If I Could Redesign the Light Rail

[CALMSP]

I don't think light rail in general works, though the one place it does is Portland, OR. The reason it works there is that connects places that actually need to be connected, the airport with the city, the suburban areas with downtown, etc.

what a great idea!!! Its obvious that the planners in Portland and other cities went to college...............METRO got their G.E.D. and ran with it!!

[kdog08]

I don't think light rail in general works, though the one place it does is Portland, OR. The reason it works there is that connects places that actually need to be connected, the airport with the city, the suburban areas with downtown, etc.

If I were to redesign the current light rail, I'd start by turning it into a third rail system with no overhead wires, elevate it in places, such as downtown, make the fare system more like Chicago or Boston, and add turnstiles.

Connecting our largest and third largest employment center doesn't seem like a good idea?

[kylejack]

Connecting our largest and third largest employment center doesn't seem like a good idea?

Not really, no. Employment centers should be connected to shopping centers or housing.

[JamesL]

Not really, no. Employment centers should be connected to shopping centers or housing.

Which is exactly why they are building Phase 2.

[Houston19514]

I don't think light rail in general works, though the one place it does is Portland, OR. The reason it works there is that connects places that actually need to be connected, the airport with the city, the suburban areas with downtown, etc.

The ridership on Houston's light rail line says otherwise.

[intencity77]

I don't see what the big deal is. Once the other lines are constructed, the system will be more efficient IMO. Even so, the Main St Line has been very effective for people who live and/or work in the Reliant area all the way to Downtown. These are the majority of the people who see the benefits of the current system, so they are a minority....As for the rail being at street level, many European cities have their rail systems in the streets. I actually sorta like seeing the rail in the streets, makes for more street activity, which is needed here. If it deters vehicles, so be it, that's the idea. My only complaint is that I only wish that METRO would hurry up with it already.

[TheNiche]

The ridership on Houston's light rail line says otherwise.

If the number of users is the sole criteria used to determine whether a mode of transportation "works", then freeways such as the North, Gulf, and Southwest Freeways must "work" really really well.

One of the inherent problems with transportation funding, IMO, is that they so often base a definition of success on the number of users rather than the amount of users' time is saved or other measures of holistic impact. For instance, if light rail causes traffic snarls along a corridor, that doesn't count against it. Likewise, if it causes a transit agency to reroute buses in such a way as to feed the beast, in so doing increasing the number of transfers for bus riders, that is also not a consideration.

[kylejack]

If the number of users is the sole criteria used to determine whether a mode of transportation "works", then freeways such as the North, Gulf, and Southwest Freeways must "work" really really well.

One of the inherent problems with transportation funding, IMO, is that they so often base a definition of success on the number of users rather than the amount of users' time is saved or other measures of holistic impact. For instance, if light rail causes traffic snarls along a corridor, that doesn't count against it. Likewise, if it causes a transit agency to reroute buses in such a way as to feed the beast, in so doing increasing the number of transfers for bus riders, that is also not a consideration.

I agree with all that, but I still consider the Red Line a success, and it doesn't really create any nasty snarls, claims earlier in this thread notwithstanding.

[Houston19514]

If the number of users is the sole criteria used to determine whether a mode of transportation "works", then freeways such as the North, Gulf, and Southwest Freeways must "work" really really well.

One of the inherent problems with transportation funding, IMO, is that they so often base a definition of success on the number of users rather than the amount of users' time is saved or other measures of holistic impact. For instance, if light rail causes traffic snarls along a corridor, that doesn't count against it. Likewise, if it causes a transit agency to reroute buses in such a way as to feed the beast, in so doing increasing the number of transfers for bus riders, that is also not a consideration.

Of course you know very well that nobody said that the number of users is the "sole" criteria. But it is certainly far and away the very most important criteria.

The amount of users' time saved (or not) is not a terribly relevant criteria on its own because it is subsumed under the ridership statistics, i.e., if it does not give timely service for the users' needs, they would not be riding it. IF the light rail line had regular delays in its operations that cause people to have to sit and wait for hours every week as some do on certain freeways, that could certainly be weighed in the balance. But of course, that is not the case, and if it ever became the case, it would quickly be reflected in ridership numbers.

Your oft-repeated fantasy about light rail causing traffic snarls and congestion on its route has worn itself out. IF that were true, it would be worth considering in weighing the success of the line, but it just is not true. I again invite anyone to drive the red line route during rush hour to see for themselves.

Likewise, your oft-repeated complaint about re-routing buses to feed the rail line is pure silliness. OF COURSE, they route bus lines to connect with and feed the rail line. It would be idiotic not to. That's how one creates a more holistic transit system, if you will.

[musicman]

Likewise, your oft-repeated complaint about re-routing buses to feed the rail line is pure silliness. OF COURSE, they route bus lines to connect with and feed the rail line. It would be idiotic not to. That's how one creates a more holistic transit system, if you will.

feeding a rail line with existing routes is not the issue, modifying routes to so riders have to make an additional transfer (to the rail) is, since it increases transit time. the goal is to get more riders and increasing transit times doesn't help.

[kylejack]

feeding a rail line with existing routes is not the issue, modifying routes to so riders have to make an additional transfer (to the rail) is, since it increases transit time. the goal is to get more riders and increasing transit times doesn't help.

Some users find their transit times increased slightly (generally not more than 6 minutes, as in the case of 25 Richmond now terminating at Wheeler instead of going downtown) and other users find their transit times dramatically reduced (a train every 6 minutes rather than 1 Hospital bus coming every half hour).

[musicman]

Some users find their transit times increased slightly (generally not more than 6 minutes, as in the case of 25 Richmond now terminating at Wheeler instead of going downtown) and other users find their transit times dramatically reduced (a train every 6 minutes rather than 1 Hospital bus coming every half hour).

Remember than rail runs between 6 and 20 mins depending on time of day so there seems to be some underestimation with your first statement and I really don't know any major bus routes that run every 30 mins during peak time, usually they are more frequent. Now that there's less of them thru the entire corridor, less options for everyone.

[kylejack]

Remember than rail runs between 6 and 20 mins depending on time of day so there seems to be some underestimation with your first statement and I really don't know any major bus routes that run every 30 mins during peak time, usually they are more frequent. Now that there's less of them thru the entire corridor, less options for everyone.

Yes I meant to qualify by saying most daytime weekday hours but forgot.

[kdog08]

Not really, no. Employment centers should be connected to shopping centers or housing.

Well if the red line was the only line going to be built then we would have a problem. However, we know that the red line is connected to housing via park and ride and buses, not to mention the housing within a reasonable distance from rail. Finally, people work 5 days of week, not shop 5 days of week; making rail connect to shopping centers shouldn't be a high priority.

[kylejack]

Well if the red line was the only line going to be built then we would have a problem. However, we know that the red line is connected to housing via park and ride and buses, not to mention the housing within a reasonable distance from rail. Finally, people work 5 days of week, not shop 5 days of week; making rail connect to shopping centers shouldn't be a high priority.

?? I need transit to connect to all relevant parts of my life or it doesn't serve as a good replacement for a car. I may not shop every day but I still shop! Yes it is good that the rail connects to ONE park and ride, but better would be to connect it directly to housing, moreso than some fourplexes in the Museum district and some apartment complexes on the south end of Fannin. Let's be honest here, the Red Line is not completely useless but ultimately it was built with expedited priority for the Super Bowl to showcase Houston and the Red Line was not the most ideal route for our first line. I will be much happier when more relevant lines such as University are laid.

[TheNiche]

?? I need transit to connect to all relevant parts of my life or it doesn't serve as a good replacement for a car.

The purpose of METRO is not to provide options, it is to enhance mobility. With respect to transportation policy, a mixed strategy is preferred to a singular one.

Yes it is good that the rail connects to ONE park and ride, but better would be to connect it directly to housing, moreso than some fourplexes in the Museum district and some apartment complexes on the south end of Fannin.

There is only one P&R lot along the route, however nearly all of the region's P&R lots have routes that terminate along the Red Line.

Also, the apartments along the south end of Fannin represent one of the densest concentrations of housing anywhere in the city. It's the perfect place to run transit, but abysmal ridership figures from the Astrodome station would seem to indicate that LRT might be overkill for nearly any kind of purely-residential destination (that isn't 'ethnic' enough).

Let's be honest here, the Red Line is not completely useless but ultimately it was built with expedited priority for the Super Bowl to showcase Houston and the Red Line was not the most ideal route for our first line. I will be much happier when more relevant lines such as University are laid.

You've been reading too many of the Chron.com forums. The construction schedule for the Red Line was expedited in order to ensure that it was operational for the Super Bowl, but the decision to build only the Red Line by itself was one made out of political convenience and financial necessity.

In terms of ridership, it was already understood to be low-hanging fruit because it not only allowed for bus routes to create a north-south funnel into it, but because it replaced most of the shuttle services from the Smithlands TMC lot, to the point that capacity gets maxed out and they still have to run shuttles parallel to the LRT. By implementing such a high-ridership route and using it as a proof of concept to the FTA (which only cares about ridership), METRO was able to convince them to massively fund lines that do not and can never have ridership even remotely close to what occurs on the Red Line. METRO was also able to generate sufficient good PR from the ridership numbers to counteract much of the negative publicity.

[kylejack]

The purpose of METRO is not to provide options, it is to enhance mobility. With respect to transportation policy, a mixed strategy is preferred to a singular one.

Which is precisely why I advocate a mixed strategy, connecting transit to all parts of a person's life, so that people can live a carless life if they wish. The new lines will do that, when completed.

[TheNiche]

Which is precisely why I advocate a mixed strategy, connecting transit to all parts of a person's life, so that people can live a carless life if they wish. The new lines will do that, when completed.

You might take notice of those red, white, and blue striped rectangular prisms on wheels from time to time. They're magical daemons summoned by brown- and black-colored carbon sacks of mostly water, or so the tribal elders say. I know you doubt me. Your kind always does. But I seen em' with my very own eyes. As the story goes, they do it by standing in a special location, a mystical altar known as a "bus stop", and the daemons can be entered into and will take you lots and lots of places--even some places so far out in the suburbs where you'd never really want to go anyways.

-------

Seriously dude, I've got two employees that live within about a mile or two of where you do. They do not own cars or have drivers' licenses (and in that respect could be mistaken for Manhattanites), they walk to work, they walk to the mom & pop supermarket, and they ride the bus a few minutes to patronize bars or if they need to go downtown for some reason. It isn't as though I pay them especially well or keep regular hours. They probably subsist on a fraction of what you do, and yet they can afford an idealized urbane lifestyle. You could do it too.

[kylejack]

You might take notice of those red, white, and blue striped rectangular prisms on wheels from time to time. They're magical daemons summoned by brown- and black-colored carbon sacks of mostly water, or so the tribal elders say. I know you doubt me. Your kind always does. But I seen em' with my very own eyes. As the story goes, they do it by standing in a special location, a mystical altar known as a "bus stop", and the daemons can be entered into and will take you lots and lots of places--even some places so far out in the suburbs where you'd never really want to go anyways.

-------

Seriously dude, I've got two employees that live within about a mile or two of where you do. They do not own cars or have drivers' licenses (and in that respect could be mistaken for Manhattanites), they walk to work, they walk to the mom & pop supermarket, and they ride the bus a few minutes to patronize bars or if they need to go downtown for some reason. It isn't as though I pay them especially well or keep regular hours. They probably subsist on a fraction of what you do, and yet they can afford an idealized urbane lifestyle. You could do it too.

I can and do, and the new lines will make it that much easier.

[TheNiche]

I can and do, and the new lines will make it that much easier.

In post #107, you argued that METRO's goal ought to be making it so that people can be carless even though such lifestyles are already achievable with or without extensive financial resources, as your own case illustrates. Now you're saying that it's in order to make it easier, even though you'd already acquiesced in posts #98 and #103 to the facts that there are numerous cases where poor implementation of light rail has in fact made it more difficult for both transit and auto users.

[kylejack]

In post #107, you argued that METRO's goal ought to be making it so that people can be carless even though such lifestyles are already achievable with or without extensive financial resources, as your own case illustrates. Now you're saying that it's in order to make it easier, even though you'd already acquiesced in posts #98 and #103 to the facts that there are numerous cases where poor implementation of light rail has in fact made it more difficult for both transit and auto users.

I think you need to re-read 98, because I did not say that poor implementation of light rail has made it more difficult for transit and auto users. I was responding to your post which was complaining about a general problem with transportation metrics (i.e. basing them on ridership), not with specific problems in this system's implementation. I agree with you that ridership is not the be-all end-all metric. I disagree with you if you think that the Red Line is creating traffic snarls (which you haven't stated directly, so I will assume you don't think this until you say otherwise).

Yes, living a carless lifestyle is currently possible so perhaps I overstated in 103 because I was getting tired of arguing with that guy, but it is still not ideal and I think the new lines are going to be great.

[TheNiche]

I think you need to re-read 98, because I did not say that poor implementation of light rail has made it more difficult for transit and auto users. I was responding to your post which was complaining about a general problem with transportation metrics (i.e. basing them on ridership), not with specific problems in this system's implementation. I agree with you that ridership is not the be-all end-all metric. I disagree with you if you think that the Red Line is creating traffic snarls (which you haven't stated directly, so I will assume you don't think this until you say otherwise).

Yes, living a carless lifestyle is currently possible so perhaps I overstated in 103 because I was getting tired of arguing with that guy, but it is still not ideal and I think the new lines are going to be great.

For post #98, I was referring to your statement about complaints from earlier in the thread (regarding traffic snarls at Fannin/Greenbriar) notwithstanding. I can personally vouch for those issues, as well as other LRT-induced hot spots at Fannin/Braeswood and especially at Fannin/610. This is especially important to bear in mind because you'll notice that traffic snarls are not issues north of the TMC, where the downtown grid kicks in and provides numerous high-capacity alternatives that parallel Main Street...but most of the new routes will not have such easy or free-flowing alternatives.

[jfre81]

The Red Line works just fine north of Hermann Park, and I rarely if ever see traffic on Main with the LRT in place that would require alternatives even if they're there. If you're driving downtown from someplace else, you're getting on a freeway, and maybe you'll take Bagby/Louisiana or Travis to/from Spur 527. Or you just get right on 59 or the Pierce from downtown. Or, if you happen to be along Main you just take the rail. Which I do.

It's in the Med Center where the current setup creates a problem, but that's pretty well established. Could anything be done about it?

TMC of course has a lot of people coming there who live all over the metro. If there was more rail (including commuter rail) would there be less traffic to where the LRT can have a truly dedicated ROW? Or elevate that portion? Of course, we wouldn't see any of that in the near term, and more people will be here when/if we ever get that.

[musicman]

The Red Line works just fine north of Hermann Park, and I rarely if ever see traffic on Main with the LRT in place that would require alternatives even if they're there.

the issue is with traffic perpendicular to main. with less streets open from binz to the pierce elevated, maneuvering in the area can be tricky for the unfamiliar. i know the travel times around the southmore area has increased for me.

[AtticaFlinch]

The Red Line works just fine north of Hermann Park, and I rarely if ever see traffic on Main with the LRT in place that would require alternatives even if they're there. If you're driving downtown from someplace else, you're getting on a freeway, and maybe you'll take Bagby/Louisiana or Travis to/from Spur 527. Or you just get right on 59 or the Pierce from downtown. Or, if you happen to be along Main you just take the rail. Which I do.

It's in the Med Center where the current setup creates a problem, but that's pretty well established. Could anything be done about it?

TMC of course has a lot of people coming there who live all over the metro. If there was more rail (including commuter rail) would there be less traffic to where the LRT can have a truly dedicated ROW? Or elevate that portion? Of course, we wouldn't see any of that in the near term, and more people will be here when/if we ever get that.

There are too many over-the-road bridges from the parking garages to the hospitals through there to elevate the rail along its existing course. However, I'm fairly certain, despite what everybody and their mothers say that we can actually build the line underground. It would cost a few bucks for construction and maintenance, but it could be done.

[jfre81]

There are too many over-the-road bridges from the parking garages to the hospitals through there to elevate the rail along its existing course. However, I'm fairly certain, despite what everybody and their mothers say that we can actually build the line underground. It would cost a few bucks for construction and maintenance, but it could be done.

The skywalks? Maybe they could be redone into an elevated station. People could get off/on the train without ever going outdoors, which will work well for the lightweights who can't handle a little heat and humidity

I know subways can be done, but it would be interesting which would be the most economically feasible between that and going elevated.

[RedScare]

the issue is with traffic perpendicular to main. with less streets open from binz to the pierce elevated, maneuvering in the area can be tricky for the unfamiliar. i know the travel times around the southmore area has increased for me.

Almost 6 years after the Red Line opened, and 9 years after construction started, and you are STILL not sure which streets are not through streets?

[musicman]

Almost 6 years after the Red Line opened, and 9 years after construction started, and you are STILL not sure which streets are not through streets?

i'm not the only driver out there. I know which streets are closed but from regular driving in the area, I still see cars going the wrong way or stop in the middle of fannin, not knowing whether it is ok to cross the tracks. I do know that my travel times have increased in this area, particularly south of 59 which is where i am most frequently.

[AtticaFlinch]

I know subways can be done, but it would be interesting which would be the most economically feasible between that and going elevated.

I'm going to build my own subway and start a trend.

[ricco67]

The skywalks? Maybe they could be redone into an elevated station. People could get off/on the train without ever going outdoors, which will work well for the lightweights who can't handle a little heat and humidity

Wrong.

The skyways are multi level and some are done to transport patients to and from surgery and other procedures, and are basically off limits to the general public.