Houston Gets A Subway?

[tomv]

My gut feeling is that the downtown portion of the east-west line will be a subway.

Downtown business owners want it that way and they have plenty of clout. We're only talking about roughly twelve blocks from Bagby to the Convention Center- I'm sure someone can figure out how to keep the tunnel from flooding.

I don't think another train barreling through downtown at street level is a good idea. Main Street was okay because it was a wide two-way street that was not used all that much as a thoroughfare except by buses. Plus the street was sorely in need of redevelopment and more street level pedestrian traffic.

A light rail line running underground down Walker would tie in perfectly with the pedestrian tunnel system. Riders could get off the train in the vicinity of Main Street and stay underground or walk up to street level and transfer to the existing rail line or walk to their offices if the weather's nice.

The tunnel system gets a lot of bashing on this forum but it's a real asset for Downtown and should be taken advantage of. All Class A office buildings are connected to the system either by tunnel or skywalk. The challenge is to continue to cultivate street life in certain areas while at the same time enhance the tunnel system. It's not impossible to have both.

[MidtownCoog]

A light rail line running underground down Walker would tie in perfectly with the pedestrian tunnel system.

Yep, but you may destroy the Tunnel Loop and West Walker Tunnel in the process.

All Class A office buildings are connected to the system either by tunnel or skywalk.

Not all. The a-holes at ChevronTexaco in the Enron South tower decided not to play along. Don't even think about using their skybride to Allen Center.

Punks.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[ssullivan]

Yep, but you may destroy the Tunnel Loop and West Walker Tunnel in the process.

Possibly although they could dig the subway under those tunnels -- it's been done before in other cities.

As for flooding, keep in mind that much of the downtown tunnel system didn't flood in Allison. Yes some parts did, but most of that was due to a bulkhead in the underground theater district garage the failed, letting water into the garage and then into the tunnels and basements of buildings in that part of downtown. That issue has since been repaired and improvements were made in several other places to help prevent a repeat of the tunnels flooding. But even then, many of the tunnels had no water in them at all.

A subway tunnel under Walker will also be farther away from the bayou than the areas of downtown that had tunnel/basement flooding problems during Alison were. There is a gradual rise in elevation from Prairie up to Texas and then up some more to Capitol and Rusk. Walk up Smith from the bayou to City Hall and you'll see what I'm talking about. This will help naturally drain water toward the bayou.

And as I've mentioned on here before - let's not forget there are subways below sea level in Manhattan, Chicago, Amsterdam (which is far more of a flood prone city than Houston in many ways), and others. Heck, if San Francisco can build a subway tunnel several miles long under a bay in an area at high risks for earthquakes, and build it so that it not only doesn't leak but hasn't suffered earthquake damage in a couple of fairly big quakes, surely we can build a subway tunnel that's not at a huge risk of flooding.

As for the expense issue, it's possible some money from the local business community could be put into the pot to help get the line built underground. They've already come through with a lot of money for the streetscape improvements made in downtown. Metro and the city and the federal government may have paid for those streets to be rebuilt, but much of the cost of fountains, sculpture, decorative light fixtures and signs, and all of those new trees came from the local business community.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[midtown_resident]

But at what cost? How much more light rail could be built in lieu of a subway downtown? Really, it's very expensive. I would rather have rail from Uptown to Downtown in 10 years than a subway station in 20.

It's almost hypocritical, the arguement for subway, by you Mass-Trans fans. I would think we would want the best solution, in the quickest amount of time, for the lowest price. Subway doesn't fit any of those. So how can you even be a proponent of it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You talk to "mass-trans fans" as though you're not one...but you're a proponent of "rail from uptown to downtown in 10 years". So what's the scoop?

I'm not sure that we want the best solution in the quickest amount of time at the lowest price. I think there's more analysis that could deliver answers on that question.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[citykid09]

Why does the worst have to be best for Houston. Light Rail??? Come on how boring! If your going to build light rail try making it interesting. Like make it elevated or at least a small section underground.

[N Judah]

It's almost hypocritical, the arguement for subway, by you Mass-Trans fans. I would think we would want the best solution, in the quickest amount of time, for the lowest price. Subway doesn't fit any of those. So how can you even be a proponent of it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, there are political considerations. Putting it at-grade would probably revive the whole light rail v. cars hysteria. Plus, having a 'subway' (really just a sunken portion of a light rail line) would probably be a huge boost for the city's public relations, especially if we're ever going to contend for the Olympics again, or if we want to keep dazzling the Super Bowl committee.

I'm not saying any of this is really super logical, but very few of the transporation decisions around here seem to be. A hard-core realist would say that hopefully the real estate interests don't completely ignore the will of the people, and that's about all you can really ask for.

[ssullivan]

I'm tired of studies, lets just build the damn thing already.

I totally hear you on this, but you have to understand the history here. Metro could not make any real progress toward building any extensions of the rail system until we approved it in a vote in November 2003. That was just over a year ago. As soon as the Metro Solutions plan passed they were at work the very next morning meeting to plot how to proceed with implementing the plan. I know one of the VPs at Metro who's involved with all of this and trust me, they're working as hard and as quickly as they can on this. But it takes time to design a system, apply for federal funding, and complete the required environmental studies. None of this could really be done before the November 2003 vote. And before January 1, 2004 when the existing line opened, all of their resources were tied up with getting the line we have now up and running with no support from the feds.

I want the system built as quickly as anyone else. And once construction starts in another year it will move pretty quickly. But there's a lot more involved here than getting a bulldozer and digging a trench in a street and putting some rails and concrete in it. And it doesn't help that Metro is pretty strapped for money right now becuase of rising fuel costs -- they're doing everything they can to avoid raising local fares to $1.25 and really pissing off a lot of people -- and they're getting very little help in Washington. However, if they do manage to get their way with the federal government, the previously announced construction schedule could be accelerated by several years.

[ssullivan]

You make good points. I still want to know why they're building north instead of west, or even south, first though?

That I can't tell you for sure. Some of it may be political - that neighborhood to the north really depends on Metro and appealing to that part of town by giving them the first rail extension may help get some support from minority representation in Congress. Also, unlike the Harrisburg and Southeast lines, Northline won't require any construction downtown, other than on the north slope of the Main St. bridge. That alone could help get the line up and running faster than the ones that will need an east-west line across downtown.

As for the west, the Westpark line is probably last on the schedule of initial rail expansion because it's primarily a commuter route that will mainly replace existing park and ride bus service. I think it will be a very heavily used line when it opens but there aren't neighborhoods begging Metro to get it built first either, nor or are there lots of people living along the line who depend on Metro as their only means of transportation.

The other line to the west, from downtown to the Northwest Transit Center, and then south through Uptown to near the Westpark/Rice intersection, would be great to have, but again I don't think it's quite as necessary as some of the others.

The first three lines on the schedule are all ones that run through lower income neighborhoods where many people wouldn't be able to get to work or to the store without Metro. Those lines also hit existing transit centers where they will allow many local routes in those areas to easily connect to the rail line for a faster ride to downtown, much the way the TMC Transit Center and Wheeler stations work now. Additionally, the Southeast line is supposed to serve the TSU and UH Main areas. And two of the initial three expansion lines will provide the backbone for future expansions to both airports. But those are all my educated guesses; I really don't know the exact reasoning for the order of construction.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[YakuzaIce]

That makes perfect sense about building the north Main line first. I have to go look at a proposed map before I ask the rest of my questions about the west line expansion. Thanks though

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is the link for the metro solutions plan. I guess this is the most recent plan.

http://www.ridemetro.org/motion/solutions/plan.asp

[UrbaNerd]

#1  Becuase we love your cars!

#2  Public transportation is for jerks and lesbians.

That's why!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't Rosie o'Donnel take public transit?

[DaTrain]

#1  Becuase we love your cars!

#2  Public transportation is for jerks and lesbians.

That's why!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL. You love my car too?

So I'm a jerk because I take public transportation too, even if I have a car myself? I may ride it, but I got better things to do while I'm on it than telling weird people on their to go f*ck themselves.

The first three lines on the schedule are all ones that run through lower income neighborhoods where many people wouldn't be able to get to work or to the store without Metro. Those lines also hit existing transit centers where they will allow many local routes in those areas to easily connect to the rail line for a faster ride to downtown, much the way the TMC Transit Center and Wheeler stations work now. Additionally, the Southeast line is supposed to serve the TSU and UH Main areas.

The segment of the SE Line that runs on Scott Road would be seeing some development of housing in the Black community, as Scott is the main strip thru here.

[DaTrain]

You're right, I'm a big proponent - of light rail. I think a subway would be a waste of time & money here. So what if San Fransisco & L.A. have one inspite of earthquakes. It still doesn't mean that it's the best thing for Houston.

Not only that, I also am not for bulding an El thru DT Houston. This isn't Chicago or Miami. Even less Charlotte anyway -- and there is already LRT ROW thru Uptown for their system along with their Trolley there because it was former RR tracks. SF may have succesfully built BART in an earthquake zone and below sea level - The Transbay Tubes - and while Loma Prieta struck 15 years ago, the Bay Bridge lost a segment. Richmon-San Rafael Bridge lost a segment. But not BART; more people rode it for the next month until both bridges were repaired.

Now back to the L being a bad idea. Yes, METRORail is quiet, but what about people who fear construction noise from their office windows, then have it blocking their view for good? And most streets east-west are one way, so it would also do no good to tear up sidewalks again for support beams.

[citykid09]

If money was not an issue, would you rather have light rail or something else?

[Talbot]

If money wasn't an issue, I would want all of it.

[tierwestah]

I'm sorry to say but any of u who thinks that Houston doesnt need a subway needs to be popped upside the head with some reality. The reality is is that Houston is already progressively behind most major cities when it comes to public transportaion options other than the freeway. An elevated rail would be more feasible for Houston but i don't think a subway is completely out of question. And a good point that was made earlier, subways in Manhatten were built below sea level that are grounds even more prone flooding than certain parts of Houston. Maybe make a general rule that if the weatherman predicts a heavy chance of rain, just simply don't run a subway or shut it down early that day when rains start to get heavy. There's so many options that could easily deter the flooding issue. And as for the tunnel system, i hate that place. No urban feel to it what so ever. Every time i go there i'm reminded of coming off an airplane and stepping on to a airport terminal ramp. There's nothing special about the tunnel. Just a few shops, boutiques stores and that's it. I love Houston, it's my home but i think the money issue that Houston is having needs to be brought to more attention. Why does everything have to go to Dallas? Dallas is the first to get a subway or light rail line, Dallas is the first to get a times square typed plaza with large plazma screens? What about Houston? And all you people who don't see a subway or any other type of transportation option for Houston probably might be the reason that Houston seems to be stuck back in the 70s. You guys don't wanna see Hosuton advance

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[Lowbrow]

I'm sorry to say but any of u who thinks that Houston doesnt need a subway needs to be popped upside the head with some reality. The reality is is that Houston is already progressively behind most major cities when it comes to public transportaion options other than the freeway. An elevated rail would be more feasible for Houston but i don't think a subway is completely out of question. And a good point that was made earlier, subways in Manhatten were built below sea level that are grounds even more prone flooding than certain parts of Houston. Maybe make a general rule that if the weatherman predicts a heavy chance of rain, just simply don't run a subway or shut it down early that day when rains start to get heavy. There's so many options that could easily deter the flooding issue. And as for the tunnel system, i hate that place. No urban feel to it what so ever. Every time i go there i'm reminded of coming off an airplane and stepping on to a

[ssullivan]

Oh, ps. the rock they drill through in manhattan is much more supportive and doesnt tend to let water move through it like the sponge we live on.

Very true but you should also consider Boston. Some tunnels there go through soil that is more of a sponge than what Houston is built on. Some sections of the I-95 "Big Dig" tunnel project had to be built in areas where if you just dug a six foot deep hole in the ground it would start filling with water in a few minutes. Amsterdam is in a similar situation. So it can be done.

The real issues will be building the tunnel so it is waterproof and doesn't let water in through the walls and ceiling. This is not that difficult to do and has already been done with all of the downtown tunnels and any basement in the city. The second is keeping water out at the tunnel entrances where the tracks transition from at-grade to subway. This can be accomplished pretty easily by building the structures so that water runs away from the tunnel portals. And finally, water has to be kept out at the pedestrian entrances to the tunnels, which can be done pretty easily as well. A subway tunnel would not be a big open trench that everything around drains into like some of the depressed freeways here. It would be covered and have only a few relatively small openings where water could possibly get in.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[Lowbrow]

Yep on everything Sullivan.

The Big Dig has its own interesting problems. I had to live through the traffic hell they turned downtown Boston into but it all turned out great even with the continued leakage problems. Most of the back bay area is all infill. Similar in consistancy to Pelican Island behind Galveston. Totally man made. Spongerific.

[713 To 214]

Oh, ps. the rock they drill through in manhattan is much more supportive and doesnt tend to let water move through it like the sponge we live on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also, much of NYC's subway is "cut and cover," where the train is running basically right under the street, just below the utilities. This might be a cheaper/more feasible option if Houstonians are determined to go undergorund with their rail system. But again, until Houstonians get off of their duffs and let Tom Delay know that they are not happy with his lack of support for the system, then this conversation is moot. . .because you won't see enough (METRO probably will get something) in the way of federal funding to pay for the cost of expansion underground or elevated. Get used to an "at-grade" line for a while.

[C2H]

Who knows the address or phone number to this Tom Delay guy? I kinda wanna write him a letter and give him a piece of my mind. I'm not gonna be nasty or anythind, I'll just try to refrain from cussing him out!

[greystone08(returns)]

I just want to see Houston get a waive into the future. It just seems like H-town is the last to get things when you compare it to cities like Denver, maybe Dallas, and Atlanta. If a subway line is out for Houston, then yes, what about monorail (in the air). That would even be a good idea. But all i'm saying is we need to get started building something or work towards even scratching the surface before all these new skyscrapers come up and they'll end up being no room for monorail, subway, or even that wack-ass at grade level train. Houston is already an excellent city. I like everybody just want to see it get better.

[ChannelTwoNews]

Monorail isn't that crazy of an idea, though I'm not for it. During a number of the rail battles from the 70's onward, it's always managed to come up.

Part of 2 Houston Center was actually designed to have a "People-Mover" type service move between the building and parking areas and buildings alongside 59. The bracing for where it was supposed to run is still visible in the building's extension over Fannin.

As for Tom DeLay's contact info...

Contact Info

[nkob44]

Why everyone is ashamed of Houston blows my mind. The last time I checked, all my friends that work downtown love the tunnels. The workout perfect for Houston weather. Sure, everyone wants their own little version of Chicago or Manhattan in our downtown - but again. that's them, this is us.

Hows that saying go? "If you can't be with the one you love, then at least love the one you're with". That sums up the attitude we as Houstonians need to adopt if we want to see any improvement. Continually comparing us to everyone else just reminds us what we don't have, compared to what we think we need.

Houston is Houston. Learn to LOVE it I know I do

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I many be jumping into this late but... I like your attitude! I came here from Chicago some ten years ago to work for a major consulting firm downtown, and I loved the tunnel. I also loved Chicago (still do) and actually thought I would end up living there after graduating with a couple of masters degrees but didn't. Houston will never be "a Chicago" because this is Texas. Dallas ain't Chicago either IMO. Texas is a whole different culture than the upper Midwest and especially the Northeast, and I thank my lucky stars that I'm here not there (especially NY).

We had a saying around our office - which was a kind of "revolving door" being a consulting firm - people coming and going often - that if you don't like Houston, I-10 runs both east and west... (so shut up ).

Yes - I would love to see more high-quality public transportation here, be it rail above or below ground. I would use it - I rode both the El and Metra (best long commute in the US IMO) in Chicago and hate dealing with traffic no matter the city. But what I don't want to see is some half-cocked, wimpy "light" transportation solutions in Houston that prove to be unreliable. When you take either the Metra or the El (in Chicago), you know you are going to get to your destination. How many times have I seen a Metro bus broke down in the HOV lane along the Katy Fwy? Too many times to get me to take the bus here...

That said, I don't ever expect or even desire Houston to be like Chicago (or God forbid, Manhattan). If what's right for Houston is light rail (instead of Chicago's Metra) then that's ok - just make sure it's RELIABLE.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...