can Houston learn to love light rail?

[IronTiger]

Total speculation.

You're right! Only you have a clear vision of the future and will make the right choices in moving forward.

[ArchFan]

... Most of my concerns about rail relate to my views on future technology. I do a lot of work with companies related to long term logistics planning and I truly believe that we are in the starting stages of a transportation revolution that will match what occurred with the implementation of the automobile in the early part of the last century. I think that anyone that is old enough recognizes that the last couple of decades have resulted in a communication and information revolution that are comparable to any shift in human history. As that technology continues to be implemented across transportation, we are going to see huge shifts as a result. ...

 

 

In an earlier post, you made some similar comments that made me think about this for awhile.  First off, I agree that we have gone through (or are going) through a revolution in communication and information, one which was not really anticipated by most people.  (Perhaps all people, save a few visionaries.)   However,  having a revolution in that field does not guarantee revolutions in all other fields of commerce and industry.  Regarding transportation, I have to wonder about what's next.  Right now, we have machines that physically transport our bodies from place to place.  Some of those are under our direct personal control (automobiles) and most others are under the control of other humans (buses, trains, airplanes).  

 

I don't think you're suggestion that teleportation is just around the corner.  But, if not, how different will it be from the modes we already have, in which we have some choices between direct personal control vs. ceding control to another person?  

 

In short, I am having trouble envisioning what new transportation mode might be just around the corner that is very different from what I've outlined.  I'm open to being convinced, but at this point, I'm more persuaded by Vic's point of view ... that we need to get going now, as long as we plan and implement it wisely.  (I would agree that so far, we and Metro haven't done as well as we could have on that last qualifier.)

[livincinco]

In an earlier post, you made some similar comments that made me think about this for awhile. First off, I agree that we have gone through (or are going) through a revolution in communication and information, one which was not really anticipated by most people. (Perhaps all people, save a few visionaries.) However, having a revolution in that field does not guarantee revolutions in all other fields of commerce and industry. Regarding transportation, I have to wonder about what's next. Right now, we have machines that physically transport our bodies from place to place. Some of those are under our direct personal control (automobiles) and most others are under the control of other humans (buses, trains, airplanes).

I don't think you're suggestion that teleportation is just around the corner. But, if not, how different will it be from the modes we already have, in which we have some choices between direct personal control vs. ceding control to another person?

In short, I am having trouble envisioning what new transportation mode might be just around the corner that is very different from what I've outlined. I'm open to being convinced, but at this point, I'm more persuaded by Vic's point of view ... that we need to get going now, as long as we plan and implement it wisely. (I would agree that so far, we and Metro haven't done as well as we could have on that last qualifier.)

I'm a huge proponent of BRT because of the flexibility that it provides. The biggest problem with rail is that it's highly inflexible. Changing capacity is difficult (cars need to be coupled and uncoupled) and it runs on a very limited set of infrastructure. It can't be used on the vast network of roads that exists in this country.

In my opinion, BRT becomes hugely preferable to rail the minute that autonomous driving becomes viable and that's projected to be less than 20 years away. (Google is planning to have production vehicles in 3 years). Existing high end BRT replicates an LRT experience already with the appropriate vehicles. The difference is that you need additional labor to run it and have lower capacity than LRT. Autonomous changes all of that. With that, you can run buses literally back to back to match capacity of rail without the increased labor costs, but you also gain dramatically increased flexibility. Since buses run on a common infrastructure, you could very easily add additional buses to select routes during peak parts of the day and redeploy them to other locations in a very short time period. With rail, redeployment options are restricted due to infrastructure. In an interim scenario, this could even be deployed much faster with a driver in a lead vehicle and driverless vehicles following behind.

In a slightly further out scenario, you could utilize that kind of a system to eliminate transfers. Consider the above scenario where five buses arrive at a station in downtown in an LRT configuration. They could perform the function of LRT for the distance of the line, but at the end of the line, instead of requiring a transfer, each would head to a different destination on regular streets utilizing existing common infrastructure. There's a seamless transition from a high ridership area to a low ridership area with no change in infrastructure. You also have huge flexibility in dealing with changes in ridership levels on specific routes. There's no reason that all vehicles have to be the same size and they could be switched out for larger or smaller vehicles in minutes as demand changes.

Autonomous is also going to reduce congestion from trucks. The military is already starting to use autonomous vehicles for convoys and we're not far away from the time that the majority of long haul trucking will be able to shift to unmanned convoys that plan their routes so that they pass through congested areas at night or at off peak hours.

Another huge impact is going to be the widespread adoption of route planning technology. Not a big stretch at all to program your planned travel points into your computer and have it propose recommended departure times and routes based on traffic conditions. This is the same concept as congestion pricing, but uses information instead of cost as the motivator. There are large numbers of people that would change their departure times if they knew the impact with a high degree of certainty.

None of these things are based on "futuristic" technology and they all utilize existing infrastructure, so implementation costs are low. What seems speculative to me is thinking that we're going to improve mobility by discarding a huge network of existing infrastructure and building a new network with a fraction of the reach on the expectation that usage in 50 years is going to justify the cost.

[mfastx]

In reply to livincino's post above, I'm not quite sure how you think BRT is more flexible.  When BRT is done right, it's pretty much as fixed guideway as rail.  When BRT doesn't have its own ROW, there is no longer an advantage to a local bus.  At least that's what we're seeing from the proposed Uptown line.  

 

Many rail systems around the world are already autonomous, and I'm not sure how you make the connection between cars being autonomous and BRT becoming more successful.  

 

And rail already has much higher capacity than BRT, coupling cars isn't too difficult either. 

[Slick Vik]

I'm a huge proponent of BRT because of the flexibility that it provides. The biggest problem with rail is that it's highly inflexible. Changing capacity is difficult (cars need to be coupled and uncoupled) and it runs on a very limited set of infrastructure. It can't be used on the vast network of roads that exists in this country.

In my opinion, BRT becomes hugely preferable to rail the minute that autonomous driving becomes viable and that's projected to be less than 20 years away. (Google is planning to have production vehicles in 3 years). Existing high end BRT replicates an LRT experience already with the appropriate vehicles. The difference is that you need additional labor to run it and have lower capacity than LRT. Autonomous changes all of that. With that, you can run buses literally back to back to match capacity of rail without the increased labor costs, but you also gain dramatically increased flexibility. Since buses run on a common infrastructure, you could very easily add additional buses to select routes during peak parts of the day and redeploy them to other locations in a very short time period. With rail, redeployment options are restricted due to infrastructure. In an interim scenario, this could even be deployed much faster with a driver in a lead vehicle and driverless vehicles following behind.

In a slightly further out scenario, you could utilize that kind of a system to eliminate transfers. Consider the above scenario where five buses arrive at a station in downtown in an LRT configuration. They could perform the function of LRT for the distance of the line, but at the end of the line, instead of requiring a transfer, each would head to a different destination on regular streets utilizing existing common infrastructure. There's a seamless transition from a high ridership area to a low ridership area with no change in infrastructure. You also have huge flexibility in dealing with changes in ridership levels on specific routes. There's no reason that all vehicles have to be the same size and they could be switched out for larger or smaller vehicles in minutes as demand changes.

Autonomous is also going to reduce congestion from trucks. The military is already starting to use autonomous vehicles for convoys and we're not far away from the time that the majority of long haul trucking will be able to shift to unmanned convoys that plan their routes so that they pass through congested areas at night or at off peak hours.

Another huge impact is going to be the widespread adoption of route planning technology. Not a big stretch at all to program your planned travel points into your computer and have it propose recommended departure times and routes based on traffic conditions. This is the same concept as congestion pricing, but uses information instead of cost as the motivator. There are large numbers of people that would change their departure times if they knew the impact with a high degree of certainty.

None of these things are based on "futuristic" technology and they all utilize existing infrastructure, so implementation costs are low. What seems speculative to me is thinking that we're going to improve mobility by discarding a huge network of existing infrastructure and building a new network with a fraction of the reach on the expectation that usage in 50 years is going to justify the cost.

BRT is just as fixed as rail.

A better way to save funds is have autonomous rail cars like skytrain in Vancouver.

You are using a hope of something that may or may not happen to plan the future. I thought the rockets would win the finals this year. But they didn't.

[IronTiger]

BRT is just as fixed as rail.

A better way to save funds is have autonomous rail cars like skytrain in Vancouver.

An elevated heavy rail train will save funds?

[Slick Vik]

An elevated heavy rail train will save funds?

Not having drivers saves a lot of money and allows for 3 minute frequency

[livincinco]

BRT is just as fixed as rail.

Um, no. Even if BRT is on a fixed guideway, you can move a vehicle off of that guideway and use it on any road. Hence the term common infrastructure. Please explain how you can drive a train down the 1000s of miles of road that already exist in Houston.

[Slick Vik]

Um, no. Even if BRT is on a fixed guideway, you can move a vehicle off of that guideway and use it on any road. Hence the term common infrastructure. Please explain how you can drive a train down the 1000s of miles of road that already exist in Houston.

Name a brt system where that happens.

[IronTiger]

The Vancouver Skytrain is built on the exact same technology as the Detroit people-mover system, which loses a ton of money already and has abysmal ridership. While I'm not going to argue on how successful the Skytrain is (but it sure seems to breaking down at inconvenient times), "not having drivers" is not going to save a significant amount of money when you already invest in the stations, vehicles, and infrastructure; in fact, to make such a claim is laughable. Autonomous buses have at least the benefit of using pre-existing infrastructure, but I've never actually heard of a city with such a system currently in place.

[livincinco]

Name a brt system where that happens.

 

Your stance is that it's not possible to move a bus from one route to another?

 

I quote from the FTA guidelines for BRT

 

"BRT's flexibility derives from the fact that BRT vehicles (e.g., buses, specialized BRT vehicles) can travel anywhere there is pavement and the fact that BRT's basic service unit, a single vehicle, is relatively small compared to train-based rapid transit modes.  A given BRT corridor application might encompass route segments where vehicles operate both in mixed traffic and on a dedicated, fully grade-separated transitway with major stations."

 

http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Low%20Res%20CBRT%202009%20Update.pdf

 

 

 

 

[livincinco]

In reply to livincino's post above, I'm not quite sure how you think BRT is more flexible.  When BRT is done right, it's pretty much as fixed guideway as rail.  When BRT doesn't have its own ROW, there is no longer an advantage to a local bus.  At least that's what we're seeing from the proposed Uptown line.  

 

Many rail systems around the world are already autonomous, and I'm not sure how you make the connection between cars being autonomous and BRT becoming more successful.  

 

And rail already has much higher capacity than BRT, coupling cars isn't too difficult either. 

 

I don't think that it's accurate at all to say that BRT can be reduced to the two options that you listed.  Again, I'm going to quote from the FTA guidelines on BRT.

 

"The options available for each BRT element are so extensive that there is an infinite variety of integrated BRT systems.  BRT's inherent flexibility means that no two BRT systems will look exactly the same within a given region, let alone two different metropolitan areas."  Autonomous BRT allows you an additional level of flexibility because it allows you to basically reconfigure vehicles to run as a bus, as BRT, or to exceed the capabilities of LRT on the fly.  You talk about how easy it is to couple cars on LRT, but that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about ability to redeploy those cars and flexibility to do that is very limited, because your only way to move them down the same tracks that you use for travel. 

 

Let's say that a hypothetical situation occurred that required a number of cars to be moved from Downtown to Uptown.  With BRT, you have a number of ways to redeploy vehicles because you can put them on the streets.  With LRT, you don't.

 

I  disagree with the basis of the comment about capacity.  There's a lot of emphasis about having a lot of capacity on a few routes and I think that is exactly the wrong approach for Houston.  Houston requires a large number of routes with medium capacity and frequent service due to the nature of the dispersed population and job centers.  An autonomous BRT network allows the flexibility to use a single vehicle and utilize it seamlessly for local, commuter, and high volume service.

[Slick Vik]

Your stance is that it's not possible to move a bus from one route to another?

I quote from the FTA guidelines for BRT

"BRT's flexibility derives from the fact that BRT vehicles (e.g., buses, specialized BRT vehicles) can travel anywhere there is pavement and the fact that BRT's basic service unit, a single vehicle, is relatively small compared to train-based rapid transit modes. A given BRT corridor application might encompass route segments where vehicles operate both in mixed traffic and on a dedicated, fully grade-separated transitway with major stations."

http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Low%20Res%20CBRT%202009%20Update.pdf

Name one.

[Slick Vik]

The Vancouver Skytrain is built on the exact same technology as the Detroit people-mover system, which loses a ton of money already and has abysmal ridership. While I'm not going to argue on how successful the Skytrain is (but it sure seems to breaking down at inconvenient times), "not having drivers" is not going to save a significant amount of money when you already invest in the stations, vehicles, and infrastructure; in fact, to make such a claim is laughable. Autonomous buses have at least the benefit of using pre-existing infrastructure, but I've never actually heard of a city with such a system currently in place.

Not investing in drivers has allowed for a three minute frequency.

As far as success here's something for you

Before the building of the line, TransLink had projected that it would require a 100,000 passenger/day average to reach the "break even point". They also projected that it would take about three years for capacity to reach this point and that TransLink would be responsible for the loss. However, the Canada Line reached its projected ridership goal in late 2010, three years early.

[JamesL]

Name one.

 

Pittsburgh, Eugene, Hartford, Houston Park & Ride just off the top of my head.

[mfastx]

I don't think that it's accurate at all to say that BRT can be reduced to the two options that you listed.  Again, I'm going to quote from the FTA guidelines on BRT.

 

"The options available for each BRT element are so extensive that there is an infinite variety of integrated BRT systems.  BRT's inherent flexibility means that no two BRT systems will look exactly the same within a given region, let alone two different metropolitan areas."  Autonomous BRT allows you an additional level of flexibility because it allows you to basically reconfigure vehicles to run as a bus, as BRT, or to exceed the capabilities of LRT on the fly.  You talk about how easy it is to couple cars on LRT, but that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about ability to redeploy those cars and flexibility to do that is very limited, because your only way to move them down the same tracks that you use for travel. 

 

Let's say that a hypothetical situation occurred that required a number of cars to be moved from Downtown to Uptown.  With BRT, you have a number of ways to redeploy vehicles because you can put them on the streets.  With LRT, you don't.

While this is certainly true, I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario were this would actually be needed. Developments, people, and business are attracted to rail and other fixed guideway (like BRT). The fact that it's a fixed guideway system gives people and developers comfort in knowing that it will be there for a long time. I think that's one of the advantages of fixed guideway transit, is that it can't move.

I  disagree with the basis of the comment about capacity.  There's a lot of emphasis about having a lot of capacity on a few routes and I think that is exactly the wrong approach for Houston.  Houston requires a large number of routes with medium capacity and frequent service due to the nature of the dispersed population and job centers.  An autonomous BRT network allows the flexibility to use a single vehicle and utilize it seamlessly for local, commuter, and high volume service.

What you propose seems awfully similar to what we already have. In most cases a more efficient way to do transit is to have a few high capacity trunk lines that the bus and smaller capacity lines feed into. Usually the higher capacity line being much faster and easier to use is what attracts the higher ridership.

And just so you know, I'm as excited about the arrival of autonomous vehicles as anyone, and I hope a day comes in my lifetime where every single vehicle is completely free of user input, but I still think that in large cities there will be a demand for transit.

[livincinco]

While this is certainly true, I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario were this would actually be needed. Developments, people, and business are attracted to rail and other fixed guideway (like BRT). The fact that it's a fixed guideway system gives people and developers comfort in knowing that it will be there for a long time. I think that's one of the advantages of fixed guideway transit, is that it can't move.

What you propose seems awfully similar to what we already have. In most cases a more efficient way to do transit is to have a few high capacity trunk lines that the bus and smaller capacity lines feed into. Usually the higher capacity line being much faster and easier to use is what attracts the higher ridership.

And just so you know, I'm as excited about the arrival of autonomous vehicles as anyone, and I hope a day comes in my lifetime where every single vehicle is completely free of user input, but I still think that in large cities there will be a demand for transit.

 

I don't think that we're connecting on my point.  I'm not arguing with you at all on the need for transit.  I'm arguing that this is the evolution of transit in most cities.  There is clearly a lot of benefit with fixed guideway, but it generally makes sense in select areas .  Let's take the much discussed Westheimer corridor as an example.  I think that we all agree that fixed guideway makes sense through the Galleria and in through the Loop to Midtown.  However, once you get out toward Beltway 8, there's really no need for fixed guideway. The same is true once you get past Midtown on the East side.

 

Buses provide flexibility for that kind of corridor.  For example, the Silver Line in Boston runs in a dedicated bus tunnel in sections and then moves to shared roadway in others.  Cleveland's Healthline runs with multiple dedicated lanes in central areas.  For part of the route it has loading and unloading in the median, but goes to a traditional curb station in others where demand is lower.

 

The reason autonomous makes this even more interesting is because of the ability to take a series of buses and merge them into high capacity trunk lines without requiring transfers.  To go back to the Westheimer example, you could have a number of individual vehicles that pickup in local service in areas, merge into a fixed guideway on Westheimer to act as a high capacity system down the length of Westheimer to the Galleria.  If you're travelling in a high capacity area, you can board any of those vehicles and get to your destination.  Think of the way that multiple wires are passed through conduit.  It takes you a lot closer to solving the last mile.  Instead of having high capacity that dumps a lot of people at the end of the rail line and then requires a separate means to transport them to their final destination, you have dispersed the last mile and greatly increase the number of people that are within walking distance of a transit location.

[Slick Vik]

I don't think that we're connecting on my point. I'm not arguing with you at all on the need for transit. I'm arguing that this is the evolution of transit in most cities. There is clearly a lot of benefit with fixed guideway, but it generally makes sense in select areas . Let's take the much discussed Westheimer corridor as an example. I think that we all agree that fixed guideway makes sense through the Galleria and in through the Loop to Midtown. However, once you get out toward Beltway 8, there's really no need for fixed guideway. The same is true once you get past Midtown on the East side.

Buses provide flexibility for that kind of corridor. For example, the Silver Line in Boston runs in a dedicated bus tunnel in sections and then moves to shared roadway in others. Cleveland's Healthline runs with multiple dedicated lanes in central areas. For part of the route it has loading and unloading in the median, but goes to a traditional curb station in others where demand is lower.

The reason autonomous makes this even more interesting is because of the ability to take a series of buses and merge them into high capacity trunk lines without requiring transfers. To go back to the Westheimer example, you could have a number of individual vehicles that pickup in local service in areas, merge into a fixed guideway on Westheimer to act as a high capacity system down the length of Westheimer to the Galleria. If you're travelling in a high capacity area, you can board any of those vehicles and get to your destination. Think of the way that multiple wires are passed through conduit. It takes you a lot closer to solving the last mile. Instead of having high capacity that dumps a lot of people at the end of the rail line and then requires a separate means to transport them to their final destination, you have dispersed the last mile and greatly increase the number of people that are within walking distance of a transit location.

You keep barking on and on about autonomous but the reality is you will be long gone by the time it has a true impact and I probably will too.

http://www.humantransit.org/2014/03/guest-post-vehicle-automation-and-the-future-of-transit.html

Also your entire post is pretty hilarious in that I've ridden a system where brt merges on a very small area (bridge in Istanbul) and that massively slows down the route. Once you go into shared traffic time savings are eliminated.

[sdotwill84]

Not sure if anyone saw this, but Culberson blocked the federal funds again for 2015. House of Reps passed it. Smh.

 

Will our city forever be held back by Anti-Transit public officials? (Bob Lanier, Tom Delay, Culberson)

 

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/06-09-14-houston-light-rail-fight-heats-up-pro-rail-forces-tangle-with-us-rep-again-over-citys-transportation-future/

 

 

EDIT - sorry, looks like this is being discussed here:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/30464-tell-dc-we-want-rail/