History of houston rail propositions

[Slick Vik]

But that infers that building heavy rail would have prevented continued development out west and would have driven that development along rail lines and I don't know how you can make that assumption.

Take the example of San Francisco, which has the most established rail system in the Western US. Even though there was extensive rail throughout the Bay Area, it had minimal impact on where growth occurred in both new job centers and new housing. Urban sprawl continued to proliferate primarily in areas that BART doesn't service. As a result, even though there's an extensive rail network there, it misses huge segments of the population and is now trying to catch up.

 

That area and LA had hundreds of miles of streetcar systems (1500 miles in LA, not sure about SF/Oakland) before BART ever existed. You can blame GM for getting rid of those.

[Houston19514]

 Considering that MARTA has over 200,000 boardings a day, the starter line would easily be about half that.  If a 7 mile light rail line has 40,000 boardings/day imagine how successful heavy rail would be.

 

That doesn't really make a strong case for "how successful heavy rail would be" compared to light rail.  Marta's rail system is roughly 7 times the size of Metro's current light rail and roughly 5 times the ridership.

[livincinco]

Well, of course you aren't going to get good results by plopping heavy rail down all over the city. But on inner loop routes and connecting employment centers, I can say with high confidence that ridership would be very high. For instance, if you replaced our current Red Line with heavy rail (subway downtown and TMC, elevated elsewhere) then you can reasonably expect ridership to go up. Atlanta just did two cross town rail routes and they have 200,000+ boardings a day. Atlanta didn't build any later lines, they haven't expanded their lines since the 80s. Same with Miami (except for the airport extension, which is like one extra station so it doesn't really count).

Los Angeles aready had an extremely high bus ridership before any rail was built. And now they have over 200,000 boardings a day just on light rail, about 15% higher than a year ago. Add the 150,000+ boardings on their very short heavy rail line, and you've added almost 400,000 riders just by investing in rail (I'm including their commuter rail ridership as well). And you're moving them more efficiently too.

Houston is building a lot of freeways it doesn't need at all. Take the Grand Parkway for example. In the short term, you'll still have to expand freeways. But decades down the line, you might not need all the extra capacity, depending on how the city grows.

Fair point, but as you mention, LA had very high bus ridership already and rail transit still has significantly lower ridership than buses do even with an established network. So I still question whether it's an effective use of transportation dollars because I think that it's fair to consider the trade offs of how that money could be otherwise spent.

It's a very fair question about whether Grand Parkway is an efficient use of transportation dollars, but it's a separate question to the funding of rail unless building a rail network causes development to shift away from the perimeter and into the urban core and even if you say that rail in LA has been successful, I don't think that you can say that it has reduced urban sprawl. I still think history shows that you're going to have to spend the highway money anyway so I don't think that the argument of rail vs. highway money is valid. That makes it a question of how much transportation money do you spend to move a relatively small portion of the population and what is the most effective way to spend that money.

Personally, I would much rather see that money invested in improving the efficiency of moving freight in this country. I think that we would see a significant benefit by getting a high percentage of trucks off of the highways.

[livincinco]

That area and LA had hundreds of miles of streetcar systems (1500 miles in LA, not sure about SF/Oakland) before BART ever existed. You can blame GM for getting rid of those.

I agree that it was a really stupid idea to rip out all of the existing rail infrastructure in those cities, but it's gone. It's a different question though whether it makes sense to put it back in.

[mfastx]

That doesn't really make a strong case for "how successful heavy rail would be" compared to light rail.  Marta's rail system is roughly 7 times the size of Metro's current light rail and roughly 5 times the ridership.

 

MARTA goes through a lot of extremely low density neighborhoods though.  I do not advocate for heavy rail in Houston going out to the suburbs like MARTA does.  There are perhaps 1, maybe 2 corridors where I think heavy rail would be great.   Similar to LA's line, where it's very short but with high ridership. 

 

Fair point, but as you mention, LA had very high bus ridership already and rail transit still has significantly lower ridership than buses do even with an established network. So I still question whether it's an effective use of transportation dollars because I think that it's fair to consider the trade offs of how that money could be otherwise spent.

It's a very fair question about whether Grand Parkway is an efficient use of transportation dollars, but it's a separate question to the funding of rail unless building a rail network causes development to shift away from the perimeter and into the urban core and even if you say that rail in LA has been successful, I don't think that you can say that it has reduced urban sprawl. I still think history shows that you're going to have to spend the highway money anyway so I don't think that the argument of rail vs. highway money is valid. That makes it a question of how much transportation money do you spend to move a relatively small portion of the population and what is the most effective way to spend that money.

Personally, I would much rather see that money invested in improving the efficiency of moving freight in this country. I think that we would see a significant benefit by getting a high percentage of trucks off of the highways.

 

Those are all solid points.  That's the delimma with respect to rail: is it worth the initial investment?  For me, after I factor in 1) better efficienct/capacity, 2) better quality of service, and 3) permanence (Boston's green line is over 100 years old and stil going strong) I conclude that it is worth the money to build rail on certain high ridership corridors.  But there are certain perfectly valid arguments that arrive at a different conclusion.  I'd say that rail only would affect development in the long term.  We would still be building highways most likely.  But the inner loop of Houston would also have more capcity to grow in the future.  Those are problems way down the line that rail would help out with.  Rail is something that has future benefits, which is one of it's main advantages over buses. 

 

You look at a city like LA where they are building many miles of light rail.  Their referendum that would have extended an extra tax to fund more rail was narrowly defeated after it *only* got 65% of the vote.  It needs 66% to pass.  Huge difference from here.  They've positioned themselves great for future inner city growth, something Houston has failed to do. 

 

I completely agree with your last point.  Highways have such a high maintenance costs, and trucks are the root of the problem.  They do so much more damage than the average car.  We'd save a LOT by eliminating trucks from the equation.

[Slick Vik]

Fair point, but as you mention, LA had very high bus ridership already and rail transit still has significantly lower ridership than buses do even with an established network. So I still question whether it's an effective use of transportation dollars because I think that it's fair to consider the trade offs of how that money could be otherwise spent.

It's a very fair question about whether Grand Parkway is an efficient use of transportation dollars, but it's a separate question to the funding of rail unless building a rail network causes development to shift away from the perimeter and into the urban core and even if you say that rail in LA has been successful, I don't think that you can say that it has reduced urban sprawl. I still think history shows that you're going to have to spend the highway money anyway so I don't think that the argument of rail vs. highway money is valid. That makes it a question of how much transportation money do you spend to move a relatively small portion of the population and what is the most effective way to spend that money.

Personally, I would much rather see that money invested in improving the efficiency of moving freight in this country. I think that we would see a significant benefit by getting a high percentage of trucks off of the highways.

To play devil's advocate, highway construction on its own never fully relieves congestion, and maintenance costs far more than rail for less efficient travel. A thorough rail system with frequent timings would make a tremendous difference.

[Christof Spieler]

I think that's the first article I ever wrote on transit -- little did I know I'd be on the METRO board eventually.

 

I agree that the old LA comparisons between subway and the Houston HOVs are incorrect. The LA subway is now carrying 150,000 people a day, more than any of their (or our) busways. That's what frequent all day service in a dense corridor does. But our HOVs do compare favorably to their commuter rail system, Metrolink, which serves the same purpose as the HOVs do in moving suburban commuters to Downtown. They have 40,000 average weekday riders on commuter rail, and our park-and-rides carry 32,000 on a system that's not as big in a considerably smaller metro area. The park and rides run more often than commuter rail does and don't require a transfer. So I think that freeway bus lanes are a very good solution to that particular transit problem.

[mfastx]

Welcome to the board, Christof!

 

EDIT: nevermind, thought you just joined, lol.  Well anyway, it's glad to have the perspective of someone that actually works for METRO.

[Christof Spieler]

I read fairly regularly (though I can't find the time to read everything) but obviously post very irregularly. Tory pointed me to this thread.

[Slick Vik]

I'm sorry you have to deal with people like Steve Radak who have their own interests ahead the greater interest of society. I don't know how you deal with it. And our own mayor and Gilbert Garcia who go behind the back of the board to rewrite referendums. And corrupt legislators like John Culberson. Houston was more ahead 100 years ago than it is now in transit infrastructure.

[Trae]

I think that's the first article I ever wrote on transit -- little did I know I'd be on the METRO board eventually.

I agree that the old LA comparisons between subway and the Houston HOVs are incorrect. The LA subway is now carrying 150,000 people a day, more than any of their (or our) busways. That's what frequent all day service in a dense corridor does. But our HOVs do compare favorably to their commuter rail system, Metrolink, which serves the same purpose as the HOVs do in moving suburban commuters to Downtown. They have 40,000 average weekday riders on commuter rail, and our park-and-rides carry 32,000 on a system that's not as big in a considerably smaller metro area. The park and rides run more often than commuter rail does and don't require a transfer. So I think that freeway bus lanes are a very good solution to that particular transit problem.

But you still have to take into account the other modes of transportation in LA. Their commuter rail system definitely runs longer than the commuter buses in Houston. I guarantee you if those commuter buses were switched to rail, then there would be more riders.

[Christof Spieler]

But you still have to take into account the other modes of transportation in LA. Their commuter rail system definitely runs longer than the commuter buses in Houston. I guarantee you if those commuter buses were switched to rail, then there would be more riders.

 

I just looked up Metrolink hours, and some of their lines have the last train of the day leave Downtown LA by 7:00 pm. Most of our park and ride corridors have service to 9:00.

 

Commuter rail does have some advantages over bus -- it's more comfortable, for example, and you can get up and stretch your legs on a long ride. And it makes a great deal of sense in cities that have congested freeways with underused freight rail lines running parallel to them (which was the case in LA.)

 

But consider this:

 

In a corridor that has park-and-ride service running in an HOV (which makes it fast and relatively reliable), would you prefer to take a commuter rail line that:

 

- Runs less often the the bus (which it inherently will, since it takes more passengers to fill an entire train than one bus)

- Requires a transfer to get to your job when the bus is a one seat ride (since commuter trains can't run down Downtown streets like a bus can)

- Takes longer then the bus (since it makes multiple stops on the way)

 

if we're talking light rail or heavy rail that runs frequently all day and goes right into the heart of job centers, that's a different story. And some commuter rail lines have frequent service and routes that go right to where the jobs are (think Long Island Railroad.) But commuter rail isn't necessarily great transit just because it has steel rails underneath.

[mfastx]

I somewhat agree that there might be slightly more ridership on commuter rail than P&R buses, but if we are going to focus our transit dollars on a particular area, it would have to be the inner loop area. 

 

We have invested a significant amount of money on Park and Ride and it provides a great service.  Commuter rail might provide marginally better service, but IMO it's a little wasteful to put that much money improving a system that's already good. 

 

I do have a question that anyone is welcome to answer/debate: why was there relatively no/little opposition to building P&R HOV lanes?  METRO has spent a lot of money on it, and ridership is relatively small compared to the capital invested.  I, for one, think it's a great system and a great investment, but why no political opposition?  Buses lose money just like rail does.  Why was there so much opposition to, say, the Red Line, when it costed about 1/3 as much as the P&R system but carries more riders? 

 

It seems like people that are staunchly against rail are okay with a transit system that loses money, as long as it is buses and not rail.  I wonder why that is..

[Slick Vik]

I just looked up Metrolink hours, and some of their lines have the last train of the day leave Downtown LA by 7:00 pm. Most of our park and ride corridors have service to 9:00.

 

Commuter rail does have some advantages over bus -- it's more comfortable, for example, and you can get up and stretch your legs on a long ride. And it makes a great deal of sense in cities that have congested freeways with underused freight rail lines running parallel to them (which was the case in LA.)

 

But consider this:

 

In a corridor that has park-and-ride service running in an HOV (which makes it fast and relatively reliable), would you prefer to take a commuter rail line that:

 

- Runs less often the the bus (which it inherently will, since it takes more passengers to fill an entire train than one bus)

- Requires a transfer to get to your job when the bus is a one seat ride (since commuter trains can't run down Downtown streets like a bus can)

- Takes longer then the bus (since it makes multiple stops on the way)

 

if we're talking light rail or heavy rail that runs frequently all day and goes right into the heart of job centers, that's a different story. And some commuter rail lines have frequent service and routes that go right to where the jobs are (think Long Island Railroad.) But commuter rail isn't necessarily great transit just because it has steel rails underneath.

 

Your last paragraph is exactly what we need. If we had heavy rail that connected to a good light rail system, it would be the ideal system. And it's too late to think about it now, but for the cost of what it took to build the HOV system, with that amount of money at that time we probably could've built rails down all the "busways."

[samagon]

...for the cost of what it took to build the HOV system, with that amount of money at that time we probably could've built rails down all the "busways."

 

I'm not so sure this is really an accurate statement.

 

The 1.4 billion cost of heavy rail in 1983 was only for the 13 mile stretch, certainly not what territory our current HOV lanes cover.

[livincinco]

Your last paragraph is exactly what we need. If we had heavy rail that connected to a good light rail system, it would be the ideal system. And it's too late to think about it now, but for the cost of what it took to build the HOV system, with that amount of money at that time we probably could've built rails down all the "busways."

The concept is great in theory, but I would imagine that the logistics of connecting a significant percentage of the job centers to the system would be daunting. It seems like most of the discussion focuses around the area inside the loop, which I understand, but I do think that it's always relevant to remember that only about 500k people (less than 25% of the city) lives inside the loop. I don't know the job numbers, but I would imagine that they are reasonably similar percentages.

In order to effectively serve the city as you suggest, I would think that the network would have to extend to cover all significant areas inside the beltway with the commuter rail extending beyond that. Otherwise, you're asking the majority of the voters to support a plan that has little to know benefit to them.

[Slick Vik]

The concept is great in theory, but I would imagine that the logistics of connecting a significant percentage of the job centers to the system would be daunting. It seems like most of the discussion focuses around the area inside the loop, which I understand, but I do think that it's always relevant to remember that only about 500k people (less than 25% of the city) lives inside the loop. I don't know the job numbers, but I would imagine that they are reasonably similar percentages.

In order to effectively serve the city as you suggest, I would think that the network would have to extend to cover all significant areas inside the beltway with the commuter rail extending beyond that. Otherwise, you're asking the majority of the voters to support a plan that has little to know benefit to them.

 

A system that connected downtown, medical center, greenway plaza, greenspoint, energy corridor, westchase, and the galleria would connect 7 employment areas, and with connections to hobby and intercontinental, that is a very good transport system. To an extent if you're going to choose to live 30 miles outside of the city you have to live with your decision to save money in exchange for transport headaches. METRO can not make outside areas build commuter rail, can simply encourage. 

[IronTiger]

The University Line and the Galleria/Uptown line would've been extremely effective, connecting in essence Rice/Montrose, Greenway Plaza, Galleria, and the Northwest Transit Center all in one fell swoop. I remember seeing somewhere (Christof's blog, maybe elsewhere, that had a planned METROMap (http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/27568-current-planned-metrorail-map/'>link) overlaid on a real street map. Apparently, there were distant future-plans to connect it to Hobby, Katy, or IAH.

[livincinco]

A system that connected downtown, medical center, greenway plaza, greenspoint, energy corridor, westchase, and the galleria would connect 7 employment areas, and with connections to hobby and intercontinental, that is a very good transport system. To an extent if you're going to choose to live 30 miles outside of the city you have to live with your decision to save money in exchange for transport headaches. METRO can not make outside areas build commuter rail, can simply encourage.

What you just described is a more ambitious plan than anything that I've seen previously described, but let's go with it for a minute. The problem with transportation is that it needs to be point to point at the end of the day. This aggressive and developed network still leaves out major segments of the city (not the metro area), but even in the areas serviced, you still have to establish it in a way that it is viable for people to use.

Here's my previous experience with mass transit as an example. I lived in and worked in areas that were connected to the rail system, but still had to make a daily trip from my house to my office from those areas.

I lived and worked a couple of miles from the station on each end so my choices broke down as follows:

Mass transit

- Ride my bike to the station - 10 min

- Ride the train to work w/ 1 transfer - 45 min

- Ride my bike to the office - 15 min

- Transit time approx 1 hour 10 minutes with a cost approx. $9.00 round trip

Or I could drive my car through traffic, which took 20 minutes on a good day and 45 minutes on a bad day and cost me about $6.00 in gas a day.

And that's the problem that I've found over and over again with mass transit. Even if you connect the areas, you still have last mile issues that each individual has to work through. Generally there's a pretty small radius that works logistically before people just decide that it's more trouble than worth.

So there is definitely a subset of people that the station locations are going to work for and there's an additional subset of people that are going to utilize it because of financial challenges that prevent them from having a car, but I question whether you can serve a significant portion of the population in a cost effective manner.

[Slick Vik]

What you just described is a more ambitious plan than anything that I've seen previously described, but let's go with it for a minute. The problem with transportation is that it needs to be point to point at the end of the day. This aggressive and developed network still leaves out major segments of the city (not the metro area), but even in the areas serviced, you still have to establish it in a way that it is viable for people to use.

Here's my previous experience with mass transit as an example. I lived in and worked in areas that were connected to the rail system, but still had to make a daily trip from my house to my office from those areas.

I lived and worked a couple of miles from the station on each end so my choices broke down as follows:

Mass transit

- Ride my bike to the station - 10 min

- Ride the train to work w/ 1 transfer - 45 min

- Ride my bike to the office - 15 min

- Transit time approx 1 hour 10 minutes with a cost approx. $9.00 round trip

Or I could drive my car through traffic, which took 20 minutes on a good day and 45 minutes on a bad day and cost me about $6.00 in gas a day.

And that's the problem that I've found over and over again with mass transit. Even if you connect the areas, you still have last mile issues that each individual has to work through. Generally there's a pretty small radius that works logistically before people just decide that it's more trouble than worth.

So there is definitely a subset of people that the station locations are going to work for and there's an additional subset of people that are going to utilize it because of financial challenges that prevent them from having a car, but I question whether you can serve a significant portion of the population in a cost effective manner.

$9 is a lot

[mfastx]

In order to effectively serve the city as you suggest, I would think that the network would have to extend to cover all significant areas inside the beltway with the commuter rail extending beyond that. Otherwise, you're asking the majority of the voters to support a plan that has little to know benefit to them.

 

I think the reason transit planners seem to focus on the inner loop is because that's where most of the potential transit riders are.  We have a great P&R system - but only 30,000 or so boardings are registered a day.  If one inner loop light rail line generates about 40,000 boardings a day, that tells you a lot.  Inner loop neighborhoods are denser, and have more amenities within walking distance.  Therefore, they are more condusive to transit. 

 

Plus, you can build a great commuter system, but if the inner employment centers aren't connected by transit, then less people will ride.  Once you get in town, you have to be able to get around without a car once you're there. 

 

I agree that people in the suburbs aren't going to support a plan that focuses on the inner loop... that's why it's so tough to get anything done.  METRO's service area is huge, and even if they do build great transit out to the suburbs, it's not like they are going to use it anyway.  They all have their cars and love the suburban lifestyle.. that's why they're out there.  Case in point with our P&R system. 

 

I however make the argument that if inner loopers can pay for highways out to the suburbs, then suburban areas can pay taxes that benefit inner loopers.  That's just how transportation works.  Someone is always subsidizing someone else.  Hell, inner loopers and Houstonians paid for the P&R system.  Which costs a heck of a lot and only benefits suburbanites. 

[trymahjong]

Guess the opinion page in today's chronicle filled in a lot of blanks for me.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/article/Houston-deserves-better-rail-service-4337295.php

 

[IHB2]

It seems like people that are staunchly against rail are okay with a transit system that loses money, as long as it is buses and not rail.  I wonder why that is..

 

 

It is possible that taxpayers understand public transit will lose money b/c it is designed to subsidize people who might otherwise be unable to afford the cost of individual mobility (auto) to work, shop, etc.

 

But it's a subsidy that has positive benefits to all taxpayers.

 

Buses are great for public transit b/c, as Christof notes above, buses can get closer to where more people live and work than fixed guideway transit.

 

 

 

But mass transit promises something in addition - moving lots of people to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and quality of life in general for both riders and everybody else.

 

It's a tougher argument to make to taxpayers that they need to subsidize people who can otherwise easily afford to move themselves by spending billions on fixed guideway systems in addition to the billions spent on buses, HOVs, toll roads, freeways - all of which represent a more flexible, if less environmentally desirable, system than fixed guideway. And in a sprawling Sunbelt car-centric metropolitan area, flexibility is good. 

 

When the transit agency charged with effectively spending the taxpayers' $$$ has the history of serial missteps spiked with the occasional transit scandal that METRO does, that argument gets really hard to win IMO.

[mfastx]

It is possible that taxpayers understand public transit will lose money b/c it is designed to subsidize people who might otherwise be unable to afford the cost of individual mobility (auto) to work, shop, etc.

 

But it's a subsidy that has positive benefits to all taxpayers.

 

Buses are great for public transit b/c, as Christof notes above, buses can get closer to where more people live and work than fixed guideway transit.

 

Since when is public transit only supposed to serve people who can't afford a car?  The more people that ride public transit the better, it shouldn't matter whether or not they can afford a private vehicle or not.  If quality public transit is built, then people will ride. 

 

But mass transit promises something in addition - moving lots of people to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and quality of life in general for both riders and everybody else.

 

It's a tougher argument to make to taxpayers that they need to subsidize people who can otherwise easily afford to move themselves by spending billions on fixed guideway systems in addition to the billions spent on buses, HOVs, toll roads, freeways - all of which represent a more flexible, if less environmentally desirable, system than fixed guideway. And in a sprawling Sunbelt car-centric metropolitan area, flexibility is good. 

 

HOV's, toll roads, and freeways are no more flexible than fixed guideway transit is.  Major employment centers aren't going anywhere.  A few lines connecting these major centers wouldn't hurt. 

 

When the transit agency charged with effectively spending the taxpayers' $$$ has the history of serial missteps spiked with the occasional transit scandal that METRO does, that argument gets really hard to win IMO.

 

That's true. 

 

We as a region need to work together to provide better quality public transit.  For an organization like METRO, when special interest groups are fighting tooth and nail to prevent improvements to transit, it's tough.  METRO will never improve if everyone is out to "get" them.

[IHB2]

Since when is public transit only supposed to serve people who can't afford a car?  The more people that ride public transit the better, it shouldn't matter whether or not they can afford a private vehicle or not.  If quality public transit is built, then people will ride.

 

 

that's not what I meant even if you interpreted it that way. there have always been riders on public transit that could afford to get where they're going some other way, but in car-centric Houston, specifically and historically, that # has not been a big enough % of transit riders to affect congestion, air quality, etc in any meaningful way.

 

so you have to ask yourself why would taxpayers be willing to pay decade after decade for a money-losing operation at all?

 

it's certainly not to subsidize the transportation costs of people that can afford to pay their own way.

 

your last sentence is telling - you don't believe a bus system is "quality" enough to attract enough people. you of course mean people that are not at all public transit dependent. you want to attract riders from across all economic classes.

 

so I stand by my last comment about  how difficult it has been, and will continue to be, to persuade taxpayers to ok the spending of billions more tax $ by an agency with a sketchy history of competence in order to build "quality" transit to attract people who don't need the service.

[livincinco]

I think that a lot of this conversation is based on METRO's current bus fleet. Does the perception of buses change if money is spent to modernize the fleet and have it run on clean energy? Does that mitigate some of the comparative advantages of rail?

[Slick Vik]

I think that a lot of this conversation is based on METRO's current bus fleet. Does the perception of buses change if money is spent to modernize the fleet and have it run on clean energy? Does that mitigate some of the comparative advantages of rail?

No

[livincinco]

No

Thank you for your detailed and informative response. This clearly makes me rethink my questions.

[Slick Vik]

Thank you for your detailed and informative response. This clearly makes me rethink my questions.

Well by that I meant that there is such a thing as rail bias. It sounds silly but it does exist

[JamesL]

I think that a lot of this conversation is based on METRO's current bus fleet. Does the perception of buses change if money is spent to modernize the fleet and have it run on clean energy? Does that mitigate some of the comparative advantages of rail?

 

Modernizing the fleet is certainly important for making the local service something middle class people are willing to use. The Orion buses they've been buying for the past four years represent a giant leap forward in design over the New Flyers that made up almost the entire fleet before that. Those old buses look and feel like boxes for transporting poor people. The Orions have more glass, stainless steel, and upholstery and less vinyl and plastic. The Novabus sixty-footers that should be arriving soon should be great, too. If they keep buying 100 buses a year it won't be too long until the old, crappy ones are out of the 1200-bus fleet.