In DC, we need a metro

[Slick Vik]

So I've been in DC the past week or so, pretty impressed with the METRO system. It's the most recent of the major systems to be built domestically, so it goes to show if there's a will there's a way. Any comparison between bus and rail is laughable. If it's built, people will ride it. I'm so tired of the excuses I think honestly people against haven't been on a system and experienced its benefits. However many billion it costs houston deserves such a system.

[UtterlyUrban]

I agree.

Houston needs local commuter rail (heavy and light). The State needs HSR connecting cities. And the Country needs both.

[placoors]

I ride the subway and bus here everyday and agree that it is a great system but it is expensive and there are frequent problems with delayed trains, single tracking, cracked rails, speed restrictions, smoke shutting down subway stations, broken elevators and escalators that make many locals not want to ride the system.  I'm not sure how much of this can be experienced in a week but over time it can really add up.

 

I follow @unsuckdcmetro on twitter and it does a great job of showing the daily problems that can be experienced while riding Metro.

[ToryGattis]

Federal dollars were available for a heavy rail system in the nation's capital that aren't available anywhere else.  Also helps that the feds force almost all government employment into the core downtown - not the case in Houston.

[IronTiger]

The Washington DC Metro, if I recall correctly, was developed instead of a comprehensive freeway plan, thus where at least some of the funds came from. I don't know, based on current congestion and traffic patterns, if this actually was better in the long run, but it would've mucked with the L'Enfant's city plan.

[mollusk]

(***sigh...***)

 

I haven't done the research to back this up, but I'll be willing to bet that the cracked rails, etc., etc. are a result of what is euphemistically called "deferred maintenance" (in other words, "we don't have the available cash so we can't do routine preventative maintenance.  We can, however, sometimes get the greater amount of cash to fix what's broken").

 

This is the same sort of penny wise and pound foolish result of "limited gummint spending" that also sends bridges into the Mississippi, etc., etc.

 

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1904

[placoors]

A lot of the problems are because of deferrred mainenance and Metro is in the middle of a five year plan to get a lot of the track work done at night and on the weekends to not interrrupt rush hour travel during the weekday.  The extended wait times for trains on the weekends and the single tracking issues make it almost imposible to use the system on the weekend if you are trying to stay on any sort of schedule.  It is nice to see the progress that is being made and hopefully over the next three years the upgraded infrastructure and the hundereds of new trains that have been ordered will help cut down on the daily delays seen during rush hour.

[Triton]

When I hear subway, I think of tunnels under the ground and a lot of people say that well we can't do that in Houston because of the swampish land and the hurricane threats. Now see I don't understand that because we already have lowered freeways like Highway 59 near downtown. Why not apply the same thing, lay track on the lowered section and simply have a concrete roof on top to allow perhaps a park or Street or something else on top? Makes sense to me. That way we increase the speed of our transportation and remove the at-grade rail traffic.

[BigFootsSocks]

Because it would be a lot more costly to provide the adequate pumps in case of flooding.

I also think it has to do with the soil conditions.

[mfastx]

DC's system is a perfect example of how you don't have to have a 100 year old rail system to get high ridership. 

 

They built it completely from scratch.  Obviously in Houston the system would look a bit different, not all the lines would converge downtown like they do in DC. 

 

It's too bad we missed out on our opportunity to begin building a comparable system in 1983.  

[jt16]

I think I'm the only person in Houston that thinks dedicated bus lanes would be the best option.  Right now it's either build rail or put buses in main lanes of traffic.  A dedicated bus lane would accomplish the same as commuter rail (faster travel in town) while also providing flexible traffic control.  If the rail line experiences problems, you shut the entire line down.  If a dedicated bus lane has a problem, they're buses.  Move them to the main lanes temporarily.  I would ride a bus into downtown if I didn't have to sit in the same traffic as everyone else. 

[IronTiger]

Because it would be a lot more costly to provide the adequate pumps in case of flooding.

I also think it has to do with the soil conditions.

Well, remember that the Allison flooding was one of those "100-year-flood" events, as was Sandy, which flooded the NYC subways. As for soil conditions, I believe it would be because it's generally wet (close to sea level). But...doesn't Amsterdam have a subway AND it's below sea level (or if not, just a bit above it?)

Therefore, either of those, I think would be a non-issue.

Also, even if something like a Washington DC Metro was created, I found it interesting that as the crow flies, it only goes about 17.4 miles out at its longest line (the Red Line going northwest, which at least seemed to be going out the longest way as of the 1998 map—I had newer ones, but I felt that a 1998 map would be a better estimate if it didn't take into account line extensions). Comparing that to Houston, if we're going northwest from downtown, we would be roughly at FM 1960/290, which if we're going to the Eastern Seaboard Way, we'd need a commuter rail to go even longer distances.

Then I compared that to the *allas light rail (see what I did there?), which goes 18 miles on a line that goes northeast. A trip takes about 40 minutes. At D.C., a trip from Shady Grove (on the Red Line) to Metro Central (which *isn't* all the way to the Mall, due to the fact that the Red Line doesn't go that way) is just about 30 minutes (which isn't that much of a time savings, assuming that the Red Line went all the way to such).

Where D.C. thrives and *allas fails is that they're built on a model that people want to go to downtown to suburbs and vice-versa, which isn't quite how cities here in Texas were built and developed. (California also developed much earlier than Texas did)

tl;dr A true "metro" with a traditional "lines radiating out of a center point" would be kind of cool but impractical (but technologically possible, make no mistake) and just be a massive money sink. I personally think that had the 1983 heavy-rail system actually been approved by voters, it wouldn't start construction for a few years, and the bust could've scuttled it indefinitely until it was scrapped due to budget cuts or killed off by politicians. Nothing would change, and you'd still be blaming Lanier for his crimes against rail.

[BigFootsSocks]

Well that's the end of a thread.

[Slick Vik]

I think I'm the only person in Houston that thinks dedicated bus lanes would be the best option. Right now it's either build rail or put buses in main lanes of traffic. A dedicated bus lane would accomplish the same as commuter rail (faster travel in town) while also providing flexible traffic control. If the rail line experiences problems, you shut the entire line down. If a dedicated bus lane has a problem, they're buses. Move them to the main lanes temporarily. I would ride a bus into downtown if I didn't have to sit in the same traffic as everyone else.

It's a good option but not the best. But I would take it over regular bus service for sure

[Slick Vik]

Well, remember that the Allison flooding was one of those "100-year-flood" events, as was Sandy, which flooded the NYC subways. As for soil conditions, I believe it would be because it's generally wet (close to sea level). But...doesn't Amsterdam have a subway AND it's below sea level (or if not, just a bit above it?)

Therefore, either of those, I think would be a non-issue.

Also, even if something like a Washington DC Metro was created, I found it interesting that as the crow flies, it only goes about 17.4 miles out at its longest line (the Red Line going northwest, which at least seemed to be going out the longest way as of the 1998 map—I had newer ones, but I felt that a 1998 map would be a better estimate if it didn't take into account line extensions). Comparing that to Houston, if we're going northwest from downtown, we would be roughly at FM 1960/290, which if we're going to the Eastern Seaboard Way, we'd need a commuter rail to go even longer distances.

Then I compared that to the *allas light rail (see what I did there?), which goes 18 miles on a line that goes northeast. A trip takes about 40 minutes. At D.C., a trip from Shady Grove (on the Red Line) to Metro Central (which *isn't* all the way to the Mall, due to the fact that the Red Line doesn't go that way) is just about 30 minutes (which isn't that much of a time savings, assuming that the Red Line went all the way to such).

Where D.C. thrives and *allas fails is that they're built on a model that people want to go to downtown to suburbs and vice-versa, which isn't quite how cities here in Texas were built and developed. (California also developed much earlier than Texas did)

tl;dr A true "metro" with a traditional "lines radiating out of a center point" would be kind of cool but impractical (but technologically possible, make no mistake) and just be a massive money sink. I personally think that had the 1983 heavy-rail system actually been approved by voters, it wouldn't start construction for a few years, and the bust could've scuttled it indefinitely until it was scrapped due to budget cuts or killed off by politicians. Nothing would change, and you'd still be blaming Lanier for his crimes against rail.

Look at a metro system like Madrid or Barcelona or Mexico City or countless others which have lines not just going to the center. A proper system could be made for houston and it would a huge step up for the city.

[ADCS]

I think I'm the only person in Houston that thinks dedicated bus lanes would be the best option.  Right now it's either build rail or put buses in main lanes of traffic.  A dedicated bus lane would accomplish the same as commuter rail (faster travel in town) while also providing flexible traffic control.  If the rail line experiences problems, you shut the entire line down.  If a dedicated bus lane has a problem, they're buses.  Move them to the main lanes temporarily.  I would ride a bus into downtown if I didn't have to sit in the same traffic as everyone else. 

 

These already exist. They're called the HOV lanes.

 

Seriously, that's what they were designed to do - be a commuter line that went faster than rush hour traffic. It's why they were able to build all those heavy grade-separated interchanges from the HOV lane to transit centers - they could get extra Metro cash for being regional transit solutions.

 

This getting overlooked demonstrates the relative ineffectiveness of this approach.

[jt16]

These already exist. They're called the HOV lanes.

Seriously, that's what they were designed to do - be a commuter line that went faster than rush hour traffic. It's why they were able to build all those heavy grade-separated interchanges from the HOV lane to transit centers - they could get extra Metro cash for being regional transit solutions.

This getting overlooked demonstrates the relative ineffectiveness of this approach.

Those aren't drdicated to buses. That's my point

[tigereye]

These already exist. They're called the HOV lanes.

Seriously, that's what they were designed to do - be a commuter line that went faster than rush hour traffic. It's why they were able to build all those heavy grade-separated interchanges from the HOV lane to transit centers - they could get extra Metro cash for being regional transit solutions.

This getting overlooked demonstrates the relative ineffectiveness of this approach.

Except the commuter bus line (HOV) doesn't work when the bus gets stuck in traffic in its own singular HOV lane it shares with multiple-occupancy vehicles. Or in the case of I-10 & 290 lines, mainland traffic (since there's no dedicated HOV land inside the loop.

HOV is just an inferior, cheaper option of Commuter Rail service. And that sums up Houston transit options currently... Inferior horseshit. But HOV bus does show that Commuter Rail could work here, considering its ridership. More suburbanites would likely consider it if there was a more time efficient & reliable option available (grade separated Commuter Rail).

Light rail is just not as effective in shortening commute times traveling to far reaching suburban areas at slow speeds (DART's mistake). Light rail here in Houston should really only be confined to serving shorter routes inside the loop. It's probably too late to start elevated light rail, which would likely be the best form of grade separation considering the flooding fears. So continue its on-street expansion (or elevate future lines) while establishing a connected Commuter Rail service to effectively serve the far-reaching suburbs.

[IronTiger]

Except the commuter bus line (HOV) doesn't work when the bus gets stuck in traffic in its own singular HOV lane it shares with multiple-occupancy vehicles. Or in the case of I-10 & 290 lines, mainland traffic (since there's no dedicated HOV land inside the loop.

HOV is just an inferior, cheaper option of Commuter Rail service. And that sums up Houston transit options currently... Inferior horseshit. But HOV bus does show that Commuter Rail could work here, considering its ridership. More suburbanites would likely consider it if there was a more time efficient & reliable option available (grade separated Commuter Rail).

Light rail is just not as effective in shortening commute times traveling to far reaching suburban areas at slow speeds (DART's mistake). Light rail here in Houston should really only be confined to serving shorter routes inside the loop. It's probably too late to start elevated light rail, which would likely be the best form of grade separation considering the flooding fears. So continue its on-street expansion (or elevate future lines) while establishing a connected Commuter Rail service to effectively serve the far-reaching suburbs.

I don't know what you're trying to stir up, but HOV/HOT lanes are completely different than commuter rail service, and that's akin to saying that roads are just "inferior, cheaper" versions of highways, which they aren't. Anyone can tell you that.

That said, the big problem with most of the HOV/HOT lanes is that it's only one lane, which is not effective in any case (after all, can you imagine a single-track commuter rail?), and no, it's not the same thing as a dedicated bus lane (like a BRT lane). I do know that in parts of the Museum District, the outermost lane is reserved for buses (unless you're turning right), which would cut down on some of the problems I imagine.

Furthermore, DART's mistake was going out to places that aren't really conducive to where people want to go, and part of that is the fact that not everyone wants to go downtown, and part of that is the fact that Dallas isn't dense enough to reach critical mass on rail service (though that isn't necessarily a bad thing, nobody really likes packed train cars). But the DC Metro and DART are both comparable in total travel times (or at least with my rough calculations), and anyone concerned about total travel times shouldn't be talking about commuter rail as that would drag out the commute even longer (transfers too).

[Slick Vik]

I don't know what you're trying to stir up, but HOV/HOT lanes are completely different than commuter rail service, and that's akin to saying that roads are just "inferior, cheaper" versions of highways, which they aren't. Anyone can tell you that.

That said, the big problem with most of the HOV/HOT lanes is that it's only one lane, which is not effective in any case (after all, can you imagine a single-track commuter rail?), and no, it's not the same thing as a dedicated bus lane (like a BRT lane). I do know that in parts of the Museum District, the outermost lane is reserved for buses (unless you're turning right), which would cut down on some of the problems I imagine.

Furthermore, DART's mistake was going out to places that aren't really conducive to where people want to go, and part of that is the fact that not everyone wants to go downtown, and part of that is the fact that Dallas isn't dense enough to reach critical mass on rail service (though that isn't necessarily a bad thing, nobody really likes packed train cars). But the DC Metro and DART are both comparable in total travel times (or at least with my rough calculations), and anyone concerned about total travel times shouldn't be talking about commuter rail as that would drag out the commute even longer (transfers too).

1. The reserved right lanes are full of cars day and night.

2. DART used available ROW because it was fastest and cheapest.

[ADCS]

That said, the big problem with most of the HOV/HOT lanes is that it's only one lane, which is not effective in any case (after all, can you imagine a single-track commuter rail?), and no, it's not the same thing as a dedicated bus lane (like a BRT lane).

 

I actually agree that the HOV lanes are inferior, and that we'd be better off with commuter rail. However, that wasn't what was chosen back when the decision to construct the HOV lanes was originally made, which given the context, isn't entirely surprising.

 

It could be argued that the HOV lanes as they exist are more efficient than bus-only lanes, since more of the capacity is used at peak times, and the HOT lanes even more so, as capacity is never lost, but always managed.

 

BTW, there are plenty of single-tracked commuter lines, usually on branch routes.

[Sparrow]

 

It could be argued that the HOV lanes as they exist are more efficient than bus-only lanes, since more of the capacity is used at peak times, and the HOT lanes even more so, as capacity is never lost, but always managed.

 

 

The HOV/HOT lanes are very efficient. But, they could be better utilized by extending hours and not restricting use to business days. Why not leave the single lane HOT/HOV open to Downtown-bound traffic all weekend long? It would already be configured for Monday morning traffic.

 

That being said, having a 24 hour HOT/HOV in each direction would be much more efficient than the current one lane system.

[IronTiger]

I actually agree that the HOV lanes are inferior, and that we'd be better off with commuter rail. However, that wasn't what was chosen back when the decision to construct the HOV lanes was originally made, which given the context, isn't entirely surprising.

 

It could be argued that the HOV lanes as they exist are more efficient than bus-only lanes, since more of the capacity is used at peak times, and the HOT lanes even more so, as capacity is never lost, but always managed.

 

BTW, there are plenty of single-tracked commuter lines, usually on branch routes.

Part of my argument was that it seems to me that in terms of time and distance (and maybe there's differences here in stations that would account for this, it isn't an airtight comparison) that a fully-grade-separated heavy rail system like the Washington DC Metro isn't a whole lot different than a partially grade-separated system like DART, and granted, in the Red Line, there is a significant portion of elevated and below-ground. Personally, I'd love to see light rail go out to FM 1960 on the Northwest portion, as well as paralleling Westpark Tollway (which METRO took half of the ROW of for that very purpose).

As for commuter rail, the Northern Virginia Commuter Rail that connects the suburbs to Washington DC's Union Station is 90 miles long. Guess what's also 90 miles? Downtown to College Station. Connecting CS to Houston makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, but there's not enough dense stuff between that to make it worthwhile. I imagine even you hardcore railfans will find the prospect of linking College Station to commuter rail dubious, but for what it's worth, I think it's a nice thought, just not an economical one.

[ADCS]

Part of my argument was that it seems to me that in terms of time and distance (and maybe there's differences here in stations that would account for this, it isn't an airtight comparison) that a fully-grade-separated heavy rail system like the Washington DC Metro isn't a whole lot different than a partially grade-separated system like DART, and granted, in the Red Line, there is a significant portion of elevated and below-ground. Personally, I'd love to see light rail go out to FM 1960 on the Northwest portion, as well as paralleling Westpark Tollway (which METRO took half of the ROW of for that very purpose).

As for commuter rail, the Northern Virginia Commuter Rail that connects the suburbs to Washington DC's Union Station is 90 miles long. Guess what's also 90 miles? Downtown to College Station. Connecting CS to Houston makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, but there's not enough dense stuff between that to make it worthwhile. I imagine even you hardcore railfans will find the prospect of linking College Station to commuter rail dubious, but for what it's worth, I think it's a nice thought, just not an economical one.

 

I think it would be worthwhile too, especially if the route were a 125 mph train that goes via Conroe and The Woodlands. Would be a no-brainer to directly connect A&M with its relatively largest student base. Add the airport and you'd really be cooking.

 

Might need to convince Brazos County to merge with Grimes County in the process, though.

[Spades]

Part of my argument was that it seems to me that in terms of time and distance (and maybe there's differences here in stations that would account for this, it isn't an airtight comparison) that a fully-grade-separated heavy rail system like the Washington DC Metro isn't a whole lot different than a partially grade-separated system like DART, and granted, in the Red Line, there is a significant portion of elevated and below-ground. Personally, I'd love to see light rail go out to FM 1960 on the Northwest portion, as well as paralleling Westpark Tollway (which METRO took half of the ROW of for that very purpose).

As for commuter rail, the Northern Virginia Commuter Rail that connects the suburbs to Washington DC's Union Station is 90 miles long. Guess what's also 90 miles? Downtown to College Station. Connecting CS to Houston makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, but there's not enough dense stuff between that to make it worthwhile. I imagine even you hardcore railfans will find the prospect of linking College Station to commuter rail dubious, but for what it's worth, I think it's a nice thought, just not an economical one.

 

 

Are you talking about the VRE? Because I don't think it goes that long. The longest is about 55 miles from Fredericksburg to Union Station. If it was 90 miles, it would reach Richmond. Still I agree with you. I don't ever see any type of commuter rail between College Station and Houston. Well not in our lifetime.

[Slick Vik]

Part of my argument was that it seems to me that in terms of time and distance (and maybe there's differences here in stations that would account for this, it isn't an airtight comparison) that a fully-grade-separated heavy rail system like the Washington DC Metro isn't a whole lot different than a partially grade-separated system like DART, and granted, in the Red Line, there is a significant portion of elevated and below-ground. Personally, I'd love to see light rail go out to FM 1960 on the Northwest portion, as well as paralleling Westpark Tollway (which METRO took half of the ROW of for that very purpose).

As for commuter rail, the Northern Virginia Commuter Rail that connects the suburbs to Washington DC's Union Station is 90 miles long. Guess what's also 90 miles? Downtown to College Station. Connecting CS to Houston makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, but there's not enough dense stuff between that to make it worthwhile. I imagine even you hardcore railfans will find the prospect of linking College Station to commuter rail dubious, but for what it's worth, I think it's a nice thought, just not an economical one.

Lol. Dart usually has 2 train cars while DC has 6-8 (my unofficial observation). Also dc metro runs WAY more often. I didn't have to wait more than 5 minutes for a single train while there. I agree from a distance perspective maybe timing is the same but ridership is much higher on DC metro because it goes where people want to go frequently and is a underground so no worries of traffic lights or crossings.

And please stop bringing up college station every other argument. I get that you live there but it's so irrelevant to this argument and I don't think it's nearly as important as you think it is.

[samagon]

When I hear subway, I think of tunnels under the ground and a lot of people say that well we can't do that in Houston because of the swampish land and the hurricane threats. Now see I don't understand that because we already have lowered freeways like Highway 59 near downtown. Why not apply the same thing, lay track on the lowered section and simply have a concrete roof on top to allow perhaps a park or Street or something else on top? Makes sense to me. That way we increase the speed of our transportation and remove the at-grade rail traffic.

 

Not true, look to Amsterdam for an example. They are below sea level to begin with, their soil is much mushier than our own. They make it work.

[mollusk]

Not true, look to Amsterdam for an example. They are below sea level to begin with, their soil is much mushier than our own. They make it work.

 

But Amsterdam (and the Netherlands in general) also has a significantly more robust method of dealing with storm surges.  As for Sandy and New York, all that salt water did no favors to the subway tunnels whatsoever.

[IronTiger]

Are you talking about the VRE? Because I don't think it goes that long. The longest is about 55 miles from Fredericksburg to Union Station. If it was 90 miles, it would reach Richmond. Still I agree with you. I don't ever see any type of commuter rail between College Station and Houston. Well not in our lifetime.

Ah, my mistake. 90 miles is the entire system (I just worked a night shift. Excuse me.) Richmond isn't the best way to calculate that since the railroad would have to loop back from downtown.

If we're going northwest, then 55 miles would only go a bit north of Hempstead. And yes, the D.C. METRO does have more cars and a higher capacity, but the trade-off is the higher cost (mostly the stations, which would have to be longer and no longer allow for at-grade crossings at the stations).

In any case, I fail to see how a drastically more expensive system would equal significantly higher ridership, which is what you seem to be advocating. Anything else would be another one of those "Why is there no more rail in Houston" threads, which I personally am sick of.

[mfastx]

The issue with the HOV lanes is that while lots of people use them, METRO was on the hook for construction costs.  Which was close to a billion dollars. 

 

The HOV lanes carry buses that generate about 30,000 riders/day.  I really wish that TxDOT picked up most of the tab for these lanes, as they are utilized well by drivers, but not necessarily P&R buses.  If METRO had constructed a $1 billion commuter rail system that only got around 30,000 daily riders (less than the original Red Line which cost $300 million) there'd be outrage.