METRORail North Line

[IronTiger]

I'd still argue that increasing a BRT network makes more sense than building rail at this point of time. For example, if you assume a 4x cost for LRT vs. BRT (which is pretty conservative), I would have much rather have had 60 miles of BRT than the 15 miles of LRT that the three new lines are contributing.

What would be ideal, I think, is to have BRT that could be cheaply converted to LRT at a later date. Maybe have the tracks already embedded and then run buses over it. Maybe?

[livincinco]

What would be ideal, I think, is to have BRT that could be cheaply converted to LRT at a later date. Maybe have the tracks already embedded and then run buses over it. Maybe?

 

Since I personally think that we're going to go through a period of "rail regret" in many cities across the country 15-20 years from now, I don't see the value, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[JamesL]

I'd still argue that increasing a BRT network makes more sense than building rail at this point of time.  

 

 

Depending on the application. I remember hearing from METRO staff that their analysis of a University Line BRT showed they would have to run a pair of buses every two minutes to meet the projected demand. When you need that kind of capacity it makes more sense to go with a technology that can carry 400 people per operator instead of 90.

 

Furthermore, if you truly mean Bus RAPID Transit then you've created a dedicated right-of-way. The property acquisition and street reconstruction that entails puts you in the same cost ballpark as LRT, which is part of why METRO ditched the "BRT convertible" plan in 2007.

 

A solid first step before any of this, though, is to make the local bus system relevant to the Houston of today. Luckily they're working on that. http://transitsystemreimagining.com/

[livincinco]

Depending on the application. I remember hearing from METRO staff that their analysis of a University Line BRT showed they would have to run a pair of buses every two minutes to meet the projected demand. When you need that kind of capacity it makes more sense to go with a technology that can carry 400 people per operator instead of 90.

 

Furthermore, if you truly mean Bus RAPID Transit then you've created a dedicated right-of-way. The property acquisition and street reconstruction that entails puts you in the same cost ballpark as LRT, which is part of why METRO ditched the "BRT convertible" plan in 2007.

 

A solid first step before any of this, though, is to make the local bus system relevant to the Houston of today. Luckily they're working on that. http://transitsystemreimagining.com/

 

I agree with you 100% about the idea of making the local bus system relevant as the top priority in Houston today.  Not sure I agree with your statements about BRT vs. LRT though.  Don't forget that METRO has ditched LRT to go with BRT on the uptown line, so that indicates that their thinking has evolved on that.  I'd be very curious to see some citations that show BRT at a comparable construction cost to LRT because that's not what I've found in my research.  General findings that I've seen is that LRT runs between 4x-10x of BRT depending on a variety of factors.

 

[JamesL]

I think the Uptown decision was driven by Uptown's desire to go ahead and rebuild Post Oak now but the funding for LRT still being many years out. BRT allows the line to be implemented incrementally. They're doing the Post Oak segment first, then thinking about the 610 segment, and not worrying about connecting it to the rest of the rail system for now.

 

As for cost, Charlotte's starter light rail line and Connecticut's Hartford-New Britain busway are about as comparable as projects get. Both are around 9.5 miles and built along existing rail corridors. Lynx was completed in 2007 for about $460M and CTfastrack will be complete next year for about $560M. Same ballpark.

[Slick Vik]

Since I personally think that we're going to go through a period of "rail regret" in many cities across the country 15-20 years from now, I don't see the value, but that's just my personal opinion.

Personal opinion

[Slick Vik]

Depending on the application. I remember hearing from METRO staff that their analysis of a University Line BRT showed they would have to run a pair of buses every two minutes to meet the projected demand. When you need that kind of capacity it makes more sense to go with a technology that can carry 400 people per operator instead of 90.

Furthermore, if you truly mean Bus RAPID Transit then you've created a dedicated right-of-way. The property acquisition and street reconstruction that entails puts you in the same cost ballpark as LRT, which is part of why METRO ditched the "BRT convertible" plan in 2007.

A solid first step before any of this, though, is to make the local bus system relevant to the Houston of today. Luckily they're working on that. http://transitsystemreimagining.com/

Agreed the biggest part of the cost is the right of way acquisition and if there are no tunnels and bridges the costs aren't too far apart.

[Slick Vik]

I'd still argue that increasing a BRT network makes more sense than building rail at this point of time. For example, if you assume a 4x cost for LRT vs. BRT (which is pretty conservative), I would have much rather have had 60 miles of BRT than the 15 miles of LRT that the three new lines are contributing.

BRT should be considered after university line is built.

[Texasota]

i would happily accept a high-quality, dedicated right-of-way, true BRT line down Richmond if that speeds up its implementation

[Slick Vik]

I'm one sure Feds would like that since the plan submitted was rail.

[kylejack]

I'd still argue that increasing a BRT network makes more sense than building rail at this point of time.  For example, if you assume a 4x cost for LRT vs. BRT (which is pretty conservative), I would have much rather have had 60 miles of BRT than the 15 miles of LRT that the three new lines are contributing.

 

 

You're still playing the Either/Or game. I'm playing the And game.

[livincinco]

Personal opinion

What an astute observation! Maybe that's the reason that I wrote "Since I personally think".

[livincinco]

You're still playing the Either/Or game. I'm playing the And game.

The And game depends on the assumption that the FTA will provide a higher level of funding to rail projects than BRT. Rail advocates love to throw that around as an assumption, but recent evidence seems to indicate that the FTA is on board with BRT.

[cloud713]

The And game depends on the assumption that the FTA will provide a higher level of funding to rail projects than BRT. Rail advocates love to throw that around as an assumption, but recent evidence seems to indicate that the FTA is on board with BRT.

id be interested to see a study where they have compared ridership on a line that was once BRT, but later converted over to LRT, to see if there is a noticeable difference in ridership between the two services. one would think the LRT would have a higher ridership, but it would be interesting to be proven wrong or that theres a negligible difference.

[Slick Vik]

The And game depends on the assumption that the FTA will provide a higher level of funding to rail projects than BRT. Rail advocates love to throw that around as an assumption, but recent evidence seems to indicate that the FTA is on board with BRT.

The FTA prefers rail projects, and especially in this situation where plans and studies have been completed for rail. In fact there were talks of converting the five lines to BRT but implied threats from FTA had them keep the five lines rail. Unfortunately that's been narrowed to three for sure and the other two who knows.

[livincinco]

The FTA prefers rail projects, and especially in this situation where plans and studies have been completed for rail. In fact there were talks of converting the five lines to BRT but implied threats from FTA had them keep the five lines rail. Unfortunately that's been narrowed to three for sure and the other two who knows.

 

That's hearsay.  There's been widespread discussion on this thread that John Culberson single handedly killed the University Line, but now you're saying that it was killed by "implied threats" by the FTA. Please provide some evidence to support that statement.

The FTA has approved a number of BRT projects recently, especially in light of the recent study that showed well-planned BRT provided a greater economic benefit than LRT.

 

EDIT - for reference, I have attached a copy of the FTA evaluation process.

 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FY13_Evaluation_Process.pdf

 

[Slick Vik]

Do a comparison of recent BRT projects given finding against rail projects..

[livincinco]

Do a comparison of recent BRT projects given finding against rail projects..

 

Mods - I would suggest that this get moved to a separate comparative advantages of BRT vs. LRT thread so that this discussion doesn't continue to sprawl over every transportation thread.

 

OK, here's Denver's experience for one.

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/65550

 

The next segment, 11 miles "from Westminster to Broomfield could cost as much as $681 million while about 100 miles of enhanced bus service [aka, BRT] in the northern suburbs would cost roughly half that and serve nearly eight times as many passengers, according to an analysis (PDF) for the Regional Transportation District", writes Whaley

 

 

BTW, in case anyone has any interest in actually understanding the issue.  Attached is the GAO report on BRT.

 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592973.pdf

 

[Slick Vik]

Mods - I would suggest that this get moved to a separate comparative advantages of BRT vs. LRT thread so that this discussion doesn't continue to sprawl over every transportation thread.

 

OK, here's Denver's experience for one.

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/65550

 

The next segment, 11 miles "from Westminster to Broomfield could cost as much as $681 million while about 100 miles of enhanced bus service [aka, BRT] in the northern suburbs would cost roughly half that and serve nearly eight times as many passengers, according to an analysis (PDF) for the Regional Transportation District", writes Whaley

 

 

BTW, in case anyone has any interest in actually understanding the issue.  Attached is the GAO report on BRT.

 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592973.pdf

 

Yes that is for part of the portion of a gargantuan RAIL project that Denver is already building, including the key one from downtown to the airport.

[Marcus Allen]

Well, I like to think I am a forward thinker, but after riding the entire north line two weekends ago, I am scratching my head. From Reliant Center to UH DT, the ride is pretty awesome. I can see, in time, the vacant lots, seedy joints and derelict buildings giving way to good/great residential and even some commercial areas. Then it gets kind of interesting. I do think there is SO much potential beyond DT on that line, BUT, some of the stops are so far apart, I really don't understand who exactly in that area is benefitting from the public transit. For example, say I live off of Wynne and I take the LR at Cavalcade, then I can travel to Crosstimbers nicely enough. But, what about those neighborhoods between Lindale and Crosstimbers? How are those people supposed to utilize this transport? Any thoughts?

[Subdude]

Note North Line topics merged.

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Well, I like to think I am a forward thinker, but after riding the entire north line two weekends ago, I am scratching my head. From Reliant Center to UH DT, the ride is pretty awesome. I can see, in time, the vacant lots, seedy joints and derelict buildings giving way to good/great residential and even some commercial areas. Then it gets kind of interesting. I do think there is SO much potential beyond DT on that line, BUT, some of the stops are so far apart, I really don't understand who exactly in that area is benefitting from the public transit. For example, say I live off of Wynne and I take the LR at Cavalcade, then I can travel to Crosstimbers nicely enough. But, what about those neighborhoods between Lindale and Crosstimbers? How are those people supposed to utilize this transport? Any thoughts?

Walk

[Marcus Allen]

Well, Slick Vik, that's a very convenient answer, but I think a bit too trite. it did make me laugh out loud when I read it, BUT, I guess I am just wondering how those people are going to see it that way considering Htown's weather patterns, between cold or rainy or humid hot days. Walking a block or two is one thing, for most Houstonians, walking a mile or two just to get to work maybe another. I suppose transit stations could be added as time goes on. Just don't get the intention of the light rail beyond say, Lindale.

[Slick Vik]

Well, Slick Vik, that's a very convenient answer, but I think a bit too trite. it did make me laugh out loud when I read it, BUT, I guess I am just wondering how those people are going to see it that way considering Htown's weather patterns, between cold or rainy or humid hot days. Walking a block or two is one thing, for most Houstonians, walking a mile or two just to get to work maybe another. I suppose transit stations could be added as time goes on. Just don't get the intention of the light rail beyond say, Lindale.

Initially it was intended to go to IAH also cross timbers is a shopping center

[Marcus Allen]

True, true. I wonder how long it will take to connect to IAH? And what would be the stops along the way? Thoughts?

[livincinco]

METRO has reported their ridership numbers for Q1 and they are reporting that net ridership for METRORail has increased by 6.8% YTD (total, full system comparison).  The North Line recorded an average of  4273 weekday boardings, but that was offset by a decrease in ridership of 1680 on the Red Line (possibly existing transit users that changed their boarding station).  The result is that the net increase of average daily weekday boardings YTD is 2,593 vs LY.

 

For reference, the parallel bus lines (24 and 56) have seen a combined decrease of 649 average weekday boardings vs. LY  (possibly existing transit users that have switched modes.)

 

http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Documents/pdfs/Ridership%20Reports/2014/0314_Ridership_Report_FY14.pdf

 

[Houston19514]

^  Thanks for posting.   Just a couple notes:

 

-- Those numbers are for the 1st half of Metro's fiscal year (October-March), not first quarter.

 

-- The average weekday ridership for the 6 month period was 40,442

 

-- The average weekday ridership for the first 3 months of CY 2014 were: 

January, 2014:  41,780

February, 2014:  43,181

March, 2014:     42,722

 

Total Rail Ridership (compared to 2013) was up 10.9% in January, 11.3% in February, and 16.7% in March.

[livincinco]

^  Thanks for posting.   Just a couple notes:

 

-- Those numbers are for the 1st half of Metro's fiscal year (October-March), not first quarter.

 

-- The average weekday ridership for the 6 month period was 40,442

 

-- The average weekday ridership for the first 3 months of CY 2014 were: 

January, 2014:  41,780

February, 2014:  43,181

March, 2014:     42,722

 

Total Rail Ridership (compared to 2013) was up 10.9% in January, 11.3% in February, and 16.7% in March.

 

Thanks.  I missed that METROs fiscal year starts in October.  I'll break out the Q2 numbers later.