All aboard for commuter rail

[musicman]

Half-assed measures doom these projects to failure. The only way passenger rail can be efficient enough to be successful is either with dedicated tracks or priority over freight (which is highly unlikely).

which is why talks with UP are essential. METRO had not spoken with UP officials during their planning for the intermodal which is why METRO screws itself.

[AtticaFlinch]

Not true, the Red Line is highly successful despite being significantly slower than a car for most point-to-points.

Local in-town transit is different than commuter transit. Plus, the light rail doesn't share the tracks with anyone else. If the commuter trains are consistently mired in rail share with freight trains, it wouldn't make sense for people to take the commuter trains. If 30-45 minutes is added to your commute (and sometimes more dependent on the morning's freight load), it won't make sense. If only ten minutes is added, plus you have the benefit of ease and comfort as well as a guaranteed arrival time to the office, commuter rail does make sense.

which is why talks with UP are essential. METRO had not spoken with UP officials during their planning for the intermodal which is why METRO screws itself.

Why? Is freight traffic supposed to interconnect with the intermodal? There's no reason for that.

[kylejack]

Local in-town transit is different than commuter transit. Plus, the light rail doesn't share the tracks with anyone else. If the commuter trains are consistently mired in rail share with freight trains, it wouldn't make sense for people to take the commuter trains. If 30-45 minutes is added to your commute (and sometimes more dependent on the morning's freight load), it won't make sense. If only ten minutes is added, plus you have the benefit of ease and comfort as well as a guaranteed arrival time to the office, commuter rail does make sense.

So if you can get a good sharing agreement maybe freight could only be allowed through during non-commute times? That gives a good portion of the middle of the day and all of the night after, say, 8 or so?

[musicman]

Why? Is freight traffic supposed to interconnect with the intermodal? There's no reason for that.

the basis for commuter rail is to use the existing tracks which meet at the intermodal which is where the riders will switch to light rail.

[AtticaFlinch]

So if you can get a good sharing agreement maybe freight could only be allowed through during non-commute times? That gives a good portion of the middle of the day and all of the night after, say, 8 or so?

Good luck with that. Existing freight rail companies have been notoriously recalcitrant with any new authority. It's pretty tough to negotiate any terms when one party is completely unopen to any negotiation.

the basis for commuter rail is to use the existing tracks which meet at the intermodal which is where the riders will switch to light rail.

I guess we have a disconnect here, because if METRO sets up different tracks, I still don't see why it's necessary to talk to UP about this.

[kylejack]

I guess we have a disconnect here, because if METRO sets up different tracks, I still don't see why it's necessary to talk to UP about this.

Well its not very nice to eminent domain people's houses if there is another option available.

[AtticaFlinch]

Well its not very nice to eminent domain people's houses if there is another option available.

If we're still talking about 290 here, there's room between Hempstead Highway and the existing freight rail to set up a parallel track. Considering they'll be obliterating Hempstead Highway before too long to build the tollway, there's no reason why they can't squeeze in some space for commuter rail as well. There's no need for houses to be torn down or for businesses to be relocated to get rail on that ROW.

[musicman]

I guess we have a disconnect here, because if METRO sets up different tracks, I still don't see why it's necessary to talk to UP about this.

they aren't setting up different tracks which is why UP has to be involved.

[AtticaFlinch]

they aren't setting up different tracks which is why UP has to be involved.

Is that set in stone? Or, is the idea of using existing tracks just one of the many ideas thrown out there?

If it's just an idea at this point, then why begin talking to UP until an actual workable plan has been developed? There's no reason to go into battle with unloaded weapons. If METRO was to begin negotiating now, without any plan, they'd have no choice but to concede to every demand UP made. Regardless, plan or no plan, I just don't see UP making any concessions to METRO at all under any circumstances. And, I'd bet METRO, having had so many dealings with the rail companies in the past, are just as aware of those impending difficulties.

[musicman]

Is that set in stone? Or, is the idea of using existing tracks just one of the many ideas thrown out there?

If it's just an idea at this point, then why begin talking to UP until an actual workable plan has been developed? There's no reason to go into battle with unloaded weapons. If METRO was to begin negotiating now, without any plan, they'd have no choice but to concede to every demand UP made. Regardless, plan or no plan, I just don't see UP making any concessions to METRO at all under any circumstances. And, I'd bet METRO, having had so many dealings with the rail companies in the past, are just as aware of those impending difficulties.

nothing is set in stone but that has been METRO's "plan". at least a yr (maybe 2 now) ago, UP stated that they had never been contacted by METRO about utilizing their tracks even though METRO has websites clearly identifying their proposal using UP's tracks. sounds like the county is attempting to step up and take charge of commuter rail which is probably better.

[AtticaFlinch]

nothing is set in stone but that has been METRO's "plan". at least a yr (maybe 2 now) ago, UP stated that they had never been contacted by METRO about utilizing their tracks even though METRO has websites clearly identifying their proposal using UP's tracks. sounds like the county is attempting to step up and take charge of commuter rail which is probably better.

http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/attachments/sysmap.pdf

That 290 UP route is redundant anyhow. I drive over those tracks pretty regularly and never need to stop for trains. I really don't think UP uses them much anyhow, so if anything, METRO can either purchase them at fair-market value or lease the use of them from UP. Either way makes more sense for UP. Right now, it's just underutilized yet costly infrastructure than must be maintained and upkept.

[musicman]

http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/attachments/sysmap.pdf

That 290 UP route is redundant anyhow. I drive over those tracks pretty regularly and never need to stop for trains. I really don't think UP uses them much anyhow, so if anything, METRO can either purchase them at fair-market value or lease the use of them from UP. Either way makes more sense for UP. Right now, it's just underutilized yet costly infrastructure than must be maintained and upkept.

there are quite a few industrial areas along the corridor that require the use of the tracks currently. UP clearly stated that to METRO.

[kylejack]

Metro has gotten good at sticking their foot in their mouth lately, like the recent executive who said that the homeless should ride the buses, not the train, because the train is their "signature service" in downtown.

[AtticaFlinch]

there are quite a few industrial areas along the corridor that require the use of the tracks currently. UP clearly stated that to METRO.

So... there has been communication between the two parties, huh?

You know, I could be wrong about this, but I can't think of a single warehouse with direct access to the rail along Hempstead Highway. I'm not saying there isn't any, just that I can't think of one. Besides, even if there are a handful, are we going to put the desires of a few businesses (which are easily addressed anyhow) above the needs of the entire city? Weak argument. UP loses this one.

[kylejack]

So... there has been communication between the two parties, huh?

You know, I could be wrong about this, but I can't think of a single warehouse with direct access to the rail along Hempstead Highway. I'm not saying there isn't any, just that I can't think of one. Besides, even if there are a handful, are we going to put the desires of a few businesses (which are easily addressed anyhow) above the needs of the entire city? Weak argument. UP loses this one.

How about Star Stainless Screw? Map link

How about all these warehouses? Map link

How about Tex Tube? Map link

[musicman]

So... there has been communication between the two parties, huh?

METRO did not contact UP when developing their intermodal proposal which should have been part of METRO's requirement process since UP is the owner of the tracks. There's another thread that explains it ad nauseum. UP has clearly stated their intentions and if METRO wants to utilize UP's tracks, METRO should have contacted UP to see if it was even feasible prior to spending money on proposals.

[AtticaFlinch]

How about Star Stainless Screw? Map link

How about all these warehouses? Map link

How about Tex Tube? Map link

Look at all that unused land between the roadside and the railbeds!

[kylejack]

Look at all that unused land between the roadside and the railbeds!

Alright, but how are you going to use it? Again, going to need UP on-board to interface across their rail line, unless you go over it I guess. Sounds expensive.

[IronTiger]

http://www.uprr.com/...ents/sysmap.pdf

That 290 UP route is redundant anyhow. I drive over those tracks pretty regularly and never need to stop for trains. I really don't think UP uses them much anyhow, so if anything, METRO can either purchase them at fair-market value or lease the use of them from UP. Either way makes more sense for UP. Right now, it's just underutilized yet costly infrastructure than must be maintained and upkept.

After the construction started on the overpass on FM 2818 in May, train traffic has gone down in that stretch of track, which stretches from College Station to Houston. I'm sure the industrial spurs are still in use, though.

[AtticaFlinch]

Alright, but how are you going to use it? Again, going to need UP on-board to interface across their rail line, unless you go over it I guess. Sounds expensive.

Well, Hempstead Highway is going to be completely demolished and rebuilt as a tolled expressway. Scoot that whole thing over about ten feet, and put the commuter rail on the opposite side. I guarantee the state (or whatever entity) owns several meters of ROW beyond where the pavement currently ends. There is more than enough room for rail and improved roadway along that stretch, plus it leaves the old UP rail in place for the six or so warehouses from 1960 to 610.

After the construction started on the overpass on FM 2818 in May, train traffic has gone down in that stretch of track, which stretches from College Station to Houston. I'm sure the industrial spurs are still in use, though.

Mostly because it's a redundant line. UP has four or more lines that snake to Dallas/Ft Worth outside of this line.

[IronTiger]

Would be a bad idea if UP was to sell the line between Navasota and Houston (where it meets with the former MKT) to almost exclusively commuter rail use?

[musicman]

Would be a bad idea if UP was to sell the line between Navasota and Houston (where it meets with the former MKT) to almost exclusively commuter rail use?

yes. the businesses utlizing the track along the stretch would no longer be able to function.

[TheNiche]

Would be a bad idea if UP was to sell the line between Navasota and Houston (where it meets with the former MKT) to almost exclusively commuter rail use?

Horrible, horrible idea. The Hempstead Highway corridor is an unrecognized industrial powerhouse, containing more warehousing and distribution space than any other industrial submarket in the Houston region; its manufacturing infrastructure is second only to the Port complex. And whether directly or indirectly, numerous small businesses along that corridor and throughout the region rely on service provided by UP to rail-served facilities along Hempstead Highway.

Most of the rail traffic that comes through Houston is bound for a different destination, and Houston is just a waypoint. But high volumes, long-haul efficiencies, and increasingly-problematic local freight congestion makes it against UP's or BNSF's interests to disrupt this sort of traffic. (You might recall that UP was adamant that METRO could not use its tracks between the Fannin South P&R and Rosenberg to open a commuter rail route; this is why.)

In contrast, the Hempstead Highway corridor represents a major origin/destination for freight. The aggregate volume of traffic is lesser along this route and the trip length varies greatly (which is why UP is more willing to negotiate over corridors like this one, Galveston Highway, and FM 521), but each rail car that departs or arrives along this corridor represents local economic activity.

To be clear--because there's inevitably someone who always requires clarity--I'm not saying that commuter rail should necessarily be avoided along the Hempstead Highway corridor because it will adversely impact local businesses (it should be avoided as a technology because it is an outmoded throwback to the early-20th century, but that's beside the point). Adverse impacts can be mitigated (or combined with upgrades that might improve the efficiency of commuter rail service so as to perform the slightest bit less poorly as compared to our current P&R system, but that's also beside the point). What I am trying to say is that adverse impacts should be taken very seriously because Houston remains a far more blue collar town than one might believe by reading these forums, and rail-served infrastructure is vital to this segment of our economy.

[IronTiger]

Well, I did say almost exclusively commuter rail use. In terms of commuter rail to Cypress, a second track could be easily added. In the case of College Station commuter rail, there is an abandoned ROW that continues to follow 290, which could be used as a siding. Furthermore, there's space in the former I-GN R.O.W. in Navasota and southern Brazos County, which could continue to where the rails come really close in College Station. But that's another topic, really.

----

As for the mass transit detractors, I try to be in a suburban commuter's shoes. Suppose I live in Cypress and work in a big office tower downtown. Traffic is bad on 290 and I don't have any people to be in the HOV lane. My wife is a teacher and stays local (relatively) to the city. As it stands, I often get held up from going from the Loop to Interstate 10. By the time I actually get downtown, my blood pressure is kind of high, and the coffee doesn't help. Then I have to go BACK to Cypress. Commuter rail would be a more convenient solution, I board, and after a small ride watching the original Hempstead Highway zoom past, I board the light rail at the Northwest Transit Station. Alternatively, a light rail stretching all the way out to Fairfield (the outlet mall) would not require a transfer, but might be slower.

Then again, if I was that bent on avoiding the freeway, I would ride the P&R bus.

It's a toss-up, isn't it?

[AtticaFlinch]

Then again, if I was that bent on avoiding the freeway, I would ride the P&R bus.

It's a toss-up, isn't it?

Six in one, half-dozen in the other...

With one you have a technology a century and a half old that can be modified to run by modern alternative energy sources. With the other, you have a technology a century old that cannot be modified to run by modern alternative energy sources.

Well, so I suppose it's not the same thing. I don't think some people realize that oil is used for more than just gasoline. When all the oil dries up, we lose plastics and rubber as well. A bus won't go too far on metal rims alone. The same doesn't hold true for trains though. Until we master the technology to build hovercars powered by the laughter of children, we need to start planning smart train routes, and 290 is dying to be the first.

[IronTiger]

Six in one, half-dozen in the other...

With one you have a technology a century and a half old that can be modified to run by modern alternative energy sources. With the other, you have a technology a century old that cannot be modified to run by modern alternative energy sources.

Well, so I suppose it's not the same thing. I don't think some people realize that oil is used for more than just gasoline. When all the oil dries up, we lose plastics and rubber as well. A bus won't go too far on metal rims alone. The same doesn't hold true for trains though. Until we master the technology to build hovercars powered by the laughter of children, we need to start planning smart train routes, and 290 is dying to be the first.

Actually, a LOT of oil is in these sand dunes in Alberta, but the cost will be astronomical. Supply and demand curves, remember?

Still, I get your point. Could we build heavy-rail-type LRT (less stations, crossings like a traditional railroad) to the northwest?

[samagon]

They were talking about this on NPR last night, basically the same things we have here, just interesting to hear it talked about!

[AtticaFlinch]

Still, I get your point. Could we build heavy-rail-type LRT (less stations, crossings like a traditional railroad) to the northwest?

That's the whole idea of commuter rail (minus the LRT). It's supposed to be heavy rail with considerably fewer stops than inner-city LRT. It's supposed to take place of (and run more efficiently than) the costly Park and Ride Bus system. It's essentially the same thing as the PnR, but with fixed tracks and lower operating costs (but with higher initial costs).

[IronTiger]

That's the whole idea of commuter rail (minus the LRT). It's supposed to be heavy rail with considerably fewer stops than inner-city LRT. It's supposed to take place of (and run more efficiently than) the costly Park and Ride Bus system. It's essentially the same thing as the PnR, but with fixed tracks and lower operating costs (but with higher initial costs).

Yes, but I was thinking along the lines of the northern part of the DART (suburban, Plano area). The set-up is distinctly different in the suburbs as opposed to downtown, even though it is the same line. It also doesn't hurt that their ROW is on an old R.R. line. But because Houston has a lack of conveniently-located ROWs, the only way I can actually see something like that working is the MKT line between 610 and downtown, but the train runs through a lot of residential area. The residents would really hate it.

[citizen4rmptown]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but here it goes.

I would think another newspaper from a community that would be impacted by the rail would have more info, but heres the Citizen's article.

An open house inviting public input into the proposed Houston-Galveston rail service or its alternatives is scheduled for January 14 in Pasadena.

This open house, one of a series of three, is part of the alternatives analysis phase of consideration of mobility improvements along the Galveston-Houston corridor. It is part of a study sponsored by the City of Galveston, Galveston County and the Federal Transit Administration in pursuit of federal funding for rail service or alternative commuter transportation options.

As in the first round of open houses, the four alternatives being considered are:

Commuter rail service between downtown Houston and Galveston, running along the existing rail right of way along Highway 3.

Bus rapid transit using high-capacity buses in exclusive lanes, running along Interstate 45 between downtown Houston and Galveston.

Express bus service between downtown Houston and Galveston on a route partially using Interstate 45 and partially along Highway 3.

Doing nothing to address traffic issues along the corridor.

During the first round of open houses, rail was the preferred alternative.

http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2010/01/05/pasadena_citizen/news/010310_rail_open_house.txt

The three open houses, which will have information about the proposals and opportunities for input, ate scheduled for:

6 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 12, in the La Marque Community Meeting Room, 1109-B Bayou Road, La Marque.

6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 13, in Atrium II of the Bayou Building, University of Houston-Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Boulevard, Houston.

6 p.m. Thursday, Jan 14, at the Cleveland-Ripley House Neighborhood Center, 720 Fairmont Parkway, Pasadena.

More information about the proposals can be seen at www.GalvestonRailStudy.com.