METRORapid Inner Katy Corridor

[j.33]

26 minutes ago, hindesky said:

I-10 Inner Katy Corridor managed lanes from Voss Road to I-45

Should this be in a new thread? This project is not part of METRORapid InnerKaty. Same corridor, but I dont want people to think METRO is part of this since it is in the METRO thread right now. 

Edited January 30 by Justin Welling

[BeerNut]

Metro budget plan reduces Inner Katy BRT to HOV lane, further signaling shift in priorities

Quote

The proposed budget also will “de-scope” some projects, including the Inner Katy bus rapid transit line. The project will now be a high occupancy vehicle lane from the Northwest Transit Center to downtown, and comes after the agency opted to pause its planned University bus rapid transit line, citing cost and changing ridership. Both projects were part of the voter-approved MetroNext plan.

 

[Triton]

One of the biggest failures in this city's history will be the day that, instead of going with mass transit along Westpark Tollway, they decide to expand it to an 8 lane highway, an irreversible decision. I know they already cancelled the University line but today's decision just makes it feel like we are increasingly headed that direction.

[004n063]

The next mayoral election needs to be a transit election, period.

[hindesky]

Chaad has his little grubby fingers all over this.  Clown should just come out of the closet as a maga GQP politician like that state rep did.

[august948]

On 8/30/2024 at 12:35 AM, Triton said:

One of the biggest failures in this city's history will be the day that, instead of going with mass transit along Westpark Tollway, they decide to expand it to an 8 lane highway, an irreversible decision. I know they already cancelled the University line but today's decision just makes it feel like we are increasingly headed that direction.

It would be great if they expand the Westpark Tollway to eight lanes, but I can't find any reference to doing that.  Do you have a link?

9 hours ago, hindesky said:

Chaad has his little grubby fingers all over this.  Clown should just come out of the closet as a maga GQP politician like that state rep did.

You can't blame them, they've learned the lessons of cancel culture and fake news.

[004n063]

15 hours ago, august948 said:

It would be great if they expand the Westpark Tollway to eight lanes

It would be great if they made the whole thing an express regional rail corridor with zero lanes for cars.

[samagon]

On 8/29/2024 at 9:34 PM, BeerNut said:

Metro budget plan reduces Inner Katy BRT to HOV lane, further signaling shift in priorities

 

shift in priorities. 🙄

why does the city waste money letting us vote for things they are just going to cancel?

I wish, if things required a ballot measure to be approved, that after they passed, and when the city decided to unilaterally cancel them, it would take another ballot measure to actually cancel it.

[cspwal]

So what happens to the ballot measure money?

[Ross]

18 minutes ago, cspwal said:

So what happens to the ballot measure money?

Raises for the Metro board and the Mayor.

[samagon]

On 9/3/2024 at 1:07 PM, Ross said:

Raises for the Metro board and the Mayor.

🎉🎉🎉

[MaxConcrete]

On 8/31/2024 at 4:45 PM, 004n063 said:

The next mayoral election needs to be a transit election, period.

Let me inform you of some facts about public transit. The following is from Metro's most recent annual report for FY 2023.

• Metro peak ridership was in 2006 at 102.8 million boardings. Ridership declined about 20% due to the 2008 recession and (after a partial recovery) held steady at 90 million from 2016 to 2019 in spite of big spending on the "better bus" program. Ridership collapsed to 45 million due to Covid and recovered to 68.6 million in 2023, which is 23.8% below the pre-covid ridership and 33.3% below the peak ridership.
• Metro's operating loss in 2023 was $955.3 million. This means that every time a rider steps on a bus or train, it costs taxpayers $13.93. A daily roundtrip rider for 250 days per year gets an annual taxpayer subsidy of $6965, which is around the annual cost to operate a small economy car.
• The average fare actually collected was $0.66 in 2003. This means that transit fares cover 4.52% of the actual cost to provide the service.
• The Green and Purple rail lines have disastrously low ridership. As of July 2024, the Green line served 3938 weekday boardings and the Purple line had 3532 weekday boardings. Bus services can easily handle that amount of ridership - without the $1.4 billion light rail capital cost. The low ridership of the Silver line BRT has received more publicity.
• Nationally, public transit ridership remains about 25% below pre-covid levels.
• Public transit ridership was in decline even before Covid. For example, Los Angeles has spent heavily on public transit while doing little or nothing to improve freeways, and public transit ridership was down 21.9% from 2013 to 2019.
• The cost of public transit rail construction has become absurdly high. The original Red Line opened in 2004 cost around $44 million per mile. The 2013 Red Line extension cost $143 million per mile. The Green and Purple lines, opened in 2015, cost $153 million per mile. Currently active light rail projects in the U.S. cost around $400 million per mile. Tunnels are absurdly expensive. Austin wanted to build a short tunnel for its LRT, but was forced to cancel that idea due to the cost of $1 billion per mile.

The reality is that aggregate consumer preferences have been shifting away from public transit for around 20 years. Public transit has degenerated into a very expensive and massively subsidized government service which is very beneficial to large bureaucracies, construction firms and (in many places) transit worker unions. Let's hope that self-driving cars will someday become technically feasible and affordable, which should allow legacy public transit to go to its grave gracefully.

[Some one]

4 hours ago, MaxConcrete said:

Let me inform you of some facts about public transit. The following is from Metro's most recent annual report for FY 2023.

• Metro peak ridership was in 2006 at 102.8 million boardings. Ridership declined about 20% due to the 2008 recession and (after a partial recovery) held steady at 90 million from 2016 to 2019 in spite of big spending on the "better bus" program. Ridership collapsed to 45 million due to Covid and recovered to 68.6 million in 2023, which is 23.8% below the pre-covid ridership and 33.3% below the peak ridership.
• Metro's operating loss in 2023 was $955.3 million. This means that every time a rider steps on a bus or train, it costs taxpayers $13.93. A daily roundtrip rider for 250 days per year gets an annual taxpayer subsidy of $6965, which is around the annual cost to operate a small economy car.
• The average fare actually collected was $0.66 in 2003. This means that transit fares cover 4.52% of the actual cost to provide the service.
• The Green and Purple rail lines have disastrously low ridership. As of July 2024, the Green line served 3938 weekday boardings and the Purple line had 3532 weekday boardings. Bus services can easily handle that amount of ridership - without the $1.4 billion light rail capital cost. The low ridership of the Silver line BRT has received more publicity.
• Nationally, public transit ridership remains about 25% below pre-covid levels.
• Public transit ridership was in decline even before Covid. For example, Los Angeles has spent heavily on public transit while doing little or nothing to improve freeways, and public transit ridership was down 21.9% from 2013 to 2019.
• The cost of public transit rail construction has become absurdly high. The original Red Line opened in 2004 cost around $44 million per mile. The 2013 Red Line extension cost $143 million per mile. The Green and Purple lines, opened in 2015, cost $153 million per mile. Currently active light rail projects in the U.S. cost around $400 million per mile. Tunnels are absurdly expensive. Austin wanted to build a short tunnel for its LRT, but was forced to cancel that idea due to the cost of $1 billion per mile.

The reality is that aggregate consumer preferences have been shifting away from public transit for around 20 years. Public transit has degenerated into a very expensive and massively subsidized government service which is very beneficial to large bureaucracies, construction firms and (in many places) transit worker unions. Let's hope that self-driving cars will someday become technically feasible and affordable, which should allow legacy public transit to go to its grave gracefully.

I disagree with your claims but I'm going to try to say why in the nicest way possible.

1. Public transportation ridership has gone down because of a pademicand the shift to work from home. Even then it's steadily recovering. 

2. The failure of the Green, Purple, and Silver Line is due to the lack of east-west connection, something the Inner Katy and University BRT would've solved.

3. That's inflation for you. Projects like the I-45 expansion have ballooned from $7 billion to $11 billion (or that roads and car-dependent infrastructure is arguably more expensive to maintain and that cars are arguably the least efficient, most dangerous, most polluting form of transportation). Also you'd be surprised at how mure more the government subsidizes roads and car-dependent suburbs.

4. The problem with a majority of the country's public transportation system is that billions of dollars are spent on building light rail (and BRT) in places where it's easier to build with little to no pushback than where the density and areas are at. Not to mention a majority of them are downtown-centric.

5. Self-driving cars will never replace public transportation. Trains have been automated for over FIFTY YEARS NOW!

6. Widening urban freeways is not the solution because urban freeways shouldn't even be there in the first place (freeways should go around the city not through it. Not the mention the amount of damages they've caused to community). Also, while LA has been expanding public transportation its also spent billions of dollars to widen its freeways, with not so good results.

The reality is that public transportation across the country is severely underfunded and contrary to some beliefs, it has become more favorable in the United States, despite efforts to gut and keep it underfunded. METRONext, for example passed with 70% approval. The country continues to sprawl out and drain the available resources we have. When people argue for more public transportation option it doesn't mean that your car is going to be taken away. It means that we want to be able to get around without being forced to drive. IMO, public transportation is not only here to stay, but it will be expanded eventually whether by choice or by necessity.

 

ETA: Some studies and articles to back my claims

https://itdp.org/2024/01/24/high-cost-transportation-united-states/
https://www.kxan.com/news/hold-texans-are-seeing-less-traffic-in-every-major-city-except-for-one/
https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/car-dependency-costs/
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/2/the-negative-consequences-of-car-dependency

Edited September 5 by Some one

[004n063]

Private businesses should be governed by present "consumer sentiment," but one hopes for a little more wisdom and prudence from our elected officials.

[samagon]

12 hours ago, MaxConcrete said:

The reality is that aggregate consumer preferences have been shifting away from public transit for around 20 years. Public transit has degenerated into a very expensive and massively subsidized government service which is very beneficial to large bureaucracies, construction firms and (in many places) transit worker unions. Let's hope that self-driving cars will someday become technically feasible and affordable, which should allow legacy public transit to go to its grave gracefully.

the ONLY non-subsidized roads are toll roads. every other road is 100% subsidized through taxes.

the subsidy argument against busses and trains is tired when you consider the billions subsidized yearly on just highway infrastructure.

do yourself a favor and never mention it again as a negative of busses and trains.

Edited September 5 by samagon

[mfastx]

According to the National Transit Database statistics for 2022 (most recent year the statistics were available), the operating subsidy per METRORail rider was $8.81, while the operating subsidy per bus rider was over $10. So, if you're against rail, the subsidy per rider argument isn't a good one. 

 

[JLWM8609]

18 hours ago, MaxConcrete said:

Let's hope that self-driving cars will someday become technically feasible and affordable, which should allow legacy public transit to go to its grave gracefully.

I know you literally wrote the book on freeways, but this statement is silly

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, mfastx said:

According to the National Transit Database statistics for 2022 (most recent year the statistics were available), the operating subsidy per METRORail rider was $8.81, while the operating subsidy per bus rider was over $10. So, if you're against rail, the subsidy per rider argument isn't a good one. 

 

That is only operating costs— ignores the huge capital costs for rail.

[samagon]

27 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

That is only operating costs— ignores the huge capital costs for rail.

if we're going to gasp at capital costs for transit solutions...

current estimates are 11 billion just to do whatever it is they are doing to i45. 15 miles of freeway? once completed in 2042 if it costs less than 15 billion I'll be shocked.

even if we go by their current estimate, 740 million per mile to rejigger an existing highway, how much capacity for single occupant vehicles will it add?

and capital costs is a concern for you? 

[Houston19514]

11 hours ago, samagon said:

if we're going to gasp at capital costs for transit solutions...

current estimates are 11 billion just to do whatever it is they are doing to i45. 15 miles of freeway? once completed in 2042 if it costs less than 15 billion I'll be shocked.

even if we go by their current estimate, 740 million per mile to rejigger an existing highway, how much capacity for single occupant vehicles will it add?

and capital costs is a concern for you? 

I was merely pointing out that making a comparison of taxpayer subsidies of buses and trains based on operating costs only, ignoring capital costs, is incomplete, to put it nicely.

[mfastx]

On 9/5/2024 at 3:26 PM, Houston19514 said:

That is only operating costs— ignores the huge capital costs for rail.

This is true, but it's well publicized that investments in public transportation yield long term economic returns far beyond the initial investment. Focusing and making decisions based on initial capital costs is, frankly, a short-sighted approach. 

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, mfastx said:

This is true, but it's well publicized that investments in public transportation yield long term economic returns far beyond the initial investment. Focusing and making decisions based on initial capital costs is, frankly, a short-sighted approach. 

Any chance you could share any of those studies?

Edited September 9 by Houston19514

[j.33]

13 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Any chance you could share any of those studies?

Apta has posted the following (Public Transportation Facts - American Public Transportation Association (apta.com)) 

• Every $1 invested in public transportation generates $5 in economic returns.
• Every $1 billion invested in public transportation supports and creates approximately 50,000 jobs.
• Every $10 million in capital investment in public transportation yields $30 million in increased business sales.
• Every $10 million in operating investment yields $32 million in increased business sales.
• An estimated $39 billion of public transit expenditures flow into the private sector.
• Home values were up to 24% higher near public transportation than in other areas. Hotels in cities with direct rail access to airports raise 11% more revenue per room than hotels in those cities without.

Vox had this written in an article about rise of modern street car systems (Everything you need to know about the streetcar craze | Vox): 

• “When you have that route in place, and it’s going to stop here for a long time because they spent some time putting that infrastructure in and putting that station in, [entrepreneurs say], ‘Here’s a good place to build our business or our restaurant,’” says Art Guzzetti, vice president for policy at the American Public Transportation Association. The Atlanta Journal Constitution recently reported that more than $700 million in development was either underway or would be completed by the end of 2014. And one 2008 study found the Portland streetcar would spur $778 million in development. Tucson has reported similarly booming development."

 

[hbcu2]

Again - how can Metro spell doom to rail when it never has been given an opportunity to see it really work? That's like saying a car is bad when you only have 3 tires 

[mfastx]

18 hours ago, j.33 said:

Apta has posted the following (Public Transportation Facts - American Public Transportation Association (apta.com)) 

• Every $1 invested in public transportation generates $5 in economic returns.
• Every $1 billion invested in public transportation supports and creates approximately 50,000 jobs.
• Every $10 million in capital investment in public transportation yields $30 million in increased business sales.
• Every $10 million in operating investment yields $32 million in increased business sales.
• An estimated $39 billion of public transit expenditures flow into the private sector.
• Home values were up to 24% higher near public transportation than in other areas. Hotels in cities with direct rail access to airports raise 11% more revenue per room than hotels in those cities without.

Vox had this written in an article about rise of modern street car systems (Everything you need to know about the streetcar craze | Vox): 

• “When you have that route in place, and it’s going to stop here for a long time because they spent some time putting that infrastructure in and putting that station in, [entrepreneurs say], ‘Here’s a good place to build our business or our restaurant,’” says Art Guzzetti, vice president for policy at the American Public Transportation Association. The Atlanta Journal Constitution recently reported that more than $700 million in development was either underway or would be completed by the end of 2014. And one 2008 study found the Portland streetcar would spur $778 million in development. Tucson has reported similarly booming development."

 

Thanks, those were the studies I was referring to. 

8 hours ago, hbcu2 said:

Again - how can Metro spell doom to rail when it never has been given an opportunity to see it really work? That's like saying a car is bad when you only have 3 tires 

It remains very disappointing that, after the success of the Red Line in connecting employment centers and destinations, that an East-West corridor was never built. Prioritizing rail to lower populated, residential areas was a mistake. 

Edited September 10 by mfastx
Added quote

[samagon]

17 minutes ago, mfastx said:

Thanks, those were the studies I was referring to. 

It remains very disappointing that, after the success of the Red Line in connecting employment centers and destinations, that an East-West corridor was never built. Prioritizing rail to lower populated, residential areas was a mistake. 

I agree the university line needs to be built, but I disagree that the purple and green lines were mistakes.

I'll grant you that the bulk of density created along the purple line has been University adjacent, so maybe not directly resultant of the rail line.

however, there has been a lot of activity on the green line. even before it was opened. maybe hard to see if you don't live in the area, but there's the BakerRipley office complex on Lockwood and Harrisburg that started getting built as soon as the green line started getting built. the hive of current activity along Harrisburg between Milby and Valesco is all added density thanks to the rail line. the circuit apartments at Texas and Emancipation certainly are located convenient to the rail.

and only just recently it was announced that the old Maxwell house roaster is seeing activity and will become something a bit more dense.

each of those projects represents a significant bump in property values and thus taxes collected along that corridor, so while the fares may not be representative of what some expected to see 5+ years after opening, we have had a pandemic that has altered many habits which are only just sort of adjusting again to a more traditional, non-pandemic style of habits.

and maybe that density would have been built anyway, but being a rail line it is a clear indication from the city that they are investing in the city in a manner that will support density along that corridor, and I see the resultant projects that create density around the rail lines as the developers responding in kind. it's easier for everyone to sell the idea of density when there are permanent forms of transit that can handle that density. it's the same induced demand we see when discussing freeways, the difference is the demand for housing isn't created out in some suburb that doesn't contribute to Houston's tax role, the demand is generated right here, in Houston where the taxes collected will directly affect every one of our lives for the better.

[mfastx]

23 hours ago, samagon said:

I agree the university line needs to be built, but I disagree that the purple and green lines were mistakes.

In a vacuum I completely agree that they weren't mistakes, as you pointed out they clearly have spurred a lot of development in those areas. 

I just was saying in the context of prioritization, I think an east-west line would have been more valuable and generated more ridership, IMO. Just saying I would have rather it get built first, since now it looks like it won't get built at all in my lifetime. 

[004n063]

I'm with @mfastx here. Yes, the green line has contributed to a growth spurt in Second Ward and the East End (and higher frequencies would accelerate that, especially for weekends and evenings). But a Red Line-esque line along Westheimer would have done a lot more to institutionalize transit in the city and drive up expectations for service. 

(Yes, Westheimer would have been especially tough due to its FM status, and yes, there are several EW other alignments that would have been useful. But the 82 route would have been the ideal spine.)

[mfastx]

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

(Yes, Westheimer would have been especially tough due to its FM status, and yes, there are several EW other alignments that would have been useful. But the 82 route would have been the ideal spine.)

Lower Westheimer would definitely be tough, ideally any rail would be a subway east of 610, and at grade/elevated west of 610 going all the way to Energy Corridor. Westheimer corridor is probably the most ripe for rail in the entire city. 

Richmond would also be good because of Greenway Plaza and higher density developments near there. Personally, I think the Inner Katy Corridor is a distant third behind those two in terms of east-west routes. 

[004n063]

10 hours ago, mfastx said:

Lower Westheimer would definitely be tough, ideally any rail would be a subway east of 610, and at grade/elevated west of 610 going all the way to Energy Corridor. Westheimer corridor is probably the most ripe for rail in the entire city. 

Richmond would also be good because of Greenway Plaza and higher density developments near there. Personally, I think the Inner Katy Corridor is a distant third behind those two in terms of east-west routes. 

Honestly, I think the IK was kinda bunk from the start, just like the rest of the silver line (other than the proposed Gulfton extension). 

An express bus along Memorial Drive from Downtown to Uptown would probably be a decent option at some point, but Westheimer, Richmond, and Washington are the most important ones.