When Will The Light Rail & Commuter Rails Start Construction?

[Highway6]

Maybe you don't personally like the Westheimer alternative, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or can't be done.

It's never too late to reconsider a plan. It's only too late after the project has been installed already.

Not that it matters, but i do personally like aspects of a Westheimer alignment.

I think from Montrose to the Redline, yes.. Westheimer would be better than Richmond. Less residences, more businesses. If it was doable, I would run the line N-S on Montrose, catch both the key montrose intersections of Richmond and Westheimer.

One reason this does not jive with Metro's plan though is the above would have U-line and Redline intersect at the Elgin station, not Wheeler. Besides the fact that there is more open land around the Wheeler station to accommodate this junction, i assume there are other reasons, Metro prefers the intersection to take place at Wheeler and not Elgin Station.

I think between Montrose and Weslayn, Richmond makes much more sense than Westheimer.

I do like the idea of it being on Westheimer between Weslayn and the Galleria too. Obvisouly, much more businesses, much less residential. If it were possible from an engineering and land acquisition standpoint.. sure.. run it west on Richmond, north on Weslayn, West on Westheimer... run it underground at 610, pop it back up after Sage.

But.. they looked at this.. i know this was one of the initial alternatives thrown out.

Obviously the above would be ridiculously expensive and anyone that thinks running it at grade at the 610/Galleria intersection is a good idea needs to be taken to a psych ward.

So I do think snippets of Westheimer could be better than Richmond, or Westpark... but i think having the entire route on Westheimer would completely miss the purpose of this line and would not be a good choice.

My personal thoughts on a route don't really matter at this point. Neither you nor I have the expertise to determine what make some routes more doable than others, nor do we know what minimum parameters, if not met, would cause a route to be taken off the table.

Where were you and your spiffy website and renders a year and a half ago. There very much was a window of opportunity to get Metro to consider parts of Westheimer as alternatives. That window has been closed for awhile.

[Trae]

While I would LOVE a Westheimer route, I believe it's for the future, and perhaps as a (at least for lower Westheimer) subway.

If an LRT does exist as a surface route, you might as well close down that part of Westheimer to traffic. The only real negative effect that would happen are for deliveries for the various businesses, since it's mostly a walkable area anyway.

Right now, the main component that Metro wants to do is to increase ridership as much as possible. While a Westheimer route would have a high ridership levels fairly quickly, I believe that people would be against it unless the current proposed routes prove themselves.

I hate to say it, but maybe get the Westheimer Route in as a BRT first (BRT is the one of the worst ideas ever), but METRO could get funding. Also, if an LRT route was on Westheimer, this cannot happen:

ELEVATE THAT delicate flower! You can't have a LRT line at-grade at that intersection. That would have to be an elevated/subway station.

[RailOnWestheimer]

If Westheimer is impractical now, then it was impractical a year and a half ago. All we're asking for is a good-faith environmental impact report instead of discarding it capriciously.

You act like rail can't be built at all unless METRO tears into Richmond next month. If, after adding a Westheimer evaluation to the report, Richmond still appears to be the best route, then so be it, rail can be built on Richmond at that time. We won't miss the opportunity on Richmond just because we take a good hard look at Westheimer.

My guess is that it isn't too late to consider Westheimer, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset by my suggestions.

[Trae]

Can their be a line at both Richmond and Westheimer? They can join up at the Hillcroft Transit Center.

[Highway6]

My guess is that it isn't too late to consider Westheimer, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset by my suggestions.

I'm upset that you did not present this at the appropriate time.... maybe aspects of your plan could have been viable, maybe not. I'm upset that your plan and timing completely disregard reality.

[RailOnWestheimer]

Can their be a line at both Richmond and Westheimer? They can join up at the Hillcroft Transit Center.

I would guess rail advocates would feel fortunate to get one line. And what was the budget, $2 billion? We better be sure to evaluate every route's impact before we make that kind of commitment.

[ricco67]

I hate to say it, but maybe get the Westheimer Route in as a BRT first (BRT is the one of the worst ideas ever), but METRO could get funding. Also, if an LRT route was on Westheimer, this cannot happen:

ELEVATE THAT delicate flower! You can't have a LRT line at-grade at that intersection. That would have to be an elevated/subway station.

Spooky. Haven't seen westheimer that empty since the evacuation.

Can we make this into a seperate thread?

[RailOnWestheimer]

Haven't seen westheimer that empty since the evacuation.

There's no cars on Westheimer because everyone's on the train!

[ProHouston]

I would love that, but I would want it to go on Richmond until Weslayan, then swing north to Westheimer. With all of the changing routes though, this line will never get done. Typical Houston.

This is what I've always thought too. The get the best ridership and provide the best option for all Houstonians, a line from Wheeler down Richmond to Weslayen then up to Westheimer would be most effective. However, I'd push for a subway from Weslayen/Richmond up to Post Oak/Westheimer before bringing it back to street level at Sage or Yorktown. Obviously from all the rhetoric we've heard, this is prohibitively expensive. I sure wish we could present it to the Feds though and prove its usefulness. Anything short of this alignment is a compromise.

[nate]

Wow. Try to be realistic, folks. Rail on Westheimer would be both a traffic nightmare and a colossal waste of money, whereas Richmond will only be a traffic hassle and a colossal waste of money.

There is already public transit on Westheimer for the few people that would use it: http://www.ridemetro.org/pdf/routes/082-westheimer.pdf

[VicMan]

Nate, I don't see why Rail on Richmond would be a "colossal waste of money."

[nate]

Nate, I don't see why Rail on Richmond would be a "colossal waste of money."

Then you have not been paying attention.

The rail line will cost in the neighborhood of $500 million to construct. Over its life, it will cost significantly more to operate and maintain than the current bus network, while providing fewer benefits. Not to mention that it will be a traffic disaster.

Here is a recent article from the Journal of Urban Economics which explains why light rail is a waste: http://web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/Metro/on%20th...y-brookings.pdf

[VicMan]

Nate, you have to convince me (and other people) that rail is a "colossal waste of money" - Therefore you have to "do all of the work." It is not my job to pore over archives of other discussion (unless you tell me to, and tell me WHICH discussions).

Now, I will examine the study sometime soon. First, I would like to know if there are any studies that agree with and/or contradict this study. Also, are there any studies that specifically discuss Houston and Texas?

I checked the study you cited and it once mentions that Houston opened a light rail line. There are no other mentions of Houston and Texas. Remember that the dynamics of Houston may differ from the dynamics of Boston and other American cities.

Then you have not been paying attention.

The rail line will cost in the neighborhood of $500 million to construct. Over its life, it will cost significantly more to operate and maintain than the current bus network, while providing fewer benefits. Not to mention that it will be a traffic disaster.

Here is a recent article from the Journal of Urban Economics which explains why light rail is a waste: http://web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/Metro/on%20th...y-brookings.pdf

[Jax]

What about the benefits of being on time and running more often than busses. For that reason, I ride the rail all the time, but almost never ride the busses. I would ride the rail if it went more places.

I will definitely take the red line, and transfer to the University line when it opens, but I would never transfer to the Richmond bus line. The few times that I've done that, I ended up waiting 45 minutes for a bus at Wheeler, and 45 minutes for a bus when I returned.

[VicMan]

Also the study cited by nate mentions privatized systems in Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Tokyo has two rail systems, including the municipal Toei service and the privatized JR service (which affects Japan).

Maybe METRO can operate the light rail throughout Houston and a privatized/partly privatized group (Maybe call it "Southeast Texas Rail System") can operate commuter rail through Houston and other cities (Galveston, Beaumont, Conroe, etc.).

[musicman]

Maybe METRO can operate the light rail throughout Houston and a privatized/partly privatized group (Maybe call it "Southeast Texas Rail System") can operate commuter rail through Houston and other cities (Galveston, Beaumont, Conroe, etc.).

Maybe VicMan can read the yellow highlighted portions of the first two pages. i'm sure it will get your interest.

[IHB2]

There's a better alternative -- Rail On Westheimer! Check out:

www.RailOnWestheimer.org

a little late to the fight ROW (nice acronym). same route yours truly submitted to METRO in July 2005. METRO preferred route in 2003 was on Westheimer from Timmons to Sage, on Richmond from Main to Timmons.

are you any relation to the MoCo?

aftonag, can you help us out here?

[VicMan]

Maybe VicMan can read the yellow highlighted portions of the first two pages. i'm sure it will get your interest.

I skimmed the paper before writing the response.

Anyway, I still would like a study that would fit to Houston's specific circumstances.

As for this: "In theory, rail transit could provide additional external benefits besides reducing roadway

congestion, but empirical evidence of these benefits is weak. First, it has been claimed that by

attracting auto users, rail reduces emissions. But given its low load factor, which includes a

large share of users who keep older cars to get to suburban rail stations, its high consumption

of electricity, whose generation produces pollution, and its consumption of smaller amounts of

heavy petrochemicals, such as kerosene and bunker fuel, a greater share of rail ridership has, at

best, an ambiguous effect on the environment."

The pollution for rail systems typically occurs away from urban areas (as in places where electricity is generated). Also, if we expand alternative forms of electricity generation, the pollution used by rail systems would decrease.

"The demand for rail has continued to shrink because transit networks are unable to keep up

with changing land use and travel patterns that have decentralized residences and employment.

Indeed, less than 10 percent of the nation’s employment in metropolitan areas is located in old

central business districts."

Houston's Downtown is maintaining its office spaces, even as other employment centers emerge. Greenway, the Texas Medical Center, and Uptown continue to host offices.

[musicman]

The pollution for rail systems typically occurs away from urban areas (as in places where electricity is generated). Also, if we expand alternative forms of electricity generation, the pollution used by rail systems would decrease.

seemed like it was applicable to MANY American cities.

so it is ok to pollute somewhere else as long as urban houston doesn't get more polluted?

[VicMan]

seemed like it was applicable to MANY American cities.

so it is ok to pollute somewhere else as long as urban houston doesn't get more polluted?

I understand that rural areas may get pollution, but the measure is supposed to be the benefits and drawbacks to Houston. If Houston significantly increases public transit and rural centers of energy production complain about pollution, then a study could cite that effect (regarding strained urban-rural relations).

seemed like it was applicable to MANY American cities.

Yes, and sprawl differs as well.

This article: http://promo.realestate.yahoo.com/americas...ng_suburbs.html states that Boston's sprawl is more of a "ring" effect, allowing for less efficient modes of transportation. Likewise "Places like Phoenix and Las Vegas are spreading out faster than Boston, but they are doing so more efficiently, meaning with a more concentrated population." - I would say that Houston is generally in the same category as Phoenix and Las Vegas.

Boston's rail system may become more obsolete because of the effect described in the suburbs article, but Houston is increasing its density in the inner city and its older suburbs remain packed with residents.

[musicman]

I understand that rural areas may get pollution, but the measure is supposed to be the benefits and drawbacks to Houston. If Houston significantly increases public transit and rural centers of energy production complain about pollution, then a study could cite that effect (regarding strained urban-rural relations).

so when you say houston significantly increases public transit....how much money will need to be spent to accomplish this task? can tax payers support this? what percentage of houstonians will be riding?

Yes, and sprawl differs as well.

This article: http://promo.realestate.yahoo.com/americas...ng_suburbs.html states that Boston's sprawl is more of a "ring" effect, allowing for less efficient modes of transportation. Likewise "Places like Phoenix and Las Vegas are spreading out faster than Boston, but they are doing so more efficiently, meaning with a more concentrated population." - I would say that Houston is generally in the same category as Phoenix and Las Vegas.

Boston's rail system may become more obsolete because of the effect described in the suburbs article, but Houston is increasing its density in the inner city and its older suburbs remain packed with residents.

how many people have moved into the inner city vs. the suburbs of Houston? I think you'll be surprised that the burbs have the lead.

[VicMan]

how many people have moved into the inner city vs. the suburbs of Houston? I think you'll be surprised that the burbs have the lead.

The point is that the inner city is maintaining and increasing its density while suburbs increase in size.

In Boston many inner city neighborhoods are losing people and not gaining people, so "thinning" occurs:

* "Last year, just over 16,000 more people left the Boston metro area than moved in, yet the suburbs continued to expand geographically. The result is a thinning of the area, which makes Boston more of a sprawl, if sprawl is defined as the density of population over a geographic space."

[musicman]

The point is that the inner city is maintaining and increasing its density while suburbs increase in size.

which is MORE sprawl which makes it harder to provide public transportation to everyone.

[Jax]

They are never going to provide the same level of public transit for everyone when the density just isn't there outside the loop. Hopefully they can build up transit in the denser parts of the inner loop first, and then build commuter rail out into the more suburban areas the connect with it. Once the infrastructure exists in the loop, it'll make sense to connect to the outer loop. But public transportation will never benefit everyone, unless people start moving closer together.

I know the population growth is higher in the burbs, but the population growth close to downtown is surely increasing. I wonder if the population growth in the inner loop will ever surpass the outer loop? Maybe when gas prices get high enough and when congestion on the freeways makes the commutes twice as long?

[musicman]

They are never going to provide the same level of public transit for everyone when the density just isn't there outside the loop. Hopefully they can build up transit in the denser parts of the inner loop first, and then build commuter rail out into the more suburban areas the connect with it. Once the infrastructure exists in the loop, it'll make sense to connect to the outer loop. But public transportation will never benefit everyone, unless people start moving closer together.

I know the population growth is higher in the burbs, but the population growth close to downtown is surely increasing. I wonder if the population growth in the inner loop will ever surpass the outer loop? Maybe when gas prices get high enough and when congestion on the freeways makes the commutes twice as long?

remember jax...jobs aren't as centralized as they once were so freeway travel isn't necessary for those who live closer to their jobs.

[713 To 214]

The success of heavy rail or light rail transportation should be looked at on a case by case basis. Thoughtful planning and coordination by City leaders, civic groups, and transportation agencies should yield positive results every time. If some bone heads in another city failed to properly implement their system, then one can't just look at that system's failures and say that it can't work here. That's dumb, and defeatist. Any goal that the City of Houston wants to accomplish with its light rail expansion can be accomplished if all the proper parties come together to properly plan and implement a prudent plan. However, there are too many "auto-centric" political powers at play in this town that do their best to keep Houston at least twenty-five years behind the rest of the country when it comes to making a REAL commitment to developing a meaningful rail system.

[RedScare]

I know the population growth is higher in the burbs, but the population growth close to downtown is surely increasing. I wonder if the population growth in the inner loop will ever surpass the outer loop? Maybe when gas prices get high enough and when congestion on the freeways makes the commutes twice as long?

Of course not. The inner loop is approximately 100 square miles in size. The Houston MSA is 10,062 square miles. The inner loop comprises only 1% of the Houston metro area. It is a virtual impossibility for an area to grow faster than its surroundings that are 100 times its size. However, that is not the only, or even best way to look at the equation. Transit must look at other factors, such as density, employment and entertainment centers, etc., when deciding how best to serve an area. For example, a common complaint by anti-rail complainers is that METRO forces transit riders onto the Red Line....as if this is somehow bad. The fact is, the Red Line took 1400 busses off of Main Street, lessening congestion and pollution on that street. Those who claim that the LRT causes congestion ignore the bus congestion that existed prior to the Red Line. And, believe me, it was hideous...loud, slow, diesel smoke belching everywhere.

Now, does that mean we should run LRT in the burbs? Absolutely not. The distance, lack of density, and lack of employment centers would never support the train. But, the Park & Rides coming into downtown and Greenway and TMC are full. Replacing them with commuter rail may work, but the cost may not justify it. Different areas require different solutions...and often times, several solutions.

[Jax]

I wonder what percentage of Houstonians commute on the freeways, vs. the percent who live close to their jobs.

It seems like everybody I know who lives outside the loop spends way too many hours on the freeways. With the exception of one guy who lives in the woodlands and bikes to work. His wife has to drive into the Medical Center every day though.

[musicman]

The success of heavy rail or light rail transportation should be looked at on a case by case basis. Thoughtful planning and coordination by City leaders, civic groups, and transportation agencies should yield positive results every time. If some bone heads in another city failed to properly implement their system, then one can't just look at that system's failures and say that it can't work here. That's dumb, and defeatist. Any goal that the City of Houston wants to accomplish with its light rail expansion can be accomplished if all the proper parties come together to properly plan and implement a prudent plan. However, there are too many "auto-centric" political powers at play in this town that do their best to keep Houston at least twenty-five years behind the rest of the country when it comes to making a REAL commitment to developing a meaningful rail system.

how's congestion in dallas?

looks like the light rail isn't helping in dallas.

[Jax]

It's not about how the congestion is, it's about how much more congested it would be without the light rail. For example, Manhattan is still congested even with one of the largest subways in the world. But just imagine it without that subway!

How many people use the light rail in Dallas? As many as in Houston?