Three commuter lines being studied

[Slick Vik]

Article about 290, westpark, and 90 commuter trains being heavily studied in chronicle today.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Officials-narrowing-options-for-commuter-rail-5631622.php

[HtownWxBoy]

This city really needs to catch up with other major cities around the globe and build more rail. 

[august948]

It's good that they are being essentially forced off consideration of the freight lines.  Ownership of the lines will give more freedom for scheduling regular, frequent service.  Perhaps they'll find a way to connect it to the local freight system for occasional jaunts to Galveston.  A line on Westpark under construction might help kick-start the University line as well.

[Firebird65]

This city really needs to catch up with other major cities around the globe and build more rail. 

 

Uh, no. Just because someone else is doing something stupid doesn't mean we have to do it. That kind of mentality has already lead to a lot of problems in the last few mayoral administrations.

[cloud713]

Uh, no. Just because someone else is doing something stupid doesn't mean we have to do it. That kind of mentality has already lead to a lot of problems in the last few mayoral administrations.

Uhh, no.. More like THAT kind of mentality has already led to a lot of the problems were in.. If we built the planned heavy rail system back in the 80s and were more open to alternate modes of transportation the traffic in this city wouldn't be such an issue. Not to mention it's much cheaper to build rail now (or preferably back in the 80s but that went out the window thanks to Lanier) rather than later when we really need it.

[IronTiger]

Uhh, no.. More like THAT kind of mentality has already led to a lot of the problems were in.. If we built the planned heavy rail system back in the 80s and were more open to alternate modes of transportation the traffic in this city wouldn't be such an issue. Not to mention it's much cheaper to build rail now (or preferably back in the 80s but that went out the window thanks to Lanier) rather than later when we really need it.

^ The early 1980s heavy rail system lost in the ballot box by a significant margin (62-38), and that was before the bust, and anyone thinking that the government was going to give Houston a free ride (plop the entire funds into their lap) is mistaken.

On this, I'm glad METRO isn't running this operation, and Gulf Coast Rail District at least has reality in mind in its cost estimates (unlike METRO and its grossly underestimated $640 million for four lines). On the other hand, it borrows from the Eastern Seaboard style "ride the rail to the light rail, then transfer" problem and becomes in essence, a slightly faster but way more expensive park and ride.

[cloud713]

Why does everyone always say Bob Lanier shut down the heavy rail plan when he came into office in the early 90s? I've read that multiple times..

So you agree with everything else?

Who funded the Atlanta rail system??

And yeah.. I too am glad it's someone else trying to push this instead of metro. Metro needs a serious overhaul or something.

Edit: my bad, Lanier stopped an 80s light rail plan and used the 500 million elsewhere..

"Houston METRORail Timeline:

1988 - Voters approve plan to construct twenty miles of light rail.

1992 - New Mayor Bob Lanier kills light rail plan and proceeds to spend $500 million set aside for light rail on the Metro police force and fixing potholes."

[IronTiger]

There were two different proposals. The early 1980s plan, the heavy rail plan everyone talks about was defeated in the votes. The second was voted on (and won) but given to Lanier to implement, which he chose not to because he thought it was economically unfeasible (a monorail loop). If this was illegal or highly controversial, it would have been dragged to the courts, or at the very least, hurt his re-election prospects (which it didn't, he won by a huge margin each time until term limits finally pushed him out in 1998).

[cloud713]

Lulz.. The twenty mile light rail system was just a monorail loop? I couldn't find system maps or routes. Where was it supposed to go?

[august948]

Uhh, no.. More like THAT kind of mentality has already led to a lot of the problems were in.. If we built the planned heavy rail system back in the 80s and were more open to alternate modes of transportation the traffic in this city wouldn't be such an issue. Not to mention it's much cheaper to build rail now (or preferably back in the 80s but that went out the window thanks to Lanier) rather than later when we really need it.

 

Unfortunately, building rail doesn't really reduce congestion by much.  That's the real problem.  It's hard to agree to spend that much money and still have crowded freeways once it's built.  If you could build rail and congestion really went down, that would be another story.  I don't think that happens in the real world.

 

I don't know why people get so down on the park and ride system.  It's cheaper and more efficient than rail and has a proven track record here.  I guess it's just not as sexy.

 

[cloud713]

Unfortunately, building rail doesn't really reduce congestion by much. That's the real problem. It's hard to agree to spend that much money and still have crowded freeways once it's built. If you could build rail and congestion really went down, that would be another story. I don't think that happens in the real world.

I don't know why people get so down on the park and ride system. It's cheaper and more efficient than rail and has a proven track record here. I guess it's just not as sexy.

I agree building rail doesn't suddenly reduce traffic. It does however provide other options so you don't have to sit in traffic on the highway if you don't want to when you are trying to travel around the city.

Is it really that hard to agree to spend that much money on an infrastructure project? They didn't seem to have a problem agreeing to expand the Katy freeway for billions of dollars and look at the traffic there just a few years after it was expanded..

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Busses aren't as sexy.

[august948]

I agree building rail doesn't suddenly reduce traffic. It does however provide other options so you don't have to sit in traffic on the highway if you don't want to when you are trying to travel around the city.

Is it really that hard to agree to spend that much money on an infrastructure project? They didn't seem to have a problem agreeing to expand the Katy freeway for billions of dollars and look at the traffic there just a few years after it was expanded..

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Busses aren't as sexy.

 

In a word, yes.  Otherwise it'd already have been done long ago.  The people paying the taxes for such a system are going to weigh their increase in taxes vs whether it will make enough of a difference to save them money and/or time and vote accordingly.  There was a reason Ton Delay could get away with stalling metro on rail to the point they had to do an end-run around him to get the red line going.  The voters of his district wouldn't see much benefit so they weren't interested in paying for it and supporting it.

 

I happen to like trains, personally.  But I'm paying taxes to support a light rail system that doesn't come anywhere near my house and probably never will.  For me, I have to make an effort to ride the train and so only ride once every couple of years when it happens to be convenient.  Based on that calculus, I'd vote against rail any day of the week.  I don't think I'm alone on that.

 

Too bad busses aren't sexy.  Frankly, I've always thought the P&R service is the best use of tax dollars for commuting and would like to see it expand to non-peak hours and multiple destinations.

 

[samagon]

Unfortunately, building rail doesn't really reduce congestion by much.  That's the real problem.  It's hard to agree to spend that much money and still have crowded freeways once it's built.  If you could build rail and congestion really went down, that would be another story.  I don't think that happens in the real world.

 

I don't know why people get so down on the park and ride system.  It's cheaper and more efficient than rail and has a proven track record here.  I guess it's just not as sexy.

 

 

Looking at I-10 you can say that making a freeway wider doesn't really reduce congestion by much either. Katy Fwy went from being a moo freeway to the widest freeway in the world, and how much did it reduce commute times for everyone? And is just about as useful to someone who doesn't live in the corridor as commuter rail is to someone who doesn't live in the corridor adjacent.

 

So, as the saying goes, that dog don't hunt.

 

Anyway, haven't we had this discussion a few hundred times in other threads?

 

I would imagine that for this to even have a hope of working, the inner terminus of the commuter line would have to be connected to other circulators (bus, or light rail) to get people to their employment centers.

 

Would be interesting to see a line straight up the westpark tollway, and continuing on 59, stopping at greenway, and terminating at mainstreet near the wheeler station. you hit a major employment center that could feed out to others nearby, then you hit a direct connect to downtown and the medical center. 

[Houston19514]

There were two different proposals. The early 1980s plan, the heavy rail plan everyone talks about was defeated in the votes. The second was voted on (and won) but given to Lanier to implement, which he chose not to because he thought it was economically unfeasible (a monorail loop). If this was illegal or highly controversial, it would have been dragged to the courts, or at the very least, hurt his re-election prospects (which it didn't, he won by a huge margin each time until term limits finally pushed him out in 1998).

 

I didn't think there was ever a vote on the monorail plan.

[Houston19514]

Looking at I-10 you can say that making a freeway wider doesn't really reduce congestion by much either. Katy Fwy went from being a moo freeway to the widest freeway in the world, and how much did it reduce commute times for everyone? And is just about as useful to someone who doesn't live in the corridor as commuter rail is to someone who doesn't live in the corridor adjacent.

 

So, as the saying goes, that dog don't hunt.

 

Anyway, haven't we had this discussion a few hundred times in other threads?

 

To be more precise and fair, the dog that doesn't hunt is the one who constantly, and falsely, claims or implies that building rail would have meant no traffic congestion, or even significantly less traffic congestion.

[samagon]

To be more precise and fair, the dog that doesn't hunt is the one who constantly, and falsely, claims or implies that building rail would have meant no traffic congestion, or even significantly less traffic congestion.

 

It would have a similar impact as making the freeways wider does.

 

Completely remove congestion? No.

 

Reduce congestion by an amount that is considered adequate enough that it green-lights freeway widening projects? Yes.

[Ross]

I don't think anyone ever thought he Katy project would reduce congestion significantly. It did however, provide additional capacity to handle growth on the West side. That's all rail does as well, provide additional capacity. I've never been in a large city that had trains that did not also have significant traffic problems.

[mfastx]

The 1983 rail proposal was easily the best rail proposal we've had, and likely ever will have.  All of the proposals since then have been a joke, not even close to having the same impact on ridership that the '83 proposal would have had, if fully implemented.  

 

Cities like DC and SF that went ahead and fully implemented their '70s/'80s rail plans are light years ahead of Houston in the public transportation department.  

 

Cities like Atlanta and Miami that only built out phase I and never finished the job on those heavy rail systems are still ahead of Houston. 

[Slick Vik]

I don't think anyone ever thought he Katy project would reduce congestion significantly. It did however, provide additional capacity to handle growth on the West side. That's all rail does as well, provide additional capacity. I've never been in a large city that had trains that did not also have significant traffic problems.

But not having alternatives only makes the situation worse. I don't think widening then stacking freeways while ignoring alternatives is a viable long term solution.

The 1983 rail proposal was easily the best rail proposal we've had, and likely ever will have. All of the proposals since then have been a joke, not even close to having the same impact on ridership that the '83 proposal would have had, if fully implemented.

Cities like DC and SF that went ahead and fully implemented their '70s/'80s rail plans are light years ahead of Houston in the public transportation department.

Cities like Atlanta and Miami that only built out phase I and never finished the job on those heavy rail systems are still ahead of Houston.

If metro didn't go ahead with the proposal at least one line would've been built anyway

[Slick Vik]

Unfortunately, building rail doesn't really reduce congestion by much. That's the real problem. It's hard to agree to spend that much money and still have crowded freeways once it's built. If you could build rail and congestion really went down, that would be another story. I don't think that happens in the real world.

I don't know why people get so down on the park and ride system. It's cheaper and more efficient than rail and has a proven track record here. I guess it's just not as sexy.

The problem with the park and ride is the HOV isn't guaranteed to have the speed it promises due to the fact it shares traffic with cars. 45 north in particular is slow every day. But I would like to see it expanded to weekends and more often in non peak times also. But there is a significant portion of the population that has rail bias and that's always going to be there.

[IronTiger]

Lulz.. The twenty mile light rail system was just a monorail loop? I couldn't find system maps or routes. Where was it supposed to go?

The monorail was a bit from a forum post on City-Data, which tends to be pretty unreliable (I don't want to spread false intel)...but the late 1980s are archived in the Chron, so constructing a rough timeline could be done. Unfortunately, it's far more complicated then I thought, so this is the timeline from 1983 to February 1991.

1983 - An aerial rail system is proposed for Main Street and shot down (mentioned in "Transit firms vie for slice of Metro pie", 2/28/88)

Jan. 1988 - Vote done on $2.6 billion transit system (road + rail), it passes. ("Transit firms vie for slice of Metro pie")

Feb. 1988 - METRO begins to draft up futuristic rail plans. Guess who's the METRO chairman at this point? Lanier! ("Transit firms vie for slice of Metro pie") This transit system would "link the city's major employment centers - downtown, the Texas Medical Center, Greenway Plaza and Galleria-Post Oak - as well as serve southeast Houston neighborhoods and possibly the Astrodome". Sound familiar? Aerial lines are discussed, but still unpopular.

Directors of Uptown Houston Association, a developer-backed planning group in the Galleria-Post Oak area, are vehemently opposed to any aerial structure on Post Oak, said John Breeding, executive director.

``You can draw something and it will look very nice,'' he said. ``But the stations are going to be 50 feet to 75 feet wide - that would literally cover the boulevard. There is too much investment in this area to allow something with as much downside risk as an aerial guideway.''

September 1988 - A circular downtown plan is being studied at this point. At this point, no one if it's going to be monorail, trackless trolley, mag-lev, light rail, or anything. The only thing is that they want to avoid is calling it a people-mover, noting the systems in Detroit and Miami that failed to gain much ground. ("Getting around in high style - Downtown circulator idea studied")

December 1988 - Lanier cans a symposium because he wants to get more information on other city's transit systems. At this point, Lanier is still METRO Chairman and stated pro-rail. ("Lanier still favors rail despite delay")

Lanier said a consultant's study suggests monorail would not provide needed capacity and recommends an automated system with the ability to shift to manual operation for at-grade feeder lines.

He said he leans toward a fully automated, totally grade-separated system and ``remains unimpressed'' by any at-grade segments that could add to street congestion.

January 1989 - By this point, METRO has approved a layout "which will run in a U-shaped configuration from northwest Houston to the north edge of downtown - to be entirely grade-separated.", but opposition is building, this time from a church in Midtown worried about the vibrations and noise. For Main Street, it's recommended that the rail system will be a subway and the street will be a no-traffic transit mall.

November 1989 - The METRO board rejects the $1 billion 20 mile plan under Lanier's rule but not solely from him, believing "the line was too costly and would not draw sufficient ridership." (1/20/90, "Two dozen firms vie to build high-tech city transit system")

December 1989 - Lanier leaves METRO.

January 1990 - Private firms begin to come in and make all sorts of proposals.

February 1991 - Flash forward to a year later (yes, I know there's a hole) but by this time METRO's current plan is like so:

 

Metro hopes the main line will be in operation by 1997 and the remaining legs by 2000.

The project would be built with almost $600 million in federal aid, $390 million in Metro tax money and $130 million in private contributions. So far, Congress has approved $143 million for the rail system.

The plans proposed by the five firms competing to build the project include two types of monorail , one suspended and one atop an elevated beam; an automated light rail on conventional tracks with power from a third rail; and a bus guided by electricity along an elevated guideway.

With the project now behind schedule and overbudgeted, and Lanier no longer part of METRO (or pro-rail) but not mayor yet (that's still Whitmire), the Texas government works on a bill to delay rail by throwing the 1988 referendum and putting it to another vote. The risk that METRO will award a contract out of fear (their schedule was set a year ago) is high. It is noted that

 

Four months before the 1983 vote [(substantially different in design and funding)], the Metro board met in an emergency session to award a $139 million contract for 130 rail cars. When voters rejected the $2.3 billion plan, Metro was forced to pay about $1 million to settle its contracts with two Japanese firms.

If Metro approves a contract for the current rail plan, it likely will commit itself to spending $10 million to $12 million for preliminary engineering and design.

Of course, March 1991 is when things would start kicking into high gear with the Texas state government decided to step in and force METRO (which was created by them) to make some changes while revealing that there was some palm-greasing going on in the pro-rail set, but that's another story.

In short, it's obviously more than Big Bad Lanier stopping the Will of the People and more a complicated political battle. And it's still 7 more months until Lanier was elected mayor.

EDIT: Yes, I do intend on finishing my timeline. Another day, another post.

[cloud713]

Dude. Thanks! That's by far the best timeline/break down of the whole rail ordeal that I've ever seen.

[Houston19514]

It would have a similar impact as making the freeways wider does.

 

Completely remove congestion? No.

 

Reduce congestion by an amount that is considered adequate enough that it green-lights freeway widening projects? Yes.

 

Not likely.  Show us a rail project anywhere that reduced congestion in a noticeable way.

 

And by the way, another dog that won't hunt is the repeated lie that the Katy Freeway project did not reduce congestion in a significant way.  Repeating the lie does not make it true.  Years after completion,  despite huge population, job and economic growth, the Katy Freeway is still significantly less congested than it was prior to the widening project.

[arche_757]

What is the next steps for the Katy Freeway?  What happens when that area adds another 500,000 people?  Will we add more lanes?  Will we add a doubledecker freeway above the current one?

Also, other than the costs - what is the primary reason people loath rail transit?  Do you like driving that much?

[august948]

Looking at I-10 you can say that making a freeway wider doesn't really reduce congestion by much either. Katy Fwy went from being a moo freeway to the widest freeway in the world, and how much did it reduce commute times for everyone? And is just about as useful to someone who doesn't live in the corridor as commuter rail is to someone who doesn't live in the corridor adjacent.

 

So, as the saying goes, that dog don't hunt.

 

 

Since I drive I10 on a regular basis, I can tell you from my personal experience that the widening did help even if it didn't totaly eliminate congestion during rush hour.  Thing is, a lane of highway can accomodate not just commuters in cars, but busses and even trucks that deliver goods to, let's say for example, east end neighborhoods.  And since it's part of a wider, interconnected system, that additional highway lane can be an integral part of trips from any destination to any destination. A rail line is a trip from a given destination through a limited number or destinations to a final destination and requires you change your mode of transportation at least a couple of times before reaching your destination unless both origin and destination for the trip are on the rail line.

 

So, I'm afraid, that dog does hunt, and quite well.

 

But, if they're going to do this, and I suspect they will at some point, I hope they are able to maximize the usefullness.  Last thing we need is Dallas' rail to nowhere. 

 

[IronTiger]

The Katy Freeway isn't going to be widened. The next step will probably be semi-autonomous vehicles that will be able to detect traffic situations and communicate with other cars and systems. (I have a friend who's in civil engineering)

You see, congestion isn't solely based on the number of cars on the road. When an impatient jackass decides to cut through three lanes to get to an exit and cars start braking (thus, causing a "shockwave").

If we all drove better, congestion would be less of an issue, which is why smarter cars will actually help.

Rail isn't the silver bullet in traffic congestion, and in all situations it's cost-effective only in dense environments (Eastern Seaboard, India, NYC, Great Britain).

[mfastx]

New construction of rail has little impact on traffic congestion, especially if the city is still growing.  On the other hand, if you get rid of an established rail system similar to DC's which carries 800,000 daily riders, then there will be a huge traffic increase.  Cities build around rail systems over a period of decades, but that doesn't mean commuter patterns, housing and jobs in place before the rail line will go away. 

 

Personally I am on the fence regarding commuter rail in Houston.  I am a huge proponent of a heavy rail system connecting destinations within the city, but we've sunk so much money into our HOV/P&R lane system that it seems like a waste to do it all over again on a commuter rail system, which would likely only marginally increase ridership over the existing P&R network. In the long run, it's more efficient and has the potential to carry many more riders, but I'd rather build our transit system from the core outwards, rather than pouring money into getting more people into the city and then forcing them to navigate an inefficient bus system/piecemeal light rail system. 

[arche_757]

Right, I never said rail isn't the end all, be all.  In fact I've said as much in any of my transit posts on here.

 

Semi-autonomous cars... so that's the answer?  Computer controlled cars?  That will be the end of congestion?  Doubtful.

[august948]

What is the next steps for the Katy Freeway?  What happens when that area adds another 500,000 people?  Will we add more lanes?  Will we add a doubledecker freeway above the current one?

Also, other than the costs - what is the primary reason people loath rail transit?  Do you like driving that much?

 

You can add more lanes. Or double-deck the freeways.  A better solution, and one that is really already underway, is to distribute employment out of the city core. People and businesses will make their own decisions regarding acceptable commute times and will opt to work outside the loop and even outside the beltway.  We can see that already in motion in the energy corridor and westchase where there are buildings going up right and left.

 

And, yes, I do like driving.  I can get in my car and go anywhere I want in this great city we live in at any time, day or night.  Shop, go to restaurants, run errands, visit museums, fill up my trunk with whatever we need and return.  I can change my destinations and the order I go to them on a whim.  I can be heading to Katy Mills mall and figure, what the hell, let's just keep going to San Antonio (true story).  Rail is limited purpose transit.  I don't loath it, but I'm realistic enough to realize that dollars spent on roads are more useful than dollars spent on rail, particularly in this town where everything is spread out.

 

[august948]

Right, I never said rail isn't the end all, be all.  In fact I've said as much in any of my transit posts on here.

 

Semi-autonomous cars... so that's the answer?  Computer controlled cars?  That will be the end of congestion?  Doubtful.

 

And that's the rub.  There is no end to congestion unless you have a massive population drop.  So we're always going to be fighting a losing battle if the goal is the end of congestion.  What we should be looking for is the best way to mitigate or minimize it's causes and effects short of stifling growth.