METRO meeting June 18 regarding halting of transit expansion

[Air Langhi]

Originally Posted by Scarface281 DFW has a decent rail system as far as miles go, but their ridership stinks. But Houston and DFW are built completely different, so they aren't a good example. Houston is built denser and things are more centralized, which is why the first rail line ridership is so high. The University Line would double the ridership itself. Metro needs to connect the Inner Loop first and then bring in commuter rail from the suburbs. US 290 expansion was suppose to include commuter rail. I'm not sure anymore. There should be rail to the airports, too. That is one thing that is good about DFW's rail. Love Field is connected and in a few years, DFW Airport will be also. So hassle free if you lived in say, Uptown, and took the University Line to the Red Line, and then the Red Line to IAH and be dropped off at the terminal, without having to deal with traffic or parking.

How are Houston and Dallas any different. They are both sprawling messes. They both have have their own suburbs with thier own hot spots. You have to drive a lot to get anywhere. Houston is not dense unless you live in the loop.

There is a reason why every world class city has a metro. Otherwise there are too many cars and too crowded highways. Of course the powers that be arent thinking longterm otherwise you wouldnt have a gentleman's club next to an office depot.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx You got completely obliterated in that thread. You are trying to make an argument that rail is cheaper without considering fixed costs? WOW that amateurish. Sorry, but you looked very ignorant in that thread. Sorry to ask, but are you a young youth? High school or younger? You are missing very obvious points of logic and argumentation that suggests you just may not have the experience to know what you're talking about.

No, I didn't, lol. If I were you I wouldn't be saying anything about getting "obliterated," I read the D&D and you get embarrassed on there every day, ha!

I like how you didn't bring any facts or anything to the discussion. I address capital cost in my arguments on the other forum. It's one thing to have the opinion that the capital costs aren't worth the improved transit, efficiency, and ridership that light rail brings over buses, but to deny that light rail has a more efficient operating cost than buses is just stupid, cause it's wrong.

Sorry to ask, but are you retarded?

LOL

[ILuvTacoSalad]

Originally Posted by Dubious So your plan is to tax the suburbs, to pay for development in town, lowering the property values of the suburbs?

No, the plan is to stop diverting money disproportionately to municipalities like Hedwig Village who don't pay their fair share of taxes.

Originally Posted by Dubious As a Landscape Architect and Land Planner, I can tell you the preferred housing solution for most Americans is the single family home. Urban densities bring more stresses not less.

The stress component you speak of is your opinion. Last Friday a coworker emailed me at 7:30 still in traffic. By that, I had been home, got the kids, gathered up the family and was at friends enjoying my 2nd beer.

I don't call 10+ hours of commuting a week less stress. I also value that extra time I spent with my kids and wife. But to each his own. I understand why people like the burbs ...its just not for me.

Originally Posted by Dubious If you want promote urban development that's fine by me. Borrow the money and assess the adjacent property. Collect from the users as the land is sold and developed. But the millions of us happy out here in the grass and trees would like our taxes spent on our mobility please.

A large portion of the 'millions' you speak of live outside of the City limits ...yet reap the benefits of the mobility tax dollars paid for by city residents. Houstonians have spoke that they want more transportation options. Again, if you want to move an hour away then fine ...but it is what it is ...far.

[bigtexxx]

Originally Posted by mfastx It's one thing to have the opinion that the capital costs aren't worth the improved transit, efficiency, and ridership that light rail brings over buses,

You were trying to argue that rail is more cost-efficient than buses, but you forgot to include capital costs in your analysis. That is the most basic of errors, and renders your "conclusions" as complete trash.

Originally Posted by mfastx but to deny that light rail has a more efficient operating cost than buses is just stupid, cause it's wrong.

Based on your research? Your research looked incredibly amateurish because you tried to take a single 7 mile rail line in Houston and compare the operating costs vs. a much broader bus network. That's frankly so foolish a comparison that it doesn't merit serious discussion.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx You were trying to argue that rail is more cost-efficient than buses, but you forgot to include capital costs in your analysis. That is the most basic of errors, and renders your "conclusions" as complete trash.

I stated that OPERATING costs (which excludes capital costs) of light rail is cheaper per person and per passenger mile than the OPERATING costs (which excludes the cost of building the streets the buses run on or the freeways that they run on) of buses. That is a fact. Read the chart I posted, those are official numbers. How are you going to argue with that?

Originally Posted by bigtexxx Based on your research? Your research looked incredibly amateurish because you tried to take a single 7 mile rail line in Houston and compare the operating costs vs. a much broader bus network. That's frankly so foolish a comparison that it doesn't merit serious discussion.

No, it's not my research, it's the APTA's research (American Public Transit Association). It's not just Houston's line that is cheaper to operate than buses, it's every light rail or heavy rail line around the country that is cheaper to operate as opposed to their counterpart bus systems. Try reading the chart, you might learn something about the efficiency of different modes of public transit.

Until you do that, I won't reply anymore because you are uneducated.

[wekko368]

Originally Posted by mfastx I stated that OPERATING costs (which excludes capital costs) of light rail is cheaper per person and per passenger mile than the OPERATING costs (which excludes the cost of building the streets the buses run on or the freeways that they run on) of buses. That is a fact. Read the chart I posted, those are official numbers. How are you going to argue with that?

Ok, you stated the fact that operating costs are lower for light rails than for buses. But what point are you ultimately trying to prove? Since you're looking only at operating costs, you can't make an argument that light rails would be cheaper or more efficient than buses.

Basically, by itself, "operating costs" is a useless piece of data. You need to put it in the proper context.

And btw, no one in their right mind would include the cost of building streets/freeways as "fixed costs" for buses...

[bigtexxx]

Originally Posted by wekko368 Ok, you stated the fact that operating costs are lower for light rails than for buses. But what point are you ultimately trying to prove? Since you're looking only at operating costs, you can't make an argument that light rails would be cheaper or more efficient than buses. Basically, by itself, "operating costs" is a useless piece of data. You need to put it in the proper context. And btw, no one in their right mind would include the cost of building streets/freeways as "fixed costs" for buses...

exactly. He's missing the most basic of arguments. Kind of hard to reason with somebody like that. He's just a rail fanboy that ignores reason and rationale.

[Scarface281]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi How are Houston and Dallas any different. They are both sprawling messes. They both have have their own suburbs with thier own hot spots. You have to drive a lot to get anywhere. Houston is not dense unless you live in the loop. There is a reason why every world class city has a metro. Otherwise there are too many cars and too crowded highways. Of course the powers that be arent thinking longterm otherwise you wouldnt have a gentleman's club next to an office depot.

What you described can be true for any metro area. Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth are built completely different. DFW is a big collection of cities, with two large ones (Dallas and Fort Worth). Houston is just one large city surrounded by tiny suburbs (in comparison to the ones in DFW). The jobs in DFW are spread out all over the place. In Houston, the Inner Loop is the largest area of employment (Downtown, Uptown, TMC). Look at a map of both places. It's not even comparable. And the Inner Loop is not the densest area of Houston. Southwest Houston is the densest. The Inner Loop is getting there, though. The ridership of the bus lines in the SW are not rivaled by any other lines in the entire metro area.

[ILuvTacoSalad]

The OP's point is to ask if we should divert mobility dollars to the smaller municipalities for their street repairs.

The question about rail vs buses is an academic argument now. Houston is committed to light rail.. Keep rehashing old arguments
, if you want.

[Luckyazn]

Aren't they working on 3 more lines now?

The purple, green, and expansion of the red. I think the red will eventually go into IAH.

Or is the meeting about the "Blue/Brown" lines that's suppose to go out towards the gallera?

http://www.ridemetro.org/CurrentProj...Expansion.aspx

[TheRealist137]

Light rail is too slow, need to have elevated rail/monorail at least in order to keep the speeds to where it will be more convenient and faster to travel via train than via car in Houston. Those two factors together will be what makes rail successful.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by wekko368 Ok, you stated the fact that operating costs are lower for light rails than for buses. But what point are you ultimately trying to prove? Since you're looking only at operating costs, you can't make an argument that light rails would be cheaper or more efficient than buses. Basically, by itself, "operating costs" is a useless piece of data. You need to put it in the proper context. And btw, no one in their right mind would include the cost of building streets/freeways as "fixed costs" for buses...

I am proving that buses aren't more efficient than light rail. A lot of people just say that and don't know what they're talking about. In terms of EFFICIENCY, light rail (and pretty much any rail) wins.

[krosfyah]

Originally Posted by TheRealist137 Light rail is too slow, need to have elevated rail/monorail at least in order to keep the speeds to where it will be more convenient and faster to travel via train than via car in Houston. Those two factors together will be what makes rail successful.

ILuvTacoSalad is right.

Debating the merits of lightrail has been debated endlessly in D&D for years.

It doesn't seem right that Metro is paying to fill potholes in West University. If they want to maintain as an independent city, then that should mean they gotta pay for their own stuff.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx exactly. He's missing the most basic of arguments. Kind of hard to reason with somebody like that. He's just a rail fanboy that ignores reason and rationale.

Kinda like how you're not even responding to my posts with facts.

Just try not to be so closed minded. If you want to live in a city with no rail transit, move to San Antonio.

[wekko368]

Originally Posted by mfastx I am proving that buses aren't more efficient than light rail. A lot of people just say that and don't know what they're talking about. In terms of EFFICIENCY, light rail (and pretty much any rail) wins.

If you're trying to prove efficiency, you'll have to do more than point at operating costs.

I don't really care about light rail vs metro. I just get annoyed when people use insufficient data to try and prove a point.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by wekko368 If you're trying to prove efficiency, you'll have to do more than point at operating costs. I don't really care about light rail vs metro. I just get annoyed when people use insufficient data to try and prove a point.

I don't think you understand what efficiency means. When people talk about efficiency (in regards to public transportation) they are talking about the cost per person to OPERATE a service. Not build it, but operate it. Operating it includes the costs of running it on a day to day basis, and maintenence costs.

If you are going to include capital costs for light rail, then you also need to include the capital costs of HOV lanes and such.

[da1]

Originally Posted by Scarface281 If politicians like Tom Delay and John Culberson, plus the COH and the counties, didn't rob Metro of funds (and really, if COH residents didn't vote down rail the first time in the 80s), then the system would be much better. Houston had rails all over the place before it was ripped up and used as material for WWII. If done right, with things like elevated overpasses over busy streets, then it would work fine. It already has the second highest riders per mile.

That was actually a conspiracy by GM.

[da1]

Originally Posted by mfastx Oh, and good to see some HAIFers here

HAIF rocks

[da1]

Originally Posted by coolweather have you ever been in a park n ride?

More riders ride the rail in one day then all of the park and rides combined.

[da1]

Originally Posted by Rip Van Rocket It's a shame that Houston won't give Bus Rapid transit a chance. It costs less to build than rail, but offers most of the same benefits. I've used it in other cities and it's great.

It's a stopgap measure. It's a good compliment to rail but not the answer. Look at Bogota, having big problems now after a few good years with Transmilenio.