BigFootsSocks Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 According to my civil engineering father (worked in Houston for 35+ years), it's not so much the sea level issue, as it is the soil. I'm paraphrasing from a conversation I had years ago, so I'm not exactly sure if I get it all right, but it has something to do with the heavy clay/sand soil that makes it a bit more difficult (read: costly) to create a subway system so close to the Gulf in our swampy city. Sea level does have a part in why it's not as easy to build a subway here; it rains a crazy amount of days per year here; somewhere around 150 a year. All of that water obviously has to be drained to the gulf someway. If a subway system were to be built, it would need a costly and insanely designed drainage system that is capable of pumping out millions of gallons of water for a 100+mile subway system (assuming full build out). It honestly comes just comes down to cost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Amsterdam has a subway. London has a subway. Both of these cities are closer to sea level than Houston. Probably the type of soil that Houston has when you dig far enough down that would make it cost prohibitive. I don't think Houston needs a full subway though. We've got perfect arterial pathways in the freeway system, they have HOV lanes that could easily be removed and put in heavy rail. Otherwise, what we have right now is perfectly serviceable, that's not to say that going for distances as elevated, or underground might make sense. Say Richmond, if the light rail were to go out past 610, tunneling from westlayan out past post oak would be smart, or elevate the line of Richmond between Montrose and the spur. Etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 According to my civil engineering father (worked in Houston for 35+ years), it's not so much the sea level issue, as it is the soil. I'm paraphrasing from a conversation I had years ago, so I'm not exactly sure if I get it all right, but it has something to do with the heavy clay/sand soil that makes it a bit more difficult (read: costly) to create a subway system so close to the Gulf in our swampy city. Sea level does have a part in why it's not as easy to build a subway here; it rains a crazy amount of days per year here; somewhere around 150 a year. All of that water obviously has to be drained to the gulf someway. If a subway system were to be built, it would need a costly and insanely designed drainage system that is capable of pumping out millions of gallons of water for a 100+mile subway system (assuming full build out). It honestly comes just comes down to cost. I suspect it's the drainage that would be the big problem. I spoke to some foundation companies a couple of years ago and they told me that bedrock here (at least under my house) is about 22 feet down. Above that the soil moves. You'd have to go down that far plus however much the tunnel is plus some to build without having to worry about the soil conditions. Seems like it would be cheaper short and long term just to elevate. Who knows...if they decide to elevate part of the hsr maybe that will inspire some elevated commuter/light rail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Amsterdam has a subway. London has a subway. Both of these cities are closer to sea level than Houston. Probably the type of soil that Houston has when you dig far enough down that would make it cost prohibitive. I don't think Houston needs a full subway though. We've got perfect arterial pathways in the freeway system, they have HOV lanes that could easily be removed and put in heavy rail. Otherwise, what we have right now is perfectly serviceable, that's not to say that going for distances as elevated, or underground might make sense. Say Richmond, if the light rail were to go out past 610, tunneling from westlayan out past post oak would be smart, or elevate the line of Richmond between Montrose and the spur. Etc. You're right about the arterials. How about we elevate the commuter rail above the hov? Connect the rail with the existing p&r lots/stations so you can tie into the local network or take p&r buses to areas not on the commuter line. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greens! Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Oh, I don't have a problem with mixed use near P&R stations. That's great if the market demands it. But I don't think that's a criteria for judging a system, since I think most of the people that would want to live in dense mixed-use would pick something along the light rail in the core rather than a remote suburban P&R. But to the extent it's happening, great! Therein lies the rub. Inner city housing (read that to mean near major job centers) has become prohibitively expensive in Houston. Commuters from new communities on the outskirts of Houston can expect 45 minutes to an hour on a good day and up to two hours on a bad day - each way. You mentioned more bus service earlier. I don't understand what the fetish is with grade seperated commuter bus routes when the word "train" implies multiple bus like coaches being pulled together. I have talked to other people (in leadership positions) who are offended at the thought of having trains deliver shoppers and workers to their doorstep every day. It's as though they can't grasp that there are six million people in the region, the roads are massive, and are still jammed. Why not jam more busses in the mix to make things interesting? The way I see this is that it isn't so much an urbanist utopian dream of everyone taking trains and living in disneyland-like villages, but a way to preserve the value proposition the brings so many people to Houston. You get plenty of space with access to big city amenities for a low price which makes for a great value. The schools have left the picture, which isn't unique to Houston. What is more threatening is the loss of access to the city itself, which will ultimately starve the city of Houston of the employment growth, tax base, and commerce that it needs to pay its bills. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I suspect it's the drainage that would be the big problem. I spoke to some foundation companies a couple of years ago and they told me that bedrock here (at least under my house) is about 22 feet down. Above that the soil moves. You'd have to go down that far plus however much the tunnel is plus some to build without having to worry about the soil conditions. Seems like it would be cheaper short and long term just to elevate. Who knows...if they decide to elevate part of the hsr maybe that will inspire some elevated commuter/light rail. 22 feet isn't that far down, though - there are lines running well over 100 ft beneath London, for example. Doing a little research, though, it appears that the bedrock varies quite a bit in Houston - between 100 and 600 ft in places. That would cause a substantial, though not insurmountable tunneling problem. Would likely demand cut-and-cover for any construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 22 feet isn't that far down, though - there are lines running well over 100 ft beneath London, for example. Doing a little research, though, it appears that the bedrock varies quite a bit in Houston - between 100 and 600 ft in places. That would cause a substantial, though not insurmountable tunneling problem. Would likely demand cut-and-cover for any construction. None of the London lines run through bedrock, it's mostly through clay type soils. The tunneling techniques used place the tunnel segments as the boring machine moves forward. Early tunnels used cast iron or steel segments, while newer lines use concrete. The cut and cover lines in London were built from the 1860's to the 1890's (approximately), and could not be built today due to the huge disruption of surface streets and structures. If Houston were to build an underground, it would have to be reasonably deep, and carefully mapped to avoid the myriad of water and oil wells that exist here. Cut and cover tunnels would be hugely disruptive and expensive, and probably unacceptable to the majority of the population. Imagine Westheimer being closed for several years. I have no idea if train tunnels would have to respect surface property owners rights. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) Why don't we just focus on light rail connecting to the Galleria from downtown and a possible line to cover the Heights. Anything outside of the Loop should be heavy rail to the burbs. Simple as that. Along with our new bus system we would have a strong transit system. All that's left are nice bike lanes. But I think those rental bikes are doing great in this city. Edited October 28, 2015 by j_cuevas713 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 None of the London lines run through bedrock, it's mostly through clay type soils. The tunneling techniques used place the tunnel segments as the boring machine moves forward. Early tunnels used cast iron or steel segments, while newer lines use concrete. The cut and cover lines in London were built from the 1860's to the 1890's (approximately), and could not be built today due to the huge disruption of surface streets and structures.If Houston were to build an underground, it would have to be reasonably deep, and carefully mapped to avoid the myriad of water and oil wells that exist here. Cut and cover tunnels would be hugely disruptive and expensive, and probably unacceptable to the majority of the population. Imagine Westheimer being closed for several years. I have no idea if train tunnels would have to respect surface property owners rights.Lol cut and cover has and is being used in cities much more important than Houston. Westheimer is not champs elysees calm down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Why don't we just focus on light rail connecting to the Galleria from downtown and a possible line to cover the Heights. Anything outside of the Loop should be heavy rail to the burbs. Simple as that. Along with our new bus system we would have a strong transit system. All that's left are nice bike lanes. But I think those rental bikes are doing great in this city. Heavy rail to the burbs should also service inside the loop as well. Light rail is great for connecting with the many smaller stops they have, but a heavy rail system that serves the burbs should connect with every employement center. I imagine Light Rail from Downtown to the galleria could take 45 minutes, especially if on the surface, sharing space with the roads. With a heavy rail system it could cut that time into a fraction. Which is what we need! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Judging by current travel times, going from Wheeler to the Galleria would probably take about 25 minutes, but you're right once you add in taking the train there from downtown plus waiting for the connection, it could easily be 45 minutes 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Lol cut and cover has and is being used in cities much more important than Houston. Westheimer is not champs elysees calm down.Which "important" cities are currently doing cut and cover? There's a reason London hasn't done cut and cover for over 100 years. It's very disruptive. Deep tunnels are a better choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 A quick web search turned this up http://publictransport.about.com/od/Glossary/a/The-Two-Methods-Of-Subway-Construction.htm Because of the negative community sentiment that often accompanies "cut and cover" construction, almost all new subway construction is done using the "deep bore" method. One exception was Vancouver B.C.'s recently opened Canada Line, and proves to be an excellent example of problems caused by the disruptive nature of the "cut and cover" method 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Which "important" cities are currently doing cut and cover? There's a reason London hasn't done cut and cover for over 100 years. It's very disruptive. Deep tunnels are a better choice.Vancouver did it recently. Auckland New Zealand also Edited October 29, 2015 by Slick Vik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Vancouver did it recently. Auckland New Zealand also I don't think important means what you think it means. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Vancouver did it recently. Auckland New Zealand alsoAuckland built 3.4km of rail, with about a third cut and cover, the rest bored. That's not much rail. Vancouvers mayor promised no more cut and cover, do I'm guessing it was not a popular construction method there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Auckland built 3.4km of rail, with about a third cut and cover, the rest bored. That's not much rail. Vancouvers mayor promised no more cut and cover, do I'm guessing it was not a popular construction method there.Qatar's metro rail projects are all using cut and cover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Yeah Qatar is also holding thousands of migrant workers hostage to build their rail and makeshift city so idk if I'd use them as proof that it's a good idea. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Qatar's metro rail projects are all using cut and coverNo, they aren't. The Lusail project will be cut and cover, the rest will be bored tunnels according to the project website http://www.qr.com.qa/English/Projects/Pages/Tunnelling.aspxLusail is not a populated area, so cut and cover isn't disruptive. Here's a story about one of the 21 boring machines being damaged by tunnel flooding http://dohanews.co/doha-metro-boring-machine-damaged-in-unexpected-tunnel-flood/ Edited October 30, 2015 by Ross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I know they did cut and cover in DC and people didn't like it. But I don't think that should stop anyone from constructing a subway if the only viable method is cut and cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) No, they aren't. The Lusail project will be cut and cover, the rest will be bored tunnels according to the project website http://www.qr.com.qa/English/Projects/Pages/Tunnelling.aspxLusail is not a populated area, so cut and cover isn't disruptive. Here's a story about one of the 21 boring machines being damaged by tunnel flooding http://dohanews.co/doha-metro-boring-machine-damaged-in-unexpected-tunnel-flood/Delhi, Jaipur, Bangalore. I can keep going. It may be disruptive but I would rather have a rail line built with cut and cover then nothing at all. Also boring is prohibitively more expensive.Regardless you're against rail so it's just another excuse from you. Edited October 30, 2015 by Slick Vik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Delhi, Jaipur, Bangalore. I can keep going. It may be disruptive but I would rather have a rail line built with cut and cover then nothing at all. Also boring is prohibitively more expensive.Regardless you're against rail so it's just another excuse from you.Delhi appears to be using 19 TBM's for tunneling, and cut and cover for stations.I am not against rail per se, just against rail done stupidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Delhi appears to be using 19 TBM's for tunneling, and cut and cover for stations.I am not against rail per se, just against rail done stupidly.I think it's more about economics than stupidity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.