Houston Gets A Subway?

[YakuzaIce]

Red I assume you weren't talking to me earlier.

That bridge is over by norfolk right. I believe they built it like that so the Atlantic fleet could still leave the bay. Because if they had built a tall bridge for ships to pass under the fear was it could be bombed, trapping the ships.

[RedScare]

Red I assume you weren't talking to me earlier.

That bridge is over by norfolk right. I believe they built it like that so the Atlantic fleet could still leave the bay. Because if they had built a tall bridge for ships to pass under the fear was it could be bombed, trapping the ships.

Yakuza, I was responding to TJ. Yes, that was a picture of the Chesepeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel. And, I think your reason for it is correct, also.

TJ, here's another photo, closer to home.

I am aware of no code prohibiting residential basements. They are, however, very expensive to build to stay dry, so they aren't common. There are no engineering reasons not to build a subway. Cost, however, may kill the idea. It is still being considered for the cross-downtown line, on either Capital or Walker.

[bruce_oneal]

i'd really like to see those clear plastic tubes (like at the motorbanks) shooting passenger trains through tubes all across town. that would be cool!

[YakuzaIce]

Capital or Walker.

Thanks for that. I couldn't remember which street it was proposed to run under.

[TJones]

Yakuza, I was responding to TJ. Yes, that was a picture of the Chesepeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel. And, I think your reason for it is correct, also.

TJ, here's another photo, closer to home.

I am aware of no code prohibiting residential basements. They are, however, very expensive to build to stay dry, so they aren't common. There are no engineering reasons not to build a subway. Cost, however, may kill the idea. It is still being considered for the cross-downtown line, on either Capital or Walker.

Washburn tunnel has flooded also, don't kid yourself, that is why they have massive pumps at both ends. Do you recall the Baytown tunnel ? It flooded all the time, they finally shut it down after finishing the fred hartman bridge which provided more lanes of traffic also. We are gonna have to not see eye to eye on this one.

[RedScare]

We are gonna have to not see eye to eye on this one.

I'm OK with that.

Whether it is feasible or cost effective is one thing. Whether it can be done is another. My opinion is that it can be done. I understand yours.

[TJones]

I'm OK with that.

Whether it is feasible or cost effective is one thing. Whether it can be done is another. My opinion is that it can be done. I understand yours.

I think it can be done also, but I think it would be extrememly dangerous, with all the rain we get here.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

I guess I'll chime in on this one, since I was personally involved with it for a time:

The subway tunnel under Capitol/Walker was looked at very closely by several engineering firms in the spring and summer of 2004 as METRO prepared the New Starts documents for the Southeast line for the FTA. Existing utility information, soil samples, surrounding building foundation plans, rainfall and flood data, etc. were all collected and analyzed; it was essentially a "preliminary engineering" level of analysis at a stage where the FTA usually only requires a "conceptual engineering" level of work. I can assure you all that it was a very thorough study. The results were:

- It *is* structurally feasible to build a subway in Houston. Building a structure in Houston's sandy, muddy "gumbo" soil requires a much different approach than building a tunnel through solid rock, obviously, and a variety of systems to keep the tunnels from flooding (e.g. building the lip of the portals above the 100-year floodplain, installing pumping systems, providing underground runoff retention tanks, etc.) would need to be required. But it can be done.

- There were some obstacles that the subway would have had to have been built around. For example, there is a very large and *very* deep force-main sewer running underneath Austin Street, and the subway would have had to have gone underneath it. This would have put the subway below sea level at this point. Also, the subway would have had to have passed directly underneath the GRBCC, and the city was only going to grant an underground easement beneath their property if they could be absolutely assured that the convention center's foundation was not going to be disturbed by the construction.

- In the end, just about anything is "structurally feasible" if money is no concern. However, being structurally feasible and being economically feasible are two totally different things. And detailed cost estimates showed that a 1.6-mile subway running underneath downtown Houston from Dowling to Babgy would have cost as much (and probably more) to construct than the entire 7.5-mile light rail line that currently exists along Main Street. And, even though this tunnel would carry passengers of both the Southeast and Harrisburg extensions, its projected ridership numbers did not come anywhere close to the FTA's cost-per-rider thresholds they use to evaulate and rank projects. Therefore, no federal money would have been provided to build the subway.

As a result, METRO has backed off of the subway idea. It's still on the table as a future project. However, the current decision to implement BRT instead of LRT on the Harrisburg and Southeast extension pretty much makes it moot right now anyway.

[RedScare]

Hey, Voice, thanks for the "inside" scoop.

[dbigtex56]

Thanks TVOUO for an enlightening post.

Because of the proximity of so many existing structures, I can see where tunnelling downtown would be cost prohibitive. However, there are other rail routes where a subway would make sense (see the Richmond Rallies Against Rail Route thread).

Surface rail would be a nightmare on the western extention of Metro. Not only would it further congest overcrowded streets, it would also cause mayham at busy intersections. A subway down Westheimer seems like the most logical, least problematic solution.

Would a subway be more cost-effective in a location with fewer existing buildings and utilities to contend with?

[eelimon]

Thanks TVOUO for an enlightening post.

Because of the proximity of so many existing structures, I can see where tunnelling downtown would be cost prohibitive. However, there are other rail routes where a subway would make sense (see the Richmond Rallies Against Rail Route thread).

Surface rail would be a nightmare on the western extention of Metro. Not only would it further congest overcrowded streets, it would also cause mayham at busy intersections. A subway down Westheimer seems like the most logical, least problematic solution.

Would a subway be more cost-effective in a location with fewer existing buildings and utilities to contend with?

How about a subway down both Richmond street and Westheimer?

[YakuzaIce]

Well that would be nice, but they are way to close to justify two seperate lines. If you mean an east bound train on richmond and a west bound train on westheimer, I think they are too far from each other.

[citykid09]

I guess I'll chime in on this one, since I was personally involved with it for a time:

The subway tunnel under Capitol/Walker was looked at very closely by several engineering firms in the spring and summer of 2004 as METRO prepared the New Starts documents for the Southeast line for the FTA. Existing utility information, soil samples, surrounding building foundation plans, rainfall and flood data, etc. were all collected and analyzed; it was essentially a "preliminary engineering" level of analysis at a stage where the FTA usually only requires a "conceptual engineering" level of work. I can assure you all that it was a very thorough study. The results were:

- It *is* structurally feasible to build a subway in Houston. Building a structure in Houston's sandy, muddy "gumbo" soil requires a much different approach than building a tunnel through solid rock, obviously, and a variety of systems to keep the tunnels from flooding (e.g. building the lip of the portals above the 100-year floodplain, installing pumping systems, providing underground runoff retention tanks, etc.) would need to be required. But it can be done.

- There were some obstacles that the subway would have had to have been built around. For example, there is a very large and *very* deep force-main sewer running underneath Austin Street, and the subway would have had to have gone underneath it. This would have put the subway below sea level at this point. Also, the subway would have had to have passed directly underneath the GRBCC, and the city was only going to grant an underground easement beneath their property if they could be absolutely assured that the convention center's foundation was not going to be disturbed by the construction.

- In the end, just about anything is "structurally feasible" if money is no concern. However, being structurally feasible and being economically feasible are two totally different things. And detailed cost estimates showed that a 1.6-mile subway running underneath downtown Houston from Dowling to Babgy would have cost as much (and probably more) to construct than the entire 7.5-mile light rail line that currently exists along Main Street. And, even though this tunnel would carry passengers of both the Southeast and Harrisburg extensions, its projected ridership numbers did not come anywhere close to the FTA's cost-per-rider thresholds they use to evaulate and rank projects. Therefore, no federal money would have been provided to build the subway.

As a result, METRO has backed off of the subway idea. It's still on the table as a future project. However, the current decision to implement BRT instead of LRT on the Harrisburg and Southeast extension pretty much makes it moot right now anyway.

Its good to hear that it can happen, but METRO is just a damn sorry organization. They went from good to sorry, first a subway plan years ago, then a monorail, then down to a lightrail, and now sorry A** busses that look like transit. Come on guys, look at what these people are giving Houston, now that should tell you guys what they the of this city.

[WesternGulf]

Do we blame METRO or people over federal funding in DC? I think the latter. The whole BRT thing is something that is taking over the whole country, not just Houston, and it is something that I am proud of.

DC BRT

San Francisco BRT

[Talbot]

Its good to hear that it can happen, but METRO is just a damn sorry organization. They went from good to sorry, first a subway plan years ago, then a monorail, then down to a lightrail, and now sorry A** busses that look like transit. Come on guys, look at what these people are giving Houston, now that should tell you guys what they the of this city.

I don't believe its Metro's fault, as voice mentioned it wouldn't be economically feasible and if we knew that it would just be a waste of time to send the plan to D.C. for funding if they are just going to deny it when we could be spending our time and money getting other rail projects started.

Second, I like the lightrail, IMO it adds some nice character to the streetscenes.

And what's wrong with BRT? It will be converted to rail when the time calls for it, it isn't like were being totally ripped off or nothing.

Lastly, last time I checked busses were a form of transit.

[eelimon]

--

[citykid09]

Do we blame METRO or people over federal funding in DC? I think the latter. The whole BRT thing is something that is taking over the whole country, not just Houston, and it is something that I am proud of.

Well I am sorry for blaming METRO. And though its taking over the whole nation those cities that are getting it also already have great transit systems unlike Houston. They are getting BTR in addition to what they already have, when Houston doesn't really have one to begin with.

[WesternGulf]

Well I am sorry for blaming METRO. And though its taking over the whole nation those cities that are getting it also already have great transit systems unlike Houston. They are getting BTR in addition to what they already have, when Houston doesn't really have one to begin with.

Well Las Vegas is another city that currently opened theirs.

Also Toronto and Kansas City opened theirs not to long ago also.

[YakuzaIce]

Well I am sorry for blaming METRO. And though its taking over the whole nation those cities that are getting it also already have great transit systems unlike Houston. They are getting BTR in addition to what they already have, when Houston doesn't really have one to begin with.

Well we are getting another rail line. Plus the BRT will eventually be turned into light rail. It wouldn't make sense to put the tracks, but then never put the overhead wires and get the trains.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

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

[citykid09]

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

But how easy is it to install a BRT? Even my city can get a BRT. And even my city Bryan/College Station has a future plan for LightRail.

[Montrose1100]

And theres just something about rail, that sounds so much better over a bus.

[hokieone]

I get tired of the "rail is cooler" excuse. If something were easily accesibile, clean, and made for a better mover of people from one place to another, what is there to complain about? I know why people complain about the bus system now, because it runs on the same roads and makes about a million stops and takes longer than driving. but if it had dedicated lanes and was slightly more "express" in the amount of stops, who cares that there are wheels involved?

I like the opinion that since anywhere can install BRT, that means we shouldn't do it. great argument.

[Montrose1100]

I get tired of the "rail is cooler" excuse. If something were easily accesibile, clean, and made for a better mover of people from one place to another, what is there to complain about? I know why people complain about the bus system now, because it runs on the same roads and makes about a million stops and takes longer than driving. but if it had dedicated lanes and was slightly more "express" in the amount of stops, who cares that there are wheels involved?

I like the opinion that since anywhere can install BRT, that means we shouldn't do it. great argument.

Train's arn't just cooler, there better. Those BRT might as well be bus HOV lanes, but Buses rule the road in Houston. They are the law. Rail is better, cooler, greater. And if gets wet, they won't hydroplane!

Oh yeah, and how much room would a subway take up? NONE! Just a stair case or elevator to get underground, and bam, instant transit.

[scarface]

i like the idea of having a subway in Houston. A subway in my opinion, makes a place feel more "urban". I like the way Dallas did theirs but the only thing is in their Tunnel Stop at CityPlace Station, they should open up a couple of underground retail shops and fast food express restaurants in to make it more of a "real" subway, more NYC or Chicago style.

Houston could get a subway and i don't think a subway through downtown Houston is the only possiblility. They can open up one coming from the northside on the way to downtown. No one says it has to be real long, maybe 1-1.5 miles. Or like someone mentioned earlier, they can open up one between Westheimer and Richmond, which would avoild all of that nasty traffic on Westheimer and 610.

For Houston to get a subway, things like ridership and cost should be of no concern. The developers have to be innovative and forward thinking for the future. Houston is only gonna get bigger and as the city grows, there will come a time when a subway or monorail will need to be implemented. Afterall, Dallas's DART's ridership is no bigger than Houston's. They ran a portion of their lightrail underground for about 1-2 miles because they wanted to do it to look more "touristy". I think Houston can do something similar.

[citykid09]

i like the idea of having a subway in Houston. A subway in my opinion, makes a place feel more "urban". I like the way Dallas did theirs but the only thing is in their Tunnel Stop, they should open up a couple of underground retail shops and fast food express restaurants in to make it more of a "real" subway, more NYC or Chicago style.

Houston could get a subway and i don't think a subway through downtown Houston is the only possiblility. They can open up one coming from the northside on the way to downtown. No one says it has to be real long, maybe 1-1.5 miles. Or like someone mentioned eartler, they can open up one between Westheimer and Richmond, which would avoild all of that nasty traffic on Westheimer and 610.

For Houston to get a subway, things like ridership and cost should come of no concern. The developers have to be innovative and forward thinking for the future. Houston is only gonna get bigger and as the city grows, there will come a time when a subway or monorail will need to be implemented. Afterall, Dallas's DART's ridership is no bigger than Houston's. They ran a portion of their subway underground for about 1-2 miles because they wanted to do it to look more "touristy". I think Houston can do something similar.

Thanks for joining scarface, you wrote exactly what I was thinking.

Many people on here don't like subways, but at the same time many more do. who in there right mind would want to put a light rail along richmond ave, taking up a whole lane that would be dedicated for the rail, then stopping traffic for the rail to pass, then having cars and walkers hit and get hit by the damn thing. A subway would seem like a lot more smarter solution to me. And it would give a much more urban feel to the city.

You can't tell me that this doesn't look more urban than METRO Light Rail Houston

MARTA Subway Atlanta

[YakuzaIce]

That second one just looks like it is under a freeway, or in a ditch with a roof thrown on top.

[citykid09]

That second one just looks like it is under a freeway, or in a ditch with a roof thrown on top.

I like that one. its away from the street so it wont slow traffic.

Take a look at the whole Atlanta MARTA system and also Dallas' DART on the links below, you will have a whole new way of thinking about rail. you can also look at other rail lines in the USA and other countries. They don't have Houston on there for some reason.

http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Atlanta/

http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Dallas/

[hokieone]

Enough about Atlanta's rail system. What is productive about continually putting up pictures of their system? I don't even get the point. We all are very familiar with how it looks after the many, many posts about how great it is, how urban it seems, etc. etc. At least pick a different city to post for a while. Go find some DC Metro pictures. Philadelphia/ NJ Transit shots. Anything besides Atlanta. Its' very, very tired. Or go find the one's of Denvre and Portland's light rail. Just something besides Atlanta for a while.

[WesternGulf]

Oh well I am still for light rail. Atleast it will change the streetscape while the streets will still look the same with a subway. People are being real stubborn thinking Houston is the richest city in the world and any project we throw at it will not hurt the economy. We don't need to build a subway unless we absolutely need one. Plus I have a feeling that the presence of a light rail along a street will make for a better spark for development. There are streets around this country that are a lot more busier than Houston's Richmond Avenue where streetcars and light rail have been a total success. Think Denver, Philly, Seattle, New Orleans, San Diego, Portland, San Francisco, and many other cities. The hell with a subway. Seriously. Where spending hundreds of millions of more dollars just to have the satisfaction of going underground because it feels more urban? Some people need to grow up. At first, I thought some of these ideas were cool but it just sounds childish and stubborn now.