Check This Out!

[citykid09]

This would be really cool. Elevating the rail would be a good idea. I know monorail is something diffrent, but this is a picture of monrail in Houston.

I found it here: http://www.livablehouston.com/

[UrbaNerd]

Cool, but not very likely.

[MidtownCoog]

We said no to that concept back in the 80s.

Anyway, to quote a fool, "everyone has their own agenda".

Everyone being all these competing "livable Houston, Downtown Vision, Regional Mobility, etc."

I don't think any of their plans are in sync.

[texasboy]

I think this is a possibility. Yes we said no to it in the 80's, but we probably would have said no to light rail also. In the summer of 2004, monorail or elvated rail was an option along with subway because of all of the traffic and accidents that come along with building a lightrail. Plus this rendering looks kind of new, a lot different from the rendering I saw of the 80's project.

[jmancuso]

yeah, that idea went down in flames in the 80's and i can't see metro spending that kind of money today anyways. people bitched becuase the current system was over budget.

[texasboy]

people bitched becuase the current system was over budget.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is kind of rediculous. but they would never fight if a massive freeway was going up, which can be just as expensive.

[Talbot]

Although, with elevated we would have more of a chance of getting funding, possibly.

[greystone08(returns)]

Cool, but not very likely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see why this wouldn't work in the near future. If you call the greater Houston visitors business 1-800 4 HOUSTON and speak with the department in charge of metro, they'll tell you for themselves that there is an indefinite plan in the future( not sure of the timeframe) to have lightrail either dug underground (subway) or have the elevated monorail system.

[dalparadise]

I don't see why this wouldn't work in the near future. If you call the greater Houston visitors business 1-800 4 HOUSTON and speak with the department in charge of metro, they'll tell you for themselves that there is an indefinite plan in the future( not sure of the timeframe) to have lightrail either dug underground (subway) or have the elevated monorail system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HA!

[houstonsemipro]

This is an old topic. Long and gone.

[Rehan]

it is kind of rediculous.  but they would never fight if a massive freeway was going up, which can be just as expensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? Last time I checked, people always complain about freeways.

[MaxConcrete]

Las Vegas' new monorail has been having numerous techical problems which has kept it from being fully operational. This is exactly what political leaders don't want: having to explain why costly systems are not working as advertised and service is shut down. This is why transit agencies just about everywhere go with the tried-and-true, low risk light rail technology.

The Las Vegas system was quite costly and is mostly financed with private money. I don't have any exact data at my fingertips, unfortunately. The private operator is absorbing the losses associated with the technical shutdowns.

[ssullivan]

Monorail has never really been able to prove itself as a reliable technology for urban mass transit. Probably the most successful long term applications have been at the Disney theme parks. Seattle's downtown monorail has also been around for a while, but it's a relic of a world's fair and serves a very short route with only a couple of stations. Not only is monorail terribly expensive to build and maintain, but it also has some route limitations, as it requires a much larger turning radius than an articulated light rail vehicle.

[Parrothead]

I think it's a great idea. The 80's was 20 years ago, people. Things and times and PEOPLE change.

Disney is a great example of how this can work. I don't know anything about Seattle's though.

I would much rather pay out the nose one time and have it done right. Regardless of whether it is a monorail-type system or not (though to me, that would really put our city on the map as "Space City"), our rail clearly needs to be elevated here.

[Subdude]

Monorail systems were the wave of the future 50 years ago, but now I think they're more the wave of the past. They have been estimated to cost as much as twice as much per mile as regular light rail. The reason is they require about the same amount of right-of-way acquisition, but have the huge additional costs of the support structures, elevators, etc. On the non-financial side, lines of concrete support columns are no more attractive than they are for elevated freeways. It's just hard to justify the extra cost these systems entail when light rail technology is proven in many cities. The one exception I could see would be elevated rail over freeways without sufficient available land. The Las Vegas monorail was built by the casino owners to shuttle gamblers between the casinos on the strip. In that sense it is more like a theme park attraction like the one at Disney, rather than a true mass transit solution.

[ssullivan]

Great points Subdude. Also, monorail's only real advantage over elevated light rail is noise -- it is noticeably quieter. But in any case, elevated rail of any type is much louder and uglier than something built at ground level, and many cities are actively working to eliminate their remaining elevated sections that were built early in the last century.

Changing the subject just a little, this past weekend I was in Boston, one of my absolute favorite places on this planet. I took the T out to Boston College Saturday morning. Despite all of Boston's rail being underground downtown, much of it runs at grade level outside the immediate downtown area, and the green line runs in street medians, very much like MetroRail does here. Granted Bostonians aren't as car-dependent as we Houstonianas are, and they've had rail around a lot longer than we have. But I was amazed to see intersections on Commonwealth Avenue with the light rail cars running in the median where cross street traffic and left turns off Commonwealth were not controlled by traffic lights, but by stop signs and "yield to train" signs! There were also crosswalks that crossed the tracks with nothing more than a "watch for trains" sign. Commonwealth Avenue in this area arguably caries as many cars as Fannin and San Jacinto do in Midtown, and certainly carries more traffic than Main does through Midtown. Yet people aren't having problems with turning into oncoming trains there. I've ridden similar light rail segments in San Francisco. So, if light rail works well in this configuration in other cities, what is the problem here? I really don't think it has anything to do with the rail system's design. Even before safety modifications were made last year with new and improved signs and revised signal timing, our system was already designed to a MUCH higher safety standard than similar systems in the nation. You could argue now that it's overdesigned. The fact is that our drivers SUCK and we have some serious issues with people here disregarding all laws of the road. But I don't think it's right to ask taxpayers to pay more than twice the cost to build an ugly monster that nobody will want in their neighborhood just because we refuse to expect a higher standard of safety from our drivers who seem to think that red lights and no left turn signs apply to everyone but them.

[kzseattle]

Monorail systems were the wave of the future 50 years ago, but now I think they're more the wave of the past.  They have been estimated to cost as much as twice as much per mile as regular light rail.  The reason is they require about the same amount of right-of-way acquisition, but have the huge additional costs of the support structures, elevators, etc.  On the non-financial side, lines of concrete support columns are no more attractive than they are for elevated freeways.  It's just hard to justify the extra cost these systems entail when light rail technology is proven in many cities.  The one exception I could see would be elevated rail over freeways without sufficient available land.  The Las Vegas monorail was built by the casino owners to shuttle gamblers between the casinos on the strip.  In that sense it is more like a theme park attraction like the one at Disney, rather than a true mass transit solution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I lived in Seattle and has seen its monorail system. It can actually make the streets look kinda ugly. Imagine a row of pillars in the middle of a street which is permanently under the shadow of elevated tracks. Since the elevated tracks block your view of the sky, the street appears enclosed, dark and conjested. You can think of it as an elevated highway running through the middle of the streets.

[Parrothead]

it doesn't have to look ugly... I mean, who would have ever thought freeway columns could look attractive? It's possible. Look at Austin's new columns, they're freaking works of art practically.

Again, it doesn't have to be a monorail though I love the look of it.

What about a pod system like in Logan's Run?

[kzseattle]

it doesn't have to look ugly...

[skwatra]

The fact is that our drivers SUCK and we have some serious issues with people here disregarding all laws of the road. But I don't think it's right to ask taxpayers to pay more than twice the cost to build an ugly monster that nobody will want in their neighborhood just because we refuse to expect a higher standard of safety from our drivers who seem to think that red lights and no left turn signs apply to everyone but them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

do you really expect people who have been driving on the same roads for years, using the exact same routes to just figure out how a new train that you have to share a lane with works overnight? the accidents in downtown/midtown i agree are inexcusable, many caused by drunks, but the medical center area is really confusing.

i think we should replace the HOV lanes on the freeways with ground level tracks for commuter, and have nothing but elevated or subway in the city for future routes.

i've lived in/driven in many cities, and houston drivers are relatively not bad. you're going to have stupid drivers no matter where you go.

[2112]

I don't like them. I prefer the lightrail look and feel, with all the suspended infrastructure and such. Better yet, I like the grit of heavy rail.

[ssullivan]

the accidents in downtown/midtown i agree are inexcusable, many caused by drunks, but the medical center area is really confusing.

Hmm... maybe it's just me, or maybe I'm smarter than the average Houstonian. But it doesn't seem all that hard to me to figure out that you don't turn when the light is red, and you don't enter a lane when there is a red X above it. That's all there is to it. Follow those two simple rules and you can't possibly hit a train unless a signal malfunctions. And even then, you should always be looking in your rearview mirror before moving into a lane to your left, and if the signal is malfunctioning and you check your mirror, you should see the train coming.

I'm just tired of people making excuses for stupidity. Go when it's green, don't when it's red. That's all there is to it. Shouldn't be confusing to anyone with an IQ high enough to actually obtain a drivers license.

[ssullivan]

it doesn't have to look ugly...    I mean, who would have ever thought freeway columns could look attractive?  It's possible.  Look at Austin's new columns, they're freaking works of art practically.

Very true, but no matter what it looks like it will still block out light from the street below, which will still make the street and buildings look ugly and depressing. And it will definitely hamper development in buildings under the line. Who would want to build a new business in a building overshadowed by an elevated rail line? Look at downtown Chicago. The best retail businesses and office buildings are not on streets where the el runs, but several blocks away. Most of what's under the el are dirty, low end businesses like convenience stores and laudromats. Sure there's a need for those places but it's not exactly the type of redevelopment we need downtown. High end developments will shy away from noisy, dark, and ugly elevated rail lines.

[musicman]

But I was amazed to see intersections on Commonwealth Avenue with the light rail cars running in the median where cross street traffic and left turns off Commonwealth were not controlled by traffic lights, but by stop signs and "yield to train" signs! There were also crosswalks that crossed the tracks with nothing more than a "watch for trains" sign. Commonwealth Avenue in this area arguably caries as many cars as Fannin and San Jacinto do in Midtown, and certainly carries more traffic than Main does through Midtown. Yet people aren't having problems with turning into oncoming trains there. I've ridden similar light rail segments in San Francisco. So, if light rail works well in this configuration in other cities, what is the problem here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One big problem is that the design of our system purposely closed off too many streets that cross the line. As a result, more traffic is going through fewer streets which results in an increased likelyhood of an accident. Driver ability may be a problem as well however the my frustration level is increased when driving in the vicinity of the rail because i realize that there are only so many ways to cross the track. The worst segment is between the Pierce elevated and Binz/Bissonnet. Try going east and west over the rail. You are extremely limited. To compound this, the vehicles don't have priority over the trains which results in short light cycle times.