which escapes me) would be on hold, and this very technology would be on hold until funds become available again.

I see... Thanks for sharing.

[samagon]

Well, first of all, I agree 100% with your proposition. In fact, I find myself waiting at bus stops for 30-45 min wondering when the next bus will show up. Having a display (similar to what is used by METRO's Quickline service) would instantly improve the system. I would also argue that we should have displays showing when the next train will arrive at rail stations as well. We already have the LCD display at all rail stations, why not put the time until the next train is arriving? Washington, DC has this in their metro rail stations, and it really is a nice feature.

Second, I understand that we shouldn't build something because other transit agencies are building it. But on the other hand, if most transit agencies are building something, and that something is improving their transit system, then why not incorporate that into our transit system?

The last time I was in Europe I rode Amsterdam's public transit (both Subway and Tram) and the Munich subway. Both had estimated time to arrival for the next car. It was very handy and nice.

I also wish to point out that the system that Amsterdam has employed for rider payment is terrific (different subject, but worth mentioning) and easy to understand.

[Simbha]

I also wish to point out that the system that Amsterdam has employed for rider payment is terrific (different subject, but worth mentioning) and easy to understand.

Could you please elaborate? I haven't been to Amsterdam in nearly 20 years, and I'm not sure I would have remembered the trip even then...

[samagon]

Could you please elaborate? I haven't been to Amsterdam in nearly 20 years, and I'm not sure I would have remembered the trip even then...

heh, not many do remember!

basically, you buy a chip card with an RFID in it (they are paper and disposable, I'm assuming very cheap to produce), you buy them at the station, and wave them at a reader when you get on the mode of transit. you can keep it and recharge that card, or just buy new ones as you go.

you can buy

- single ride

- specific periods of time that begin once you board the first mode of transit

- a round trip ticket (usually for park and ride stations and built into the cost of the parking lot)

there may be other options, but my short trip into the city I only saw these options. I think they also have more permanent cards you can buy as well that you can charge for months at a time, or something like that.

[mikehouston]

[Response directed at Niche]

You don't need numbers to determine that METRO's proposed light rail will have more ridership than DART's. It's common sense. Use your brain. Why don't you "run" the numbers yourself? Try starting with our existing line, which has over five times the ridership per mile that DART has.

My point is that if you have one bus line, and replace it with a rail line, ridership for that corridor will be higher with the rail line versus the bus line. More people will use it. More humans, as you like to say.

Why don't you let the current METRO board determine what they can and can't afford? Or maybe you should contact METRO with your concerns. Have you studied METRO's 2011 finances? Do you realize that not building what they can't afford is exactly what METRO is doing by waiting until proper funding to start work on the Uptown and University lines? Let's say that METRO abandons the rail system they are building, and builds your BRT system that you want. If that would be cheaper, then how would METRO ever receive more funding? Why would we increase funding for a transit system if they don't need it? That's exactly why $0.25 was taken away from METRO's sales tax in the first place, because they didn't "need" it.

So if my arguments are contrived and single-minded, then why is every major transit agency in the Unites States interested in building more rail? I guess they're all wrong, and that transit agencies like San Antonio's are the only ones doing it right, right? All major transit agencies expanding their rail systems are contrived and single minded. Ok, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

@mfastx - I agree with virtually everything you are writing, except that nobody cares in Houston. Obviously people care about this issue, enough to pass the referendum expanding our light rail service. And if you look at the data from Klineberg's city surveys, I think support for mass transit has gone up pretty consistently.

I would be in favor of Houston doing something like LA, and doing a 30/10 plan where we increase sales taxes and build "30 years" worth of mass transit in 10. But I suspect it will take different leadership at the Mayor's office to make something like that happen.

I think most of the cost effectiveness arguments are just a trap - and you shouldn't really pay them much mind - the key is in thinking of transit as a valuable service. What is the cost effectiveness of our public schools? What is the cost effectiveness of our military? Any data looking at cost per passenger mile, for instance, is inherently flawed because "per mile" measurements reward sprawl in the first place. I would rather focus on building the network than debating the right-wing, who are dying off and becoming less powerful with each passing year anyway. They can only stand in the way of better transit for so long.

[TheNiche]

Do roads fit in this? What about military?

Roads, yes. If TXDoT can't pay for building them or maintaining what they've got based upon future revenue streams, then they shouldn't be building any more of them.

Military spending is more complicated. It occurs at the federal level. There are benefits to maintaining a standing army (to discourage those that might otherwise be militarily provokative) and there are sometimes benefits to being actively provokative, ourselves. The appropriate amount has to weigh those two components, and the latter changes rather unpredictably from year to year. Transportation is a less volatile investment and entails less gamesmanship. The other factor is that the federal government can issue cheaper debt or print money at its whim. States, localities, and transit agencies can't do that, and so their fiscal calculus needs to be more cautious.

Besides, unless I was reading the front page wrong, buses have a higher long term capital investment cost, for the same or lower revenue stream.

People who proclaim to not want rail based on ROI alone should look at the ROI buses give them over a 20 year period, vs the ROI of rail in the same period.

Nope, the original post kept referring to operating costs. That completely ignores capital spending and debt service.

[mfastx]

@mfastx - I agree with virtually everything you are writing, except that nobody cares in Houston. Obviously people care about this issue, enough to pass the referendum expanding our light rail service. And if you look at the data from Klineberg's city surveys, I think support for mass transit has gone up pretty consistently.

Sorry I should have clarified. I meant that there isn't enough political will to make that happen (METRO getting their whole sales tax). I doubt that the current administration would be in favor of doing this.