Next big moonshot for Houston? TX will pass CA and HTX will pass LA, auto vs. transit job access and realism
A few smaller misc items this week:
- Texas will surpass California, and both DFW and Houston will pass LA in population over the next 40 years. "The American future seems to be more Lone Star State than a Golden one."
- Houston Public Media/NPR asks "What could be the next big moonshot for Houston?" Among the answers, clean energy struck me as the most ambitious and most appropriate for Houston (ideally cost-effective carbon capture!). My own suggestion for a Houston moonshot? METRO could aspire to offer half-hour or less express trip times from every park-and-ride and transit center to every major job center and both airports using a network of MaX Lanes. A high goal but very achievable and it would support Houston's growth for decades to come. More on it here.
- New Geography: Auto vs. transit job access ratios for the top 50 metro areas (hat tip to Bill). Essentially comparing how many jobs are accessible by car within 30 mins (the typical commute) vs. by transit. A Houstonian can access 97.3 times (!) as many jobs by car than by transit within the same commute time. Even in NYC with excellent transit a car can still reach 9.7 more jobs than transit in the same time. The conclusion is compelling:
Where for Transit from Here?
With this minimal transit use relative to the auto and especially in view of the huge transit market share losses since the pandemic, it would seem useful to rethink the role of transit.
Transit does well for work trips to the largest downtown niche markets (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, and San Francisco), though pre-pandemic market shares are unlikely to be replicated in the future because of the popularity of hybrid and remote work, lower office occupancy and the likely improvement in virtual meeting technology.
The reality is that transit is not a substitute for the auto and there isn’t enough money to make it one. Professor Jean-Claude Ziv and I found that making the auto a genuine alternative to transit could be prohibitively costly, annually requiring the entire metropolitan area gross domestic product in some cases. This would leave nothing else for anything else.
It would be foolhardy to suggest that transit is an alternative to the auto (despite this having sbeen implied by federal, state, and local policy for decades of decline), In a non-utopian world, no reasonable increase in subsidies could make it so.
It may be best to identify the small areas within metro areas where transit could actually be an alternative to auto. This would be in neighborhoods where automobile ownership is particularly low, which, in most metros are also areas of greater economic need. Investing billions more to coax middle class commuters off the roads seems a daft approach given the realities.
Labels: census, growth, MaX Lanes, Metro, mobility strategies, perspectives, transit
METRO+DART Ridership Update: summer slump and Beryl erase spring gains
This week we have another great analytical guest post from
Oscar Slotboom. Dallas DART's extensive and expensive light rail strategy is looking more and more like a total failure as suburban cities try to reduce their tax subsidy to DART.
---
When I last reported on
Metro ridership in
April, ridership had reached a post-Covid high in February, down only 14.7% from the 12-month pre-Covid average. An upward bump in April pushed ridership to another post-Covid high at only 13.5% below the pre-Covid level. Summer months are usually low ridership months, and Hurricane Beryl caused Metro service outages during the week of July 9-12. July ridership was 22.3% below the pre-Covid average. However, in spite of the substantial service outages due to Beryl, July ridership was only slightly lower than June. So we can probably expect a strong rebound, especially since September and October are normally the highest ridership months.
In Dallas, June ridership (
page 55) was 23% below the pre-Covid baseline. As the plot shows, ridership has been flat in the last 9 months, appearing to end the four-year trend of slow recovery. It's interesting to note that the image shown below mentions that on-demand services are included in the ridership data, but a version of this plot presented one month earlier (
page 4) without any mention of on-demand services showed ridership down 28%.
Multiple member cities of DART, including Plano, are
attempting to reduce their tax subsidies to DART.
Nationally, public transit
ridership is down 25% compared to pre-Covid levels and appears to be holding steady with little or no upward trend. Of course, there are wide variations in performance by city and Houston is above average.
Plot credit: the
Antiplanner
Labels: Metro, rail, transit
Mobility is more important than density
Bill Reeves sent me a great link to a Marginal Revolution blog post by Tyler Cowen arguing that mobility has been more important than density in shaping American history and its future, which I 100% agree with. It highlights the historical importance of mobility in the US and challenges current urbanist trends favoring density. He makes some key points:
- America's success is attributed more to advancements in transportation and infrastructure than to population density.
- Historical examples range from horses and ships to modern aviation, showing a consistent focus on movement and connection.
- Urban density is linked to lower fertility rates and the potential replication of undesirable political climates.
- Mobility, on the other hand, is seen as fostering a stronger national defense and better immigrant assimilation.
- Low-speed options like bicycles are viewed as impractical and even dangerous - "low-speed transport is a poor country thing"
- The future lies in high-speed, affordable, and eco-friendly transportation solutions, such as self-driving vehicles and improved aviation.
I made my own comment over there, which I'll repeat here:
Mobility is one of the secret sauces to Houston's success. In Jane Jacob's world, mobility was fixed and limited but density was variable. In today's world, density is fairly limited (by cars and higher living standards in terms of living space per person), but mobility is highly variable. My own thoughts on this:
Applying Jane Jacobs' 4 tenets of vibrant neighborhoods to car-based cities
Labels: density, opportunity urbanism, perspectives
The solution for Houston's traffic lights, transit doesn't reduce emissions, HSR terrorism risk, and Colorado's bad transportation policy
Apologies for taking a break from blogging over the summer. Looking forward to picking up the posting again in the fall. Today just a few small items:
"In other words, if we eliminated every passenger automobile in the U.S. in favor of a transit alternative and use completely unrealistic assumptions, the total estimated reduction would be barely out of the margin of error for total estimated GHG emissions. ...
I believe we need an efficient and effective transit system as part of the basic social safety net. Providing some mobility for those who cannot afford to own and operate their own vehicle and those who are physically not able to operate one is the right thing to do. It also helps the local economy by providing a way for employees to get to their jobs.
But transit does little to relieve traffic congestion and virtually nothing to improve air quality. We need to start having an honest conversation about the purpose of transit and what we can reasonably expect it to accomplish. And we need to stop lying to the public and voters about fanciful, non-existent benefits."
- NYT: Olympics Precautions Failed to Halt Rail Sabotage. One of the issues I've pointed out in the HSR vs. planes debate is the near impossibility of securing hundreds of miles of HSR rail from sabotage or terrorism.
- WSJ: The Smart, Cheap Fix for Slow, Dumb Traffic Lights - Most cities can’t afford smart traffic signals. Fortunately, data from new cars—and even drivers’ smartphones—can make old-fashioned traffic lights work a lot better. "the system yields a 30% reduction in stop-and-go traffic at intersections" Can we get this for Houston please?!?
- NYT: Colorado’s Bold New Approach to Highways — Not Building Them. I really disagree with this. Studies have shown that highways are the great enabler of opportunity and upward social mobility for the working class to get access to better jobs and newer, more affordable, higher-quality housing in better school districts. Massive transit expansions, like LA, have not increased rideshare and don't work. Environmental solutions focused on reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be an economic disaster. Instead, gas stations should be required to charge at the pump for the necessary carbon capture to offset the gas, currently ~$1 per gallon.
Labels: environment, high-speed rail, mobility strategies, planning, rail, transit
Chicago's dire warning for Houston
Judge Glock has a very sobering piece in the City Journal on "How Debt Ate Chicago - Mounting liabilities are the greatest threat to the city’s survival." Chicago is a few decades ahead of Houston on the urban maturity curve, but it's critical that Houston act now to make sure we don't end up on the same path to stagnation (which is almost impossible to stop once momentum builds). Some key points to indicate just how screwed they are, some of which I think you'll recognize as starting to happen in Houston as well:
- Chicago faces a severe police shortage, with over half of high-priority 911 calls going unanswered due to a lack of available officers.
- The city's financial woes stem from a massive debt burden, reaching $43,000 per taxpayer, the second-worst in the nation, further compounded by Illinois's own high debt load.
- Chicago's tax burden is among the highest in the nation, with combined city and state taxes exceeding 12% of a median family income, placing a heavy strain on both residents and businesses.
- Chicago's economic fundamentals are weakening, with downtown office vacancies reaching record highs and companies relocating due to high taxes, leading to a shrinking population and a decline in median household income.
- Newly elected Mayor Brandon Johnson, a former Chicago Teachers Union member, has pledged to increase spending on progressive initiatives, including a "Green New Deal" and expanded social programs, despite the city's dire financial situation.
- Johnson's plan to raise revenue through taxes on the "ultra-rich" and a "mansion tax" has faced resistance and has been deemed impractical or politically unfeasible.
- Chicago's financial woes are exacerbated by a high percentage of its budget being dedicated to fixed costs like pensions and bond interest, leaving little room for flexibility.
- Chicago's pension debt is particularly concerning, reaching $34 billion, with assets covering only 25% of obligations, placing a significant burden on the city's finances.
- The city's complex governance structure, with overlapping agencies and bodies like the school district, park district, and county, further complicates the debt situation and adds to the financial burden on taxpayers.
- Chicago has a history of using debt to finance political projects and social causes, leveraging its financial distress to push for progressive agendas, leading to concerns about the long-term sustainability of its financial strategy.
Concluding:
"Chicago has been bailed out by miracles before, but its current problems are structural and seem to have no clear solution. That doesn’t mean that the city will necessarily suffer Detroit’s fate and find itself in bankruptcy. The dangers of insolvency are real, but, just as with the exploding federal debt, too much focus has been put on the possibility of a single disaster and too little on the more obvious cost: deepening decline. Chicago could keep paying off its bondholders and retirees by bleeding public services, hiking taxes, and driving out still more residents, but it would become a shell of its former self. A debt-ridden Chicago wouldn’t be the first, or last, great American city to become a byword for lost possibilities."
Labels: corruption, governance, government transparency, pensions, public debt
Does the Gulfton BRT extension make any sense?
Under the new Whitmire administration, METRO seems to finally be coming to its senses on the horrendous cost-benefit ratio of BRT projects, this week indefinitely suspending the Universities BRT line because it's so expensive it financially imperils their operations! Continuing the theme from last week's post on the Universities Line BRT, Bill King has written a follow-up on the proposed Uptown BRT extension through Gulfton, which generated a city council and media brouhaha when Mayor Whitmire suggested Gulfton residents don't typically want to go to the Galleria. Key excerpts:
"What Councilman Pollard, nor anyone else at Council, nor any of the media coverage, addressed was whether the extension actually makes sense from a cost-benefit analysis. ...
Metro estimated the cost at $220 million, which is almost certainly a gross underestimation. The most recent estimates for the University and Inner Katy BRTs are now right at $100 million per mile. So, this project would likely be closer to $400 million. ...
The bottom line is that the capital acquisition cost of each new rider would likely be well above $100,000, before we even start looking at ongoing operating costs. At this cost and with anemic ridership, it is highly unlikely the FTA would provide any funding.
The proposed alignment would also create a nightmare on Chimney Rock from Westpark to Gulfton. ...
But what is most disappointing to me is that City Council has increasingly turned into a performance stage for councilmembers to audition for their next office when they are term-limited, instead of a serious deliberative body that tackles the difficult challenges our City is facing."
I will note that this is a major growing challenge at all levels of politics, and why I prefer mayors and county judges at the end of their careers focused on their legacy rather than using those positions as stepping stones to potential higher-level state and federal positions.
Labels: Metro, mobility strategies, transit
METRO BRT: 'The most colossal waste of taxpayers’ money in the history of the City'
Bill King has written one of the most impressive analytical take-downs of any proposed transit project I've ever seen - in this case the Universities and Inner Katy BRT lines. If this doesn't seal their death, I don't know what would. As an alternative, can you imagine what we could do with $3 billion dollars to rehabilitate our street and drainage infrastructure?!? Here are my highlights/excerpts:
"Metro’s previous leadership proposed the construction of two bus rapid transit (“BRT”) lines. At an estimated cost of over $3 billion, these two projects, if constructed, would be the most colossal waste of taxpayers’ money in the history of the City.
If you are not familiar with the term "bus rapid transit", it is the construction of dedicated lanes for buses. The only example we have in Houston is the disastrous Silver Line in Uptown. After spending about $200 million to construct the project, and who knows how much to operate, it is attracting about 800 riders per day, just over 5% of the 14,000 Metro had projected. The ridership is so bad that Metro recently announced it intends to reduce the service. Based on this rousing success, Metro has proposed to build these two additional BRT lines. ...
Let me pause for a moment to comment on ridership projections. Generally speaking, transit ridership projections are almost always too high. But Metro has been in a category of its own when it comes to overestimating projected ridership. This 2020 FTA study, comparing projected costs and ridership to actual results on about 20 projects around the country, found Metro’s ridership projection for the Purple Line to be, by far, the worst of any project they studied. The Purple and Green light rail lines are carrying about 25-30% of their projected ridership. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Silver is running a little over 5% of its projections today. So, we certainly have every reason to be skeptical of any ridership projection just based on Metro’s history. ...
While Metro’s current estimate for the University and Inner Katy projects are $2.43 billion and $735 million, respectively, Metro’s previous estimates of the cost to construct fixed guideway projects have also been unreliable. The cost of the Purple Line, for example, came in 33% higher than estimated ($591MM→$787MM).
Metro has already made massive changes to the estimates for both of these lines. Just 18 months ago, in a request for funding Metro filed with the FTA, it represented that the total cost of the University Line would be $1.57 billion, which is only about two-thirds of the current cost estimate. In 2018, Metro told HGAC the Inner Katy Line would cost $281 million, barely a third of the current estimate. So, there is no telling what these projects would actually eventually cost. ...
$188k per new rider + $11k/year!! "We could easily buy a car for every new rider and pay for their insurance, gas and maintenance for the rest of their lives, and not come close to spending this much money. ...
Metro’s updated ridership projections also projected that the end-to-end travel time on the University Line would be 1:28 during peak and that the buses would travel at an average speed of about 17mph. (p.17) This morning at 7:30AM Google Maps estimated that trip using the existing Metro service would take 1:29 and by car it would take 40 minutes. In other words, after spending $2.4 billion we would save transit riders one minute and someone in a car would get there 48 minutes sooner. ...
The plan currently calls for Richmond to be reduced to one lane each direction from downtown to Edloe. The left turn across Richmond at Edloe alone would be a nightmare. I think it is quite telling that the very people the project is supposed to serve are either ambivalent or vehemently opposed to it.
...
I have never seen this stark of a case against a public investment. Frankly, only a financial illiterate would support such an irresponsible expenditure of taxpayer money. And to make matters worse, after spending this reckless amount of money, few people would use the system and it would cause all sorts of collateral problems because it is so ill-conceived.
Fixed guideways are not the future of mobility. The paradigm of attempting to gather a large number of people on a single vehicle is rapidly becoming obsolete. The future is going to be door-to-door, on-demand service, which will eventually be provided autonomously and directed by AI controlled smart grids. Metro needs to be looking to that future, not building more white elephant projects. We already have enough of those."
Labels: Metro, transit, transportation plan
New Zealand learns from Houston, why airport rail doesn't make sense, Tokyo vs HTX High Lines, crazy housing reforms, and more
Some more smaller items this week:
- The 2024 Demographia International Housing Affordability reportThe 2024 Demographia International Housing Affordability report is out (Antiplanner discussion here). Houston is surprisingly high at a median price-to-income ratio of 4.4, but still better than other Texas Triangle metros and one of the most affordable growing metros in America (vs. the stagnant ones mainly in the Rust Belt). The more interesting note is that New Zealand's affordability is rapidly improving after adopting supply-side reforms that they learned on a visit to Houston!
- Chronicle: Why isn't there a train to Houston's airports? I've made similar points on my blog: it always makes more sense to invest in work transit over airport transit. It's a ridership disaster in DFW. There used to be a fast, frequent nonstop express bus from the downtown transit center to IAH but they shut it down from low demand. ~1-2 riders per bus, which is why even slower multi-billion$ LRT there is a massively bad investment.
"Now count how many times you go to the airport versus how many times you drive or take a bus to the office.
“Even if they use the train for every airport trip they take, that might be eight trips a year,” Spieler said.
Business travelers, some of the most frequent fliers, meanwhile have different considerations.
“They are on expense accounts and not price-sensitive,” Spieler said."
...
Three recent rail projects to airports are illustrative, Spieler said, for how a train's service, location and the layout of the airport make a difference. In Washington, the train to Dulles Airport, which opened in 2022, gets around 2,500 boardings per day, less than half that of the train to Reagan National Airport, which is closer to the metro core but also a smaller airport. In Dallas, fewer than 1,100 riders daily hop on the train to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.
Labels: affordability, governance, growth, home affordability, migration, mobility strategies, rail, rankings, transit, zoning
