METRORail Green Line

[kylejack]

And I realize that the long-term consequences are that there aren't very many dense neighborhoods (that anybody would want to live in). That's fine, though. A world with an unsatisfied minority shaped by their peers' consumer preferences is vastly preferable to a world with an unsatisfied majority shaped by despotism.

Except that fuel exhaustion is approaching and mass transit can ease the transition to renewable sources of energy.

[TheNiche]

Except that fuel exhaustion is approaching and mass transit can ease the transition to renewable sources of energy.

Haha, yeah, and the boogey man sleeps under your bed at night.

Transit runs on energy, too. It's a different side of the same coin.

[DrLan34]

Anyone here anything about the timeline for the rails since the $92 million stimulus amount was revealed?

[kylejack]

Haha, yeah, and the boogey man sleeps under your bed at night.

Transit runs on energy, too. It's a different side of the same coin.

Correct, but mass transit is cheaper per person per trip, so when gas is 20 dollars a gallon mass transit can be much more affordable.

[TheNiche]

Correct, but mass transit is cheaper per person per trip, so when gas is 20 dollars a gallon mass transit can be much more affordable.

Gas won't get to be that high-priced. There are numerous alternative fuels for cars that would no doubt catch on and diminish demand for gasoline, creating a new equilibrium price threshold for automotive fuels. Think about propane, methanol, biodiesel, electricity, hydrogen, natural gas, P-Series, solar fuel, CNG cylinder, vapor bag assembly, et al. High fuel prices will also spur investment on programs to allow vehicles to automatically drive themselves; take human behavior out of the equation and traffic can maintain more consistent speeds and use less fuel per mile, as well as dramatically increase the capacity of existing roadway infrastructure.

Even if the feedstock for gasoline (oil) did rally in price so as to dectuple the price of gasoline--which isn't looking especially realistic for any kind of foreseeable future--as the price of oil increases, the number of proven, probable, and possible reserves would increase to reflect that they have become economically recoverable, and the price would also generate an incentive for additional oil exploration so as to find new reserves. This is tricky and usually misreported subject matter, so if there's something in this explanation that doesn't make sense to you, read up on how oil reserves are calculated.

One way or another, I can absolutely assure you that no national politician in his right mind would dare to cross suburban homeowners in circumstances like those. One way or another, an alternative to gasoline would be found. The suburbs are in no danger of being abandoned because of fuel price increases.

EDIT: Oh, and the fuel efficiency of mass transit depends on what kind of transit infrastructure you're talking about and also on capacity utilization. Be careful with those ill-defined statements.

Edited February 20, 2009 by TheNiche

[kylejack]

Gas won't get to be that high-priced.

Of course it will, some day. It went from a dollar to four in something like 6 years before falling back, and all the spending in Congress is going to set loose some massive inflation.

EDIT: Oh, and the fuel efficiency of mass transit depends on what kind of transit infrastructure you're talking about and also on capacity utilization. Be careful with those ill-defined statements.

Alright, well I am talking about light rail in Houston, which is used heavily.

[TheNiche]

Of course it will, some day. It went from a dollar to four in something like 6 years before falling back, and all the spending in Congress is going to set loose some massive inflation.

No, it's very unlikely that gasoline will ever cost that much in real terms, and I already described why in my previous post. Go back and read it, digest what I'm saying, then rebut--or quit repeating unsupported assertions.

Also, the consequence of inflation is that everything costs more, including labor. When the rising cost of a commodity is matched by rising incomes, the price in real terms haven't actually changed.

Alright, well I am talking about light rail in Houston, which is used heavily.

Most of the passengers on light rail are transferring within the bus system or originate from the outlying TMC parking lots which were formerly served solely by shuttles. Before the Red Line there were many more TMC shuttles and many bus routes were continuous along or near the path of the Red Line into downtown and even beyond into a whole other part of the city; it did not necessitate a transfer by bus riders between modes. The Red Line is a case where the geography of Houston made it low-hanging fruit, and even then it is a case where one mode of transit displaced another. In no way does it follow that all these Red Line users represent people who otherwise would've relied on single-occupant vehicles.

[kylejack]

Also, the consequence of inflation is that everything costs more, including labor. When the rising cost of a commodity is matched by rising incomes, the price in real terms haven't actually changed.

Except that real income has been decreasing for a long time and few people's raises keep pace with inflation, especially when rampant deficit spending pushes inflation to absurd levels.

Most of the passengers on light rail are transferring within the bus system or originate from the outlying TMC parking lots which were formerly served solely by shuttles.

I am sorry, but that is not correct. I commute from downtown to TMC every day and it is busy much of the day, yes, the outbound path. During morning rush hour it is currently exceeding available capacity on outbound routes and more double trains are going to be needed. You don't ride it, so its not surprising that you aren't aware of this. Not sure why you think transitioning from train to bus is such a big deal, but at any rate, having ridden the buses before the train was available, I can tell you that the demographic of train riders is on average very different from the demographic of people that previously rode the buses.

Before the Red Line there were many more TMC shuttles and many bus routes were continuous along or near the path of the Red Line into downtown and even beyond into a whole other part of the city; it did not necessitate a transfer by bus riders between modes. The Red Line is a case where the geography of Houston made it low-hanging fruit, and even then it is a case where one mode of transit displaced another. In no way does it follow that all these Red Line users represent people who otherwise would've relied on single-occupant vehicles.

The usage patterns do not concur, in fact, capacity was at its very worst when gas was at its highest, and if gas goes up in price significantly again, the capacity nightmares will return unless Metro purchases some more cars and runs more doubles.

Edited February 20, 2009 by kylejack

[TheNiche]

Except that real income has been decreasing for a long time and few people's raises keep pace with inflation, especially when rampant deficit spending pushes inflation to absurd levels.

Inflation has many causes. You brought up the case of deficit spending as a cause and I gave you the proper analysis. If the United States were the only country that was engaging in this kind of fiscal policy then there would be distortions to international trade so as to exacerbate commodity prices; but everybody else is doing the same thing we are.

That median incomes have been trending slightly downward over the last several years does make gasoline a relatively larger part of their budget, and yes that does create demand destruction. However, the income effect you described also makes alternatives (whether in the form of fuel or location) more costly when stated in those same terms.

I am sorry, but that is not correct. I commute from downtown to TMC every day and it is busy much of the day, yes, the outbound path. During morning rush hour it is currently exceeding available capacity on outbound routes and more double trains are going to be needed. You don't ride it, so its not surprising that you aren't aware of this. Not sure why you think transitioning from train to bus is such a big deal, but at any rate, having ridden the buses before the train was available, I can tell you that the demographic of train riders is on average very different from the demographic of people that previously rode the buses.

What is it that I said that is incorrect? I did not say that it didn't get high ridership. Nor did I say that light rail displaced bus service and only bus service. My point was twofold: 1) ridership on the Red Line is not in and of itself indicative or supportive of further light rail investment because the geography is a special case, and 2) most of the riders (not all) were displaced from other forms of transit that otherwise would've served them.

An increase in the frequency of modal transfers from rail to bus is a big deal because bus schedules often run on relatively infrequent or unreliable intervals. And people who are standing around are just wasting time. Believe it or not, people do care about wasted time.

The usage patterns do not concur, in fact, capacity was at its very worst when gas was at its highest, and if gas goes up in price significantly again, the capacity nightmares will return unless Metro purchases some more cars and runs more doubles.

I don't doubt it. Their local bus and P&R systems also experienced a major bump in use. Of course, METRO fares don't even come close to paying for all of their operating costs. And of course, METRO didn't raise its fares to more closely match the percentage increase to their operating costs until gas prices were already coming back down.

I don't like the Red Line or the University or Uptown Lines as they're proposed because they have inadequate capacity to effectively accommodate future increases in ridership. They can't run triple-cars because downtown blocks aren't wide enough. They can't run double-decker cars because their electricity infrastructure, some grade separations, and many skywalks between buildings would have to be demolished and re-installed. The frequency of vehicles that they're already running causes traffic congestion at particular intersections, especially at Fannin and 610, and is very disruptive to the City's attempt at synchronizing downtown traffic signals, and running more frequent vehicles would only cause more problems of that sort such as would increase exponentially as the frequency is incrementally increased. The footprint of the light rail reduces the availability of lanes to auto traffic and the ease of access to many properties along congested streets. And interactions between auto traffic and light rail sometimes means that the light rail must actually stop for traffic, limit its top speeds, accelerate more cautiously, and blast its horn, creating noise pollution. These are expensive lines to install, they're disruptive to traffic, and they have very problematic capacity constraints that will limit the useful life of the infrastructure before it has to be replaced again.

This is why I'm a big proponent of grade-separating light rail through dense areas and at major intersections. The cost is higher, but the level of service to the public is commensurate with the costs.

The bottom line is that we underbuilt the Red Line, probably will do the same to two routes in the near future, and in the mean time are probably wasting money on overbuilding three other lines that would be more functional and cost effective as BRT.

All in all, I'd actually prefer that we give METRO a massive amount of money to do it right than to do nothing. And I'd rather do nothing than to spend a little bit less than a massive amount of money on an inadequate and imbalanced system.

Edited February 20, 2009 by TheNiche

[kylejack]

An increase in the frequency of modal transfers from rail to bus is a big deal because bus schedules often run on relatively infrequent or unreliable intervals. And people who are standing around are just wasting time. Believe it or not, people do care about wasted time.

This is just another reason to add to why more rail deployment is a good idea, especially considering that Houston has the second highest rate of travel per rail mile in the country. Anyway, regarding geography, I'm not so sure I agree that Red Line is getting a special geography boost. If anything I would say that Red Line was a novelty route chosen to showcase the city for the Superbowl. While connecting downtown to the Med Center is nice, Red Line touches very few residential areas compared to where Houston's first rail line could have been routed. Nevertheless, new rail lines that run through more residential areas can only increase usership, and probably by leaps and bounds.

[TheNiche]

This is just another reason to add to why more rail deployment is a good idea, especially considering that Houston has the second highest rate of travel per rail mile in the country. Anyway, regarding geography, I'm not so sure I agree that Red Line is getting a special geography boost. If anything I would say that Red Line was a novelty route chosen to showcase the city for the Superbowl. While connecting downtown to the Med Center is nice, Red Line touches very few residential areas compared to where Houston's first rail line could have been routed. Nevertheless, new rail lines that run through more residential areas can only increase usership, and probably by leaps and bounds.

The Red Line touches one of the denser pockets of Houston in the Reliant Park stop. It isn't exactly urbane but it is very dense. And a very large share of TMC employees live here. Yet, that stop is one of the two with the fewest boardings! I already told you that. Rice/Hermann Park is the other one. It gets a geography boost because it connects two utterly massive commercial activity centers with built-in transit demand from along that specific route with already-built-in transit demand that it was able to displace.

If there's any doubt about the importance of modal transfers to ridership, bear in mind that there isn't a single proposed route without a terminus at a METRO Transit Center. And if there's any doubt about the importance of the outlying parking lots to the Red Line, consider that for the first couple of years the TMC did away with its shuttles, but that they reinstated the shuttle service later on because more people were trying to board the Red Line there than the Red Line could handle.

Edited February 20, 2009 by TheNiche

[kylejack]

The Red Line touches one of the denser pockets of Houston in the Reliant Park stop. It isn't exactly urbane but it is very dense. And a very large share of TMC employees live here. Yet, that stop is one of the two with the fewest boardings! I already told you that.

This can be blamed on the fact that it is, as you say, not urbane. Using your quarter mile walking standard, there are not a lot of houses that can reach Reliant's stop on foot. Yes some, but few compared to, say, Richmond from Montrose to Shepherd. That line is going to get a lot of use IMO.

If there's any doubt about the importance of modal transfers to ridership, bear in mind that there isn't a single proposed route without a terminus at a METRO Transit Center.

That's a valid point.

And if there's any doubt about the importance of the outlying parking lots to the Red Line, consider that for the first couple of years the TMC did away with its shuttles, but that they reinstated the shuttle service later on because more people were trying to board the Red Line there than the Red Line could handle.

Not so sure about that, I would say that they reinstated them to allow for more robust perpendicular travel to light rail in TMC.

[TheNiche]

This can be blamed on the fact that it is, as you say, not urbane. Using your quarter mile walking standard, there are not a lot of houses that can reach Reliant's stop on foot. Yes some, but few compared to, say, Richmond from Montrose to Shepherd. That line is going to get a lot of use IMO.

There are two problems with your comparison. Transit users do not walk to light rail, they walk to a light rail station. The stretch of Richmond that you identified will have three separate stations. I was talking about a single station, Reliant Park.

And by urbane, I meant in aesthetic appearance. The Reliant Park station is not only served by probably the widest and safest sidewalk in the City of Houston (complete with its own railroad crossing arms when it gets to Almeda).

The Reliant Park station is within a quarter mile from several very large apartment complexes lining Holly Hall with thousands of units. And data I've gone over from the Texas Medical Center, Inc. indicates that a greater percentage of TMC employees live there than in any other geographic area except Pearland; you'd think that they would take better advantage of such a convenient straight shot into work than would a less specialized neighborhood. If you compare that to a proposed station at Dunlavy and Richmond, there is only one large apartment complex within a quarter mile. Most everything else there is a mix of low-density single-family housing (not even many townhomes) and small low-volume commercial businesses. And a lot of the sidewalks there are narrower, closer to traffic, and in poor shape.

If you want a better comparison neighborhood where residential concentrations will generate traffic, look to the far end of the University Line where it goes past Gulfton. Like the Reliant Park area, it doesn't look urbane, however it is actually the densest part of Houston. It is occupied by a population with less aversion to walking and that has a lower rate of car ownership just by the nature of their socioeconomic status. Also look to the Third Ward on the Southeast Line, where in spite of only moderate density, bus ridership is extremely high. These are two examples where I would ask that you just look at a METRO service map and see where bus service is especially high; where it is, you should expect to see more light rail ridership. And it is in fairly predictable areas. Richmond at Dunlavy is not among them.

Not so sure about that, I would say that they reinstated them to allow for more robust perpendicular travel to light rail in TMC.

For about two thirds of its route, the 322 parallels the Red Line from the Smithlands lot up Fannin. That's what I'm talking about. You're thinking of other shuttle circulars that operate mostly within the Main Campus.

[kylejack]

Within reach of Dunlavy and Richmond is Richmont Square as well as that new one that I forget the name of, plus a ton of houses and fourplexes as well as some smaller apartment buildings.

[TheNiche]

Within reach of Dunlavy and Richmond is Richmont Square as well as that new one that I forget the name of, plus a ton of houses and fourplexes as well as some smaller apartment buildings.

Richmont Square is beyond the 1/4-mile radius for either Montrose or Dunlavy. It is actually equidistant between them. The houses and fourplexes, unfortunately, are not arranged in an especially high-density configuration. Nothing accomplishes high density more efficiently than big contiguous apartment complexes, typical of Holly Hall.

[DrLan34]

So I was taking a run downtown after work and on my way back down Main I saw a guy getting out of truck with LRT on it.

I asked him a few questions and got some insight. I'm not sure if it is anything that you guys don't already know.

First the funding isn't going to slow down the rail because he stated most of the funding was already in place.

The east line (rippin up pavement, actual construction) is going to start in about 6 months according to him due to the fact that they are still working out moving the power lines.

Once they get the issues of the power lines figured out, they are going to have crews working on all the different lines simultaneously. This sounds good but he said that this means that none of the lines will open up until they are all completed.

He said realistically that all the lines will open at the same time in the middle of 2013. So dang, kind of a while.

He said he had been there for quite a while so I'm guessing he probably knows what he is talking about.

[TheNiche]

So I was taking a run downtown after work and on my way back down Main I saw a guy getting out of truck with LRT on it.

I asked him a few questions and got some insight. I'm not sure if it is anything that you guys don't already know.

First the funding isn't going to slow down the rail because he stated most of the funding was already in place.

The east line (rippin up pavement, actual construction) is going to start in about 6 months according to him due to the fact that they are still working out moving the power lines.

Once they get the issues of the power lines figured out, they are going to have crews working on all the different lines simultaneously. This sounds good but he said that this means that none of the lines will open up until they are all completed.

He said realistically that all the lines will open at the same time in the middle of 2013. So dang, kind of a while.

He said he had been there for quite a while so I'm guessing he probably knows what he is talking about.

This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He hasn't even read METRO's own press releases or their comments printed in the Houston Chronicle, which assured us that the East End line was already under construction and that all lines would be completed and operational by 2012.

[DrLan34]

This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He hasn't even read METRO's own press releases or their comments printed in the Houston Chronicle, which assured us that the East End line was already under construction and that all lines would be completed and operational by 2012.

haha ya METRO never stretches the truth... Looks like I'm going to have to do a lot more walking if I want to go to new places without having to use a car...

[musicman]

haha ya METRO never stretches the truth... Looks like I'm going to have to do a lot more walking if I want to go to new places without having to use a car...

what's wrong with taking the bus?

[crunchtastic]

what's wrong with taking the bus?

didn't we cover that yesterday? If someone took a bus to a farmers market, people might think they were coming to buy stuff with food stamps, or eat all the samples. As opposed to people who come to a farmers market on the light rail, who bring their own re-usable canvas shopping bags and ask if the carrots are sustainably farmed.

[musicman]

i try to give em credit.

[KinkaidAlum]

Hey, this honky has no problem admitting I liked the T portion of Massport (trolley/rail) better than the bus service. That said, I rode the Silverline and #46 almost daily. I also used the #1 to get to Harvard Square a few times a month.

I also don't mind mentioning that the bus service in Houston intimidates me. Not because of the scary folks that ride it (oooohhh, people of color!) but because of the number of transfers required for getting almost anywhere you'd want to go. There's a lot of backtracking and needless downtown transfers that render the bus a royal pain in the butt.

[MetroMogul]

Well, I hate to interrupt with actual news about the line, but as a fequent rider of the 50, I feel it is my duty...

New utility poles have been placed about 15-20ft. behind the current utility ROW for perhaps a few blocks along Harrisburg near the new CVS.

[DrLan34]

what's wrong with taking the bus?

I've never used the bus except to go to/from Austin a few times. I'm not really sure why but I'll look into it. Do you like it?

[kylejack]

I've never used the bus except to go to/from Austin a few times. I'm not really sure why but I'll look into it. Do you like it?

After many e-mails from me requesting it, Metro has finally exported their data in a format that can be used by Google Transit. Now when you get driving directions at http://maps.google.com you can click on a bus on the left hand side of the screen to switch to Metro bus directions.

[musicman]

I've never used the bus except to go to/from Austin a few times. I'm not really sure why but I'll look into it. Do you like it?

i use it. i am a minority though.

Edited February 23, 2009 by musicman

[illusionescape]

Does anyone know if METRO plans to improve sidewalks in the general vicinity (~5-10 minute walk) of each METRORail station to help feed pedestrian traffic and those living/working near each station? I will be able to use the Bastrop Station once the line is up and running, but the sidewalk route for me to the station is horrible. Many areas don't even have sidewalks.

[musicman]

Does anyone know if METRO plans to improve sidewalks in the general vicinity (~5-10 minute walk) of each METRORail station to help feed pedestrian traffic and those living/working near each station? I will be able to use the Bastrop Station once the line is up and running, but the sidewalk route for me to the station is horrible. Many areas don't even have sidewalks.

unless they can combine it with other sidewalk projects like they did downtown, most likely they'll only do those along the line.

[TheNiche]

unless they can combine it with other sidewalk projects like they did downtown, most likely they'll only do those along the line.

From the folks I've talked to, it sounds like the top priority is to upgrade the sidewalks along Harrisburg Road. There are a few other streets feeding the light rail stations that they have identified as candidates for major streetscape improvements, but I don't know what their funding priority will be.

Bastrop Street is technically within the Southeast Line corridor, and I haven't checked out the City's documents for that area. The City Planning website probably has some helpful information

[illusionescape]

From the folks I've talked to, it sounds like the top priority is to upgrade the sidewalks along Harrisburg Road. There are a few other streets feeding the light rail stations that they have identified as candidates for major streetscape improvements, but I don't know what their funding priority will be.

Will the sidewalks upgrade be done at the same time as the light rail construction? Or is it another one of those "long term projects"?