Bring it, you rail hatah freaks!!!!!!! http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2995437 Jan. 17, 2005, 1:15AM Rail ridership breezes past other cities Report has officials glowing, but critics point to total usage and high collision rate By LUCAS WALL Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle One year into passenger operation, ridership on the Main Street light rail is the highest in the United States per route mile. But MetroRail also has established itself as one of the most collision-prone American rail lines, recording 63 crashes that involved an injury or at least $1,000 in property damage in its first year of revenue service. Critics point out the trains move less than 1 percent of Houstonians each day. The most common way to measure the success of a mass-transit line is by how many people use it. The Main Street line saw its average daily ridership skyrocket 172 percent in its inaugural 10 months, from 12,102 in January 2004 to 32,941 in October. "We've been told by people around the country that this is one of the most successful light rail lines ever," said David Wolff, Metropolitan Transit Authority chairman. The passenger count dropped off in November and December — Metro attributes that to the holidays — and fell short of the 35,000 goal transit officials had set last spring. After its initial three quarters, Metro's 7 1/2 -mile light rail line outpaced ridership in seven other U.S. cities. Of the 16 light rail networks that reported their third quarter 2004 ridership data to the American Public Transportation Association, Houston ranked ninth. The length of these rail systems varies greatly — from six route miles in Buffalo, N.Y., to 60 miles in Philadelphia — so Houston's ridership is considerably high given the short length of the Main Street line. In fact, Houston's ridership is No. 1 in the country when measured by route mile, according to the APTA survey and calculations by the Houston Chronicle. MetroRail's 4,053 average daily boardings per route mile rank way ahead of cities such as Baltimore (670), Philadelphia (930), Pittsburgh (980), Denver (1,200) and Dallas (1,290). "This ranking is a wonderful vindication of the work that the people at Metro who preceded myself and the rest of the board members did," said Wolff, appointed board chairman by Mayor Bill White after he took office last January. "They deserve a lot of the credit for building this even though people doubted." Frank Wilson, the transit authority's president and CEO who started in May, said he's inherited one of the most prosperous light rail lines he's seen in his 33 years in the transportation industry. "The growth in ridership is the fastest, I think, in the history of this country," Wilson said. "It's truly remarkable the way the line has grown. And more so than the ridership, what it's doing to our community in terms of land uses and what it's doing to people's travel habits." While Metro officials glow, critics maintain the ridership figures are meaningless because light rail across the country moves few people compared to traditional "heavy rail" subways and elevated trains, not to mention buses and private automobiles. The line cost $324 million to construct. Skeptics point out that's about $20,000 per rider — enough for Metro to have purchased all of them a nice midsize car instead. Rail opponents are also quick to point to MetroRail's chart-topping collision rate, a problem widely reported in the national media that has created a mockery of sorts for the trains and Houston drivers. Of the 63 collisions last year, more than two-thirds were caused by motorists making illegal turns or running red lights. "I live near downtown and observe the nearly empty cars of the light rail daily," said Terri Stark. "Our system is not safe due to the fact the rail is located in the same street as our private cars, and does not get you anywhere faster than taking your own car. I believe that this is a huge waste of taxpayer money." Riders more enthusiastic Many of those who ride the trains often, however, are enthusiastic. "I absolutely love it," said Sally Vaughn, who lives in Montrose near Wheeler Station. "It is fast, convenient, clean, timely and well run," she said. "I regularly take guests from out of town and from the outlying regions of Houston on it to show them the 'new Houston.' I regard it as a huge success." Metro is awaiting the Federal Transit Administration's evaluation of its application to build four more light rail lines by 2012, extensions authorized by voters in a 2003 referendum. While Metro built the Main Street line solely with local transit tax dollars, it needs the federal government to bear half the cost of the extensions if they are to be built on schedule. Wolff said ridership will continue rising as developers add more housing and businesses along the rail corridor during the next five to 10 years. The 2025 Metro Solutions transit plan envisions an 80-mile rail system in Houston. If the federal government agrees to help foot the bill, the next two segments could be under construction as soon as next year. "Hopefully, now that it's built and has been successful," Wolff said, "all of Houston will get behind it so we can expand the system and carry out what the voters approved."
Posting in the wrong forum, and then posting again to let us know you'd posted in the wrong forum? Does your relentless post pharm ever cease?
"No one will use it" is the same thing everyone said about Minute Maid Park when it was built. Oh, yeah, NO ONE will ever use it.
It's completely irrelevant to judge the success of the train based on total ridership. The appropriate metric should include incremental riders over who used to ride the bus which went down the same street. Once you have that, you should analyze the incremental cost of building the rail compared to the ongoing costs of the bus line that went down the same street. Then you can analyze the opportunity cost of the extra money for rail, ie could you have better served the transportation public through other means with that money. Where's all the new development promised by the rail line? Downtown was already developed along main street before (but not during...) the rail construction. Where's the development elsewhere? Not there. A transportation solution that serves 0.8% of Houstonians (MANY of which used to ride that bus on Main street) isn't a success. Color me unimpressed and ripped off.
i'm thinking you might want to wait more than a year to see development. it will happen. and i'm betting there was a fair amount of development that occurred down Main that would not have occurred had there not been solid plans in place for light rail. and i don't know for sure...but i'm betting there weren't 4000K boardings on buses down that same stretch over a year ago.
Not the same argument. I voted for all the stadia that we have built in the past 5 years. There exist a lot of tangential benefits to having pro sports teams such as city morale, marketing to the rest of the country via sportscenter, etc. A short train in the middle of the city doesn't do the same. That being said the Rockets need to lower ticket prices since the attendance has been nothing short of an embarrassment at the TC.
To the statistically astute, this article is a slap in the face to anyone who thinks MetroRail has been a success. It really is. If you are naive enough to think the following statistic is meaningful, then it really doesn't surprise me that you voted for the biggest disaster in the history of Houston transportation. You do realize that Houston plopped its very short light rail in one of the highest trafficked areas and simultaneously pulled bus routes away from the area correct? These two factors *dramatically* skew the results *per mile* as compared to lines that cover longer distances, and in so doing touch areas not as trafficked. It doesn't even consider the outright removal of a competing form of transportation (busses). What a joke. Arguing light rail with you poets and dreamers is a waste. You wouldn't grasp financial prudence, urban economics, or basic statistics even if it was taped to the front of a light rail car that broadsided your vehicle. Oh, and I didn't see you boys rushing to post that article in the chronicle a couple of days ago that talked about how development along the light rail line was horrific. Didn't see that from you boys...
The numbers make sense. Statistically speaking, the best way to avoid being run over by the rail is to be on the train when it runs over someone else. It comes down to basic math.
With one exception, no US metropolitan area has more than 15% of their daily trips on transit (bus+heavy rail+light rail+cable car+inclined plane vehicles). The wide majority of US cities with rail transit systems seve less than 2% of their daily commuters with transit. Even if somehow the United States could double transit ridership (as unlikely as that is), that would be a drop in the bucket. The fact of the matter is, rail transit is simply not a viable way to combat congestion. It has been shown to INCREASE roadway congestion in some cities, do to induced traffic, and it has been shown to have either statistically insignificant, or incredibly small and unjustifiably costly reductions in roadway congestion in other cities. Should New York City have a transit system? Yeah, probably, although they need to do a lot of work because they're still receiving billions of dollars in subsidies annually (when you consider that they don't even recover 40% of their operating costs at the farebox, not to mention the monumental capital costs of a heavy rail transit system). Should other cities in America have transit systems? Absolutely not. The reasonable justification for wanting transit is if you represent a construction worker's lobby, unionized labor, or own a parcel of land abutting a proposed track site. In that case, wallow in porkbarrelled funds, and let the good times roll! If not, put your taxdollars into early childhood education, or afterschool programs, or college loans, something that will actually provide great social returns. (As an economist who's done a lot of work on transportation topics, this kind of thing really bothers me. I'm actually writing an analytical book on transit right now...)
Vik, but have you *seen* the rail cars? They are so sleek! I'm with you on this issue. No objective representation of facts can make an argument for rail. None.
so what? a civilized country can afford to take projects that dont come out balanced because it is for the betterment of society. and mass transit in major cities is. its a sign of a major city to have viable mass transit. im willing to take a loss on it.
Vik makes an excellent post and gets a two-bit response like this. Shameful. So Houston wasn't a major city before it's 7 mile train was built? This train has "bettered society"? HOW? Wait, I take that back, it has accelerated natural selection by taking out some bad drivers. Good point.
nyc should PROBABLY have a transit system i agree with your suggestions of where to put tax dollars but i would argue that mass transit has the potential to provide great social as well as environmental returns. education costs money, so does the future.
Texxx, no serious economist has taken those "studies" supposedly justifying stadia as economically beneficial as anything other than puffery designed to justify the massive public subsidies for billionaires that they are. Empirical data (ever been to Miller Park? Comerica?) indicates otherwise. Now I'm not saying they're a bad idea, but if you're going to assault a transit system as being an economic boondoggle, you can assault a stadium for the same thing, and you can make the same "big city status" arguments as well. Oh, but "marketing to the rest of the country via sportscenter," I forgot about that vital economic injection; Yeah, when Scott Van Pelt says "Brew-crew taking on the Stros at Minute Maid", the fortune 100 takes notice!
Sham, are you saying the Super Bowl did nothing to promote Houston (despite some of the negative pub it got)? The Major League Baseball All-Star Game? Your silly example of the Brewers/Astros highlights is really a stretch and for that you should be ashamed. The Fortune 100 absolutely takes notice when they flew in on their private jets to Hobby and went to the parties and events. With you being a lawyer, I completely understand how you could be duped into thinking that stadia are simply "subsidies for billionaires". It appeals to your ingrained sense of “fairness” that you must deal with at work on a daily basis. To you it’s unfair that somebody will benefit from their stadium getting built. However, there are unquantifiable benefits that sports teams provide the public that a train doesn’t. If we didn’t build the stadia for the Astros, Rockets and Texans, we probably wouldn’t have any of those teams. These teams serve as entertainment for the metro area. We cheer for them on tv, talk about them at work, etc. There are clearly benefits to the community at large. For a train, these benefits do not exist. Sham, let me put it another way. If the Rockets didn’t exist, we probably would not be spending absurd amounts of time on this internet message board, and you would be a lesser person due to not receiving the schoolings that I repeatedly provide you. Just think about that one for a moment.
