Lightrail/BRT Discussion

[713 To 214]

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.

I did misunderstand. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Houston19514]

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.

... or Metro Rail.

[Houston19514]

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).

Do some research, man. Boston, for example, has an extensive commuter rail system and it serves fewer people than Houston's HOV system, at far greater cost. (I cannot find the numbers I saw a few months ago to support my statement. In fact, the numbers I have located thus far contradict my statement.) Nevertheless, the following statement still holds true:

Just because some cities are stuck with 19th century systems (and other cities are blindly trying to reproduce 19th century systems) does not necessarily mean such systems are the best transportation option for the 21st century. A relatively flexible HOV/P&R bus system can do everything commuter rail can do PLUS things commuter rail cannot do (such as greater flexibility in number and location of stops, sharing the transit facility (HOV lanes) with carpools and other buses etc.)

Edited October 5, 2007 by Houston19514

[Jax]

How about you back that up with some facts? I'd like to see some sources rather than just a statement...

[wakester]

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.

For the 290 buses, the problem is that they are running at a high frequency and are still full. The 214 runs about every 5 minutes and the 217 is already running every 10 minutes.

As far as uncongested HOT lanes. On 290 at least, they tend to be very congested. If you are not on the HOV lane by 5:20pm then it is slow. I believe that once the Hempstead HOT lanes are built, it is going to be much worse. The variable pricing is nice in theory, but I think that the reality is that to raise it high enough to make a difference will risk a backlash that the Toll Road Authority may not want to face (See Westpark).

[RedScare]

How about you back that up with some facts? I'd like to see some sources rather than just a statement...

Actually, it appears Houston 19514 is correct.

The best number I could come up with for Boston's MBTA system is approximately 38 million passengers on its 11 commuter lines. On a daily basis, this is 146, 154 (based on 260 workdays). A 2003 study of Houston's HOV system calculated daily usage of 212,079, including 43,225 daily on busses.

2003 Houston HOV study (see table 2)

Since we were still recovering from a mild recession, and gas prices had not yet jumped, these numbers will be lower than 2007. Additionally, more park&ride lots have opened since then. However, the fact remains that Houston HOV lanes carry 45% more commuters daily than Boston's commuter rail system. And for those who insist that METRO is not as good as DART, the park&ride/rail total is 84,000 dailt, versus DART's 65,000 daily.

The fact is that many posters are equating their disdain for park&rides to poor or inefficient service. If one reads what the transportation experts say, Houston METRO receives widespread acclaim for both its HOV innovation in the early 80s, as well as its park&ride service on coach busses. Even the high initial ridership on METROrail is attributed to the ease of boarding street level trains, as opposed to going underground or to elevated stations. The pre-conceived notions of what a transit system should LOOK like, as opposed to its ease of use causes statements to be made on this forum and others that do not match the facts that the transit people see.

[MidtownCoog]

Anyone who complains about the Park and Ride service has never taken it.

I've been a customer, and it works like a charm.

[TheNiche]

For the 290 buses, the problem is that they are running at a high frequency and are still full. The 214 runs about every 5 minutes and the 217 is already running every 10 minutes.

That the busses are full isn't a problem, but that METRO isn't running them with even greater frequency may be.

As far as uncongested HOT lanes. On 290 at least, they tend to be very congested. If you are not on the HOV lane by 5:20pm then it is slow. I believe that once the Hempstead HOT lanes are built, it is going to be much worse. The variable pricing is nice in theory, but I think that the reality is that to raise it high enough to make a difference will risk a backlash that the Toll Road Authority may not want to face (See Westpark).

290 doesn't have HOT lanes, so they can't be congested. The HOV lanes do back up, and that they are used is good but that there is congestion is a problem--but that is what the up-coming 290/Hempstead reconstruction is intending to solve. My only concern there is how the HOT lanes will be integrated into Loop 610 and I-10 in a way that won't cause really bad bottlenecks.HCTRA handled Westpark's pricing poorly from the beginning and created irrational expectations among the users. Hopefully they've learned their lesson and will do it right next time.

Even the high initial ridership on METROrail is attributed to the ease of boarding street level trains, as opposed to going underground or to elevated stations.

I agree with your thesis, but I'd dispute the above claim.

[bachanon]

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.

yet, it was great fun picturing your scenario. practical, real world, hypotheses simply aren't as entertaining.

as much as i can dream of a grand rail system for our region, i think it's necessary and responsible to be conservative in our approach.

[Trae]

Do some research, man. Boston, for example, has an extensive commuter rail system and it serves fewer people than Houston's HOV system, at far greater cost. (I cannot find the numbers I saw a few months ago to support my statement. In fact, the numbers I have located thus far contradict my statement.) Nevertheless, the following statement still holds true:

Just because some cities are stuck with 19th century systems (and other cities are blindly trying to reproduce 19th century systems) does not necessarily mean such systems are the best transportation option for the 21st century. A relatively flexible HOV/P&R bus system can do everything commuter rail can do PLUS things commuter rail cannot do (such as greater flexibility in number and location of stops, sharing the transit facility (HOV lanes) with carpools and other buses etc.)

What are you talking about? More stops? The Katy Freeway HOV has two stops. Imagine if there was a commuter rail line down the middle of the Katy Freeway with stops at the Grand Parkway, Highway 6, Memorial City, Marq*E/Northwest Transit Center, and then Downtown. For the people who don't feel like driving and then parking at the stations, buses can take them there (for the one's in Houston's city limits). A lot more people would use that than what is currently there.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Trae

[Daniepwils]

I use DART all the time when I am in my Dallas office, believe me it is jampacked during rush hours. -- I remember last year my family wanted to use it to go to the west side area, and it had quite a few people (that didn't seem dependant on mass transit)

[TheNiche]

What are you talking about? More stops? The Katy Freeway HOV has two stops. Imagine if there was a commuter rail line down the middle of the Katy Freeway with stops at the Grand Parkway, Highway 6, Memorial City, Marq*E/Northwest Transit Center, and then Downtown. For the people who don't feel like driving and then parking at the stations, buses took them there (for the one's in Houston's city limits). A lot more people would use that than what is currently there.

His point was that HOV/P&R has flexibility to add stops, not that it necessarily has more stops. In fact, more stops isn't necessarily desirable. Decceleration, stopping, and acceleration reduce average speeds. So does intermodality.

[Houston19514]

What are you talking about? More stops? The Katy Freeway HOV has two stops. Imagine if there was a commuter rail line down the middle of the Katy Freeway with stops at the Grand Parkway, Highway 6, Memorial City, Marq*E/Northwest Transit Center, and then Downtown. For the people who don't feel like driving and then parking at the stations, buses took them there (for the one's in Houston's city limits). A lot more people would use that than what is currently there.

Read more carefully, and try to put aside your preconceived notions and prejudices. A P&R/HOV bus system has the flexibility to offer more stops, or fewer stops, as demand may call for.

Yes, just imagine a commuter rail making 5/6 stops, and imagine how long that trip will take with that many stops. Then you can start counting the number of passengers who will abandon such a system because it takes longer than driving or takes longer than the former unprogressive P&R/HOV system did. Your prediction that a lot more people would use such a system is based on nothing but conjecture.

[musicman]

What are you talking about? More stops? The Katy Freeway HOV has two stops. Imagine if there was a commuter rail line down the middle of the Katy Freeway with stops at the Grand Parkway, Highway 6, Memorial City, Marq*E/Northwest Transit Center, and then Downtown.

i can imagine it now.. the travel time increases result in lower ridership.

[Trae]

Okay, four-five stops along a 30-mile, or so stretch, or bumper to bumper traffic in the HOV lane?

[TheNiche]

Okay, four-five stops along a 30-mile, or so stretch, or bumper to bumper traffic in the HOV lane?

No and no.

[Trae]

So you would pick neither?

[KinkaidAlum]

Actually, it appears Houston 19514 is correct.

The best number I could come up with for Boston's MBTA system is approximately 38 million passengers on its 11 commuter lines. On a daily basis, this is 146, 154 (based on 260 workdays). A 2003 study of Houston's HOV system calculated daily usage of 212,079, including 43,225 daily on busses.

2003 Houston HOV study (see table 2)

Since we were still recovering from a mild recession, and gas prices had not yet jumped, these numbers will be lower than 2007. Additionally, more park&ride lots have opened since then. However, the fact remains that Houston HOV lanes carry 45% more commuters daily than Boston's commuter rail system. And for those who insist that METRO is not as good as DART, the park&ride/rail total is 84,000 dailt, versus DART's 65,000 daily.

The fact is that many posters are equating their disdain for park&rides to poor or inefficient service. If one reads what the transportation experts say, Houston METRO receives widespread acclaim for both its HOV innovation in the early 80s, as well as its park&ride service on coach busses. Even the high initial ridership on METROrail is attributed to the ease of boarding street level trains, as opposed to going underground or to elevated stations. The pre-conceived notions of what a transit system should LOOK like, as opposed to its ease of use causes statements to be made on this forum and others that do not match the facts that the transit people see.

The only HOV lane numbers that make any sense in this comparison IMO are the bus riders. I say this because all of those double occupancy cars are eventually getting off of the highways and clogging local roads in Houston. This is very different from commuter rail riders in Boston who either walk from North Station, South Station, or Back Bay Station to their offices or they hop on the T to where they need to go.

Commuter rail in Boston is also just one means of public transportation for people to commute to work. Boston also has the 4 T lines serving Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Malden, Quincy, and Braintree. People also use Amtrack to commute to town from Providence and Route 128 (Western burbs) as well as New England train service to places like New Hampshire (where many Boston workers live due to N.H's no state income tax). Boston also has local bus service and commuter bus service to places like the Cape, Plymouth, and out West along the Mass Pike. During the warmer months, there's also commuter ferry service from several waterfront communities like Hull, Scituate, Hingham, and Charlestown. The last piece of the puzzle is Boston has very user friendly bike trails for people to commute to work by bike.

Edited October 6, 2007 by KinkaidAlum

[TheNiche]

So you would pick neither?

That is correct. I'd prefer to expand HOV/HOT lanes as part of future freeway reconstruction and expansion projects. Your choices didn't account for that approach.

The only HOV lane numbers that make any sense in this comparison IMO are the bus riders. I say this because all of those double occupancy cars are eventually getting off of the highways and clogging local roads in Houston. This is very different from commuter rail riders in Boston who either walk from North Station, South Station, or Back Bay Station to their offices or they hop on the T to where they need to go.

Although double- and triple-occupancy cars certainly don't take as many vehicles off the road as busses, they do still take cars off the road, even on surface streets.

[RedScare]

While I would agree that HOV and commuter rail is not a direct comparison, my post was merely a response to one that questioned Houston19514's statement that the HOV carries more commuters than MBTA. It does.

I would also agree with Niche, that while a bus takes 43 cars off the road, a van takes 8 off the road, and a carpool takes 1 or 2. All are helpful, though to varying degrees.

[VicMan]

i can imagine it now.. the travel time increases result in lower ridership.

The solution could be to make some trains use few stops (i. e. only stop at the busiest locations and proceed to Downtown) while other trains could stop at all of the stops in order to cover all of the territory.

[Trae]

And during peek times, trains would be coming in more frequently to carry more passengers. A train can carry more than buses.

[TheNiche]

The solution could be to make some trains use few stops (i. e. only stop at the busiest locations and proceed to Downtown) while other trains could stop at all of the stops in order to cover all of the territory.

And during peek times, trains would be coming in more frequently to carry more passengers. A train can carry more than buses.

So you'd want to build numerous sidings, increasing both the capital cost and the amount of land that is dedicated exclusively to a single mode of transportation (unlike HOV/HOT, which allow for shared modes), and then you'd want to purchase a very fleet of trains that are more expensive than busses and that probably have way more capacity than can be used by commuting suburbanites at any time in the forseeable future, and you'd want to do this in order to increase the speed at which commuters can make it downtown...where only 5-6% of all commuters work.

The various costs would all be tremendous, and on top of that, it'd remove lane miles from roads, increasing general congestion.

Edited October 6, 2007 by TheNiche

[Trae]

Not everyone would be going Downtown. Those four to five stops are at major population/employment centers. If the train stopped at the Marq*E/Northwest Transit Center station, then someone could catch the light rail to the Galleria area. Same thing for the Memorial City and Highway 6 area (though those would most likely be buses).

It wouldn't remove lane miles, either. There would still be a four-five lane wide Katy Freeway (on each side). The only difference is that tollway wouldn't be there, and there could possibly still be an HOV lane (one lane in each direction). I have seen this done on I-10 in Los Angeles, so it works.

Oh, and for the buses that would not need to be used anymore for the commuter service, could instead be used to increase intown bus frequencies.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Trae

[musicman]

The solution could be to make some trains use few stops (i. e. only stop at the busiest locations and proceed to Downtown) while other trains could stop at all of the stops in order to cover all of the territory.

so if the train (that stops frequently) is in on the fixed track, how is the other train (that stops infrequently) going to pass?

i can think of a design that would allow this but it would force stations to a certain location, which wouldn't be optimal for ridership.

[ricco67]

so if the train (that stops frequently) is in on the fixed track, how is the other train (that stops infrequently) going to pass?

i can think of a design that would allow this but it would force stations to a certain location, which wouldn't be optimal for ridership.

Hardly, New York and Chicago have rail systems that allow for Local and Express service. This is something I would like the U-Line to utilize in the future. Say one train goes to all the (local) stops, while the other only stops as an express at the major centers such as Greenway, Montrose, Wheeler, and TSU/UH stops during peak operating hours (rush Hour). it can be done, but it does require additional rail and would work great in the future if they put in a Subway at the begining of the line.

[musicman]

Hardly, New York and Chicago have rail systems that allow for Local and Express service. This is something I would like the U-Line to utilize in the future. Say one train goes to all the (local) stops, while the other only stops as an express at the major centers such as Greenway, Montrose, Wheeler, and TSU/UH stops during peak operating hours (rush Hour). it can be done, but it does require additional rail and would work great in the future if they put in a Subway at the begining of the line.

it CAN be done...but with METRO's minimalist design on roads, ROW would most likely proclude the option. like i said earlier i can think of an option with the ROW METRO has been using but it would result in a forced design which wouldn't be optimal IMO.

Edited October 7, 2007 by musicman

[TxDave]

Right now Texas cities are doing good to get rail started, but as it catches on they will have to be able to establish some sort of express vs local service.

Last week there was an article in the Dallas Morning News about the (over) popularity of the Red line from Plano in the morning. The trains are standing room only (including many people from cities that are not even part of the DART system). I cannot imagine what the people trying to get on at the closer-in Dallas stations have to do - squeeze in and stand the whole way in?

This is probably an example of where an Express Line and Local line are already necessary - at least during rush hour. But the extra tracks are just not there.

[Trae]

But that strectch they were talking about only has about 21,000 people in ridership.

[wakester]

Oh, and for the buses that would not need to be used anymore for the commuter service, could instead be used to increase intown bus frequencies.

The Commuter buses are not configured for local bus use. They are more about the max number of passengers as opposed to local buses that need to allow for lots of stops (easy on/off).