Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Airport rail is one of those "nice to have, but definitely not necessary things". Main reason being, no matter where you are, most people don't use it to get to the airport.
Except every major American city has rail to its airport (or is building multiple lines to its airport as the case in LA), so what you're saying can't be true. It may not be used by the majority, but large portions do use it. Hell even when I was in St. Louis not too long ago (which I don't really count as a major American city...those have 4M+ people), the train was pretty full with people and their luggage leaving the airport.
Quote:
I used to live nearly exactly halfway between DCA and IAD in Northern Virginia. I would almost always Uber to either one. The only times I took the train to DCA were if I were leaving from work on a business trip (3 stops, no real luggage, so why not) or if for some reason traffic was going to be stupid and the time it took to Uber wasn't predictable. I think I did it 4 or 5 times in probably more than 50 trips.
Well you didn't have the option of taking rail to IAD when you lived there so that point is moot. In many places, Uber/Lyft from the airport has additional surcharges that increase the price for a lot of people. Having the option of taking rail greatly lowers that cost. You can pay $2 versus $20. If the rail is built right, you can save time or be "behind" by only a few minutes. Also this would greatly help airport workers, who often come from lower-income areas. Add to that the dangers of driving, and I don't see why it wouldn't be heavily used.
A bus originating in Downtown going to IAH is no where near the same thing as someone from UH or Midtown getting on rail and taking it up to IAH.
Quote:
Most of the places that have built airport rail extensions have been in cases where its a logical part of the system. I don't think it makes sense to build airport rail extensions as a goal per se, and the Hobby connections are going to be woefully underutilized if they build them imo. It would only win the time race vs driving to downtown during really bad rush hours. You're probably talking 45 minutes plus on both the Green and the Purple lines to get downtown, given all the other stops.
I'm not a big fan of this part of the plan, express buses or BRT would be better for this. Honestly, a commuter rail up 45 doglegging off to Hobby would be the best solution, but that's not going to happen at this point. If we're going to keep extending the ground-level LRT, that should only go in the densest, busiest corridors going forward.
Which places? And that's a funding problem. If there was proper funding for rail transit in Houston, we'd see more rail overpasses and dedicated ROWs. But Houston gets the bare minimum.
Or you can have limited stops on the LRT when it gets into the lower density areas, with the option of having fill-in stations later on. Where's the vision at Houston?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
In SF, OAK, and LA their rail systems go through very heavily populated and job-heavy locations all the way to the airport. The area between IAH and the Loop is mostly very low density of both population and jobs. This is what really kills rail to IAH.
Hobby has more density, but even METRO's projections show very low ridership on the proposed Hobby light rail extensions.
Are these the only three rail systems in the country? Furthermore, rail lines going to both airports would also go through employment centers and areas of higher density (and also increasing density). Depending on where you're coming from, you won't enter any of those heavily populated job centers on the rail lines you mentioned. Metro routinely projects lower ridership, just like most mass transit systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
Exactly. I didn't see the point in Metro's plan of making huge light rail investments in low-density areas outside the core when other much denser areas (both affluent and lower income) need big transit service improvements now and going forward, ideally with both BRT and more frequent and limited-stop local bus.
Because there were politicians that routinely blocked those voted for/approved expansions in the higher density areas. Some going so far as getting it blocked federally. Our friends in DFW have enjoyed those blocked funds quite well.
Many millennials have no interest in driving. Companies are going to find, increasingly, that to attract the talent they want, they should be near public transportation. It's going to be a long, slow transition in Houston but it's got to happen... there just isn't enough road for our growing population to all rely on cars.
This exactly. BRT is not the answer. BRT comes in addition to the rail lines. A strong urban transit (light rail) with commuter rail extensions to far away suburbs (Conroe, Katy/Fulshear, Rosenberg) would transform ALL of Houston, but especially inside 610 (plus some areas to the immediate west/southwest).
Suburban-style campuses have lost a lot of their appeal. Look at Springswoods Village where Exxon and HP are. It's built more like a transit-oriented development. It should have a rail stop that could take you up to The Woodlands or to Downtown. In Chicago, some of the closer-in suburbs that were headquarter havens have lost those companies to Downtown Chicago. The reason? Working in a sprawled campus is boring! For centuries, humans lived in more urban environments. Only in the last 50-70 years has suburban living taken over, but we've switched back to the classic way worldwide.
Even when self-driving cars become the norm in many decades, you already have automated rail transit that can provide faster and more consistent service (each rail operator drives a little differently).
This exactly. BRT is not the answer. BRT comes in addition to the rail lines. A strong urban transit (light rail) with commuter rail extensions to far away suburbs (Conroe, Katy/Fulshear, Rosenberg) would transform ALL of Houston, but especially inside 610 (plus some areas to the immediate west/southwest).
Suburban-style campuses have lost a lot of their appeal. Look at Springswoods Village where Exxon and HP are. It's built more like a transit-oriented development. It should have a rail stop that could take you up to The Woodlands or to Downtown. In Chicago, some of the closer-in suburbs that were headquarter havens have lost those companies to Downtown Chicago. The reason? Working in a sprawled campus is boring! For centuries, humans lived in more urban environments. Only in the last 50-70 years has suburban living taken over, but we've switched back to the classic way worldwide.
Even when self-driving cars become the norm in many decades, you already have automated rail transit that can provide faster and more consistent service (each rail operator drives a little differently).
As Bob Lanier said, why spend a billion dollars for worse service.
Park-n-rides using HOV/HOT lanes provide faster and more frequent service than rail to the distant suburbs at a fraction of the cost. They don't have all the intermediate stops. They drop you off closer to your destination.
All that rail would transform Houston to bankruptcy.
Dallas used that approach and has one of the worst performing rail systems in the country. And transit ridership is dropping.
LA, which has perhaps the worst traffic in the country, used that approach. Maybe they had no other choices. But their transit ridership has been falling rapidly.
Last year I believe there were only two major cities that didn't have a decline in transit ridership-Houston and Seattle.
Rail service to an airport is a "nice to have." Houston, however, has a lot more "need to haves" that have yet to be addressed. Trying to address them with rail will fix maybe, say, 5% of those needs, while using rubber-tired solutions (buses) would fix a lot more.
Besides, the manner in which METRO has deployed rail, it is essentially equivalent, service-wise, to full BRT. Why pay so much extra for rail with no incremental service quality? You get no improvement while serving a much smaller area, because you have to build less. So what's the benefit of going with LRT?
As Bob Lanier said, why spend a billion dollars for worse service.
Park-n-rides using HOV/HOT lanes provide faster and more frequent service than rail to the distant suburbs at a fraction of the cost. They don't have all the intermediate stops. They drop you off closer to your destination.
All that rail would transform Houston to bankruptcy.
Dallas used that approach and has one of the worst performing rail systems in the country. And transit ridership is dropping.
LA, which has perhaps the worst traffic in the country, used that approach. Maybe they had no other choices. But their transit ridership has been falling rapidly.
Last year I believe there were only two major cities that didn't have a decline in transit ridership-Houston and Seattle.
Lower gas prices is to blame and gas prices are volatile. The reason why Seattle increased was BECAUSE of rail expansion. Houston increased due to rail expansion AND a redesigned bus route network. Dallas is a bad performer if you strictly look at riders per mile. It's also a bad performer because of the general layout of DFW and how the suburbs with the most jobs aren't connected to DARt. Also, Dallas isn't the center of DFW. If you take the DART rail layout and instead place it over the Houston metro, you'd have double the ridership in Houston vs. Dallas. The location of Houston's largest employment centers, denser housing, and cultural amenities make it a perfect fit for a hub-and-spoke rail system that mirrors the freeway layout (as was originally planned).
Rail is gaining popularity in DFW, as evident by the Fort Worth line to DFW Airport and the push for a crosstown rail line by the northern suburbs, which will greatly help fill in the gaps with DART rail. The beauty of their system is that it's at least there and built. In a fast growing metro like DFW where more dense housing is needed, you'll see ridership increase as the TODs keep getting built. The streetcars in Central Dallas have seen good ridership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
Rail service to an airport is a "nice to have." Houston, however, has a lot more "need to haves" that have yet to be addressed. Trying to address them with rail will fix maybe, say, 5% of those needs, while using rubber-tired solutions (buses) would fix a lot more.
Besides, the manner in which METRO has deployed rail, it is essentially equivalent, service-wise, to full BRT. Why pay so much extra for rail with no incremental service quality? You get no improvement while serving a much smaller area, because you have to build less. So what's the benefit of going with LRT?
We'll agree to disagree on nice to have, since it seems necessary for 100% of Houston's peer cities and Houston is no different from them.
As for the implementation of the rail, it's partly Metro's fault and partly some local politicians fault. It definitely should have been built better from the jump. Hopefully they're able to obtain more funds to build the expansions better than the initial lines (overpasses, etc.).
As for the implementation of the rail, it's partly Metro's fault and partly some local politicians fault. It definitely should have been built better from the jump.
We'll agree to disagree on nice to have, since it seems necessary for 100% of Houston's peer cities and Houston is no different from them.
As for the implementation of the rail, it's partly Metro's fault and partly some local politicians fault. It definitely should have been built better from the jump. Hopefully they're able to obtain more funds to build the expansions better than the initial lines (overpasses, etc.).
I see you and LocalPlanners point. What metro in Houston built is a streetcar. It is essentially a bus on wheels. It moves slow and subjected to still following the rules of the road since it runs on the road. BRT can absolutely compete with that. A light rail system that does not run on the street would be ideal and BRT doesn't compete with that one either. But both will still have around the same capacity or riders if I am not mistaken. Buy that type of light rail system would be a faster system than the current light rail Houston has now. To be real, I think out of the new systems within the past 20 years, only Seattle and St. Louis only have light rail systems that mostly run like a heavy rail system though DART also has some instances where it runs like a HRT system and it is rapid.
BRT in no way can compete with a real rapid transit rail system though. Especially one with high capacity. Again, unfortunate that America will no longer build HRT systems, aka, metros from scratch. Could build two lines and have the light rail and bus system feed from there.
This subway in Sydney, Australia which is under construction would be perfect in Houston and it could be elevated and at grade. Houston doesn't have to build a subway.
I see you and LocalPlanners point. What metro in Houston built is a streetcar. It is essentially a bus on wheels. It moves slow and subjected to still following the rules of the road since it runs on the road. BRT can absolutely compete with that. A light rail system that does not run on the street would be ideal and BRT doesn't compete with that one either. But both will still have around the same capacity or riders if I am not mistaken. Buy that type of light rail system would be a faster system than the current light rail Houston has now. To be real, I think out of the new systems within the past 20 years, only Seattle and St. Louis only have light rail systems that mostly run like a heavy rail system though DART also has some instances where it runs like a HRT system and it is rapid.
BRT in no way can compete with a real rapid transit rail system though. Especially one with high capacity. Again, unfortunate that America will no longer build HRT systems, aka, metros from scratch. Could build two lines and have the light rail and bus system feed from there.
This subway in Sydney, Australia which is under construction would be perfect in Houston and it could be elevated and at grade. Houston doesn't have to build a subway.
To be honest, I think heavy rail would work better in Houston than it would in Dallas.
BRT can also be built with grade separations. Honestly, there is very very little difference in potential service quality between BRT and LRT except when you're talking about really high volumes of passengers, when LRT works better. For example, the original Red Line here has pretty high passenger volumes - it might be difficult to duplicate that with BRT without a bus coming every couple minutes. That's purely about the efficiencies gained from larger vehicles with a single person operator. (Labor costs are the biggest operating cost issue.)
Neither BRT nor LRT can compete with the potential passenger moving capacity of HRT. But obviously, you have to know that you'll have very high passenger volumes to justify any form of HRT, which for whatever reason is insanely expensive to build in the U.S., as compared to Europe, Japan and elsewhere. This is compounded by the fact that stations generally have to be spaced further apart than BRT/LRT if you're going to realize the speed benefits.
BRT can also be built with grade separations. Honestly, there is very very little difference in potential service quality between BRT and LRT except when you're talking about really high volumes of passengers, when LRT works better. For example, the original Red Line here has pretty high passenger volumes - it might be difficult to duplicate that with BRT without a bus coming every couple minutes. That's purely about the efficiencies gained from larger vehicles with a single person operator. (Labor costs are the biggest operating cost issue.)
Neither BRT nor LRT can compete with the potential passenger moving capacity of HRT. But obviously, you have to know that you'll have very high passenger volumes to justify any form of HRT, which for whatever reason is insanely expensive to build in the U.S., as compared to Europe, Japan and elsewhere. This is compounded by the fact that stations generally have to be spaced further apart than BRT/LRT if you're going to realize the speed benefits.
I don't think there is much of a difference between Houstons LRT and BRT. I do think there is a difference between a system like St Louis LRT and BRT.
It is already known that riding rails are smoother because it runs on steel rails while buses still run on rubber tires. That's why it is preferred by most riders. LRT also has more room and it is easier to add capacity. I guess BRT can be a precursor to rail and I think it will in Houston if the density increases.
As far as your second comment. I agree. It works best in high dense areas in high dense cities. Though Atlanta does have it. It is probably one of the least dense cities in the world that has HRT and Houston has a higher density than Atlanta. All three can compliment each other. HRT can branch from the core to beltway 8 and buses and LRT (mostly inside the loop) could feed into the HRT system. Then you can have a commuter rail system from Houston to Katy, The Woodlands, Galveston, Sugarland, and Baytown. Those I believe are cheaper than HRT because they run on existing rail tracks.
It is already known that riding rails are smoother because it runs on steel rails while buses still run on rubber tires. That's why it is preferred by most riders. LRT also has more room and it is easier to add capacity. I guess BRT can be a precursor to rail and I think it will in Houston if the density increases.
As far as your second comment. I agree. It works best in high dense areas in high dense cities. Though Atlanta does have it. It is probably one of the least dense cities in the world that has HRT and Houston has a higher density than Atlanta. All three can compliment each other. HRT can branch from the core to beltway 8 and buses and LRT (mostly inside the loop) could feed into the HRT system. Then you can have a commuter rail system from Houston to Katy, The Woodlands, Galveston, Sugarland, and Baytown. Those I believe are cheaper than HRT because they run on existing rail tracks.
What existing rail tracks? You're aware that UP and BNSF have a position to not allow commuter service on their Houston-area tracks, and those companies hold all the cards for those rights of way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
