Metrorail Fatality

[DJ V Lawrence]

I'm trying to understand something here. I wouldn't be too surprised if all these accidents were taking place on the Richmond/Westiemer area, on any of our freeways, or just about anywhere in H-Town with suburban living, but look at where the light rail is located. Main Street Pedestrian Square, through downtown, thru MidTown, through the Medical Center, and ENDS at Reliant. That's like, um, the most urban-style living you can get in Houston. I didn't know it was associated at all with speed drivers. I thought it was perfectly clear in Houston where the tracks are located when you approach them. What's the mindset of anyone that'd be capable enough to park or speed past a rail that has it's own designated area? Is light rail light enough to ride off-track and score points on those driving along the rail or waiting at a stoplight?If the answer is yes, we're screwed

[greystone08(returns)]

The media needs to reinforce the concept and not play like the train is at fault and Metro should not have to make changes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Metro should too make changes. i think if rail were elevated or running underground, that would help deter half the problems. I've always believed in defensive driving and granted that there are some idiots out there that don't drive defensively, we can't control that. That's why i think that both the driver and the metro train are responsible for a death. We all know metro doesn't have the best layout plan and there's not a plan B to prevent an accident just incase a driver tends to be careless and stupid.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Metro should too make changes. i think if rail were elevated or running underground, that would help deter half the problems. I've always believed in defensive driving and granted that there are some idiots out there that don't drive defensively, we can't control that. That's why i think that both the driver and the metro train are responsible for a death. We all know metro doesn't have the best layout plan and there's not a plan B to prevent an accident just incase a driver tends to be careless and stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure I agree. It's not like the majority of the drivers involved in these light rail accidents are tourist. These are Houstonians that have known very well that there are light rail tracks located at these specific locations.

I really can't blame Metro, though I did at first. We can't control the driver; to that point I agree. However, the drivers can control themselves...which is why there's so many accidents there to begin with.

For example: If you're at a Nascar motor speedway, you KNOW better than to try to cross the street during the race. It should be the same mindset for crossing light-rail tracks. If they wouldn't elevate the Nascar tracks, or run the race underground to avoid uncontrolable people even though you're going at 200mph, why should Metro have to do that on MainStreet?

[westguy]

We're also #1 in drunk drivers, and that area always seems to be crawling with them after dark. Was there any news on whether the guy was intoxicated or not?

[ssullivan]

I also tend to think we need a don't block the box law.  How many times have you been at an intersection that is blocked by cars that just piled into the middle of an intersection that is jammed up and then gets worse because when the light changes, they are still stuck in the middle.  Everyday at San Felipe and 610, I see people make the mistake, which the compounds the problem.

We have one. It was passed about two years ago. I have personally witnessed a police officer issue several tickets to people who entered an intersection when they could not get across it. Unfortunately most people ignore the ordinance. But law or not, it's just common sense that you don't enter an intersection unless you can completely clear it.

[ssullivan]

For those of you who argue street-level light rail is inherently unsafe and shouldn't exist at all, let's not forget that MANY major cities around the world have street-running, grade-level light rail systems with not even half the signals and safety features ours does, with a much lower accident rate. I have seen intersections in Boston, Portland, San Francisco, and others where a light rail train crosses other streets with the cross street having nothing more than a "yield to trains" sign. The design METRO chose for our system has been tested and proven over and over again in cities around the world as safe. And ours has much better signal systems and signage than most others.

I feel very sorry for the family of this guy. However, even if MetroRail didn't exist at all, he could have just as easilly been killed by running the same red light at the same intersection if a car had hit him. Many people in Houston die every year in accidents caused by someone running a red light. And in all of those other cases light rail has NOTHING to do with it. I just watched a video on the Chronicle website of a couple of KHOU news reports on this accident and it's amazing to see the children of this guy standing there blaming METRO for killing their father. I realize they are very upset, but if he had run a different red light and been hit by a car would they be blaming the driver of the other car too?

I'm sorry. If you run a red light, you are at risk of serious injury or death. Period. It's nobody else's fault but your own.

[ricco67]

Sullivan,

In addition to other cities having light rail, we are not the only city in america with light rail that has claimed a life. there has been fatalities in 2 other cities (minneapolis and somewhere in california) within the past 6 months.

Life in general is full of risks, it's just a matter on how we assess those risks that keep us alive.

Ricco

[ssullivan]

Sullivan,

In addition to other cities having light rail, we are not the only city in america with light rail that has claimed a life.  there has been fatalities in 2 other cities (minneapolis and somewhere in california) within the past 6 months.

Life in general is full of risks, it's just a matter on how we assess those risks that keep us alive.

Ricco

Ricco, I know other cities have light rail with fatalities. I never said that wasn't the case. Not sure if you misunderstood my post or if I'm misunderstanding yours... but I doubt there's a city in the country with any kind of rail system that has at-grade crossings where there hasn't been a fatality.

My point was that it's ridiculous for people to blame this fatality on the presence of light rail on downtown streets, because the accident could have happened in exactly the same way without rail being there. The guy could have run a red light at the exact same intersection with no rail there, and been hit by a car or light truck moving at the same speed and still been killed. And in that scenario, would people be blaming the driver of the car that hit and killed the red light runner?

[N Judah]

Gotta wonder how many pedestrian fatalities occur that we never hear about. Uh, yeah, let's get rid of cars...

[The Voice of University Oaks]

Just to make it clear, I am not blaming the train for the deadly accident that occurred yesterday. This guy chose to ignore a red light and paid the ultimate price for it. I also completely recognize that, had this guy instead been hit by a bus or an 18-wheeler and died, it wouldn't have so much as made the back page of the Chronicle. But since it involved the train, it's the top story.

Also, I've met some of of the folks at METRO aswell as a few of the consultants who designed this thing. They did what they could do with the budget they were given to work with. The METRO-hating bloggers and wingnut AM radio guys can blame the "incompetent METRO planners and engineers" for the high accident rate all they want, but the initial decision to build a train at street level wasn't theirs. Blame Lee Brown, not the METRO rank and file.

With all that said, I still contend that the mixture of grade level rail and stupid Houston drivers is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, it's true that street-running light rail exists in cities all over the nation. And yes, it is true that accidents and fatalities occur in other cities as well. But Houston leads the nation in accidents involving light rail even though we have one of the nation's shortest systems. Boston operates 26.9 miles of light rail. The San Francisco MUNI runs 31.7 miles. Portland has about 48 miles of rail including the downtown streetcar. Dallas's network is 44 miles. Our system, on the other hand, is only 7.5 miles long. Yet we're number one...

There are two reasons for this. First, Houston's rail line operates almost entirely in-street. Many other light rail systems around the nation have only limited sections running in-street. From a practical standpoint, our train has more in common with the streetcars of New Orleans than it does the light rail systems in Portland or Dallas (Dallas's system, for example, only runs in-street along Pacific and Bryan through downtown - otherwise, the Red and Blue lines operate within their own right-of-way). The second reason: Houston drivers. We have 'em. Other cities don't. Put these two factors together, and the result is a rail line that led the nation in accidents last year and will probably continue to suffer a good three or four collisions a month from here on out. We wouldn't have this problem if we didn't have such ignorant, careless, selfish drivers in this city. But we do.

That being said, the Main Street line is complete, operational, and it is here to stay. Some more minor tweaking will probably occur, but there's not much that can be done to dramatically reduce the accident rate without essentially rebuilding it and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. My concern is for the extensions that were approved under the METRO Solutions plan. My understanding is that these extensions were costed assuming a street-level configuration running down the middle of thoroughfares such as North Main and Harrisburg and Scott. But does anybody really think that drivers in the Near North Side or the East End or Third Ward are going to be any better than the drivers downtown or in the TMC? If METRO builds more of the same, they're going to get more of the same. On the other hand, if they avoid the stupid driver problem by building reserved or grade-separated alignments, the cost will increase and fewer miles of rail will be constructed.

And to think... if local voters hadn't voted against the heavy rail bond issue in 1983 or put Bob Lanier the highway lobby shill in office in 1991, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[ricco67]

Sullivan,

actually, my post wasn't directed at you, but was meant to reinforce what you stated.

I was a bit peeved by the fact that KHOU had chosen to interview the family of that poor gentleman and then have the audacity to state that light rail was dangerous.

The Idiot at Action America must be wringing his hands with glee now that he has something to write about.

Ricco

[LTAWACS]

Really if people just honked more, there would be no traffic in Houston anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No thanks. I don't want to get shot.

[editor]

As an aside, I saw a Japanese movie on PBS which mentioned the high suicide rate in Tokyo. So many people were jumping in front of trains that it threatened the efficiency of their mass transit system. The government started charging the families of the deceased for the delays, and for cleaning up the resultant mess.

The rate of train/pedestrian 'accidents' dropped sharply. Presumably, the suicidal have found some more socially acceptable, less intrusive means to end their lives.

This is true. When I was in Tokyo I asked a number of people about this, and it's taken as a fact of life that if you jump in front of a train your family will be billed for the clean-up and the delay time. It's actually the railroads that bill the family, not the government.

It is also proper to take your shoes off before you jump in front of the train to show that your act was intentional and you were not pushed.

One train line became popular for suicides because it had a nice long stretch of track where the train could get up to a good speed. The subway company installed barriers and plexiglass walls along the platform that open when the train arrives to keep people from jumping. I hear it worked pretty well.

As an aside to your aside, the Tokyo rail system is the most amazing, fascinating, clean, and efficient thing I've ever seen. Instead of being run by a single government entity like METRO in Houston, or the MTA in New York or BART in San Francisco, there are dozens of private companies competing for your subway, elevated rail, surface rail, and bus service. I can't imagine what it would be like if Houston had bus competition.

Here's a partial map mostly of just the subways. I've never seen a map that actually shows every line, plus the surface and elevated trains. In fact, this map leaves off the JR East lines, which are probably more popular than the subways. I guess because they compete.

[LTAWACS]

We're also #1 in drunk drivers, and that area always seems to be crawling with them after dark. Was there any news on whether the guy was intoxicated or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he was. I think he was also an illegal.

[kjb434]

Yeah,

I wish the government would get out of mass transit and private business would get involved. The only problem is that mass transit in the US doesn't make money except for NYC's subways. And it is not much. For any entity, mass transit is a loosing proposition that tax payers support. In Tokyo, the density and necessity for transit outside of vehicular transport made the business model for rail extremely profitable and popular. And because the competition exists, each rail company competes by trying newer technology which in the end makes the sytem overall better.

Isn't Capitalism great!!!

The drawback in the US, is that in most cases rail is a profitable venture because the nations highway (congested as they are) are sufficient in most cases. I hope the tide changes and that trains in the US would be more profitable, then the expansion of lines wouldn't occur quickly. Cities that have built large systems such as Dallas do so because the lobby exists for it and they get the Federal funding. In Houston, the demand isn't as large. And the people look at as something cool and not something to jump on and support. I think the tide is changin though. With the referendum passing for more light rail, I think the public is giving Metro a chance to prove itself. A few more lines and I think we'll see the network will begin to grow much faster.

[bruce_oneal]

Yeah,

I wish the government would get out of mass transit and private business would get involved.  The only problem is that mass transit in the US doesn't make money except for NYC's subways.  And it is not much.  For any entity, mass transit is a loosing proposition that tax payers support.  In Tokyo, the density and necessity for transit outside of vehicular transport made the business model for rail extremely profitable and popular.  And because the competition exists, each rail company competes by trying newer technology which in the end makes the sytem overall better.

Isn't Capitalism great!!!

The drawback in the US, is that in most cases rail is a profitable venture because the nations highway (congested as they are) are sufficient in most cases.  I hope the tide changes and that trains in the US would be more profitable, then the expansion of lines wouldn't occur quickly.  Cities that have built large systems such as Dallas do so because the lobby exists for it and they get the Federal funding.  In Houston, the demand isn't as large.  And the people look at as something cool and not something to jump on and support.  I think the tide is changin though.  With the referendum passing for more light rail, I think the public is giving Metro a chance to prove itself.  A few more lines and I think we'll see the network will begin to grow much faster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree wholeheartedly. but i still maintain that mass transit in houston will not catch on UNTIL they start building lines that COMPETE with the freeways. I10-->downtown, I45N-->downtown, I45S-->downtown, 288S-->downtown. right now, the ONLY way to get from those places to the city is to DRIVE. i like the idea of cross town routes, and inner city routes, but the major impetus (at least traffic-wise) would seem to be to get the tremendous throng of people that are driving on the major thoroughfares out of their cars.

until people on these freeways see the benefit of leaving their cars behind and jumping onto a train at a park and ride stop (to conduct business in the city), they will continue to sit in traffic on the freeways.

[kjb434]

The issue would also be to convince people to let go of their car once the line is built. That sad part is that many won't. They don't like the lack of flexibility and freedom of a rail system.

Also, any line that would have to go against a freeway would have to be faster than the freeway. Except for the occasional major accident, traveling on the freeway would equal are be faster than a rail system. In Dallas, the rail line parallel to the Central Expressway takes just a little less time than the freeway. Once the High Five interchange is finished. The freeway should be a little faster. Dart has realized that part of the low ridership is that people haven't given up their cars. On a positive note, downtown Plano is seeing a rebirth of urbanism which makes the rail the center piece. Other areas are seeing some development because of the rail also.

Houston has been appearing to implement the concept of building rail lines to one replace buses and two stem economic development. The Harrisburg line has many proposal from commerical developers for new retail where the the proposed line is to go. Land is being bought up. The N. Main line corridor is seeing development interested right now too. Of course, Midtown hasn't grew much faster sine the rail line either. I'm thinking due to costs though.

[WestGrayGuy]

I hate to admit this in an open forum but I run red lights from time to time. Come on now, this is Houston.

I have to agree though, Darwin was at work with this accident. How does one not see a large silver bullet with flashing lights racing towards them?

I have to also agree with NO CROSSING GATES FOR MAIN STREET. Spend that money somewhere else.

[N Judah]

They had a privatized bus system in Chile (started under Pinochet when he went all fascist-free-marketeer) but I don't know if it's still in existence. Supposedly it didn't work too well for logistical reasons, but I can see a privatized subway working. It probably wouldn't do anything to stop idiot drivers from running into the trains, or driving down the starwells into the stations, or if it's an elevated train you know some moron is going to crash into a support pylon and take the thing down...

[jpcampbell]

The issue would also be to convince people to let go of their car once the line is built.  That sad part is that many won't.  They don't like the lack of flexibility and freedom of a rail system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right. I like the idea of taking transit, but it would certainly limit my lunchtime options. I think the deli in the building would get old after about 2 days. That may sound silly, but losing freedom to roam the city in search of good restaurants during lunch would suck.

We are probably moving downtown soon, so maybe there is more there within walking distance.

[N Judah]

The drawback in the US, is that in most cases rail is a profitable venture because the nations highway (congested as they are) are sufficient in most cases.  I hope the tide changes and that trains in the US would be more profitable, then the expansion of lines wouldn't occur quickly.  Cities that have built large systems such as Dallas do so because the lobby exists for it and they get the Federal funding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's not forget that the nation's highways are subsidized by us, the taxpayer, and cities that have built large highways sytems do so because the lobby exists for it and they get federal funding.

It's such a joke that people expect mass transit to be profitable and then talk about how highways are a reasonable alternative.

[kjb434]

I not saying highways are, but the cost per mile are much cheaper than the rail systems. So the logical choice is always to improve road first than build rail.

Think about it. Over $200million was spent on 7 miles of rail. A little over $300million will be spent on the Katy Freeway that is 23 miles long with improvements not only to main lanes, but a new median facility and expanded feeder roads. The correlation is commonly used by anti-rail groups, but it is true. Roads event when talking about capacity of of the facility (number of persons moved).

I still a proponent of rail, but the cost issues come down with road winning. The times when roads lose is when the facility needs to go through an existing urbanized area. Rail can squeeze in much easier.

Rail needs the demand or a proactive government to put in place. I'm a little torn because i like small uninvolved governments, but I want more rail. So I make amends with myself by wanting Metro to be fiscally responsible and to not use too much of the local taxpayer money. Much of the money they'll use is from Federal money that is already appropriated for rail projects in the US.

Also, the concept of a profitable highway is concept of tolling roads. The elimination of a gas tax and the tolling of roads would make the competition of profitability go to the roads also.

People that are pro-rail have to rework their arguments so that the concept of cost isn't seen as the issue. It seems to have worked because Houston passed the Metro referendum.

[hokieone]

They had a privatized bus system in Chile (started under Pinochet when he went all fascist-free-marketeer) but I don't know if it's still in existence.  Supposedly it didn't work too well for logistical reasons, but I can see a privatized subway working.  It probably wouldn't do anything to stop idiot drivers from running into the trains, or driving down the starwells into the stations, or if it's an elevated train you know some moron is going to crash into a support pylon and take the thing down...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice call Judah with the idiots driving down the stair ways into the stations. I could just see the news articles now:

"Unnecessary fatality occurs when metro rail abruptly puts stair cases in the middle of the city and unfortunate driver thought it was a tunnel. Local members lament "If only someone had put a sign and guard rail saying not to drive down the stair cases into the train stations, this never would have happened. Poor planning yet again by Metro"

I think our rail looks cool (yes I know style isn't everything), I agree some areas are a little interesting with the driving lanes basically t-boning the rail, but to me, some rail is better than no rail. If someone were to ask me, would you like the same system built on the Harrisburg line in the next 5 years or endless debates on raised versus subway versus street level, I'm pretty sure I'll take the same system. No system is perfect - NY's is flexible, but there are very few cross town trains. DC is a good example of there being a decent rail system that has good ridership, but no one is exactly giving up their cars either. If anything, people have used it there more for establishing new areas of growth, similar to what was supposed to happen here on Main street in Midtown when rail was completed.

[N Judah]

$300 million? I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than that. Also those are costs for *improvements* to say nothing of the original cost of building the system.

Generally speaking, my point is that if the anti-rail forces want to say that light rail is bad because it's taxpayer-funded and can't make a profit, then they're guilty of hypocrisy, pure and simple, because highways (their supposed solution) can't even meet their own criteria of profitability and absence of federal dollars.

I agree with the pro rail argument needing to avoid the concept of cost. Any kind of transporation system in general needs to avoid the concept of cost, because the point of mass transit is not to be profitable.

[Gary]

$300 million? I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than that.

That's what I thought. Didn't they just approve an additional 300million for the project.

[dbigtex56]

Think about it.  Over $200million was spent on 7 miles of rail.  A little over $300million will be spent on the Katy Freeway that is 23 miles long with improvements not only to main lanes, but a new median facility and expanded feeder roads.  The correlation is commonly used by anti-rail groups, but it is true. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Respectfully, are you sure of those figures? Perhaps I was mistaken, but I thought the cost of the Katy Freeway expansion was many times that of the construction of the first segment of the light rail system. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.

If someone has a reliable source handy (links preferred) for the total expenses of each of these projects, please post them. I know, I could probably spend a few hours researching it myself...

[N Judah]

As an aside to your aside, the Tokyo rail system is the most amazing, fascinating, clean, and efficient thing I've ever seen.  Instead of being run by a single government entity like METRO in Houston, or the MTA in New York or BART in San Francisco, there are dozens of private companies competing for your subway, elevated rail, surface rail, and bus service.  I can't imagine what it would be like if Houston had bus competition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the other hand, privatization wouldn't do anything for safety. If there's one thing we know about corporations, it's that they're good at de-prioritizing safety. So even completely minimizing the public cost, the anti-rail zealots will still find a reason to whine. Or will they? I mean, this has everything to do with safety and nothing to do with hating rail. Right?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journa...1482409,00.html

[HoustonMidtown]

Totally agree...This guy died because he was careless.  Same applies to people who fall down onto subway tracks.  I don't think the Metrorail is being called the "Laughing Stock" of the nation.  It's Lite-Rail, not the NJ Transit system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now the family of the driver wants Metro Rail to be shut down.....what if a train wasn't coming through the intersection when he ran the red light and hit another car - would they want to keep all people from driving then ? Im sorry the guy died, but jeez, he ran a red light - lucky he didnt kill someone else....time to take responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else...

Getting off soapbox...

[dbigtex56]

We shouldn't judge too harshly the things people say while in a state of shock and grief.

However, I feel just fine about judging the news media who exploit a family's loss to get some juicy sound bites, and who attempt to stir up a controversy where none exists. Yesterday, channel 13 reported the driver's death as happening "when his pickup got in the path of a Metro train".

Got in the path....? Gee, did the train make a wrong turn? or was he swept onto the tracks by a tornado? Or, as eyewitnesses and video cameras seem to indicate, did the damn fool run a red light at high speed?

Again, I feel very sorry for the family of the deceased. However, embarassment seems more in order than blame.

[bruce_oneal]

Now the family of the driver wants Metro Rail to be shut down.....what if a train wasn't coming through the intersection when he ran the red light and hit another car - would they want to keep all people from driving then ?  Im sorry the guy died, but jeez, he ran a red light - lucky he didnt kill someone else....time to take responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else...

Getting off soapbox...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, this leads back to the thoughts expressed earlier. we have some really bad drivers in this town that want to do whatever they want on the streets of houston. i am sorry the dude died too, but my gosh... he ran the red light. i am not sure about the braking system on these trains, but i know locomotives are not able to stop on a dime, and i doubt these trains are either.