Lightrail/BRT Discussion

[Ethanra]

DART sure has no problem.

I don't know how DART does it. It even has pathetic ridership numbers but they still get billions to expand their lines....

[TheNiche]

Metro will never do anything right by some of you.

First, they spend too much money on rail. Then, the same critics turn around and say Metro is too cheap in building rail? What? You want things like elevated or underground lines, forgetting that those designs are not free, well, you forget until you mention how Metro wastes too much money on rail. And let's not forget that if they built underground there'd be complaints about utility disruptions. If they elevated the lines; there's be complaints about the pillars that hold up the line and how they don't do enough to protect idiotic Houston motorists from driving into them.

I'm sick of hearing the complaints about the BRT. Metro had it's hand forced to convert former LRT lines to BRT in the plans because else, they'd risk the whole project collapsing because the Feds would not fund it and we'd be back to the drawing board. In fact, this was done to appease AO folk hero Culberson and the disgraced Tom DeLay. Metro says it will put tracks under the BRT ROW for easy conversion to light rail at a future date. If they don't have any plans for conversion why the expenditure in the first place. They can just say, "Hey, we're not going to do LRT on those lines anymore." Sure, they'd piss off a few people, but hey, what else is new for Metro? They could cure Cancer, AIDS, find solutions to world poverty and hunger, and send Frank Wilson to Darfur for peace keeping efforts but local Bubbas, NIMBYs, and other uninformed would still object to how their one penny is being spent.

Goodness gracious. I guess most people believe that their one cent contributions allows Metro sit on capital that's equivalent to that of a small developed nation. As if, Metro is at the mercy of the Feds. They have to bend to their will. If you have complaints about Metro's plans and expenditures, write your local congressman and tell them to SEND MORE MONEY~!

I think that the jist of what those kinds of folks want is either very efficient light rail or none at all. They fail to see the merit of hundreds of millions of dollars of outlays on poorly-implemented transit that actually impedes the flow of traffic in its routine operations. And if federal funding isn't there to support it, well that's just reality. And if METRO can't pay the full tab, well that too is just reality. It is the idea that having nothing happen is better than paying lots of money for something that sucks at its intended use.

[MetroMogul]

I think that the jist of what those kinds of folks want is either very efficient light rail or none at all. They fail to see the merit of hundreds of millions of dollars of outlays on poorly-implemented transit that actually impedes the flow of traffic in its routine operations. And if federal funding isn't there to support it, well that's just reality. And if METRO can't pay the full tab, well that too is just reality. It is the idea that having nothing happen is better than paying lots of money for something that sucks at its intended use.

I'm not even going to respond to such an oversimplification of a complicated process. Your logic is ridiculous. You'd rather not even make an attempt at a solution if it's not "perfect" is what you're saying. And the issues of funding, goodness, I don't even know where to begin. Your anti-Metro bias makes this a losing argument so why even invest any time into this?

[Jax]

Why are people all or nothing? What's wrong with having a system that's much better than busses, but still not as efficient as the NY Subway system, if that's all that we can afford? Sure seems better than nothing to me.

Anybody who thinks Metro Rail is not better than busses hasn't used busses very much.

[dfwcre8tive]

I don't know how DART does it. It even has pathetic ridership numbers but they still get billions to expand their lines....

DART's Red Line trains popular with the masses

Agency addressing 8-mile stretch that's short on room

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...ne.2de8b3f.html

[TheNiche]

I'm not even going to respond to such an oversimplification of a complicated process. Your logic is ridiculous. You'd rather not even make an attempt at a solution if it's not "perfect" is what you're saying. And the issues of funding, goodness, I don't even know where to begin.

There is no such thing as a "perfect" solution. Only an "optimal" solution. Paying lots of money for something that undeniably produces enormous benefit is better than paying half of lots of money for something that--I have argued--produces negligible or no benefit at all. And if the first option still costs more to implement than it is worth, then doing nothing is better than spending what is still a lot of money on something that yeilds negligible or no benefit.

The funding mechanisms put constraints on what is possible, but I can't change that. They are the rules of the game.

Your anti-Metro bias makes this a losing argument so why even invest any time into this?

Uh huh...

So what you're saying is that I have clearly exposed myself as having a position that isn't the same as yours. I am indeed biased--albeit not without reason. And therefore, it is not worth arguing with me because we just won't agree.

Might I suggest that arguments based upon reason are most productive when the opposing parties are biased in favor of the arguments that they're putting forth?

[713 To 214]

I don't know how DART does it. It even has pathetic ridership numbers but they still get billions to expand their lines....

Your information about DART's "pathetic ridership numbers" is incorrect.

________________________________________________________________

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...ne.2de8b3f.html

DART's Red Line trains popular with the masses

Agency addressing 8-mile stretch that's short on room

10:43 PM CDT on Wednesday, October 3, 2007

By THEODORE KIM / The Dallas Morning News

tkim@dallasnews.com

RICHARDSON

[RedScare]

So what you're saying is that I have clearly exposed myself as having a position that isn't the same as yours. I am indeed biased--albeit not without reason. And therefore, it is not worth arguing with me because we just won't agree.

Might I suggest that arguments based upon reason are most productive when the opposing parties are biased in favor of the arguments that they're putting forth?

I don't find your arguments to be based on reason at all. Your arguments are based on "conclusions" that are no more than your opinion. In fact, looking at the very same system, I find your opinions to be unsupported by fact at all. The fact that you consistently state the same "conclusions" over and over do not make them fact. The fact is, you've never supported any of the statements in your previous post with any factual evidence...musicman's concurrence notwithstanding. So, your "fact" that the Main St. line causes congestion is no more factual than my daily observation that it does not.

Note to 713/214: How is DART "full" at 21,000 per day on its 8 mile line, while METRO's 8 mile line carries twice that? Is the frequency of runs that much less?

[Trae]

I don't know how DART does it. It even has pathetic ridership numbers but they still get billions to expand their lines....

It is a much better organization, and they did their plans just a few years earlier than METRO (before the Feds starting this BRT bullcrap).

[TheNiche]

Why are people all or nothing? What's wrong with having a system that's much better than busses, but still not as efficient as the NY Subway system, if that's all that we can afford? Sure seems better than nothing to me.

Anybody who thinks Metro Rail is not better than busses hasn't used busses very much.

METRO's reason to be is to maximally enhance regional mobility within their budget and federal opportunities for matching funds. Part of that is ensuring that transit users receive efficient and qualitatively good service, but the larger part of that is to reduce traffic congestion.

The design of the Red Line has serious adverse impacts on traffic congestion (witness Fannin and the South Loop in afternoon rush hour, blocked streets and a broken grid in Midtown, lanes lost to traffic, disruptions of signal timing, et al.).

And based upon work that I'd done in 2005, I was able to conclude that many transit riders, especially in poor neighborhoods, were greatly inconvenienced by the redesign of bus routes and an increased number of transfers. It fostered serious doubts as to whether the Red Line was nearly as efficient as it would seem if all that was done was to compare average bus speeds with LRT speeds on account of that the total trip time was seemingly increased for so many. Another adverse external impact was the high-pitched noise from the horn, which I can hear on many nights living a half-mile away from the Red Line.

[Ethanra]

Your information about DART's "pathetic ridership numbers" is incorrect.

________________________________________________________________

[

One 8 mile stretch has high ridership numbers... Maybe pathetic is a strong word. Ridership numbers are average at best. Houston's 8 mile line gets approx. 66% of DARTS 45 miles of line...

Rank Community served Ridership per mile

1 Boston 7,518

2 Houston 4,659

3 Buffalo 2,703

4 Los Angeles 2,411

5 Salt Lake City 2,237

6 Portland 2,208

7 Minneapolis 2,158

8 San Diego 2 000

9 San Francisco 1,876

10 Newark 1,818

11 Tacoma 1,799

12 St. Louis 1,735

13 Denver 1,683

14 Philadelphia 1,435

15 Sacramento 1,341

16 Dallas 1,255

17 San Jose 1,178

18 Jersey City 950

19 Pittsburgh 932

20 Cleveland 827

21 Baltimore 817

22 Memphis 529

23 Tampa 391

[TheNiche]

I don't find your arguments to be based on reason at all. Your arguments are based on "conclusions" that are no more than your opinion. In fact, looking at the very same system, I find your opinions to be unsupported by fact at all. The fact that you consistently state the same "conclusions" over and over do not make them fact. The fact is, you've never supported any of the statements in your previous post with any factual evidence...musicman's concurrence notwithstanding. So, your "fact" that the Main St. line causes congestion is no more factual than my daily observation that it does not.

I have stated the basis for my conclusions many different times on many threads throughout this forum. I have in fact been criticized by many people for having given too much information. Other people have just opted not to read my lengthy and detailed responses and posed the exact same questions, to which I have patiently replied once more.

You'll have to forgive me if I've grown bored of repeating myself. A summary explanation will have to do.

[713 To 214]

Why are people all or nothing?

The Niche is all or nothing because he believes that we should "either [build] very efficient light rail or none at all," or it's not worth the investment. He believes this even though NO OTHER TRANSIT AGENCY in THE WORLD has ever built its system all at once. In essence, "The Pedant" believes that unless METRO can build rail to the Woodlands, Katy, Sugarland, Midtown, Uptown, the Museum District, U of H, TSU, Rice, Spring, Baytown, Kemah, NASA and Galveston, including all major business and entertainment destinations in between, plus all three airports. . .and build it all within three years, with federal government support, it just doesn't merit (oh how did he put it. . .it was so eloquent) "merit [the outlay] of hundreds of millions of dollars." Pedant, I submit that you're the one who needs a dose of reality.

[Ethanra]

and they did their plans just a few years earlier than METRO (before the Feds starting this BRT bullcrap).

Your right - RedScare had a great post about this in one discussion.

[Trae]

And when the University Line is opened, followed by the (hopefully) LRT Uptown Line, Houston ridership would increase of Dallas' DART. My only gripe with METRO Rail is that it is so small in coverage and the new lines are changing over to BRT. DART's Green Line is probably going to be its last line in full LRT (that Orange Line can possible be BRT).

[TheNiche]

The Niche is all or nothing because he believes that we should "either [build] very efficient light rail or none at all," or it's not worth the investment. He believes this even though NO OTHER TRANSIT AGENCY in THE WORLD has ever built its system all at once. In essence, "The Pedant" believes that unless METRO can build rail to the Woodlands, Katy, Sugarland, Midtown, Uptown, the Museum District, U of H, TSU, Rice, Spring, Baytown, Kemah, NASA and Galveston, including all major business and entertainment destinations in between, plus all three airports. . .and build it all within three years, with federal government support, it just doesn't merit (oh how did he put it. . .it was so eloquent) "merit [the outlay] of hundreds of millions of dollars." Pedant, I submit that you're the one who needs a dose of reality.

You have grossly misrepresented my position and line of thought.

While I'm not a fan of the idea of a stand-alone 'starter line' (especially one financed with 100% local funds), I'm also not a fan of commuter or light rail to the suburbs or the airports. METRO does an exceptionally good job with its Park & Ride services.

[713 To 214]

Note to 713/214: How is DART "full" at 21,000 per day on its 8 mile line, while METRO's 8 mile line carries twice that? Is the frequency of runs that much less?

Come on counselor. You used the word "full" I never stated that. I merely posted a recent article that contradicted a statement made by another poster. I notice that you have a penchant for putting words in others' quotes in an effort to prove your point(s). Please resist the urge to do so with me.

[Trae]

Why are you not a fan of commuter rail lines? Those will be used extensively (especially if there were ones out to Cypress, Katy, and the Woodlands).

[TheNiche]

Why are you not a fan of commuter rail lines? Those will be used extensively (especially if there were ones out to Cypress, Katy, and the Woodlands).

They'd cost a butt-load, can't share their right of way with cars, would likely never accelerate above the speed of busses on uncongested HOT lanes, and can't deliver commuters to the front door of their office, even in a dense area like the CBD or Galleria--they require a secondary support system of transit infrastructure. I don't doubt that there'd by high ridership, but they'd be replacing efficient, flexible, and inexpensive busses. ...and P&R busses are really very nice.

I'd much rather that they take any money allocated for commuter rail and put it toward expanding nonstop P&R service to various employment centers and increasing the frequency.

[Trae]

Wow, okay tell that to almost every other major American city. Their commuter rail systems seem to work. Commuter rail lines don't have as many stops, either. Once the commuter rail lines stop in the city, the riders would take buses, or light rail to their destinations...then walk if they have to. And commuter rails can be built in the middle of freeways. Chicago and Los Angeles do it. Houston just expanded their freeways instead of just adding maybe one HOV lane in each direction, and leave the middle for commuter rail (should have been done on the Katy Freeway).

[RedScare]

Come on counselor. You used the word "full" I never stated that. I merely posted a recent article that contradicted a statement made by another poster. I notice that you have a penchant for putting words in others' quotes in an effort to prove your point(s). Please resist the urge to do so with me.

I never stated that you made the comment. The article did. I understand that you may think that all of my responses to you are meant to be antagonistic, but in this case, I was merely asking if you knew why the trains are full. I suspect it is because they do not run as often as METRO does (every 6 minutes), which would reduce line capacity, but I do not know for sure.

Sorry that it sounded like an attack.

[713 To 214]

You have grossly misrepresented my position and line of thought.

While I'm not a fan of the idea of a stand-alone 'starter line' (especially one financed with 100% local funds), I'm also not a fan of commuter or light rail to the suburbs or the airports. METRO does an exceptionally good job with its Park & Ride services.

I'm used to dealing with people like you. I deal with you all on an every day basis. You're very enthusiastic about telling us why/how things shouldn't be done. However, you're afraid to submit your own suggestions out of fear that someone else will summarily shoot down your idea(s) in similar fashion. So, what I'd like to know is, how would you build METRO's rail system if you had the opportunity to design and control its build out, hypothetically speaking, of course. Money should not be considered as an option in this hypothetical. I just want to know your thoughts on how the most "efficient" rail system should be built for Houstonians.

[Trae]

If I had my way, one thing I would do is instead of having the Westpark Tollway, I would have a light rail line down there. The reason it would be light rail and not commuter rail is because the areas that the Westpark Tollway go through would have high ridership on it.

[713 To 214]

My post

I notice that you have a penchant for putting words in others' quotes in an effort to prove your point(s). Please resist the urge to do so with me.

Your Response

I never stated that you made the comment. The article did. I understand that you may think that all of my responses to you are meant to be antagonistic, but in this case, I was merely asking if you knew why the trains are full. I suspect it is because they do not run as often as METRO does (every 6 minutes), which would reduce line capacity, but I do not know for sure.

Sorry that it sounded like an attack.

You just did it again. 1st of all, I rarely communicate in absolutes like "all," "every," "never," or "always." 2nd of all, I didn't accuse you of attacking me (because I didn't feel attacked). I just stated what I've noticed about some of your posts, which is that, IMHO, you tend to misquote words that are in others' posts in an effort to drive home a point your posts. It was as simple as that, and as an attorney you should understand the power of words, and with that understanding the realization that one word changed or taken out of context can change the entire meaning of a statement. I choose my words carefully. Therefore, I take particular notice when someone mis-quotes me.

As for the ridership numbers between the two lines, I would think that it has something to do with a fact that you've pointed out on several occasions in other threads about Houston's starter line. METRO has diverted much of its bus traffic to its Red line, including bus traffic that is intentionally diverted around/away from DT Houston and the Medical Center, even though those oldbus routes might have been more time efficient. AND whether one wants to see it as artificially inflating the line's ridership numbers or METRO smartly meshing its bus and rail components, one cannot doubt that many of those passengers (probably upwards of 40%) wouldn't be riding the rail but for these bus re-routes. Now, while there are some people who transfer to DART's Red line via bus, the vast majority of these people (probably upwards of 85% IMO), as pointed out in the article are driving to the park and ride lots at the stations from their nearby neighborhoods. I don't know definitively whether this distinction plays a role in the reported difference in ridership numbers between METRO's entire Red line and the 8 mile segment of DART's Red line focused on in the Dallas Morning News article posted above. However, I suspect that the distinction does tell us something.

[Trae]

What exactly is the difference between someone driving to the station and parking, or someone else taking a bus to the LRT station? It isn't like DART buses will take them all the way to the job centers. the DART rail acts like an HOV system.

[RedScare]

713/214,

You may still be misunderstanding my question. I was asking why DART line would be full at 21,000 daily ridership, whereas METRO's line can accomodate twice that. Having ridden both, the actual trainsets do not appear to be much different capacitywise.

Nevermind, answered my own question. The Red Line runs from as often as every 4 minutes to as little as every 33 minutes. It only runs at 5 or 6 minute intervals for 90 minutes or so during rush hour. In comparison, METRO runs every 6 minutes for 15 hours daily. It slacks off to 12 to 18 minutes after 7:30 pm. It also runs an hour and a half longer. Therefore, with more trains running more often and longer, it has more capacity overall.

[Jax]

That makes sense, but I hope people don't get confused, because the Houston light rail is called the "red line" too.

The Red Line runs from as often as every 4 minutes to as little as every 33 minutes

You're talking about Dallas in that sentence, right?

[bachanon]

I'm used to dealing with people like you. I deal with you all on an every day basis. You're very enthusiastic about telling us why/how things shouldn't be done. However, you're afraid to submit your own suggestions out of fear that someone else will summarily shoot down your idea(s) in similar fashion. So, what I'd like to know is, how would you build METRO's rail system if you had the opportunity to design and control its build out, hypothetically speaking, of course. Money should not be considered as an option in this hypothetical. I just want to know your thoughts on how the most "efficient" rail system should be built for Houstonians.

i think theniche has made it clear that the most efficient transportation system for houston involves buses, more specifically, park & rides. because houston's work force is so spread out and regardless of how much money you spend, you could never achieve an efficient rail system. though, maybe in a "simcity" hypothetical you could.

[TheNiche]

Wow, okay tell that to almost every other major American city. Their commuter rail systems seem to work. Commuter rail lines don't have as many stops, either. Once the commuter rail lines stop in the city, the riders would take buses, or light rail to their destinations...then walk if they have to. And commuter rails can be built in the middle of freeways. Chicago and Los Angeles do it. Houston just expanded their freeways instead of just adding maybe one HOV lane in each direction, and leave the middle for commuter rail (should have been done on the Katy Freeway).

I'm not saying that commuter rail doesn't work, just that it is more expensive and less flexible that P&R, which we already do very very well.

[TheNiche]

I'm used to dealing with people like you. I deal with you all on an every day basis. You're very enthusiastic about telling us why/how things shouldn't be done. However, you're afraid to submit your own suggestions out of fear that someone else will summarily shoot down your idea(s) in similar fashion. So, what I'd like to know is, how would you build METRO's rail system if you had the opportunity to design and control its build out, hypothetically speaking, of course. Money should not be considered as an option in this hypothetical. I just want to know your thoughts on how the most "efficient" rail system should be built for Houstonians.

Its funny that bachanon mentioned Sim City. The first thing that popped into my mind when you said that "money should not be considered as an option" was when I've entered a cheat code giving me lots and lots of money, demolished massive swaths of development, reconfigured the grid system, installed an integrated network of subways and bus stations, rezoned to a higher density, then turned the clock on again and strategically bulldozed any highrises that were spaced inconveniently within any given block, then watched them instantaneously reappear until I got exactly the pattern I wanted.

If money isn't an issue and I have control over public policy in Houston, I'd just systematically buy everyone out, bulldoze nearly everything, and rebuild the city with an integrated network of underground tunnels connecting to tall concrete structures spaced at no more than 1/2-mile intervals throughout the metropolitan area; they would be connected to every single building by continuous bi-directional conveyor belts like many airports have, and the conveyor belts would be enclosed in air conditioned tunnels. The structures would house pods about the size of cars that were driven by a computer linked to regional server that directs traffic with utmost efficiency and safety. The pods would be magnetically levitated above rails in the tunnels, and the tunnels would be sealed and depressurized so as to allow ridiculously fast speeds on account of there being basically no coefficient of friction slowing down the pods or inhibiting their acceleration. The system would also be able to handle the delivery of containerized freight to underground loading docks at every shopping center, office building, hospital, and residential structure from massive distribution parks at the periphery of the metropolitan area. There would also be parking garages at these peripheries; no cars would be allowed in any urbanized area except on I-10 and I-45, which would be buried and have no exits into the city. They'd be for thru-traffic only.

Happy now? I'm not. I'm not a god or even a maniacal dictator sitting atop the world's last reserve of crude oil. I don't make the rules. And pretending that I do doesn't make it so.