To: Carrin F. Patman, Chair, Houston METRO Board of Directors
From: Bob Harvey, President and CEO, Greater Houston Partnership
Date: 5 April 2018
Re: Expansion of Houston Commuter Bus Services__________________________________
Introduction
Houston is a large, growing city that in the absence of effective planning will face increased congestion and inconvenient commute times. The expansion of effective commuter services will be an increasingly important policy that has implications on Houston’s commercial success, housing values, and environmental health. This paper analyzes existing practices for commuter buses and the effect of expanded commuter buses on various Houston stakeholders.
Background
Identification of commuter transit best practices from the literature is complicated due to the unique structure and dynamics of each city. Still, the existing research on park-and-ride services (which comes predominantly from the UK) can inform us about general principles to consider. Meek (2008) points out the fundamental challenge of these bus systems at limiting congestion: Instead of simply shifting commuters from individual cars to buses (the desired effect), commuter services may also have the effects of competing with traditional public transit or encouraging additional trips to and from the city center. In other words, it is possible for a park-and-ride to be too attractive. The authors suggests that it is important to establish an price hierarchy of commuting alternatives, adjusting tolls, parking availability and cost, and bus fares to appropriate relative levels.
Designers of a commuter bus service also have to consider that park-and-ride systems may to some extent redistribute, rather than decrease traffic. They tend to shift traffic from “urban” to “extra-urban” areas (Parkhurst), and could increase traffic to bus destinations, which should lead us to expect considerable counter-mobilization.
Data on the role of private commuter bus companies is mixed. While private companies are often able to operate at lower cost, they still may not be profitable without subsidy (Teal). Contracting of peak-period service to private companies appears promising, but also faces some political and labor obstacles. Employers may be more likely to invest in commuter services when they have many employees, need to compete for employees, or have employees that need to relocate frequently.
Houston Commuters and Residents
A reformed public transportation infrastructure helps residents of Harris County (commuters, families, students, senior citizens, persons with disabilities) fulfill their personal and career goals, meet their daily needs and maintain a high level of transportation independence when they don’t have access to or own a private vehicle. User benefits result from increased convenience, economic savings and ease of travel in highly congested areas. They also considerably reduce the stress of commutes by potentially reducing congestion, and by freeing driving time for work or leisure. It can therefore have diverse impacts (benefits and costs), including many that are indirect and external (they affect people who do not currently use transit). Some result from the existence of the service, others from transit use, some from reduced automobile travel, and others from transit’s ability to affect land use development patterns. Nearly 91 percent of commuters in the Houston metro travel by car alone. Hurricane Harvey destroyed between 500,000 to 1 million cars , the most of any natural disaster in US history (Shelton). As one of the most auto dependent cities in the world, gas prices are spiking, rental cars are largely unavailable and temporary housing arrangements are overcrowded. Unfortunately, the current bus network in Houston only covers approximately two-thirds of the Houston Metropolitan area and have inconvenient or inaccessible routes and stations for a late portion of Houston residents (Shelton). Northeast Houston and Sugarland are two communities that were hit the hardest by Harvey and are not serviced by public transit at all. Low income families who typically owned one vehicle prior to Harvey are also faced with a major transportation barrier due to the lack of public transit. This problem could be easily addressed and resolved with an expanded commuter bus network. Increased development near transit connections will encourage more Houstonians to drive less and utilize public transportation more frequently. Additionally, a robust transit network can help neighborhoods recover faster from shocks and disasters and mitigate the amount of time residents are unable to return to work following a natural disaster.
Impact on Commercial Interests
The presence of a convenient, effective commuter bus system can serve as a major draw for potential employees to a new city. Long commutes and heavy road congestion are stressful and unpleasant for employees, and services that can reduce those burdens will be attractive to employees and make them more inclined to accept jobs in Houston. Companies then, particularly those that have to compete to attract highly skilled labor, have an interest in the establishment of convenient commuter systems. Likewise, the City of Houston, which benefits from having large, skilled companies establish themselves here, has a commercial interest in establishing good commuter services. These issues are not merely hypothetical; in its search for a location for HQ2, Amazon highlighted good transit systems as an important component of a potential location (Bliss), and many have speculated that this was likely at least one of Houston’s weaknesses. This commercial piece is particularly important in the face of a tight Houston labor market that needs to attract more employees.
In addition to attracting better employees, commuter services also increase the liveable range of Houston, since people might be more willing to engage in longer commutes as long as they do not have to drive, and the commute time is freed for seep, leisure, or work. This is also beneficial for companies as it increases the pool of talent that they are able to draw from. While companies will be interested in commute times and congestion to the extent that they affect employee happiness, it would not be a commercial priority in the way that it is for city residents. Companies based near Houston downtown are primarily interested in making it easier for people to get to downtown, so they will be less inclined to support measures to disincentivize driving, for example by increasing tolls or by increasing the price of downtown municipal parking garages.
All of this means that companies could be engaged as partners in efforts to expand commuter services. Technology companies have already demonstrated a willingness to do so in other contexts: in order to deal with high Bay Area housing costs, several Silicon Valley companies operate bus systems for their employees living in distant suburbs. To combat the free-rider problem here, they might be interested in deals that would allow discounted fares for their employees, but they would presumably share costs with the city to ensure that access to the commuter buses remained open to all.
Houston METRO
The proposal to engage private companies may be opposed by METRO if it is seen as competitive, rather than collaborative. For example, METRO workers may be concerned about bringing in new drivers and employees or changing shift schedules. That said, METRO faces significant funding shortages, and if the issue is framed as an opportunity to split costs while keeping the bus system predominantly within the METRO system, they may be inclined to accept the help. METRO might also be hesitant to accept significant expansion projects in the absence of adequate government support and funding. Fortunately, federal support programs exist for these types of local transit initiatives. Funding support could come from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which provides grants to local transit initiatives.
Housing and Local Developers
Housing developers would be particularly concerned with the large population growth expected in the coming years: the Houston area is expected to accommodate more than 10 million people over the next two decades. This influx of people would lead to more homes built farther from the center of the city, meaning there needs to be a way to ensure that these people living on the outskirts will be able to travel to and from the city without trouble. Housing developers might cite, for example, the Brian Moeller case, which required Mr. Moeller to be dropped by his wife at a park ride, ride to uptown, and take two buses to work. This is an unnecessary amount of work a person who works at a huge office park must do.
Without good commuter systems, the issue of transportation will deter people from moving to Houston because they can instead move to other cities that may accommodate their travel constraints, such as Dallas, which has a strong DART bus system that connects downtown with the suburbs. If people are forced to move to Houston, they will have poor satisfaction and take action against housing developers or suburban elected officials. The lack of transportation will result in a drop in property value, and if people take action or have their case posted on the news, it will further drop the land value.
This is why housing developers will vouch for good transportation options as a way to increase land values and accommodate a large number of people going to work in the city and living in the outskirts of the city. Housing developers would propose more two-way high occupancy lanes along I-10. Park and ride routes already connect to lots near I-10 to downtown. Bi-directional lanes would avoid the traffic and congestion that plagues other routes. These lanes can be built more quickly than the 20 year Metro Max Plan. Housing developers would propose this solution, which is more quick to implement, because people are entering Houston at a fast rate, and an efficient transportation built quickly will also attract other companies, which will increase the demand for homes in Houston. All in all, housing developers see implementing two-way high occupancy lanes along I-10 as an efficient and easy to implement solution to Houston’s rapidly growing population, which will increase land values, demand to live in Houston, and demand for companies to locate to Houston.
Environmental Groups
Environmental groups have a lot to gain in supporting an expanded commuter bus network. In fact METRO has already appealed to environmentally conscious groups by switching to diesel hybrid busses and promoting water conservation efforts in the City of Houston. Local organizations, AFC Transportation, Green Houston and The Citizens Environmental Coalition have lobbied long and hard with the Mayor’s office for cleaner air and alternative transportation. Automobile travel has shown to increase congestion, carbon emissions, and high parking and pollution costs. In a report released in 2018 by the Environmental Protection Agency, they identified major pollutants and subsequent health risks associated with these pollutants in Harris County. Houston meets the standards of criteria for 5 of the 6 air pollutants; carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and PM2.5 (NAAQS). They also classified Houston as a severe ozone non-containment area for a one hour standard due to chronic pollutants present in the air (NAAQS). Traffic congestion and vehicle emissions are cited as the major cause of the concentration of these toxic pollutants that create smog. The presence of an extensive bus network can reduce the need for many separate trips by private vehicles in dense urban areas, reducing the amount of emissions producing vehicles. As more riders utilize public transportation, the per person emission production is significantly lessened. Increased gas prices and declines in economic development will contribute to an increase in riders which in turn provides an environmental benefit. Increased air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreases in travel demand and land conservation all save energy and minimize our carbon footprint. In a report released by the Texas Transportation Institute’s in 2007, they found that if public transportation service was discontinued nationwide and private vehicles were used instead, urban areas would have seen an increase in 541 million hours of delay and consumed 340 million more gallons of fuel (Shrank). This translates into an overall $10.2 billion congestion cost, a 13 percent increase over current levels exemplifying the economic benefit of an effective transportation system (Shrank). In 2014, congestion caused urban Americans to travel an extra 6.9 billion hours and purchase an extra 3.1 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $160 billion (Shrank). Tackling the congestion will allow us to confront some of the subsequent environmental challenges posed by the increased usage of private vehicles.