Jump to content

METRORail Purple Line


Houstonian in Iraq

Recommended Posts

because a place is dense doesn't mean there are more stops. The more stops there are then the more like normal bus service it is. I think rail should augment current bus service vs. replace it. if you need to go a short distance on main then take a bus....if you need to go farther, then hop on the rail because there are less stops and hence it would be faster. Some of the stops are just too close which causes longer travel times.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I like the way that DART is set up, where there are relatively frequent stops in downtown Dallas and much less frequent stops in less dense areas. But as you applied your explanation to the Red Line, yes that does make sense.

Plus, just like LRT, it will have technology that will signal to stop lights to give it the right-away to crossing traffic.

Yeah, that doesn't really work too well. On countless occasions, I have witnessed the LRT vehicles stop at a light for extended periods of time. The one time that I've ever riden it, it stopped frequently in between stations for no apparent reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Although I can understand and associate with the 'cool factor', it's just stupid.

I think it would be best to implement the BRT and when congestion and necessity to ride it come, the 'cool factor' won't be a factor at all.

And the fact that they're pretty much the same in terms of getting people around at the same rate and have the same ammenities like same grade entry, makes me wonder why METRO only plans on eventually building LRT when ridership 'demands it,' as if LRT has some kind of advantage.

Would LRT produce less pollution?

Unfortunately stupid things can be true.

The "cool" factor is important for image. Some people wont ride the bus because of its bad image. But riding a train, well they feel they won't be frowned upon. There sure are people on HAIF that believe this.

The reason METRO can't implement LRT is money. they just don't have the resources to operate a bus system AND try and build a light rail system. Remember public trasportation is NOT A MONEYMAKER!

Is spending billions worth the negligible change in our pollution? METRO would do more for the pollution problem by servicing and maintaining their current buses in a better manner.

As an engineer, I will concur with Niche's comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you on this one. I like the way that DART is set up, where there are relatively frequent stops in downtown Dallas and much less frequent stops in less dense areas. But as you applied your explanation to the Red Line, yes that does make sense.

Yeah, that doesn't really work too well. On countless occasions, I have witnessed the LRT vehicles stop at a light for extended periods of time. The one time that I've ever riden it, it stopped frequently in between stations for no apparent reason.

Niche, you're quote from our other discussion. I brought it in here since you're referenced DART:

I think that in time, even the conservative suburbs will see the need for extensive mass transit, both inside the city and as commuter routes. Otherwise, the usefulness of the freeways will be entirely negated by massive congestion. But that time has not yet come for most people, and politicians' interests seem to reflect that.

You say in time? Like, 100 years? Dallas is getting ready for 2050, shouldn't we?

I had never gone to DART's sight and browsed until today. I was amazed at the amount of LRT they already have and what they intend to build now and later. Although our cities are very comparable in population, you would think we'd be the ones who needed to be ahead in mass transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought what makes BRT different from just regular buses is that it's separate from other traffic? It may not be physically separate, with curbs on each side, but it will at least have it's own lane in which other vehicles will not be permitted.

Plus, just like LRT, it will have technology that will signal to stop lights to give it the right-away to crossing traffic.

Think about this before answering......................Can you drive through any existing city and not have another road cross?

I hope you said the answer is no.

Well the LRT and the BRT are in their own "lane" but since they go through the middle of a city, they will intermingle with vehicular traffic. The BEST designs don't allow this. They will use bridges/underpasses/abandoned rail/utility corridors to minimize interactions with vehicular traffic. But since METRO is using this as a bus replacement system, it is being routed on streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason METRO can't implement LRT is money. they just don't have the resources to operate a bus system AND try and build a light rail system. Remember public trasportation is NOT A MONEYMAKER!

As an engineer, I will concur with Niche's comments.

Yeah, I've learned it's not a money maker. But like I referred DART to Niche, they have/are implementing LRT way more than we have or plan to. Do they have some kind of economic advantage that we don't since they're so close to Fort Worth? Or are they just running themselves into the ground financially?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about this before answering......................Can you drive through any existing city and not have another road cross?

I hope you said the answer is no.

Well the LRT and the BRT are in their own "lane" but since they go through the middle of a city, they will intermingle with vehicular traffic. The BEST designs don't allow this. They will use bridges/underpasses/abandoned rail/utility corridors to minimize interactions with vehicular traffic. But since METRO is using this as a bus replacement system, it is being routed on streets.

I thought what you meant by intermingling was horizontal traffic, changing lanes and such. I was talking about it vertically. Just seems like building structures whether they be underground or elevated would be way too costly. I can't imagine that happening in the city, no way. I can't see it working logistically.

Seems like a subway would be the answer to all our needs, but that's for another discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche, you're quote from our other discussion. I brought it in here since you're referenced DART:

You say in time? Like, 100 years? Dallas is getting ready for 2050, shouldn't we?

I had never gone to DART's sight and browsed until today. I was amazed at the amount of LRT they already have and what they intend to build now and later. Although our cities are very comparable in population, you would think we'd be the ones who needed to be ahead in mass transit.

NO, much sooner! 10-25 years. Kind of depends on where our economy goes. Nothing like empty office buildings to possibly alleviate congestion in the interim, you know. But it is beyond me why any city would prepare for 2050 in 2007. Between now and then, so many things will likely change that anything we could possibly do now would produce essentially no benefit that far down the line. Any capital investment will need to be maintained between now and then and will still likely depreciate in the meanwhile. Heck, by then, we'll probably have to reconstruct Main Street all over again.

All we really need to be careful about in the mean time is preserving ROW along critical regional corridors. If we don't, that'll certainly come back to bite us in the ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say in time? Like, 100 years? Dallas is getting ready for 2050, shouldn't we?

I had never gone to DART's sight and browsed until today. I was amazed at the amount of LRT they already have and what they intend to build now and later. Although our cities are very comparable in population, you would think we'd be the ones who needed to be ahead in mass transit.

What is happening in 2050 that i should get ready for?

Dallas had different priorities. Rail was their priority and their freeways suffered as a result. We on the other hand had the worst traffic in the nation in the 70's. Therefore our local and country govts wisely decided to address the issue. We no longer have the worse traffic even with the huge population increase since the 70's.

if staggering amounts of people used mass transit, it would be built. most mass transit agencies are losing ridership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we really need to be careful about in the mean time is preserving ROW along critical regional corridors. If we don't, that'll certainly come back to bite us in the ass.

I stretched it a bit, hah, sorry. It's their 2030 Plan. :)

But yeah, I agree for sure on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've learned it's not a money maker. But like I referred DART to Niche, they have/are implementing LRT way more than we have or plan to. Do they have some kind of economic advantage that we don't since they're so close to Fort Worth? Or are they just running themselves into the ground financially?

Like i said, it is a matter of priorities. Dallas' freeways suffered because of their light rail system. Our freeway system was our priority. Most people in Houston use freeways daily therefore are reaping the benefits. Can you say most people in Houston use light rail daily? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've learned it's not a money maker. But like I referred DART to Niche, they have/are implementing LRT way more than we have or plan to. Do they have some kind of economic advantage that we don't since they're so close to Fort Worth? Or are they just running themselves into the ground financially?

My understanding is that their cost per mile is a fair bit lower than ours for many of their segments. I've only checked out the one that goes from DT Dallas to Plano, and most of the tracks outside of their downtown area are grade-seperated and look like the test tracks along Holmes Road in Houston. They're basically just narrower-gauge freight tracks with overhead electrical systems. That's a whole lot less expensive than embedding them in concrete as part of a street reconstruction job and placing such frequent stations.

Dallas has also done a very good job obtaining federal funding. That helps a lot as far as financial feasibility at the local level is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had never gone to DART's sight and browsed until today. I was amazed at the amount of LRT they already have and what they intend to build now and later. Although our cities are very comparable in population, you would think we'd be the ones who needed to be ahead in mass transit.

I think passenger rail, either light or heavy, is an investment in the future that we ought to be socking away like a 401K plan. The BRT was disappointing but at least they're going ahead with the infrastructure investment and will lay the rails. I'm all for buying as many BRT lines as quickly as possible then we can convert them over time. Let's get the lines at least designed and in place so that development can start to mold accordingly then, as tax revenue increases inside the loop, keep investing in more lines and start converting the busiest. In 50 years, those of us who are still around will be glad that it was done as car operating costs and traffic are only steadily going to worsen.

It's too bad we're stuck with the above-ground version. The lines do interfere with cars but so do buses......I was just reminded of that yesterday driving behind one while downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like i said, it is a matter of priorities. Dallas' freeways suffered because of their light rail system. Our freeway system was our priority. Most people in Houston use freeways daily therefore are reaping the benefits. Can you say most people in Houston use light rail daily? No.

Forgive me, I must have been writing my post while you submitted yours and didn't read it until after I was finished.

And you're right. I stayed in Forth Worth and had to drive to Dallas for a job fair and freeway traffic was bad. And not that I've spent enough time in Dallas to justify this, but is Houston's traffic really that much better off than theirs?

Can I say most people in Houston use the LRT daily? Of course not, that'd be silly to say. We only have 8 miles. They have over 40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought what you meant by intermingling was horizontal traffic, changing lanes and such. I was talking about it vertically. Just seems like building structures whether they be underground or elevated would be way too costly. I can't imagine that happening in the city, no way. I can't see it working logistically.

I just listed a few things that could be done to minimize the vehicular interactions. Using abandoned right of ways is one that isn't as costly. Plus many times there are less streets in these corridors which would mean less traffic! Again I will repeat...since metro is using this as a bus replacement system, it will interact with traffic.

You have to have vision to make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're right. I stayed in Forth Worth and had to drive to Dallas for a job fair and freeway traffic was bad. And not that I've spent enough time in Dallas to justify this, but is Houston's traffic really that much better off than theirs?

Can I say most people in Houston use the LRT daily? Of course not, that'd be silly to say. We only have 8 miles. They have over 40.

You can't objectively compare traffic in one city vs. another so please don't start. But you can objectively compare traffic in Houston from the past to current. In the 70's with way less population we had gridlock. Now, even with the population increase traffic is bad yes....but had we not addressed the issue, we would still be number 1 for most congested.

Can you say most people in Dallas use light rail on a daily basis even though they have 40 miles? As their ridership numbers show, the answer is no. Cities such as Houston are just too spread out to justify lots of light rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't objectively compare traffic in one city vs. another so please don't start. But you can objectively compare traffic in Houston from the past to current. In the 70's with way less population we had gridlock. Now, even with the population increase traffic is bad yes....but had we not addressed the issue, we would still be number 1 for most congested.

Can you say most people in Dallas use light rail on a daily basis even though they have 40 miles? As their ridership numbers show, the answer is no. Cities such as Houston are just too spread out to justify lots of light rail.

In 99% of the cities in America, most people use their cars opposed to mass transit. But just because most people use their cars doesn't mean we neglect it.

And one thing I don't get is that Houstonians seem to think that they're the only city that is sprawled out. With the exception of NY, Boston and some of Chicago, all cities in America are sprawl dominated.

Rail in any form or amount will ever cure our transportation problems if we continue our sprawling ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 99% of the cities in America, most people use their cars opposed to mass transit. But just because most people use their cars doesn't mean we neglect it.

Lockmat...do you understand that there is more to mass transit than rail? Houston is definitely not neglecting mass transit. your statement "But just because most people use their cars doesn't mean we neglect it." there are many things that become obsolete over time. Houston had many rail lines in the first half of last century. But less were using it and it became too expensive as a result so the money was used elsewhere. and the system was dismantled.

And one thing I don't get is that Houstonians seem to think that they're the only city that is sprawled out. With the exception of NY, Boston and some of Chicago, all cities in America are sprawl dominated.

I don't know which Houstonians you're talking to but your blanket statements are getting very tiring. After WWII most growth in america was as the result of sprawl. I don't think you're providing any information that the intelligent don't already know.

Rail in any form or amount will ever cure our transportation problems if we continue our sprawling ways.

So now your segwaying from light rail to the urban sprawl problems of american cities.

I have to ask your age. what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I work off MLK and Ost across the street from Macgregor Park, and I was wondering when and if they have an idea to what properties will moved for the ROW.

My boss received a letter from Metro saying they would be contacting us regarding the relocation process if needed. I work in a strip center on the Southwest corner of OST and MLK. There is a Shell station in the middle of MLK that I think they will tear out an will not need any ROW on either side of MLK,Hopefully. The gas station owner said Metro said they might tear it out after all but he wasn't sure. Although I think this construction will hurt business ass did the Spur 5, MLK/Calhoun Realigning, closure, & construction. I am optimistic it will improve business as did the spur 5 construction. Man when they get this Lrt/Grt built with 35 through to Beltway 8, this area might see some revitalization. I do not like to see gentrification per say but the infrastructure in this area really needs to be improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I checked out this route on windows live map. Maybe it's totally different in person, but it seems like there is nothin on MLK. I understand many people in this area might be transit dependant, but is it enough to justify this line? Is Metro hoping for TODs?

Maybe someone who's very familiar w/ this segment of MLK can shine the light where I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked out this route on windows live map. Maybe it's totally different in person, but it seems like there is nothin on MLK. I understand many people in this area might be transit dependant, but is it enough to justify this line? Is Metro hoping for TODs?

Maybe someone who's very familiar w/ this segment of MLK can shine the light where I don't see it.

The shining light of MLK is that it doesn't cut through a wealthy neighborhood.

It doesn't serve the HEB at the revitalized intersection of Scott and OST or the nearby transit center, and that will result in substantially less ridership. No TODs are anticipated at this time. METRO is pretty forthcoming about this, but a wealthy neighborhood comprised of mostly single family homes has spoken...all this, and the Chronicle barely ever took notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume they are banking on the U of H crowd to be majority of ridership? the section of MLK that I think your all discussing has been quite desolate for a long time. Last I recall it was just old apts, little stores and just old nabe. Now Harrisburg would greatly benefit (whole other topic). :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UH and TSU are going to have two lines serving it and it will be a big boon for UH and TSU.

The UH students that are usually doomed to bum rides to go to bars and such will be able to hop on the train to their party spots or go to the med center for any care that they may need.

Oh yeah, then there is the mall "hangout" that they might do in the galleria to alleviate boredom because we all know how University life can be SOOOOOOO boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't harrisburg "just old apts, little stores and just old nabe" too?

Yes, but I meant that there are very many working class families that could really use the line to get into downtown fast and easy. No more buses to wait on. I just seems like there are way more folks that would benefit tremendously in the Harrisburg corridor. I sure would like to do a door to door poll and get the residents input. Bet they can't wait for start/completion of rail, that is if its not too expensive to ride. Palm Center area seems so dismal compared to Harrisburg. Harrisburg has way more hustle/bustle and movement. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats why I say a poll and input of those that would use the rail is worth trying. To see how many on both areas would actually ride it. I dont think this is a toss in the air to see which nabe wins? The rail will probably go to both areas anyway. There are many, many workers in the Harrisburg vicinity that commute DT in the evenings. You do know that right. Again, a poll or consensus would be of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the scott option would have more ridership and would stop by the revitalized intersection of Scot & OST, but I believe there is more oppurtunity to develop along MLK as there is vacant land along MLK especially @ OST and MLK across from Macgregor park. They just finished a bunch of Mcmansions on MLK right before Griggs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the scott option would have more ridership and would stop by the revitalized intersection of Scot & OST, but I believe there is more oppurtunity to develop along MLK as there is vacant land along MLK especially @ OST and MLK across from Macgregor park. They just finished a bunch of Mcmansions on MLK right before Griggs.

I was always in favor of the Scott Street option, but that's long gone.

MLK @ OST has the potential to be a hot corner.

You've got the beautiful MacGregor Park (one of the best in Houston, in my opinion) on one corner, "historic" shopping centers at two more corners, and the aforementioned vacant land on the other. (That vacant land was also part of MacGregor Park until recently, but the COH lost it by breaking the century-old conditions of the MacGregor family's donation.)

I love the old-school shopping center on the SW corner of MLK and OST...it reminds me of Old Pasadena. The shopping center at the SE corner is not attractive, but has potential...maybe to be demolished and redeveloped.

It'll be interesting to see who gets the NE corner...I believe UH is in the running for it. Could be a nice south entrance to UH, with retail and additional dorms.

By the way, doesn't the Shrine of the Black Madonna own all the land around that new subdivision on MLK? Did they develop the new subdivision? It's nice looking...but a little out of place for the time being. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come, as some of the homes across the street are ready to come down.

Who knows...maybe Palm Center will regain its former glory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see who gets the NE corner...I believe UH is in the running for it. Could be a nice south entrance to UH, with retail and additional dorms.

By the way, doesn't the Shrine of the Black Madonna own all the land around that new subdivision on MLK? Did they develop the new subdivision? It's nice looking...but a little out of place for the time being. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come, as some of the homes across the street are ready to come down.

Who knows...maybe Palm Center will regain its former glory!

Very true indeed Timmy, I haven't heard much about that lot in the past year. It was going up for auction the last I heard. Hopefully UH has it in play. I agree that it would make a nice South entry into the campus thus extending the campus into the park and neighborhoods (UH Master Plan?). I was thinking maybe some homes for the professors but your idea sounds great as well.

The Shrine did/now own a lot of the property in the past and kept the properties in nice shape but lately have not been doing so well with upkeep. Maybe their losing there direction or something, who knows? Palm Center has life, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...