Houston's long-term future is bleak without serious mass transit and efforts to lure young professionals (Tomball: house, taxes)

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Todd, maybe part of the reduction of METRO buses had partly to do with the construction of the rail line and the consolidation of routes/elimination of redundant ones. I've heard a lot of whining about how the routes were changed to route people to the rail, but what kind of sense does it make to have a bus route regularly going parallel to the rail? Wouldn't that be a senseless waste that would cost money? I guess there's no pleasing some people.

I agree but my point remains, no matter how you slice it and dice it, that Metro has not been interested in significantly expanding and enhancing bus service. You can't rebut that and you know it.

I think the senseless waste is in spending $500 million to construct a light rail line that would run parallel to where buses were ALREADY RUNNING!!! Light rail was not built to fulfill an unmet need. It's not like thousands of people needed to get up and down Main/Fannin and there was no options available. No, Metro simply wanted a shiny new rail like all their sister transit agencies were getting.

Metro likes to brag that MetroRail increased their total boardings significantly, from 88 million in 2003 to 101 million in 2007. But the total passenger revenue miles remained nearly the same, at 56 million. So the rail didn't generate many new riders, they simply forced existing riders to make more transfers by making them get off the bus and onto a rail to complete the journey they previously were able to do by staying on the bus.

I guess there's no reasoning based on facts with some people.

Originally Posted by jfre81

And I'm not against buses, which are very much rubber tire on concrete. I think the buses should be used to link people from the neighborhoods where the rail might not go through directly, to take them to major destinations, downtown, Galleria and so forth.

Agreed but Metro apparently doesn't agree since they have not aggressively expanded bus service.

Originally Posted by jfre81

If I have the choice between rail or a bus I'll take rail. If you have actually rode on a METRO bus here, the sorry conditions of many roads here make it a rather bumpy ride which is also noisy, to say nothing of the noise from the bus itself (especially noticeable in the back seats). The Red Line is quiet and smooth in comparison.

How come those bouncy roads don't deter motorists from driving? And rail cars cost a million bucks each. You could, still for the fraction of rail service, offer enhanced bus service that was quiet, clean, and attractive. If you get some time check out this site on Bus Rapid Transit systems. I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" on anything, just want you to be informed. Metro considered an enhanced bus option when it was studying the Main St. project, it would have offered 80% of the benefits at 20% of the cost but Metro wasn't interested. Their minds were made up, they wanted rail.

Originally Posted by jfre81

Rail is also better for high-volume routes, as there's the option of attaching multiple cars. When a bus gets full, you need more buses which require their own drivers (who don't work for free), their own fuel, their own tires....you get the idea. Reserve the buses for lower-level service and put rail in the main transit corridors, having the buses link people to the rail. That's the way to go.

For extremely high volume routes like commuter lines I would agree. But the flip side is that if demand drops or changes you can adjust the number of buses running and even the routes. Of course, that's one hidden reason transit agencies prefer rail. If a bus route isn't living up to expectations it is quite simple to change it or cancel it. If a rail line doesn't measure up it's way too expensive to abandon, you have no choice but to keep throwing more money at it.

And the cost differential between bus and rail is so enormous that you can pay for a lot of extra drivers and tires and gasoline and still be ahead.

Like I said, I'll suppost any rail line that makes economic sense. You even agreed with me that a 80% fare box recovery was "reasonable". But I must confess that I knew nobody was doing that so I'll drop it to 50%. There ya go, all I ask is the users of the service just pay half. BTW, what did you think about Metro's fare box recovery ratio of 11.5%? Sound like an organization we can entrust with billions of our dollars?

[Zhang Fei]

Originally Posted by jfre81

And as if you had a point to begin with, what does any of this have to do with mass transit?

He said the biggest cities have mass transit. I said they also speak Mandarin. Should we also speak Mandarin? Blindly aping what other people do is no way to go through life.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Zhang Fei

He said the biggest cities have mass transit. I said they also speak Mandarin. Should we also speak Mandarin? Blindly aping what other people do is no way to go through life.

I don't think that's the aim here. I think the aim is to improve and diversify our transportation infrastructure. There are mid-sized cities with mass transit too. Hell, there's even a new bus service in my hometown of Texas City (pop. ~40K) now.

Todd, I do think there was an expansion of park and ride service to the suburbs/outlying areas as demand dictated in the summer when gas prices were high. Don't know how that's going to stick if they go back up. Adjustments get made when demand drives it. Just a couple months ago they split off the 81 and 82 Westheimer/Sharpstown routes, for an example.

The conditions of the roads don't deter drivers because - well - what's been their alternative? Not going anywhere? To be fair, I don't think that's really the main reason what turns people off of the bus but what my personal preference is and why. What I think is, however, a factor for a lot of people is image. People tend to associate the bus with poor people, bums and such. When I ride the rail I see a more diverse mix of people. A couple seats from a bum you might see a guy in a business suit. I don't see that very often on the bus. We can debate how or why all day, but this is what I see when I go out.

I know about BRT. LRT is more expensive to build but costs less to operate in the long run. It also requires wider lanes. Had the Red Line been a dedicated BRT line, it might have had to close off to regular traffic on at least one side.

As for the trustworthiness of METRO, honestly, if the whole system was folded into an entity that worked better then I'm all for it. I almost get the feeling that you think I'm a METRO shill. I wish I was, because then I'd be getting paid for sitting here typing this. I like money as much as the next guy. But my support is not for METRO per se, but for expanded transit in general.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by DiverTodd62

So you're confining the discussion to "inside the loop"? I thought the preferred concept was "regional" planning.

The reason why I am confining the discussion of inside the loop is because that's where the most highly consistent density is at. That is where Houston is at it's most urban. That is where most Houstonians consider than the real Houston. That is where the heart and core of the city is at. That is where Houston is at it's best. That is where young professionals are looking at. A strong city needs to have a strong core. Now I'm all in for regional planning. But that's when we get to commuter rail and all that stuff that I would love for Houston to have. But look around all the other cities. Most of it's urban rail systems are in the heart of the city with little branches off into the suburbs (Metro in DC and BART being the exception). This is why I said earlier that to take care of the city and the highly visited and high traffic areas first and the suburbs second. I'm not talking about commuter rail such as VRE in Washington DC or Metra in Chicago. I'm just talking about the main rail systems in the heart of the city.

Also, you did not answer my question when I asked what should be the best solution for Houston in the long run?

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Todd, I do think there was an expansion of park and ride service to the suburbs/outlying areas as demand dictated in the summer when gas prices were high. Don't know how that's going to stick if they go back up. Adjustments get made when demand drives it. Just a couple months ago they split off the 81 and 82 Westheimer/Sharpstown routes, for an example.

Precisely the kind of adjustments that cannot be made to rail. If Metro discovered tomorrow that they could serve 20,000 more people per day by having the rail go down Crawford instead of Fannin, well too bad. They are stuck with what they got, and that is why all the ridership studies you complained about earlier are required.

Originally Posted by jfre81

The conditions of the roads don't deter drivers because - well - what's been their alternative? Not going anywhere? To be fair, I don't think that's really the main reason what turns people off of the bus but what my personal preference is and why. What I think is, however, a factor for a lot of people is image. People tend to associate the bus with poor people, bums and such. When I ride the rail I see a more diverse mix of people. A couple seats from a bum you might see a guy in a business suit. I don't see that very often on the bus. We can debate how or why all day, but this is what I see when I go out.

Sure it's all about image, but I am not willing to pay 10x the cost so somebody can enjoy a better image. Mostly that negative bus image is based on traditional local bus service the way it has been handled in the past, with rude drivers and dirty overcrowded buses.

Originally Posted by jfre81

I know about BRT. LRT is more expensive to build but costs less to operate in the long run. It also requires wider lanes. Had the Red Line been a dedicated BRT line, it might have had to close off to regular traffic on at least one side.

As for the ROW, bull feathers. A bus is no wider than a train and can operate within the width of a standard vehicle lane, as thousands of buses prove every day.

Thanks for a relevant reference. I'm not swayed by an unsupported claim from a pro light rail advocate though so I found that GAO study and as I expected, he grossly misrepresented it. The title is even "Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise". And it says:

"The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs per mile than the Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed, although neither system had a clear advantage in operating costs. In some
cases Light Rail had higher operating costs per trip than Bus Rapid Transit,
and in other cases the reverse was true. The performance characteristics
of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems also varied widely, with the
largest Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest Light
Rail ridership."

Let's look at more from the report. I could just tell people to read the report themselves but people are too lazy to bother with facts.

"Two elements of transit system performance are ridership and system speed. We found that while ridership varied considerably, the largest ridership on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems were quite similar. We also found that speed varied but that Bus Rapid Transit projects in our review were generally faster."

"Bus Rapid Transit systems operate more flexibly than Light Rail systems.
Bus Rapid Transit can respond to changes in employment, land-use, and
community patterns by increasing or decreasing capacity. Bus Rapid
Transit routes can also be adjusted and rerouted over time to serve new
developments and dispersed employment centers that may have resulted
from urban sprawl"

And finally, since the biggest disadvantage of bus is as you say, image.

"Officials we interviewed from FTA, transit agencies, academia, and private
consulting stated that a negative image exists for bus service, particularly
when compared to rail service. Communities may prefer Light Rail systems
to Bus Rapid Transit in part because the public sees rail as faster, quieter,
and less polluting than buses, even though Bus Rapid Transit is designed to
overcome those problems. While transit officials noted a public bias
toward Light Rail, research has found that riders have no preference for rail over bus when service characteristics are equal."

Originally Posted by jfre81

As for the trustworthiness of METRO, honestly, if the whole system was folded into an entity that worked better then I'm all for it. I almost get the feeling that you think I'm a METRO shill. I wish I was, because then I'd be getting paid for sitting here typing this. I like money as much as the next guy. But my support is not for METRO per se, but for expanded transit in general.

Shill or not, if you're willing to entrust them with billions while demanding no accountability or performance evaluation, what's the difference?

[jfre81]

Shill or not, if you're willing to entrust them with billions while demanding no accountability or performance evaluation, what's the difference?

Starting with this. I never said I wouldn't expect accountability or performance. If I didn't know any better I'd say you're putting words in my mouth. I don't like people who do that, Todd.

Where was the accountability when the Katy Freeway project practically doubled in cost?

Originally Posted by DiverTodd62

Precisely the kind of adjustments that cannot be made to rail. If Metro discovered tomorrow that they could serve 20,000 more people per day by having the rail go down Crawford instead of Fannin, well too bad. They are stuck with what they got, and that is why all the ridership studies you complained about earlier are required.

Except that you can make adjustments. Like I'd mentioned, the rail is going to go in a main corridor, say Main Street or Richmond. No need to adjust that. What you adjust is the amount of cars you send down the tracks. Do a double train if the ridership demands it, or cut back when it doesn't. We're talking about the inner core of Houston. It's not going to just up and become a ghost town one day. When things shift around elsewhere, you adjust bus routes. You still have the main rail line that will provide a little centralization to the transit infrastructure where there was none before.

Sure it's all about image, but I am not willing to pay 10x the cost so somebody can enjoy a better image. Mostly that negative bus image is based on traditional local bus service the way it has been handled in the past, with rude drivers and dirty overcrowded buses.

Sometimes image is everything. You said you were for this if it could generate 80% of operating costs. That would involve integrating people into the transit system and having them ride on a regular basis. Or have you suddenly switched from "well, I'm not against it if it makes enough money" to "I'm against it?" You may not be willing, but it's not just your call. It's not just your money. You're acting like a 1% sales tax that you pay gives you a louder voice than anyone else. It's not all about you, Todd. If this is news to you, then call me Tom Brokaw. You want it to be all about you? Go take your money, buy your own personal island in the Florida Keys and leave. Then you won't have to worry about who does what with whose money here.

Bus drivers are what they are. They're there to drive the bus, not be your buddy. Some are more helpful than others. Pretty much goes for any profession. Some people also act rude and wonder why they get the same thing in kind. And since you mentioned cleanliness, I do note that the trains are generally cleaner than the buses.

As for the ROW, bull feathers. A bus is no wider than a train and can operate within the width of a standard vehicle lane, as thousands of buses prove every day.

Actually, a lot of existing street lanes can barely support a bus, or can't at all. Case in point would be Westheimer where it curves (~1300-1400 block). The 81/82 bus requires both lanes to make it around that curve. I've seen near-accidents many a time there.

Thanks for a relevant reference. I'm not swayed by an unsupported claim from a pro light rail advocate though so I found that GAO study and as I expected, he grossly misrepresented it. The title is even "Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise". And it says:

"The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs per mile than the Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed, although neither system had a clear advantage in operating costs. In some
cases Light Rail had higher operating costs per trip than Bus Rapid Transit,
and in other cases the reverse was true. The performance characteristics
of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems also varied widely, with the
largest Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest Light
Rail ridership."

Let's look at more from the report. I could just tell people to read the report themselves but people are too lazy to bother with facts.

"Two elements of transit system performance are ridership and system speed. We found that while ridership varied considerably, the largest ridership on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems were quite similar. We also found that speed varied but that Bus Rapid Transit projects in our review were generally faster."

"Bus Rapid Transit systems operate more flexibly than Light Rail systems.
Bus Rapid Transit can respond to changes in employment, land-use, and
community patterns by increasing or decreasing capacity. Bus Rapid
Transit routes can also be adjusted and rerouted over time to serve new
developments and dispersed employment centers that may have resulted
from urban sprawl"

And finally, since the biggest disadvantage of bus is as you say, image.

"Officials we interviewed from FTA, transit agencies, academia, and private
consulting stated that a negative image exists for bus service, particularly
when compared to rail service. Communities may prefer Light Rail systems
to Bus Rapid Transit in part because the public sees rail as faster, quieter,
and less polluting than buses, even though Bus Rapid Transit is designed to
overcome those problems. While transit officials noted a public bias
toward Light Rail, research has found that riders have no preference for rail over bus when service characteristics are equal."

I've got a question for you...we can talk about what bureaucrats and think-tank geeks who don't live here say until we're bored of it...this is a straight-up question too. Do you ever use public transit in Houston? What might be peoples' preferences in Baltimore or Philadelphia may not be the same in Houston. But maybe in your world every city's the same and citizens everywhere view the different modes of transit the same way. I'm guessing you don't ride much or at all, since you have to rely on others to figure these things out. I see what I see and I hear what I hear, on the ground. Nobody in Washington is doing that. Maybe you should come join me sometime. Don't worry, I'll keep you safe from the monsters lurking under the seats.

The loudest opposition to rail, other than the businesses on Richmond, seems to come from the black community in Third Ward. This is not so much because of a resistance to transit per se, but because they see rail as a bringer of gentrification as opposed to the buses. Are their fears invalid if there's really no difference?

[wazmoot]

DiverTodd62, I think everyone understands (and understood prior to this topic) that light rail in Houston doesn't make the most economic sense. But that doesn't mean that light rail isn't a good alternative. You, being such an astute student of TTI and all, surely understand the "soft" costs which aren't usually included in an economic or engineering analysis. That's why there is no possible way for either side to win this debate. It's like trying to win the democrat vs republican debate. Your facts are great, perhaps, on an individual basis, but on a more holistic scale it is based on what I consider a flawed philosophy. Urban planners and government officials aren't interested only in economic or engineering feasibility. There are other "soft" issues to consider like quality of life, long term growth, etc. That's why expensive and extravagant architecture exists...that's why every building you see doesn't look like a 60s era bunker with small windows and bland aesthetics. I don't like the fact that my tax money is helping fund an unjust war either, but they still take those taxes out of my paycheck without my input on where it should be allotted.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Starting with this. I never said I wouldn't expect accountability or performance. If I didn't know any better I'd say you're putting words in my mouth. I don't like people who do that, Todd.

If the shoe fits... Where have you demanded accountability? You agreed that 80% fare box recovery was reasonable, I showed you with Metro's own numbers that they ran 11.5%. You had nothing to say about that, absolutely nothing even after I brought it up again. I also showed you that BRT is cheaper to build and, with the source for your own reference, comparable to operate. You don't care. You want rail. You couldn't care less whether it's economically feasible, whether there are more effective options, or whether Metro has mismanaged it's systems. Or let's say you haven't shown it. You want rail, nothing else matters.

Originally Posted by jfre81

Sometimes image is everything. You said you were for this if it could generate 80% of operating costs. That would involve integrating people into the transit system and having them ride on a regular basis. Or have you suddenly switched from "well, I'm not against it if it makes enough money" to "I'm against it?"

Totally disingenuous on your part. Talk about putting words in one's mouth. Not only have I not switched, I explicitly lowered my threshold from 80% to 50%. Did you miss that?

Originally Posted by jfre81

You may not be willing, but it's not just your call. It's not just your money. You're acting like a 1% sales tax that you pay gives you a louder voice than anyone else. It's not all about you, Todd.

It's my call to fight against economically unfeasible projects, combat ignorance with facts, respond to mindless propaganda, and vote my interests.

Originally Posted by jfre81

I've got a question for you...we can talk about what bureaucrats and think-tank geeks who don't live here say until we're bored of it...this is a straight-up question too. Do you ever use public transit in Houston?

Seldom. And your point? You can't evaluate the economics and metrics of something from riding a bus or rail. You can test drive a car but that doesn't tell you a thing about how much it costs to own or operate. If you're going to revert to total fact avoidance and resumption of propaganda, we might as well end the discussion.

[Bike4Life]

I wrote to President-Elect Obama and suggest that we appropriate the funds for bullet trains instead of building and re-building more searing hot concrete. You may want to do the same thing.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by wazmoot

DiverTodd62, I think everyone understands (and understood prior to this topic) that light rail in Houston doesn't make the most economic sense. But that doesn't mean that light rail isn't a good alternative. You, being such an astute student of TTI and all, surely understand the "soft" costs which aren't usually included in an economic or engineering analysis. That's why there is no possible way for either side to win this debate. It's like trying to win the democrat vs republican debate.

You're right, debate is pointless when one side can look at a mountain of facts that clearly show a certain direction is not the best way to go and they decide they want to go that way anyway because it's prettier. My biggest problem with the light rail routes is that no other alternatives were considered. Metro made it's mind up in the early 80's that it wanted a rail system and that's that. Looks like they have finally worn people down to where they just don't care to fight it anymore.