Houston's long-term future is bleak without serious mass transit and efforts to lure young professionals (Katy: apartment, salary)

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by person

If you asking this, I have to ask whether you lived anywhere else for a period of time where you take something like the rail frequently (not Houston's obviously, somewhere longer and with an extensive network, at least beyond those 7 miles, heavy rail even better) and compare it to taking the bus here.

If you have, you would know the difference in feel,
also consistency in arrival and departure, unaffected by car traffic, flush on off platform ...

You're comparing rail with traditional local bus - apples and oranges. All of the things you mentioned can be done with a bus. There is nothing mysterious and magical about steel wheels.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by Angel713

So what is your point if that is the case? Metro did a study on BRT, and they came to a conclusion that it would cost more for them in the long run. It's a reason why the BRT lines went back to LRT.

OK, I'll bite. Gotta link for this BRT study? If there is indeed one and it does in fact say that LRT will cost less in the long run than an equivalent BRT, I'll support Metro's new LRT lines.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by Spade

Psychological affect for one. The bus is not as desirable as rail. Especially here in the DC area. Rail is much more popular and much more desirable than the bus. Rail is rarely delayed. But the bus comes when it honestly wants to. Rail does not have to fight traffic. However the bus can easily get caught in traffic effecting your timely commute. Rail is also much faster to get around the city than the bus. The only thing the bus has over the rail is that rail is on it's own row. That's it, honestly.

You too are comparing light rail with the old local bus service. All of the factors you mention for LRT are available with BRT. From that GAO study

"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."

And there are many advantages buses have over rail. Bus service can be reduced or ended if demand doesn't live up to projections. Of course, that's one thing that strikes fear into the hearts of transit officials. Bus service could easily be privatized since many people could afford to buy a bus and operate a route but only the biggest mega corps could afford a rail line. Of course, that's another thing that strikes fear into the hearts of transit officials.

Buses carry their own independent power supply and are not subject to system wide power outages. The entire rail system can be frozen with one malfunction (or act of sabotage). Buses are decentralized and not as vulnerable to terrorism like Madrid 3/11. Buses can diverge from their route to go around obstructions, or sections under maintenance or repair. Buses can be more quickly added to deal with immediate spikes in demand, for example a hurricane evacuation. We could pull buses from other routes or even borrow from Dallas and have 500 buses in Galveston in 24 hours. Well, maybe FEMA couldn't, but it simply wouldn't be possible to bring Dallas DART rail cars down here overnight.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

I was planning to move to Chicago because I was tired of driving everywhere and having no recourse. I couldn't believe that a one-way fare end-to-end from Aurora to The Loop is only $5.65.

That's a great deal for those who can take advantage of it, since you're only paying 20% of the actual cost of the ride. If you had to pay $25 to $30 how would you feel?

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

I know that it's surely number one but what's number two?

He listed two reasons, or are you saying you don't know what "births over deaths" means? Birth rate exceeds death rate. For every 100 that die in a given year, perhaps 103 are born. Pretty simple concept.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by DiverTodd62

OK, I'll bite. Gotta link for this BRT study? If there is indeed one and it does in fact say that LRT will cost less in the long run than an equivalent BRT, I'll support Metro's new LRT lines.

It does state that and plus would you perfer Houston to continue to widen roads and build more tollways and highways or actually get some type of rail system in this city??? It needs to build a system that people will use....people don't want to ride buses but they will ride rail.

[person]

Originally Posted by DiverTodd62

You're comparing rail with traditional local bus - apples and oranges. All of the things you mentioned can be done with a bus. There is nothing mysterious and magical about steel wheels.

So I take it you have never lived anywhere else outside this area or the US.

And also, you mentioned the current bus system here in Houston, that is what I am using to compare to the extensive rail in other parts of the country, and its no mysterious that the bus system here does not do those things mentioned.

The more I read, the more I realize you are the type that would consider walking in parks the same as walking along roadside pavements, its just walking, nothing different about it. Or that shopping in walmart is the same as shopping in a mall, just shopping, nothing different about it.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by DiverTodd62

You too are comparing light rail with the old local bus service. All of the factors you mention for LRT are available with BRT. From that GAO study

"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."

And there are many advantages buses have over rail. Bus service can be reduced or ended if demand doesn't live up to projections. Of course, that's one thing that strikes fear into the hearts of transit officials. Bus service could easily be privatized since many people could afford to buy a bus and operate a route but only the biggest mega corps could afford a rail line. Of course, that's another thing that strikes fear into the hearts of transit officials.

Buses carry their own independent power supply and are not subject to system wide power outages. The entire rail system can be frozen with one malfunction (or act of sabotage). Buses are decentralized and not as vulnerable to terrorism like Madrid 3/11. Buses can diverge from their route to go around obstructions, or sections under maintenance or repair. Buses can be more quickly added to deal with immediate spikes in demand, for example a hurricane evacuation. We could pull buses from other routes or even borrow from Dallas and have 500 buses in Galveston in 24 hours. Well, maybe FEMA couldn't, but it simply wouldn't be possible to bring Dallas DART rail cars down here overnight.

That's all fine and dandy but the fact remains that psychologically here in the US, rail is much more preferred over the bus. Doesn't matter if it's a BRT or an old Bus system, it's a Bus. Oh and Buses are very vulnerable to terrorism. Especially considering that a bus could easily be hijacked or a bus can easily have a bomb on it. Trains can't add extra cars to deal with immediate spikes in demand? Tell that to DC which has 8 car trains which alleviates problems most of the time in rush hour compared to 6 car trains which btw are very long. You can have 500 buses within 24 hours because traveling there would be easy considering that side of the road is empty anyway. Now you have to worry about getting out and that's where the rail has a considerable advantage.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by DiverTodd62

OK, I'll bite. Gotta link for this BRT study? If there is indeed one and it does in fact say that LRT will cost less in the long run than an equivalent BRT, I'll support Metro's new LRT lines.

Go look for the articles back in October of 2007 to see them. They were all on the Chron.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

It does state that and plus would you perfer Houston to continue to widen roads and build more tollways and highways or actually get some type of rail system in this city??? It needs to build a system that people will use....people don't want to ride buses but they will ride rail.

Where's the link?