METRO Next - 2040 Vision

[cspwal]

Fannin south seems pretty popular as a park and ride for the south end of the red line, so a park and ride at the other end seems appropriate

 

From what I can tell of the "Signature bus", it will start at the downtown TC, go down to midtown and take the HOV lane on 59 to Edloe, where it will exit and go to Westheimer and continue the trip from there

[intencity77]

I find the Green Line Extension to Hobby poorly placed. It was originally proposed to go down 75th/Garland/Woodridge and then Telephone to Hobby. I believe this to be the best route for capturing the highest ridership amount possible, especially passing through the very busy Gulfgate Center. Placing the LRT farther east on Broadway (as is in this vision) makes no sense as most of the northern reaches of Broadway (north of I-610) are and always will be a predominantly industrial/port area with very low residential & pedestrian activity. 

[LBC2HTX]

Interesting that they're contemplating a red line extension to Missouri City. 

[EllenOlenska]

I feel like that Missouri Line has gotten the most chatter over the past few years. 
 

31 minutes ago, LBC2HTX said:

Interesting that they're contemplating a red line extension to Missouri City. 

 

[cspwal]

3 hours ago, intencity77 said:

I find the Green Line Extension to Hobby poorly placed. It was originally proposed to go down 75th/Garland/Woodridge and then Telephone to Hobby. I believe this to be the best route for capturing the highest ridership amount possible, especially passing through the very busy Gulfgate Center. Placing the LRT farther east on Broadway (as is in this vision) makes no sense as most of the northern reaches of Broadway (north of I-610) are and always will be a predominantly industrial/port area with very low residential & pedestrian activity. 

 

I think the green line route was chosen for speed over ridership - connecting Hobby to downtown via rail is possible, but no one will ever ride it if it takes an hour and a half to get there.  What is more disappointing is that there is no new service in that corner at all, no BOOST or BRT.  The older plan had a lot more BOOST corridors

[Luminare]

Its only a draft, but still shows a lack of vision, or awareness of what is possible. Its like they exist in a bubble and are unaware of precedents done by other cities anywhere else. There is a lot of potential (even using existing rail lines and utility corridors) to really implement a true multi layered transportation infrastructure, but everyone there seems to have blinders on.

 

EDIT: By the way, the extension to the courthouses' is a waste of time. You have two light rail lines with potential to head west and all they want to do is extend them 0.1 miles to courthouses that might either be relocated or demoed within the next decade?! Just have no clue what these people are thinking.

 

EDIT2: They really need to grab all the people that have worked on Downtown Greenbelt project, The I45 Corridor project, etc... When I looked at those presentations, immediately I told myself, these are people with vision. Who are excited to do their jobs, and want to go all out for this city. METRO is clearly lagging behind and is taking a half-hearted approach.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Luminare

[mfastx]

I'll always support transit improvements of any kind so on principal I do support this plan, but it's truly baffling the decisions they're making on where to put rail vs. BRT corridors.  They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is focusing rail on more dense corridors with higher ridership potential and BRT on less dense areas.  It's truly mystifying and would be a massive misuse of money.  What is the use of having TWO lines going to Hobby, take one of those lines and the north line extension and make it an east-west route along Westheimer or Richmond.  Just makes too much sense I suppose. 

[Luminare]

2 hours ago, mfastx said:

I'll always support transit improvements of any kind so on principal I do support this plan, but it's truly baffling the decisions they're making on where to put rail vs. BRT corridors.  They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is focusing rail on more dense corridors with higher ridership potential and BRT on less dense areas.  It's truly mystifying and would be a massive misuse of money.  What is the use of having TWO lines going to Hobby, take one of those lines and the north line extension and make it an east-west route along Westheimer or Richmond.  Just makes too much sense I suppose. 

 

Completely agree with you. On principle I support it as well. Any improvement is better than none, but you are exactly right. The people involved seem to be unable to see the forest from the trees and are stuck in the weeds of what is existing instead of looking beyond it to what has potential and what could be possible. I'm sure in the thick of it all and as one whole probably has been in Metro forever (I'm putting myself in the perspective of one who might be a higher up at Metro) this all might make a lot of sense, but as soon as you take an outside perspective the plan immediately falls apart and doesn't hold up.

[wilcal]

20 hours ago, cspwal said:

 

I think the green line route was chosen for speed over ridership - connecting Hobby to downtown via rail is possible, but no one will ever ride it if it takes an hour and a half to get there.  What is more disappointing is that there is no new service in that corner at all, no BOOST or BRT.  The older plan had a lot more BOOST corridors

 

I think that is why they scrapped extending the red line to Hobby. 

 

The green line averages between 17 and 19mph in the East End from my limited understanding. So lets say 18mph average (including time at stops of course) and that gives you an extra 21-22 minutes to extend green line to Hobby. That would put travel time from Hobby to the Convention Center/Discovery Green stop at under 40 minutes unless I'm missing something. 

 

 

[wilcal]

3 hours ago, mfastx said:

I'll always support transit improvements of any kind so on principal I do support this plan, but it's truly baffling the decisions they're making on where to put rail vs. BRT corridors.  They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is focusing rail on more dense corridors with higher ridership potential and BRT on less dense areas.  It's truly mystifying and would be a massive misuse of money.  What is the use of having TWO lines going to Hobby, take one of those lines and the north line extension and make it an east-west route along Westheimer or Richmond.  Just makes too much sense I suppose. 

 

Definitely not enough room on Westheimer. Their "premier westheimer bus" is going to skip Westheimer in Montrose and utilize the 59 HOV and head into Greenspoint.

 

Additionally, I wonder what BRT even looks like in some of these examples. 

 

I do agree that you dump Purple Line to Hobby extension. Utilize those funds to convert UH to Bellaire/Uptown transit to LRT. You can keep the outer bits as BRT. 

[H-Town Man]

I don't understand why you extend the Red Line to N. Shepherd Transit Center and have not one but two lines to Hobby when you could be using that money to extend the green/purple lines to Northwest Transit Center. It's going to be real interesting watching a light rail train go past all the junkyards along N. Shepherd. Instead you could be connecting all those people along Washington to downtown.

 

This would also get more pieces in place for conversion of the Uptown BRT line to light rail.

 

[mfastx]

21 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

Definitely not enough room on Westheimer. Their "premier westheimer bus" is going to skip Westheimer in Montrose and utilize the 59 HOV and head into Greenspoint.

 

Additionally, I wonder what BRT even looks like in some of these examples. 

 

I do agree that you dump Purple Line to Hobby extension. Utilize those funds to convert UH to Bellaire/Uptown transit to LRT. You can keep the outer bits as BRT. 

 

For Westheimer, a subway would be optimal which is what I had in mind.  Yes it'd be a lot of money but well worth it in the long run, next 100 years or so.  The ridership numbers in the plan are just backwards, putting LRT (or optimally, HRT but I understand that is not realistic at this point) in those higher ridership corridors would bring even more ridership than BRT.  

 

The orignal plan on Richmond would work well too, that's wide enough for a surface line. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by mfastx

[cspwal]

If only they could build a cut-and-cover subway while they are rebuilding westheimer, but I know that would shut down the whole road for months

 

[102IAHexpress]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:34 PM, Luminare said:

EDIT: By the way, the extension to the courthouses' is a waste of time. You have two light rail lines with potential to head west and all they want to do is extend them 0.1 miles to courthouses that might either be relocated or demoed within the next decade?! Just have no clue what these people are thinking.

 

 

The courthouse extension is the only thing that makes sense in this taxpayer boondoggle of a plan. The lack of access to the courthouse was a glaring oversite that I mentioned over three  years ago in the Metro Rail East End/Southeast Line Downtown Construction pics and updates Thread. Also, I'm not sure why you think the CoH courthouse might be relocated or demolished? Absolutely zero chance for funding of a new a courthouse anytime soon. 

 

[wilcal]

2 hours ago, mfastx said:

 

For Westheimer, a subway would be optimal which is what I had in mind.  Yes it'd be a lot of money but well worth it in the long run, next 100 years or so.  The ridership numbers in the plan are just backwards, putting LRT (or optimally, HRT but I understand that is not realistic at this point) in those higher ridership corridors would bring even more ridership than BRT.  

 

The orignal plan on Richmond would work well too, that's wide enough for a surface line. 

 

I think the entire plan costs less than running a subway from downtown to the Galleria via Westheimer. 

[wilcal]

22 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I don't understand why you extend the Red Line to N. Shepherd Transit Center and have not one but two lines to Hobby when you could be using that money to extend the green/purple lines to Northwest Transit Center. It's going to be real interesting watching a light rail train go past all the junkyards along N. Shepherd. Instead you could be connecting all those people along Washington to downtown.

 

This would also get more pieces in place for conversion of the Uptown BRT line to light rail.

 

 

They want to do BRT between NW Transit Center and downtown. 

 

I think it would be tough to fit LRT on Washington.

 

[felt38]

 

On 12/14/2018 at 9:26 PM, wilcal said:

 

They want to do BRT between NW Transit Center and downtown. 

 

I think it would be tough to fit LRT on Washington.

 

 

 

I think it would look like what was done with the Green Line on Harrisburg.....

[intencity77]

2 hours ago, felt38 said:

 

 

 

I think it would look like what was done with the Green Line on Harrisburg.....

 

That’s exactly what I was going to say. If Harrisburg can fit LRT, Washington definitely can. 

[BeerNut]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJlDiPa0po

[kennyc05]

I'm confused does Metro have a new logo?

[Visitor]

I dont know why I even waste the time reading or watching Metros plans. I dont think they will ever convince me that a Bus is a real mass transit option. 

 

[Some one]

I think that buses can work as a feeder to rail and/or for less dense areas. But solely relying on buses just screams disaster to me.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Some one

[august948]

2 hours ago, Visitor said:

I dont know why I even waste the time reading or watching Metros plans. I dont think they will ever convince me that a Bus is a real mass transit option. 

 

For a metro area the size of of the state of Connecticut, bus is probably the only real mass transit option.  You need dense corridors for light rail.  We don't have that.  What we do have are spread out suburbs and heavy traffic during rush hour.  If anything, that argues for commuter rail instead of light rail.  Are they even considering that?  All i hear about are lrt and brt.

[cspwal]

Properly implemented BRT is not the same as just "buses".  It has many of the advantages of light rail, just with a lower maximum capacity.

 

What I want to see is an investment in a heavy rail system, one line that could get out to Katy or Sugarland with intermittent stops.  It won't be dense now, but 10 years after it's done, the areas around the stations would be where you're seeing the new Texas donuts and some high rises with whatever amenity is in in 2030 (racquetball court?)

[Trae]

Houston has dense enough corridors for a complete light rail system in the inner loop with extensions to both airports (which isn't the same as a bus from downtown to IAH). You can have lines towards the west and southwest sides of towns. This isn't Houston 1985. With the location of the largest employment centers in Houston and the increase in density within the Beltway, it makes getting rail ridership here easier. The recent expansion was incomplete and doesn't show the full potential of the current lines. Would be a lot different if the University and Inner Katy lines were also complete at this point.

 

I agree with those that say commuter rail would work best from the suburbs, especially since the trains could run more often throughout the entire day than the current Metro P&R system. Studies have shown that even BRT is less favorable to potential riders than rail would be. It's still a bus, just in its own lane. There's talk of autonomous buses from folks who don't want rail but we already have autonomous rail in the world. Hindsight 20/20 (or not since it was voted for by citizens but turned down by the mayor at the time), Houston should have heavy rail down most major freeways with limited stops until you reach the core and it could 17-20 hours a day.

[Some one]

Honestly, this feels more like a plan to appeal to the John Culberson/anti-rail type of people. The plan ignores the potential to add rail on the west side of Houston (arguably the densest parts of Houston), and the light rail extensions being proposed have very little ridership (not to mention very little light rail extension to begin with). It kinda bugs me that Metro is banking on the idea of autonomous vehicles and how they believe it's the "future" when they're forgetting about autonomous trains. I agree with others that we need to build rail to the suburbs (whether it's light rail, commuter rail, or a hybrid). Hopefully the red line extension to Sugarland (or if GCRD can get fundings to build a commuter rail line) can kickstart that.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Some one

[102IAHexpress]

Wondering if Metro should just scrap all rail plans? Nation wide auto sales actually increased in 2018 over 2017.

https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig_usa_2018

More people are purchasing more trucks and SUV's, if that's even possible. These are national wide numbers not Houston numbers, but generally mass transit numbers are plateauing or falling off nationwide and auto sales are increasing. So, why invest in rail, when buses are more flexible and economical? I think the data is speaking for itself. People in car cities, are riding public transportation only until they can afford to purchase a car, then they stop riding public transit. Which makes sense. Metro should stick to it's founding charter and focus on providing public transportation to people who cannot afford cars, and providing public transportation to people who are disabled.

[august948]

I'd add to that work on improving the other transportation issue that has a great impact...rush hour commuter services.

[samagon]

20 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

Wondering if Metro should just scrap all rail plans? Nation wide auto sales actually increased in 2018 over 2017.

https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig_usa_2018

More people are purchasing more trucks and SUV's, if that's even possible. These are national wide numbers not Houston numbers, but generally mass transit numbers are plateauing or falling off nationwide and auto sales are increasing. So, why invest in rail, when buses are more flexible and economical? I think the data is speaking for itself. People in car cities, are riding public transportation only until they can afford to purchase a car, then they stop riding public transit. Which makes sense. Metro should stick to it's founding charter and focus on providing public transportation to people who cannot afford cars, and providing public transportation to people who are disabled.

 

all this means is that it's currently cheaper to drive than it is to ride public transit.

 

gas prices are at an all time low, coupled with the fact that federally, the gas tax hasn't gone up since 1993 (meanwhile we can't pay to fix the roads, gee, I wonder why?).

 

gas taxes collect about $35 billion per year. according to some studies, it takes about $66 billion per year to cover costs (maintenance and new projects). Keep in mind this is just federal, so interstate highways only.

 

so where we pay 18 cents per gallon tax federally, that should probably be about 35 cents to cover actual costs.

 

states (Texas, cause that's us) I'm sure have the same story. we pay 20 cents per gallon. I can't find how much non-federal projects cost the state, but I am going to assume we have the same shortfalls to cover our infrastructure projects.

 

now, all that money does come from somewhere, so we are paying. the problem is that the payments are masked so it doesn't look like driving costs as much as it really does. the end result is that many more people would have a very clear understanding of the exact costs of driving. as a result they might not want to sell their car, but they would want to reduce their footprint and would choose other options where available. only problem is, the other options available in Houston stink. so too bad, you'd be stuck driving, even if we paid the extra 40 cents per gallon we probably owe.

[Houston19514]

31 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

all this means is that it's currently cheaper to drive than it is to ride public transit.

 

gas prices are at an all time low, coupled with the fact that federally, the gas tax hasn't gone up since 1993 (meanwhile we can't pay to fix the roads, gee, I wonder why?).

 

gas taxes collect about $35 billion per year. according to some studies, it takes about $66 billion per year to cover costs (maintenance and new projects). Keep in mind this is just federal, so interstate highways only.

 

so where we pay 18 cents per gallon tax federally, that should probably be about 35 cents to cover actual costs.

 

states (Texas, cause that's us) I'm sure have the same story. we pay 20 cents per gallon. I can't find how much non-federal projects cost the state, but I am going to assume we have the same shortfalls to cover our infrastructure projects.

 

now, all that money does come from somewhere, so we are paying. the problem is that the payments are masked so it doesn't look like driving costs as much as it really does. the end result is that many more people would have a very clear understanding of the exact costs of driving. as a result they might not want to sell their car, but they would want to reduce their footprint and would choose other options where available. only problem is, the other options available in Houston stink. so too bad, you'd be stuck driving, even if we paid the extra 40 cents per gallon we probably owe.

 

May I ask the source of the $66 Billion per year to cover costs?  Does that include all of the non-highway spending that is funded by the Highway Trust Fund?

 

(And I think annual receipts are closer to $41 Billion.)