“There has not been a single case anywhere in the world where new roadways solved congestion”

[Houston19514]

I'll repeat again the same point from previously in this thread: 30-45 is the average net speed after including stops.

Further, I have been looking around at various commuter rail systems and I have only found one that averages above 38 MPH, and that is Albuequerque, which has VERY long runs between stops. Quite incomparable to all the others I have found and certainly not comparable to anything that would be built on any of the proposed lines here in Houston.

[Houston19514]

While I appreciate someone FINALLY posting a little in depth analysis, as opposed to the numbers pulled from behind that we've been getting previously, I must point out some of your own apple to orange comparison...which, when it comes to comparing a hypothetical train to an existing bus route, is easy to do. The TRE runs from a downtown to the suburbs, and back to a downtown. The two downtowns are destinations, while the suburban stops are collector points. It does not compare easily to a Houston style route. Taking the Katy leg, you would have stops at perhaps Katy Mills, Grand Parkway and Highway 6, but then no stops until NW Transit Center and downtown. The train will run at 65 mph on those long runs, slower at the outer stops. The average speed will be closer to the 45 mph that was used in my example.

I cannot imagine any reason that the TRE having destinations at both ends would have any effect whatsoever on its average attained speed. Having said that, the TRE does have more stops per mile of trackage than a Katy line would likely have, so we might be able to attain a somewhat higher aveage speed than the TRE. But I can find no evidence anywhere that we would be likely to attain an average speed of 45 MPH. That appears to be based on nothing other than RedScare's hope.

I have been looking around at other commuter rail systems and the fastest average speed I have found is 47 MPH. That is in Albuequerque, which runs about 34 miles from Belen, NM to downtown ABQ in 43 minutes with only 2 intervening stops. Obviously very dissimilar to what we are discussing here, with much longer runs to be able to get the trains up to top speed and keep it there.

In Nashville, which has a line pretty similar to (although longer than) the imaginary Katy line being discussed. Nashville's line is approx. 32-mile line with 4 intervening stops. Travel time from end to end is 50 minutes. -- 38 MPH. Further, it seems to me that a stop in the Beltway 8/Memorial City area would be pretty likely, so there really are no very long runs without stops on our hypthetical Katy line. With the same number of stops and less distance, it seems unlikely we would be achieving as high of an average speed as Nashville.

Austin's Capital Metro Rails goes 13 miles in 49 minutes (with 7 intervening stops) -- 16 MPH from the north end.

From the south end it accomplishes 9 miles in 30 minutes (with 2 intervening stops) -- 15 MPH.

Seattle's rail goes approx. 29 miles from Everrett, WA to Seattle in 59 minutes (with only 2 intervening stops) -- 29 1/2 MPH

The Tri-Met WES (in the Portland area), covers about 15 miles in 27 minutes (with 3 intervening stops) -- 33 MPH

To take the San Bernadino line from Covina, CA to LA Union Station is about 22 miles (with 3 intervening stops) and takes generally around 40 minutes -- 33 MPH

The only one I have found to break even the 40 MPH barrier, let alone 45 is ABQ, which has very long runs between stops. So it appears highly unlikely that any commuter rail serving Houston would achieve average speeds above 40 MPH.

This is all still splitting hairs. The bulk of commuters tend to look at two factors when considering transit. Reasonable trip time and cost. 35 to 45 minutes is going to be reasonable coming from Katy. No one would refuse the train trip because someone on HAIF suggested that a bus trip might take 35 minutes. The other is cost. If the transit trip is $5, and the gas to drive is $4 and the cost to park is $6, transit will get strong consideration. The CEOs and upper managers won't consider it, but the thousands of secretaries and clerical workers will. And we know that a commuter train and a Park&Ride bus will both get them there in a reasonable time. The question then becomes cost to implement and ridership. Given the current cost estimates for rail, I don't see it replacing the sunk cost of an already functioning P&R. And that is really the only difference between the two.

That and the fact that the P&R will provide faster, one-seat, service for more people. ;-) (Of course no one hear suggested that a commuter would refuse to take a train because someone on HAIF said a bus might take 10 fewer minutes. No one even suggested that a commuter would refuse to take a train because a bus will take 10 fewer minutes (and provide one-seat service) to their destination. The argument is over whether it makes any sense to invest millions (tens of millions/hundreds of millions?) of dollars to provide a lesser service to commuters.)

[Slick Vik]

it's likely that those survivors will talk more about their 1st car and the personal mobility freedom that mode of transportation afforded them.

Disagree. Instead they talk about how inefficient buses are in comparison to streetcars and how noisy and polluting they are.

Don't believe me? Watch who killed the electric streetcar for some real opinions.

[LarryDierker]

Trains are definitely worth the millions, even billions, for one simple reason.

I LOVE RIDING ON TRAINS!!!!