Just ELEVATE the rails already!

[Jrnavid]

I am sick and tired of seen these bad Metro decisions with light rail. No matter how well you put it, we are VERY behind in mass transit for a city our size. Now that the NEW Metro is here, I want to see CEO Grennias (spelling) do something extraordinary. I know at grade level rails are good for some networks in our city, but when you consider the traffic surrounding the University Line, for example, at grade rails would worsen the traffic situation.

Elevated trains would travel faster without stopping at red lights, erase the car-train accidents, and get people where they need to go faster. Even when flooding occurs, elevated trains would be operable. Last month at the Metro Board meeting, some citizens commented on the need to elevate the rails. For intra-city transit, it would be perfect. For commuter rail, elevated could work but would be much more expensive, so those lines would stay at ground level. Our trains dont make as much noise as say the EL trains in Chicago, so noise pollution would not be a problem.

If we would elevate the light rails, im not sure if they would still be called light rails, or if we would make a hybrid of light rail in the air, we would be able to provide service all the way out to the Beltway and not have these toy trains be toys anymore. We could have people moved from one corner of the Beltway to the other, without having to deal with red lights or other ground level problems. Besides, Houston is suppose to, and still is, the Space city, we need to add an element to the city that would bring that back! Elevate the rails!

[ricco67]

You're pretty much preaching to the choir, the main problem is that there isn't much of a political backbone to accomplish that.

There are people that range of not wanting elevated because "it's ugly", it costs too much for the ridership expected, or people that oppose it simply because they don't want "a bad element" to have access to them.

Then there is the fact that METRO doesn't even keep it's entire 1% tax that is divided up to non-METRO related items, so that acts as a leash for its budget.

Let's not forget that obstacles that Delay and Culberson put in metro's way as well. Greanias (proper spelling) just needs to grow a pair and try to brush (or blow up) the idiot laws/regulation that Delay put into action and take some proper leadership in the matter.

[Subdude]

I think elevated rail is a rotten idea. The cost is enormous, and the entire area underneath elevated rail lines would become a giant dead zone. Is it really worth the cost to avoid occasional flooding? I think no.

[TheNiche]

I think elevated rail is a rotten idea. The cost is enormous, and the entire area underneath elevated rail lines would become a giant dead zone. Is it really worth the cost to avoid occasional flooding? I think no.

Let's be fair to the OP.

He did not say that all rails should be elevated everywhere. Right off the bat, he conceded that some parts of the system are better at-grade. He specifically referenced the University Line, where in fact traffic counts crossing Richmond are extremely high and signal prioritization will disrupt mobility rather than enhance it. (IMO, even a half-dozen grade separations at crucial intersections would be of tremendous benefit.)

I think that it is dishonest of you to reject his suggestion wholly on the basis of cost vs. flood control. Flood control was the last and weakest of a littany of good reasons to elevate the line. Why cherry pick like that?

[Jrnavid]

Let's be fair to the OP.

He did not say that all rails should be elevated everywhere. Right off the bat, he conceded that some parts of the system are better at-grade. He specifically referenced the University Line, where in fact traffic counts crossing Richmond are extremely high and signal prioritization will disrupt mobility rather than enhance it. (IMO, even a half-dozen grade separations at crucial intersections would be of tremendous benefit.)

I think that it is dishonest of you to reject his suggestion wholly on the basis of cost vs. flood control. Flood control was the last and weakest of a littany of good reasons to elevate the line. Why cherry pick like that?

Yes, I said some lines because, and a great example, the East End lines are perfect at grade. The traffic around those areas are not as horrible as say, the Uptown Line on Post Oak. Imagine a rail in the middle of Post Oak!? That would be a traffic nightmare! Another trouble spot would be around the University of Houston, where the traffic congestion can get bad in the morning and evening hours.

At grade lines are PERFECT for some areas, like residential and low density areas as where the East End line is located, But to try and use the same system tactic for the Uptown line, where lets say, the density of almost 5 times more than the Third Ward, is not smart. Instead of innovating the traffic problem towards relief, it would make more gridlock and time lost.

This problem of trying to use this One Size Fits All concept Metro has been trying to implement must be stopped. I hope the new CEO has a more open mind to using different types of rail for the area in which your trying to relive.

[Fringe]

Monorails! We could be the "city of the future". Wait. I think I heard that before, about 50 years ago. Face it. Local government doesn't think more than 5 years ahead and that's stretching it.

[ricco67]

You're pretty much preaching to the choir, the main problem is that there isn't much of a political backbone to accomplish that.

There are people that range of not wanting elevated because "it's ugly", it costs too much for the ridership expected, or people that oppose it simply because they don't want "a bad element" to have access to them.

I think elevated rail is a rotten idea. The cost is enormous, and the entire area underneath elevated rail lines would become a giant dead zone. Is it really worth the cost to avoid occasional flooding? I think no.

What did I tell you?

[Jrnavid]

What did I tell you?

lol yes exactly what you said. But I could care less. Im actually studying for Urban Planning and Development and its about time someone stepped up and stopped these companies and officials that think they can stop the real citizens' requests to relieve traffic. Just to feed their own interests and the interests of the rich and others that wont EVER use the lines. Im actually glad that the new Metro CEO makes the board members ride the Metro at least once a week.

Besides, we can paint the concrete blue or any other color and make concrete designs if they think theyre ugly. The main thing here is to RELIEVE TRAFFIC, not to please the eye, which one way we will try. I dont think its healthy to also build ugly looking elevated anything, so we can use metals or other recycle material to make it more eye pleasing

[editor]

As a point of interest, elevating the rails doesn't necessarily prevent accidents. In Chicago, overheight box trucks regularly get their roofs ripped off going under the L. The problem there is the same as in Houston: Ignorant drivers who think that warning signs don't apply to them.

People are also killed in the neighborhoods when drunk or speeding or both and they slam into the track supports.

Houston's soft soil would seem to make underground rail a more appealing and easier option than elevated rail. And it's not like Houston hasn't built transportation tunnels before.

Of course, the ultimate solution, and the only one that makes sense is the teleport. It's 2011 already. Where's my teleporter?

[editor]

Besides, we can paint the concrete blue or any other color and make concrete designs if they think theyre ugly. The main thing here is to RELIEVE TRAFFIC, not to please the eye, which one way we will try. I dont think its healthy to also build ugly looking elevated anything, so we can use metals or other recycle material to make it more eye pleasing

Or people could just stop staring at it. It's not like they can't turn their head slightly to the left or right and look at something else.

Either way, an elevated rail line would be FAR from the ugliest thing ever constructed in Houston.

[Jrnavid]

As a point of interest, elevating the rails doesn't necessarily prevent accidents. In Chicago, overheight box trucks regularly get their roofs ripped off going under the L. The problem there is the same as in Houston: Ignorant drivers who think that warning signs don't apply to them.

People are also killed in the neighborhoods when drunk or speeding or both and they slam into the track supports.

Houston's soft soil would seem to make underground rail a more appealing and easier option than elevated rail. And it's not like Houston hasn't built transportation tunnels before.

It does make sense to build underground since we wouldn't have to blast through any rock, but you know how critics would take that. Blasting through rock costs more, and we dont have to do it, hence he wouldn't have to pay for blasting. Heavy machinery is what we would pay for.

Either way, we need to do something, whether it be elevated or underground to fix this traffic nightmare we all go through daily! These government officials need to stop worrying about their personal agendas (DeLay) and think about the entire Houston metro area and how the ENTIRE region would benefit from rapid transit solutions. We have a great start with the planned rails, but like I said before, some need to be left at grade, while others MUST be either elevated or underground. You cant fix an area and plan to decrease traffic if youre just going to block quick access to vehicles on the street. If we cant somehow come up with a solution to fix these problems, then we aren't very good urban planners.

[Ross]

As a point of interest, elevating the rails doesn't necessarily prevent accidents. In Chicago, overheight box trucks regularly get their roofs ripped off going under the L. The problem there is the same as in Houston: Ignorant drivers who think that warning signs don't apply to them.

People are also killed in the neighborhoods when drunk or speeding or both and they slam into the track supports.

Houston's soft soil would seem to make underground rail a more appealing and easier option than elevated rail. And it's not like Houston hasn't built transportation tunnels before.

Of course, the ultimate solution, and the only one that makes sense is the teleport. It's 2011 already. Where's my teleporter?

If only we didn't have that pesky heavy rain and high water table...

[samagon]

If only we didn't have that pesky heavy rain and high water table...

London seems to manage it pretty well, as does Amsterdam.

Regardless, there are ingredients that can be used in concrete that make it impervious to water. Basically as water begins to soak into the concrete, this material expands and closes the pours.

Anyway, water table, rain, and soil content aren't good arguments. Technology has answers.

[citykid09]

I always said that Houston needed at least a light metro system as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-capacity_rail_transport_system

[editor]

If only we didn't have that pesky heavy rain and high water table...

Doesn't seem to be a problem for the Amsterdam subway system, which is entirely below sea level.

Or for Houston's own Washburn Tunnel. Or the old Texas City tunnel (RIP).

The whole cliché about "Houston can't have a subway because of rain/Gulf/hurricanes/ZOMG!" was debunked years ago.

[GovernorAggie]

Doesn't seem to be a problem for the Amsterdam subway system, which is entirely below sea level.

Or for Houston's own Washburn Tunnel. Or the old Texas City tunnel (RIP).

The whole cliché about "Houston can't have a subway because of rain/Gulf/hurricanes/ZOMG!" was debunked years ago.

Agreed. Debunked with less technology available even. What's funny is that sometimes our modern freeways lie underwater while the age-old Washburn sits dry, lol. Then there's the tunnel in Kuala Lumpur that serves as a tollway AND a flood relief culvert when necessary. http://www.smarttunnel.com.my/

Silly Malaysians. We smart Houstonians of 2011 could've told them that would never work and would be more trouble than it's worth. Oh wait...

Count me in with the OP's view. While I've given up on elevating the rail lines as currently planned, I do believe that the new policy needs to be that no lines cross intersections over xx,000 car per day intersections, at a minimum. In fact, I would argue that the lines should be planned starting with the most optimal option (underground) and then back away from that in order to meet whatever Federal requirements exist.

[mfastx]

Most people will agree that grade-seperated rail is FAR suprior to a street running light rail. However, in the past there were numerous proposals for grade seperated light rail, and even one for grade seperated heavy rail. However, those were all shot down by voter primarily due to cost. The only reason we have a chance at building these light rails is beause they are at grade and cheaper. I would love for us to just scrap this current project and build something better, but doing that will set Houston back another 20 years.

I'd rather just build what we have planned now. Hopefully people will start to see the benefit of public transportation and will be willing to vote for more expensive (grade-seperated) proposals in the future.

[TheNiche]

Most people will agree that grade-seperated rail is FAR suprior to a street running light rail. However, in the past there were numerous proposals for grade seperated light rail, and even one for grade seperated heavy rail. However, those were all shot down by voter primarily due to cost. The only reason we have a chance at building these light rails is beause they are at grade and cheaper. I would love for us to just scrap this current project and build something better, but doing that will set Houston back another 20 years.

I'd rather just build what we have planned now. Hopefully people will start to see the benefit of public transportation and will be willing to vote for more expensive (grade-seperated) proposals in the future.

Let's not forget that the METRO Solutions referendum only passed by a 2% margin and bundled light rail together with other projects (such as HOV/P&R routes popular with suburban and exurban commuters in METRO's service area). It was sold to the public on a more immediate time frame, provided a much more forgiving budget, entailing a different physical configuration, and using the Red Line's ridership and relatively low impact on traffic as an implicit (but very flawed) indicator of future ridership and relative low impact along different routes.

Most of what was sold to the public was not codified in the referendum. In fact, the referendum was very forgiving to METRO and (obviously) did not provide specific assurances of physical configuration or cost. METRO would be within its rights at present to wait another year to shore up funding and then add a number of grade separations.

Implemented improperly, even under improved leadership, I think that METRO's past blunders and congestion induced by at-grade configurations of the University and Uptown lines may sour voters on 'Phase Three' proposals and that METRO needs to be mindful of that eventual future.

[VelvetJ]

Let's not forget that the METRO Solutions referendum only passed by a 2% margin and bundled light rail together with other projects (such as HOV/P&R routes popular with suburban and exurban commuters in METRO's service area). It was sold to the public on a more immediate time frame, provided a much more forgiving budget, entailing a different physical configuration, and using the Red Line's ridership and relatively low impact on traffic as an implicit (but very flawed) indicator of future ridership and relative low impact along different routes.

Most of what was sold to the public was not codified in the referendum. In fact, the referendum was very forgiving to METRO and (obviously) did not provide specific assurances of physical configuration or cost. METRO would be within its rights at present to wait another year to shore up funding and then add a number of grade separations.

Implemented improperly, even under improved leadership, I think that METRO's past blunders and congestion induced by at-grade configurations of the University and Uptown lines may sour voters on 'Phase Three' proposals and that METRO needs to be mindful of that eventual future.

So TheNiche, considering the climate at the time of the referendum, is it your opinion that if METRO would have just been "up-front" with regard to cost, etc., with the public, it would have passed? I've observed that practically anything with a large dollar amount attached to it in Houston, with the exception of Freeways, is met with vocal organized opposition to the point of Houstonians blindly voting against it or it is scaled back to the point of simple basic functionality. What is best for the city or what makes the most sense for the city more times than not, seem to take a back seat to how cheaply something can be done. That's why I ask you if a larger dollar amount revealed by METRO would have helped or hindered the passage of the referendum.

I believe incompetence has been a factor in the past for some of the things METRO has done, but I have not forgotten the INCREDIBLE and POWERFUL opposition METRO has faced over the years and how that could have influenced some of the bad decisions they have made.

[samagon]

I'd rather just build what we have planned now. Hopefully people will start to see the benefit of public transportation and will be willing to vote for more expensive (grade-seperated) proposals in the future.

Agreed. Getting Houston to vote for more than we have now is not going to happen.

If what we get now is successful, there may be a chance for grade separation.

[Jrnavid]

Agreed. Getting Houston to vote for more than we have now is not going to happen.

If what we get now is successful, there may be a chance for grade separation.

Yes, elevated rail would be good, but the MOST important issue is that any rails, whether theyre light or heavy rails, the must be at grade separation. A transit system for the size of our city CANNOT keep playing with cars and pedestrians and causing danger.

Grade separation is so important to also maintain travel times at the fastest. This way traffic on roads is not interrupted and everyone is happy because theyre getting to places on time and not having to wait for the traffic light to turn green or red.

[RedScare]

Your solution is far too simplistic. While grade separation is advisable in some places...and in fact is planned in some of the expansion lines...it is not necessary throughout the entire system.

[Jrnavid]

Your solution is far too simplistic. While grade separation is advisable in some places...and in fact is planned in some of the expansion lines...it is not necessary throughout the entire system.

Whats wrong with it being so simplistic. So many people try to make such complicated ways to fix things when the solutions are right in front of them.

Besides, if you read the beginning of the thread, I specifically said that elevated rails were needed on SOME of the proposed lines, not all. It would be pointless to elevate the East End line, there isnt enough traffic that would be disrupted by passing trains.

[ricco67]

Whats wrong with it being so simplistic. So many people try to make such complicated ways to fix things when the solutions are right in front of them.

Besides, if you read the beginning of the thread, I specifically said that elevated rails were needed on SOME of the proposed lines, not all. It would be pointless to elevate the East End line, there isnt enough traffic that would be disrupted by passing trains.

You haven't been down Harrisburg as of late, It's far busier now than when I lived in the area in the last 20+yrs ago. I was visiting an old friend when I was amazed how busy it can be during the middle of the day.

[RedScare]

Whats wrong with it being so simplistic. So many people try to make such complicated ways to fix things when the solutions are right in front of them.

Besides, if you read the beginning of the thread, I specifically said that elevated rails were needed on SOME of the proposed lines, not all. It would be pointless to elevate the East End line, there isnt enough traffic that would be disrupted by passing trains.

Well. if only some places should be elevated, and METRO already plans some elevated portions, what is the point of the angry post?

[editor]

Yes, elevated rail would be good, but the MOST important issue is that any rails, whether theyre light or heavy rails, the must be at grade separation. A transit system for the size of our city CANNOT keep playing with cars and pedestrians and causing danger.

Why? There are plenty of cities the size of Houston and even larger that have at-grade rail. Are pedestrians in Houston extra-stupid and try to lick the train as it passes? I thought only SUV drivers did that.

And since the notion of "heavy rail" (commuter rail) keeps coming up here, I was recently surprised to learn that Minneapolis has commuter rail. This is a city with less than 1/10th of Houston's population. And even Seattle (1/7th Houston's population) has commuter rail.

I wonder what other small cities have commuter rail that for some reason people think Houston isn't large enough to support.

[citykid09]

Sounds like the new lines will be like roller-coasters, going up over an intersection and then down and then up again over the next intersection and so on. I would like to see what these elevated intersections are going to look? The picture I have in my head is a very tacky/cheap system. Invest in your future Houston! Imagine if the heavy rail system that was proposed in the 80s/90s? would have been built, Houston would be worrying about other things such as commuter rail, or a light right loop connecting suburbs.......Who knows.

[Jrnavid]

Well. if only some places should be elevated, and METRO already plans some elevated portions, what is the point of the angry post?

What parts are elevated? The University Line over the Southwest Freeway? Thats not what I meant by elevating. Besides, I think I have the right to get angry since Im stuck in the Southwest Parking Lot everyday, and just to think we could have avoided the parking lot of freeways we have now around this town if we could have just passed the heavy rail in the 80s

[Jrnavid]

Why? There are plenty of cities the size of Houston and even larger that have at-grade rail. Are pedestrians in Houston extra-stupid and try to lick the train as it passes? I thought only SUV drivers did that.

And since the notion of "heavy rail" (commuter rail) keeps coming up here, I was recently surprised to learn that Minneapolis has commuter rail. This is a city with less than 1/10th of Houston's population. And even Seattle (1/7th Houston's population) has commuter rail.

I wonder what other small cities have commuter rail that for some reason people think Houston isn't large enough to support.

Well thinking about how that car slammed into the pedestrian and shoved him UNDER THE TRAIN today, I think I have more reason to raise the rails.

[Jrnavid]

You haven't been down Harrisburg as of late, It's far busier now than when I lived in the area in the last 20+yrs ago. I was visiting an old friend when I was amazed how busy it can be during the middle of the day.

Really?! I actually thought that was a quiet line. Well the lines the run through UH are also very traffic prone. I guess we only have the Red Line at grade lol