The Voice of University Oaks

Here's the guy running against Culber-scum this fall:

Henley for Congress

Had METRO really wanted to provide meaningful mass transit they would have left the rail that ran along Westpark and used real trains to move commuters from the West side suburbs into town.

That's probably why METRO purchased that ROW in the first place. The problem is that the Westpark ROW ends before it reaches downtown.

The existing tracks had to come up regardless. They were in poor condition.

Elgin probably would perform poorly from a ridership standpoint. The fact that there aren't any buses that run along Elgin right now should say something. Also, it's too far from the TSU campus.

I think the Alabama option makes the most sense. It still serves TSU without cutting through the middle of their campus. It also goes right through the Cuney Homes housing project, which is probably a plus for ridership. Plus, Alabama has a median whereas Wheeler does not, so construction might be easier.

It's official: the line is going down Harrisburg:

July 20, 2006, 11:32PM

Harrisburg selected for East End line

The route is scheduled to open in December 2010

By RAD SALLEE

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

The Metropolitan Transit Authority board Thursday selected Harrisburg Boulevard for its future East End line.

It was the first specific route to be designated since the Metro Solutions long-term transit plan began with the Red Line on Main Street.

METRO selects Harrisburg

It's going to be a tight squeeze in a few areas, but I really think this is the best decision in terms of the number of businesses and residents potentially served. It also seems to have the most community support, judging from comments at METRO's recent East End public meetings.

so can anybody show up at those meetings? or do you have to be a resident of the area...i get out of UH at 3 and the meeting starts at 5 at the 3rd Ward center...im curious about going to it

Anyone and everyone can attend these meetings.

First of all, I'm actually glad that an Afton Oaks resident came to this forum to express his views. Unpopular as his opinion might be, he is a real person who owns real property along Richmond and his side of the story ought to be heard. His views on the University Corridor are no less valid than mine (I am a real person who owns real property one block off of Wheeler near the University of Houston who works in a real building on Timmons one block off of Richmond) or anyone else's. So let's be civil without piling up on him.

That being said, if Afton Oaks residents prefer the hundreds of diesel-belching buses that currently run up and down Richmond through their neighborhood today over the possibility of an electrically-powered light rail vehicle one day gliding through their 'hood, so be it. The truth is, I don't think it should go through Afton Oaks anyway. Not enough ridership there.

I was at tonight's meeting. A lot of good, respectful dialogue. There was some unfortunate name-calling and bickering as well (coming from people on *both* sides of the Richmond argument, I'd add), but most of the discussion was civil. The "no Richmond" folks were there in force, yes, but they were by no means the only constituency present; a number of pro-Richmond people were there as well.

METRO has taken the Reliant ROW hugging the south side of US-59 off the table, which is as I had expected. It's too narrow and it doesn't serve anybody. The attractors and generators that would create ridership - HSPVA and University of St. Thomas students, Menil and Rothko Chapel patrons, residents of the older, pedestrian-oriented Montrose neighborhoods - are all on the north side of 59 anyway. Thus, if this thing is built it's going to go down Richmond at least as far as Shepherd. From there, METRO is looking at several places where the train can transition from Richmond over (or under) 59 to Westpark: Shepherd, Edloe, some street within Greenway Plaza, Timmons, the UP right-of-way parallel to Weslayan, Post Oak or Sage.

METRO has also extended the line from its recent terminus at South Rice to its original (referendum) terminus at Hillcroft Transit Center, which I believe is a good thing because it will better serve one of the densest and most transit-dependent neighborhoods in the city: Gulfton. It also foretells the concept of future extensions to Gessner, Westchase, Mission Bend and maybe even Clodine.

IHB2 has come up with an excellent argument on this thread as to why the line should not go down Westpark at all. I agree with him in theory, but I think political reality is going to force this line into the Westpark ROW at some point along its alignment.

I think the best option would be at Greenway Plaza. That way it serves one of the five largest employment centers in the city (as well as what is rumored to be the largest church in the entire nation) and it avoids completely screwing up Shepherd, Kirby and Buffalo Speedway between the Westpark ROW and southbound 59 frontage road. Furthermore, the train at Weslayan would probably be grade-separated due to the fact that it is not going to cross the UP line at grade. Thus, the only real problem area becomes the junction of Westpark, Post Oak and the 610 frontage roads at the 59/610 interchange (which, granted, is a mess as it is).

However, I have a feeling that political forces (think John Culberson and Martha Wong) as well as withering opposition from businesses along Richmond (who, understandably, fear the train on the basis of what it *might* do to their businesses and are already preparing to sue METRO) are going to try to force the transition to occur at Shepherd. Never mind the fact that such an alignment would completely screw up the movement of traffic along Shepherd, Kirby and Buffalo Speedway south of 59 and completely miss Greenway Plaza (unless we build some costly pedestrian bridge over 59 from Westpark to Greenway that nobody would use anyway): there's a "best solution" from an engineering and planning standpoint, and there's a "best solution" from the political/legal standpoint, and Shepherd might be a case of the latter beating the former.

I'm also going to be at Monday night's meeting at the Third Ward Multi-Service Center. There's also a meeting Tuesday night at St. Paul's United Methodist Church. The University Line could be one of the most important public works projects in the city's history, especially as gas prices continue to spiral upward and the inner loop continues to densify. Folks, if you care about this issue one way or another, BE THERE.

Culberson's philosophical opposition to rail is well-known. He knows that the best way to keep any more rail from being built in Houston is to interfere with the University Line's PE / EIS process to ensure an unfavorable outcome, and that is exactly what he is doing.

Culberson knows that the FTA is unlikely to fund a Westpark alignment because the ridership thresholds won't be met. Basically, the only way it gets built is if it gets put on Richmond. By using his political weight to effectively tell METRO that Richmond is off-limits, he's basically ensuring that nothing gets built. He can hide behind the "business owners and residents along Richmond don't want it" excuse so that he himself doesn't come out looking like the bad guy. Pretty clever, huh?

He can get away with it, too; his congressional district is gerrymandered such that his seat is safe no matter what he does.

When I was in college at UH, if someone mentioned one of 3 Kroger's, we always knew which one they meant. (And I'm guessing that folks on this forum will know as well.)

There was Disco Kroger (already been mentioned), Combat Kroger and Kro-gay.

Disco Kroger on Montrose

Combat Kroger on Cullen and Polk

I still use these names when referring to these two Kroger stores, e.g. "I'm going down to Combat to pick up some beer. If I'm not back in ten minutes, call the cops."

Buy Kro-gay? I'm afraid I've never heard that one. Is that the West Gray Kroger?

VOUO, do you know the difference in projected ridership between the two alignments?

According to the METRO's presentation boards, the projected daily boardings are 4,990 for Scott/Griggs versus 3,625 for Wheeler/MLK. On the other hand, the Wheeler/MLK costs less, has fewer property acquisistions and displacements, and disrupts less vehicle traffic than a Scott/Griggs alignment. Is fewer riders worth it if the construction cost is cheaper? Or should the goal be to serve as many people as possible even if it costs more and stirs up more community opposition? I'm glad I'm not the one making these decisions!

There have been a number of new businesses built at Scott and OST since 2003: the CVS, the WAMU shopping center, the shopping center at Scott/Griggs, the new Sonic. I wonder how those new businesses would affect ridership projections, if the projections were done in 2006 (rather than 2003)?

That's a good point. I have no idea how recent these ridership projections are, i.e. if they were generated during the Alternatives Analysis in 2003 or if they were generated during the DEIS analysis this past spring.

I'm also interested in the SE Line...I'd like to put my dos centavos in on that alignment...it sounds like a foregone conclusion that it will cut from Scott over to MLK via Wheeler on the south boundary of UH. While that alignment is nice for UH, I think it makes ZERO sense for the surrounding community to avoid the intersection of OST and Scott. The Wheeler alignment goes to MacGregor Park (and by ZERO commercial establishments), while the intersection of OST and Scott is all commercial for many blocks around there.

Well, I prefer the Wheeler alignment, for obvious reasons. But it is true that ridership is projected to be smaller on an alignment that uses Wheeler and MLK rather than Scott and Griggs. Missing the Southeast Transit Center is a minus as well. Apparently, a lot of opposition is coming from the Riverside Terrace neighborhood on the south side of Braes Bayou; they don't think that the line can be built down Scott Street without having to take additional right-of-way and they think it will negatively impact their homes. I don't think METRO has made a final decision about the alignment, however.

Have the scoping meetings for the SE Line been held yet?

They were probably held a couple of years ago during the Southeast Line Enivironmental Impact Statement process. The Southeast and North corridors are way ahead of the other corridors in terms of design because tstudy began on them before the 2003 referendum.

As I understand it, bike racks are supposed to go on METRO's entire fleet, including the suburban park and ride buses.

I don't know if they'll see a lot of use or not, but there actually are some people who bicycle to the park and ride lot. This is especially true for the Kingwood Park and Ride; you'll usually see several bicycles chained to the racks there.

There are bike racks on some (okay, very few) of METRO's 40' New Flyer buses. They were installed as part of a pilot project many years ago, but it was limited to only a couple of routes and it never really went anywhere, probably because it was so limited in scope.

Cyclists aren't going to use the bike racks unless they can be assured that every bus has them. That's why the few bike racks that are out there have never been used.

Bike racks on all buses were budgeted in the METRO Solutions package, but they were deferred until later in the decade (2009 or so). Hopefully the current pressure being put on METRO to move up its implementation date will have a positive effect.

Denton's "skyline" consists of a few residential towers at TWU, the old Courthouse on the Square, and the Morrison's grain silo.

Other notable structures you'll see from I-35E are Fouts Field and the Murchison Performance Center (the "steel armadillo") at the University of North Texas, the two new hospitals (Presbyterian and Denton Regional Medical Center), and the new corporate headquarters of Sally Beauty Supply.

I'm not too enthused about the choice of diesel LRT myself, especially given the likelihood that fuel prices are only going to increase over the coming years. There's also the noise and pollution issue, although I've heard people say that the River Line in New Jersey is remarkably quiet for being DLRT and I'm pretty sure METRO would use the same ultra-low-sulphur diesel for their rail fleet as they currently use for their bus fleet.

Frank Wilson obviously wants to build these things as quickly and as cheaply as possible. And, since none of the BRT lines are going to be electrified, why not eliminate the expense of designing, procuring and building catenary systems altogether and go with diesel on the new LRT line as well? Also, using diesel LRT along Westpark makes the eventual extension out to Gessner, Westchase or even Fort Bend County that much easier.

As with the BRT lines, they'll probably make room for electrical conduits and vaults so that future electrification can occur. And, as somebody else noted, diesel LRT works similar to standard freight locomotives in that the diesel engine does not actually drive the vehicle but rather generates power for the electric drive motors, so acceleration, braking, etc. should be similar to that of the existing electric trains. Furthermore, it's likely the trucks, bogeys, motors, etc. Siemens uses on their diesel LRT product would be similar to that used by their electric LRT product, which would make cross-maintience of the two fleets easier (provided, of course, that METRO goes with Siemens for its DLRT product).

One downside is that the whiners will use this as another weapon against a Richmond alignment. "The diesel train is going to worsen pollution in our neighborhood!" They'll no doubt claim. As if the 25 and 53 buses that constantly run up and down Richmond don't do that already...

i think it would be a great thing if dart connected. then commuters from throughtout the metro area could funnel onto this thing to take them to the very front of their buildings.

This is exactly what is going to happen in the coming years. DART's light rail extension to Irving and DFW airport will have stations in Las Colinas that will allow transfer to the Las Colinas APT (peoplemover). Right now DART is in the process of evaluating station locations. Here is a link to a station analysis study done last November (warning: 3.3mb .pdf) that goes into detail about possible station location alternatives in Las Colinas, including their ability to provide a connection to thep peoplemover:

http://www.dart.org/NWIrvingDFWStationLoca...ysis17Nov05.pdf

Your 'sources' are feeding you BS. The differences aren't the type to prevent an LRT/LRT crossing.

Yes, let's get Metro's BS excuses in writing, and then subject it to peer review. It will end up looking like swiss cheese. Funny how so much of their claims, grand plans, and promises they suckered the public and voters with didn't hold up when scrutinized by the FTA for funding. And poof, LRT became BRT.

I'd venture to guess that perhaps grade separation is one of those crowd-pleasing measures Metro will promote beforehand and then drop as soon as the FTA tells them to get their project costs down. Kinda like the girlfriend who says she'll always be thin, and then grabs the sweatpants and twinkies once she gets the ring.

Hey, I'm just passing along what I've been told. Perhaps you need to contact METRO's rail engineers and knock some sense into them. METRO's switchboard is 713-739-4000.

And yet Portland is planning to build several more of these in the middle of their downtown with their next LRT extension. With their streetcar line already crossing the existing LRT line downtown. Going from the current 4 downtown intersections with an at-grade rail crossing to 12, while also adding auto lanes to the currently bus only transit mall the new line will run down. Yeah, must be such a traffic nightmare that they decided to go from 4 to 12. I can see why similarly gridded midtown Houston can't handle a single one of these intersections.

Good thing that the experienced light-rail pioneers at Metro know better those urban and transit novices in Portland.

I said that nowhere in the United States do two *actual* light rail systems cross at grade. The TriMet South Corridor project you reference will be the first in the nation to do so if they build it as proposed (it's still in design). It will be interesting to see how TriMet operates all these intersections, how they prioritize the trains, how they affect vehicular traffic, etc. The Portland streetcar, meanwhile, is just that: a streetcar, operating under line-of-sight rules. MAX (the "full" light rail) has priority at the streetcar/light rail junction.

Furthermore, nobody said it "couldn't be done." Grand junctions of two rail systems crossing at grade occur all the time. It takes a lot of coordination to move trains through a single point at grade, but it is possible. What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

Anyway, these issues will be explored in detail as preliminary engineering begins.

Thanks! I stumbled onto this thread and was very impressed with the discussion -- we need more of this, and less of the knee-jerk stuff I tend to see in transit discussions.

That's why I like this board, too. There's actual, thoughtful, technical discussion of transit here, not the typical METRO-bashing that seems to occur elsewhere.

Good job with the FAQ, too. It addresses a lot of the accusations that rail opponents have attempted to use over the years.

This line will intersect the Red Line at Main and Richmond-across from Sears. I imagine that would be a pretty major interchange and feasable to do it all at street level as every train will stop there. That would eliminate and elevated section at 527.

METRO and STV engineers have already said that they cannot put a rail junction at street level. It would kill the Richmond / Wheeler intersection. Also, nowhere in the United States do two actual light rail systems cross perpendiculalrly at grade. The operational issues involved are enormous.

We addressed the 2 90 degree turns earlier in this thread. I suggested the new owners of the HISD property and Central Market donate a slice of their property as well.

Makes sense. I guess it all depends on the amount of property that will be required. The point is, it all needs to be STUDIED! By saying "you can't put rail on Richmond or Westheimer," Wong and Culberson are trying to keep all these issues from even being identified.

Good post.

You gave all the reasons a rail route on 59 isn't going to happen: the bridges; the power lines; the removal of freeway lanes. In addition, you would have the quaranteed opposition from Southhampton and Broad Acres.

Exactly! Those neighborhoods are just as organized and politically-connected as Afton Oaks.

Everyone recognizes the problem of widening Richmond between Main and Kirby to accomodate the line. As far as elevating the line over 527, I don't think that is neccesary-check out Fannin under Holcomb.

Many think jogging north to Westheimer on Weslyan is a very real possibility considering the potential for ridership. Riders catching this line from UH, TSU, Rice, St. Thomas, TMC, Dowtown and Midtown most likely are going to want to go SOMEPLACE...not to the Edloe stop on Westpark to visit the Kroger store.

Hey! That's *my* Kroger store! (Well, one of them, at least. I go there when I have a big grocery list, but for small or essential items I usually go to the "Combat Kroger" behind the U of H campus.)

Anyway, I don't disagree with you. Westheimer does make sense for many reasons. I just see a lot of technical issues with a Richmond - Weslayan - Westheimer alignment, not the least of which is the need to negotiate two 90 degree turns, elevate over the UP line while running within Westheimer, and interface with the Uptown/Galleria BRT/LRT line at Post Oak. Plus the simple fact that Westpark is METRO's right-of-way, and they want to get into it at some point (lest HCTRA comes back and tries to buy the remaining 50' to widen the Westpark Toll Road).

The point is, all of these possible alignments need to be studied and discussed. This maneuver by Wong and Culberson needs to be called for what it is: a sham.

METRO purchased the 100' railroad right-of-way that runs parallel to Westpark from Southern Pacific many years ago. They sold 50' to HCTRA so that the Westpark Toll Road could be built but they retain the other 50' for future rail service. Obviously, it would be ideal for METRO, at some point, to run the train down property they already own. The question is, how and where do you do it?

The Westpark ROW technically continues east of Shepherd, running concurrently with a Centerpoint easment just to the south of US 59, but it narrows to essentially nothing before it reaches Main Street. This, obviously, poses a massive engineering problem in that there's really no room to put the rail line. Squeezing the rail line into the sliver of space on the south edge of the Southwest Freeway would require some sort of stacking or tunneling method which is prohibitively expensive. Elevation is not an option because of the power lines and the arched bridges along 59, and running it within 59 itself (i.e. taking a lane or two of traffic out and replacing it with rail) isn't desirable either.

And then there's the ridership issue. Richmond is where the people are. Westpark is not. Especially in the area between the Spur and Shepherd, where UST, the Menil complex, scores of apartment complexes, etc. are. Not to mention all the commercial and office development between Shepherd and Greenway Plaza. Therefore, it just makes sense to run the rail from Main Street down Richmond to at least Greenway Plaza before making a turn across 59 and settling into the Westpark ROW.

The problem is that Richmond is only four lanes (two in each direction) between Main and Kirby. I drive that section of Richmond on an almost-daily basis; it's congested enough as it is and taking away two lanes of traffic to make room for the rail is simply not an option. Either the train is built above grade along this stretch (it needs to be elevated over Spur 527 anyway) or right-of-way will have to be taken along either side of the street to make room for the tracks.

There are apparently two main centers of opposition along Richmond: the Afton Oaks community west of Weslayan and a handful of business owners east of Shepherd. I'm not sure the Afton Oaks people have anything to worry about; METRO learned their lesson in 1989-91 when they tried to run the monorail through this affluent community. It's all but certain that this neighborhood will be avoided, most likely by the rail switching from Richmond to Westpark at Timmons or Weslayan. (I think a northward jog to Westheimer is a *very* remote possibility.)

Of bigger concern, in my opinion, is the opposition east of Shepherd. I can understand whatever concerns they have about construction impacts, possible loss of access, possible taking of right-of-way, and aesthetic impacts. Elevating the rail will mean cutting down the trees in the median and building a huge structure above the street. This will have significant aesthetic impacts. Keeping the train at-grade by widening Richmond will require parking lots and buildings to be taken, and it will likely involve some intersection closures as well.

However, we won't know the full extent of these impacts, and what possible mitigation measures would be necessary to minimize these impacts, until they are studied in detail. This is why Martha Wong is, well, wrong to demand that Richmond be taken off the table now before it has even been closely studied. What needs to occur here is careful analysis and planning (which usually occurs in the Preliminary Engineering / Environmental Impact Statement process) with lots of community involvement, not some cynical, politically-driven end run around the planning process.

This is a non-story. Somebody at KHOU doesn't understand the Federal New Starts Process.

Here's the deal: projects in the FTA's New Starts process go through several steps before they are funded. First comes Preliminary Engineering, then Final Design, then the Full Funding Grant Agreement, when federal disbursements for construction are actually made.

Right now, METRO has two projects (north and southeast corridors) in the process. Both of them are at the Preliminary Engineering level. They're not anywhere CLOSE to being funded yet. As METRO's own press release states, "METRO did not expect the Administration to propose funding amounts for its projects because those projects are not far enough along in the federal review process."

This is an example of an overzealous TV station making much ado about nothing.

The technically correct answer to your question is "no." The City of Houston will not build direct connector ramps between these two highways because they have no jurisdiction over state and county roadways.

However, I think the latest H-GAC TIP includes a line item for direct connectors at this intersection. I don't know when they're supposed to be built, however. TxDOT and HCTRA would likely share construction costs.

The IAH Playskool train is also useful when you have to park at Terminal A or B because there's no parking available at C, D or E.

Capital costs for the Main Street light rail line were $324 million, or $43.2 million per mile. The cost includes rolling stock and the rail operations center.

Don't knock the "sorry a** busses" until you've seen them and ridden them. Modern bus rapid transit is surprisingly comfortable and smooth.

I'm sure a lot of you have seen his opinion piece in yesterday' Chronicle, which is available here on the Chronicle's website. However, knowing that the Chronicle doesn't leave articles available on their site for very long, he wisely reposted it on his own blog as well.

I know Tory reads this board, and I hope he won't regard this response as adversarial, because it's not. The fact is, he is generally correct that the existing express bus service METRO provides via the city's extensive system of one-way reversible, barrier-separated HOV lanes is superior to the level of service commuter rail could provide, because it provides a single-seat ride whereas a proposed commuter rail system would require riders to transfer at some point.

Using a personal example: a few years ago, I was forced to "live in exile" down in Sagemont. I would get to work downtown by driving to (or, oftentimes, having my wife drop me off at) the Fuqua Park and Ride. There I would catch the next 247 Fuqua bus, which departs for downtown every six minutes during the AM peak, and be on my way. Once I got off the bus, I'd walk a couple of blocks to work. No stops between the park and ride and downtown, and no transfers; it was a "one seat ride" all the way to work.

Contrast that with a trip on the proposed commuter rail line running parallel to SH 3. I would have had to drive across I-45 to a rail station, wait a while for the next train (I have yet to see any commuter rail operation that runs on six minute headways, like the buses currently do), ride the train (which would probably make a few more stops along the way) into the intermodal center north of downtown, get off the train, walk over to the light rail platform, wait for the next light rail train, and then continue my trip into downtown. Compared to the current bus service, it's not a one-seat ride and the total trip time would probably be longer.

The folks at METRO have internally understood this concept for years. That's why the original (voter-approved) METRO Solutions plan contained only eight miles of commuter rail, from the southern terminus of the light rail line to Missouri City. An extension of this line from MoCity to Richmond and Rosenberg, as well as a possible commuter rail line paralleling 290 towards Hempstead, were clearly shown as being "by others" in all of METRO's referendum-related documents. The recent revision of the METRO Solutions plan gave commuter rail a much higher priority, making METRO responsible for the line along 290 to Cypress and adding a line along SH 3 towards Galveston as a future project. I'm not sure why this happened, but I'm sure politics played a large part.

With all that said, there are a few points Tory makes in his article that I'd like to address:

"(Express buses) can jump in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and zip past traffic at 60 mph, going nonstop point-to-point to their destinations. [...] Now let's look at the commuter rail trip. The first thing you notice is that it's not as fast as you thought. Because of stops every couple of miles, it's only able to achieve a net speed of 30 mph to 40mph."

It's probable that commuter rail will be slower than express bus. However, until the commuter rail lines are actually designed, the speed ratings of the rails they travel along are determined, the number of stops they will make are identified, etc., you just can't say with certainty that they will "only be able to acheive a net speed of 30 mph to 40 mph." Also, keep this in mind about the express buses: they might zip along the freeway at 60 mph in the HOV lane, but once they get downtown they have to operate in mixed traffic along city streets, stop every couple of blocks to pick up or unload passengers, et al, which slows them down. When I rode the 247, the plod through downtown always seemed like the longest part of the trip. And that's downtown, where access to the HOV lanes is easiest. Express buses going to activity centers not directly served by HOV lanes, such as the Texas Medical Center, generally travel even slower because more of their trip is over surface streets in mixed traffic.

"Until you get to your end station. If you're unfortunate enough to live in Fort Bend County and commute downtown, you're now looking at waiting for a transfer to the 17-mph light rail line, then a full 30 more minutes slogging up Fannin and Main streets to get downtown."

As somebody who has attended several of the H-GAC Fort Bend County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study steering meetings, I'd like Tory to know that the Texas Medical Center commuter, not the downtown commuter, is envisioned as being the primary user of this service. (Downtown commuters from Fort Bend would probably continue to use the Southwest Freeway HOV.) Therefore, most users of this line would probably experience only an additional ten or (at most) fifteen minutes of light rail travel, not thirty. Furthermore, the continual advancement of diesel multiple unit (DMU) technology is "on track" to produce a vehicle which is both FRA and FTA compliant and can run on both light rail as well as standard freight rail tracks. This opens up the possibility that no transfers between LRT and CRT will be required at all!

I 'll say here that I fully support the construction of the 90A commuter rail line for this simple reason: unlike some other possible commuter rail corridors, there is not any HOV facility along 90A (nor will there be one even after TxDOT finishes the "freeway-ization" of 90A into Sugar Land). Yes, there's the Southwest Freeway HOV, but unlike 90A it doesn't go directly to the Texas Medical Center. Currently, express buses such as the 170 Missouri City operate in mixed traffic all the way into the Texas Medical Center. In this particular instance, commuter rail would definitely be faster than a bus along the same corridor.

"Similar transfers and slow travel times face anybody going to job centers other than downtown: Uptown/Galleria, the Texas Medical Center, Greenway Plaza and Westchase."

Okay, but to be fair, METRO's existing express buses already require transfers to many of these destinations. If you live along 290 and work in the Texas Medical Center, for example, you're transferring from one express bus to another at the Northwest Transit Center. If you live along the Eastex Freeway and work in Greenway Plaza, you're making a transfer downtown.

"But let's say you're one of the lucky commuter-rail patrons headed downtown. Most likely your trip would end at the newly planned intermodal transit center just north of UH Downtown and the bayou. You're still a pretty long walk from almost all downtown buildings. Time for another transfer to light rail, and then probably a multiple-block walk from one of its downtown stops."

Maybe so. However, commuters using the existing express buses oftentimes already face a "a multiple-block walk" from their buses to their offices. Going back to the 247 Fuqua, its morning route takes it northbound along Travis. Its afternoon trek takes it southbound along Milam. If you ride this bus and work on Smith or Fannin or San Jacinto, you're already walking a few blocks to get to and from your bus. Which is why commuters probably already notice Tory's disclosure "that Houston inconveniently gets a tad warm and rainy five-plus months of the year." I'd add that protection from the elements via the downtown tunnel system is easily accessible from the Main Street Square rail station.

There's also the issue of transfers. Yes, transfers from one train to another would probably be required, and no, most people really don't like to transfer. The delays caused by transfers can sometimes be substantial, depending on how they are structured. However, I'm a bit skeptical of the following statement:

"None of this is news to older transit-based cities. Lower Manhattan is struggling to build and fill office space.

"Why? Because most of the commuter trains arrive at Penn or Grand Central stations in Midtown, and nobody wants to make the additional subway transfer and slog to downtown."

Although I admit that I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Manhattan real estate market, I find myself wary of Tory's implication that Lower Manhattan office vacancies are caused by people not wanting to transfer from the Metro-North, LIRR or NJT lines. Lower Manhattan is already served by several forms of transit, including several subways from Brooklyn, the PATH train from New Jersey, and several ferries from Staten Island, Brooklyn and New Jersey. Furthermore, the high daily ridership on all of the Metro-North, LIRR and NJT commuter rail lines clearly indicates that people aren't averse to transfers. Charles Kuffner, who has more experience with transit in Lower Manhattan than I do, expresses his disbelief as well.

Again, I believe Tory is generally correct in that express buses provide better service right now than commuter rail would. However, I'm not certain that commuter rail would be as "bad" as Tory seems to make it to be. Furthermore, I do believe there are opportunities for commuter rail, especially along corridors that don't already have direct HOV/express bus service to the inner city. Consider the 249 corridor to Tomball, for example. 249 does not go all the way into central Houston. METRO's only park and ride facility along this corridor, Seton Lake, requires buses to travel in mixed traffic for several miles along Montgomery Road until they finally reach I-45 and its HOV lane. Thus, the BNSF right-of-way paralleling 249 would be an excellent candidate for commuter rail, because it runs directly into downtown Houston. It has, in fact, undergone as much study as the UP line paralleling 290, but for some reason is not included in the current METRO Solutions plan.