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.
Don’t understand your point. The highest light rail ridership would be 7th against heavy rail. Heavy rail has a larger ridership.
Do you think if they put those articulated buses on every route it would result in higher ridership? No, it would just mean more empty seats.
If they put HRT in Dallas on those grade separated routes would it result is less anemic ridership? No, just more empty seats.
If you have similar speed, your ridership will be similar. And speed is very close when both are grade separated. There's no reason, even psychological (as some people argue in buses vs. rail), for HRT to have more ridership than LRT on the same route.
Those routes have higher ridership because they are on busier corridors in busier cities. And there are few light rail lines that are entirely grade separated. Parts of the Boston green line are much like Houston's rail, running is the center of the road. San Francisco's runs in the road (and has higher average ridership than BART) Dallas LRT runs with traffic in downtown Dallas.
Do you think if they put those articulated buses on every route it would result in higher ridership? No, it would just mean more empty seats...If they put HRT in Dallas on those grade separated routes would it result is less anemic ridership? No, just more empty seats...If you have similar speed, your ridership will be similar.
Yes and no. Houston famously in 2015 re-did all of its bus routes, eliminating routes that weren’t popular and (here’s the interesting part) increasing the number of buses on popular routes. The result was an overall 20% increase in bus ridership. Dallas did a similar overhaul recently and is getting similar results.
So, in theory, there are plenty of people willing and wanting to take public transit in Houston. There are 6 million of us in the Houston area (not you, you moved to Atlanta). I’m just one example of a person who would be willing to take public transit, if there was a route near me.
So could heavy rail work in Houston? It’s possible. Houston is planning to grow to 10 million people in the next few decades. There are lots of cities smaller than that with successful heavy rail systems. The trick is just finding the right corridors for them, and finding the money and political will to get the projects off the ground.
Yes and no. Houston famously in 2015 re-did all of its bus routes, eliminating routes that weren’t popular and (here’s the interesting part) increasing the number of buses on popular routes. The result was an overall 20% increase in bus ridership. Dallas did a similar overhaul recently and is getting similar results.
So, in theory, there are plenty of people willing and wanting to take public transit in Houston. There are 6 million of us in the Houston area (not you, you moved to Atlanta). I’m just one example of a person who would be willing to take public transit, if there was a route near me.
So could heavy rail work in Houston? It’s possible. Houston is planning to grow to 10 million people in the next few decades. There are lots of cities smaller than that with successful heavy rail systems. The trick is just finding the right corridors for them, and finding the money and political will to get the projects off the ground.
And why wouldn't grade separated light rail work just as well for about $100 million less per mile on those same routes?
My comments are on HRT vs. LRT. I do think Houston should have figured out a way to do the Westpark/University LRT line. And I would like to have seen the Post Oak line be the loop rail line that was originally proposed. However, I'm not sold that rail to the distant suburbs makes sense. Its like Bob Lanier said about the late 80s monorail line that got passed by the voters that he later killed, "Why pay a billion dollars and give people worse service?"
In some cases like the southeast line, the reason was politics. They couldn't get the useful lines unless they threw a bone to the 3rd ward. But they really had good service with regular buses. The only way the 3rd ward rail line made sense is as part of a larger system to connect those people to places other than downtown.
My comments are on HRT vs. LRT. I do think Houston should have figured out a way to do the Westpark/University LRT line. And I would like to have seen the Post Oak line be the loop rail line that was originally proposed. However, I'm not sold that rail to the distant suburbs makes sense. Its like Bob Lanier said about the late 80s monorail line that got passed by the voters that he later killed, "Why pay a billion dollars and give people worse service?"
In some cases like the southeast line, the reason was politics. They couldn't get the useful lines unless they threw a bone to the 3rd ward. But they really had good service with regular buses. The only way the 3rd ward rail line made sense is as part of a larger system to connect those people to places other than downtown.
You’re repeating yourself - you mentioned that Lanier quote last week.
Do you think if they put those articulated buses on every route it would result in higher ridership? No, it would just mean more empty seats.
If they put HRT in Dallas on those grade separated routes would it result is less anemic ridership? No, just more empty seats.
If you have similar speed, your ridership will be similar. And speed is very close when both are grade separated. There's no reason, even psychological (as some people argue in buses vs. rail), for HRT to have more ridership than LRT on the same route.
Those routes have higher ridership because they are on busier corridors in busier cities. And there are few light rail lines that are entirely grade separated. Parts of the Boston green line are much like Houston's rail, running is the center of the road. San Francisco's runs in the road (and has higher average ridership than BART) Dallas LRT runs with traffic in downtown Dallas.
Do you really think this
would have the same ridership as this
if they had similar speed? I absolutely do not. Even metrolink in St Louis which runs like a heavy rail system only has about 3 cars at the most at a time while heavy rail trains usually have 6-8 cars and in Barts case, 10 cars. Again, heavy rail ridership pretty much smashes light rail ridership in overall numbers. The highest LRT system is LA with 210k which is just barely higher than the 7th highest HRT system in Atlanta with 205 miles.
TBH, I know you brought up Boston and now you brought up MUNI in SF. Relatively, those the exception over the norms because were built in highly dense areas.
And why wouldn't grade separated light rail work just as well for about $100 million less per mile on those same routes?
It could work but it would be inferior to what a HRT system would do. If you find the right corridors and build a grade separated line going to where people already are and where people want to go, with a LRT system, you could move maybe 230,000 people. But with a HRT system, you could double if not nearly triple that because you have more cars, more room, and move just a tad bit faster. My main point all along has been that HRT has higher capacity which in turn moves more people rapidly throughout a city than LRT does even if LRT was grade separated.
IMO and said this years ago, Houston can continue to build its current light rail system mostly inside the loop and plus the galleria. This is where the most cohesive large scale dense areas will form in the future. When it comes to rail outside the loop and outside of beltway 8, the system needs to be rapid and grade seperated. The LRT, BRT, and bus can feed into the system once inside the loop plus the galleria and the buses can feed into the system outside the loop.
It could work but it would be inferior to what a HRT system would do. If you find the right corridors and build a grade separated line going to where people already are and where people want to go, with a LRT system, you could move maybe 230,000 people. But with a HRT system, you could double if not nearly triple that because you have more cars, more room, and move just a tad bit faster. My main point all along has been that HRT has higher capacity which in turn moves more people rapidly throughout a city than LRT does even if LRT was grade separated.
IMO and said this years ago, Houston can continue to build its current light rail system mostly inside the loop and plus the galleria. This is where the most cohesive large scale dense areas will form in the future. When it comes to rail outside the loop and outside of beltway 8, the system needs to be rapid and grade seperated. The LRT, BRT, and bus can feed into the system once inside the loop plus the galleria and the buses can feed into the system outside the loop.
Speed advantage for HRT is minimal in urban areas. I ran a quick example:
DART light rail Parker Road to CityPlace Uptown 12 stops 22 miles takes 32 minutes
MARTA (Atlanta) North Springs to Garnett 12 stops 17.4 miles 29 minutes
LRT is only 3 minutes slower but travels 4.6 miles more. If you extend MARTA down to Oakland City which is two extra stops, it takes 33 minutes and still only goes 20 miles. Dallas is operating their light rail faster than Atlanta is operating their heavy rail.
If you are talking MetroNorth distances like in New York where the trains eventually go over 80 miles and stations are 5 miles or more apart, then HRT speed makes a difference. But except in a rare place like NY, buses serve those distant locations better.
And Baybrook Mall and Sugar Land are both 21 miles from downtown, closer than Parker Road is to downtown Dallas. Katy at the GrandParkway is 28, not much further. Only The Woodlands (32 miles) is significantly further than Parker Road to downtown Dallas. You won't have the distances you have in New York, let alone the density.
Folks may be right that light rail to the airports would be low-volume. Although if so, Houston has plenty of other places it could build rail. I’d be curious to see data on who exactly uses Houston MetroRail, where, and why. I’m very familiar with the mass transit systems in a few other cities. But it’s mystery where Houston should go next with its rail.
As for the I-45 project, I haven’t seen any source predict that it will either relieve congestion or increase the number of commuters to downtown.
I think people are looking at rail to IAH in a vacuum. Not everyone will be going to/from IAH, but for certain there will be plenty of riders along the entire route going from one stop to another. The reason the Downtown-IAH route didn't work is because you literally have to be in Downtown and it only goes directly to the airport with no additional stops. In no way is that similar to a rail line going along the same route with multiple stops, but you can't tell some people that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
Do you really think this
would have the same ridership as this
if they had similar speed? I absolutely do not. Even metrolink in St Louis which runs like a heavy rail system only has about 3 cars at the most at a time while heavy rail trains usually have 6-8 cars and in Barts case, 10 cars. Again, heavy rail ridership pretty much smashes light rail ridership in overall numbers. The highest LRT system is LA with 210k which is just barely higher than the 7th highest HRT system in Atlanta with 205 miles.
TBH, I know you brought up Boston and now you brought up MUNI in SF. Relatively, those the exception over the norms because were built in highly dense areas.
This is more about build though. I don't think it's as easy as switching out the DART LRT for HRT and expecting more riders. Not all systems are laid out the same, and DART would still have lower than projected ridership if it was heavy rail because of its layout in relation to where the jobs/growth is in DFW. The reason heavy rail usually carries more is because it's 100% grade separated which makes it more attractive/faster. LRT can be grade-separated, but often times it's mixed-in with street-level tracks.
Look at Seattle's LRT system though. They built stations with the ability to hold 4-5 train cars, so the capacity is about as high as an HRT train. You can have an LRT system resemble HRT if you plan for it like Seattle did. They'd have to spend a few hundred million more if they wanted it to be HRT instead.
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.
