Bill Sets Off Alarm For METRO Light Rail

[musicman]

Legislation working its way through the Capitol could curb the Metropolitan Transit Authority

[citykid09]

Yeah, I have been reading the comments. Most people agree with me. Light Rail in the form that METRO is making it, is not right for Houston. Many people have made comments about their mass transit experiences in other major cities and wish that Houston could have the same. So at this point if this guy can stop METRO I personally am all for it, if it will force them to build a heavy rail system like a city the size of Houston should have.

I don't see why METRO won't have a town hall meeting broadcast on all major local channels and held in one of the large arenas, so that they can hear what the people really think about light rail and their plans for it, and what people really want the city to have.

[jfre81]

There's a problem with that, citykid - this would stop them from taking property for any other form of transit too.

[uhlaw09]

Yeah, I have been reading the comments. Most people agree with me.

Never reference the commenters on Chron.com as support for your viewpoints.

[jfre81]

Never reference the commenters on Chron.com as support for your viewpoints.

Yeah, really, you can say a lot of things about our rail line but you can't say nobody rides it.

This is what I saw the other day at 8pm when nothing special was going on except an Astros game that was already an hour in progress.

I understand the people posting from Cypress or Katy don't use the rail, but then again, I rarely use the Katy Freeway or 290. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be expanded, or that they shouldn't have commuter rail.

[Ethanra]

Yeah, I have been reading the comments. Most people agree with me.

Having chron.com comments agreeing with you is something to be proud of...

I went ahead and sent an e-mail to Mr. Pickett. I want to know how much culberson and his highway buddies are paying him.

E-Mail Pickett

Why wouldn't a bill include highway expansion? It takes property away as well....

[citykid09]

Yeah, really, you can say a lot of things about our rail line but you can't say nobody rides it.

Lots of people ride Houston's Light Rail. All the more reason to push for a heavy rail system.

[jfre81]

Lots of people ride Houston's Light Rail. All the more reason to push for a heavy rail system.

And to that end I agree. But it must be supplemented with an inner city rail system that has more stops (just not as many as the typical bus route).

Why wouldn't a bill include highway expansion? It takes property away as well....

As long as they're taking property to help enrich Culberson's highway buddies, it's ok. But for rail, it's baaaaad.

I do think the property owners should get fair market value for their property. If that raises the cost of the whole project a little, then that's what it does. It's the right thing to do.

[citykid09]

And to that end I agree. But it must be supplemented with an inner city rail system that has more stops (just not as many as the typical bus route).

Why do you need that supplemented? New York City doesn't have light rail running on their streets, and they never will. I could see street cars like the ones in Portland in addition to the heavy rail. METRO should have modeled their rail design off of MARTA in Atlanta. This is the type of rail Houston needs. I would say that MARTA is a mix of commuter and inner city rail. Each of the trains have like 15 or 20 cars and they get pretty packed. The inner city sections are underground, but when you get out into the suburban areas its above ground but always in its own right of way.

Here is a picture of a MARTA train:

[jfre81]

The reason why we have what we have is because we paid for it locally and thus it was built on the cheap. It was also, most importantly, to demonstrate that people would ride rail, and they do. People weren't so sure 10 years ago when gas was a dollar a gallon. Had the referendum asked for the money for grade separations the fiscal conservatives (hey, I'm one for the most part but I understand that necessary infrastructure is not free or is going to become a moneymaker) - they would've killed it. Then we'd be at Phase Zero today instead of Phase One.

Grade separations are really what drives up the cost of LRT where it's built. Other cities have at-grade rail too and get along with it just fine - we are not the only one that has it. Hell, even in "world class" San Francisco the trolleys and some of BART runs along the streets. And people here are learning not to run red lights or make illegal left turns in front of the train.

I understand NYC and Atlanta have some/most of their system underground, but they're not sitting on clay with a high water table. People think LRT is expensive - they should see what trying to build a subway here would cost.

[citykid09]

The reason why we have what we have is because we paid for it locally and thus it was built on the cheap. It was also, most importantly, to demonstrate that people would ride rail, and they do. People weren't so sure 10 years ago when gas was a dollar a gallon. Had the referendum asked for the money for grade separations the fiscal conservatives (hey, I'm one for the most part but I understand that necessary infrastructure is not free or is going to become a moneymaker) - they would've killed it. Then we'd be at Phase Zero today instead of Phase One.

Grade separations are really what drives up the cost of LRT where it's built. Other cities have at-grade rail too and get along with it just fine - we are not the only one that has it. Hell, even in "world class" San Francisco the trolleys and some of BART runs along the streets. And people here are learning not to run red lights or make illegal left turns in front of the train.

I understand NYC and Atlanta have some/most of their system underground, but they're not sitting on clay with a high water table. People think LRT is expensive - they should see what trying to build a subway here would cost.

Yeah, but the rails in SF that run on streets are all secondary systems in addition to the signature BART heavy rail system. I'm told that it is a myth that Houston can't have a subway. there are cities around the world that are below sea level and still have subway systems. Houston isn't even below sea level. So those Downtown tunnels must be some kind of myth, because with Houston's clay and water table they can't possibly exist right?

[TheNiche]

The reason why we have what we have is because we paid for it locally and thus it was built on the cheap. It was also, most importantly, to demonstrate that people would ride rail, and they do. People weren't so sure 10 years ago when gas was a dollar a gallon. Had the referendum asked for the money for grade separations the fiscal conservatives (hey, I'm one for the most part but I understand that necessary infrastructure is not free or is going to become a moneymaker) - they would've killed it. Then we'd be at Phase Zero today instead of Phase One.

If that were all there was to it, then the system expansion that is planned (which is being paid for in no small part with federal funds) would be far superior to the Red Line. ...but that's not the case.

I understand NYC and Atlanta have some/most of their system underground, but they're not sitting on clay with a high water table. People think LRT is expensive - they should see what trying to build a subway here would cost.

The water table in Manhattan is above the subway lines. They were built without the benefits of modern technology and leak like a sieve. They'd fill up completely in only a few days if it weren't for the sumps. Now consider that Houston's water table is actually deeper than Manhattan's and that we don't have to excavate through bedrock.

That's not to say that subway is the best option for most of Houston. It isn't by any means. In fact, the only places I can think of where it would be appropriate is the Texas Medical Center and Post Oak Blvd.

[citykid09]

If that were all there was to it, then the system expansion that is planned (which is being paid for in no small part with federal funds) would be far superior to the Red Line. ...but that's not the case.

The water table in Manhattan is above the subway lines. They were built without the benefits of modern technology and leak like a sieve. They'd fill up completely in only a few days if it weren't for the sumps. Now consider that Houston's water table is actually deeper than Manhattan's and that we don't have to excavate through bedrock.

That's not to say that subway is the best option for most of Houston. It isn't by any means. In fact, the only places I can think of where it would be appropriate is the Texas Medical Center and Post Oak Blvd.

Yeah, I would say Metro should use subways in Uptown, Downtown, The Medical Center and pretty much any inner loop stops.

Here is something I made when I was bored, just now:

[kdog08]

Yeah, I have been reading the comments. Most people agree with me. Light Rail in the form that METRO is making it, is not right for Houston. Many people have made comments about their mass transit experiences in other major cities and wish that Houston could have the same. So at this point if this guy can stop METRO I personally am all for it, if it will force them to build a heavy rail system like a city the size of Houston should have.

I don't see why METRO won't have a town hall meeting broadcast on all major local channels and held in one of the large arenas, so that they can hear what the people really think about light rail and their plans for it, and what people really want the city to have.

I disagree. I think for the most part what we have planned is right for Houston. What would our heavy rail or commuter rail connect to if we built it without the currently planned LRT. Houston does have a significant amount of employment and activity centers inside the loop that will be served by the planned LRT. We are trying to build a system here, commuter and heavy rail should be a part of it once we get our LRT up and running.

[citykid09]

commuter and heavy rail should be a part of it once we get our LRT up and running.

That's not what METRO says, they say they are planning commuter rail not necessarily heavy rail. But they have been saying commuter rail is coming for years but you never see any results or plans. If Houston had a system like MARTA in Atlanta, light rail would not necessarily be needed. I was just in Atlanta last month. I stayed downtown and rode the MARTA to some station??? Well I was going to the Dogwood Festival in Piedmont Park. The MARTA got me as close as it gets to the park and I rode a MARTA bus to the Park. I would say that this type of system would be a better fit for Houston. It fits lots of people and it doesn't have to have stops everywhere, you can take a bus to get exactly where you go after the rail takes you as close as you can get.

I think street cars like Portland has could work to get to exact locations after you get off the heavy rail.

[musicman]

That's not what METRO says, they say they are planning commuter rail not necessarily heavy rail. But they have been saying commuter rail is coming for years but you never see any results or plans.

the proposal is on their website...for quite a while now.

[uhlaw09]

I do think the property owners should get fair market value for their property. If that raises the cost of the whole project a little, then that's what it does. It's the right thing to do.

That's a non-issue. Just compensation (i.e., fair market value) is a Fifth Amendment constitutional right.

The only issue here is whether or not Metro should have the power to condemn the land via eminent domain, which would require them to pay fair market value. This should also not be an issue, and hopefully the Legislature acknowledges this amendment for what it is--an last-ditch effort by special interest groups to castrate Metro.

[IronTiger]

In terms of one word to model light rail systems after, IMHO:

DART.

[kdog08]

That's not what METRO says, they say they are planning commuter rail not necessarily heavy rail. But they have been saying commuter rail is coming for years but you never see any results or plans. If Houston had a system like MARTA in Atlanta, light rail would not necessarily be needed. I was just in Atlanta last month. I stayed downtown and rode the MARTA to some station??? Well I was going to the Dogwood Festival in Piedmont Park. The MARTA got me as close as it gets to the park and I rode a MARTA bus to the Park. I would say that this type of system would be a better fit for Houston. It fits lots of people and it doesn't have to have stops everywhere, you can take a bus to get exactly where you go after the rail takes you as close as you can get.

I think street cars like Portland has could work to get to exact locations after you get off the heavy rail.

Atlanta has the benefit of having it's major inner city employment being served by one line. I don't see how it would be possible to do so and connect TMC, Downtown, Greenway Plaza, and Uptown with one line in Houston. Furthermore, making it heavy rail would change the function of our inner city system. Seems to me we need an inner city system that has many stops to capture all the activity of inside the loop, which would exclude heavy rail.

[TheNiche]

Seems to me we need an inner city system that has many stops to capture all the activity of inside the loop, which would exclude heavy rail.

On the one hand, I agree that heavy rail is inappropriate for getting around the inner city. However, light rail needs to be implemented with fewer stops and more grade separations. Most of our inner loop area has basically suburban densities and simply does not need an average of one stop every 0.4 miles. In fact, excessively frequent stops increase the average transit time, acting to suppress boardings in the densest and most viable stops.

[citykid09]

Atlanta has the benefit of having it's major inner city employment being served by one line. I don't see how it would be possible to do so and connect TMC, Downtown, Greenway Plaza, and Uptown with one line in Houston. Furthermore, making it heavy rail would change the function of our inner city system. Seems to me we need an inner city system that has many stops to capture all the activity of inside the loop, which would exclude heavy rail.

So you don't think the red line could have been built like MARTA's Central line? Why not? The red line where it goes is fine, but it should either be underground, above ground or in its own right of way. Heavy rail is just a much better solution for a city the size of Houston. I don't see the light rail as it is, being enough to handle Houston's future rail ridership. Due to block sizes, METRO rail will never be able to add more than 2 cars per train on a regular bases, when it rains to hard the trains will shutdown, if any event is held downtown the trains will be shutdown. There is nothing you could say to convince me to say that light rail (the way METRO has planned it) is right for Houston. The truth is, they are cutting corners, and giving the 4th largest city in America and one of the top 10 metros the crappiest rail system in the U.S. if not the world.

[Mister X]

I am really starting to think that nobody at Metro gives a rat's a$$ about citykid's rants anymore. That must be very frustrating. I hate to be the one to break it to you Mr. Kid, but Metro is NEVER going to build the rail system YOU think Houston should have. Let's face it, it's just too hard to accommodate every internet crack pot in cyberspace these days.

I suggest you show your disgust with Metro by going to Atlanta and riding MARTA all day, every day for the rest of your life. I'm sure that act of defiance will make them find a way to magically whip up the extra 5 billion dollars to scrap their current plans and build a subway, in order to show Atlanta who has the longest trains in the south.

No offense, sillykid.

[IronTiger]

I think the light rail trains should be longer, maybe four or five cars. This intersection is particularly troubling. I have no idea why there's not much traffic in the photo, but it's particularly bizarre in the fact that at coming from the north you can't turn left OR right!

I would suggest rerouting the rails at that point, or building an underpass. I don't think METRORail was planned out well, it was a too little, too late. But we live with our mistakes. Heavy rail is a silly idea. Syracuse had a heavy rail line for seven years before it folded. We could do it the DART method and just close off a road completely to vehicular traffic.

[musicman]

I think the light rail trains should be longer, maybe four or five cars.

the blocks downtown can only accomodate 2 cars.

[RedScare]

So you don't think the red line could have been built like MARTA's Central line? Why not? The red line where it goes is fine, but it should either be underground, above ground or in its own right of way. Heavy rail is just a much better solution for a city the size of Houston. I don't see the light rail as it is, being enough to handle Houston's future rail ridership. Due to block sizes, METRO rail will never be able to add more than 2 cars per train on a regular bases, when it rains to hard the trains will shutdown, if any event is held downtown the trains will be shutdown. There is nothing you could say to convince me to say that light rail (the way METRO has planned it) is right for Houston. The truth is, they are cutting corners, and giving the 4th largest city in America and one of the top 10 metros the crappiest rail system in the U.S. if not the world.

The truth is, you've never cited a single statistic that supports your views. You make up things without any facts to back them up. For instance, the only downtown event that shut down the light rail is the one that they held on Main Street. With Discovery Green open, there is no real need to do that again. The parades are scheduled not to cross the tracks. Only the marathon must cross the track, and that occurs on a Sundaymorning. Big deal. As for passenger capacity, you ignore that the blocks are 250 feet long, but the trains are only 90 feet. Two would be 180 feet. A third car of 60 feet can be inserted between the two outer cars. Since this 3rd car would not have a driver, it would have more passenger capacity. Each long car can hold 200. A third car could hold 150. During heavy usage, the trains can run every 3 minutes instead of every 6 minutes, doubling capacity. That gives a total capcity JUST on the Red Line of 11,000 per hour EACH direction, or 22,000 per hour total. In 3 hours, the Red Line could carry the same number of people as DART's system carries ALL DAY.

This is why no one takes your posts seriously. You never cite any facts. Just opinions.

[IronTiger]

the blocks downtown can only accomodate 2 cars.

And that's where things get sticky. Is it because cars have to wait for it? Why not add traditional grade crossings? (lights and gates)

Why not close San Jacinto or Fannin and put both "lanes" of the light rail in there?

[musicman]

And that's where things get sticky.

that's why making comments that aren't realistic isn't encouraged.

Is it because cars have to wait for it? Why not add traditional grade crossings? (lights and gates)

cause then you're blocking traffic.

Why not close San Jacinto or Fannin and put both "lanes" of the light rail in there?

what specific problem is your concern? redesigning the corridor for vehicular traffic would be a nightmare.

[kdog08]

On the one hand, I agree that heavy rail is inappropriate for getting around the inner city. However, light rail needs to be implemented with fewer stops and more grade separations. Most of our inner loop area has basically suburban densities and simply does not need an average of one stop every 0.4 miles. In fact, excessively frequent stops increase the average transit time, acting to suppress boardings in the densest and most viable stops.

I agree our system needs to have more grade separations but there really aren't any stops that we can do without on the University Line and Uptown Line, in my opinion. I am not nearly as familiar with the North, SE, and East End line to comment on those lines. However, looking at the LRT map I wouldn't say it has "excessively frequent stops". What stops would you do away with, if any?

[IronTiger]

@ Musicman: First off, you have to keep in mind that I don't live in Houston, so my comments are naturally going to lean on the idealistic side, but I'm going to try hard to keep in reality. Musicman, I would close OFF the roads from vehicular traffic, giving it exclusively light rail. There's lights-and-guards at Fannin and Blodgett, also at Wentworth and San Jacinto, plus on San Jacinto.

I'm afraid to say this, but isn't a given that if unless a light rail avoids roads via underpasses and overpasses, it's going to block vehicular traffic either way? Now, if Houston had more money that it does, we could tear up a road, build a "ditch", place a light rail in and build concrete "plaza" roads on top of it. Sunken ramps would allow access.

However, the huge cost and the mess of tearing up of Main Street would be unimaginable.

So I'm going to go with my first plan and expand the cars to four cars. Yeah, it will impede traffic, but that's what light rails do anyways, right?!

Meanwhile, if Houston was to build anymore light rails, it would be more "traditionally" like what a heavy rail would do. Specifically, they could use a couple of abandoned ROWs I know of...

[jfre81]

I don't feel like the current line has too many stops. In fact, I think it's just about right.