Tory Gattis Column On Commuter Rail

[The Voice of University Oaks]

I'm sure a lot of you have seen his opinion piece in yesterday' Chronicle, which is available here on the Chronicle's website. However, knowing that the Chronicle doesn't leave articles available on their site for very long, he wisely reposted it on his own blog as well.

I know Tory reads this board, and I hope he won't regard this response as adversarial, because it's not. The fact is, he is generally correct that the existing express bus service METRO provides via the city's extensive system of one-way reversible, barrier-separated HOV lanes is superior to the level of service commuter rail could provide, because it provides a single-seat ride whereas a proposed commuter rail system would require riders to transfer at some point.

Using a personal example: a few years ago, I was forced to "live in exile" down in Sagemont. I would get to work downtown by driving to (or, oftentimes, having my wife drop me off at) the Fuqua Park and Ride. There I would catch the next 247 Fuqua bus, which departs for downtown every six minutes during the AM peak, and be on my way. Once I got off the bus, I'd walk a couple of blocks to work. No stops between the park and ride and downtown, and no transfers; it was a "one seat ride" all the way to work.

Contrast that with a trip on the proposed commuter rail line running parallel to SH 3. I would have had to drive across I-45 to a rail station, wait a while for the next train (I have yet to see any commuter rail operation that runs on six minute headways, like the buses currently do), ride the train (which would probably make a few more stops along the way) into the intermodal center north of downtown, get off the train, walk over to the light rail platform, wait for the next light rail train, and then continue my trip into downtown. Compared to the current bus service, it's not a one-seat ride and the total trip time would probably be longer.

The folks at METRO have internally understood this concept for years. That's why the original (voter-approved) METRO Solutions plan contained only eight miles of commuter rail, from the southern terminus of the light rail line to Missouri City. An extension of this line from MoCity to Richmond and Rosenberg, as well as a possible commuter rail line paralleling 290 towards Hempstead, were clearly shown as being "by others" in all of METRO's referendum-related documents. The recent revision of the METRO Solutions plan gave commuter rail a much higher priority, making METRO responsible for the line along 290 to Cypress and adding a line along SH 3 towards Galveston as a future project. I'm not sure why this happened, but I'm sure politics played a large part.

With all that said, there are a few points Tory makes in his article that I'd like to address:

"(Express buses) can jump in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and zip past traffic at 60 mph, going nonstop point-to-point to their destinations. [...] Now let's look at the commuter rail trip. The first thing you notice is that it's not as fast as you thought. Because of stops every couple of miles, it's only able to achieve a net speed of 30 mph to 40mph."

It's probable that commuter rail will be slower than express bus. However, until the commuter rail lines are actually designed, the speed ratings of the rails they travel along are determined, the number of stops they will make are identified, etc., you just can't say with certainty that they will "only be able to acheive a net speed of 30 mph to 40 mph." Also, keep this in mind about the express buses: they might zip along the freeway at 60 mph in the HOV lane, but once they get downtown they have to operate in mixed traffic along city streets, stop every couple of blocks to pick up or unload passengers, et al, which slows them down. When I rode the 247, the plod through downtown always seemed like the longest part of the trip. And that's downtown, where access to the HOV lanes is easiest. Express buses going to activity centers not directly served by HOV lanes, such as the Texas Medical Center, generally travel even slower because more of their trip is over surface streets in mixed traffic.

"Until you get to your end station. If you're unfortunate enough to live in Fort Bend County and commute downtown, you're now looking at waiting for a transfer to the 17-mph light rail line, then a full 30 more minutes slogging up Fannin and Main streets to get downtown."

As somebody who has attended several of the H-GAC Fort Bend County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study steering meetings, I'd like Tory to know that the Texas Medical Center commuter, not the downtown commuter, is envisioned as being the primary user of this service. (Downtown commuters from Fort Bend would probably continue to use the Southwest Freeway HOV.) Therefore, most users of this line would probably experience only an additional ten or (at most) fifteen minutes of light rail travel, not thirty. Furthermore, the continual advancement of diesel multiple unit (DMU) technology is "on track" to produce a vehicle which is both FRA and FTA compliant and can run on both light rail as well as standard freight rail tracks. This opens up the possibility that no transfers between LRT and CRT will be required at all!

I 'll say here that I fully support the construction of the 90A commuter rail line for this simple reason: unlike some other possible commuter rail corridors, there is not any HOV facility along 90A (nor will there be one even after TxDOT finishes the "freeway-ization" of 90A into Sugar Land). Yes, there's the Southwest Freeway HOV, but unlike 90A it doesn't go directly to the Texas Medical Center. Currently, express buses such as the 170 Missouri City operate in mixed traffic all the way into the Texas Medical Center. In this particular instance, commuter rail would definitely be faster than a bus along the same corridor.

"Similar transfers and slow travel times face anybody going to job centers other than downtown: Uptown/Galleria, the Texas Medical Center, Greenway Plaza and Westchase."

Okay, but to be fair, METRO's existing express buses already require transfers to many of these destinations. If you live along 290 and work in the Texas Medical Center, for example, you're transferring from one express bus to another at the Northwest Transit Center. If you live along the Eastex Freeway and work in Greenway Plaza, you're making a transfer downtown.

"But let's say you're one of the lucky commuter-rail patrons headed downtown. Most likely your trip would end at the newly planned intermodal transit center just north of UH Downtown and the bayou. You're still a pretty long walk from almost all downtown buildings. Time for another transfer to light rail, and then probably a multiple-block walk from one of its downtown stops."

Maybe so. However, commuters using the existing express buses oftentimes already face a "a multiple-block walk" from their buses to their offices. Going back to the 247 Fuqua, its morning route takes it northbound along Travis. Its afternoon trek takes it southbound along Milam. If you ride this bus and work on Smith or Fannin or San Jacinto, you're already walking a few blocks to get to and from your bus. Which is why commuters probably already notice Tory's disclosure "that Houston inconveniently gets a tad warm and rainy five-plus months of the year." I'd add that protection from the elements via the downtown tunnel system is easily accessible from the Main Street Square rail station.

There's also the issue of transfers. Yes, transfers from one train to another would probably be required, and no, most people really don't like to transfer. The delays caused by transfers can sometimes be substantial, depending on how they are structured. However, I'm a bit skeptical of the following statement:

"None of this is news to older transit-based cities. Lower Manhattan is struggling to build and fill office space.

"Why? Because most of the commuter trains arrive at Penn or Grand Central stations in Midtown, and nobody wants to make the additional subway transfer and slog to downtown."

Although I admit that I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Manhattan real estate market, I find myself wary of Tory's implication that Lower Manhattan office vacancies are caused by people not wanting to transfer from the Metro-North, LIRR or NJT lines. Lower Manhattan is already served by several forms of transit, including several subways from Brooklyn, the PATH train from New Jersey, and several ferries from Staten Island, Brooklyn and New Jersey. Furthermore, the high daily ridership on all of the Metro-North, LIRR and NJT commuter rail lines clearly indicates that people aren't averse to transfers. Charles Kuffner, who has more experience with transit in Lower Manhattan than I do, expresses his disbelief as well.

Again, I believe Tory is generally correct in that express buses provide better service right now than commuter rail would. However, I'm not certain that commuter rail would be as "bad" as Tory seems to make it to be. Furthermore, I do believe there are opportunities for commuter rail, especially along corridors that don't already have direct HOV/express bus service to the inner city. Consider the 249 corridor to Tomball, for example. 249 does not go all the way into central Houston. METRO's only park and ride facility along this corridor, Seton Lake, requires buses to travel in mixed traffic for several miles along Montgomery Road until they finally reach I-45 and its HOV lane. Thus, the BNSF right-of-way paralleling 249 would be an excellent candidate for commuter rail, because it runs directly into downtown Houston. It has, in fact, undergone as much study as the UP line paralleling 290, but for some reason is not included in the current METRO Solutions plan.

[RedScare]

I read his article yesterday and responded to it on his blog, which I read on a regular basis. I kind of ripped his analysis. I hope you're not mad at me Tory.

I won't rehash everything here, except to say that the express busses are not all 30 minute rides, and the HOVs don't "zip" along at 60 mph. They get stuck in crowded HOV lanes like everyone else. Flat tires, stalls, accidents all slow the HOV down. Using METRO's express bus schedules for more accurate times, I calculated commuter rail as just as fast as busses. In fact, the LRT in downtown is faster than busses, due to dedicated track and stoplight overrides.

Like you, I was not swayed that trains are slower than busses. In some corridors, they'll be faster. Studies will help answer the question, but the main issue is to add options by expanding mass transit.

[TxDave]

I do agree that express busses, given their flexibility, work better in the short term. Rail lines, however, help to provide a structural skeleton for a region

[Guest danax]

Rail lines, while not always immediately viable, will direct development in a structured and manageable manner over time. This will help ensure the health of the region in the long run.

I agree that we have to look at passenger rail as a long term addition to our transportation scheme and that in the short term it might all look like a huge boondoggle.

It's going to take ridiculously worse traffic to get people to finally give up their cars in mass numbers and, by that time, the HOV lanes will probably be unreliable as high-speed routes anyway, and express buses will be sitting there in traffic like the rest of us.

How bad will traffic have to get before we use these things? In the Los Angeles area, where they are decades ahead of us in terms of traffic congestion, they have a fairly extensive network of light rail in place and ridership is miniscule as a percentage of total commuters. So, that would suggest that traffic basically needs to come to a daily standstill before large groups of commuters leave their cars at home.

There's a proposal in Orange Co., south of L.A., to create a tunnel under some mountains to relieve traffic which, is so bad, that it can take 1.5 hours to travel 6 miles USA Today article. I'm guessing if they had commuter rail in place in that area it would be filled by now.

[jghall00]

I agree that we have to look at passenger rail as a long term addition to our transportation scheme and that in the short term it might all look like a huge boondoggle.

It's going to take ridiculously worse traffic to get people to finally give up their cars in mass numbers and, by that time, the HOV lanes will probably be unreliable as high-speed routes anyway, and express buses will be sitting there in traffic like the rest of us.

How bad will traffic have to get before we use these things? In the Los Angeles area, where they are decades ahead of us in terms of traffic congestion, they have a fairly extensive network of light rail in place and ridership is miniscule as a percentage of total commuters. So, that would suggest that traffic basically needs to come to a daily standstill before large groups of commuters leave their cars at home.

There's a proposal in Orange Co., south of L.A., to create a tunnel under some mountains to relieve traffic which, is so bad, that it can take 1.5 hours to travel 6 miles USA Today article. I'm guessing if they had commuter rail in place in that area it would be filled by now.

I moved to Fresno, California after 10 years in Houston. L.A. is all traffic, all the time and Houston should learn from its mistakes. One of the problems here is the NIMBYism driven development that limits the rate at which the city can increase density. Houston has the opposite problem, with little development restriction preventing developers from consuming land further out for housing. And before someone says anything, I'm aware that L.A. is the most densely populated city in the country. I'm also aware that density in L.A. isn't geared towards mixed use, which impedes widespread use of public transportation.

The tunnel idea is stupid, it will be packed full of cars as soon as it is open, and it is in earthquake country. It may facilitate travel of vehicles, but from an individual time the end result will be a congestion increase until transit times are the same as they were before it was constructed. It just hows the extent to which people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new transportation paradigm. Congestion is not the problem, it is the cure to the disease that ails us.

[MiDTOWNeR]

I live in Midtown. If the light rail went to the galleria or the hieghts, I would use it. I will not however take the bus that most likely goes to the areas now.

There is just something not appealing about the bus. Not sure what it is but it is there.

[MidtownCoog]

They get stuck in crowded HOV lanes like everyone else

This is the exception, not the rule.