METRO Ridership From 1997 To 2012

[kylejack]

The "Buy America" scandal happened under the Wilson/Wolff regime, the "old" Metro. How can anyone take you seriously if you can't even get these simple facts straight?

The poster did not say it happened under the New Metro, he said that ridership declined when the Buy America scandal and the New Metro rebranding happened. That's two separate events he was referring to, both of which happened in 2011.

[MetroMogul]

I see. But he needs to be a bit more clear. He chastises the new Metro administration but brings up a scandal from the old one.

Most of what the new Metro has done has been related to cleaning up the mess left behind by the rail centric regime before it. How is that bad management? How does that relate to a decline in bus ridership?

His arguments aren't coherent.

[mfastx]

The "Buy America" scandal happened under the Wilson/Wolff regime, the "old" Metro. How can anyone take you seriously if you can't even get these simple facts straight?

... Wow man c'mon. I know that the "Buy America" scandal happened under Wilson/Wolff. I said that after "Buy America" and the "New Metro" came about (which was right after Buy America) was when riderhsip declined. The "Buy America" stuff came out in late 2009 or early 2010, I forget exactly when. And during that time period ridership dropped a lot. It's just a theory man lol.

By that logic, anyone that votes to give New METRO a .25% increase in taxpayer's money is a fool

Haha, well it's all just speculation. That's all we're doing here. In time, they will learn. Our METRO system will improve if we give it more funding. I know that for sure.

Edited July 29, 2012 by mfastx

[mfastx]

I see. But he needs to be a bit more clear. He chastises the new Metro administration but brings up a scandal from the old one.

I never "chastised" them, I said it was possible that the "New Metro" does not properly know how to run a bus system. Remember that Grenias said himself that he didn't know anything about transit when he was appointed by Parker.

Most of what the new Metro has done has been related to cleaning up the mess left behind by the rail centric regime before it. How is that bad management? How does that relate to a decline in bus ridership?

... Wait what?? LOL, so this "mess" was caused by them wanting to expand rail? How about the fact that the previouis administration just did illegal activities? Why are you always trying to tie things back to rail? And how were they "rail centric?" There are many competent transit agencies in many other cities that are expanding rail. Are they all creating "mess" just because they are expanding rail?

I don't think you understand that the "old" Metro created a "mess" not because they wanted to expand rail, but because they were crooks. Those are independent things.

Again, I am theorizing that a possible reason for a decline in bus ridership (there are many) is because the "New Metro" does't have experience running a transit system. Which person from the "New Metro" has experience running a transit system? It relates to a decline in bus ridership because while Metro's image has improved and they have become more transparent, the current administration might not have the experience in running a transit system, therefore the decrease in bus ridership.

His arguments aren't coherent.

I think that if you actually read my posts you'll find that I have very coherent arguments. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them incoherent.

Again, there are numerous reasons why there has been a decrease in ridership, and I am giving my theories as to why that has happened.

Likewise, there are many things that could increase ridership. In this thread I have written what I think would increase transit ridership, and I think that one, all, or any combination of the following would work:

1) Constructing a core high capacity and higher quality (in this case rail) system to attract more riders.

2) Managent with more experience running a transit system (which I think the current administration is capable of achieving given time).

3) More funding.

4) Improvements in our bus system (new buses, better bus displays, better bus stops, better routes, etc.)

If any of the above (ideally all of the above) happen, I think you'll see an increase in transit ridership.

Edited July 29, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

Your arguments aren't coherent because they aren't coherent, not because I don't agree. You're not consistent from post to post. You state that ridership dropped after the Buy America scandal and the New Metro regime took over. But in the first post you stated the ridership peaked in 2001 and has declined ever since. Your words, not mine. The site where you got your data verifies this.

And the Wilson administration was very rail centric. Chairman Wolff is the one who stated that "there's no demand" for the 50% increase in bus service that was promised and help sell the 2003 Solutions plan. Wilson and Wolff both led the agency during unprecedented bus service reductions while overseeing and bungling the build out of the rail system. Wilson was brought in to see the Solutions plan to fruition, the whole plan, but he and his regime totally tossed out the bus portion and reduced already existing bus services, some decades old. Also, the Buy America scandal occurred because of procurement violations regarding the purchase of RAIL CARS. So yes, they were crooks, rail centric crooks.

[kdog08]

I am wholly in disagreement with the notion that governmental bankruptcies should be allowed, and so I am in disagreement with you on this notion.

Well first of all, we would just get bailed out.

Lastly, why would we go bankrupt if we incrementally build our infrastructure, possibly using funds at every level? Are you just assuming complete incompetency?

[kdog08]

Your arguments aren't coherent because they aren't coherent, not because I don't agree. You're not consistent from post to post. You state that ridership dropped after the Buy America scandal and the New Metro regime took over. But in the first post you stated the ridership peaked in 2001 and has declined ever since. Your words, not mine. The site where you got your data verifies this.

And the Wilson administration was very rail centric. Chairman Wolff is the one who stated that "there's no demand" for the 50% increase in bus service that was promised and help sell the 2003 Solutions plan. Wilson and Wolff both led the agency during unprecedented bus service reductions while overseeing and bungling the build out of the rail system. Wilson was brought in to see the Solutions plan to fruition, the whole plan, but he and his regime totally tossed out the bus portion and reduced already existing bus services, some decades old. Also, the Buy America scandal occurred because of procurement violations regarding the purchase of RAIL CARS. So yes, they were crooks, rail centric crooks.

Yes but it's not rail's fault, it's man's.

Edited July 30, 2012 by kdog08

[mfastx]

Your arguments aren't coherent because they aren't coherent, not because I don't agree. You're not consistent from post to post. You state that ridership dropped after the Buy America scandal and the New Metro regime took over. But in the first post you stated the ridership peaked in 2001 and has declined ever since. Your words, not mine. The site where you got your data verifies this.

Did you actually read my first post? Yes, I stated that ridership peaked in 2001, but I also said that ridership held steady at over 300,000 until about 2008 or so. Can you quote me on exactly where I contradict myself? Me saying that ridership declined due to an inexperienced administration was just me pointing out different possibilities to you on why ridership declined. You need to consider more things othe than rail to explain the decline of our bus system's ridership. Can you provide me with an expample of another city where rail expansion caused bus and overall ridership to decline?

And the Wilson administration was very rail centric. Chairman Wolff is the one who stated that "there's no demand" for the 50% increase in bus service that was promised and help sell the 2003 Solutions plan. Wilson and Wolff both led the agency during unprecedented bus service reductions while overseeing and bungling the build out of the rail system. Wilson was brought in to see the Solutions plan to fruition, the whole plan, but he and his regime totally tossed out the bus portion and reduced already existing bus services, some decades old. Also, the Buy America scandal occurred because of procurement violations regarding the purchase of RAIL CARS. So yes, they were crooks, rail centric crooks.

Bus ridership didn't really drop for most of the Wilson/Wolff administration though. Can you prove that there was indeed "demand" for a 50% increase in bus service? Perhaps the 50% increase in bus service was meant to come after the rail lines were built when there actually would be more demand? I certainly don't see a demand for more bus service. Most of those buses out there are empty.

Yes, Wilson/Wolff screwed the pooch. But it was strictly legal technicalities where they f***** up. They tried to cut corners and they were caught. You really think that other transit agencies don't do the same crap? Wilson has been proven to be able to run a transit agency well, as he has managed other much better agencies than METRO. Which agencies have Grenias/Garcia ran?

Ever consider that the reduction in bus service was due to the routes being extremely inefficient?

Do you think that if we build all of the proposed rail lines, ridership will drop?

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

Once again, you are being inconsistent. On one hand you state that bus ridership didn't really drop under the Wilson administration (a lie), yet you say that there was no demand for expanded bus service because the buses are/were empty. Which is it? And while we're on the subject, where are you getting this data from? Do you live in Houston? How do you know the buses are empty? Do you ride them? Do you have ridership numbers for individual routes? You've repeated this claim again and again and you've never provided any proof to back up that claim. And you ask me to prove there is a demand for a 50% increase in bus service, I point you to the original 2003 Solutions plan. There was obviously enough demand to package it with the rail expansion. Prove to me there isn't demand for a bus expansion, yet demand for a rail expansion. Rail is supposed to expand capacity. Obviously there is excess capacity if buses are "empty" as you claim so why do we need a multi billion dollar rail expansion? Because you want it?

Also, what transit agencies did Wilson run "well?" When he was in New Jersey he had another procurement scandal regarding that states EZ tag system. Trouble seems to follow the guy. And your justification for these scandals is "well other agencies do it tooooooo." What a childish argument.

[mfastx]

Once again, you are being inconsistent. On one hand you state that bus ridership didn't really drop under the Wilson administration (a lie), yet you say that there was no demand for expanded bus service because the buses are/were empty. Which is it?

I said throughout most of the Wilson administration, ridership held relatively steady at over 300,000. I've maintained that throughout this thread. I'm saying that while ridership held steady at ~340,000 throughout his administration, I don't see anything to believe that there was demand for a 50% bus increase. It's both. Yes, the last year or two under the Wilson administration saw a large drop-off in ridership accross the board.

And while we're on the subject, where are you getting this data from? Do you live in Houston? How do you know the buses are empty? Do you ride them? Do you have ridership numbers for individual routes?

The data that the buses are, for the most part, empty? Efficiency statistics. As I've said numerous times, each bus rider has a $5 subsidy. Do you understand that concept? If we are paying a lot of money for each rider to ride the system, that means that there are few riders riding the system. I've lived in Houston all my life outside of a year. I've ridden METRO buses for years.

And yes I have seen ridership numbers for individual routes. They aren't impressive. You can find them on METRO's website I think.

You've repeated this claim again and again and you've never provided any proof to back up that claim. And you ask me to prove there is a demand for a 50% increase in bus service, I point you to the original 2003 Solutions plan. There was obviously enough demand to package it with the rail expansion. Prove to me there isn't demand for a bus expansion, yet demand for a rail expansion. Rail is supposed to expand capacity. Obviously there is excess capacity if buses are "empty" as you claim so why do we need a multi billion dollar rail expansion? Because you want it?

Rail can do something that just simply adding more buses can't do, and that's to attract riders.

Building a network of rail lines has shown to attract more riders. Don't take my word for it, look at other agencies expanding their rail. I want a better bus system too. But I understand that at this point, getting a core rail system in place is more important for METRO. And I understand that investing in rail now will pay off in the future. Transit dollars go further with rail than local buses.

Also, what transit agencies did Wilson run "well?" When he was in New Jersey he had another procurement scandal regarding that states EZ tag system. Trouble seems to follow the guy. And your justification for these scandals is "well other agencies do it tooooooo." What a childish argument.

He ran BART didn't he? That's a pretty good agency. Childish? Uh alrightie then whatever you say but we both know it's true so I'm not sure what your point is.

This is the last time I am going to respond to you in this thread. You have not brought anything valuable to the discussion. You are insulting me, twisting my words to make it seem like I contradict myself, and have not made any decent proposals on what you think METRO should do instead of expanding rail. Nor have you acknowledged any of the points I made in my previous posts. It's getting to the point where I'm just repeating myself over and over to you because you simply are ignoring my points. I'm obvously not going to change your mind.

Go ahead and have the last word if you want. Call me "childish" or a "poor immigrant," whatever you want.

Good day.

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

I'm glad you understand that I will continue to rip your arguments to shreds. Response or not.

And I ignore a lot of your points because your main arguments are so piss poor I don't even feel it's worth it to address the entire post.

You're a rail apologist. You want rail for the sake of rail. And that's fine. But you try to mask it with "facts" and "numbers" and reasoning that just don't add up.

One, you never gave met an answer as to why there was demand for the rail portion of the solutions plan but not the bus portion. "Empty buses," is not an answer. Explain the demand for these three additional routes that duplicate existing "empty" bus lines.

While we're at it you say you have efficiency statistics, individual route ridership data and subsidy numbers. Post them. As we say on the internet; links or it didn't happen.

And once you've done that, explain why Metro in the face of declining ridership, "empty" buses, and higher subsidy costs, should jump to the most expensive option of high capacity rail when according to you there's already a ton of excess capacity in the form of empty buses.

And you keep mentioning these rail Utopias for me to research to prove your point. I don't care about other cities. I care about Houston, Texas and what will work for this city. And what has worked for this city is a combination of better bus service, expanded bus service, infrastructure investments and a robust commuter system. Now am I saying we should stop there? No. What I am saying is that those options should be implemented first if you want to build ridership as they are PROVEN TO WORK for this city, HOUSTON, TEXAS. How else do you explain the growth of a 430 bus system with fifty million boardings or less to a 1500 bus empire with 100 million boardings in about 20 years time (1979-2001)?

The onus is on you to prove that spending billions on rail is the best way to relieve a capacity surplus. "Increased ridership" isn't valid. Where's the increased riderhip from the Red Line? Rail = increased ridership right? Your words not mine. So explain the decrease in 80,000 daily boardings despite the existence of the Red Line.

Also, you argue for turning over the GM payments to Metro. New Metro. The same agency you inferred didn't know it was doing due to the inexperience of Grenias and Garcia. So you say these guys don't know what they're doing, but give them the money anyway? Just because they plan to add more rail? But they don't know what they're doing, remember? So why entrust them with the money anyway? Oh right, because you want rail. You have no justification for it given the unique conditions of this city and this transit agency. Just admit that and be done with it. The truth shall set you free.

[mfastx]

I'm glad you understand that I will continue to rip your arguments to shreds. Response or not.

Lol, since I'm bored at work, I'll keep responding haha. I can go all day baby.

And I ignore a lot of your points because your main arguments are so piss poor I don't even feel it's worth it to address the entire post.

Alright. Well it's hard to have a discussion with you if you don't respond to the points I make.

You're a rail apologist. You want rail for the sake of rail. And that's fine. But you try to mask it with "facts" and "numbers" and reasoning that just don't add up.

I want rail because I feel it's an improvement over the current situation. I want better buses too. I want it all, and as a taxpayer living in the 4th largest city in the US, I expect no less. If I can't convince you with facts and numbers, then I can't do anything about that can I?

One, you never gave met an answer as to why there was demand for the rail portion of the solutions plan but not the bus portion. "Empty buses," is not an answer. Explain the demand for these three additional routes that duplicate existing "empty" bus lines.

Alright, well that was my answer. If you choose not to accept it, then that's fine.

When I say something like "most of the buses are empty" that doesn't mean that all of METRO's routes have bad ridership. There are many routes with good ridership. The 81/82, 65, 25, all of those have great riderhsip. I've thought for years that Westheimer would be a perfect place to put in a BRT line. Just plop that s*** in the middle of that big ass street and it'll do great. Cheap too. The problem is, that METRO has so many routes all accross Houston that a lot of them don't generate ridershp that warrants a 50% bus increase across the city. Now, I think there should be improvements in the bus infrastructure, I just don't think adding buses will generate more ridership on it's own.

While we're at it you say you have efficiency statistics, individual route ridership data and subsidy numbers. Post them. As we say on the internet; links or it didn't happen.

Haha, I'm pointing you in the right direction. They're out there. If you refuse to do some research yourself on it then why should I take the time to post links to PDF documents?? Checkout this website: http://www.ridemetro.org. There you will find links to all of the PDF's you're looking for.

And once you've done that, explain why Metro in the face of declining ridership, "empty" buses, and higher subsidy costs, should jump to the most expensive option of high capacity rail when according to you there's already a ton of excess capacity in the form of empty buses.

Again, I think they should build rail because not only is it a huge improvement over the current system, it also has other positive externalities. You are refuting my claim that the buses are empty, and yet you continue to point out that ridership has declined. If ridership is declining, then a lot of buses are empty, no? And while rail has high capital costs, it is *not* the most expensive option in the long run. It carries more riders more efficiently, and the NTD verifies this.

In sum, METRO should build rail because it's an improvement over the existing infrastructure, it attracts more riders, it carries those riders more efficiently, and it has other positive externalities as said before (raises property values, more reliable mode of transport, more comfortable, etc.).

And you keep mentioning these rail Utopias for me to research to prove your point. I don't care about other cities. I care about Houston, Texas and what will work for this city. And what has worked for this city is a combination of better bus service, expanded bus service, infrastructure investments and a robust commuter system.

I'm sorry but what?? Are you saying that buses have "worked?" Houston is widely known for having one of the worst transit systems out of any large city. I'm sorry but nothing has "worked," in Houston, ever. The largest transit ridershp was 361,000 something, which is pitiful for a city of millions of people. And remember that the 361,000 number doesn't actually represent ridership, it represents boardings. The APTA estimates that only 40% of the boardings number is actual ridership. So actaul ridership was around 144,000 people. So you're saying that our system "worked" when it carried less than 150,000 actual people? Anyway, sorry for interrupting...

Now am I saying we should stop there? No. What I am saying is that those options should be implemented first if you want to build ridership as they are PROVEN TO WORK for this city, HOUSTON, TEXAS. How else do you explain the growth of a 430 bus system with fifty million boardings or less to a 1500 bus empire with 100 million boardings in about 20 years time (1979-2001)?

What type of numbers are those? Be specific. Are those annual boardings? I explain it by the natural growth of a city obviously. Those numbers are awful. Absolutely nothing has been "proven to work" here. Nothing.

Except the Red Line.

The onus is on you to prove that spending billions on rail is the best way to relieve a capacity surplus. "Increased ridership" isn't valid. Where's the increased riderhip from the Red Line? Rail = increased ridership right? Your words not mine. So explain the decrease in 80,000 daily boardings despite the existence of the Red Line.

LOL, and how exactly is "increased ridership" not valid? What would be valid? The Red Line is 7 miles long. There has been increased ridership along that corridor. That line is too small to make a difference in ridership accross the board. A bus only system has been proven to simply be not good enough to entice people out of their cars and into public transit. Some core rail lines connecting job centers will do more to increase ridership than getting more buses.

Also, you argue for turning over the GM payments to Metro. New Metro. The same agency you inferred didn't know it was doing due to the inexperience of Grenias and Garcia. So you say these guys don't know what they're doing, but give them the money anyway? Just because they plan to add more rail? But they don't know what they're doing, remember? So why entrust them with the money anyway? Oh right, because you want rail. You have no justification for it given the unique conditions of this city and this transit agency. Just admit that and be done with it. The truth shall set you free.

Actually, I'm in favor of Spieler's proposal, which keeps the GM payments, but still allows METRO to build the University Line.

Rail will last longer than Grenias and Garcia. Future administrations will do better.

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

Declining ridership means just that, declining ridership. It doesn't mean buses are empty as you've claimed time and time again.

You're also back tracking on your claim of rail = ridership. Now the Red Line is not enough to have any effect on overall ridership. Then how will these three additional lines have any effect when their potential ridership will be much less than that of the Red Line?

Also, population has increased in the 11 years since peak ridership and today. Yet ridership has declined. So you can't just explain away the massive increase in bus ridership with population growth.

You still haven't explained how these three new lines will draw riders, where from and what their destinations will be. What white professional type (the demo rail usually targets) needs to go to 2nd Ward/East End, Moody Park/Northline, or the Palm Center. The only major draws are Minute Maid Park, Dynamo Stadium and TSU/UH. The first two destinations are within a few blocks of the western terminus. Is the cost outlay for this system worth shuttling yuppies a few blocks?

You still haven't proven why rail is a good investment for THIS city. I've already proven that expanding bus service and maintaining that system brings ridership. Your personal opinion of the system or those numbers is irrelevant. The fact remains peak transit usage in Houston came under a bus only and bus focused system. You can't dispute that.

[Slick Vik]

You still haven't proven why rail is a good investment for THIS city. I've already proven that expanding bus service and maintaining that system brings ridership. Your personal opinion of the system or those numbers is irrelevant. The fact remains peak transit usage in Houston came under a bus only and bus focused system. You can't dispute that.

This city is not so different then say, every other modern city of its size on planet earth. Saying no to that is like justifying slavery after every country got rid of it. And you can't compare a bus focused system against anything so of course it has peak usage at that time. And don't tell me this system because it's still in a transitional phase

[MetroMogul]

This city is not so different then say, every other modern city of its size on planet earth. Saying no to that is like justifying slavery after every country got rid of it. And you can't compare a bus focused system against anything so of course it has peak usage at that time. And don't tell me this system because it's still in a transitional phase

So this city is no different than New York? Chicago? Los Angeles? Toronto? Tokyo? Lagos? I can go on and on.

And are you comparing having a bus only system to slavery? You all are truly rail zealots.

[MetroMogul]

I have a question; how many daily boardings do you estimate these three new rail lines to have and what's your reasoning behind it?

[mfastx]

Declining ridership means just that, declining ridership. It doesn't mean buses are empty as you've claimed time and time again.

I can tell you from first hand experience that a lot of buses I've been on have been empty. There are some great routes that get full sometimes. Most notably the 81/82. The 25 can get full too. I've ridden many bus lines in the city and most of the time, the buses aren't full.

On the other hand, in a city like Boston (where I lived last year) most of the buses I rode were very full. There was a noticable difference.

You're also back tracking on your claim of rail = ridership. Now the Red Line is not enough to have any effect on overall ridership. Then how will these three additional lines have any effect when their potential ridership will be much less than that of the Red Line?

Of course not, and I never said that building one rail line would cause ridership to increase. I stated that building a rail system (i.e. multiple lines) would cause ridership to increase. You're simplifying my arguments.

Also, population has increased in the 11 years since peak ridership and today. Yet ridership has declined. So you can't just explain away the massive increase in bus ridership with population growth.

Fair point. Although I don't see a huge difference between the bus system today and 10 years ago. Remember that ridershp was well above 300,000 for most of the 2000s. In 2006 or 2007 ridership was holding steady. The massive drop came between 2007 and 2008. What happened in 2007 to cause ridership to drop drastically? Which routes were cancelled then?

The recession happened then and lower gas prices came with it. Perhaps people started driving more since gas prices were lower? I believe there are many factors that led to the drop in bus ridership.

You still haven't explained how these three new lines will draw riders, where from and what their destinations will be. What white professional type (the demo rail usually targets) needs to go to 2nd Ward/East End, Moody Park/Northline, or the Palm Center. The only major draws are Minute Maid Park, Dynamo Stadium and TSU/UH. The first two destinations are within a few blocks of the western terminus. Is the cost outlay for this system worth shuttling yuppies a few blocks?

I will say that the three lines under construction won't have nearly as great an impact on ridership than the University/Uptown Lines would. I don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure that METRO saw those corridors as high ridershp corridors. I'd have to look at ridership for bus lines along those corridors. I do think that the lines under construction will carry plenty of people, and the majority of them won't be yuppies.

You still haven't proven why rail is a good investment for THIS city. I've already proven that expanding bus service and maintaining that system brings ridership. Your personal opinion of the system or those numbers is irrelevant. The fact remains peak transit usage in Houston came under a bus only and bus focused system. You can't dispute that.

I can't prove that, it's only an opinion I have. Fair point. I just think that while buses generated the "peak" ridership in Houston, that "peak" ridership was still low. I think that having a core rail system in combination with a good bus system can achieve more ridership than a bus only system can.

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

Before we get any further I should note that I'm not anti rail. I'm anti rail ONLY, there's a difference. Any good transit syste, in my opinion, should be multi modal with local bus transit at it's core we add in commuter bus, BRT, LRT/commuter rail, HOV/HOT lanes and other transit infrastructure etc to complement the core system and then we have good mass transit that offers something to everyone and the whole region benefits.

The problem I see in these debates however is that it's usually not about better transit. It's simply aesthetics vs. politics. Which takes the form of rail vs. bus. And don't be fooled. Most on the pro bus side are just pro status quo. They don't really care about bus service, they just don't want any investment in rail. But they will argue for commuter buses to give them a little transit cred. But usually local bus service is too icky for either side to touch.

Mfa, have you ever played Cities in Motion? It's a transit simulation. You build and operate transit systems for various cities across the globe. You'd like it because try as I might there's no way to build an efficient bus only system in the game. In that realm rail is truly king. It's addictive and I suggest you give it a try.

[Slick Vik]

Before we get any further I should note that I'm not anti rail. I'm anti rail ONLY, there's a difference. Any good transit syste, in my opinion, should be multi modal with local bus transit at it's core we add in commuter bus, BRT, LRT/commuter rail, HOV/HOT lanes and other transit infrastructure etc to complement the core system and then we have good mass transit that offers something to everyone and the whole region benefits.

The problem I see in these debates however is that it's usually not about better transit. It's simply aesthetics vs. politics. Which takes the form of rail vs. bus. And don't be fooled. Most on the pro bus side are just pro status quo. They don't really care about bus service, they just don't want any investment in rail. But they will argue for commuter buses to give them a little transit cred. But usually local bus service is too icky for either side to touch.

Mfa, have you ever played Cities in Motion? It's a transit simulation. You build and operate transit systems for various cities across the globe. You'd like it because try as I might there's no way to build an efficient bus only system in the game. In that realm rail is truly king. It's addictive and I suggest you give it a try.

I've been advocating the same. I think light rail in itself is a compromise. Ideally, we'd have a mexico city like system: heavy rail, bus rapid transit, and buses. I think if Lanier had let the first heavy rail line get built in the late 80's then we would've been on to something. Instead we are stuck way behind the times.

So this city is no different than New York? Chicago? Los Angeles? Toronto? Tokyo? Lagos? I can go on and on.

And are you comparing having a bus only system to slavery? You all are truly rail zealots.

This city is a major city in a world superpower. It needs a proper transit system and part of that system is rail.

[kdog08]

So this city is no different than New York? Chicago? Los Angeles? Toronto? Tokyo? Lagos? I can go on and on.

And are you comparing having a bus only system to slavery? You all are truly rail zealots.

No. He said every modern city this size, so your cities aren't comparable. Try again.

And no the slavery part was an analogy....

Some people just don't see an all bus system for a growing metro as a smart plan going forward.

[MetroMogul]

I agree. I just think that Metro needs to show it can do two things at once. The light rail lines are under construction. Great. But don't rest on your laurels. There's a once great bus system to rehabilitate. While it's not sexy work it's necessary work.

[MetroMogul]

No. He said every modern city this size, so your cities aren't comparable. Try again.

And no the slavery part was an analogy....

Some people just don't see an all bus system for a growing metro as a smart plan going forward.

Neither do I. Try again.

[kdog08]

Declining ridership means just that, declining ridership. It doesn't mean buses are empty as you've claimed time and time again.

You're also back tracking on your claim of rail = ridership. Now the Red Line is not enough to have any effect on overall ridership. Then how will these three additional lines have any effect when their potential ridership will be much less than that of the Red Line?

Because a system or the sum of it's part makes it more effective. Much like how one single bus line isn't too effective on it's own but when you add more lines...

Also, population has increased in the 11 years since peak ridership and today. Yet ridership has declined. So you can't just explain away the massive increase in bus ridership with population growth.

Because Houston doesn't really care about mass transit and we can pathetically only fund one thing at a time.

You still haven't explained how these three new lines will draw riders, where from and what their destinations will be. What white professional type (the demo rail usually targets) needs to go to 2nd Ward/East End, Moody Park/Northline, or the Palm Center. The only major draws are Minute Maid Park, Dynamo Stadium and TSU/UH. The first two destinations are within a few blocks of the western terminus. Is the cost outlay for this system worth shuttling yuppies a few blocks?

These are more working class neighborhoods that rely on transit more so than their wealthier counterparts. Not to mention the students that rail will be able to connect to TSU, UH, Rice, UHD (not sure what is called now), and HCC. Then, finally there are the transit centers at the end of these lines that will feed into it. So basically this connects the near north, near east, and near southeast side to downtown, tmc, universities, and all the amenities on the red line.

You still haven't proven why rail is a good investment for THIS city. I've already proven that expanding bus service and maintaining that system brings ridership. Your personal opinion of the system or those numbers is irrelevant. The fact remains peak transit usage in Houston came under a bus only and bus focused system. You can't dispute that.

No offense, but I don't think any argument is going to be good enough for you.

Rail is a good investment in this city which is my opinion. It has 3 relatively dense and large employment centers and one medium (Greenway Plaza) that will all be connected to rail along with all the professional sports arenas, higher education, cultural districts, and few of our city's major parks (can't wait for the Buffalo Bayou expansion to be complete). Not to mention a pretty diverse socioeconomic group (looking at all the proposed lines) and a gradually increasing residential base. That's just near the rail. If we can at least expand P&R we can use rail to it's fullest advantage to provide that last leg of commuters' journey.

Edited July 30, 2012 by kdog08

[kdog08]

Neither do I. Try again.

Well my mistake. Then please propose what you would like Houston's transit future to look like.

[mfastx]

Before we get any further I should note that I'm not anti rail. I'm anti rail ONLY, there's a difference. Any good transit syste, in my opinion, should be multi modal with local bus transit at it's core we add in commuter bus, BRT, LRT/commuter rail, HOV/HOT lanes and other transit infrastructure etc to complement the core system and then we have good mass transit that offers something to everyone and the whole region benefits.

I agree 100%. I think we agree on most things.. there are just some misunderstandings (due to the fact that it's hard to properly convey anything on a message board). I'd bet if we met in person we'd agree on most things.

We've had our bus system as a core though and I think our system could be better. I think we define "core" as different things. The way I define it is that a core system is simply a few high capacity lines in the central area that buses, BRT, etc. feed into and compliment. I'm not saying that we should do away with buses at all. And I do acknowledge that in most, if not all, transit systems, ridership for buses systemwide is higher than rail. I think a key placement of rail lines can do good things for efficiency and attracting ridership though.

I simply feel that, as our transit system is currently constructed, building the proposed rail lines would improve the system. Now could/should there be many things done to improve the bus system? Of course. I am always in favor of infrastructure projects.

The problem I see in these debates however is that it's usually not about better transit. It's simply aesthetics vs. politics. Which takes the form of rail vs. bus. And don't be fooled. Most on the pro bus side are just pro status quo. They don't really care about bus service, they just don't want any investment in rail. But they will argue for commuter buses to give them a little transit cred. But usually local bus service is too icky for either side to touch.

I think that a more accurate way to put it is "rail vs. no rail" argument because there will be buses involved either way.

Mfa, have you ever played Cities in Motion? It's a transit simulation. You build and operate transit systems for various cities across the globe. You'd like it because try as I might there's no way to build an efficient bus only system in the game. In that realm rail is truly king. It's addictive and I suggest you give it a try.

Haha, no actaully I've never heard of it. I used to play Sim City wayy back in the day. That was addictive as hell too.

But that sounds like a really cool game, lol.

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfastx

[MetroMogul]

Well my mistake. Then please propose what you would like Houston's transit future to look like.

2003 Solutions plan was a perfect fit for our city and agency. It had a lot of bit of something for everybody. NIMBY meddling crippled the rail portion and Metro incompetence killed the bus portion. Probably the greatest transit tragedy of our time.

[Slick Vik]

2003 Solutions plan was a perfect fit for our city and agency. It had a lot of bit of something for everybody. NIMBY meddling crippled the rail portion and Metro incompetence killed the bus portion. Probably the greatest transit tragedy of our time.

Greater than Lanier giving $500 million to the HPD?

[MetroMogul]

Yeah the rape of Metro's reserves is up there too.

[IHB2]

In sum, METRO should build rail because it's an improvement over the existing infrastructure, it attracts more riders, it carries those riders more efficiently, and it has other positive externalities as said before (raises property values, more reliable mode of transport, more comfortable, etc.)... A bus only system has been proven to simply be not good enough to entice people out of their cars and into public transit. Some core rail lines connecting job centers will do more to increase ridership than getting more buses.

Here is an article in today's Chron re the Hou-Galveston commuter rail line. Barry Goodman was METRO's 1st Executive Director, and he is definitely not anti-rail. His revised rail plan is supported by HGAC, also not anti-rail. Please note the order of transit implementation that Goodman proposes to build ridership:

"GALVESTON - A Houston-to-Galveston passenger rail line postponed indefinitely after the economy hit bottom in 2009 is getting another chance, but it could be a decade or more before the first spike is driven.

The original plan called for a passenger line carrying 1,000 to 2,000 people per day to be in operation as early as this year, but a series of events starting with Hurricane Ike and the stock market crash in 2008 stalled the project.

"The impact of the economic downturn has taken its toll in so many ways," said Barry Goodman, whose consulting firm, Goodman Corp., is doing the planning. Goodman said the recession affected the rail project more than the storm.

Price tag balloons

The price tag had risen from an estimated $415 million in 2007 to $650 million, and local governments were unable to provide the 40 to 50 percent contribution typical for such projects, Goodman said.

Enthusiasm remains high for the plan among officials and residents in Galveston County's 13 cities, so Goodman Corp. is redrawing the plans to accommodate the new financial reality, said John Carrara, senior vice president.

The revamped plan calls for starting more modestly with expanded park-and-ride and express bus services in the Houston-Galveston corridor.

The more measured approach could provide immediate benefits, said Alan Clark, transportation planning director for the Houston-Galveston Area Council.

The council, which coordinates planning for local governments in the region, will consider making the Goodman Corp. plan part of the regional transportation plan, Clark said.

The first phase was completed this year with the opening of bus service, operated by local governments, from Galveston to a park-and-ride lot at the University of Texas Medical Branch's clinic in League City on Interstate 45, Carrara said. One of several other routes could be running by 2014 and another could be added each year, he said.

Details are being worked out for an express bus from Galveston to downtown Houston and another route to downtown Houston that would stop in Dickinson, Texas City and La Marque, he said.

Other routes?

Another route would begin in Dickinson and stop in La Marque and Texas City on the way to Galveston. A local route on Texas 3 would link Webster and La Marque.

The plan also calls for additional park-and-ride lots, including one in League City between Texas 3 and the Union Pacific Railroad.

When and if the rail line is built, the bus routes and park-and-ride lots would be modified to serve it, Carrara said.

The passenger rail plans remain much the same, he said, although the original plan to use only the existing Union Pacific track has been abandoned. An additional track would be laid to allow for two-way traffic, he said." [bold/italics my emphasis]

Establishing bus routes and P&R, only 1 route at first then more as necessary, to build public transit ridership, only then building a rail line to better serve the established ridership? Not building what you can't afford until you can afford it?

Those dudes at HGAC must be idiots to have gotten it so backwards.

[mfastx]

Establishing bus routes and P&R, only 1 route at first then more as necessary, to build public transit ridership, only then building a rail line to better serve the established ridership? Not building what you can't afford until you can afford it?

Those dudes at HGAC must be idiots to have gotten it so backwards.

Not sure what your point is, as in the post you quoted I was referring to local bus routes and light rail. Commuter rail and P&R is a totally different thing.

I read the article, and I think it's good to setup a bus service first. Remember that there is no METRO service to Galveston now, so it would be good to see how well a bus route would do. This is something different than what I was referring to (I was referring to the fact that light rail in the central core of a city would generate more ridership than a similar bus route).

As said earlier in this thread, I am on the fence about commuter rail, especially to Galveston (I think that a 290 line would be great though). As for the bus route that they have started, I'm not sure it will generate much ridership due to the fact that you'd have to transfer to a METRO P&R lot about halfway to Houston. Most folks won't want to make a transfer to another commuter bus.

Commuter rail to Galveston would be great, but I'm not entirely convinced that a line would immediately generate much ridership, whether it be bus or rail.