mfastx

Apparently they had the first test run on its own power last night, per METRO's facebook page.

There are many ways to connect a light rail line to the airport.  You could have a central station with any of the following options: a shuttle bus connecting terminals to the rail station (Boston, LA are cities that I know have this), you could construct a people mover (my vote would be for us to somehow extend the underground people mover to the rail station since it is already outside of the sterile zone, the underground people mover would most likely have to be reconstructed as well), or you could have elevated walkways from the station to the terminals. 

A more expensive and probably not viable option would be to construct a station at each of the terminals, but you'd have to reconfigure the terminals and it would cost a lot. 

Actually, you AND the editor are wrong. Well, I will give you partial credit. However, you claimed the classification is due to weight, which is incorrect.

 

Your quote...

 

The bolded part is wrong. But, I am sure you are excited that the editor stuck up for you. Good for you.

I do know the difference between light rail and heavy rail, even though I mispoke.  But for the fun of it, you could say that heavy rail trains are heavier, as a 10 car train is heavier than a 2 car train, even if each car of the 2 car train is heavier individually.  For example, you could not run a 10 car train on the current tracks we are building.  Different specifications need to be met. 

And I'm very excited, and thank you. 

Unfortunately, your status as a "transportation geek" did not assist you in getting the definition correct. APATA defines heavy and light rail as follows...

 

Like Editor pointed out, I was using the APTA classifications.  Heavy rail trains are usually 8-10 cars long while light rail is usually 2-3 cars long.  Capacity is much higher and while our current fleet is capable of going 65 mph, it is very rare for light rail to travel that fast in service.  Btw, our new cars will have a top speed of only 40 mph roughly. 

But it is great to agree on something! 

Sounds like you're saying that its capacity is heavier than light rail which is fine....I don't consider that heavy rail though. different definitions

Well, us transportation geeks refer to systems like the ones I mentioned as heavy rail.  Due to the fact that the rails are configured for heavier trains..    What you were referring to is commuter rail.. which is indeed "heavy rail," but it is not referred to as such in the transportation geek world.  lol

heavy rail takes longer to start and stop. to say that it is much faster than light rail even if there are the same amount of stops is an outright lie.

?? I'd like to see a source on this.  Heavy rail would travel at much faster speeds than light rail.  It's well documented that the average speed of heavy rail is double that of light rail, even in places where stops are only about a quarter mile apart (New York, DC)

EDIT: to be clear I am talking about heavy rail systems like the MARTA, BART, and DC Metro.  NOT "commuter rail" which does indeed take longer to start and stop.  Maybe that is what you are referring to.

Irrelevant of whether someone thinks that rail is a good idea or not, I don't think that it's the right idea to build because "someday we're going to need it".  Infrastructure needs to be an investment based on some targeted ROI (and that doesn't have to be a strictly financial justification).

 

Yes, land values in central Houston have skyrocketed, but I would be very hesitant to assume that these prices are sustainable.  I think that it's more likely that there could be a moderate correction in the near future, especially if there's a general economic downturn.

I think this here is the root of ideological differences between the two sides here on this forum. 

There's certainly valid points for either argument, but what is tough to define is when exactly we "need it."  It seems very subjective. 

Wow.  This is IMO the best looking development in Houston I've seen in a long time. 

I agree.  Eliminating at-grade crossings will also help improve on-time peformance for buses as well. 

Faster technology?

Teleportation?

 

Explain how you would do it?  Please realize there are several communities that live on the way to Bush that could also utilize that line.

Well first off you have to understand that heavy rail technology usually has at least twice as fast average speeds as light rail.  The light rail trains we have in Houston aren't designed to go fast.  For example, completely grade separated heavy rail is going to be much faster than at grade light rail, even if there are the same amount of stops and they are the same distance apart. 

Let me reinforce that just one rail line from downtown to IAH won't generate much ridership, the issue is connecting people that might live in other areas of town to that line that goes to IAH. 

Like I said previously, in only a very few instances, would an express to the airport work work.   Simply not enough ridership to justify it.

Oh okay I think there was a miscommunication.  I never suggested an express line, just faster technology.  It would still have stops. 

Yes your right but it is so expensive. We should have started building heavy rail 20 years ago. We are now stuck with concrete. METRO, Houston, and Harris County must create a transportation plane to move forward.

Ha, well we almost did in the early 80s.  But the original line proposed seemed too expensive to voters and thus it was voted down.  Unfortunate, because if the entire system had been built out as Kiepper (METRO's leader at the time) had envisioned, we would have a much more effective transit system. 

No. A rail line needs to be efficient in what it is designed for.  From there people will utilize it best if its properly designed.

The MARTA in Atlanta is efficient enough.  In fact, heavy rail would be more efficient over longer distances than light rail, simply due to lack of ridership on light rail. 

IMO a rail line to the airport shouldn't be express, but just fast.  Like the MARTA in Atlanta. 

Of course, if there are crosstown rail lines and good quality bus lines connecting to the rail line that goes to the airport, this creates an easy transfer for people going to the airport that aren't coming from downtown. 

Just one rail line to the airport won't do much by itself. 

I don't think that light rail would be particularly effective as an airport connection due to the number of stops.  The red line takes 30 min to go 7.5 miles - an average of 15 miles/hour.  The distance from U of H - Downtown to IAH is about 20 miles.  Assuming that there is a lower number of stops in between and that the train is able to achieve an average of 20 miles/hour (yes, I picked that number because it made the math easy), then you're talking about a 1 hour trip each way.

 

It really needs to be an express.

Agreed.  For light rail to work there'd have to be a very limited number of stops on the way to the airport. 

Alternatively, heavy rail technology could be used (which would be faster and generate more ridership), but it would be somewhat redundant since we are already going that way with light rail. 

Nice. Thanks for posting. But how come we don't have an 80 story tower like this?

See your sig

It would be nice it Metro offered some sort of shuttle service from the end of the North Line to IAH ... for those of us who live along the rail line. 

I'm sure they will re-configure bus service to IAH to be somehow tied into the North Line rail.  In addition to downtown.

I would much rather see the trains run subterranean through all of downtown with access at tunnel level instead of street level, but I really don't have any idea whether that's actually viable.

Completely agree.  That would be the most ideal situation and most convenient for commuters.  To be able to exit the train and go straight into tunnels to their buildings. 

But you'd have to reconfigure the tunnel network around stations and it would cost a fortune. 

Grass would be aesthetically pleasing. 

Standard ballast and ties would prevent people from illegally driving on the tracks.  Seemed like a no-brianer to me, but oh well. 

Grade seperation is another great idea.  Rode the rail downtown yesterday and it was so awfully slow.  And I honestly don't like the look of a street downtown with rail in the middle.  But that's just me. 

Nice to see some fellow Clutchfaners!! 

But yeah, my reaction is similar to the Ron Paul gif

Haha, I see that gif on Clutchfans all the time, I wonder how many ppl here are on other local forums...

Like the second rendering, but that doesn't seem like a very accurate portrayal of downtown in the background, lol. 

The main difference between the renderings and what's currently there, is that there are actually people walking around in the renderings, lol. 

Plus some minor changes to the façade. 

Been hearing about that proposition for awhile now. 

I'm a skeptic that it is a serious possibility until construction. 

Will remain hopeful though.

What's a TOD? 

Transit Oriented Development.  Basically a development centered around a transit stop.

I think that's absolutely the key question once we get all the hyperbole out of the way. I don't think that anyone questions that the transit system needs to be improved, but I do think that there is room for intelligent conversation regarding the best way to achieve that. I personally feel that focusing the tax dollars that are available on drastically improving the bus system is likely to provide better value per dollar than focusing on building a couple of light rail lines.

I would agree with your concern about whether the light rail lines that are under construction are going to generate enough ridership especially if appropriate steps aren't taken to strengthen the bus system.

While the light rail lines under construction will serve their respective areas well, I do wish that the most justified line IMO, the University Line, would have been built first. 

And I'm very hopeful that METRO's "reimagining" campaign to improve the bus system does some good things.  When used correctly, rail lines can be very effective along side a good bus system.  I'm particularly excited about the proposed "next bus" indicators at certain stops that show when the next bus is coming.  I've seen those in Europe and they are extremely helpful. 

For the next several years METRO is putting their resources towards buses and not rail so hopefully some real improvements are made.