[Chamo]

Public comment period started June 1 and goes until July 2

The 2035 RTP

[Trae]

We need more rail lines. This time, build them like DART and have them in their own dedicated lane AND at least have them change grades with major intersections. Why not close some streets Downtown, and have rail run on them?

[musicman]

Trae, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 5:57pm, said:

Why not close some streets Downtown, and have rail run on them?

traffic would have to cross. it's not as easy as you think.

[Double L]

I read this when it first came out. I was hoping soemone would post it on HAIF. Only one project on here for my area. FM 1488 expanding to 4 lanes, we've needed that one for a while now.

[Trae]

musicman, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 6:07pm, said:

traffic would have to cross. it's not as easy as you think.

How'd they do it up in Dallas then? Not a lot of Downtown traffic? I hate the way METRORail operates on Main Street. Having its own dedicated right of way would be best.

[musicman]

Trae, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 6:28pm, said:

How'd they do it up in Dallas then? Not a lot of Downtown traffic? I hate the way METRORail operates on Main Street. Having its own dedicated right of way would be best.

let's cut the east side of downtown off from the west side......yeah that's doable.

[editor]

Trae, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 6:28pm, said:

How'd they do it up in Dallas then? Not a lot of Downtown traffic? I hate the way METRORail operates on Main Street. Having its own dedicated right of way would be best.

Minneapolis doesn't seem to have a problem with its light rail crossing traffic. I'd say the tracks cross streets in downtown at least 30 times, probably more. Having walked across both, I'd say MPLS and Houston have about the same sized downtown.

[ricco67]

musicman, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 6:34pm, said:

let's cut the east side of downtown off from the west side......yeah that's doable.

If you have a better idea, then let's hear it.


I wouldn't mind main (or any other street downtown) being shut down and used exclusively for additional rail or bus/emergency vehicles. Since Metro (last time I went to one of their meetings) were contemplating a tunnel/subway for light rail downtown, it wont be that big of an issue.

The Hiawatha line doesn't seem to be causing any problems with cross traffic, nor is Phoenix. New Orleans hasn't had much of an issue either when their lines were running.

[TheNiche]

Trae, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 6:28pm, said:

How'd they do it up in Dallas then? Not a lot of Downtown traffic? I hate the way METRORail operates on Main Street. Having its own dedicated right of way would be best.

In Dallas, it is almost entirely grade-seperated except in the Central Business District, where it comingles with traffic in a way similar to ours. Our configuration downtown is OK; the configurations in Midtown, the Museum District, the TMC, and at the South Loop are problematic for various reasons.

[TheNiche]

ricco67, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 7:33pm, said:

I wouldn't mind main (or any other street downtown) being shut down and used exclusively for additional rail or bus/emergency vehicles. Since Metro (last time I went to one of their meetings) were contemplating a tunnel/subway for light rail downtown, it wont be that big of an issue.

The Hiawatha line doesn't seem to be causing any problems with cross traffic, nor is Phoenix. New Orleans hasn't had much of an issue either when their lines were running.

Shutting down a street in downtown is problematic because it creates vehicular access problems in some locations. Ideas like that work very well in master-planned urban environments, where you're building from scratch, but implementing them in urban environments that are already existing and that were built to interact with a street grid is frequently infeasible.

And I think musicman's negative reaction to the idea was founded in the phrase "dedicated right of way," which in the absence of either the words "elevated" or "subway" requires that no cars be allowed to travel on or across Main Street. If you couldn't cross Main, that would be a disaster.

[GovernorAggie]

musicman, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 6:34pm, said:

let's cut the east side of downtown off from the west side......yeah that's doable.

You mean like how one side of Sugar Land is cut off from the other by UP? Or how one side of Tomball is cut off from the other by the freight tracks? We're not talking about a wall being built. When I think "cut off" I think of Third Ward being cut-off from Midtown by 288. Now THAT'S a cut-off.

[Double L]

To me, the only way to solve our automobile safety issues with ground light rail is to make it an elevated system. That way it will no longer interact with the ground level. Unless somebody out there finds a way to crash their car into the columns of the elevated track, then there shouldn't be a problem...

This post has been edited by Double L: Saturday, June 9, 2007 at 10:55 PM

[FoUTASportscaster]

musicman, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 6:34pm, said:

let's cut the east side of downtown off from the west side......yeah that's doable.

Speaking from real world experience, passenger rail lines do not do what you say. Here in Dallas, there is no division like freeways do. There is no north or south divide as there is a clear uptown downtown divide that Woodall Rogers does. What is does do is use the land more efficiently to move people and make urban living more efficient in the process. Denver and Portland are other crystal clear examples where the above statement doesn't apply.

TheNiche, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 10:19pm, said:

Shutting down a street in downtown is problematic because it creates vehicular access problems in some locations. Ideas like that work very well in master-planned urban environments, where you're building from scratch, but implementing them in urban environments that are already existing and that were built to interact with a street grid is frequently infeasible.

And I think musicman's negative reaction to the idea was founded in the phrase "dedicated right of way," which in the absence of either the words "elevated" or "subway" requires that no cars be allowed to travel on or across Main Street. If you couldn't cross Main, that would be a disaster.

I again have to disagree with the honorable TheNiche. Urban environs are perfectly suited to handle a closure of a street. With its square street grid and many possible alternatives, it is easy. Here in Dallas, Bryan Street is closed completely to through traffic and the few garages that opened onto Bryan have a dedicated lane to open to the nearest compatible street. There is on ly one stretch that runs a block, and it goes from Field to Griffin.

There are 15 intersections where the LRT and auto traffic crosses. It is not difficult at all. DART's LRT transit mall is dedicated ROW for the rail line, and it works very well. If applied properly, it is done very well.

[musicman]

ricco67, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 7:33pm, said:

If you have a better idea, then let's hear it.
I wouldn't mind main (or any other street downtown) being shut down and used exclusively for additional rail or bus/emergency vehicles. Since Metro (last time I went to one of their meetings) were contemplating a tunnel/subway for light rail downtown, it wont be that big of an issue.

The Hiawatha line doesn't seem to be causing any problems with cross traffic, nor is Phoenix. New Orleans hasn't had much of an issue either when their lines were running.

to have exclusive access IMO means no other vehicles except the LRT will be able to come in contact with the rails themselves which means vehicles won't be able to cross from one side to the other. in a downtown area this would cripple the area by limiting access. how would you get to the county courts from city hall without crossing the tracks?

METRO hasn't done any grade separation which is the ultimate solution but instead has put the LRT at street level causing problems like 1) limiting access which results in longer drive times 2) more traffic is forced onto fewer streets which results in longer drive times.

we have not yet experienced METRO's LRT design in the neighborhood setting which would affect it 7 days/week. currently the majority of those who are affected are those that live/work in the med center and downtown only. for houston's population as a whole this is a small number. this is more like 5day/week during peak times. on weekends, many areas along the current rail are relatively dead. now imagine traffic at richmond and kirby for the new richmond line. since METRO doesn't plan on elevating the line at this intersection it will affect traffic. how? 1) most likely the number of lanes on richmond will be lowered resulting in longer drive times. 2) access will be limited which results in longer drive times 3) at the intersection, timing as a result of the passing train will mean that all directions the lights will turn red to allow the train to go by. at rush hr, how will this affect traffic? longer drive times. but now remember that this intersection is busy all the time because it is located in a neighborhood which are 7day/week type of activity.

it is ciritical for METRO to design a system that doesn't dramatically change the current traffic patterns because it is a system built after the fact. it must support current traffic patterns otherwise it will most like do more harm than good.

GovernorAggie, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 10:53pm, said:

You mean like how one side of Sugar Land is cut off from the other by UP? Or how one side of Tomball is cut off from the other by the freight tracks?

no i don't. the current megagrowth of sugarland/tomball is designed around the tracks.

FoUTASportscaster, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 11:16pm, said:

Speaking from real world experience, passenger rail lines do not do what you say. Here in Dallas, there is no division like freeways do.

Trae suggested that main street been closed off completely to all vehicular access. that is what i was responding to. if there cannot be vehicular access across the line then the area will be divided.

[musicman]

FoUTASportscaster, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 11:16pm, said:

I again have to disagree with the honorable TheNiche. Urban environs are perfectly suited to handle a closure of a street. With its square street grid and many possible alternatives, it is easy.

a street closure can be handled yes IF a proper alternative was designed. METRO here has done quite a bit to limit access to the tracks, which in turn adds to the drive time in general for those who drive in the area. the area where i think some major access damage was done is the area between binz and 59. if i was by lawndale art center and want to hit the genealogy library (name escapes me a the moment) in the old days i could take any number of side streets (wichita, oakdale, etc) and cross over to caroline where the library is. the only street with traffic signals had limited access from main (you can't take a left onto southmore which also goes to caroline). post rail, all the side streets but southmore are cut off due to rail crossings except for southmore, which you can't make a left turn onto from Main. so you either do some zigzagging to make it to southmore or you go to binz and come back up caroline.

it is fine IF you're familar with the quirks of the area. i am familiar with them. but to be honest most drivers don't normally go in the area and you see some interesting things sometimes from drivers who are unfamiliar. late last yr a friend and i went to the museum of fina arts. she drove. when we left she was on binz and i told her to make a left onto san jac (heading north). before i knew it she was on the lane where the train runs. of course i freaked and told her to get off ASAP. she went over the concrete dots. LOL since im familar i would have never done that but she said i saw the concrete dots and though i should get to the right of it so she did!

i still see drivers regularly make a left onto blodgett from the 59 fannin exit even though it is now a one way in the other direction.

what is the point, yes a street closure can be handled but sometimes it's designed so poorly that it creates more confusion for those not familar with the area. i know my mom won't go to the flower shops in the area anymore unless i drive because she just doesn't go there enough to be familiar with the changes. she's 67 and lived here all her life and still remembers how it was not how it is.

This post has been edited by musicman: Saturday, June 9, 2007 at 11:54 PM

[Transit Nut]

Note the title of this thread.

http://www.2035plan.org/

[TheNiche]

FoUTASportscaster, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 11:16pm, said:

There are 15 intersections where the LRT and auto traffic crosses. It is not difficult at all. DART's LRT transit mall is dedicated ROW for the rail line, and it works very well. If applied properly, it is done very well.

I'm not very familiar with DT Dallas or the purpose of the street closure, so I'm at a loss to try and make either a judgement or comparison.

FoUTASportscaster, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 @ 11:16pm, said:

There are 15 intersections where the LRT and auto traffic crosses. It is not difficult at all. DART's LRT transit mall is dedicated ROW for the rail line, and it works very well. If applied properly, it is done very well.

It sounds kind of similar to the setup in DT Houston, which I agree is workable, if not necessarily optimal.

[GovernorAggie]

Transit Nut, on Sunday, June 10th, 2007 @ 11:33am, said:

Note the title of this thread.

http://www.2035plan.org/

Forget it Transit Nut. Metro's spending in this plan is minute compared to TxDOT, HCTRA, and the like. But Metro is ALWAYS the subject du jour.

[lockmat]

Quote

As a result of Envision Houston Region, the 2035 RTP promotes a 3Cs
development strategy: Centers, Connections and Context. This strategy
supports transit, pedestrian and bicycle options and ties transportation to
surrounding land uses. The 2035 RTP supports:

 $68 million for livable centers projects from 2008-2011
 $20 million of additional support for long-range livable centers projects
 $274 million in bicycle and pedestrian improvements

It supports it? What's all this $68, 20 and 274 million dollar talk if they just "support" it?