Houston traffic in comparison

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by CDeb

Expanded rail in Houston may or may not be a fantastic idea, but "look at all these other cities who have more miles of rail than Houston does" is a poor argument for it. If the benefits to our transportation system out-weight the extra costs versus other alternatives, then I'm all for it. I'm not interested in throwing away money for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses.

IMO, once these new lines are finished in Houston, other areas (mainly the west), or going to be campaigning for rail more. Even though they are not the best designed lines. This is what is happening in Atlanta, where the posh northern Atlanta suburbs are now wanting MARTA heavy rail expanded into their area. It would be like Sugar Land or The Woodlands asking for METRO to extend rail into their areas. Once they see how it has worked out, they want a piece of the action.

Originally Posted by tampac66

Atlanta is not a good example of why Houston should have a rail system. According to a Brooking's Institute study, only 38% of working age residents are near a transit stop and only 22% of its residents could commute to work via transit in under 90 minutes. They were ranked 91 out of 100 cities sampled. Houston ranked higher than they did for overall public transit effectiveness (72).

Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/ser.../atlantaga.pdf
Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Ser.../HoustonTX.PDF

You have to also look at the averages when pointing out those percentages. Houston is right at average on some, while Atlanta is slightly below. MARTA is in only two counties of Metro Atlanta, which includes 30 (IIRC) small counties. Also, the road system in Atlanta is not laid out in a grid like pattern similar to Houston, which makes it a little harder to do efficient bus routes. Some counties (like Cobb) have their own transit agencies. MARTA was only recently increased to a third county in the region. This is where Houston's extremely large city limits and ETJ helps out because METRO's service is spread out. Now, it isn't efficient. Buses do miss stops to "get back on schedule", they can be late, or break down. Rail lines don't miss stops and are not late.

Another study on the effects of Atlanta's rail system:

Our conclusion that MARTA has had no discernible effect on total employment or population in station areas is consistent with its inability to attract ridership. While it is frequently claimed that the addition of rapid rail to Atlanta’s transit system significantly increased transit ridership, Kain [18] has documented that this is not true. Transit ridership, as measured by linked trips, was only 2.5% higher in 1993 than in 1979, the year before Atlanta initiated rail service

Source: http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/Bollin...s/JUEMARTA.pdf


If Atlanta had spent those billions of dollars somewhere else (buses and roads) they might have been better off. Rail lines are great, but in some cities they just don't make economical sense.

You posted a study that is nearly 20 years old now. Let's look at a more updated one:

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/free-downlo...t-of-marta.pdf

or

http://www.gti.gatech.edu/sites/defa...y%20values.pdf

As you can see from the links, MARTA service has raised property values and decreased the cost of living for those near the stations. It has spurred numerous TOD developments now, that are adding into the metro economy. If Houston had a similar system, we would have seen more concentrated density around the rail stations.

Look at this study on BRT versus heavy rail:

The best argument for rail is that it has the ability to provide massive rush-hour passenger-carrying capacity without destroying the city through which it runs. Whether buried in a subway or operating quietly along in grassy medians, trains can be integrated into the public realm without diminishing the pedestrian-friendly qualities all urbanists should hope to encourage. BRT boosters often argue that their mode of choice can carry a similar number of riders, but neglect to mention that this is only possible when buses arrive every 10 seconds along highway-like four-lane corridors. These are conditions that destroy the walking environment.

Fortunately for American cities looking to invest in new public transportation infrastructure, there are few places that demand the passenger-carrying capacity provided by those freeway-based BRT lines in places like Bogotá. In most metropolitan areas, a two-lane busway inserted on an arterial is perfectly appropriate and sometimes even beneficial for a city. Indeed, as we all know, the story that is too complicated for any mainstream paper to explain is that BRT can mean any number of things. The most rudimentary elements of BRT — the nice buses, the well-articulated stops, the traffic signal priority — are basics we should expect from all of our bus lines. Pushing for their implementation along certain corridors shouldn’t arouse much controversy.


But these points are rarely discussed when the argument between modes are made.
The real divisions between bus and rail are political: For those who would fight for improved transit systems in their cities, the truth is that rail projects do certainly have more appeal among members of the public. Thus a billion-dollar rail project may be easier to stomach for a taxpaying and voting member of the citizenry than a quarter-billion BRT line. While the former is qualitatively different than what most car drivers are used to, the latter mode is too easily lumped in with the city bus, which car users have already paid to avoid.


The Silly Argument Over BRT and Rail « The Transport Politic


So look, we can do this all day. Houston will most likely never get a rapid (heavy) rail system, unless the Feds do another stimulus for infrastructure and the mayor/city council/metro are on the same page. For now, we have to stick with underfunded light rail because of certain politicians. Then people look at that underfunded light rail running in the middle of streets and say it is no good. We are not seeing a system that would truly benefit Houston. We are seeing a system built now that should be the compliment to a real rapid rail transit system. Bus service should be able to compliment both, not be the only option for most of the ares. I'd vote for an increase in taxes to get a real system in Houston. Sucks that the wording was so bad on the vote a couple of years ago and people got confused.

[tampac66]

Originally Posted by Trae713

So look, we can do this all day. Houston will most likely never get a rapid (heavy) rail system, unless the Feds do another stimulus for infrastructure and the mayor/city council/metro are on the same page. For now, we have to stick with underfunded light rail because of certain politicians. Then people look at that underfunded light rail running in the middle of streets and say it is no good. We are not seeing a system that would truly benefit Houston. We are seeing a system built now that should be the compliment to a real rapid rail transit system. Bus service should be able to compliment both, not be the only option for most of the ares. I'd vote for an increase in taxes to get a real system in Houston. Sucks that the wording was so bad on the vote a couple of years ago and people got confused.

Like I said... I would love to have a rail line in Houston, but from everything i've seen/read it just doesn't seem like it makes economical sense here. We could more with less money in other areas of our transit system.

Does anyone know what percentage of jobs are located in downtown?

[CDeb]

Originally Posted by tampac66

Like I said... I would love to have a rail line in Houston, but from everything i've seen/read it just doesn't seem like it makes economical sense here. We could more with less money in other areas of our transit system.

Does anyone know what percentage of jobs are located in downtown?

I have seen a figure of 8 percent. But that is surely a decade old and I don't remember the source.