METRORail Green Line

[IronTiger]

As a condition of selling the Westpark corridor to Metro, the railroad company insisted that Metro buy the entire extent of it, all the way out to Eagle Lake. Metro didn't have any plans for the way-out part, though.

Since the line crosses an active line at Wallis, why didn't Metro basically let them run trains on it for a "junker" rent (as in, Metro performs minimal maintenance), saving them dismantling costs and making a small profit on the side?

[LarryDierker]

 

[mfastx]

Thanks for the update.  

 

Very frustrating to know that the trains will go about 5 or 10 mph on those curves.  Why not build the tracks at a slight angle to allow for 25-30 mph on the curves?  

[JamesL]

If by angle you mean superelevation (banking) then the answer is two parts.

 

1. They are superelevated, at least slightly. That curve will be good for 10-20 mph I'd guess; I haven't looked that closely.

 

2. Where they aren't supervelevated, or only have 1/2 inch or so, it's because they are crossing traffic lanes and the city doesn't like the unevenness. Seems silly given how uneven those roads were before (e.g. North Main) but that's Public Works for ya.

[mollusk]

These curves are immediately adjacent to stops (since it is between the GRB and the baseball stadium, after all), which means that the train wouldn't be going all that fast in that area anyway.

[mfastx]

I understand the above points, I was just expressing frustration at the current setup of the Red line where there are multiple places where the train slows to like 5 or 10 mph for a gentle curve, which seems like overkill.  

[Sky-guy]

When is this line supposed to be completed?

[JamesL]

I understand the above points, I was just expressing frustration at the current setup of the Red line where there are multiple places where the train slows to like 5 or 10 mph for a gentle curve, which seems like overkill.  

 

Oh, don't get me started. For all but the sharpest curves (and maybe even those to some degree) the speed limits are set based on passenger comfort, not any safety criteria. Google unbalanced superelevation or cant deficiency if you're interested, but basically the speeds are set to keep lateral forces within an acceptable range. I don't know what maximum underbalance they've set (or even if they set speeds based on rigorous methods) but it seems absurdly low. It's really a double standard when you consider the lateral forces that are tolerated on buses. Greater underbalance and higher speeds can lead to accelerated rail wear, but I don't think this is as much an issue for light rail as it is for railroads.

 

Then there's just the inconsistency with the rest of the line. A few years ago, an operator in training with no passengers took the Fannin-Braeswood curve too fast and derailed. The consultant they brought in to investigate said that speed limits in the area were too confusing and so now the entire segment between TMC TC and Smith Lands is a 15 zone. Meanwhile on the North Line, speed limits change dozens of times a mile and are sometimes different for each track. So are speed limit changes "too confusing" for operators or aren't they? Perception is reality for many people, and when they ride or see the train crawling down Braeswood and being passed by cars going 25 they perceive it to be slow. That's not good for METRORail's image. Plus, running this segment at its former 25 or 30 mph could probably squeeze a minute or two out of a round trip which adds up to huge savings in operation costs over hundreds of trips per day.

 

While we're at it, let's talk about train horns. At intersections protected only by red traffic lights, the trains glide through noiselessly unless the operator sees a hazard and sounds the bell or horn. But, in the spirit of the FRA horn rule, light rail trains blast their horns at all intersections with gates, bells, and flashers. But wait, these gates provide complete closure of all lanes and the bells make plenty of noise. This is enough for FRA quiet zones along the Terminal Sub here in town. Still, METRO blasts trackside properties with horns 21 hours a day whether or not there's a soul or a vehicle in sight. This seems like a deterrent to development along the rail line. I sure wouldn't want to live in those apartments at Braeswood & Greenbriar or those townhomes at North Main & Boundary.

[JamesL]

When is this line supposed to be completed?

 

East and Southeast will open for service in September or October probably.

[Slick Vik]

East and Southeast will open for service in September or October probably.

East won't go to magnolia just yet though

[sdotwill84]

Latest article about the overpass:

 

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/East-End-not-overjoyed-about-Metro-s-overpass-5404931.php?cmpid=opedhphcat

 

[arche_757]

^ I'm curious about said overpass/underpass

 

IF either of them are built, and there is an existing heavy-trunk line running above/below just how scenic and walkable could that one intersection be?  Seems that the community isn't quite thinking things through about having walkable neighborhood.  There is a reason Highland Village doesn't continue west of this train tracks!  NO ONE would want to cross them.

 

Either way - Metro needs to get this finished.  The Red Line North is a joke of an "update/extension" compared to this line.  I think it will be transformative to the East End in ways we can only now dream about.

 

Meant to add:  Please enlighten me if I am wrong about the walkability of this neighborhood at the intersection of the heavy-trunk line.  Thanks.

Edited April 16, 2014 by arche_757

[Slick Vik]

Would the east end rather have no rail past the tracks or rail with a bridge? That's the question and as ugly as a bridge is it's the only option right now.

[IronTiger]

What if the light rail crossed the railroad at grade? Yes, it would be a bit awkward, but has anyone considered it?

[arche_757]

The frequency is probably too great for the LRT?  Or, the whichever train company owns those tracks is too concerned that Metro will mess up their schedules by inserting crossing tracks?  Who knows?

I'm still awaiting word on just how much of a deal this bridge/tunnel would be for this project.  I'm thinking it's not as big as some say.  At this point I would expect East End people to simply want this project done and have access to rail sooner than later?

[JLWM8609]

What if the light rail crossed the railroad at grade? Yes, it would be a bit awkward, but has anyone considered it?

 

There's a few problems with that. With the light rail power lines running overhead, that might cause clearance issues for the freight trains running across the LRT line. I think anything crossing a rail line like the freight rail line in question has to have to have a vertical clearance of at least 22-23 feet. I don't think the power lines are even that high and I don't know if the pantographs that contact the wires can reach those heights.

Edited April 17, 2014 by JLWM8609

[JamesL]

The whole point of dedicating a lane to transit is to gain speed and reliability. A grade crossing would ruin that. To spend that much money on a corridor with no reliability benefit would be...silly.

[IronTiger]

First off, while clearance is an important issue, 22-23 feet seems extreme. I can stand up and a train can come roaring past me at easily twice my height, but I imagine a clearance of at least 21 feet would be needed for the "piggyback" cars that I imagine the Ship Channel area cars would have.

Secondly, remember that the train is already running in the street, dealing with stoplights. While crossing a freight train is obviously counterintuitive to a light rail's reliability and speed, it only runs into the issue of scheduling and stopping times.

Thirdly, East End/Harrisburg residents tend to be NIMBY types and have always been, and I don't think that there should be all this fighting over overpasses and underpasses.

What if there was an even more radical plan: just abandon the line. There's half a mile of track in there and just two stations (three if you count individual platforms). That's not very much for just a short bit of track. You wouldn't need to strip out tracks, just dismantle the platforms, remove the Botts dots for the track, and reopen necessary left turn lanes and all. The main line will still function as always. The actual track will be mothballed for future use should they come to a compromise and will be reactivated at that date.

[ricco67]

While that may seem like a good idea, the transit center is at the end of line along with several bus companies. there would be considerable demand for the line.

personally, I'm glad that the underpass is dead, I'd rather have a bridge strictly for the rail.

[mollusk]

I routinely drive North Main.  Cramming that giant honkin' overpass down the middle of the street isn't hugely inviting; on the other hand, it's easier to cross on foot than a big hole in the ground would be.  

[Tower26]

A narrow doubletrack bridge overpass would be an only option . Crossing an active freight row would mean installing two or four 90 degree track diamonds which means getting permission from UP and there would be schedule delays in both LRT and freight as well as street traffic if the lines were built in to a at-grade crossing . Underpasses tend to flood but I understand if there is a SIT yard or multiple throat tracks for freight use that is necessary for an underpass to go under those lines . 

[IronTiger]

I'd say just build an overpass for the tracks (light rail) and leave everything else alone. It will give the chance for trains to properly terminate, and if anyone complains about the overpass, just remind them what 225 would've been like. 

[samagon]

First off, while clearance is an important issue, 22-23 feet seems extreme. I can stand up and a train can come roaring past me at easily twice my height, but I imagine a clearance of at least 21 feet would be needed for the "piggyback" cars that I imagine the Ship Channel area cars would have.

Secondly, remember that the train is already running in the street, dealing with stoplights. While crossing a freight train is obviously counterintuitive to a light rail's reliability and speed, it only runs into the issue of scheduling and stopping times.

Thirdly, East End/Harrisburg residents tend to be NIMBY types and have always been, and I don't think that there should be all this fighting over overpasses and underpasses.

What if there was an even more radical plan: just abandon the line. There's half a mile of track in there and just two stations (three if you count individual platforms). That's not very much for just a short bit of track. You wouldn't need to strip out tracks, just dismantle the platforms, remove the Botts dots for the track, and reopen necessary left turn lanes and all. The main line will still function as always. The actual track will be mothballed for future use should they come to a compromise and will be reactivated at that date.

This is not nearly radical enough.

 

There's another even more radical idea. Trench the entire freight line. from 45 till it gets to buffalo bayou. not only do you get to have the LR cross at grade, but the railroad gets to go faster with no street crossings (which is why they'd get the honor of paying for it, cause it benefits them the most). potentially, the rail could be covered and above it could be turned into greenspace, or a hike/bike trail.

[ricco67]

But what about the various spurs that crisscross the city that serves a variety of business.

The one in LA is basically an express to and from the ports.

just consider the line that parallels Harrisburg. that's a good example of side spurs and winding paths.

I'm not even mentioning flooding.

[IronTiger]

This is not nearly radical enough.

 

There's another even more radical idea. Trench the entire freight line. from 45 till it gets to buffalo bayou. not only do you get to have the LR cross at grade, but the railroad gets to go faster with no street crossings (which is why they'd get the honor of paying for it, cause it benefits them the most). potentially, the rail could be covered and above it could be turned into greenspace, or a hike/bike trail.

I actually thought of that, but if you looked at the railroad, you'll find that there are multiple junctions on either side of Harrisburg, which means all of those would have to be trenched. Besides, it's impossible anyway because the whole reason why the underpass was canned was because of the dissolved gasoline plume. Imagine the new things they'd find when trenching the entire railroad! The EPA might as well condemn the entire neighborhood in the process.

[IronTiger]

So I was noticing while stopped at a slow train on the way home yesterday that rail cars have their height printed on them, about 15' or 16' feet. While that's far more than twice my height, it's not the 22' clearance earlier stated. So here's a cheap plan that doesn't require a bridge (but will require some demolition)

Create a new section of railroad with a Y-type interchange on either end. Close off 72nd Street south of Avenue C to make it happen, trains that would've crossed the crossing now go southeast and loop back the other way. The offending railroad in question now no longer crosses Harrisburg at that point, making a clear path for the light rail. (Another crossing at Hughes is added too for going southeast)

[LarryDierker]

IMAG0009 by Not.Larry.Dierker, on Flickr

[ricco67]

What time was this?

kinda wonder what the time frame will be to transfer the car's to that line.

[mfastx]

Looks like they still need some programming to do on the street lights lol.  A green light with a train crossing isn't good. 

[LarryDierker]

What time was this?

kinda wonder what the time frame will be to transfer the car's to that line.

 

Sometime between 8 and 9:30