Houston Tomorrow Suggestion for Dynamic New Mass Transit Solution

[cspwal]

Many times the Manhattan/Houston comparison has come up on this forum, and seems similar in size to the inner loop area. And Manhattan has multiple centers (downtown, midtown) that do have their own transfer stations. But if you're going elsewhere you do transfer to local transit. I suspect that for Houston, commuter rail would stop at the galleria and at downtown, with transfers to the med center via light rail (or heavy rail if they could ever happen >.< )

[Montrose1100]

I'm tired of people comparing manhattan to downtown Houston..

you do realize Manhattan is 33.77 square miles, right? thats almost 19 times the size of downtown Houston. or 1/3rd the size of the inner loop. at 13.4 miles long, and a few miles wide, if you turned manhattan on its side and imposed it over a map of Houston, it would stretch from Downtown, all the way to Eldridge on the west side. that basically encompasses the entire districts of Downtown, Midtown, Montrose, River Oaks, Upper Kirby, Greenway Plaza, Uptown, Memorial City, Westchase, CityCentre, and Briar Forest.

its no "Manhattan", but thats a pretty damn impressive collection of development/employment centers for a sprawling city without zoning. if commuter trains traveling to Manhattan can get by with only having 2 main transfer hubs/stops, then why can't that same area of Houston get by with 2 transfer hubs/commuter stops that distribute riders to the local employment/population centers?

i don't think anyone here expects a regional rail system in Houston to be as successful as NYCs rail system. if you do, you're crazy.. NYC is 4 times as populated as Houston, while being half the size, and blows all other U.S. rail systems out of the water. but that doesn't mean that we can't/shouldnt build a regional rail system. without alternate forms of mass transit to get places efficiently, and traffic turning into grid-lock, businesses/people will start looking in places elsewhere to relocate their families and corporations.

if we as a city want to continue to thrive, we cant let the things that make Houston attractive disappear.

Why so angry? I was just saying that Houston isn't special for having multiple employment centers, as if it were some extreme unique challenge for us to build a rail system.

[nativehoustonion]

Believe it or not, the Houston metropolitan population is a good deal larger than Singapore.  (Houston's metro population is 6.5 Million.)

 

Where do you anticipate we would possibly need a circulator that would discharge 1,000 people at a time?

 

Yes your right we may be close to 6.6 million.  Singapore has 290 square miles very dense.  They use there heavy rail system and connect to there Senkang Circulator.  Because these commuters to get to their final destination. J. Sam Lott said Paris building right now.  They look like the tram system at Bush airport.     

 

[cloud713]

Why so angry? I was just saying that Houston isn't special for having multiple employment centers, as if it were some extreme unique challenge for us to build a rail system.

huh? i wasn't angry.. just saying its ridiculous when people try to compare Manhattan to downtown Houston.. and that post was directed at Houston19514 anyways?

i completely agree.. multiple employment districts aren't something unique to Houston. we can do this.

[Houston19514]

I'm tired of people comparing manhattan to downtown Houston..

you do realize Manhattan is 33.77 square miles, right? thats almost 19 times the size of downtown Houston. or 1/3rd the size of the inner loop. at 13.4 miles long, and a few miles wide, if you turned manhattan on its side and imposed it over a map of Houston, it would stretch from Downtown, all the way to Eldridge on the west side. that basically encompasses the entire districts of Downtown, Midtown, Montrose, River Oaks, Upper Kirby, Greenway Plaza, Uptown, Memorial City, Westchase, CityCentre, and Briar Forest.

its no "Manhattan", but thats a pretty damn impressive collection of development/employment centers for a sprawling city without zoning. if commuter trains traveling to Manhattan can get by with only having 2 main transfer hubs/stops, then why can't that same area of Houston get by with 2 transfer hubs/commuter stops that distribute riders to the local employment/population centers?

i don't think anyone here expects a regional rail system in Houston to be as successful as NYCs rail system. if you do, you're crazy.. NYC is 4 times as populated as Houston, while being half the size, and blows all other U.S. rail systems out of the water. but that doesn't mean that we can't/shouldnt build a regional rail system. without alternate forms of mass transit to get places efficiently, and traffic turning into grid-lock, businesses/people will start looking in places elsewhere to relocate their families and corporations.

if we as a city want to continue to thrive, we cant let the things that make Houston attractive disappear.

 

Maybe you should direct your response to Houston Tomorrow.  They are the ones who posited the comparison to NYC and suggested we could have trains depositing 1,000 passengers at a time at multiple destinations in Central Houston.  In fact, my post was all about the fact that Houston is not comparable to NYC and it is fantasy to think otherwise (I guess you prefer the term "crazy"...).

 

Your idea of having 2 main transfer hubs/stops from which commuters are circulated to the central Houston employment centers is an interesting one.  But of course, that is not what Houston Tomorrow proposed and is not what my post was critiquing/questioning. 

 

Contrary to your implication, I did not in any way say we should never have a regional rail system.  But as always, we need to look at these things with clear eyes.  Spending $X for the promise of a commuter rail system like NYC's (as was proposed by Houston Tomorrow) is not something we should even consider.  Spending $X - Y (with Y being quite large) for some commuter rail appropriate for Houston is something we should consider.

 

[mollusk]

If I'm reading my Googles correctly, the Katy Freeway re-do ended up costing $2.8 billion, 290 is in the $1.8 - $2 billion range. 

 

So remind me again about how the cost of rail can't be justified...

[BigFootsSocks]

If I'm reading my Googles correctly, the Katy Freeway re-do ended up costing $2.8 billion, 290 is in the $1.8 - $2 billion range.

So remind me again about how the cost of rail can't be justified...

Uhhh I'm almost postive the Katy freeway was more like $6 billion, and a recent article on the chron (shut up I'm citing it anyway, haters) lists the 290 project at $4 billion.

Your point still stands.

[Houston19514]

If I'm reading my Googles correctly, the Katy Freeway re-do ended up costing $2.8 billion, 290 is in the $1.8 - $2 billion range.

So remind me again about how the cost of rail can't be justified...

Who said the cost of rail can't be justified?

[nativehoustonion]

This is not "Houston Tomorrow" idea. J. Sam Lott is vice president of Kimley-Horn.  He did a slide show of Houston's Impending Transportation Crisis.  He has a great idea I have not seen anyone with anything better.

[mfastx]

This is not "Houston Tomorrow" idea. J. Sam Lott is vice president of Kimley-Horn.  He did a slide show of Houston's Impending Transportation Crisis.  He has a great idea I have not seen anyone with anything better.

 

I've got one.  Heavy rail technology like what was proposed in 1983, running in a subway under Westheimer from Beltway 8 to downtown, turning north and becoming elevated north of downtown to IAH. 

 

Another line running from Hobby to downtown serving UH, with a transfer point to the other line downtown and continuing out along Washington Ave and eventually joining I10 and running out I10 to Beltway 8.  

 

Finally, a third line running from along 290 south towards the Galleria area, branching off the freeway at Post Oak and running under post oak, under 59 and back down 610 all the way down to South Post Oak/Main. 

 

To connect TMC, have a line from Sugar Land running up Main (with a connection to the Galleria Line at South Post Oak) and continuing to run up Main until NRG, from there take roughly the current Red Line path to the TMC, passing through the museum district and connecting with the 59-IAH line in downtown. 

 

In this system, riders from Katy can go directly downtown, and are 1 transfer away from the Galleria or TMC. 

 

Riders from Sugar Land can go straight to TMC/Downtown and are one transfer away from Galleria. 

 

Riders from north Houston can go straight downtown and Galleria, and connect to TMC via one transfer.  

 

In addition, you could run it like the WMATA in that there can be rush service serving different destinations to eliminate transfers. 

 

Cost of this proposed system if built today: probably between $20-30 billion.  So, yea, while this would never happen, it had a chance of happening had the 1983 proposal went through. 

[102IAHexpress]

Not to mention all the development rail spawns.. I don't see any residential towers or mixed use developments popping up at any of the park & rides..

 

The park and ride system has two end points for possible development. The park point and the point where passengers exit the bus and walk to their destination. You're right, perhaps the park point of the system has not been a stimulus for growth but the passenger exist point has been. Look at all the development in downtown along the park and ride bus stops.

[cspwal]

When did the park and ride services start?  It would seem more logical that the park and ride end points in downtown were chosen by the area's development, not the other way around.

 

I am curious though why you don't see more development around the parking portion of park and rides.  Wouldn't car washes, Starbucks, grocery stores, etc make sense there for people on their way home?

[102IAHexpress]

 It would seem more logical that the park and ride end points in downtown were chosen by the area's development, not the other way around.

 

If that is your position about the park ride development end points, then would you also take the same position regarding Cloud713's claim about "all the development rail spawns". I'm assuming he's talking about light rail in Downtown.

[BigFootsSocks]

If that is your position about the park ride development end points, then would you also take the same position regarding Cloud713's claim about "all the development rail spawns". I'm assuming he's talking about light rail in Downtown.

I believe he's talking about the development along all of the light rail lines. The new ones haven't seen as much success yet because, well, they're new.

[por favor gracias]

If I'm reading my Googles correctly, the Katy Freeway re-do ended up costing $2.8 billion, 290 is in the $1.8 - $2 billion range. 

 

So remind me again about how the cost of rail can't be justified...

 

On top of that, factor in the cost of owning our own personal vehicles, gas, insurance, repairs/maintenance, traffic citations, tolls, parking, etc...plus all the time we waste sitting in traffic.

[nativehoustonion]

I've got one.  Heavy rail technology like what was proposed in 1983, running in a subway under Westheimer from Beltway 8 to downtown, turning north and becoming elevated north of downtown to IAH. 

 

Another line running from Hobby to downtown serving UH, with a transfer point to the other line downtown and continuing out along Washington Ave and eventually joining I10 and running out I10 to Beltway 8.  

 

Finally, a third line running from along 290 south towards the Galleria area, branching off the freeway at Post Oak and running under post oak, under 59 and back down 610 all the way down to South Post Oak/Main. 

 

To connect TMC, have a line from Sugar Land running up Main (with a connection to the Galleria Line at South Post Oak) and continuing to run up Main until NRG, from there take roughly the current Red Line path to the TMC, passing through the museum district and connecting with the 59-IAH line in downtown. 

 

In this system, riders from Katy can go directly downtown, and are 1 transfer away from the Galleria or TMC. 

 

Riders from Sugar Land can go straight to TMC/Downtown and are one transfer away from Galleria. 

 

Riders from north Houston can go straight downtown and Galleria, and connect to TMC via one transfer.  

 

In addition, you could run it like the WMATA in that there can be rush service serving different destinations to eliminate transfers. 

 

Cost of this proposed system if built today: probably between $20-30 billion.  So, yea, while this would never happen, it had a chance of happening had the 1983 proposal went through. 

 

I love this you need to come to the meeting!

 

[samagon]

On top of that, factor in the cost of owning our own personal vehicles, gas, insurance, repairs/maintenance, traffic citations, tolls, parking, etc...plus all the time we waste sitting in traffic.

Speak for yourself, I'm a model citizen!

[por favor gracias]

Speak for yourself, I'm a model citizen!

 

Haha.....me too (or at least I try as hard as possible), but many "model citizens" have been issued traffic citations for things (mainly money, but it's also "easy" revenue) that have nothing to do with the reason(s) why they exist (safety) in the first place.

[august948]

Believe or not Houston metropolitan has the same population as Singapore there population is 5,567,000.  They have a Sengkang District Circulator which discharged 1,000 people at a time.  Houston will need this in the future.

.

 

Singapore has a density of 19k per square mile vs Houston's density of about 3,500 per square mile.  That makes a huge difference in what is practical for mass transit.

 

[Greens!]

I've got one.  Heavy rail technology like what was proposed in 1983, running in a subway under Westheimer from Beltway 8 to downtown, turning north and becoming elevated north of downtown to IAH. 

 

Another line running from Hobby to downtown serving UH, with a transfer point to the other line downtown and continuing out along Washington Ave and eventually joining I10 and running out I10 to Beltway 8.  

 

Finally, a third line running from along 290 south towards the Galleria area, branching off the freeway at Post Oak and running under post oak, under 59 and back down 610 all the way down to South Post Oak/Main. 

 

To connect TMC, have a line from Sugar Land running up Main (with a connection to the Galleria Line at South Post Oak) and continuing to run up Main until NRG, from there take roughly the current Red Line path to the TMC, passing through the museum district and connecting with the 59-IAH line in downtown. 

 

In this system, riders from Katy can go directly downtown, and are 1 transfer away from the Galleria or TMC. 

 

Riders from Sugar Land can go straight to TMC/Downtown and are one transfer away from Galleria. 

 

Riders from north Houston can go straight downtown and Galleria, and connect to TMC via one transfer.  

 

In addition, you could run it like the WMATA in that there can be rush service serving different destinations to eliminate transfers. 

 

Cost of this proposed system if built today: probably between $20-30 billion.  So, yea, while this would never happen, it had a chance of happening had the 1983 proposal went through. 

 

Exactly. I call bullflurf on people who say we can't have a subway because of the water table or flooding, etc. We have freeways below grade. And we live in the city that invented fracking. Do you mean to tell me that there is no engineering talent in this city that can figure out how to drill a (cost effective) horizontal tunnel and then make it waterproof? They should take advantage of the low oil prices and snag some of that equipment.

[BigFootsSocks]

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.

[samagon]

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. 

[august948]

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.

 

[august948]

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.

 

[Greens!]

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.

[ADCS]

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.

[Ross]

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.

 

[j_cuevas713]

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.

[Slick Vik]

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.

[Montrose1100]

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!