Texas highways more clogged, more costly

[mfastx]

Where can one get a look at the old 1983 heavy rail master plan?   I think this is the first I've ever seen or heard of it going all the way out to Katy.

 

 

Only thing I could find is this article written by Spieler in the late 1990s.  In the second picture down you can see the master plan for the 1983 proposal.  Of course if it had been approved it would have been subject to change but what a great system that would have been.

 

EDIT: can't really tell if it goes all the way to Katy but there are two lines that extend pretty far westward.  What I liked about this proposal is that it had the lines centered west of downtown, which is where the majority of the people are. 

Edited October 13, 2013 by mfastx

[livincinco]

Only thing I could find is this article written by Spieler in the late 1990s.  In the second picture down you can see the master plan for the 1983 proposal.  Of course if it had been approved it would have been subject to change but what a great system that would have been.

 

EDIT: can't really tell if it goes all the way to Katy but there are two lines that extend pretty far westward.  What I liked about this proposal is that it had the lines centered west of downtown, which is where the majority of the people are. 

 

Whether it made it all the way out to Katy is probably irrelevant because I doubt there was a lot of need to go out there back in 1983.  I believe that it's still in use west of Katy though.

 

I'm much more interested in what the proposed route was inside the loop.  I believe that the original MKT route is now the Heights bike trail but I don't know if they planned to follow that route.

[livincinco]

Regarding your anecdotal discussion on the LIRR, well

. It is the busiest commuter railroad in North America, serving nearly 335,000 passengers daily.

Yes they only matter when discussing mass transit, but not freeways

One 7.5 rail line has more ridership than all the park and rides combined and it cost less to make

 

As usual, you have completely missed my point and I'm really not interested in restating it again.

Edited October 13, 2013 by livincinco

[Slick Vik]

As usual, you have completely missed my point and I'm really not interested in restating it again.

Your anecdotal evidence was interesting but at a macro level the LIRR has excellent ridership.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Slick Vik

[livincinco]

Selective hearing - one posseses this quality when they hear only what they would like to hear.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=selective%20hearing

 

[Slick Vik]

Selective hearing - one posseses this quality when they hear only what they would like to hear.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=selective%20hearing

Yes of course; every world class city in the world has a good transit system or is developing one, except houston. Why because we said so. Let's see how this works out in the future.

[IronTiger]

Yes of course; every world class city in the world has a good transit system or is developing one, except houston.

Hey, did you hear about the new light rail lines opening later this year or early the next? No?

And as usual, Slick doesn't face the arguments he can't hope to win or has been backed into, but continues beating a dead horse into pudding.

[Slick Vik]

Hey, did you hear about the new light rail lines opening later this year or early the next? No?

And as usual, Slick doesn't face the arguments he can't hope to win or has been backed into, but continues beating a dead horse into pudding.

The one that matters is on hold.

[august948]

One 7.5 rail line has more ridership than all the park and rides combined and it cost less to make

That 7.5 miles of rail isn't going to get anyone from katy to tmc or downtown. And it's foolish to believe that ridership on additional lines, especially to the suburbs, is going to be anywhere near that of the red line. I'd like to see your backup on the dedicated cost on a similar length of the P&R system. I find it hard to believe that a P&R station and the required buses for a similar length route cost more than the red line and it's equipment.

[Slick Vik]

That 7.5 miles of rail isn't going to get anyone from katy to tmc or downtown. And it's foolish to believe that ridership on additional lines, especially to the suburbs, is going to be anywhere near that of the red line. I'd like to see your backup on the dedicated cost on a similar length of the P&R system. I find it hard to believe that a P&R station and the required buses for a similar length route cost more than the red line and it's equipment.

The HOV lane system cost $1 billion 30 years ago. The red line cost $900 million 10 years ago.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Slick Vik

[livincinco]

The HOV lane system cost $1 billion 30 years ago. The red line cost $900 million 10 years ago.

 

OK - I can't hold back any longer because there is so much bias in your statements that I just can't let it stand.

 

The cost of the Houston HOV system was $830 million dollars for 95.5 miles - a cost of approx. $8.7 million/mile.  See pg. 7 of the EPA report for data.

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/high_occvehicles.pdf

 

Assuming your Red Line cost of $900 million, that means that the cost for that 7.5 mile line equates out to well over $100 million/mile.

 

You're also quoting costs for construction of the HOV lane system and then quoting ridership for the Park and Ride system.  If you do a true apples to apples comparison, including full numbers of the HOV lane.

 

Ridership as of the August METRO report - see page 13 of the metro report

 

http://www.ridemetro.org/FinancialAuditInformation/Pdfs/MonthlyFinancialReports/2013/08_Reports/0813_Board-Report.pdf

 

METROrail - 10.5 million - 2013 YTD

 

Park and ride - 7.3 million - 2013 YTD

HOV/HOT Carpools/Vanpools/non-METRO buses - 23.4 million - total 30.7 million

 

That means that the ridership in the HOV lanes is approx. three times the ridership of METROrail.

[august948]

OK - I can't hold back any longer because there is so much bias in your statements that I just can't let it stand.

 

The cost of the Houston HOV system was $830 million dollars for 95.5 miles - a cost of approx. $8.7 million/mile.  See pg. 7 of the EPA report for data.

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/high_occvehicles.pdf

 

Assuming your Red Line cost of $900 million, that means that the cost for that 7.5 mile line equates out to well over $100 million/mile.

 

You're also quoting costs for construction of the HOV lane system and then quoting ridership for the Park and Ride system.  If you do a true apples to apples comparison, including full numbers of the HOV lane.

 

Ridership as of the August METRO report - see page 13 of the metro report

 

http://www.ridemetro.org/FinancialAuditInformation/Pdfs/MonthlyFinancialReports/2013/08_Reports/0813_Board-Report.pdf

 

METROrail - 10.5 million - 2013 YTD

 

Park and ride - 7.3 million - 2013 YTD

HOV/HOT Carpools/Vanpools/non-METRO buses - 23.4 million - total 30.7 million

 

That means that the ridership in the HOV lanes is approx. three times the ridership of METROrail.

 

Thank you for running the numbers...I suspected as much.

 

The HOV lane system cost $1 billion 30 years ago. The red line cost $900 million 10 years ago.

 

Wow...$900M divided by 7.5 miles comes to $120M per mile.  Subtract $8.7M per mile for HOV/P&R and you get $111.3M per mile greater cost for rail than HOV/P&R.  Then you have just slightly over 20M more riders on HOV/P&R than on rail, or roughly three times the amount.  So for 13 times the cost you get 1/3 of the ridership.  Then when you figure in that a fully built out rail system will likely have higher costs and less ridership per mile than the red line it's pretty much as slam dunk.  P&R is the way to go.

[Slick Vik]

OK - I can't hold back any longer because there is so much bias in your statements that I just can't let it stand.

 

The cost of the Houston HOV system was $830 million dollars for 95.5 miles - a cost of approx. $8.7 million/mile.  See pg. 7 of the EPA report for data.

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/high_occvehicles.pdf

 

Assuming your Red Line cost of $900 million, that means that the cost for that 7.5 mile line equates out to well over $100 million/mile.

 

You're also quoting costs for construction of the HOV lane system and then quoting ridership for the Park and Ride system.  If you do a true apples to apples comparison, including full numbers of the HOV lane.

 

Ridership as of the August METRO report - see page 13 of the metro report

 

http://www.ridemetro.org/FinancialAuditInformation/Pdfs/MonthlyFinancialReports/2013/08_Reports/0813_Board-Report.pdf

 

METROrail - 10.5 million - 2013 YTD

 

Park and ride - 7.3 million - 2013 YTD

HOV/HOT Carpools/Vanpools/non-METRO buses - 23.4 million - total 30.7 million

 

That means that the ridership in the HOV lanes is approx. three times the ridership of METROrail.

 

1. Cristof has been quoted numerous times saying the entire HOV lanes + P&R system took $1 billion to build, like here

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=46473

 

2. Apples to apples? You are comparing total usage with single driven cars + P&R buses to the rail. Apples to apples is rail to the park and ride buses, or the ridership a commuter rail system would get if the HOV lanes were eliminated, like BART in the bay area or Chicago.

 

One set of train cars could take the same amount as hundreds of single driver cars. HOV lanes are probably the most inefficient use of right of way there is.

[Slick Vik]

Thank you for running the numbers...I suspected as much.

 

 

Wow...$900M divided by 7.5 miles comes to $120M per mile.  Subtract $8.7M per mile for HOV/P&R and you get $111.3M per mile greater cost for rail than HOV/P&R.  Then you have just slightly over 20M more riders on HOV/P&R than on rail, or roughly three times the amount.  So for 13 times the cost you get 1/3 of the ridership.  Then when you figure in that a fully built out rail system will likely have higher costs and less ridership per mile than the red line it's pretty much as slam dunk.  P&R is the way to go.

 

P&R is the way to go? ALL the P&R buses in a day get less riders combined than the red line. How is that efficient?

[IronTiger]

P&R is the way to go? ALL the P&R buses in a day get less riders combined than the red line. How is that efficient?

Well, considering we're talking about interurban downtown travel to buses connecting rich suburbs (who still prefer cars), then that's not a good comparison...but then again...why are YOU talking about efficiency?

[Ross]

P&R is the way to go? ALL the P&R buses in a day get less riders combined than the red line. How is that efficient?

 

The park and ride infrastructure enables thousands of people to get to their destination more efficiently and in the comfort of their own vehicles and with the traveling partner of their choice.

 

I rode public trasnport for 4 years in London. Train, then the underground. I want to tell you that standing in a crowded train car for the better part of an hour is not fun. Nor is standing packed into an underground rail car with your face crammed into the armpit o someone who last bathed more than a week ago, wearing a suit that that gets cleaned twice a year whether it needs it or not. Mass transit is seldom as comfortable and efficient as proponents try to make us believe.

 

[Slick Vik]

The park and ride infrastructure enables thousands of people to get to their destination more efficiently and in the comfort of their own vehicles and with the traveling partner of their choice.

I rode public trasnport for 4 years in London. Train, then the underground. I want to tell you that standing in a crowded train car for the better part of an hour is not fun. Nor is standing packed into an underground rail car with your face crammed into the armpit o someone who last bathed more than a week ago, wearing a suit that that gets cleaned twice a year whether it needs it or not. Mass transit is seldom as comfortable and efficient as proponents try to make us believe.

What's the alternative in London?

[Ross]

What's the alternative in London?

 

Cars or buses. However, the roads aren't as well planned, being laid over a network developed since the MIddle Ages and lack the capacity of roads here. There are no freeways within Central London to facilitate easy movement of vehicles, and the prohibitively high congestion charges keep most folks on mass transit. Keep in mind that London has 4 times the population that Houston does within the equivalent city limits, and far more live within the area around London. London buses and th eUnderground carry something like 9 million passengers per day. London has density, so mass transit works. That doesn't mean it's pleasant.

 

The freeways here are not bad at all, even during rush hours.

 

 

[mfastx]

The Red Line cost only $300 million to build.  Not sure where the $900 million number came from.  That's the amount of federal funds going to the three lines under construction right now I believe. 

 

I think the HOV lanes are worth the amount of money METRO has invested in them, but it is somewhat annoying when people from the suburbs complain that METRO is only investing money on building rail inside the loop.  As this is simply not true. 

[august948]

P&R is the way to go? ALL the P&R buses in a day get less riders combined than the red line. How is that efficient?

 

Even if you pretend that no one else uses the HOV/HOT lanes and it's just 7.5M riders you still end up with 10.5M riders at a cost of $111.3M per mile vs 7.5M riders at a cost of $8.7M per mile.  Dividing that out we get a cost of $10.60 per rider/mile for rail vs $1.19 per rider/mile for P&R.  That's nearly 10 times as much for rail.  The additional mobility added by allowing other vehicles to use the HOV/HOT lanes is just more icing on the cake.  Of course, we could factor in the additional use of the rail infrastructure by other vehicles...but wait, there isn't any.

 

Like I said, P&R has it hands-down.

 

[livincinco]

Can I take a moment to point how ridiculous this whole discussion is? This is comparing two things that serve different functions and then arguing which one is better.

Oh wait, I just remembereds that most of the transportation conversations on this forum are ridiculous. Carry on.

[DNAguy]

I'm curious, does METRO pay for all the cost to repave the whole street, put in sidewalks, upgrade intersections to comply with the ADA, and bury utility lines when putting in the rail lines?

 

 

[Slick Vik]

I'm curious, does METRO pay for all the cost to repave the whole street, put in sidewalks, upgrade intersections to comply with the ADA, and bury utility lines when putting in the rail lines?

The street paving rule is what helped put houston electric out of business and what makes the cost of light rail so expensive here. It makes no sense the entire street has to he redone when making rail that seems counterproductive.

Can I take a moment to point how ridiculous this whole discussion is? This is comparing two things that serve different functions and then arguing which one is better.

Oh wait, I just remembereds that most of the transportation conversations on this forum are ridiculous. Carry on.

Ridiculous is the state of mass transit in houston.

[Slick Vik]

The Red Line cost only $300 million to build. Not sure where the $900 million number came from. That's the amount of federal funds going to the three lines under construction right now I believe.

I think the HOV lanes are worth the amount of money METRO has invested in them, but it is somewhat annoying when people from the suburbs complain that METRO is only investing money on building rail inside the loop. As this is simply not true.

You're right, it was just $300 million.

[Slick Vik]

Even if you pretend that no one else uses the HOV/HOT lanes and it's just 7.5M riders you still end up with 10.5M riders at a cost of $111.3M per mile vs 7.5M riders at a cost of $8.7M per mile. Dividing that out we get a cost of $10.60 per rider/mile for rail vs $1.19 per rider/mile for P&R. That's nearly 10 times as much for rail. The additional mobility added by allowing other vehicles to use the HOV/HOT lanes is just more icing on the cake. Of course, we could factor in the additional use of the rail infrastructure by other vehicles...but wait, there isn't any.

Like I said, P&R has it hands-down.

It's actually $40 million per mile for light rail. And the park and ride only runs frequently for 4 hours a day, while the rail runs 20 hours a day. A billion dollars 30 years ago could've and should've been used for a real transportation network. HOV lanes come to a crawl most weekdays now.

[livincinco]

The street paving rule is what helped put houston electric out of business and what makes the cost of light rail so expensive here. It makes no sense the entire street has to he redone when making rail that seems counterproductive.

 

I'm not an engineer so I can't say for sure, but I would think that you have to redo the street when you put light rail in because you have to construct the foundation of the roadbed differently.  Also, I think that there are probably different requirements on how level the road has to be to accommodate a train rather than cars or buses. 

 

Bottom line, I don't think that it's possible to just lay track down an existing roadway.

[Slick Vik]

I'm not an engineer so I can't say for sure, but I would think that you have to redo the street when you put light rail in because you have to construct the foundation of the roadbed differently.  Also, I think that there are probably different requirements on how level the road has to be to accommodate a train rather than cars or buses. 

 

Bottom line, I don't think that it's possible to just lay track down an existing roadway.

 

I'll have to look into that, but that is a major part of the cost for METRO. At one time, the streetcar company, Houston Electric, was not responsible for this cost. Once it had to shoulder responsibility it basically was the beginning of the end.

[Slick Vik]

Regarding the actual time saved by using HOV lanes, there's a recent study out

 

Using the managed lanes can shave time off commutes, but sometimes not as much as drivers think, according to a new study. Texas A&M Transportation Institute researchers found most toll lane users chose the managed lanes to save time, reduce stress and avoid traffic. On average, researchers found, commuters can save five minutes in the morning and 14 minutes in the evening compared to the general use lanes.

"Most travelers using the managed lanes estimated travel time savings that were more than twice the actual time saved," according to the study.

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/begley/article/Price-hike-has-desired-effect-so-far-on-Katy-4895563.php?cmpid=btfpm

[livincinco]

The park and ride only runs frequently for 4 hours a day, while the rail runs 20 hours a day.

 

That's a question of demand and that's true of any transportation system.  The park and ride only runs during peak hours because that's when the demand is. 

 

That was the point of my commuter rail story.  My feeling on commuter rail is that it gets used when the inconveniences of driving a car exceed the inconveniences of using commuter rail.  At a high level, the inconveniences of driving a car are congestion and parking cost/difficulty.  The inconveniences of commuter rail are transit time and last mile issues.  

 

The LIRR has high ridership because the inconveniences of driving into Manhattan are huge as a result those inconveniences make commuter rail comparatively more.  The same is true in San Francisco.  Those inconveniences are not nearly at the same level in Houston.  Downtown parking is plentiful and comparatively cheap and while there is congestion, it's not close to the congestion in either of those other locations.

 

The P&R ridership points out  the same question.  As you mentioned, P&R  numbers are low.  I would theorize that is because the inconveniences of transit time and last mile are judged to be worse than the issues of congestion and parking.

 

So at that point it starts to be an extrapolation of 20-30 years out and what traffic patterns are going to be and that's really the core question to commuter rail.  Will Houston reverse it's historical pattern and centralize more jobs into the urban core (in which case commuter rail makes sense) or will it continue to disperse jobs into multiple job centers throughout the city and develop new ones closer to the places where the majority of the population live.

 

I personally believe that jobs will continue to disperse and that downtown will continue to shrink as a percentage of jobs.  Therefore, I don't think commuter rail makes sense.

[mfastx]

I'm curious, does METRO pay for all the cost to repave the whole street, put in sidewalks, upgrade intersections to comply with the ADA, and bury utility lines when putting in the rail lines?

 

Yes they do.  One of the board members had the idea of the city fronting the cost for the streets/utilities with METRO only having to pay for the actual rail infrastructure.  This would have allowed METRO to begin construction on the University line a lot sooner.  Of course everyone hated this idea.