METRORail University Line

[Trae]

Not sure if Dallas rail has lead to any solutions. last time i was there traffic was still a nightmare.

So?? In a Plano (Dallas' Sugar Land), you can drive to the DART station and ride the rail to Downtown Dallas to a Maverick game. Along the way, you will be going in a subway as well. I wish we had that option here in Houston.

Say a family lives in Katy and want a weekend trip to Galveston. They can get someone to drop them off at a Commuter Rail station at the Grand Parkway, or drive themselves there. Once there, they board the commuter train to Downtown Houston. From there, they make a connection to the Galveston Commuter Line and end up in Galveston. They can than maybe ride the Galveston Trolley to their hotel, or wherever they are staying, and be there for the weekend.

It could work with someone trying to catch a flight to IAH from Katy, or any other suburb, too. You can't do that with a bus.

[musicman]

So??

not sure if i can address such a detailed rebuttal. Edited August 15, 2007 by musicman

[TheNiche]

I'm not going to argue with you, but I think the better the transit options we have, the more people we will have taking public transit. If rail is more reliable or faster (or both) than busses (in my opinion, it is), I think more people to take public transit instead of driving.

While this might not decrease the number of cars on the road, it might stop that number from increasing substantially as our population grows in the next 50 years.

Uh, no. I can say with some certainty that barring a major technological leap, the number of people commuting by automobile alone will continue to increase, even if by some miricale the share of commuters riding transit can be made to increase again. See the first excerpt from H-GAC's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, shown below.

And even though the share of commuters riding transit has continually declined since 1990, as shown in the second excerpt from the RTP, the amount of transportation funding that we're allocating to it is a whopping sum. The difference, according to the RTP: shifting from 485,000 boardings per day to 725,000 boardings per day, a 49.9% increase over a period of 30 years. Now let's do the math. They estimated a 2005 population of 5.2 million in 2005 and 8.8 million in 2035, a 69.2% increase. Given these figures and those below, there were an average of 3.44 boardings per day for transit users in 2005. Given that this figure accounts for the round trip and transfers between routes, I consider it reasonable. What I do not know from the RTP is the percentage of commuters that will ride transit in 2035, but if I use the 3.44 boardings per day to help fill in a variable in the formula, I can work out the algebra to yeild 2.4% as that portion of commuters that use transit, indicating that the trend is projected to decelerate but continue.

Over the 30-year study period, it is projected that $77.0 billion will be spent on roads and $44.6 billion will be spent on transit. About 5.1% is budgeted for other modes, most of which is related to freight rail, so I'm just going to toss that out for the sake of simplicity and ask: why is it that for every dollar spent on typical commuting infrastructure, 36.7% goes toward something that only 2.4% of commuters will use? It is

I'll gladly accept the criticism that some of the carpool/vanpool crowd is using some fraction of the HOV lanes, but even then, to use those lanes, they first have to make their way to an onramp, and the greatest challenges at that point are less likely to be our freeways than our major arterials. Even if you assume that all of the carpoolers are using infrastructure paid for by transit monies (that is they all use HOV and they all live right near an onramp and work right near an offramp) that is still 36.7% of transit funds for 15.5% of users...and that's just not a realistic scenario. I will also accept that increases in transit ridership are likely to have some amount of offsetting impact to congestion levels--but it is exceedingly difficult for me to believe that 2.4% of commuters should be allocated 36.7% of expenditures, over 15 times that spent on the average expected non-transit commuter.

Bottom line: More spending on transit planned, dismal results projected. At least the politicians are happy...

Edited August 16, 2007 by TheNiche

[nmainguy]

With all due respect, in a city where it's citizens have consistently voted down any form of zoning, and evidence of developers having years of free reign in the city is painfully obvious, Houstonians being concerned with ugliness can be seen as somewhat of a oxymoron. Besides, some support columns can be made to look halfway decent if the effort is made to do so.

[/quote]

Just as cantilevered line arms can avoid trees with articulated powered arms.

[ricco67]

Those numbers are very broad. While I'm not going to dispute those numbers, I assume it's for the entire nation, is it only for the city of Houston? Are you saying that the population of Houston is slowly shifting from Public transit? If so so I'm not surprised, considering how spread out we are.

I'm not saying that Rail is the end all of all congestion, but I believe that once it's built out properly and reaches more population centers people would at least use PART of the rail to complete their journey from one area to another. I've been stating this argument for quite some time as you (and others, I believe) have been saying the same thing for years.

As the major areas of Houston become more dense (like some of our users), driving will be a total pain and will use rail as an option. Those who INSIST on driving will continue to do so regardless of whether rail is there or not, but at least an option should be available for those of us that either chose or not have the option to do so.

[TheNiche]

Those numbers are very broad. While I'm not going to dispute those numbers, I assume it's for the entire nation, is it only for the city of Houston? Are you saying that the population of Houston is slowly shifting from Public transit? If so so I'm not surprised, considering how spread out we are.

I'm not saying that Rail is the end all of all congestion, but I believe that once it's built out properly and reaches more population centers people would at least use PART of the rail to complete their journey from one area to another. I've been stating this argument for quite some time as you (and others, I believe) have been saying the same thing for years.

As the major areas of Houston become more dense (like some of our users), driving will be a total pain and will use rail as an option. Those who INSIST on driving will continue to do so regardless of whether rail is there or not, but at least an option should be available for those of us that either chose or not have the option to do so.

All but one figure, put out there for comparison, is pertaining to the 8-county regional transportation planning area. Going out 30 years, I'd expect for there to be some broad figures; its really unavoidable. But the greatest relevance of the document is as a tool for capital budgeting. This is our plan, to spend so much on something that we are planning on generating very little transit share for.

Surely rail will play a part in the increase in total commuters that use the system. I don't think that anyone is disputing that there will likely be an increase in riders and that a fair part of that will be attributable to rail projects. The contention that I raised in my post is with respect to cost. I could very easily dispute its real benefit and have in the past, but discussions like these in which people more or less just point out the benefits of rail (or not) and say that they want it are so rarely counterbalanced by any consideration of cost or of the region's grand commuter strategy.

[ricco67]

Well, its also a mindset that will eventually change. I figure within 20-25 years, Houston the major portion of people within the loop will probably use mass transit like those of Chicago, Boston, and New York IF we build out the rail system properly. While some people abhor the phrase "Social Engineering"; it's something that will happen over a period of time. Particularly in light of the operating costs and convenience ratio become unreasonable in owning your own car.

It's my hope that after additional lines are put in and commuter rail is eventually put in, that a subway or rail will be able to run parallel with some lines to offer an express service from the outside the loop or beltway into various spots along the rail system.

[TheNiche]

Well, its also a mindset that will eventually change. I figure within 20-25 years, Houston the major portion of people within the loop will probably use mass transit like those of Chicago, Boston, and New York IF we build out the rail system properly. While some people abhor the phrase "Social Engineering"; it's something that will happen over a period of time. Particularly in light of the operating costs and convenience ratio become unreasonable in owning your own car.

It's my hope that after additional lines are put in and commuter rail is eventually put in, that a subway or rail will be able to run parallel with some lines to offer an express service from the outside the loop or beltway into various spots along the rail system.

Here's the ultimate problem: the perponderance of our new office space is being built out in the far-flung suburbs, and even if we did put rail out there, the office buildings are so scattered that even bus access is not possible to many buildings...never mind that the bus access that is possible would take longer than most white collar workers are willing to bear. There is, after all, a very good reason that if you look at average commute times displayed on a map, the wealthy inner city neighborhoods get to work in a snap, while commuters from the poor inner loop neighborhoods often take over 45 minutes on average. One takes transit; the other drives. We've got a really long way to go before transit use among the wealthier neighborhoods in the inner city starts to increase meaningfully. It's just too easy to go everywhere. That's why they moved there; not to waste time walking to a bus stop, getting on the bus to connect to a train to connect to a BRT to finally end up where they want to be--and then go back at the end of the day.

Houston is not Chicago, it is not Boston, it is not New York. It was not built in the 19th century. It is a post-war sunbelt city and probably will become more like LA but without the mountains to half-way contain it. Within about Beltway 8, I can envision transit becoming more in vogue to certain populations. Beyond that, which is where the vast majority of housing development is taking place, it is nearly inconceivable that transit can work except in a P&R or HOV format.

Edited August 16, 2007 by TheNiche

[wakester]

More than the money, it is a case of what do you want Houston to look like. We could scale back Transit spending and put it towards roadways. But do we really want huge mega freeways running everywhere? Does Houston want to see a flight of jobs to surrounding areas?

[ricco67]

<br />Here's the ultimate problem: the perponderance of our new office space is being built out in the far-flung suburbs, and even if we did put rail out there, the office buildings are so scattered that even bus access is not possible to many buildings...never mind that the bus access that is possible would take longer than most white collar workers are willing to bear. There is, after all, a very good reason that if you look at average commute times displayed on a map, the wealthy inner city neighborhoods get to work in a snap, while commuters from the poor inner loop neighborhoods often take over 45 minutes on average. One takes transit; the other drives. We've got a really long way to go before transit use among the wealthier neighborhoods in the inner city starts to increase meaningfully. It's just too easy to go everywhere. That's why they moved there; not to waste time walking to a bus stop, getting on the bus to connect to a train to connect to a BRT to finally end up where they want to be--and then go back at the end of the day.<br /><br />Houston is not Chicago, it is not Boston, it is not New York. It was not built in the 19th century. It is a post-war sunbelt city and probably will become more like LA but without the mountains to half-way contain it. Within about Beltway 8, I can envision transit becoming more in vogue to certain populations. Beyond that, which is where the vast majority of housing development is taking place, it is nearly inconceivable that transit can work except in a P&R or HOV format.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Look, I understand that houston is not any of the cities I mentioned. I also realize that the evolution of the cities have taken different courses over different times. I also acknowledge that the new offices being built are not in downtown.

I would like to thank you for your talent in pointing obscure facts like those to the rest of our studio audience.

But the major centers are the ones that will (or at least most likely to) get lrt/brt service. Those that are NOT in a cluster are still viable. Remember, the empire state building was built in what was considered siberia.

As far as the wealthier people not wanting to board a bus, more power to them! Time is a real commodity to those people. But so are the ones that take the P&R into downtown and other destinations. It's a matter of convenience as well as time.

[TheNiche]

More than the money, it is a case of what do you want Houston to look like. We could scale back Transit spending and put it towards roadways. But do we really want huge mega freeways running everywhere? Does Houston want to see a flight of jobs to surrounding areas?

The City of Houston is only one entity represented in this regional plan. The City does not and should not hold the region hostage to its own objectives. With that in mind, there are plenty of economic development groups with suburban constituencies that are very aggressive in luring jobs from Houston into the suburbs, and yes, they like that idea. Suburbanites like it too because it makes it easier to work near where you live and also opens up new shopping opportunities near home that had previously only existed in the central city.

[TheNiche]

But the major centers are the ones that will (or at least most likely to) get lrt/brt service. Those that are NOT in a cluster are still viable. Remember, the empire state building was built in what was considered siberia.

The Houston MSA is not situated on a long slender island. We go outward in every direction. Makes a transit system extremely expensive.

As far as the wealthier people not wanting to board a bus, more power to them! Time is a real commodity to those people. But so are the ones that take the P&R into downtown and other destinations. It's a matter of convenience as well as time.

Yes, P&R is a major success because it is timely, comfortable, and [dirty little secret] doesn't mix riders from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

[Jax]

I don't think the secret is the lack of mixing of people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, it's the convenience.

The rail seems to mix socioeconomic backgrounds well, and the reason that it works is because it's convenient. I know doctors living in midtown who take the Metro to work, as well as poor folks who walk to wheeler station from the 3rd ward. The reason it works is because it's convenient to all. Convenience is the key.

If it's not convenient, the only people who will ride it are those who cannot afford cars.

[TheNiche]

I don't think the secret is the lack of mixing of people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, it's the convenience.

The rail seems to mix socioeconomic backgrounds well, and the reason that it works is because it's convenient. I know doctors living in midtown who take the Metro to work, as well as poor folks who walk to wheeler station from the 3rd ward. The reason it works is because it's convenient to all. Convenience is the key.

If it's not convenient, the only people who will ride it are those who cannot afford cars.

The secret to transportation matters is convenience? That's about the least secretive aspect. Any half-decent ridership model is all about convenience. Socioeconomic mixing is not factored in as something that might discourage use by higher-income households, but might should be.

[Jax]

Okay then, so I shouldn't have used the word secret, I guess. But that doens't really effect what I was trying to say.

I'm just saying I don't believe it's all about socioeconomic mixing. If it is convenient it will work, regardless of socioeconomic factors. If it's only convenient for rich people, then only rich people will use it (ie: park and ride). If it's only convenient for poor people with no cars, then poor people will mostly use it (ie: city busses). If it's convenient for both, both will use it (ie: metro rail). I don't think the doctors feel deterred because there are poor people on the metro. Although maybe somebody like the CEO of Shell would have a problem with that.

[TheNiche]

Okay then, so I shouldn't have used the word secret, I guess. But that doens't really effect what I was trying to say.

I'm just saying I don't believe it's all about socioeconomic mixing. If it is convenient it will work, regardless of socioeconomic factors. If it's only convenient for rich people, then only rich people will use it (ie: park and ride). If it's only convenient for poor people with no cars, then poor people will mostly use it (ie: city busses). If it's convenient for both, both will use it (ie: metro rail). I don't think the doctors feel deterred because there are poor people on the metro. Although maybe somebody like the CEO of Shell would have a problem with that.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that convenience is the foremost issue. But socioeconomic mixing deters a very large number of prospective riders, mostly in white collar jobs, but throughout the corporate heirarchy. This is where simple measures of income, age, gender, and educational attainment are mixed in with psychographic factors to study the issue. The underlying issue is not just disdain, but more one of fear for one's personal safety. The reaction isn't justifiable, but it does occur with great frequency.

[T 2 THA C]

I have to say Convience for me to ride LRT or GRT. Right now If i had an option to ride LRT, GRT, or CRT to get to work the convience(stops, time, safety). I would like the otion but I get off work late and usually have to make a deposit @ the bank on my way home, or if i wanted to stop somewhere to eat would the trains still be running?

[ricco67]

Well, maybe if you used a bit of common sense when you schedule your trips, that might help you out.

[Houston19514]

I have to say Convience for me to ride LRT or GRT. Right now If i had an option to ride LRT, GRT, or CRT to get to work the convience(stops, time, safety). I would like the otion but I get off work late and usually have to make a deposit @ the bank on my way home, or if i wanted to stop somewhere to eat would the trains still be running?

Well, I suppose that depends on what time you get off work and how long you plan to spend eating... ;-) The red line runs until roughly 2 AM, I believe. And the planned University Line and all BRT lines will have the same hours.

[AftonAg]

Those numbers are very broad. While I'm not going to dispute those numbers, I assume it's for the entire nation, is it only for the city of Houston? Are you saying that the population of Houston is slowly shifting from Public transit? If so so I'm not surprised, considering how spread out we are.

I'm not saying that Rail is the end all of all congestion, but I believe that once it's built out properly and reaches more population centers people would at least use PART of the rail to complete their journey from one area to another. I've been stating this argument for quite some time as you (and others, I believe) have been saying the same thing for years.

As the major areas of Houston become more dense (like some of our users), driving will be a total pain and will use rail as an option. Those who INSIST on driving will continue to do so regardless of whether rail is there or not, but at least an option should be available for those of us that either chose or not have the option to do so.

I have been away on an extended work assignment so I didn't have an opportunity to reply to this in a more timely fashion. THe fallacy I see in your argument is that one little phrase, "once it's built out properly". The problem is that you are relying on METRO to build it out properly - seems like I read a recent article that there are several places along the much ballyhooed Main Street Line where electricity is leaking into the ground around the rail bed - built out properly indeed.

[CDeb]

The problem is that you are relying on METRO to build it out properly - seems like I read a recent article that there are several places along the much ballyhooed Main Street Line where electricity is leaking into the ground around the rail bed - built out properly indeed.

Not to defend METRO, but leaking current has absolutely zero to do with the number of people who ride the thing.

[ricco67]

I have been away on an extended work assignment so I didn't have an opportunity to reply to this in a more timely fashion. THe fallacy I see in your argument is that one little phrase, "once it's built out properly". The problem is that you are relying on METRO to build it out properly - seems like I read a recent article that there are several places along the much ballyhooed Main Street Line where electricity is leaking into the ground around the rail bed - built out properly indeed.

It amazes me that you take a simple sentence and put it out of context. Surely you're better educated than that. You seem to be using some liberal tactics that are used in the media. perhaps your affiliation is changing to suit your needs.

In regards to "once it's built out properly" means: "Built out to various lines to help meet various living, employment, and tourist destinations.

As far as the "Ballyhooed" main street line's leaking electricity, perhaps it you should actually read the thread properly as this was addressed by various people more intelligent than I in pointing out that "Leaking electricity" is not an uncommon problem in most major cities from a wide variety of sources.

Reading the thread properly should allow you to answer a question that is relevent to what you're answering to. Remember, it's best to reply to a question or issue that is brought up. It's quite unseemly to answer a question/issue of your own making if you take a statement out of context. If this is the course you're taking, then perhaps you should do something that is more deserving of your habit, like politics. I understand that the Sugarland District is in need of proper representation since the current position seems to be fairly helpless at the moment.

[AftonAg]

Not to defend METRO, but leaking current has absolutely zero to do with the number of people who ride the thing.

But it may have something to do with "built properly". Right now all of the political hucksters are touting the "Green" solutions, and carbon foot print etc, etc, so it's suddenly okay for METRO to leak electricity into the ground? Read the word electricity - think energy - wasted. Just one more bad mark for METRO in my opinion. I don't believe I equated leaking current with ridership or conveinence or anything else - just METRO's Quality Standard.

It amazes me that you take a simple sentence and put it out of context. Surely you're better educated than that. You seem to be using some liberal tactics that are used in the media. perhaps your affiliation is changing to suit your needs. In regards to "once it's built out properly" means: "Built out to various lines to help meet various living, employment, and tourist destinations. As far as the "Ballyhooed" main street line's leaking electricity, perhaps it you should actually read the thread properly as this was addressed by various people more intelligent than I in pointing out that "Leaking electricity" is not an uncommon problem in most major cities from a wide variety of sources. Reading the thread properly should allow you to answer a question that is relevent to what you're answering to. Remember, it's best to reply to a question or issue that is brought up. It's quite unseemly to answer a question/issue of your own making if you take a statement out of context. If this is the course you're taking, then perhaps you should do something that is more deserving of your habit, like politics. I understand that the Sugarland District is in need of proper representation since the current position seems to be fairly helpless at the moment.

Ricco - you have become quite pompous in my absence. Reading the thread properly should allow you to answer a question that is relevent to what you're answering to. I am educated - but I don't have the first clue what you are attempting to say in sentence above. What the heck do you mean by "read the thread properly" is that to mean I should read it and then agree with your assessment? sorry - "Nah gonna duit"

[CDeb]

But it may have something to do with "built properly". Right now all of the political hucksters are touting the "Green" solutions, and carbon foot print etc, etc, so it's suddenly okay for METRO to leak electricity into the ground? Read the word electricity - think energy - wasted. Just one more bad mark for METRO in my opinion. I don't believe I equated leaking current with ridership or conveinence or anything else - just METRO's Quality Standard.

Leaking electricity may or may not be OK, depending on the nature and severity. I'll leave it to experts in those areas to determine if it's OK or not.

Regardless, it is a red herring when discussing ridership of the built-out line.

[TheNiche]

I was suspicious before, but I'm now convinced that AftonAg is indeed a METRO conspiracy to scare their political constituencies into believing that people like him actually exist, prompting them to take political action against the characature of true opposition to their evil plans.

[Ethanra]

But it may have something to do with "built properly". Right now all of the political hucksters are touting the "Green" solutions, and carbon foot print etc, etc, so it's suddenly okay for METRO to leak electricity into the ground? Read the word electricity - think energy - wasted.

I know someone can explain this much better then I can. The leaking electricity is not an uncommon thing from every line around the nation. I heard on a talk-radio show that Houston is at 85 - something (can't remember) which is a good rating for amount of electricity being leaked. This has zero effect on infrastructure or health of animals/people. Other lines around the nation have a 50 -something on the amount of electricity being leaked which has a very minimal negative effect on infrastructure only, not health concerns. Metro is doing very good on this issue. This is just another thing the Chron. made into a big issue as well as individuals who are against rail or who just are very pesimistic about anything Houston... I hope someone could explain this better and give more details...

[west20th]

I know someone can explain this much better then I can. The leaking electricity is not an uncommon thing from every line around the nation. I heard on a talk-radio show that Houston is at 85 - something (can't remember) which is a good rating for amount of electricity being leaked. This has zero effect on infrastructure or health of animals/people. Other lines around the nation have a 50 -something on the amount of electricity being leaked which has a very minimal negative effect on infrastructure only, not health concerns. Metro is doing very good on this issue. This is just another thing the Chron. made into a big issue as well as individuals who are against rail or who just are very pesimistic about anything Houston... I hope someone could explain this better and give more details...

Don't confuse AftonAg with facts and details.

[musicman]

This is just another thing the Chron. made into a big issue as well as individuals who are against rail or who just are very pesimistic about anything Houston...

It was TMC that did the study because they were concerned about their patients. It seems they've been requesting data from METRO and well, METRO hasn't responded so TMC went to the press with their study's results. Edited August 22, 2007 by musicman

[AftonAg]

It was TMC that did the study because they were concerned about their patients. It seems they've been requesting data from METRO and well, METRO hasn't responded so TMC went to the press with their study's results.

Darn Musicman - more confusing facts - if Houston is to get a train it should be a real train not this LR Toy crap! that is really not much faster than driving it was.

[Trae]

But you use no gas and can go get as drunk as you want, without having to worry about driving home. LRT is so much better than BRT and driving (especially when the stop is not too far away from you, and you can get anywhere with it).