This is Part 2 of a two-part series on how Houston reimagined its bus network to better serve the actual demands of travelers throughout the city. Part 1 is here.
How does an underused bus system with circuitous routes become swift and contemporary?
Houston – or more properly, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas – found a workable answer to this question. The result provided service every 15 minutes on well-planned major routes, even on weekends.
Completing the transformation (as described in Part 1 of this series) required conceiving of the system as a machine that exists to serve, and that runs on, riders. Taking that view led to a multiyear planning process aimed at understanding what transit does best and creating routes and services that meet the needs of 21st-century Houstonians.
The planning process delivered a redesigned bus transit network that connects more than a million people to jobs, with twice as many potential riders as ever living or working within half a mile of a bus stop that is serviced every quarter-hour. The network also operates on a grid, eliminating suburb-to-suburb circles to allow for rapid, straight-line travel from home to work, shopping, or entertainment.
Positive change comes from the bottom up
Houston Metro board member Christof Spieler played a lead role in redesigning the bus system and shared several lessons learned.
He explained that success depends on asking, “What would our bus network look like if we started from a clean sheet of paper?” Doing this inspired a commitment to total redesign and invited input from all stakeholders. He stressed that getting ideas from riders early and late in the process was critical, but he also acknowledged that the wisdom of planners must be respected.
“Admitting our shortcomings” was important, Spieler said. “We actually said we have a lousy local bus service, and we think we can make it better.”
Facilitating discussions of what “good transit” would look like led to getting members of the public involved in defining specific goals “way before any maps were drawn.”
Efforts were made to reach “low-income families juggling kids, juggling multiple service jobs … people to whom transit most makes life better.” As discussed elsewhere by Mobility Lab, public meetings rarely suffice for learning the needs and concerns of all those who actually use buses.
Seeking local feedback on new bus transit maps matters as much as developing the new maps based on public input. Doing this in Houston led to adding routes serving hospitals and the employee entrances at airports. Most critically, public input was crucial to making weekend bus schedules the same as weekday schedules.
A final insight came through moving from stating the problem to developing and implementing solutions within two years.
“There is a real benefit to going into this with the idea of making changes quickly,” said Spieler. “A lot of transportation planning is on a 20-year timeframe. That’s a long time to wait.”
Creating a sense of urgency gives different parts of the network incentives to link up in efficient ways, he said.
Furthermore, “the level of public discussion” and input is very different when looking at immediate changes to bus routes. “People realize it will affect me in the short term.”
Provide leadership and rely on expertise
The grassroots must be cultivated to facilitate a total system change, but “you need to have a local champion,” said Houston Metro Vice President of Planning Kurt Luhrsen.
Changing the system is “long and its hard, and if someone’s not willing to stand up and defend it, you’re going to have a hard time,” he observed.
Proponents of change need to remind the public, as well as city leaders, “why you’re doing this, that ridership is falling,” that bus service is inadequate, traffic is interminable, and the situation must and can be improved.
Pushback and roadblocks will inevitably surface, and community members and local government need unity to follow through on proposed solutions. To keep on the straight-and-narrow road to success, it’s critical to set “really good goals and objectives,” Luhrsen said.
For this to happen, Luhrsen noted, public officials and planners need to be on the same page. Expertise cannot be discounted, and information cannot remain siloed. Understanding the reality that, and the ways in which, all parts of a transit system function as a network creates opportunities.
Amplifying this point, Spieler pointed to “things transit planners know that are just simple, absolute truths.” For instance, although “everybody in a perfect world would like a one-seat ride” with no change of buses, fulfilling this wish makes providing frequent service at high levels of ridership impossible. It falls upon planners to explain the hard tradeoffs that policymakers and members of the public must accept.
Spieler further explained that only experienced transit planners are qualified to draw transit maps. Despite public demand, it will never be possible to reach all affected groups. Planners must, therefore, “trust the data.”
As an example, Spieler pointed to how “census data that tells us people live here, real people we can serve” leads to mapping out routes that serve those most in need rather than those who speak the loudest. Balancing public input and specialized knowledge is tricky, but it must be done properly if a transit system redesign will succeed.
For their part, planners need to recognize that they are not the ultimate decision-makers. They must accept input on the basis of needs rather than any predetermined system or technology. To illustrate why this matters, Spieler pointed to arguments between advocates of light rail and proponents of bus rapid transit.
He called such a debate a blind alley that closes off the possibility of reaching effective decisions.
“We’ve had way too many discussions that start off with, ‘City X needs light rail,’” he said. “We should be having discussions about what kind of service do we need and what corridors do we need it in.” The solution should address needs for commute time, system reliability, and service frequency.
Spieler concluded, “If we answer those questions, the technology questions get a lot easier.”
Managing transit demand is the real goal
Spieler believes other jurisdictions can replicate at least some of Houston’s success, if the commitment is there.
Cities need to take their individual situations into account when deciding how to transition to a new bus system, of course, but the toolbox is bigger than ever. Replicating the ways Houston Metro approached improving bus service as just one aspect of solving the overall the metropolitan transportation problem.
In Houston, the transit agency is looking at repairing sidewalks and putting in bike paths and exploring partnerships with cab companies and ride-hailing services to bridge the first mile-last mile gap. Bus stop signage, lighting, and route maps are being improved. Even transit-oriented development is being introduced in zoning-averse Houston.
One area in which Houston is a bit lackadaisical is transportation demand management (TDM). The city does have a staff of three who work on issues such as subsidizing employees’ transit use and synchronizing park-and-rides with local business needs. Overall, though, “we’re not a real big TDM city,” Luhrsen said. “Houston is still big in oil and natural gas and everything that is derived from that.” As long as incessant use of fossil fuels is assumed, trains and buses must work extra hard, in difficult service, to improve service.
In today’s environment, a transit network is never complete.