More Congestion On Interstate-10

[IronTiger]

But it's impossible to debate with someone that refuses to move beyond the status quo and thinks the current situation is sustainable for the future and in the mean time finds a myriad of reasons to not look at feasible alternatives that are being invested in worldwide.

We have discussed the benefits and drawbacks of light rail, and light rail is not the "magic key" to sustainable growth. It is also ridiculous to talk about feasibility when someone wants a massive rail system laid down in an impossibly short timeline, or flippantly discusses removing an important elevated freeway while refusing to acknowledge the drawbacks.

Hey, if you need me, I'll be in the Historic Houston section, or maybe trying to revive the Bryan-College Station subforum. See ya!

[por favor gracias]

Sorry guys, I'm just not buying this argument that's now been raised by a couple of people that individual private costs that people incur related to the ownership of cars should be attributed to the cost of the project. While I agree that there is an element of necessity to a car purchase, but car purchases are for the most part, driven by discretionary income. People buy the kind of car that they want to drive, not a strictly utilitarian car that just gets them from point to point.

It's also a completely known cost that is directly paid by the user. When you buy a car, you know you're putting gas in it. You're not getting gas for free and then paying taxes to the government to underwrite gas for everyone.

The last point is you again state the fallacy of light rail and "faster ways" to get to places outside the loop. There are many strong arguments for public transit, but faster isn't one of them. With the exception of rare direct point to point connections, intracity public transit increases commute times, it doesn't decrease them. Improving public transit to those areas is beneficial in many ways, but it won't make it faster to get there.

 

I'm not saying those costs "should be attributed to the cost of the project." I'm saying that they are real costs that *aren't included* in those initial monetary costs. I strongly disagree that automobiles are a product of "discretionary" income. For some, that's the case...but the reason why a lot of people have cars is because they need a feasible way to get from point A to point B, and at least here in Houston, we are yet to have a real alternative. The people who buy larger and/or more stylish vehicles are choosing to spend discretionary income, but it's not like there's this great transportation system in place...and they are truly "choosing to drive" over reasonable alternatives. It's just that driving is really the only way to get around here, and a lot of people put a lot of stock in status.

 

I've mentioned earlier that speed, efficiency and just overall effectiveness all depends on how and where these transportation systems are built. The biggest reason why some rail/trains are slower than vehicles is because we have based so much of our infrastructure on roads and automobiles. That's why we are in this position in the first place...and that is another area where change needs to happen and soon. All I'm saying is that it's better to start building smarter now than later.

[por favor gracias]

Sounds familiar, huh?

No one here is against light rail inherently, and light rail does take some cars off the road. However, is a train that can take cars off the road but ends up using less "car equivalents" still be considered efficient?

 

Yes...I would say that is the definition of "efficient." There's no way it's "less" efficient to carry 500 people on one train than by 400 or 500 vehicles.

[livincinco]

I'm not saying those costs "should be attributed to the cost of the project." I'm saying that they are real costs that *aren't included* in those initial monetary costs. I strongly disagree that automobiles are a product of "discretionary" income. For some, that's the case...but the reason why a lot of people have cars is because they need a feasible way to get from point A to point B, and at least here in Houston, we are yet to have a real alternative. The people who buy larger and/or more stylish vehicles are choosing to spend discretionary income, but it's not like there's this great transportation system in place...and they are truly "choosing to drive" over reasonable alternatives. It's just that driving is really the only way to get around here, and a lot of people put a lot of stock in status.

 

I've mentioned earlier that speed, efficiency and just overall effectiveness all depends on how and where these transportation systems are built. The biggest reason why some rail/trains are slower than vehicles is because we have based so much of our infrastructure on roads and automobiles. That's why we are in this position in the first place...and that is another area where change needs to happen and soon. All I'm saying is that it's better to start building smarter now than later.

 

Fair enough, so if your goal is to provide transportation for those without cars and to provide access to the highest percentage of the people in the city, then you're with me and Mayor Parker in calling for the vast majority of transit resources to be dedicated to improving the bus system at this point in time.

 

I'm not anti-transit by any means and have never argued that point.  My point has consistently been that, given that there are a finite amount of transit funding available, the most pressing transit need for Houston is to develop a highly effective bus system.  It provides access for a higher percentage of the population and it provides transportation for those who are most in need in our society.  Rail comes later, at a point that there's higher density and greater ridership for individual routes.  Buy right of ways now and build lines in five-ten years when the density requires it and when the bus system has reached a sufficient level of efficiency.  In routes that have good ridership currently, build BRT to provide higher efficiency and maximize network miles per dollar to allow a bigger transit network.

 

Regarding transit speed, I agree with you to a point.  Yes, we have a lot of road infrastructure and that can't be ignored, but it's just a fact that the cities with the largest mass transit share are the cities with the longest average commutes.  As I've said previously, there are many arguments in favor of both rail and mass transit, but point to point speed isn't one of them and the statistics prove that.  New York has the most effective and comprehensive mass transit system and one of the worst road systems in the US and it has the longest average commute.  I'm not sure how you can attribute that to infrastructure that's weighted in favor of roads.  It's just the nature of mass transit because it's not point to point.  If you commute from Long Island, for example, you're talking the Long Island Railroad in, transferring to the subway, and then walking to your office.  That all adds up to a much longer commute.

 

Nothing wrong with living without a car, however there's two types of people that live without cars - those that choose to not drive a car and those that can't afford a car.  I'm much more concerned about those that can't afford a car and believe that the majority of transit dollars should be allocated to that group.

 

 

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Fair enough, so if your goal is to provide transportation for those without cars and to provide access to the highest percentage of the people in the city, then you're with me and Mayor Parker in calling for the vast majority of transit resources to be dedicated to improving the bus system at this point in time.

 

I'm not anti-transit by any means and have never argued that point.  My point has consistently been that, given that there are a finite amount of transit funding available, the most pressing transit need for Houston is to develop a highly effective bus system.  It provides access for a higher percentage of the population and it provides transportation for those who are most in need in our society.  Rail comes later, at a point that there's higher density and greater ridership for individual routes.  Buy right of ways now and build lines in five-ten years when the density requires it and when the bus system has reached a sufficient level of efficiency.  In routes that have good ridership currently, build BRT to provide higher efficiency and maximize network miles per dollar to allow a bigger transit network.

 

Regarding transit speed, I agree with you to a point.  Yes, we have a lot of road infrastructure and that can't be ignored, but it's just a fact that the cities with the largest mass transit share are the cities with the longest average commutes.  As I've said previously, there are many arguments in favor of both rail and mass transit, but point to point speed isn't one of them and the statistics prove that.  New York has the most effective and comprehensive mass transit system and one of the worst road systems in the US and it has the longest average commute.  I'm not sure how you can attribute that to infrastructure that's weighted in favor of roads.  It's just the nature of mass transit because it's not point to point.  If you commute from Long Island, for example, you're talking the Long Island Railroad in, transferring to the subway, and then walking to your office.  That all adds up to a much longer commute.

 

Nothing wrong with living without a car, however there's two types of people that live without cars - those that choose to not drive a car and those that can't afford a car.  I'm much more concerned about those that can't afford a car and believe that the majority of transit dollars should be allocated to that group.

 

I agree to an extent that there are a finite number of dollars and BRT could be a test run for lines to be converted to rail later, but at least the planned lines like University and Uptown lines should be built.

 

And the thought of investing most in buses, I disagree. When you see other cities investing in rail transit, Houston deciding to invest most of its resources into buses makes it a laughingstock in a way. Buses are part of a system but not where the majority of the resources should be flushed, they should be a feeder system into a rail system, and this is where we disagree.

 

And I also disagree that you focus only who doesn't have a car because they can't afford it. They are the most important, but the people that don't want to drive matter as well. Giving them options improves their quality of life as well. And if you ask people that don't have a car would they rather ride buses or trains, well it's an easy answer, especially if transfers are involved. Our bus system is terrible.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Slick Vik

[Slick Vik]

After university line is done I think BRT could be an option for future lines depending on finances.

[IronTiger]

Yes...I would say that is the definition of "efficient." There's no way it's "less" efficient to carry 500 people on one train than by 400 or 500 vehicles.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was writing on a mobile device. The scenario is light rail is to be placed down a highway, replacing two lanes. The train is supposed to eliminate 700 cars from the road, and in a rare case, it actually works that way. Problem: the lanes service 1500 cars a day, each way. While about half can move into light rails (the cars that can actually utilize the light rail and not from a different exit--I am simplifying a lot of stuff here). Those 800 cars that can no longer utilize the lane have to overcrowd the other lanes.

[Slick Vik]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was writing on a mobile device. The scenario is light rail is to be placed down a highway, replacing two lanes. The train is supposed to eliminate 700 cars from the road, and in a rare case, it actually works that way. Problem: the lanes service 1500 cars a day, each way. While about half can move into light rails (the cars that can actually utilize the light rail and not from a different exit--I am simplifying a lot of stuff here). Those 800 cars that can no longer utilize the lane have to overcrowd the other lanes.

I would think they would eliminate far more than 700 cars a day.

[por favor gracias]

Fair enough, so if your goal is to provide transportation for those without cars and to provide access to the highest percentage of the people in the city, then you're with me and Mayor Parker in calling for the vast majority of transit resources to be dedicated to improving the bus system at this point in time.

 

I'm not anti-transit by any means and have never argued that point.  My point has consistently been that, given that there are a finite amount of transit funding available, the most pressing transit need for Houston is to develop a highly effective bus system.  It provides access for a higher percentage of the population and it provides transportation for those who are most in need in our society.  Rail comes later, at a point that there's higher density and greater ridership for individual routes.  Buy right of ways now and build lines in five-ten years when the density requires it and when the bus system has reached a sufficient level of efficiency.  In routes that have good ridership currently, build BRT to provide higher efficiency and maximize network miles per dollar to allow a bigger transit network.

 

Regarding transit speed, I agree with you to a point.  Yes, we have a lot of road infrastructure and that can't be ignored, but it's just a fact that the cities with the largest mass transit share are the cities with the longest average commutes.  As I've said previously, there are many arguments in favor of both rail and mass transit, but point to point speed isn't one of them and the statistics prove that.  New York has the most effective and comprehensive mass transit system and one of the worst road systems in the US and it has the longest average commute.  I'm not sure how you can attribute that to infrastructure that's weighted in favor of roads.  It's just the nature of mass transit because it's not point to point.  If you commute from Long Island, for example, you're talking the Long Island Railroad in, transferring to the subway, and then walking to your office.  That all adds up to a much longer commute.

 

Nothing wrong with living without a car, however there's two types of people that live without cars - those that choose to not drive a car and those that can't afford a car.  I'm much more concerned about those that can't afford a car and believe that the majority of transit dollars should be allocated to that group.

 

My goal is to provide the safest, cleanest, cheapest, most efficient and least stressful way of getting the masses from point A to point B. It's not even a matter of opinion, the answer to all of those is trains and/or subways. That's really all I'm "for" at this point. We're just digging our hole a little deeper every day we continue to ignore/procrastinate on building something like that here.

 

I know you're not "anti-transit" or anything. I hear and get what you're saying...and I actually agree with you on a basic level. I like how buses can move more people than individual automobiles, and I think for now it's easy to say they serve a good purpose (aside from all the black smoke)...but they just can't compete with trains on a number of levels.

 

I think the most pressing needs in Houston stem from our consistently robust population growth. I would say the most pressing need would be to stop growing unless/until we can manage it efficiently. Since that doesn't appear to be in the cards in the foreseeable future, I think it's obvious that the most pressing need at this point is to build a real mass transit system. We've been ignoring this and building more and more roads and more and more automobiles, and look where we're at now...tearing up thousands of acres of more habitat that once belonged to nature and building toll roads "looping" 25 or 30 miles outside of the city. Needless to say, I'm not impressed.

 

NYC has about 8 million residents (and about 20 million in the metro area), with 5.4 million people taking the subways every day and 450 subway stations serving the area. Their commute sucks no matter what method of transportation their residents use. Could you imagine what that place would be like at rush hour if it wasn't for their mass transit system? A lot more people there take the subway than automobile, even though there are 5,936 miles of streets in NYC and "only" 842 miles of track. LA is extremely automobile-oriented, and they have consistently been at or among the worst cities for commuting over the years. Like I was saying earlier, there are a number of factors that weigh in on a particular city's commute times. How is it laid out? How many residents does it have? What kind of transportation is available? Where is it located?

 

I agree with what you're saying about commute times and transferring, but the answer to that is to either build more connecting lines...or learn from our mistakes and plan/build correctly the first time.

 

I just looked up subway fares in NYC and Chicago, and it appears that there is very little difference in price when compared to taking the bus.

[por favor gracias]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was writing on a mobile device. The scenario is light rail is to be placed down a highway, replacing two lanes. The train is supposed to eliminate 700 cars from the road, and in a rare case, it actually works that way. Problem: the lanes service 1500 cars a day, each way. While about half can move into light rails (the cars that can actually utilize the light rail and not from a different exit--I am simplifying a lot of stuff here). Those 800 cars that can no longer utilize the lane have to overcrowd the other lanes.

 

I'm not a fan of light rail going down a lengthy stretch of freeway (like the Katy Freeway) in general.

 

That said, there's a few ways to handle the situation you're talking about. If we had trains that could carry 1,000 or more people at a time, and left every 5 minutes during rush hour...that would be 12,000 people being moved at their own *true* convenience (with no unexpected delays) per hour from one line. The Bloor subway line in Toronto alone gets almost 500,000 riders per day, which is more daily ridership than any freeway in the Houston area. The Yonge Line (which is really two lines) gets over 700,000 per day. I can't stress enough that it's all about what kind of rail, and how and where it's built.

[livincinco]

I'm not a fan of light rail going down a lengthy stretch of freeway (like the Katy Freeway) in general.

That said, there's a few ways to handle the situation you're talking about. If we had trains that could carry 1,000 or more people at a time, and left every 5 minutes during rush hour...that would be 12,000 people being moved at their own *true* convenience (with no unexpected delays) per hour from one line. The Bloor subway line in Toronto alone gets almost 500,000 riders per day, which is more daily ridership than any freeway in the Houston area. The Yonge Line (which is really two lines) gets over 700,000 per day. I can't stress enough that it's all about what kind of rail, and how and where it's built.

METRO indicates that the Park & Ride system currently carries 29% of downtown workers, and another 8% of downtown workers utilize other means of public transit for a total market share of 37% of the downtown workforce.

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2013-02-15/Mechanics_and_Cost_of_Transit_Service.pdf

If you look specifically at Park & Ride on the Katy Freeway, it currently has three locations which have a combined average weekday ridership of approx. 5,500 people.

You're proposing a system that would move 12,000 people/hour which would be approx. 36,000 people during a three hour peak rush hour period, but the statistics from METRO don't indicate that kind of demand. Their statistics indicated that there's only (rough math) about 18,000 people that are going from those locations to downtown. That's admittedly a very rough analysis, but I'd be very curious to see some statistics that refute it.

The base assumption that you're making is that a high percentage of the people that are riding the Katy Freeway are going to downtown but METROs statistics seem to indicate otherwise. They indicate that the people riding the Katy Freeway are highly fragmented in their destinations and that's a huge concern when discussing rail on that corridor.

[Slick Vik]

My goal is to provide the safest, cleanest, cheapest, most efficient and least stressful way of getting the masses from point A to point B. It's not even a matter of opinion, the answer to all of those is trains and/or subways. That's really all I'm "for" at this point. We're just digging our hole a little deeper every day we continue to ignore/procrastinate on building something like that here.

I know you're not "anti-transit" or anything. I hear and get what you're saying...and I actually agree with you on a basic level. I like how buses can move more people than individual automobiles, and I think for now it's easy to say they serve a good purpose (aside from all the black smoke)...but they just can't compete with trains on a number of levels.

I think the most pressing needs in Houston stem from our consistently robust population growth. I would say the most pressing need would be to stop growing unless/until we can manage it efficiently. Since that doesn't appear to be in the cards in the foreseeable future, I think it's obvious that the most pressing need at this point is to build a real mass transit system. We've been ignoring this and building more and more roads and more and more automobiles, and look where we're at now...tearing up thousands of acres of more habitat that once belonged to nature and building toll roads "looping" 25 or 30 miles outside of the city. Needless to say, I'm not impressed.

NYC has about 8 million residents (and about 20 million in the metro area), with 5.4 million people taking the subways every day and 450 subway stations serving the area. Their commute sucks no matter what method of transportation their residents use. Could you imagine what that place would be like at rush hour if it wasn't for their mass transit system? A lot more people there take the subway than automobile, even though there are 5,936 miles of streets in NYC and "only" 842 miles of track. LA is extremely automobile-oriented, and they have consistently been at or among the worst cities for commuting over the years. Like I was saying earlier, there are a number of factors that weigh in on a particular city's commute times. How is it laid out? How many residents does it have? What kind of transportation is available? Where is it located?

I agree with what you're saying about commute times and transferring, but the answer to that is to either build more connecting lines...or learn from our mistakes and plan/build correctly the first time.

I just looked up subway fares in NYC and Chicago, and it appears that there is very little difference in price when compared to taking the bus.

People in NYC usually buy monthly passes.

LA is investing heavily in rail now. Even one of its most ardent critics Henry Waxman supports it going through Beverly Hills. Yet afton oaks still protests. LA should be a warning of what will happen to houston if it keeps procrastinating in investing in a proper pass transit system.

[Slick Vik]

METRO indicates that the Park & Ride system currently carries 29% of downtown workers, and another 8% of downtown workers utilize other means of public transit for a total market share of 37% of the downtown workforce.

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2013-02-15/Mechanics_and_Cost_of_Transit_Service.pdf

If you look specifically at Park & Ride on the Katy Freeway, it currently has three locations which have a combined average weekday ridership of approx. 5,500 people.

You're proposing a system that would move 12,000 people/hour which would be approx. 36,000 people during a three hour peak rush hour period, but the statistics from METRO don't indicate that kind of demand. Their statistics indicated that there's only (rough math) about 18,000 people that are going from those locations to downtown. That's admittedly a very rough analysis, but I'd be very curious to see some statistics that refute it.

The base assumption that you're making is that a high percentage of the people that are riding the Katy Freeway are going to downtown but METROs statistics seem to indicate otherwise. They indicate that the people riding the Katy Freeway are highly fragmented in their destinations and that's a huge concern when discussing rail on that corridor.

Westheimer would be a much better corridor. Secondly if a proper system is built then people can transfer to other lines so the effect of fragmentation is diluted. Also you have no interest in hearing this but there is a large portion of society that has rail bias. That has to be accounted for.

[livincinco]

Westheimer would be a much better corridor. Secondly if a proper system is built then people can transfer to other lines so the effect of fragmentation is diluted. Also you have no interest in hearing this but there is a large portion of society that has rail bias. That has to be accounted for.

 

As I've stated multiple times, my belief is that a much higher preference in terms of transportation planning should go to those that use transit because they can't afford a car rather than those who use transit because they don't want to use a car.  Rail bias isn't a factor for those people.  An improved bus network is the best way to leverage finite transportation dollars and extend coverage throughout the city.

 

Regarding Westheimer, not sure what you would be achieving given that this conversation was about I-10 commuter rail.  If you're proposing running rail all the way to the suburbs down the middle of Westheimer, that strikes me as a prohibitively long transit time. 

[august948]

Buses are part of a system but not where the majority of the resources should be flushed, they should be a feeder system into a rail system, and this is where we disagree.

 

Lapsus linguae?

[august948]

I agree to an extent that there are a finite number of dollars and BRT could be a test run for lines to be converted to rail later, but at least the planned lines like University and Uptown lines should be built.

 

And the thought of investing most in buses, I disagree. When you see other cities investing in rail transit, Houston deciding to invest most of its resources into buses makes it a laughingstock in a way. Buses are part of a system but not where the majority of the resources should be flushed, they should be a feeder system into a rail system, and this is where we disagree.

 

And I also disagree that you focus only who doesn't have a car because they can't afford it. They are the most important, but the people that don't want to drive matter as well. Giving them options improves their quality of life as well. And if you ask people that don't have a car would they rather ride buses or trains, well it's an easy answer, especially if transfers are involved. Our bus system is terrible.

 

Our bus system is not terrible.  If anything, it's primarily in need of more frequent buses and so the solution is to invest more in buses and drivers to improve wait times.

 

It's interesting that you think Houston is a laughingstock for emphasizing busses.  I have long suspected that part of the impetus for Metro officials to push rail is overconcern for how they look among their peers when they attend transit conferences.  Human nature, but not really a good way to lay out public policy.

 

[Slick Vik]

As I've stated multiple times, my belief is that a much higher preference in terms of transportation planning should go to those that use transit because they can't afford a car rather than those who use transit because they don't want to use a car. Rail bias isn't a factor for those people. An improved bus network is the best way to leverage finite transportation dollars and extend coverage throughout the city.

Regarding Westheimer, not sure what you would be achieving given that this conversation was about I-10 commuter rail. If you're proposing running rail all the way to the suburbs down the middle of Westheimer, that strikes me as a prohibitively long transit time.

I think you should go into the real world and ask people that ride the buses if they would prefer trains or buses. Sounds like common sense but people would rather ride something that shows up on time, runs more frequently, and isn't stuck in traffic with cars (most of the time). That's rail preference if not bias.

Also rail bias matters because though we have a lot of people moving here what about when they reach a position in their career when they have the option of living anywhere? I suspect in this case they will move where quality of life is highest and Houston's lack of progress in mass transportation affects its quality of life in a negative way. You have to make the city as attractive to those people too.

As far as westheimer if the line was elevated and had express and local trains the transit time wouldn't be terrible.

[Slick Vik]

Our bus system is not terrible. If anything, it's primarily in need of more frequent buses and so the solution is to invest more in buses and drivers to improve wait times.

It's interesting that you think Houston is a laughingstock for emphasizing busses. I have long suspected that part of the impetus for Metro officials to push rail is overconcern for how they look among their peers when they attend transit conferences. Human nature, but not really a good way to lay out public policy.

I would rate it a D. It's slow rarely on time and infrequent. If it added bus rapid transit it would reach a B level possibly.

And houston is a laughingstock for emphasizing buses. When the whole world is moving forward for some reason we are steadfastly sticking with the status quo. It's pathetic and rather sad.

[livincinco]

I agree to an extent that there are a finite number of dollars and BRT could be a test run for lines to be converted to rail later, but at least the planned lines like University and Uptown lines should be built.

 

And the thought of investing most in buses, I disagree. When you see other cities investing in rail transit, Houston deciding to invest most of its resources into buses makes it a laughingstock in a way. Buses are part of a system but not where the majority of the resources should be flushed, they should be a feeder system into a rail system, and this is where we disagree.

 

And I also disagree that you focus only who doesn't have a car because they can't afford it. They are the most important, but the people that don't want to drive matter as well. Giving them options improves their quality of life as well. And if you ask people that don't have a car would they rather ride buses or trains, well it's an easy answer, especially if transfers are involved. Our bus system is terrible.

 

We'll just agree to disagree then.

 

Let's talk about two hypothetical people.

 

Person A - single mom, needs the bus to get to work.

Person B - owns two cars but doesn't like to drive them.

 

I want every transit dollar dedicated to person A until we have an excellent bus system.  Rail comes after the bus system is running efficiently and only in areas that have sufficient density to justify us.  Couldn't care less if that makes us a laughingstock.

 

[august948]

I would rate it a D. It's slow rarely on time and infrequent. If it added bus rapid transit it would reach a B level possibly.

And houston is a laughingstock for emphasizing buses. When the whole world is moving forward for some reason we are steadfastly sticking with the status quo. It's pathetic and rather sad.

 

I guess that depends on where you are trying to go and how impatient you are.  I had the day off on President's day so I bought a Metro day pass and toodled around inside the loop starting at Rice Village.  I wanted to see if what you say about the system is anywhere near reality and discovered, not to any surprise, that your D rating is bunk.

 

I forget the bus numbers now, but I took one that ran down University to the TMC transit center where I caught the red line to downtown.  Decided to visit The Heights to see what the hype is about so caught a bus downtown that dropped me on 19th street.  Walked up and down a few blocks to see the shops and then caught the bus down to Washington to walk around down there (and to get a drink).  Most of the bars were closed as it was too early in the day yet so I caught the 34 (I think) and then another bus to midtown and walked a block or two to Bar Munich to check another German restaurant off the (very short) list.  After that, I walked a block or two and caught the Red line back to the TMC and jumped on a bus back to Rice Village.  Overall, I had a great time for only $3 in fares and 8 rides total.  Buses were frequent enough that I didn't have to wait more than 10 or 15 mins for any of them.

 

Maybe you are trying to commute to Sealy on the bus and thus are disappointed but, inside the loop at least, bus service is good.

 

Edited February 28, 2014 by august948

[Slick Vik]

I guess that depends on where you are trying to go and how impatient you are.  I had the day off on President's day so I bought a Metro day pass and toodled around inside the loop starting at Rice Village.  I wanted to see if what you say about the system is anywhere near reality and discovered, not to any surprise, that your D rating is bunk.

 

I forget the bus numbers now, but I took one that ran down University to the TMC transit center where I caught the red line to downtown.  Decided to visit The Heights to see what the hype is about so caught a bus downtown that dropped me on 19th street.  Walked up and down a few blocks to see the shops and then caught the bus down to Washington to walk around down there (and to get a drink).  Most of the bars were closed as it was too early in the day yet so I caught the 34 (I think) and then another bus to midtown and walked a block or two to Bar Munich to check another German restaurant off the (very short) list.  After that, I walked a block or two and caught the Red line back to the TMC and jumped on a bus back to Rice Village.  Overall, I had a great time for only $3 in fares and 8 rides total.  Buses were frequent enough that I didn't have to wait more than 10 or 15 mins for any of them.

 

Maybe you are trying to commute to Sealy on the bus and thus are disappointed but, inside the loop at least, bus service is good.

 

 

It runs far too infrequently and is rarely on time. If you have to take transfers it's even more of a nightmare. I'm comparing it to places like Singapore and Germany where things are frequent and on time. We are a D compared to that.

We'll just agree to disagree then.

 

Let's talk about two hypothetical people.

 

Person A - single mom, needs the bus to get to work.

Person B - owns two cars but doesn't like to drive them.

 

I want every transit dollar dedicated to person A until we have an excellent bus system.  Rail comes after the bus system is running efficiently and only in areas that have sufficient density to justify us.  Couldn't care less if that makes us a laughingstock.

 

 

Again, both people matter. By the time you make an excellent bus system we will be so far behind the rest of the cities we are even a further laughingstock.

[august948]

It runs far too infrequently and is rarely on time. If you have to take transfers it's even more of a nightmare. I'm comparing it to places like Singapore and Germany where things are frequent and on time. We are a D compared to that.

 

Singapore is less than half the size of Houston, with twice the density.  Germany is, well...a large European country.  Apples to oranges.

 

When you come back with some better comparisons then we can take a look at frequency and timeliness and get a good idea of what Metro can do to improve.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2014 by august948

[cloud713]

METRO indicates that the Park & Ride system currently carries 29% of downtown workers, and another 8% of downtown workers utilize other means of public transit for a total market share of 37% of the downtown workforce.

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2013-02-15/Mechanics_and_Cost_of_Transit_Service.pdf

If you look specifically at Park & Ride on the Katy Freeway, it currently has three locations which have a combined average weekday ridership of approx. 5,500 people.

You're proposing a system that would move 12,000 people/hour which would be approx. 36,000 people during a three hour peak rush hour period, but the statistics from METRO don't indicate that kind of demand. Their statistics indicated that there's only (rough math) about 18,000 people that are going from those locations to downtown. That's admittedly a very rough analysis, but I'd be very curious to see some statistics that refute it.

The base assumption that you're making is that a high percentage of the people that are riding the Katy Freeway are going to downtown but METROs statistics seem to indicate otherwise. They indicate that the people riding the Katy Freeway are highly fragmented in their destinations and that's a huge concern when discussing rail on that corridor.

What's so fragmented when rail can have multiple stops? Downtown doesn't have to be the only stop... There could be one somewhere in the EC, one at the beltway/city center, one at memorial city, one at the transit center at 610/post oak, and then finally downtown.. Commuter rail can go as fast as 125 mph, plus with traffic it's sure to be faster (even only going like 60-80), even with the few stops.

And if the rail replaced the HOT lanes on i10, or coexisted, it would provide a more attractive mode of transit than busses, more people would likely use the system. The problem now is they can't get to their destination from the HOV lanes without a car. the busses taken off the highway could be rerouted to spiderweb from the stations, so they would service more local areas around the stops

[Slick Vik]

Singapore is less than half the size of Houston, with twice the density.  Germany is, well...a large European country.  Apples to oranges.

 

When you come back with some better comparisons then we can take a look at frequency and timeliness and get a good idea of what Metro can do to improve.

 

These are the ideal systems, what we should strive for. Don't toss them out just for the sake of it.

 

I know in vancouver buses run every 8-9 minutes mostly and trains run every 3 minutes.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Slick Vik

[por favor gracias]

METRO indicates that the Park & Ride system currently carries 29% of downtown workers, and another 8% of downtown workers utilize other means of public transit for a total market share of 37% of the downtown workforce.

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2013-02-15/Mechanics_and_Cost_of_Transit_Service.pdf

If you look specifically at Park & Ride on the Katy Freeway, it currently has three locations which have a combined average weekday ridership of approx. 5,500 people.

You're proposing a system that would move 12,000 people/hour which would be approx. 36,000 people during a three hour peak rush hour period, but the statistics from METRO don't indicate that kind of demand. Their statistics indicated that there's only (rough math) about 18,000 people that are going from those locations to downtown. That's admittedly a very rough analysis, but I'd be very curious to see some statistics that refute it.

The base assumption that you're making is that a high percentage of the people that are riding the Katy Freeway are going to downtown but METROs statistics seem to indicate otherwise. They indicate that the people riding the Katy Freeway are highly fragmented in their destinations and that's a huge concern when discussing rail on that corridor.

 

I wasn't really "proposing" that particular system, I was just demonstrating how many people trains can move at a time and that's one way to address IronTiger's scenario.

 

That said, rail ridership is generally higher than bus ridership. I'd be surprised if that 18,000 number demand wouldn't increase significantly if we had a first-class subway option. It would also give us a blueprint for more sustainable growth and future development. I see no reason to continue to sit in traffic and wait until there are 10 or 15 million people living here before we address this issue. We all know that's what's on the horizon anyways...and really, 10 million is quite comfortably in the "foreseeable" future. We'll probably be there around 2035 or 2040. If we keep growing like we are right now, we could be there by next June...

[por favor gracias]

People in NYC usually buy monthly passes.

LA is investing heavily in rail now. Even one of its most ardent critics Henry Waxman supports it going through Beverly Hills. Yet afton oaks still protests. LA should be a warning of what will happen to houston if it keeps procrastinating in investing in a proper pass transit system.

 

It has substantial meaning in my classification of a "world class city."

[por favor gracias]

As I've stated multiple times, my belief is that a much higher preference in terms of transportation planning should go to those that use transit because they can't afford a car rather than those who use transit because they don't want to use a car.  Rail bias isn't a factor for those people.  An improved bus network is the best way to leverage finite transportation dollars and extend coverage throughout the city.

 

Regarding Westheimer, not sure what you would be achieving given that this conversation was about I-10 commuter rail.  If you're proposing running rail all the way to the suburbs down the middle of Westheimer, that strikes me as a prohibitively long transit time. 

 

I like where you're going with planning being geared towards those who can't afford a car, but I don't think we should start out that way if it's not as beneficial as other routes would be overall for the city. That would be like "prioritizing" a Scott Street line over a Westheimer line.

[por favor gracias]

Singapore is less than half the size of Houston, with twice the density.  Germany is, well...a large European country.  Apples to oranges.

 

When you come back with some better comparisons then we can take a look at frequency and timeliness and get a good idea of what Metro can do to improve.

 

Houston is densifying, and it won't be long before we hit 10 million people in the metro area (probably in 20 or 25 years)...and even then, it's not like 8 million people 10 or 12 years from now will be If we build a world-class system, we'll get the ridership. If we don't, imagine how much fun sitting on "the new West Loop" will be by then. That and provide incentives for development near/along mass transit corridors.

[por favor gracias]

What's so fragmented when rail can have multiple stops? Downtown doesn't have to be the only stop... There could be one somewhere in the EC, one at the beltway/city center, one at memorial city, one at the transit center at 610/post oak, and then finally downtown.. Commuter rail can go as fast as 125 mph, plus with traffic it's sure to be faster (even only going like 60-80), even with the few stops.

And if the rail replaced the HOT lanes on i10, or coexisted, it would provide a more attractive mode of transit than busses, more people would likely use the system. The problem now is they can't get to their destination from the HOV lanes without a car. the busses taken off the highway could be rerouted to spiderweb from the stations, so they would service more local areas around the stops

 

A lot of trains around the world are first-class. It's virtually impossible for that to be the case with roads and automobiles.

[por favor gracias]

These are the ideal systems, what we should strive for. Don't toss them out just for the sake of it.

 

I know in vancouver buses run every 8-9 minutes mostly and trains run every 3 minutes.

 

Could not agree more. I haven't been to Vancouver, but I can vouch for Germany's system.