METRORail University Line

[lockmat]

Yes, although the construction process doesn't just happen overnight, either.

In the context of pollution externalities by themselves, it is more accurate to think of it in a time-series analysis where there are two scenarios. There is the baseline (no-build) scenario, where the cost of pollution is forecasted to worsen simply as a matter of congestion as years go by, and then there is a build scenario where there are an initial number of periods of extremely high pollution (caused both by construction activity and by increased congestion in the mean time) followed initially by some amount of pollution that is lower than when the project was initially undertaken. LRT doesn't cure pollution entirely, but merely reduces it because it takes busses and some cars off of the road (although that action is offset slightly by the need for electricity and maintenance). As time goes on, the number of vehicles on the road continues to increase, although at a slower rate than in the no-build scenario, but congestion gets worse at rate that is likely at or above the no-build rate because there are fewer and narrower vehicle lanes to accomodate traffic.

Once we've got a working forecast of the difference between the build and no-build scenarios and can assign a value to the cost of each unit of pollution in all time periods, it is a matter of plugging it in to a present value formula to see what the marginal benefit of the project would be. That also tells us how much we'd be willing to pay to implement the build scenario with respect to pollution.

Ok. Do those scenarios include the cost of maintenance to roads and freeways? And does maintenance to roads and freeways produce more or less pollution than maintaining LRT? And which requires more frequent maintenance?

[TheNiche]

Ok. Do those scenarios include the cost of maintenance to roads and freeways? And does maintenance to roads and freeways produce more or less pollution than maintaining LRT? And which requires more frequent maintenance?

I really can't answer that question in a meaningful way because road maintenance is so completely dependent upon age, traffic patterns, structural quality, and design. For instance, Memorial Drive is a very old road that is still going strong because it doesn't get a lot of truck traffic or sudden acceleration/deceleration despite a very high traffic count, whereas many newer roads are long-overdue for reconstruction.

But yes, for individual projects, pollution impacts from anticipated repairs, maintenance, and reconstruction should be considered, either as part of the no-build scenario, or if it would potentially change the polluting characteristics of the roadway and other affected roads in the transportation system, then third, fourth, fifth (and so on) scenarios become necessary.

[WesternGulf]

Question: Will everything west of Greenway Plaza, or where ever the rail is suppose to turn off, be abandoned by public transportation? If anything seems like the BRT route to the Galleria up Post Oak should start at Greenway Plaza where the light rail tuns off or will AO complain about that also? Better than nothing at all.

[TheNiche]

Question: Will everything west of Greenway Plaza, or where ever the rail is suppose to turn off, be abandoned by public transportation? If anything seems like the BRT route to the Galleria up Post Oak should start at Greenway Plaza where the light rail tuns off or will AO complain about that also? Better than nothing at all.

There's already a platform that was built under the 59/610 interchange to accomodate future LRT from Westpark.

[musicman]

Logistically, how? Because they won't be able to make turns left? I'm asking.

And it's not like it takes as long for LRT to cross a street as a freight train. It's less time than a normal stop light.

Since you're not in Houston you may need to make a road trip. Almost all lefts along the light rail are now prohibited. Many streets south of downtown have also been closed. These two things make navigating the area take more time. Now imagine Richmond which cuts through areas that are busy all the time and then inserting a train. Traffie will definitely worsen because of the numerous cross streets. Since we have the highest accident rate already, the new route, if allowed to comingle with vehicular traffic, will definitely help keep our average high.

[musicman]

Nonsense.

Saving time might be your most important factor but you cannot make blanket statements for the rest of the world. For me, when I lived in Houston for 2 years from summer 2004 to summer 2006, convenience was my most important reason for riding the rail. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about parking downtown. It offered me the chance to not have to worry about a designated driver. It offered me the option of riding to Reliant for the Rodeo, a soccer match, a Texans game, and a UH game without having to pay for parking. It allowed me to take my niece and nephew to the Children's Museum, the Holocaust Museum, Hermann Park, and the Zoo without having to navigate the streets.

For several of my friends who work in the Medical Center, even though most drove to work, it offered them the opportunity to ride the rail at lunchtime to midtown or downtown whereas before the rail they were basically stuck on the TMC campus.

For my mother, it meant she could ride the rail for her treatments at Methodist Hospital and not have to deal with parking at the TMC.

Of course, we lived along the rail line. That's why it's IMPORTANT to expand the rail lines so that more people can utilize the system as we did. Light rail isn't simply a means of transporting commuters to and from work. It's a means to get people out of their cars who LIVE IN THE CITY. In order to do so, we MUST complete the expansions with RAIL (not some glorified bus).

I don't believe I was making a blanket statement.

i would venture to say less that 1% of Houstonians live along the rail line as you did. So you were able to ride to the museums/zoo/the dome/etc. It saved you some time since you didn't have to park your car.

Your friends who worked in the med center saved time by taking the train instead of driving their car.

I don't really see going to a museum or eating lunch as reasons to build rail that serves less that one percent of the metro service customers. The inconvenience that is occuring because of the light rail most likely affects more than the 40000 daily ridership it attracts. If the new westpark line is built, it will be going in areas that have have heavy traffic frequently (unlike the Main street line) and therefore will affect more drivers, resulting in slower drive times for those that live/visit the area.

[C2H]

I don't believe I was making a blanket statement.

i would venture to say less that 1% of Houstonians live along the rail line as you did. So you were able to ride to the museums/zoo/the dome/etc. It saved you some time since you didn't have to park your car.

Your friends who worked in the med center saved time by taking the train instead of driving their car.

I don't really see going to a museum or eating lunch as reasons to build rail that serves less that one percent of the metro service customers. The inconvenience that is occuring because of the light rail most likely affects more than the 40000 daily ridership it attracts. If the new westpark line is built, it will be going in areas that have have heavy traffic frequently (unlike the Main street line) and therefore will affect more drivers, resulting in slower drive times for those that live/visit the area.

Sometimes i have to question you when you say you support LRT. Some of your statements indicate that you don't know if you support Light rail or not.

[lockmat]

Sometimes i have to question you when you say you support LRT. Some of your statements indicate that you don't know if you support Light rail or not.

He could just be looking at both sides of the argument?

[AftonAg]

He could just be looking at both sides of the argument?

If you were to go back and read some of the musicman's posts you will find that he is very consistent. In a nutshell Musicman is for sensible transit options that serve the maximum number of people. He and I don't always agree, but we do agree (I think) that to solve traffic problems the number of vehicles on the freeways must be reduced. The vast majority of the vehicles on the freeways (during the peak traffic times) are commuters. Commuter Rail is the best option for reducing freeway traffic. Woodlands, Humble, Katy, Clear Lake, Sugarland, etc to downtown should be first. Correct me if I am wrong Music.

[bkjones98]

I haven't seen any of your posts on this forum that I can recall, but as homeowner in Afton Oaks that is against "Railroading Richmond" I invite you to scroll back through this thread. You will find a number of my posts that outline the reasons that the majority of homeowners in Afton Oaks are against rail.

Further you are making the same mistake that all pro rail folks have made - you assume that it is just this one little neighborhood on Richmond where, "Most of the houses are worth less than the ground they're built on" that has resulted in the rail being pulled from Richmond for the majority of its proposed route. The anti rail coalition is far bigger than just Afton Oaks. METRO made the mistake of under estimating our commitment, our funding, our organization and our size. If you want to go to the movies take the bus, or subscribe to Netflix.

I see that I was quoted in your post. I apologize. I was obviously making an uncorroborated sweeping generalization about a few homes directly on Richmond.

My intention was merely to suggest that having the rail from Midtown to the Galleria via Richmond would have more utility than having it zigzag all over Houston

[TheNiche]

I can

[musicman]

Sometimes i have to question you when you say you support LRT. Some of your statements indicate that you don't know if you support Light rail or not.

I support light rail as long as long as it is built in the most optimized manner. fastest travel times with most riders. METRO's first line didn't meet my criteria

[lockmat]

I support light rail as long as long as it is built in the most optimized manner. fastest travel times with most riders. METRO's first line didn't meet my criteria

Just wondering what you thought they could have done better? It seems like they connected some of the most important parts of the city. What route would have produced more ridership? And what could they have done to make travel times faster? Less stops?

[TheNiche]

Just wondering what you thought they could have done better? It seems like they connected some of the most important parts of the city. What route would have produced more ridership? And what could they have done to make travel times faster? Less stops?

Bingo. They could've at least eliminated or merged two stops and only provided service to Reliant Park for special events. Additionally, there are some SERIOUS problems with the light rail vehicles having to stop at traffic lights. Signal timing is a big problem, and it affects both the efficiency of light rail AND levels of congestion for drivers. Additionally, bus routing around the Red Line could've been more efficient, but they made a tradeoff for LRT ridership numbers.

They're also pretty bad about not providing the right kinds of incentives to developers to get them to move forward on potential TOD projects, but I won't go into that.

[musicman]

If you were to go back and read some of the musicman's posts you will find that he is very consistent. In a nutshell Musicman is for sensible transit options that serve the maximum number of people. He and I don't always agree, but we do agree (I think) that to solve traffic problems the number of vehicles on the freeways must be reduced. The vast majority of the vehicles on the freeways (during the peak traffic times) are commuters. Commuter Rail is the best option for reducing freeway traffic. Woodlands, Humble, Katy, Clear Lake, Sugarland, etc to downtown should be first. Correct me if I am wrong Music.

well IMO........as for commuter rail being the best option? hmmmm i'm not sure i would agree. I do like commuter rail due to the fact that the tracks exist and tons won't need to be invested in infrastructure. But I think peoples' time is too important for them for them to park and then take commuter rail to a station and then be forced to take a train/bus to their job. I still am pro HOV/park and ride. I think people are more willing to park, take a bus and be dropped off in front (or nearby) their building instead of then having to get on another means of transportation.

Bingo. They could've at least eliminated or merged two stops and only provided service to Reliant Park for special events. Additionally, there are some SERIOUS problems with the light rail vehicles having to stop at traffic lights. Signal timing is a big problem, and it affects both the efficiency of light rail AND levels of congestion for drivers. Additionally, bus routing around the Red Line could've been more efficient, but they made a tradeoff for LRT ridership numbers.

All of the above plus i just don't condone the number of closed streets. It really has hurt access to some areas. It forces people onto less streets which results in more traffic and longer travel times. having it in an corridor isolated by vehicular traffic (by whatever means) is my preference.

[lockmat]

well IMO........as for commuter rail being the best option? hmmmm i'm not sure i would agree. I do like commuter rail due to the fact that the tracks exist and tons won't need to be invested in infrastructure. But I think peoples' time is too important for them for them to park and then take commuter rail to a station and then be forced to take a train/bus to their job. I still am pro HOV/park and ride. I think people are more willing to park, take a bus and be dropped off in front (or nearby) their building instead of then having to get on another means of transportation.

I thought I've been reading in other threads that the existing tracks are already too congested anyway? And if there were North and East tracks, couldn't at least those converge into the rail yard north of dt? Or is that not servicable?

well IMO........as for commuter rail being the best option? hmmmm i'm not sure i would agree. I do like commuter rail due to the fact that the tracks exist and tons won't need to be invested in infrastructure. But I think peoples' time is too important for them for them to park and then take commuter rail to a station and then be forced to take a train/bus to their job. I still am pro HOV/park and ride. I think people are more willing to park, take a bus and be dropped off in front (or nearby) their building instead of then having to get on another means of transportation.

All of the above plus i just don't condone the number of closed streets. It really has hurt access to some areas. It forces people onto less streets which results in more traffic and longer travel times. having it in an corridor isolated by vehicular traffic (by whatever means) is my preference.

Well, aren't the only other options to avoiding closed streets/no left turns to build rail on a platform or a subway? Edumacate me

[musicman]

Well, aren't the only other options to avoiding closed streets/no left turns to build rail on a platform or a subway? Edumacate me

First E D U C A T E. Second, There are several "corridors" already available that could perhaps be utilized with minimal affects on vehicular traffic. Train corridors, power line corridors, etc. I think platforms are going to be a necessity for a successful system in an area that is already fairly built out. I am a VERY common sense person and the current designs are just not as efficient as they could be.

Since you're in Albuquerque, imagine not being able to make left turns off of 66 (can't think of new name). How would the university be affected? Would drive times be increased? think about it before you respond please.

[musicman]

I thought I've been reading in other threads that the existing tracks are already too congested anyway? And if there were North and East tracks, couldn't at least those converge into the rail yard north of dt? Or is that not servicable?

You seem to be missing something.

The tracks exist and they basically converge north of downtown.

As for congestion, timing will be critical. The commuter trains only run during a certain period therefore congestion isn't an all day concern. A plan will have to be developed which will dictate times of use by each and most likely the rail companies will be asking for some restitution for the use of the tracks which will most likely be political

[C2H]

Why can't they just put the darn thing underground in a section near the 610/59 interchange? I know some might think its unrealistic but why is it such a cost issue in Houston. I mean if Dallas could do it, what is the problem with Houston?

[lockmat]

First E D U C A T E. Second, There are several "corridors" already available that could perhaps be utilized with minimal affects on vehicular traffic. Train corridors, power line corridors, etc. I think platforms are going to be a necessity for a successful system in an area that is already fairly built out. I am a VERY common sense person and the current designs are just not as efficient as they could be.

Since you're in Albuquerque, imagine not being able to make left turns off of 66 (can't think of new name). How would the university be affected? Would drive times be increased? think about it before you respond please.

First of all, I know how to spell educate, hah. It was a joke. If I thought it was spelled edumacate, then I'd probably shoot myself.

Second, it's Central that you're thinking of. And you're asking me to think before I respond? Makes me feel like this is a trick question or something. But of course, it would suck. I'd never go down it if I had to do that. I don't know how I'd get back to my job if I ever went to that area. I guess I'd have to make u-turns? I see you're point, I think.

You seem to be missing something.

The tracks exist and they basically converge north of downtown.

I am? I thought I said that?

[musicman]

Why can't they just put the darn thing underground in a section near the 610/59 interchange? I know some might think its unrealistic but why is it such a cost issue in Houston. I mean if Dallas could do it, what is the problem with Houston?

Was the last sentence necessary? Please leave the us vs them mentality out of the thread.

For me cost is an issue but how it affects underground infrastructure would be even MORE costly because things would have to be rerouted. The city didn't even know where certain services were while building the current line.

[ricco67]

I support light rail as long as long as it is built in the most optimized manner. fastest travel times with most riders. METRO's first line didn't meet my criteria

I agree that it could have been better designed, but considering it was built with no monetary help from the government limits the amount of funds that could have been used on the project as well as limitations on design options due to the costs associated with working on a tight budget.

Could it have been built better? most definately.

Could we do it if we had additional funds? Of course.

But as things stand, it's about as good of a system that could be designed under the circumstances.

In regards to Commuter rail, I would have to disagree to a point and with something someone else I was talking to pointed out.

Commuter rail can be made succefully here in Houston, but it has to be done with a coordination of a corresponding section of the city of it be built.

For example: The Richmond Line be built out and have a commuter line from the SouthWest be built out to serve that particular section of the city.

I think a two-way commuter line can be built out to and from the Webster/Clearlake/NASA area.

While this may not seem the most efficient way of building a commuter line, at least it would put in an internal (inside the loop) infrastructure for people to be able to transfer to a local route or take alternative means of travel.

One thing that someone pointed out to me is that Houston can't really be a transit oriented city until parking becomes so scarce or expensive that it simply would be more efficient to simply take a rail/cab to various business centers.

[musicman]

In regards to Commuter rail, I would have to disagree to a point and with something someone else I was talking to pointed out.

Commuter rail can be made succefully here in Houston, but it has to be done with a coordination of a corresponding section of the city of it be built.

For example: The Richmond Line be built out and have a commuter line from the SouthWest be built out to serve that particular section of the city.

I think a two-way commuter line can be built out to and from the Webster/Clearlake/NASA area.

While this may not seem the most efficient way of building a commuter line, at least it would put in an internal (inside the loop) infrastructure for people to be able to transfer to a local route or take alternative means of travel.

One thing that someone pointed out to me is that Houston can't really be a transit oriented city until parking becomes so scarce or expensive that it simply would be more efficient to simply take a rail/cab to various business centers.

I didn't say it couldn't be made successful. There are just a few mental hurdles that need to be overcome to attract riders.

As for 2way line.....now you're talking big bucks.....the benefits of using existing tracks are lost. it's all about doing the most we can for our limited dollars.

I'll have to venture to say parking won't be scarce in our lifetime.

[ricco67]

I didn't say it couldn't be made successful. There are just a few mental hurdles that need to be overcome to attract riders.

As for 2way line.....now you're talking big bucks.....the benefits of using existing tracks are lost. it's all about doing the most we can for our limited dollars.

I'll have to venture to say parking won't be scarce in our lifetime.

a two way line for the southeast wouldn't be that much expensive.

As you take a load into town, the train has to come back out to bring in a new load anyway, so why not?

When I stayed in Battle Creek, MI a few years ago, I saw a few Trainloads of workers come into the town, I don't know where they originated from, but there were ALOT of people that have to walk at LEAST 10 blocks to the various areas. I'm sure during the winter it's not that easy.

[musicman]

a two way line for the southeast wouldn't be that much expensive.

As you take a load into town, the train has to come back out to bring in a new load anyway, so why not?

Just imagine obtaining additional right of way.....it would be VERY expensive.

Commuter rail is one way.

[ricco67]

If that's the case, do the trains continue on to SA for the rush hour there and we would get trains from the midwest somewhere?

Either way, The southeast is ripe for a commuting/Mass Transit built up.

But that's for another thread, maybe a new one should be created for the general discussion of Mass transit.

The Richmond Rail thread has been hijacked to the point where even terrorists would be confused.

[musicman]

If that's the case, do the trains continue on to SA for the rush hour there and we would get trains from the midwest somewhere?

Either way, The southeast is ripe for a commuting/Mass Transit built up.

No the trains go one way in the morning and the other way in the afternoon.

[ricco67]

my mistake. Didn't realize it took 8 hours to turn a train around.

[musicman]

my mistake. Didn't realize it took 8 hours to turn a train around.

yeah lifting them off the track gets tricky sometime.

[lockmat]

I was just thinking about things being discussed in this thread, one of them the oppostion that some of our political representatives have. People talk about them being against LRT or just this line, I'm not sure.

But what do they support in terms of transportation? It's obvious we need to head in the direction METRO is taking.