Let’s spend our transit taxes on transit

[MaxConcrete]

The Honolulu rail project is one of the biggest fiascos in public transit in the United States. It's a cautionary story for any city looking to build trains.

As mentioned previously, it is massively over budget and extremely late. According to an online report, "Operational readiness is slated for March of 2031."

https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hart-honolulu-rail-route-to-civic-center-costs-9-9b/

The most recent info I can find is that 19 miles will cost $10 billion, or $526 million per mile. This is more than double the original budget. Finishing the last mile (apparently currently unfunded) is another $1.3 billion.

https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hart-history-hawaii-rail-project-when-finished-budget/

Honolulu is not a subway, it is mostly on elevated track. The cost of Austin's planned system was recently raised from $5.8 billion to $10.3 billion, with the tunnel section now projected to cost $978 million per mile.

Of course, public transit ridership collapsed due to Covid, and nationally is still down around 33% compared to pre-Covid levels.

Bottom line: rail transit is obscenely expensive and has low ridership. It's much wiser to build resources that are much less expensive and can be used by multiple modes, including buses, carpools and SOVs. That means managed lanes, as TxDOT is trying to build on the North Freeway.

 

[004n063]

1 hour ago, MaxConcrete said:

The Honolulu rail project is one of the biggest fiascos in public transit in the United States. It's a cautionary story for any city looking to build trains.

As mentioned previously, it is massively over budget and extremely late. According to an online report, "Operational readiness is slated for March of 2031."

https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hart-honolulu-rail-route-to-civic-center-costs-9-9b/

The most recent info I can find is that 19 miles will cost $10 billion, or $526 million per mile. This is more than double the original budget. Finishing the last mile (apparently currently unfunded) is another $1.3 billion.

https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hart-history-hawaii-rail-project-when-finished-budget/

Honolulu is not a subway, it is mostly on elevated track. The cost of Austin's planned system was recently raised from $5.8 billion to $10.3 billion, with the tunnel section now projected to cost $978 million per mile.

Of course, public transit ridership collapsed due to Covid, and nationally is still down around 33% compared to pre-Covid levels.

Bottom line: rail transit is obscenely expensive and has low ridership. It's much wiser to build resources that are much less expensive and can be used by multiple modes, including buses, carpools and SOVs. That means managed lanes, as TxDOT is trying to build on the North Freeway.

 

I agreed with you up to the bottom line. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are way too many counterexamples, including our own red line. And I just don't think you can (yet) make the same argument about BRT (let alone managed lanes and regular local buses) leading to robust TOD that you can about rail.

If the University Line cuts typical #25 bus commuting times in half or something, and/or we start seeing great TOD nodes spring up along the route, then I'll certainly change my tune and start evangelizing BRT above all the rest. But until we see a BRT line perform like the red line, I think we should definitely be proceding with rail expansion and service improvements. 

[BeerNut]

US rail projects take longer, cost more than those in Europe

Quote

The reasons for the cost and time burdens are many, the report said. U.S. public transit agencies rarely have the structure, authority or experience to deliver a major transit construction project, which requires support from local jurisdictions, the ability to acquire land as necessary, secure local permits to close streets and relocate utilities, and flexibility to hire top talent to lead the project, according to the report. Agency staff also need appropriate training in order to manage projects, construction staff and consultants, it added.

 

[samagon]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:03 PM, MaxConcrete said:

Bottom line: rail transit is obscenely expensive and has low ridership. It's much wiser to build resources that are much less expensive and can be used by multiple modes, including buses, carpools and SOVs. That means managed lanes, as TxDOT is trying to build on the North Freeway.

using an example of a rail network being built in an exceedingly isolated location that is prone to seismic activity as the reason why fixed guideway transit shouldn't be built is kind of weird.

[mfastx]

On 1/16/2023 at 8:03 PM, MaxConcrete said:

Bottom line: rail transit is obscenely expensive and has low ridership. It's much wiser to build resources that are much less expensive and can be used by multiple modes, including buses, carpools and SOVs. That means managed lanes, as TxDOT is trying to build on the North Freeway.

Ha, you sound like a highway lobbyist. You are aware that we've been doing just that for the last 50+ years, correct? Do you know how much money we've spent on the HOV lanes? 

Rail transit is obscenely expensive, I'll give you that. But it also has by far higher ridership, moves people more efficiently on an operating cost basis, and generates far greater economic benefits than a normal bus line. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by mfastx

[Some one]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:03 PM, MaxConcrete said:

The Honolulu rail project is one of the biggest fiascos in public transit in the United States. It's a cautionary story for any city looking to build trains.

As mentioned previously, it is massively over budget and extremely late. According to an online report, "Operational readiness is slated for March of 2031."

https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hart-honolulu-rail-route-to-civic-center-costs-9-9b/

The most recent info I can find is that 19 miles will cost $10 billion, or $526 million per mile. This is more than double the original budget. Finishing the last mile (apparently currently unfunded) is another $1.3 billion.

https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hart-history-hawaii-rail-project-when-finished-budget/

Honolulu is not a subway, it is mostly on elevated track. The cost of Austin's planned system was recently raised from $5.8 billion to $10.3 billion, with the tunnel section now projected to cost $978 million per mile.

Of course, public transit ridership collapsed due to Covid, and nationally is still down around 33% compared to pre-Covid levels.

Bottom line: rail transit is obscenely expensive and has low ridership. It's much wiser to build resources that are much less expensive and can be used by multiple modes, including buses, carpools and SOVs. That means managed lanes, as TxDOT is trying to build on the North Freeway.

 

Isn't the I-45 rebuild projected to be $10 billion? I hardly see that as wiser and "less expensive" than building rail transit.

[Houston19514]

40 minutes ago, Some one said:

Isn't the I-45 rebuild projected to be $10 billion? I hardly see that as wiser and "less expensive" than building rail transit.

Calculated on a per person transported, the I-45 project will almost certainly cost a fraction of the Honolulu rail project, not even counting the goods transported.

[004n063]

29 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Calculated on a per person transported, the I-45 project will almost certainly cost a fraction of the Honolulu rail project, not even counting the goods transported.

This is factually true but still misleading. There is a fundamental difference between creating a new route and expanding/"improving" an existing one. 

In other words, I highly doubt that the per-new-person transported cost will be so much lower.

Then you should probably factor in the cost differential between transit fare (plus operational subsidies) and the aggregated individual costs of owning, insuring, fueling, and maintaining private vehicles to get a sense of the full price tag. 

And of course, Honolulu is still a silly benchmark. The most sensible standard to use would be our own red line. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by 004n063

[samagon]

15 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Calculated on a per person transported, the I-45 project will almost certainly cost a fraction of the Honolulu rail project, not even counting the goods transported.

confirmation bias is so fun.

[Houston19514]

16 hours ago, 004n063 said:

This is factually true but still misleading. There is a fundamental difference between creating a new route and expanding/"improving" an existing one. 

In other words, I highly doubt that the per-new-person transported cost will be so much lower.

Then you should probably factor in the cost differential between transit fare (plus operational subsidies) and the aggregated individual costs of owning, insuring, fueling, and maintaining private vehicles to get a sense of the full price tag. 

And of course, Honolulu is still a silly benchmark. The most sensible standard to use would be our own red line. 

Of course you would just count new passengers (and products). Using our red line as a comparison would only make sense if you were comparing it to a Highway project built around the same time.

[004n063]

1 minute ago, Houston19514 said:

Of course you would just count new passengers (and products). Using our red line as a comparison would only make sense if you were comparing it to a Highway project built around the same time.

I mean, we can use today's dollars to math it out. But even a boondoggle like Honolulu's may be a lower per-new-passenger (aka all of them) cost than the NHHIP's per-new-user cost.

[samagon]

can we look at it the other way 'round?

H-3 cost 80 million per mile to build, while the original red line cost 43 million per mile to build.

highways get rekt by the cost savings of public transit!

Edited January 20, 2023 by samagon

[Houston19514]

On 1/20/2023 at 9:26 AM, 004n063 said:

I mean, we can use today's dollars to math it out. But even a boondoggle like Honolulu's may be a lower per-new-passenger (aka all of them) cost than the NHHIP's per-new-user cost.

No.  You only get to count the new transit riders, not the ones who switched from bus to rail.  Aside from that, do you have anything at all on which to base your prediction that Honolulu’s rail may be a lower per new passenger than the NHHIP?   One of the problems with these comparisons is that I don’t know of any source of estimates of how many people use a stretch of freeway every day? We have vehicle counts at various points but AFAIK we don’t even have total vehicle counts for an entire freeway or stretch of freeway, let alone a total passenger or person count.   Based on car counts, increased capacity and projected ridership of Honolulu‘a rail (which is very unlikely to be achieved… show me a transit project that achieved its projected; they are very rare ), I’d be shocked if NHHIP doesn’t come out ahead.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Houston19514

[004n063]

11 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

No.  You only get to count the new transit riders, not the ones who switched from bus to rail.  Aside from that, do you have anything at all on which to base your prediction that Honolulu’s rail may be a lower per new passenger than the NHHIP?   One of the problems with these comparisons is that I don’t know of any source of estimates of how many people use a stretch of freeway every day? We have vehicle counts at various points but AFAIK we don’t even have total vehicle counts for an entire freeway or stretch of freeway, let alone a total passenger or person count.   Based on car counts, increased capacity and projected ridership of Honolulu‘a rail (which is very unlikely to be achieved… show me a transit project that achieved its projected; they are very rare ), I’d be shocked if NHHIP doesn’t come out ahead.

This is getting a little silly, but again, there are a gazillion externalities to consider, including the assurance projects like NHHIP give to developers that continued sprawl will be accommodated. I won't pretend that any single project can be given full credit for the 70-year experiment in suburban sprawl that has been a boondoggle for nearly every city in the country, but it is part of a pattern: we can spend billions of dollars to ease congestion on a highway, but a transit vehicle that isn't packed to the brim? What a waste.

[samagon]

what's crazy, and I mean, like mind blowing.

is that from the upgrade of the transit line down main street the commute time got better by a factor, they increased the amount of people that could be transported by mass transit, and they reduced the commute time.

and guess what, we don't have to look at some crazy maths to know that after 5 years the commute time was still down from before the red line being built. and guess what, 20 years after it was built commute times are still lower than they were before the red line was built! 

I want to see anyone say that about any freeway.

and we don't even need to get into any arguments about pollution.

[Houston19514]

8 minutes ago, samagon said:

what's crazy, and I mean, like mind blowing.

is that from the upgrade of the transit line down main street the commute time got better by a factor, they increased the amount of people that could be transported by mass transit, and they reduced the commute time.

and guess what, we don't have to look at some crazy maths to know that after 5 years the commute time was still down from before the red line being built. and guess what, 20 years after it was built commute times are still lower than they were before the red line was built! 

I want to see anyone say that about any freeway.

and we don't even need to get into any arguments about pollution.

Any chance you can point to a source?

[samagon]

16 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Any chance you can point to a source?

as much of a chance as you have had in other threads.

which isn't to say the data doesn't exist, I just don't care to waste my time looking it up when you don't offer the same courtesy.

Edited January 24, 2023 by samagon

[mattyt36]

On 1/19/2023 at 4:24 PM, 004n063 said:

In other words, I highly doubt that the per-new-person transported cost will be so much lower.

 

On 1/20/2023 at 9:22 AM, Houston19514 said:

Of course you would just count new passengers (and products). 

There are no new passengers by definition!  Transportation is a derived demand!  

[Houston19514]

7 hours ago, samagon said:

as much of a chance as you have had in other threads.

which isn't to say the data doesn't exist, I just don't care to waste my time looking it up when you don't offer the same courtesy.

Thanks for your "contribution" to the conversation. 😉  

When you show an interest in good-faith honest discussions, I'll engage with you.  Until then, no.  To be clear, I will continue to correct misinformation.

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Houston19514

[Brooklyn173]

Not sure this is the right spot for this, so feel free to move it as appropriate.

It would be nice if Houston had a similar agreement with US DOT (especially considering all the highway funds that are about to start flowing)

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/us-dot-austin-texas-22-billion-transportation-emerging-projects-agreement/644291/

[j_cuevas713]

I think Austin is about to have the best transit of any city in Texas. It's very disappointing because even Dallas has somewhat "better" transit than us. Maybe as we continue to rebuild many of these streets and add more bike lanes things will be better but it's so disheartening to go down a street like Chimney Rock and STILL see areas that have no sidewalks. I'm tired of touting ourselves as a city when in some areas we look like a big town. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by j_cuevas713

[__nevii]

@Brooklyn173 @j_cuevas713

Some of these cases though seems more like the intervention of larger entities, rather than any individual city's choices. In the above mentioned case, it was USDOT that initiated the partnership with Austin, so will aid in facilitating some of the projects in that city.

In much the same way, pretty much all the issues in Houston regarding sprawl (as well as with the other TX cities) is the end product of TXDOT and mandates regarding highway expenditures (controlled by the state government). A lot of ire should really be directed at the state government: I've always found it interesting how much people try to separate politics from discourse when it has such a major impact regarding outcomes (especially societal concerns like transportation/overall infrastructure, etc.

The city's themselves would be in control of things like minimum parking, and other zoning/building codes that can affect mobility outcomes.

[__nevii]

On 4/16/2012 at 9:26 PM, shasta said:

I definitely agree citykid09. The problem with a city that expands and annexes to capture a tax base is purely short term thinking. They are thinking what is in it for them now and are totally ignoring the fact that they are going to have to go in an maintain the infrastructure and possibly even replace it in 50 years or so.

Houston is entering that stage where they are going to have to allocate a large chunk of their budget to replace aging infrastructure. To add insult to industry, the lack of zoning, city plan, and pro 'sprawl' mentality may actually force that expected tax base to be located outside of the city limits. Where are they going to get money to repair aging infrastructure. The federal government? We all know Texas and Houston is not as aggressive in hunting out federal funds but the Kirby infrastructure project is a great example of a federal/local project. We have to continue to do these and possibly shrink the city limits to maintain.

I sure hope our city leaders is preparing for this future.

I understand that this post was made over a decade ago, but I would say that lack of zoning (in the context of how US zoning laws have been used throughout history) is pretty much the polar opposite of "pro-sprawl": all the mixed use that everyone likes the celebrate in Europe and older parts of American cities are exactly what is possible without the restrictive forms of American zoning.

Houston's main barriers are really just parking minimums (and any FAR, setbacks, etc that exist, although I think those have more variances than the parking minimums).

Edited June 27, 2023 by __nevii

[j_cuevas713]

17 minutes ago, __nevii said:

@Brooklyn173 @j_cuevas713

Some of these cases though seems more like the intervention of larger entities, rather than any individual city's choices. In the above mentioned case, it was USDOT that initiated the partnership with Austin, so will aid in facilitating some of the projects in that city.

In much the same way, pretty much all the issues in Houston regarding sprawl (as well as with the other TX cities) is the end product of TXDOT and mandates regarding highway expenditures (controlled by the state government). A lot of ire should really be directed at the state government: I've always found it interesting how much people try to separate politics from discourse when it has such a major impact regarding outcomes (especially societal concerns like transportation/overall infrastructure, etc.

The city's themselves would be in control of things like minimum parking, and other zoning/building codes that can affect mobility outcomes.

While that is true, shouldn't Houston make an attempt to reach out to the Feds and say 'Hey we want this in our city but we need your help because idiots like TxDOT aren't listening to us?' 

[samagon]

6 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

While that is true, shouldn't Houston make an attempt to reach out to the Feds and say 'Hey we want this in our city but we need your help because idiots like TxDOT aren't listening to us?' 

for a long time we had people who represented the Houston area on a national level that fought actively against us (Houston) getting any access to any transit dollars, which is precisely why the university corridor isn't already a built out rail line, and instead is being redeveloped as a BRT.

[editor]

19 hours ago, __nevii said:

I understand that this post was made over a decade ago, but I would say that lack of zoning (in the context of how US zoning laws have been used throughout history) is pretty much the polar opposite of "pro-sprawl": all the mixed use that everyone likes the celebrate in Europe and older parts of American cities are exactly what is possible without the restrictive forms of American zoning.

It was zoning that made mixed use districts possible in big American cities, not a lack of zoning.  The whole reason that zoning was invented was because the magic imaginary hand of the free market doesn't work for the common good.  That's why we invented governments. 

Houston has had 150 years to prove that a lack of zoning makes things better.  Clearly the experiment has failed.

[__nevii]

@j_cuevas713 @samagon

Indeed, the interference that Culberson and people before him (Lanier, Delay, etc) have caused definitely set the city back in many ways. Getting rid of Culberson during the 2018 race for Lizzie Fletcher definitely helped alot. Especially since the restrictions that Culberson placed on Houston Fed rail funding got totally wiped out the next year.

[__nevii]

1 hour ago, editor said:

It was zoning that made mixed use districts possible in big American cities, not a lack of zoning.

With all due respect, this is demonstrably false.

 

1 hour ago, editor said:

Houston has had 150 years to prove that a lack of zoning makes things better.  Clearly the experiment has failed.

Nope, this is a fallacy of composition/division (well, just division in this case). That there are overall issues with Houston's built environment does not directly equate to "lack of zoning" is a problem/contributor to that.

You are also indulging in sampling bias wherein you are ignoring the earlier parts of those 150 years wherein the city was much more pedestrian-focused, without all the issues of autocentric sprawl that we think of today. As well as ignoring that cities are overall dynamic entities continually changing in every-waking minute of the day (hence, premature to come to te conclusion that "it failed").

In prior comments here, I've specifically mentioned both the overarching factors (USDOT and TXDOT), as well as local factors (i.e. city ordinance minimums in parking, setback, and other such stuff) that have directly contributed to the problems that you speak of regarding Houston: all of these regulations are the end products of government intervention, much in contrast to the market-driven lack of zoning.

Edited June 28, 2023 by __nevii

[__nevii]

20 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

While that is true, shouldn't Houston make an attempt to reach out to the Feds and say 'Hey we want this in our city but we need your help because idiots like TxDOT aren't listening to us?' 

I also forgot to mention: I think quite a few of the Houston mayoral candidates (Gilbert Garcia and Robert Gallegos to name two) will help alot when it comes to transit, as they did have experience regarding local affairs. Of course, with SJL as the most well-known face in the race, she would overshadow others ... but I'm not sure her stances regarding transit, YIMBY urban development in general to know if she would be a detriment.

I was too young to know much of leadership under Annise Parker, whether she was a detriment regarding urban planning affairs.

Edited June 28, 2023 by __nevii

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, editor said:

It was zoning that made mixed use districts possible in big American cities, not a lack of zoning.  The whole reason that zoning was invented was because the magic imaginary hand of the free market doesn't work for the common good.  That's why we invented governments. 

Houston has had 150 years to prove that a lack of zoning makes things better.  Clearly the experiment has failed.

It hasn't failed. The ONLY thing that is holding this city back in parking minimums and setbacks, but letting the market determine what things are built has been proven to work in this city. The problem is those restrictions I listed are limiting developers in meeting the design potential of what they want to develop because they have to account for one or both. You can already see what free market development is doing in EaDo with less restrictions. And to add to your point, cities with some of the most stringent zoning are actually loosening those restrictions. One of those cities is SF. My last visit some friends of mine, who are native to the area, were all excited because now you can build multifamily in single family neighborhoods. I was like "Houston has been doing that."

Edited June 28, 2023 by j_cuevas713