Draft agreement leaves rail out of I-10 plans

[VicMan]

So, what is the maximum speed of the specific commuter rail vehicle that METRO plans to use?

Remember that, on most freeways, the speed limit is 60 MPH, and buses ought to respect the speed limit (on some it is 65 MPH). So, I would believe that a commuter rail train would go about 10-20 MPH faster than the maximum speed allowed for a bus.

Are there specifications of the commuter rail vehicles that METRO wishes to use?

[musicman]

The Westpark Tollway is faster than I-10, which is why it is heavily used.

EXACTLY!! people are going to go where the travel time is the shortest (even when a nominal fee is involved).

[Trae]

EXACTLY!! people are going to go where the travel time is the shortest (even when a nominal fee is involved).

I see, but still how much slower do you think commuter rail would be? I doubt anyone would lose more than 20 minutes. With the scheduling and things like that for the trains, they might even get to work faster.

[musicman]

So, what is the maximum speed of the specific commuter rail vehicle that METRO plans to use?

Remember that, on most freeways, the speed limit is 60 MPH, and buses ought to respect the speed limit (on some it is 65 MPH). So, I would believe that a commuter rail train would go about 10-20 MPH faster than the maximum speed allowed for a bus.

Are there specifications of the commuter rail vehicles that METRO wishes to use?

Vic METRO isn't doing commuter rail. hopefully the county will take charge quickly instead.

Vic do you see trains going 70-80 mph in Houston proper?

Edited July 2, 2007 by musicman

[musicman]

I see, but still how much slower do you think commuter rail would be? I doubt anyone would lose more than 20 minutes. With the scheduling and things like that for the trains, they might even get to work faster.

What speeds do you see trains going through Houston proper?

[VicMan]

Oh, then, I wonder if the group organizing the commuter rail service

Vic METRO isn't doing commuter rail. hopefully the county will take charge quickly instead.

Vic do you see trains going 70-80 mph in Houston proper?

I can't tell speeds of trains (as in how many MPH) just by looking at them. On the tracks in my area, the trains go slowly at crossings. But I am not sure if this is because of the specific crossing.

The Trinity Railway Express in Dallas, as an example, posts speeds of its trains. Maximum speeds exceed 65 MPH, but the only average speed I see is the Rail Diesel Car (45 MPH) - http://www.trinityrailwayexpress.org/trerollingstock.html

[musicman]

Oh, then, I wonder if the group organizing the commuter rail service

I can't tell speeds of trains (as in how many MPH) just by looking at them. On the tracks in my area, the trains go slowly at crossings. But I am not sure if this is because of the specific crossing.

The Trinity Railway Express in Dallas, as an example, posts speeds of its trains. Maximum speeds exceed 65 MPH, but the only average speed I see is the Rail Diesel Car (45 MPH) - http://www.trinityrailwayexpress.org/trerollingstock.html

you can easily go at comparable speeds if you're going for a longer distance with no stops. with required stops as would be necessary for this, speed is reduced.

[TheNiche]

So, what is the maximum speed of the specific commuter rail vehicle that METRO plans to use?

Remember that, on most freeways, the speed limit is 60 MPH, and buses ought to respect the speed limit (on some it is 65 MPH). So, I would believe that a commuter rail train would go about 10-20 MPH faster than the maximum speed allowed for a bus.

Are there specifications of the commuter rail vehicles that METRO wishes to use?

Say you can pick up an extra 10-20 MPH with a train. Is that worth a massive investment in infrastructure when it entails removing ROW from use by private vehicles and the routing limitations of a fixed-guideway system? The key to viable public investments is marginal impact above and beyond what is available at present, the no-build scenario.

[houstonmacbro]

I am not convinced Houston or the citizen of have any real desire to IMPLEMENT rail. Sentiment seems to run the gamut from NIMBY, to it is not the plan we voted on, to BRT is the equivalent of rail, to no good reason why it is not going to/from place where people actually are.

I predict that we'll still be having this discussion in 2010 with very little, if any additional rail lines in operation.

[citykid09]

Check this stuff out:

http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/...ns-Pay-Off.aspx

Trains Pay Off

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:26 PM

Is it worth it to build trains in a city?

Economically, yes.

A June 2007 article in Railway Age cites a new study by the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development and Research that concludes rail transit has a big payoff.

In fact, the payoff is potentially bigger than the costs to build and expand rail.

For example, the 45-mile Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) will trigger more than $8.1 billion in economic activity, plus more tax revenue and labor income. All that from an investment of $4.86 billion in the light rail system. Dallas is also planning a 48-mile extension.

http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/...r-Rail-Car.aspx

METRO Tops List for Most Passengers Per Rail Car

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:10 PM

METRO's 7.5-mile rail line carries more passengers per rail car every year than any other train system nationwide.

That's according to data from Metro Magazine, a monthly industry magazine based in Torrance, Calif., which conducts an annual survey of the Top 50 rail projects. (The magazine is not connected to us in any way).

Here are the stats:

We have 18 rail cars, 11.3 million annual rail riders - and 628,000 annual riders per rail car.

[citykid09]

http://houstonist.com/

"It would be hard to do and expensive to do, and that kind of investment would require quite a bit of public involvement," Clark said. He noted that shoulders, main lanes and frontage roads are other options for rail alignments

[Trae]

Guess it is better to implement rail. Though it costs a bunch now, it will pay off in the future.

[musicman]

Guess it is better to implement rail. Though it costs a bunch now, it will pay off in the future.

if METRO says so themselves.

[GovernorAggie]

Say you can pick up an extra 10-20 MPH with a train. Is that worth a massive investment in infrastructure when it entails removing ROW from use by private vehicles and the routing limitations of a fixed-guideway system? The key to viable public investments is marginal impact above and beyond what is available at present, the no-build scenario.

I hope you'd use that same logic to question the expenditures on the I-10 and future 290 widening. A total of $6-7 BILLION on two corridors for TEMPORARY relief of maybe 7-10 minutes on one's travel time? You chastise removing ROW from private vehicles that are passing through, but what about removing private ROW from private INDIVIDUALS who live, work, and own businesses in the "way" of the widening of these two corridors?

[ricco67]

http://houstonist.com/

Hard, but not impossible: Los Angeles

Atlanta:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/procrast8/188509373/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-p/338851641/

Don't forget that the Red line in Chicago (on the way to the airport, mind you) has about 4 (or more) stops that are in the middle of the freeway and people stream on and off it.

[TheNiche]

I hope you'd use that same logic to question the expenditures on the I-10 and future 290 widening. A total of $6-7 BILLION on two corridors for TEMPORARY relief of maybe 7-10 minutes on one's travel time?

No, not one's travel time. Hundreds of thousands of peoples'. Not to mention the benefits of having more accessible and thus affordable land, access to an open-ended network of streets and highways serving the region and beyond, and catering to a form of transportation that allows individuals to take different paths on the same vehicle. ...and yes, it is temporary, but so is just about everything that humanity will ever undertake. The only solution to impermanence is not to do anything.

You chastise removing ROW from private vehicles that are passing through, but what about removing private ROW from private INDIVIDUALS who live, work, and own businesses in the "way" of the widening of these two corridors?

If the land acquired for ROW is commercial, as is the case along much of I-10, and frankly most highways as are found in Houston, then the owners of the commercial property will have greater access to a larger pool of consumers or employees, so their remaining land will be worth more. If the highway runs through a predominantly residential area, then it is a matter of trading one form of social benefit for another. The aim should be so that highest and best use should wins and so that those that may lose property are compensated.

But my argument in favor of busses on managed lanes over commuter rail is simply that the ROW available should be put to its maximal benefit, and that that can be accomplished by mixing busses and private vehicles. ...if we were talking about a very high-speed commuter rail system that was the epitome of efficiency, I might be persuaded otherwise, but I doubt that there is sufficient benefit to warrant the extreme expenditures that would be necessary for any such system.

[lockmat]

Don't forget that the Red line in Chicago (on the way to the airport, mind you) has about 4 (or more) stops that are in the middle of the freeway and people stream on and off it.

I know when I was in LA for school a few years ago, they were building a rail line in the middle of the freeway too.

[Trae]

Don't forget that the Red line in Chicago (on the way to the airport, mind you) has about 4 (or more) stops that are in the middle of the freeway and people stream on and off it.

Yeah, commuter rail lines down the middle of the freeway should not be an issue. If it is easily accessible, people will use it.

[Deut28Thirteen]

I was in Portland, Org. and i am not sure if they had a stop on the freeway but they did have a train running along with the freeway and all I was thinking why do they need a train on the freeway for? I was shocked that metro was doing that good with how many passengers it gets(post 40). I hope in the near future they will extend the rail to uptown, the Airports and to its larger suburbs.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Deut28Thirteen

[zaphod]

Huh

I understand the last few posts and to me it makes sense it would be left out.

My opinion:

I think what commuter rail has over the current highway buses is capacity. And right now maybe that capacity just isnt needed and the ridership just doesnt justify the investment. If buses can do the same or better job for cheaper, and there arent any major benefits by choosing rail, then obviously metro made the right choice

Edited July 4, 2007 by zaphod

[musicman]

Huh

I understand the last few posts and to me it makes sense it would be left out.

My opinion:

I think what commuter rail has over the current highway buses is capacity. And right now maybe that capacity just isnt needed and the ridership just doesnt justify the investment. If buses can do the same or better job for cheaper, and there arent any major benefits by choosing rail, then obviously metro made the right choice

well...some people are afraid to ride the bus because they may become lower class.

[wakester]

If you look at the traffic patterns of 290, it is only bad during rush hours. Off hours and the weekends it is free flowing (not like I-10 which was bad all the time). Rail allows you more options for adding capacity. So during rush hours you add more passenger cars or more frequency. To add capacity to 290 requires adding more lanes that will take years to build and sit vacant during off hours.

[moni]

well...some people are afraid to ride the bus because they may become lower class.

Sooo, you're saying that mass transit would only appeal to "low class people?" Or, are you saying that riding the bus makes you "lower class"?? This is a strange comment.

[VicMan]

Moni, he's saying that people may not see problems with rail but they may look down at using the bus.

I made a transportation thread at the Kingwood Underground forum, and I found people who were willing to use commuter rail but did not want to use the bus.

Sooo, you're saying that mass transit would only appeal to "low class people?" Or, are you saying that riding the bus makes you "lower class"?? This is a strange comment.

[musicman]

Sooo, you're saying that mass transit would only appeal to "low class people?" Or, are you saying that riding the bus makes you "lower class"?? This is a strange comment.

In houston, mass transit for the longest time was only buses. many believed that riding the bus was for the poor/lower class. now that LRT is a reality, some people who had the above belief have said here that they are not afraid to be seen on the LRT but won't ride the bus still. this attitude needs to be changed otherwise mass transit in houston won't be successful.

[Transit Nut]

Actually, for a long time, maybe since the beginning of METRO, Park & Ride buses have been over-the-road coaches (like charter buses), not like typical local transit buses. You can also add capacity with buses; you can run them every 3 minutes instead of every 4 minutes, as they are during the peak of the peak. Yes, there is something called "rail bias" (people who would ride a train but not a bus), but I don't think that really applies to Park & Ride routes, considering how popular they are right now and what the alternatives are. One other thing to consider is that you can currently catch a bus every 4 minutes to your destination, but you can only catch a train maybe every 30 min because the capacity is so much higher. It's a balance of frequency vs. capacity per unit (bus/train).

[GovernorAggie]

In houston, mass transit for the longest time was only buses. many believed that riding the bus was for the poor/lower class. now that LRT is a reality, some people who had the above belief have said here that they are not afraid to be seen on the LRT but won't ride the bus still. this attitude needs to be changed otherwise mass transit in houston won't be successful.

This is the attitude of every city in the U.S. outside of maybe New York and *possibly* Chicago. Houston is just like everybody else when it come to this (I know it strikes at the heart of natives to hear that Houston is actually not unique at something )

Edited July 5, 2007 by GovernorAggie