Commuter Rail in Houston

[arche_757]

While I understand your point to an extent talking about investing in solely buses while the rest of the world is many steps ahead makes houston look sad and laughable in this aspect.

 

Slick - while I agree that we need transit... the problem with American cities is it is really hard for the government to make driving difficult.  It would stagnate our economy (not just in Houston - everywhere).  Until the time comes that driving is so expensive that we MUST use transit we will fight it tooth and nail.  In Europe people walk/take transit because it is easy for day-to-day use.  Most cities have pedestrian only zones throughout their downtowns, and the government make it more difficult for people to own and use cars.  On top of that gas is $6-7 bucks a liter!  Third world cities have transit because how else would people get around?  In their new leased Cadilac?  Or how about the new Fiat they just bought?  Or new hybrid?  Doubtful.  Most simply do not have the money to afford new vehicles, and those that do have cars use them as a means of their business.

 

Get off your anti-Houston bent.  We're trying to move forward.  There are a lot of people who want to move Houston forward.  Calling everyone out as "sad or laughable" only makes your case harder to sell.  Like I said we have to crawl before we can walk.  Sure I would love to wake up tomorrow and have 6 commuter lines, 6 light rail lines and a whole slew of BRT but that's a pipe dream.  We may get there in 20 or 30 more years.  I would think someone as pro-transit as you would jumpt at the chance to get any transit beyond the worn-out and rundown METRO bus system in place currently?  New BRT that could one day transition into light rail would be a start.

[IronTiger]

And Beaumont has 100,000 more people than Bryan-College Station.

Beaumont has 118k as of 2010, College Station-Bryan together has 175k. The point is that a good network of commuter rail should stretch out to the fringes of the greater Houston area. College Station and Beaumont are those fringes and there is rail to support that. While under the system I'm thinking about, it would be impractical to connect those two directly to each other. However, since the rail system to College Station also supports freight is one track most of the way, I would propose doubling the trackage grade and building a bypass around Hempstead to take out that nasty curve (roads would be able to reconnect since they don't need to worry about crossing anymore, plus Hempstead no longer has active spurs).

The "Northwest Line" would feature the following stops with a star for infrequent service/whistle stops: College Station*, Prairie View*, Fairfield, Cypress (near FM 1960), Northwest Transit Center (hopefully this connects to other light rail, which would connect you to Uptown), The Heights (near the Walmart--this would compensate for lack of light rail in the area), Downtown. How does that sound?

[arche_757]

^I agree!  Rail should run to College Station/Bryan, Beaumont and then beyond.  I'm thinking you could almost run that as a seperate line.  Think Bryan-CS-Navasota-Tomball-Downtown-Aldine-Baytown-Liberty-Beaumont?  Why not?  Smaller stops (like Navasota) could be a small parking lot (for maybe 100 cars and some bus transfers) and a small covered area with some pay-to-use restrooms (like a buck or something)?  Or just don't stop but 3 times a day at Navasota/Liberty etc.?

 

End points for furthest commuter rail would be:

southeast - Galveston (the Stran)

east - Baytown (link with above commuter line?)

northeast - Porter

north - Conroe

northwest - Cypress (as far out as Fry)

west - Katy Mills

southwest - Rosenburg (FM 762)

southcentral - Pearland (FM 518 - Pearland Town Center)

[arche_757]

Maybe a line like this?  Could connect at multiple routes along the way - and it would add a different rail line to the area.  I'm speaking purely hypothetically - obviously you'd need new rail to be laid down in certain areas.... but this was just a quicky stab at this idea.

[cloud713]

The prosecution rests, Your Honor.

----------

Anyway, commuter rail! One thing I think if there was commuter rail in Houston, it should not only go for the suburbs that are just outside of Houston (Sugar Land, for instance), it should go across the entire greater area Houston sprawl. It should terminate at Conroe, Texas to the north, for instance (not The Woodlands), Beaumont (in regards to that versus College Station, the College Station-Bryan metro area is a lot larger than Beaumont's, and the miles of rail from downtown are about the same as well), and Galveston. The "terminal points" wouldn't have daily service, but they are connected in with the network.

i agree about an extension to Conroe (which i would have trains going to at least once in the morning once in the afternoon each day, maybe more often.. especially if something huge goes down at Camp Strake. but i still dont see the viability of commuter rail to B/CS or Beaumont (which is the larger metro, as arche pointed out) unless you were able to use existing freight tracks. and even then i dont see service to Beaumont being viable, and only see weekend service to B/CS.

[IronTiger]

but i still dont see the viability of commuter rail to B/CS or Beaumont (which is the larger metro, as arche pointed out) unless you were able to use existing freight tracks. and even then i dont see service to Beaumont being viable, and only see weekend service to B/CS.

^I agree! Rail should run to College Station/Bryan, Beaumont and then beyond. I'm thinking you could almost run that as a seperate line. Think Bryan-CS-Navasota-Tomball-Downtown-Aldine-Baytown-Liberty-Beaumont? Why not? Smaller stops (like Navasota) could be a small parking lot (for maybe 100 cars and some bus transfers) and a small covered area with some pay-to-use restrooms (like a buck or something)? Or just don't stop but 3 times a day at Navasota/Liberty etc.?

End points for furthest commuter rail would be:

southeast - Galveston (the Stran)

east - Baytown (link with above commuter line?)

northeast - Porter

north - Conroe

northwest - Cypress (as far out as Fry)

west - Katy Mills

southwest - Rosenburg (FM 762)

southcentral - Pearland (FM 518 - Pearland Town Center)

The way I see it, if we're talking about Houston commuter rail, the whole group of Houston-influenced areas should be included, especially as growth grows in those directions. I am also an advocate of using what you have. Existing freight tracks go toward The Woodlands, and toward College Station, and even to an extent Sugar Land. Direct connections do not exist for Westpark, Katy, or Beaumont.

In planning for commuter rail, they should minimize transfers as well. In Denton, in an effort to mirror the East Coast cities with their "superior" mass transit, you take a train to the Trinity Mills station, then ride another 20 miles on light rail to downtown. Now we can quibble about how light rail shouldn't run out to the suburbs, etc. but the point is, transfers should not be required. Notice in my "Northwest Line", a transfer to Northwest Transit Center and the Uptown line is needed only if you were going to Uptown. You could then take that line to go east to downtown, but why would you want to?

Likewise, there would be a "North Line". There would be an airport stop at Rankin and Hardy with a shuttle to the airport (an elevated median on Rankin just for the shuttles for would be pretty sweet, and there you have your "airport connection" rail). Spring station is Cypresswood and Hardy or closer to Old Town Spring, The Woodlands station is at College Park, and then finally Conroe. This would be relatively fast as it is a straight section of track that goes through several communities.

The Gulf line would require a turnaround just south of Nance Street so that it swings around and goes on the track that's in EaDo. Eastwood station at McKinney and Milby, Pearland, Alvin, then Galveston. Between the Gulf Line, the North Line, and the Northwest Line, that would connect a vast area with rail transit...and it's all done with pre-existing ROW except for maybe 4 miles.

[Slick Vik]

Wouldn't other cities really be an intercity rail?

[cloud713]

^I agree!  Rail should run to College Station/Bryan, Beaumont and then beyond.  I'm thinking you could almost run that as a seperate line.  Think Bryan-CS-Navasota-Tomball-Downtown-Aldine-Baytown-Liberty-Beaumont?  Why not?  Smaller stops (like Navasota) could be a small parking lot (for maybe 100 cars and some bus transfers) and a small covered area with some pay-to-use restrooms (like a buck or something)?  Or just don't stop but 3 times a day at Navasota/Liberty etc.?

 

End points for furthest commuter rail would be:

southeast - Galveston (the Stran)

east - Baytown (link with above commuter line?)

northeast - Porter

north - Conroe

northwest - Cypress (as far out as Fry)

west - Katy Mills

southwest - Rosenburg (FM 762)

southcentral - Pearland (FM 518 - Pearland Town Center)

dammit arche, you were hitting all my thoughts spot on on every post before this one.. haha.

 

The way I see it, if we're talking about Houston commuter rail, the whole group of Houston-influenced areas should be included, especially as growth grows in those directions. I am also an advocate of using what you have. Existing freight tracks go toward The Woodlands, and toward College Station, and even to an extent Sugar Land. Direct connections do not exist for Westpark, Katy, or Beaumont.

In planning for commuter rail, they should minimize transfers as well. In Denton, in an effort to mirror the East Coast cities with their "superior" mass transit, you take a train to the Trinity Mills station, then ride another 20 miles on light rail to downtown. Now we can quibble about how light rail shouldn't run out to the suburbs, etc. but the point is, transfers should not be required. Notice in my "Northwest Line", a transfer to Northwest Transit Center and the Uptown line is needed only if you were going to Uptown. You could then take that line to go east to downtown, but why would you want to?

Likewise, there would be a "North Line". There would be an airport stop at Rankin and Hardy with a shuttle to the airport (an elevated median on Rankin just for the shuttles for would be pretty sweet, and there you have your "airport connection" rail). Spring station is Cypresswood and Hardy or closer to Old Town Spring, The Woodlands station is at College Park, and then finally Conroe. This would be relatively fast as it is a straight section of track that goes through several communities.

The Gulf line would require a turnaround just south of Nance Street so that it swings around and goes on the track that's in EaDo. Eastwood station at McKinney and Milby, Pearland, Alvin, then Galveston. Between the Gulf Line, the North Line, and the Northwest Line, that would connect a vast area with rail transit...and it's all done with pre-existing ROW except for maybe 4 miles.

well yeah, using the freight ROW is ideal (and is the ROW i tried to follow in most all of my commuter lines in my "ideal transit plan"), but in most cases the freight lines are at capacity so new lines would need to be built along side the old ones, which costs money..

[editor]

dammit arche, you were hitting all my thoughts spot on on every post before this one.. haha.

 

well yeah, using the freight ROW is ideal (and is the ROW i tried to follow in most all of my commuter lines in my "ideal transit plan"), but in most cases the freight lines are at capacity so new lines would need to be built along side the old ones, which costs money..

 

And that's where you hit it on the head.  Money.  How do you make the freight companies clear track time for commuter rail?  Make it worth their money.  Pay for the time.  Or convince the freight companies that people are just another type of freight, and get them in the moving-people-around business.

 

In Chicago, there's a little of both.  The commuter rail system (Metra) has some lines that are run by Metra, leasing time on the freight tracks.  But some of the lines are actually run by BNSF and Union Pacific and just have the Metra branding and conductors.

 

Almost every freight train company in America needs more capacity (especially east-west).  Metro, or whatever agency will eventually operate commuter rail in Houston, should split the cost of new track with the freight companies.  That way the track gets built at a cheaper price than if it was paid for by taxpayers alone, and the freight companies get to use it somewhat during the day, and pretty much without limit overnight.  

 

Everybody wins.  Except the car dealers and concrete companies that fund the politicians.

[livincinco]

[quote name="editor" post="452020" timestamp="13941425

Almost every freight train company in America needs more capacity (especially east-west). Metro, or whatever agency will eventually operate commuter rail in Houston, should split the cost of new track with the freight companies. That way the track gets built at a cheaper price than if it was paid for by taxpayers alone, and the freight companies get to use it somewhat during the day, and pretty much without limit overnight.

Everybody wins. Except the car dealers and concrete companies that fund the politicians.

The problem with a sharing agreement is future demand. Houston is expected to continue to grow in terms of freight demand. Sharing capacity looks great today, but negotiating an agreement that adequately accounts for future demand is much more challenging. Bottom line is that future demand out of Houston is expected to be high enough that I doubt that any company would agree to limit future capacity of a line especially during the day.

[arche_757]

dammit arche, you were hitting all my thoughts spot on on every post before this one.. haha.

 

That's what I do...  first I lure you in with my wit and charm then I pull the rug out from underneath and confound and confuse!  Like Zoro, but I don't have a sword!

 

What did I not hit the nail with in my post?  The InterCity to-from BCS-Beaumont through North Houston?

 

[IronTiger]

Wouldn't other cities really be an intercity rail?

For someone who applauds rail-based mass transit in and around Houston, you sure seem critical of the area to connect lines to the greater metropolitan area.

And that's where you hit it on the head. Money. How do you make the freight companies clear track time for commuter rail? Make it worth their money. Pay for the time. Or convince the freight companies that people are just another type of freight, and get them in the moving-people-around business.

In Chicago, there's a little of both. The commuter rail system (Metra) has some lines that are run by Metra, leasing time on the freight tracks. But some of the lines are actually run by BNSF and Union Pacific and just have the Metra branding and conductors.

Almost every freight train company in America needs more capacity (especially east-west). Metro, or whatever agency will eventually operate commuter rail in Houston, should split the cost of new track with the freight companies. That way the track gets built at a cheaper price than if it was paid for by taxpayers alone, and the freight companies get to use it somewhat during the day, and pretty much without limit overnight.

Now, although business has picked up in the last few years, the 290 corridor has lost a lot of traffic in the last five years (especially around 2009, but now I hear a train maybe three times in an hour--I take classes near tracks, see) but there are less railroad spurs these days. Furthermore, as long as trains run on time and on schedule, with two tracks, a commuter rail could run on one and freight on the other (it is not a "two way street", nor a "this one's for us, that's for you"). However, the Washington Avenue part of the track needs to be dealt with, since it's already double-tracked and is even a quiet zone: and I remember seeing some plan about sinking the rail and/or adding commuter rail in a plan somewhere, so perhaps sinking it (a 500 m grade lowering area between the "Grape Arbor" over I-10 and T.C. Jester to sink the tracks) would be ideal.

[editor]

The problem with a sharing agreement is future demand. Houston is expected to continue to grow in terms of freight demand. Sharing capacity looks great today, but negotiating an agreement that adequately accounts for future demand is much more challenging. Bottom line is that future demand out of Houston is expected to be high enough that I doubt that any company would agree to limit future capacity of a line especially during the day.

 

Not doing something because you're afraid of future demand is silly.  The Katy Freeway will fill up again, so does that mean we never expand it?

 

As for the Chicago situation, Chicago is the nation's biggest freight hub.  Six of the seven biggest railroads in America push their freight through Chicago (citation), and freight congestion is so bad that various governments and railroads are spending $3.2 BILLION on speeding up freight in that one tiny section.  

 

Houston's rail freight traffic, and freight traffic congestion, are both tiny fractions of Chicago's, yet somehow Chicago manages to run 11 commuter rail lines on shared freight rights-of-way.  

 

Future demand is a red herring, and no reason not to pursue an alignment-sharing agreement in Houston.

 

It would be silly for a freight railroad to decline the opportunity in Houston when the nation's biggest railroads (Union Pacific, BNSF, CN) are already doing it in another city.  For the last 30 years it's been proven to work.

[IronTiger]

Houston's rail freight traffic, and freight traffic congestion, are both tiny fractions of Chicago's, yet somehow Chicago manages to run 11 commuter rail lines on shared freight rights-of-way.

Aren't a lot of the Chicago lines giant grade separated affairs 5-6 tracks wide, though?

[cloud713]

That's what I do... first I lure you in with my wit and charm then I pull the rug out from underneath and confound and confuse! Like Zoro, but I don't have a sword!

What did I not hit the nail with in my post? The InterCity to-from BCS-Beaumont through North Houston?

Yeah pretty much that. And not extending the 288 commuter rail down to highway 6.

I don't see the ridership being high enough between b/CS, Beaumont and Houston for that line to make sense.. Do that many people really commute or travel between those cities?

[Slick Vik]

Not doing something because you're afraid of future demand is silly. The Katy Freeway will fill up again, so does that mean we never expand it?

As for the Chicago situation, Chicago is the nation's biggest freight hub. Six of the seven biggest railroads in America push their freight through Chicago (citation), and freight congestion is so bad that various governments and railroads are spending $3.2 BILLION on speeding up freight in that one tiny section.

Houston's rail freight traffic, and freight traffic congestion, are both tiny fractions of Chicago's, yet somehow Chicago manages to run 11 commuter rail lines on shared freight rights-of-way.

Future demand is a red herring, and no reason not to pursue an alignment-sharing agreement in Houston.

It would be silly for a freight railroad to decline the opportunity in Houston when the nation's biggest railroads (Union Pacific, BNSF, CN) are already doing it in another city. For the last 30 years it's been proven to work.

This puts things in perspective

[IronTiger]

Yeah pretty much that. And not extending the 288 commuter rail down to highway 6.

I don't see the ridership being high enough between b/CS, Beaumont and Houston for that line to make sense.. Do that many people really commute or travel between those cities?

Yeah but the line isn't designed that way. Even though a theoretical commuter rail system would spiderweb-out to points farther out, you couldn't and wouldn't take College Station to Beaumont on a line, just like it would be impractical to go from Cypress to Sugar Land via rail. Remember--Houston would still be the "core".

[livincinco]

Not doing something because you're afraid of future demand is silly.  The Katy Freeway will fill up again, so does that mean we never expand it?

 

As for the Chicago situation, Chicago is the nation's biggest freight hub.  Six of the seven biggest railroads in America push their freight through Chicago (citation), and freight congestion is so bad that various governments and railroads are spending $3.2 BILLION on speeding up freight in that one tiny section.  

 

Houston's rail freight traffic, and freight traffic congestion, are both tiny fractions of Chicago's, yet somehow Chicago manages to run 11 commuter rail lines on shared freight rights-of-way.  

 

Future demand is a red herring, and no reason not to pursue an alignment-sharing agreement in Houston.

 

It would be silly for a freight railroad to decline the opportunity in Houston when the nation's biggest railroads (Union Pacific, BNSF, CN) are already doing it in another city.  For the last 30 years it's been proven to work.

 

You're right that Chicago is the biggest freight bottleneck in the United States and one major reason is because freight and passenger trains share the same track.  METRA trains are given priority over freight, which prevents freight from operating during morning and evening rush hours.

 

The CREATE project that you reference is designed to undo exactly what your suggesting.  The investment is to "separate tracks now shared by freight and passenger trains at critical spots".

 

The fact that both government and the nation's biggest railroads are actively working to undo track sharing is a pretty compelling reason not to do it here.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/chicago-train-congestion-slows-whole-country.html?_r=0

http://www.asce.org/cemagazine/Article.aspx?id=23622327986#.UxmsqIWp4XE

[Slick Vik]

You're right that Chicago is the biggest freight bottleneck in the United States and one major reason is because freight and passenger trains share the same track. METRA trains are given priority over freight, which prevents freight from operating during morning and evening rush hours.

The CREATE project that you reference is designed to undo exactly what your suggesting. The investment is to "separate tracks now shared by freight and passenger trains at critical spots".

The fact that both government and the nation's biggest railroads are actively working to undo track sharing is a pretty compelling reason not to do it here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/chicago-train-congestion-slows-whole-country.html?_r=0

http://www.asce.org/cemagazine/Article.aspx?id=23622327986#.UxmsqIWp4XE

Actually the create project involves a lot more than what you stated. To blame the freight problems only on metra is silly and disingenuous. There is old technology to blame mostly along with interlocking and at grade crossings. I get it you're an anti rail activist but editor has gotten the best of you here.

[livincinco]

Actually the create project involves a lot more than what you stated. To blame the freight problems only on metra is silly and disingenuous. There is old technology to blame mostly along with interlocking and at grade crossings. I get it you're an anti rail activist but editor has gotten the best of you here.

 

From the New York Times article that I attached, but you didn't bother to read.

 

The program, called Create (an acronym for Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program), is intended to replace 25 rail intersections with overpasses and underpasses that will smooth the flow of traffic for the 1,300 freight and passenger trains that muscle through the city each day, and to separate tracks now shared by freight and passenger trains at critical spots. Fifty miles of new track will link yards and create a second east-west route across the city, building redundancy into the overburdened system.

 

[IronTiger]

In the case of Chicago, they should try to do the nation's first reactivation of rails-to-trails by rebuilding track.

[cloud713]

im gonna grab some popcorn and let livincinco and editor battle this one out.. you both clearly seem more informed on rail than the rest of us. heh. both very great points! i would totally be down for sharing freight tracks, as it makes my commuter rail vision much easier to implement, but livincinco has a point. when the panama expansion is complete Houston is supposed to have even more freight traffic flowing through the port, and thus regional rail lines (and highways, for the people who dont believe in alternate modes of transit)..
 

Yeah but the line isn't designed that way. Even though a theoretical commuter rail system would spiderweb-out to points farther out, you couldn't and wouldn't take College Station to Beaumont on a line, just like it would be impractical to go from Cypress to Sugar Land via rail. Remember--Houston would still be the "core".

 

true, but i just dont see enough people commuting between Houston-b/cs, and Houston-Beaumont to justify it, unless we could completely use freight tracks to minimize costs, and even then i would only run lines to b/cs on the weekends, and have no idea when beaumont would ever need rail transport? i would much rather have that line connect into (or be) the southwest flyer (with an occasional beaumont stop) or w/e that passenger rail line is coming in from New Orleans, that continues on west..

why couldnt you take rail from cypress to Sugar Land if there were a westside express route like through the rail ROW half a mile east of 610, that connects 90A to the Hempstead rail line? but i see your point, its not optimal..
 

In the case of Chicago, they should try to do the nation's first reactivation of rails-to-trails by rebuilding track.

 

lol.. trails-to-rails.. didnt see that coming.
 

From the New York Times article that I attached, but you didn't bother to read.

 

The program, called Create (an acronym for Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program), is intended to replace 25 rail intersections with overpasses and underpasses that will smooth the flow of traffic for the 1,300 freight and passenger trains that muscle through the city each day, and to separate tracks now shared by freight and passenger trains at critical spots. Fifty miles of new track will link yards and create a second east-west route across the city, building redundancy into the overburdened system.
 

it sounds like those 25 intersections should of been built as over/underpasses long ago.. not sure why thats just now happening in a region as busy as Chicago. if Chicago can figure out a way to make room to separate/add additional tracks in its dense core, surely Houston could figure out a way to add more rail along the existing corridors?

[cloud713]

For someone who applauds rail-based mass transit in and around Houston, you sure seem critical of the area to connect lines to the greater metropolitan area.

Now, although business has picked up in the last few years, the 290 corridor has lost a lot of traffic in the last five years (especially around 2009, but now I hear a train maybe three times in an hour--I take classes near tracks, see) but there are less railroad spurs these days. Furthermore, as long as trains run on time and on schedule, with two tracks, a commuter rail could run on one and freight on the other (it is not a "two way street", nor a "this one's for us, that's for you"). However, the Washington Avenue part of the track needs to be dealt with, since it's already double-tracked and is even a quiet zone: and I remember seeing some plan about sinking the rail and/or adding commuter rail in a plan somewhere, so perhaps sinking it (a 500 m grade lowering area between the "Grape Arbor" over I-10 and T.C. Jester to sink the tracks) would be ideal.

that was superneighborhood 22s proposal/plan(?) back in 2010 for the area between i10/Washington to the west, and i45 to the east. trench the whole section of tracks, and add two more tracks in the process for commuter/heavy rail. i wish that would happen.. they also had sketches for a streetcar down Washington into downtown, to the baseball field, and one going south into Montrose, and a potential light rail extension of the east end/southeast line in downtown, west down Memorial Dr, being tunneled through Memorial Park.. a bunch of awesome stuff.

[mfastx]

The advantage of flexibility is if you're looking to build an extensive network.   As I mentioned previously, my feeling is that Houston is best served by having a multi-hundred mile network of bus/BRT which is more focused on providing extensive coverage than it is on generating high ridership on any individual line.  In that scenario, utilizing the multiple levels of BRT makes a lot of sense.  A line might be a standard bus line today, but based on potential could be upgraded to a Quickline service.  Additional upgrades could be added incrementally.

 

A good example would be a potential BRT line down Westheimer.  I would suggest that you would want something similar to Quickline west of Hwy 6, some further upgrades toward Beltway 8, and dedicated lines as it moved closed to the Galleria and inside the loop.  I think that there's a number of other areas that would fit a similar model.

A lot of what you describe is what we already have. We do have a very extensive bus network and while obviously there are things we can improve on, the "re-imagining" program is re-working the entire system.

I don't necessarily agree that we should employ a Quickline like route on Westheimer, the Bellaire bus route has the highest ridership in the system and the Quickline has been an absolute failure. The only meaningful upgrade in transit infrastructure would be to create separate lanes for the buses or lay down some infrastructure that improves reliability. And once you improve infrastructure anything more than a standard surface road "flexibility" goes out the window, the buses/trains have to run that route to be an improved service. And it's not a bad thing IMO.

[Slick Vik]

From the New York Times article that I attached, but you didn't bother to read.

 

The program, called Create (an acronym for Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program), is intended to replace 25 rail intersections with overpasses and underpasses that will smooth the flow of traffic for the 1,300 freight and passenger trains that muscle through the city each day, and to separate tracks now shared by freight and passenger trains at critical spots. Fifty miles of new track will link yards and create a second east-west route across the city, building redundancy into the overburdened system.

 

 

I read the article word for word. I get that you hate any and all forms of passenger rail, but it's not the sole cause of freight rail slowdowns in Chicago. From the article YOU attached:

 

Some of the causes of delay might have seemed outdated in the 20th century, much less the 21st, like manual switches that engineers have to throw after their trains have passed. Create is replacing them with electronic switches and online traffic control networks, but until then engineers at some points have to get out of their cabins, walk the length of the train back to the switch — a mile or more — operate the switch, and then trudge back to their place at the head of the train before setting out again.

 

The resulting plan to fix its rail problems started with efforts to reduce delays by improving coordination among the six freight rail companies, an effort that includes Mr. Grewe, as well as Metra and Amtrak. “You would have thought that coordination would have taken place in the past,” Mr. Grewe said. “Unfortunately, it didn’t.”

 

But the full benefits will be felt only if all of the projects can be completed, Mr. Thompson said: a knot of interrelated problems requires a network of solutions.

[IronTiger]

I read the article word for word. I get that you hate any and all forms of passenger rail, but it's not the sole cause of freight rail slowdowns in Chicago.

Livincinco is not against all forms of passenger rail, he doesn't buy the reactionary "lots of rail now for future growth" argument. In fact, if you pay attention, no one here on HAIF is anti-rail. Heck, even Culberson isn't this anti-rail fiend as you depict him to be, he's just essentially the figurehead for a bunch of NIMBYs (which Houston has in abundance).

You on the other hand, set yourself up to be a pro-rail strawman, arguing things like throttling highways to force more people into light rail.

[livincinco]

I read the article word for word. I get that you hate any and all forms of passenger rail, but it's not the sole cause of freight rail slowdowns in Chicago. From the article YOU attached:

Some of the causes of delay might have seemed outdated in the 20th century, much less the 21st, like manual switches that engineers have to throw after their trains have passed. Create is replacing them with electronic switches and online traffic control networks, but until then engineers at some points have to get out of their cabins, walk the length of the train back to the switch — a mile or more — operate the switch, and then trudge back to their place at the head of the train before setting out again.

The resulting plan to fix its rail problems started with efforts to reduce delays by improving coordination among the six freight rail companies, an effort that includes Mr. Grewe, as well as Metra and Amtrak. “You would have thought that coordination would have taken place in the past,” Mr. Grewe said. “Unfortunately, it didn’t.”

But the full benefits will be felt only if all of the projects can be completed, Mr. Thompson said: a knot of interrelated problems requires a network of solutions.

As usual, you are distorting and misstating my points. If you actually read my posts, you'll find that I actually never said that it was the sole reason, I said it was one major reason. There is virtually never a "sole" reason for anything. There's always multiple causes for any problem and to attempt to reduce a complex issue such as the Chicago rail network to a single cause would be a gross simplification. However, that's been a recurring pattern in your comments. You create a strawman argument based off of comments that I never made and then resort to name-calling because you're incapable of creating a rational argument to support your points. It's actually quite entertaining if somewhat childish and petulant.

I've stated this many times before, but I will state it once again, I find rail to be highly effective in cities with a highly dense monocentric job base, but that's not what Houston is. It's a a marginally dense city with a highly dispersed job base, and if you look at cities across the country, rail's success in that kind of city has been highly questionable. Of course, in the view of trolls that are incapable of understanding complexity, that might be defined as anti-rail because things like ridership, cost and economic efficiency are abstract concepts to such individuals.

I enjoy engaging in thoughtful reasonable discussion of transit options, however that is unfortunately rarely possible in this forum.

[Slick Vik]

As usual, you are distorting and misstating my points. If you actually read my posts, you'll find that I actually never said that it was the sole reason, I said it was one major reason. There is virtually never a "sole" reason for anything. There's always multiple causes for any problem and to attempt to reduce a complex issue such as the Chicago rail network to a single cause would be a gross simplification. However, that's been a recurring pattern in your comments. You create a strawman argument based off of comments that I never made and then resort to name-calling because you're incapable of creating a rational argument to support your points. It's actually quite entertaining if somewhat childish and petulant.

I've stated this many times before, but I will state it once again, I find rail to be highly effective in cities with a highly dense monocentric job base, but that's not what Houston is. It's a a marginally dense city with a highly dispersed job base, and if you look at cities across the country, rail's success in that kind of city has been highly questionable. Of course, in the view of trolls that are incapable of understanding complexity, that might be defined as anti-rail because things like ridership, cost and economic efficiency are abstract concepts to such individuals.

I enjoy engaging in thoughtful reasonable discussion of transit options, however that is unfortunately rarely possible in this forum.

I've given examples of cities with similar density in this country investing heavily in rail projects. Your answer is simply that they will have rail regret because you think so. Also saying the money is there is not true if you have a plan. DC and LA have been given over $1 billion each recently for their projects. But a city like houston that has neighborhoods and congressmen trying to stifle plans and funding, well that isn't a good look and obviously those are roadblocks to receiving funding.

[IronTiger]

I've given examples of cities with similar density in this country investing heavily in rail projects. Your answer is simply that they will have rail regret because you think so. Also saying the money is there is not true if you have a plan. DC and LA have been given over $1 billion each recently for their projects. But a city like houston that has neighborhoods and congressmen trying to stifle plans and funding, well that isn't a good look and obviously those are roadblocks to receiving funding.

The only cities that have come close to the way Houston is set up is maybe Dallas and LA, and neither of those are particularly good examples since in both cases they consist of a bunch of cities jammed against each other (the LA metro, particularly, is composed of a bunch of independent, non-suburb cities conglomerated into the mass), both have been "investing heavily in rail projects" and yet have worse traffic (possibly because of a messy highway layout). Comparisons are mostly null anyway, since you yourself have this unrealistic fantasy that the Inner Loop should resemble Manhattan.

[Slick Vik]

The only cities that have come close to the way Houston is set up is maybe Dallas and LA, and neither of those are particularly good examples since in both cases they consist of a bunch of cities jammed against each other (the LA metro, particularly, is composed of a bunch of independent, non-suburb cities conglomerated into the mass), both have been "investing heavily in rail projects" and yet have worse traffic (possibly because of a messy highway layout). Comparisons are mostly null anyway, since you yourself have this unrealistic fantasy that the Inner Loop should resemble Manhattan.

 

As far as density yes there are similar cities like Dallas, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, and Denver that are all making huge investments particularly Denver.

 

As far as LA get back to me when the three lines it's building now are done, it will have some impact. I don't have some fantasy that the inner loop should resemble Manhattan but it is becoming more of a "city."