METRORapid University Corridor

[004n063]

@rechlin I agree with your points, but I think it's the wrong argument. . And I tend to agree - convertability seems like more of a question of will than of capacity.

But if METRO is committed to building great BRT lines, I'm fine with the mode. The critical thing is not stopping with the University and Inner Katy lines. We need a much more robust long-term plan than what's included in METRONext 1.0 - would love to see a 2.0 plan in the next few years.

[Ross]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:29 PM, IWantTransit555 said:

The city (and greater region) has a lot of work to do on this front.

Despite what others may say, I think the greater Houston area (6 million people!) needs heavy rail.

The Washington Ave corridor seems perfect for light rail! I am still mad that it never happened. Maybe it could have been built on center street.

There are some issues with building heavy rail here. First, is where do you run it? I don't think anyone would sell the concept of taking houses and businesses to build rail - there would be torches and pitchforks. The railroads are not going to give up their right of way at all. The only real alternative is along freeways, and that will bring screams from all directions. If you think the opponents of the 11th Street road diet were loud and shrill, it would be far worse for heavy rail. There's also the folks who will refuse to ride rail, because they might have to mix with poor people. I'm not sure where you would start, either, since metro flat out told me that heavy rail can't be built until there is a comprehensive light rail system to connect the heavy rail. And, where does the money come from?

On 3/22/2023 at 9:46 PM, chempku said:

Maybe because local people will get madder if it's built, .. LRT is not a bike lane or a car travel lane, it need to be connected to somewhere, also it need platforms and wider sidewalks. Squeezing in LRTs in narrower streets essentially kills most car traffic. 

Note that some existing LRT segments spread into two adjacent streets where the ROW is not wide enough (e.g. the Green/Purple line in downtown, the Red line in museum district). 

I'm not sure Washington is a good choice. It's too useful for cars right now, and building rail would eliminate a lot of capacity on one of the main East West routes out of Downtown. 

[IWantTransit555]

3 minutes ago, Ross said:

There are some issues with building heavy rail here. First, is where do you run it? I don't think anyone would sell the concept of taking houses and businesses to build rail - there would be torches and pitchforks.

Elevated above the many wide arterial roads throughout the metro area.

6 minutes ago, Ross said:

The railroads are not going to give up their right of way at all.

Why not, it has worked in many other cities?

8 minutes ago, Ross said:

If you think the opponents of the 11th Street road diet were loud and shrill, it would be far worse for heavy rail. There's also the folks who will refuse to ride rail, because they might have to mix with poor people.

I am pretty sure these kinds of people are not the majority, they are just Very vocal about their views.

9 minutes ago, Ross said:

I'm not sure where you would start, either, since metro flat out told me that heavy rail can't be built until there is a comprehensive light rail system to connect the heavy rail.

Well waiting indefinitely to build heavy rail is not going to improve the transit situation in Greater Houston. And if Metro wants a comprehensive light rail system first, why are they not building it now?

12 minutes ago, Ross said:

where does the money come from?

Preferable federal (and state in the future if we can stop electing fools to Austin.)

17 minutes ago, Ross said:

I'm not sure Washington is a good choice. It's too useful for cars right now, and building rail would eliminate a lot of capacity on one of the main East West routes out of Downtown.

Maybe it could be built on Center Street?

[rechlin]

8 minutes ago, IWantTransit555 said:

26 minutes ago, Ross said:

There are some issues with building heavy rail here. First, is where do you run it? I don't think anyone would sell the concept of taking houses and businesses to build rail - there would be torches and pitchforks.

Elevated above the many wide arterial roads throughout the metro area.

People in Houston are very opposed to elevated transit.  Metro has even postponed a decision on this line as a result of opposition to the overpass over the railroad tracks (see a few posts back).  So I suspect that's a non-starter.  But I agree, it's way cheaper than a subway and would work well for speeding up mass transit while minimizing ROW acquisition.

[chempku]

1 hour ago, IWantTransit555 said:

Maybe it could be built on Center Street?

Try design something within ~50' ROW. I am curious to know how this can be done. 

[JClark54]

1 hour ago, IWantTransit555 said:

 

Why not, it has worked in many other cities?

 

In the current Houston heavy rail environment, that's a tough ask. Even if the railroads granted trackage rights, passenger rail timetables likely would not be reliable with the existing infrastructure.

Edited March 27 by JClark54

[Ross]

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

In the current Houston heavy rail environment, that's a tough ask. Even if the railroads granted trackage rights, passenger rail timetables likely would not be reliable with the existing infrastructure.

Since railroads have already given up right of way, as along the Katy Freeway, there's not really enough tracks to support current freight movement, much less passenger, without significant delays. Heavy rail only works if the timetables are reliable.  And Houston has far too many people who are just flat out opposed to rail at all to attract enough ridership to make heavy rail even semi-successful

[mfastx]

To maximize any fixed guideway line (whether it's heavy rail, light rail or BRT) it shouldn't be built on railroad ROW or highways. Richmond, Westheimer and Washington Ave are all good east-west corridors to build a line and would maximize ridership. People don't want to get dropped off in the middle of a highway wasteland or along and old railroad ROW where there isn't much development. 

[samagon]

On 3/24/2023 at 9:51 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm scratching my head wondering how it couldn't be converted. You would already have the dedicated space to lay down tracks. 

I would guess the foundation of the roadbed would be the primary constraint, I'd guess the foundation needed for the heavier LRT vehicles are probably more substantial than what would be needed for BRT vehicles. if the roadbeds are only designed to accommodate the BRT vehicles, then they'd probably have to redo the whole thing to switch to LRT.

[JClark54]

5 hours ago, Ross said:

Since railroads have already given up right of way, as along the Katy Freeway, there's not really enough tracks to support current freight movement, much less passenger, without significant delays. Heavy rail only works if the timetables are reliable.  And Houston has far too many people who are just flat out opposed to rail at all to attract enough ridership to make heavy rail even semi-successful

The Houston complex is the most congested in the country, which would make passenger rail timetables challenging without further investment.

UP and Amtrak are in a years-long dispute over the Sunset Limited route, as an example. Amtrak claims UP's new operational model of running longer trains without upgrading infrastructure to support them has resulted in blockages that hinder on-time performance. 

"Many of the delays incurred by the Sunset are attributable to UP corporate decisions, operational practices, or failures that result in systemic violations of Amtrak preference rights and cause substandard customer on-time performance. Among those are that UP regularly runs freight trains longer than sidings along its route; when UP dispatches freight trains that do not fit into sidings, the Sunset Limited trains must follow that non-fitter, which can result in hours of passenger delay.

I imagine the passenger rail route for the western suburbs would utilize the terminal line through the inner loop, which is the same as Amtrak. Per evidence presented in Amtrak's suit, delays have resulted in some passengers arriving more 181 minutes late.

 

Edited March 27 by JClark54

[wilcal]

Eastwood Civic Club announced that METRO has agreed to work towards a BRT/pedestrian-only underpass for the crossing at the UP railroad tracks on Lockwood just south of Harrisburg.

I really think that this is the best result. No elevated BRT station at Harrisburg will be required now, either. 

[cspwal]

This is probably the best solution, pedestrian & neighborhood wise. I wonder how it will affect the flooding right now - they mentioned the current tracks acting like a flood barrier 

[cougarpad]

On 3/27/2023 at 11:33 AM, JClark54 said:

The Houston complex is the most congested in the country, which would make passenger rail timetables challenging without further investment.

UP and Amtrak are in a years-long dispute over the Sunset Limited route, as an example. Amtrak claims UP's new operational model of running longer trains without upgrading infrastructure to support them has resulted in blockages that hinder on-time performance. 

"Many of the delays incurred by the Sunset are attributable to UP corporate decisions, operational practices, or failures that result in systemic violations of Amtrak preference rights and cause substandard customer on-time performance. Among those are that UP regularly runs freight trains longer than sidings along its route; when UP dispatches freight trains that do not fit into sidings, the Sunset Limited trains must follow that non-fitter, which can result in hours of passenger delay.

I imagine the passenger rail route for the western suburbs would utilize the terminal line through the inner loop, which is the same as Amtrak. Per evidence presented in Amtrak's suit, delays have resulted in some passengers arriving more 181 minutes late.

 

The corridor that needs a commuter rail is the UP line going down highway 3 going through clear lake , League City, and Dickinson to Galveston ending at thre cruise terminal at the big  railroad museum that be a peferfect endind terminal for the commuter rail that is across from the Island Transit Center and more importantly the cruise terminal. The only way to deal with UP is to build a third track down that corridor and there is room. This commuter line would get major ridership. It will be direct stop at the terminal instead of cruisers arriving at Hobby with no direct connection to the cruise terminal other then waiting on a shuttle. The line would get major ridership added with Houstonians going to the Strand for yearly festivities along with going beach. This line would also get heave ridership from workers commuting to downtown from Clear Lake area and South. The Harrsiberg line that will connect to the  Univeristy BRT can be extended down to a station where the Houston Galveston Commuter line ends at transport center across 45 from Hobby, and the Extension of East End line being sent to Hobby can cut across under 45 to connect with a station where the commuter line ends near Hobby airport to connect Hobby to the commuter rail for cruise passengers going to Galveston. 

 

If Houston and Galveston are serious about ridership on Light rail and BRT along with have commuter rail between the two cities then this set up can be done and should be done. There will have to be State an Federal funds to add a 3rd track going down next Highway 3 UP corridor but this can be done and should be a prioritized project to add commuter passenger rail in a corridor where is needed and also to appease UP who will wine and cray about commuter rail being ran on their current two tracks on the rail corridor. If Housto,Metro and Galveston are serious then this should and can be done. 

Edited April 2 by cougarpad

[004n063]

On 3/26/2023 at 9:48 PM, Ross said:

I'm not sure Washington is a good choice. It's too useful for cars right now, and building rail would eliminate a lot of capacity on one of the main East West routes out of Downtown. 

Part of the purpose of rail is to provide a viable alternative to driving. Lots of the drivers who currently need to use Washington would need it no longer if there were a good rail line.

Obviously, Washington gets more traffic in general than Harrisburg or Fulton, but it's worth noting that the flow for cars along both of those streets is actually quite smooth. I could see the road-diet element having a similar simplifying/smoothing effect on Washington.

That it could disincentivize more discretionary auto traffic (as the red line has done along Main) is a bonus, in my opinion.

[JClark54]

3 hours ago, cougarpad said:

The corridor that needs a commuter rail is the UP line going down highway 3 going through clear lake , League City, and Dickinson to Galveston ending at thre cruise terminal at the big  railroad museum that be a peferfect endind terminal for the commuter rail that is across from the Island Transit Center and more importantly the cruise terminal. The only way to deal with UP is to build a third track down that corridor and there is room. This commuter line would get major ridership. It will be direct stop at the terminal instead of cruisers arriving at Hobby with no direct connection to the cruise terminal other then waiting on a shuttle. The line would get major ridership added with Houstonians going to the Strand for yearly festivities along with going beach. This line would also get heave ridership from workers commuting to downtown from Clear Lake area and South. The Harrsiberg line that will connect to the  Univeristy BRT can be extended down to a station where the Houston Galveston Commuter line ends at transport center across 45 from Hobby, and the Extension of East End line being sent to Hobby can cut across under 45 to connect with a station where the commuter line ends near Hobby airport to connect Hobby to the commuter rail for cruise passengers going to Galveston. 

 

If Houston and Galveston are serious about ridership on Light rail and BRT along with have commuter rail between the two cities then this set up can be done and should be done. There will have to be State an Federal funds to add a 3rd track going down next Highway 3 UP corridor but this can be done and should be a prioritized project to add commuter passenger rail in a corridor where is needed and also to appease UP who will wine and cray about commuter rail being ran on their current two tracks on the rail corridor. If Housto,Metro and Galveston are serious then this should and can be done. 

In public hearings about trains parking on streets, UP brass claimed adding capacity to that line would've already happened were it feasible.

The ROW narrows in stretches where not-UP-owned buildings or roadways are close. The line drops from two tracks to one as a result, forcing trains to wait until passing ones clear the area before merging. 

Land acquisition is possible, but it's not on the table at this time, they said. 

[JClark54]

It appears to be single track for a good stretch of the route, including over the intercostal waterway. 

 

Edited April 2 by JClark54

[cougarpad]

On 4/2/2023 at 2:31 PM, JClark54 said:

It appears to be single track for a good stretch of the route, including over the intercostal waterway. 

 

Instead of railroad track, if clearance is an issue can put light rail trach which is smaller. Putting in light rail tracks probably less cost too because dont have to deal with UP but can still use the corridor.  I know the stretch of highway 3 where the tracks run along in Clear Lake and League City have good clearance if added light rail tracks

[samagon]

1 hour ago, cougarpad said:

Instead of railroad track, if clearance is an issue can put light rail trach which is smaller. Putting in light rail tracks probably less cost too because dont have to deal with UP but can still use the corridor.  I know the stretch of highway 3 where the tracks run along in Clear Lake and League City have good clearance if added light rail tracks

someone said once, I have no valid verification, but it was said that the easement for the railway is necessary to be empty for liability. if a rock is thrown from a railcar and hits someone or something within that easement, the railway is on the hook, so they just don't let anyone use it.

there'd have to be agreements in place like what there is with the city and CPE for the powerline easements for bike trails. the problem is there's no incentive for the railways to do it.

again, this is all what I remember from one comment years ago that someone said. so it could be completely off base.

[JClark54]

Per METRO's web site, it appears the METRORail runs on a standard gauge railway. That's the same gauge, or width, as the UP line running along Highway 3.

It's possible light rail carriages are smaller, but I can't imagine by too much as railcar construction in the USA is standardized to ensure system fluidity -- minus the handful of narrow gauge railways used for tourism purposes.

I agree there are stretches of that line with two tracks and possibly ample space for a third line or sidings. People with more knowledge about railroad construction than me say there are other stretches where adjacent infrastructure proximity is so tight the line drops to a single track, and land acquisition would be required for expansion. 

If our state leaders' approach to the Texas Central high-speed railway is any indication, I presume they won't support land acquisition for passenger rail anytime soon.

Edited April 4 by JClark54

[hindesky]

"A Lockwood underpass would allow buses, and emergency vehicles if necessary, to drive below the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, which are another source of frustration for the East End community. A pedestrian and bicycle path also would flow under the tracks, while automobile drivers still would cross the tracks at ground level."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-university-corridor-lockwood-eastend-17876361.php

[hindesky]

"Metro officials on Wednesday approved a path for the 25.3 University Corridor line in a rare split vote that keeps the region’s largest bus rapid transit project on track for a 2028 opening, but also deepened concerns among some who said the public is not completely behind the planned route.

Under the current schedule, construction could begin as early as late next year, though riders will not hop aboard the large buses operating in their own lanes for another three or four years."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-approves-route-big-brt-line-community-17880770.php

[004n063]

22 hours ago, hindesky said:

"Metro officials on Wednesday approved a path for the 25.3 University Corridor line in a rare split vote that keeps the region’s largest bus rapid transit project on track for a 2028 opening, but also deepened concerns among some who said the public is not completely behind the planned route.

Under the current schedule, construction could begin as early as late next year, though riders will not hop aboard the large buses operating in their own lanes for another three or four years."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-approves-route-big-brt-line-community-17880770.php

That was a really frustrating read for many reasons, but especially because of all of the Lockwood-versus-Jensen stuff. That's not Shepherd-versus-Durham or even Shepherd-versus-Kirby. Lockwood and Jensen are miles apart. Only if you're stuck in a park-and-ride mindset could you conceive of a Jensen alignment as a viable eplacement for a Lockwood alignment.

Jensen and Lockwood, though...that could be interesting. Especially if the Jensen line ran through EaDo, cut over to Crawford, and continued along Almeda...

[JClark54]

I'm trying to understand the Jensen route but can't find datails in the project documents or public hearings that METRO posted online. Only cursory remarks that it was studied but scored lower than Lockwood.

Would the route use St Emmanuel?

 

[Justin Welling]

@JClark54 Pg 25 of the document: 

 

METRORapid University Public Meeting Presentation (resourcespace.com)

[JClark54]

Thanks for the information. Yes, I saw that map during my research.

It's what led to confusion about the Jensen route based on the following graf: 

"After opposition to the project built in the community, many also questioned Metro’s decision to run the line along Lockwood at all."

Some in the piece want it off Lockwood entirely. I heard that repeated many times in the public hearing posted online, too, and on Nextdoor. 

But the Jensen route in the map above shows a jag to Lockwood through Eastwood at Polk. 

 

Edited April 7 by JClark54

[JClark54]

Disregard the comments above. just got a message answering my question. 

[IWantTransit555]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:39 PM, JClark54 said:

It's possible light rail carriages are smaller, but I can't imagine by too much as railcar construction in the USA is standardized to ensure system fluidity -- minus the handful of narrow gauge railways used for tourism purposes.

I agree there are stretches of that line with two tracks and possibly ample space for a third line or sidings. People with more knowledge about railroad construction than me say there are other stretches where adjacent infrastructure proximity is so tight the line drops to a single track, and land acquisition would be required for expansion. 

TRAX light rail in Salt Lake City shares track with a freight rail line (Salt Lake City Southern). The old causeway bridge also used to carry tracks for a few other railroads, including an interurban.

[JClark54]

21 hours ago, IWantTransit555 said:

TRAX light rail in Salt Lake City shares track with a freight rail line (Salt Lake City Southern). The old causeway bridge also used to carry tracks for a few other railroads, including an interurban.

Yes, I am the person who wrote the METRORail track and Galveston sub are the same gauge width, so light rail can most certainly run on the Galveston sub. I don't even need to look as far as Utah for an example of passenger rail service operating on a freight railroad line: Amtrak's Sunset Limited route on the Terminal line in Houston.

I'm not a passenger rail opponent. Actually quite the opposite. I just understand there are many more issues than fitment keeping a third-party operator from successfully utilizing the Galveston sub for passenger rail service to Galveston. A regional mobility entity like METRO or Texas Central can't tell UP what to do, and without change at the Congressional level, the FRA can't force them to cooperate. 

-UP owns the Galveston sub. It would have to grant trackage rights, an outcome I seriously question in this climate. It's currently engaged in a years-long lawsuit with Amtrak over this very issue. UP point blank writes to regulators it wants Amtrak, a current trackage rights holder, and freight operators like Canadian Pacific that don't currently have trackage rights now but stand to gain it through a merger with an operator that does off its right of way. 

-The line drops to one track in various sections, so trains frequently stop for hours until the one with right of way clears the area. Sometimes, blockages are also caused by trains being longer than yard sidings can support, thus they stick out onto the main line. Amtrak argues in the Terminal line lawsuit (see posts above) that these two commonalities cause trains to arrive late with regularity.

Would a passenger still buy a ticket if there's a lateness chance of, say, 90 minutes (splitting the difference of Amtrak's lateness states in the UP suit) between Houston and Galveston? There's a thread in this forum where someone wrote that the arrival times of Amtrak trains to New Orleans (Terminal line) made them second guess that mode of transportation. 

UP and BNSF have said in meetings with communities impacted by their new operating model the only way to improve fluidity -- making prolonged blockages on streets a thing of the past -- is expanding the current infrastructure to better support the longer trains they have every intention to continue building. CP-KCS plans to break the record for longest train length in the Houston complex, as an example. It wants to exceed 12,000 feet in length. 

This means expanding yards and adding tracks to existing lines, something they say is impossible on the Galveston sub and many other lines in Houston. The current political climate doesn't look kindly upon land acquisition. They also claim some of the industrial properties needed to be acquired to add tracks are worth quite a lot of $$$. 

Edited April 8 by JClark54

[JClark54]

If there's a groundswell of resident support for acquiring private property to expand rail infrastructure, I imagine it easily could be accomplished. Freight rail reps say their analysis found zero political backing for eminent domain in this climate, or they would have already expanded the lines. 

It appears to be the age-old adage that many elected officials view land acquisition for highways as a public benefit, whereas they seem to view land acquisition for rail as the opposite. 

The Texas AG has filed suit, claiming the Texas Central passenger railway isn't a true railroad and thus shouldn't have eminent domain authority. 

Edited April 8 by JClark54

[004n063]

6 hours ago, JClark54 said:

It appears to be the age-old adage that many elected officials view land acquisition for highways as a public benefit, whereas they seem to view land acquisition for rail as the opposite. 

How about highway acquisition for rail?

(Regional, not metro/LRT/tram)

[JClark54]

12 hours ago, 004n063 said:

How about highway acquisition for rail?

(Regional, not metro/LRT/tram)

I'm not opposed to your suggestion, but the highway purists on this board may differ. 

The Palestine derailment has garnered attention from local and federal legislators. As a result, legislators on both sides of the aisle have begun scrutinizing precision scheduled railroading's growing impact on communities large and small. Many bills have been filed that would give regulators more means to inhibit what many analysts and leaked internal company memos claim are dangerous train-building practices. 

The so-called bipartisan railway safety act of 2023, as an example, includes language empowering the FRA administrator to set train length caps locally based on the factors prevalent to that area. By the railroads' own admission, they have not invested in Houston rail infrastructure in any meaningful way to support their new model, and they really don't intend to without regulatory requirement.

Passage of the above bill or any of the similarly styled ones theoretically would provide reprieve to the communities bearing the brunt of so-called super train parking. Trains must fit in yards or sidings. So either they return to pre-PSR lengths or railroads expand their infrastructure to support the longer, heavier trains they've been building in recent years. Both would likely result in less street blockage, bettering quality of life for residents and Amtrak, or another passenger rail authority, alike. 

Edited April 9 by JClark54

[mkultra25]

ProPublica published a piece last week concerning trains blocking crossings for extended periods of time. It touches on some of the same issues @JClark54 mentions:

As Rail Profits Soar, Blocked Crossings Force Kids to Crawl Under Trains to Get to School

[hindesky]

https://www.ridemetro.org/about/metronext/metrorapid/metrorapid-university-corridor-project

[Texasota]

ugh I want it now.

[samagon]

On 5/24/2023 at 6:46 PM, Texasota said:

ugh I want it now.

settle down Veruca 😉

[004n063]

On 5/24/2023 at 6:05 PM, hindesky said:

I am a little concerned about Segment 2. Specifically, I think that the currently planned "station" locations between Shepherd and Wheeler TC are not optimized.

Mandell and Montrose are not inherently objectionable locations, of course. A decent number of people live within walking distance of both, and there are a decent number of destinations within walking distance of both. Plus Montrose has the 56 bus.

However, I think stops at Greeley/Jack, Graustark, and Dunlavy would ultimately be better than the current layout. 

Obviously, three stops is more expensive than two, and it slows down the end-to-end time for the line (probably - I can't help but wonder whether it'd be easier to optimize the Woodhead, Mandell, Montrose, and Milam signal cycles with my alignment, though). But I think there are a lot of marginal differences that add up here.

Let's take Jack/Greeley vs. Montrose to start. While you'd lose some potential (but demographically unlikely to be transit-inclined) catchment from the towers south of 59, you'd see a lot of (demographically more likely to be transit-inclined) people in those Westmoreland blocks just north of Alabama move from a walk of >15min to a walk of <10min to reach a stop. And with the barrier created by spur 527 and all of that awkward no-man's land just east of it, Wheeler doesn't really feel like a walkable option from that side. And the stop itself would have multiple large apartment buildings and streetfront businesses immediately adjacent (with additional activation potential on the north side of Richmond as well) versus a gas station, a CVS with a huge corner parking lot, and a Chase bank with a big parking lot. Biggest downside (in my opinion) is that you'd need to do some tree removal from the median.

Now let's look at Graustark+Dunlavy vs. Montrose+Mandell. Graustark puts basically all of UST, half a dozen apartment buildings, and the one area south of 59 where catchment might actually be worth trying to catch within a 5min walk. Marginally further to the Menil, Hotel St. Augustine, Toasted Coconut, but all still within 10min. Dunlavy puts multiple large apartment complexes right there, plus a 5min walk to HEB - and with groceries, 5min vs 10min is a big difference. 

As I said, these are all marginal differences. But they're the kind of differences that, taken together and applied at the scale of a district, could have real impact. It wouldn't be a big difference maker for commutes, I suspect, but it could make a real dent in those ~2mi discretionary journeys that comprise a majority of American car trips.

In a way, it comes down to deciding whether this part of the line is more of a "street" or a "road" - that is, whether it's more important to maximize throughput efficiency or neighborhood access. I'd argue that Montrose decidedly warrants the latter.

Edited June 7 by 004n063

[samagon]

you first have to realize that most of the stops on the proposed BRT correspond to existing bus routes, and very likely, those stops are the ones that are not as negotiable as other stops.

in the flyover video they show the stations right on the intersections, but it also says on that video that the locations are subject to change.

if I were to guess, I'd guess that the Mandell station might end up in the middle of the block between Dunlavy and Mandell, the Shepherd station will end up on the West side of Shepherd, and the Montrose station will stay on the West side to keep it as safe as possible for the students of the university.

since both Shepherd and Montrose have existing bus routes, I am not sure those stops will be subject to change.

[004n063]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

you first have to realize that most of the stops on the proposed BRT correspond to existing bus routes, and very likely, those stops are the ones that are not as negotiable as other stops.

in the flyover video they show the stations right on the intersections, but it also says on that video that the locations are subject to change.

if I were to guess, I'd guess that the Mandell station might end up in the middle of the block between Dunlavy and Mandell, the Shepherd station will end up on the West side of Shepherd, and the Montrose station will stay on the West side to keep it as safe as possible for the students of the university.

since both Shepherd and Montrose have existing bus routes, I am not sure those stops will be subject to change.

I figured they'd do the stations similarly to how they did them for the silver line, with each direction's stop being on the "before" side of the intersection.

I agree that the Montrose and Shepherd ones probably aren't changing - just making a minor critique. I think there could have been more discretionary trip catchment than there ultimately will be.

[Houston19514]

6 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I figured they'd do the stations similarly to how they did them for the silver line, with each direction's stop being on the "before" side of the intersection.

I agree that the Montrose and Shepherd ones probably aren't changing - just making a minor critique. I think there could have been more discretionary trip catchment than there ultimately will be.

Have you taken any of the opportunities to share those thoughts with Metro?

[004n063]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Have you taken any of the opportunities to share those thoughts with Metro?

I did go to two of the public meetings last summer, but these are new thoughts (i.e. as of yesterday's walk), so no. But I don't think it'd matter - they're probably too far along in the planning now, and they've probably already considered everything I wrote.

[Brooklyn173]

I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I do think that it's interesting.

 

[004n063]

11 hours ago, Brooklyn173 said:

I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I do think that it's interesting.

 

Saw this on Reddit. A couple of thoughts:

1) It's fantasy fuel, that's for sure.

2) The population numbers are deeply misleading and imply that the Houston metro area has nearly twice the density of Berlin. In reality, the Berlin metro area is much denser than the Houston metro area, and the city of Berlin is much denser than the city of Houston. But that's just at the overall level - when it comes down to neighborhoods, the gap is much bigger (Berlin, like most Euro metros, is primarily dense urban or "empty" green space; single-family sprawl, stripmalls, and huge parking lots (and ubiquitous big-ish parking lots) are not a significant factor like they are here.

All of that is just to say that overlaying the Berlin rail transit system over Houston in its current state would be colossally inefficient.

However, there are at least half a dozen rapidly densifying nodes that are worthy of rail transit and likelh won't be getting any in the next twenty years, and that is very unfortunate.

I think the Washington corridor is probably the most obvious, but a Kirby-Gray or Kirby-Dallas line would also make a lot of sense right now. I also think that an Almeda/Crawford/Jensen line would be a worthwhile investment.

All that said, I think there are a lot of other things that Metro and COH could start doing tomorrow that would have just as much impact (in the short-to-medium term, at least) as any feasible rail network expansion, and would cost far less in both political and financial capital, including:

-improving signals to optimize for buses, dedicating lanes for buses on all major routes (start with just paint and just key areas, then incrementally expand),

-increasing frequencies on all (/prioritize by ridership potential) local routes (bus and rail),

-improving pedestrian infrastructure (including shade, ideally via trees),

-eliminating minimum parking requirements (at least along rail, BRT, and HF bus routes to start, but ultimately citywide) and reducing building setback requirements (along aforementioned routes and within half a mile of priority stops), and

-increasing fares to $1.75 (and using various partnerships to maintain and increase reduced fare options).

In other words, apply the "BRT Creep" phenomenon intentionally, but in reverse:

"It's just a bus route - but we're giving it its own lane at the Shepherd intersection."

"It's just a bus route - but it runs every five minutes, alternating express and local services."

"It's just a bus route - but the express stops have offboard payment."

"It's just a bus route - but you can bring your bike straight on board with you."

"It's just a bus route - but the roadway is always well-maintained."

Edited August 12 by 004n063

[BEES?!]

Sort of like what they’re doing with some of the BOOST routes- trying to speed up the routes and make them more efficient through little infrastructure changes. (IIRC BOOST routes have some kind of signal improvements, raised stops so the bus doesn’t have to kneel, among other things.) 

[004n063]

1 hour ago, BEES?! said:

Sort of like what they’re doing with some of the BOOST routes- trying to speed up the routes and make them more efficient through little infrastructure changes. (IIRC BOOST routes have some kind of signal improvements, raised stops so the bus doesn’t have to kneel, among other things.) 

Same idea, but the BOOST improvements are more about accessibility and don't really have any teeth when it comes to lane control or headway reductions. Tbh I wasn't aware that signal optimization was a part of it either.

[BEES?!]

I was surprised to find out about it, too! Honestly METRO’s descriptions of the BOOST routes are a bit…vague, but that’s info I cobbled together from their videos, site, and meeting packets 😅 

I hope we see a move to bus-lanes in the future, esp. on their high ridership routes. I’m kind of shocked that this isn’t the plan for 82, because I wanna say that is the bus route with not only the highest ridership in Houston, but in all of Texas, too. (I’m also not entirely clear on what their Signature Service is gonna mean, infrastructure improvements- wise. METRO being a little opaque again.)

[004n063]

10 hours ago, BEES?! said:

I was surprised to find out about it, too! Honestly METRO’s descriptions of the BOOST routes are a bit…vague, but that’s info I cobbled together from their videos, site, and meeting packets 😅 

I hope we see a move to bus-lanes in the future, esp. on their high ridership routes. I’m kind of shocked that this isn’t the plan for 82, because I wanna say that is the bus route with not only the highest ridership in Houston, but in all of Texas, too. (I’m also not entirely clear on what their Signature Service is gonna mean, infrastructure improvements- wise. METRO being a little opaque again.)

I think the problem with the 82 is that it's a state FM road, so neither Metro nor COH has the authority to alter the ROW configuration? (Somebody please correct me if I've got that wrong!)

What I've seen of the "Signature Service" is that it will use the 59 HOV between Edloe and Downtown, which suggests to me that Metro doesn't really think there's anything they can do to improve the lower Westheimer roadway or bus experience.

[Texasota]

Well, there is also a plan to rebuild lower westheimer, but improving the 82 along it mostly comes down to better stop spacing and transit priority at lights.

Lower Westheimer is pretty space constrained. Westheimer outside the loop is very much not; ideally that would get full BRT treatment though that's not planned. 

[editor]

4 hours ago, Texasota said:

Well, there is also a plan to rebuild lower westheimer, but improving the 82 along it mostly comes down to better stop spacing and transit priority at lights.

Lower Westheimer is pretty space constrained. Westheimer outside the loop is very much not; ideally that would get full BRT treatment though that's not planned. 

I know it's a fantasy in Houston, but this is a solved problem:  Tunnel.

You run surface BRT on the western part of Westheimer, and then run it in a tunnel when you get inside 610.

That's what they did in Seattle, and it works great.  I've used it hundreds of times.  It started with just city buses, but now city buses, commuter buses, and light rail use it.  It acts like one long intermodal transit hub.  One end even connects to the monorail, the street car, and the Greyhound station.

I don't have access to my full photo archive right now, but here's a few pictures:

I know that every time anyone on HAIF uses the "T" word, someone pipes up about how it would never work in Houston.  Completely forgetting that Houston already has not only a pedestrian tunnel system, but also a vehicle tunnel that somehow work fine; and that there are cities with far worse water infiltration problems and a lot less stable earth that somehow make tunnels work fine.

[mollusk]

11 minutes ago, editor said:

I know it's a fantasy in Houston, but this is a solved problem:  Tunnel.

You run surface BRT on the western part of Westheimer, and then run it in a tunnel when you get inside 610.

That's what they did in Seattle, and it works great.  I've used it hundreds of times.  It started with just city buses, but now city buses, commuter buses, and light rail use it.  It acts like one long intermodal transit hub.  One end even connects to the monorail, the street car, and the Greyhound station.

I know that every time anyone on HAIF uses the "T" word, someone pipes up about how it would never work in Houston.  Completely forgetting that Houston already has not only a pedestrian tunnel system, but also a vehicle tunnel that somehow work fine; and that there are cities with far worse water infiltration problems and a lot less stable earth that somehow make tunnels work fine.

Tunnels make sense in some places, like inside the loop Westheimer (and maybe the Washington corridor, too) where ROW acquisition would be really painful.

[BEES?!]

They’re doing a BRT tunnel at the Wheeler Station intersection with the Red Line, aren’t they? It’d be neat if they could do more of them, though.