Houston Gets A Subway?

[RedScare]

Western Gulf is right. METRO is not in the busines of making things "look" or "feel" urban. They are in the mobility business. Subways, though feasible in Houston, are extremely expensive, compared to surface rail. Given how hard it has been to get rail started in Houston at all, wasting money on a subway, when surface rail will get the job done is a recipe for disaster.

Besides, given all the carping about the downtown tunnel system keeping pedestrians off the street, why would you want to make an area less "urban looking" by putting the transit underground?

[scarface]

First of all, by my saying that a subway will make a place feel more "urban" was only one of the reasons why i think a subway should be implemented. I think many of you know better to think that's not the main reason why a subway should be implemented. There are several other reasons: It won't slow trafic, it will reduce the number of collisions with car drivers, and it will get a person from point A to point B much faster than having to stop at lights with the cars.

Redscare, you say that a subway is a recipe for disaster when streetlevel can get the job done? Look at the 100 crashes and one fatality metrorail has encountered on street level and the rail has been open just a little under 2 years. If that's not disaster, i don't know what is. This was mainly due to poor designing and planning. I know many of these accidents were by fault of the driver but that's not the point, if the rail was underground or in the air, it wouldn't interfere with street traffic.

I still think a subway or a monorail is not a bad idea. I think some of you are a little hard on Citykid09 when he posts pictures just displaying ideas that have worked in other cities and how it could work in Houston. If subway is a bad idea, then why not monorail? WesternGulf, you mentioned Seattle and they at least have monorail, which is another option from street level! I'm sorry but streetlevel rail will not solve the problem of traffic and mobility that currently exists in this city.

Edited November 15, 2005 by scarface

[skwatra]

I wouldn't say the crashes were "mainly due to poor design and planning"

the number of incidents has decreased dramatically, and there has been little change to the rail. some more signs yes, but mainly drivers learning to to interact with the rail. it took some getting used to, and things are much better now. there are plenty of cities around the world with much more interaction between trains and cars.

my main complaint about the surface rail is the time it takes to get places. i remember seeing an estimate of 1 hour from Hobby to downtown in some plan. that's ridiculous, why would i make a visitor take that when i could get them there in 15 minutes?

i was just in mexico city, and we take the subway to get downtown from the airport. it took an hour to go 12km, which was annoying. but i asked around, and they said it would have taken 1.5 hours by taxi, and we spent $0.20 rather then $30. so it made sense.

i would prefer elevated in downtown and other dense areas towards the galleria, and dedicated surface otherwise.

Edited November 15, 2005 by skwatra

[scarface]

i wouldn't have a problem with elevated rail. I see the City of Houston is constantly building bridges for more and higher freeways, why can't they start making plans to do something like that for lightrail?

[TJones]

My god, the Cardinals Stadium sucks. It looks like an avocado that someone's started to "peel".

WTH does that have to do with the price of tea in China, as it pertains to this thread about "SUBWAYS !"

[MarthaG]

WTH does that have to do with the price of tea in China, as it pertains to this thread about "SUBWAYS !"

Slow response TJones...

I was wondering when something is going to get brought up about

the comment (made in January) that New Orleans has not seen anything (flooding) like Allison..

guess someone needs to eat those words now.

[TJones]

Slow response TJones...

I was wondering when something is going to get brought up about

the comment (made in January) that New Orleans has not seen anything (flooding) like Allison..

guess someone needs to eat those words now.

I know, I know, but just some random comment in here about the Cardinals Stadium, and nobody ever called him on it ? I love this place !

[RedScare]

Redscare, you say that a subway is a recipe for disaster when streetlevel can get the job done?

scarface, I meant in a financial sense, given all of the opponents to rail in Houston already. Subways are very expensive. So are elevateds. However, I am not opposed to either. In fact, I love subways, and I think elevateds can be built nowadays that look a good bit better than the old Chicago style el.

It is just that I don't want to give more ammo to the rail opponents. It will be interesting to see how METRO gets from Midtown to the Galleria. I sure hope they don't go down the "dead zone" that is the Westpark ROW. No one would ride the thing then.

[YakuzaIce]

I still think a subway or a monorail is not a bad idea. I think some of you are a little hard on Citykid09 when he posts pictures just displaying ideas that have worked in other cities and how it could work in Houston. If subway is a bad idea, then why not monorail? WesternGulf, you mentioned Seattle and they at least have monorail, which is another option from street level! I'm sorry but streetlevel rail will not solve the problem of traffic and mobility that currently exists in this city.

BTW the Seattle monorail was canceled, not to mention I believe it was ridiculously expensive also. When you spend that much you might as well get something that doesn't mess with the street scape.

i was just in mexico city, and we take the subway to get downtown from the airport. it took an hour to go 12km, which was annoying. but i asked around, and they said it would have taken 1.5 hours by taxi, and we spent $0.20 rather then $30. so it made sense.

i would prefer elevated in downtown and other dense areas towards the galleria, and dedicated surface otherwise.

Why elevated in dense areas? Do you want streets to darkened because of both lines and stations covering the street? I may exagerate a little, but with a subway all of that is underground with only an entrance on the street. For somewhat similar prices I hope that Houston would choose a subway over monorail.

[skwatra]

Why elevated in dense areas? Do you want streets to darkened because of both lines and stations covering the street? I may exagerate a little, but with a subway all of that is underground with only an entrance on the street. For somewhat similar prices I hope that Houston would choose a subway over monorail.

i was assuming that subway was not feasible given all the cost issues mentioned above, and elevated would be cheaper but still possible. this would be more expensive then at-grade, but would elimate all the car/train interaction- making the system faster and safer.

[WesternGulf]

Well just some food for thought. Can anyone imagine what Main Street would look like if subway was running underground? Wouldn't be too much of an improvement for the streetscape. The same would be true for the university line. Yes we can live with how it looks now but there is always room for improvement.

[YakuzaIce]

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.

Well just some food for thought. Can anyone imagine what Main Street would look like if subway was running underground? Wouldn't be too much of an improvement for the streetscape. The same would be true for the university line. Yes we can live with how it looks now but there is always room for improvement.

Umm, then couldn't the same argument be made against rail in favor of buses? They are much cheaper, but not quite as efficient. But you wouldn't be wasting millions to make it look urban.

[Montrose1100]

Well, would you rather spend 100s of millions on expanding the streets, buying out the business along the street to be demolished, just to get a few extra lanes? Or would you just rather go underground and not hurt anyone?

But it would only be needed for small portions of the Richmond Strip, and Westheimer. Because they both get really big and open once you reach Greenway Plaza, and Uptown.

Built Light Rail there, then just go underground once you hit Montrose, eventually meeting Downtown. *Only go underground where it is needed. Not just because it is "Urban", but because the area where it is needed is simply too dense on the street level. *Note, not like NY Dense or whatever, but simply because of the volume of traffic along certain streets.

I'll draw a picture!

Purple: Light Rail

Yellow: Subway

The Lightrail on Montrose would go underground just to meet and make a station with the Westheimer and Richmond lines. And To go under the Main @ Montrose round-a-bout.

(Ok, I know I've gone Google Earth Crazy... But its just so easy!)

Edited November 16, 2005 by Montrose1100

[YakuzaIce]

Well, would you rather spend 100s of millions on expanding the streets, buying out the business along the street to be demolished, just to get a few extra lanes? Or would you just rather go underground and not hurt anyone?

I was being sarcastic about using busses instead of rail. I only said that because WG we shouldn't spend more on a subway compared to light rail. (Unless you were talking to him)

[CE_ugh]

Judging from the University cooridor map on METRO's website, the Westhiemer terminus would require either a subterrainian or elevated station. I would think the traffic at the intersections of Post Oak and 610 would make a surface station out of the question.

[Montrose1100]

I was being sarcastic about using busses instead of rail. I only said that because WG we shouldn't spend more on a subway compared to light rail. (Unless you were talking to him)

Yeah, I was talking to WG I am agreeing with you!

Only build an underground portion of the LR where it is needed. Like, certain areas of Westheimer, or big intersections. As mentioned above.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Montrose1100

[WesternGulf]

I am for elevated or underground where it is needed, but making the university line entirely subway is not needed and will cost hundreds of millions of more dollars if the length of an underground section is long enough. I can tell most people are not going for what makes sense but just for the satisfaction of "looking" urban. For example, some people don't give a damn how many train wrecks light rail in Houston has had, they are just making that as an excuse for us to get subway for an immature reason. It is like Tom Delay rooting for BRT, a vehicle that runs on gas, because he agrees with Mayor White when he said to the public that he has recognized that the rail plan submitted to the voters had big problems. The whole BRT thing along Harrisburg and other low income areas is a big conspiracy in my opinion, but I am not going to get into that.

[Montrose1100]

I am for elevated or underground where it is needed, but making the university line entirely subway is not needed and will cost hundreds of millions of more dollars if the length of an underground section is long enough. I can tell most people are not going for what makes sense but just for the satisfaction of "looking" urban. For example, some people don't give a damn how many train wrecks light rail in Houston has had, they are just making that as an excuse for us to get subway for an immature reason. It is like Tom Delay rooting for BRT, a vehicle that runs on gas, because he agrees with Mayor White when he said to the public that he has recognized that the rail plan submitted to the voters had big problems. The whole BRT thing along Harrisburg and other low income areas is a big conspiracy in my opinion, but I am not going to get into that.

Thats why Metro should only imply a Subway were the need for the LR to go underground is needed.

I see a letter in order?

[TxDave]

I think the key thing to remember is that by building a

[YakuzaIce]

I think the key thing to remember is that by building a

[RedScare]

Perhaps, but how often is the government going to give you more money to put your rail underground after they gave you money to put the surface rail there.

Exactly. There is no sentiment at METRO to put in a "stopgap" rail line, with the expectation to tear it up later. Transit dollars are extremely hard to come by these days, so the push is to get the most cost-efficient line installed and move on to the next corridor. That will almost always be an at-grade line. Elevated lines are usually next, with subways the most expensive.

While the planners do not want the line to be ugly, thereby detracting from the neighborhood they are attempting to help, there is no requirement that the line look "urban", either, especially since that is a term with no reasonable definition, other than the preferred look that some of the posters on this board would prefer. The main requirement is that the line attract the highest number of commuters for the least possible cost, and being an overall addition to mobility, rather than a detriment.

Let's face it. Any train running through your neighborhood will be "urban", whether it be at-grade, elevated or accessible via underground station. To debate the attractiveness of any particular design is fine for this board, and even enjoyable, but METRO has to work in the real world, with budgets and anti-rail opponents and the like. The final result will be a compromise between all of the competing elements.

That being said, I think a subway through lower Westheimer would be pretty cool!

Edited November 19, 2005 by RedScare

[Montrose1100]

No one liked my picture...

[Pumapayam]

No one liked my picture...

I liked your picture, what do you want now. . . a cookie or something?

[Montrose1100]

I liked your picture, what do you want now. . . a cookie or something?

Actually, a Birthday cake.

[TAK]

Why elevated in dense areas? Do you want streets to darkened because of both lines and stations covering the street?

Hmmmm... shade and a rail system in Houston... I'll take.

I am all for elevated rail.

It defeats the soil / foundation / flooding problem.

It defeats the problem of widening streets (purchasing ROW, signficant increase in traffic during construction.)

It gives Houston 'metropolitain city' appeal (which is important to the event/convention business.)

It's faster than the bus.

It doesn't cause crashes when people turn right on red.

I'm not sure of the cost, but I'm willing to bet it is cheaper than underground (in Houston.)

I was in Kuala Lumpur last year. They have Light Rail and it was the way to get around if you didn't want to be stuck in traffic.

Oddly, the LRT in KL is run by multiple private companies. There was no "Metro". On one trip, I took one train, got off. Got on another train and bought a ticket from another booth at the station below the first train. I doubt we'd do anything private here. I'm guessing it would make somebody some money, but I don't think the local governments want any private companies in the local transportation biz.

Anywho... I need rail so I can move to the suburbs and still get to the city within an hour. :-)

Inwood Forest, where I live now, is a great place - close to the city - but the crime is increasing, and as the economy decreases, I expect the crime to increase more.

[TJones]

Actually, a Birthday cake.

You'll get nothing and like it mister. BTW, how "young" are we today ?

[CE_ugh]

Hmmmm... shade and a rail system in Houston... I'll take.

I am all for elevated rail.

It defeats the soil / foundation / flooding problem.

It defeats the problem of widening streets (purchasing ROW, signficant increase in traffic during construction.)

It gives Houston 'metropolitain city' appeal (which is important to the event/convention business.)

It's faster than the bus.

It doesn't cause crashes when people turn right on red.

I'm not sure of the cost, but I'm willing to bet it is cheaper than underground (in Houston.)

I was in Kuala Lumpur last year. They have Light Rail and it was the way to get around if you didn't want to be stuck in traffic.

Oddly, the LRT in KL is run by multiple private companies. There was no "Metro". On one trip, I took one train, got off. Got on another train and bought a ticket from another booth at the station below the first train. I doubt we'd do anything private here. I'm guessing it would make somebody some money, but I don't think the local governments want any private companies in the local transportation biz.

Anywho... I need rail so I can move to the suburbs and still get to the city within an hour. :-)

Inwood Forest, where I live now, is a great place - close to the city - but the crime is increasing, and as the economy decreases, I expect the crime to increase more.

Thats like how it used to be in New York?

Also with all the profits the oil companies are making, I dont expect the Houston economy will suffer soon.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A964948260

[ricco67]

Damn. they snuck that under the radar!

[dalparadise]

Where's the Chronicle story?

Oh, right...didn't the NYT scoop the Chron on the Enron story too?

Edited August 8, 2006 by dalparadise