What is your ideal transit plan for Houston?

[Slick Vik]

If it was up to me, I'd build out the current university line, except down westheimer which was the original plan, and also the uptown line. In addition, extend the southeast and east end lines to both meet at Hobby Airport, and then have one line from Hobby go down to Pearland. Also, a line down parallel to washington/memorial/allen parkway to connect to northwest transit center. Possibly further ROW could be used for BRT lines.

 

And then commuter extensions, I'd eliminate HOV lanes and put commuter rail lines there instead, similar to Chicago. Technically light rail could work there since it can go up to 65 mph. One down 45 from Woodlands to Galveston with major stops at Greenspoint and Downtown and extensions to Hobby airport and IAH, one from Katy into Houston on I-10 with a major stop at northwest transit center to pick up people coming from 290 line, then Sugar Land to Humble on 59, with an IAH connector and a major stop at Greenway plaza as well as Hillcroft transit center. Also one up 290 to Cypress. These lines could all end up at a major downtown intermodal center. In addition, a line starting at hillcroft transit center down westpark ROW until highway 6.

 

With both light rail in the city and out to the suburbs, I think the majority of residents would be satisfied, because even if coming into the city, residents would have a good way to get around the inner portion of the city as well. Also buses would feed into train stops, so people could get places from train stops. This does leave 249 high and dry though I'll admit.

 

Also would remove pierce elevated, 59 from 45 to 10, and 10 between 45 and 59, to help regenerate life in downtown. There are already good exits into downtown from 45 south, 45 north, 59 north, 59 south, 10 east, 10 west, and 288 north anyway.

 

This plan would make the northwest transit center, hillcroft transit center, IAH, Hobby, Galleria, Greenway Plaza, Galveston, Woodlands, Cypress, Pearland, Sugar Land, Humble, Katy, and Downtown major transit hubs.

 

Also, have the interstate bikeways built.

 

Probably will never happen, but we can all hope.

 

Thoughts?

[august948]

I'm going to assume this thread is for fantasy what-if's and that we're going to ignore fiscal and political issues.

 

In that case, I'd modify your plan to run rail on the loop, beltway, hwy 6 and grand parkway.  The reason I'd do that would be because not everyone needs or wants to go downtown, just as not all rush hour traffic now is just people going from the suburbs to downtown and back.  The city has developed multiple activity centers and we should link them in a way that allows for more direct travel.  I'd also keep the HOV lanes since most people are still not going to take the trains.  Maybe elevate the tracks to accomplish this.  I wouldn't eliminate any highways inside the loop, rather I'd expand them and put them below ground with a greenbelt above.

 

I have no idea what the interstate bikeway is, but if it has "bike" in the title, I'm for it.

[Slick Vik]

I'm going to assume this thread is for fantasy what-if's and that we're going to ignore fiscal and political issues.

In that case, I'd modify your plan to run rail on the loop, beltway, hwy 6 and grand parkway. The reason I'd do that would be because not everyone needs or wants to go downtown, just as not all rush hour traffic now is just people going from the suburbs to downtown and back. The city has developed multiple activity centers and we should link them in a way that allows for more direct travel. I'd also keep the HOV lanes since most people are still not going to take the trains. Maybe elevate the tracks to accomplish this. I wouldn't eliminate any highways inside the loop, rather I'd expand them and put them below ground with a greenbelt above.

I have no idea what the interstate bikeway is, but if it has "bike" in the title, I'm for it.

The reasons I picked those freeways is the HOV ROW is already there. But a loop rail would definitely help

[Ross]

Why do you think destroying major cross country freeways would help downtown? I-10 doesn't even run through Downtown. Your proposals don't even consider about the impacts on interstate commerce and people outside the area. We do not live in a vacuum. Don't you think rail lines through town would have the same effect as freeways? Heavy commuter rail, or light rail, for large numbers of people take up a lot of space. That's one reason London doesn't have any cross town rail lines, requiring a transfer to the crowded Underground lines to get to another terminus.

 

I like Houston the way it is, thank you.

[mfastx]

Developing a great transit system would be very hard in a city like Houston, when people have little incentive to get out of their cars.  But to increase transit ridership, rail needs to be fast so that it can somewhat compete with cars. 

 

Honestly I'd probably replace the east end and southeast lines with BRT.  I would have only two or three rail lines, and they would be heavy rail (similar to DC's system) rather than light rail.  This is due to heavy rail's much higher speeds and ridership, and ability to cover long distances quickly (which is important in Houston) as opposed to light rail.  I'd connect both airports to downtown, and have a line from downtown to uptown going through Greenway plaza.  Perhaps all the way out to the beltway parallel to Westheimer, or underneath Westheimer.  This would be completely grade separated, submerged in downtown/uptown and elevated elsewhere.  With heavy rail, trips to the airport and Galleria would be very quick, so that even if you are transferring from a bus, travel times would be minimized.  Westheimer has the potential to be a very high ridership corridor.  Not sure about the TMC connection.  Maybe a stub would go out to reliant center through TMC.  Now this would probably cost upwards of $5 billion and many would see it as a "boondoggle," but considering that the infrastructure will last us well over a century and the money we would save by building it now rather than later, it's a pretty damn good deal. 

 

I think our P&R buses are fine as is, although they were very expensive to build and carry relatively little ridership, many suburban commuters use them so many people benefit.  That is one of the good aspects of our transit system. 

 

For local bus routes, I'd have many more crosstown routes and routes that tie into the rail lines.  As I said before, bus to light rail connections would take long due to slower speeds of light rail, but heavy rail would be more efficient in carrying more riders, and much faster too. 

 

Light rail is interesting because I don't really see many corridors that would be ideal for light rail in Houston, but Washington Ave. comes to mind. 

 

Light rail or not, the system I propose would undoubtedly carry many more commuters than the one we currently have in place.  It's too bad we're on such a limited budget, or else METRO would have most likely built something similar to what I've proposed. 

 

EDIT: I guess I'll amend my plan to include more heavy rail extending into the suburbs.  I'm just not sure if it's worth it to do that, as most suburban commuters are likely to use a car anyway.  But if they are going to get started using public transit, the system would have to be fast (top speeds of 80 mph), reliable, and go right to their destination.  Dallas is trying to do something similar to this, but they are using light rail instead.  That's much slower and more expensive per passenger, and it's less likely to get people out of their cars.  The reason my solution focuses more on the inner city is because that's where the potential transit riders are, more so than the suburbs.

[Slick Vik]

Why do you think destroying major cross country freeways would help downtown? I-10 doesn't even run through Downtown. Your proposals don't even consider about the impacts on interstate commerce and people outside the area. We do not live in a vacuum. Don't you think rail lines through town would have the same effect as freeways? Heavy commuter rail, or light rail, for large numbers of people take up a lot of space. That's one reason London doesn't have any cross town rail lines, requiring a transfer to the crowded Underground lines to get to another terminus.

I like Houston the way it is, thank you.

That last statement could be interpreted inane ways

In many ways

[Slick Vik]

Developing a great transit system would be very hard in a city like Houston, when people have little incentive to get out of their cars. But to increase transit ridership, rail needs to be fast so that it can somewhat compete with cars.

Honestly I'd probably replace the east end and southeast lines with BRT. I would have only two or three rail lines, and they would be heavy rail (similar to DC's system) rather than light rail. This is due to heavy rail's much higher speeds and ridership, and ability to cover long distances quickly (which is important in Houston) as opposed to light rail. I'd connect both airports to downtown, and have a line from downtown to uptown going through Greenway plaza. Perhaps all the way out to the beltway parallel to Westheimer, or underneath Westheimer. This would be completely grade separated, submerged in downtown/uptown and elevated elsewhere. With heavy rail, trips to the airport and Galleria would be very quick, so that even if you are transferring from a bus, travel times would be minimized. Westheimer has the potential to be a very high ridership corridor. Not sure about the TMC connection. Maybe a stub would go out to reliant center through TMC. Now this would probably cost upwards of $5 billion and many would see it as a "boondoggle," but considering that the infrastructure will last us well over a century and the money we would save by building it now rather than later, it's a pretty damn good deal.

I think our P&R buses are fine as is, although they were very expensive to build and carry relatively little ridership, many suburban commuters use them so many people benefit. That is one of the good aspects of our transit system.

For local bus routes, I'd have many more crosstown routes and routes that tie into the rail lines. As I said before, bus to light rail connections would take long due to slower speeds of light rail, but heavy rail would be more efficient in carrying more riders, and much faster too.

Light rail is interesting because I don't really see many corridors that would be ideal for light rail in Houston, but Washington Ave. comes to mind.

Light rail or not, the system I propose would undoubtedly carry many more commuters than the one we currently have in place. It's too bad we're on such a limited budget, or else METRO would have most likely built something similar to what I've proposed.

EDIT: I guess I'll amend my plan to include more heavy rail extending into the suburbs. I'm just not sure if it's worth it to do that, as most suburban commuters are likely to use a car anyway. But if they are going to get started using public transit, the system would have to be fast (top speeds of 80 mph), reliable, and go right to their destination. Dallas is trying to do something similar to this, but they are using light rail instead. That's much slower and more expensive per passenger, and it's less likely to get people out of their cars. The reason my solution focuses more on the inner city is because that's where the potential transit riders are, more so than the suburbs.

I think light rail could go up to 65 mph

[mfastx]

I think light rail could go up to 65 mph

 

Certain types of light rail, yes, but overall it's still much slower and carries far less people than heavy rail. 

 

Light rail is perfect for shorter lines within a city that already has many destinations along the route.  Such as the current Red Line.  That literally is one of the most perfect placements of light rail in the country. 

[august948]

The reasons I picked those freeways is the HOV ROW is already there. But a loop rail would definitely help

The reason I would keep the HOV is that personal vehicles are still going to be the dominant means of transport, but in a not-so-fantasy world they will be mostly hybrid or electric. Except for me, of course, I'll be in a '67 Camaro.

[Slick Vik]

The reason I would keep the HOV is that personal vehicles are still going to be the dominant means of transport, but in a not-so-fantasy world they will be mostly hybrid or electric. Except for me, of course, I'll be in a '67 Camaro.

That's what the rest of the lanes are. HOV lanes are self admittedly heavily underutilized.

[august948]

That's what the rest of the lanes are. HOV lanes are self admittedly heavily underutilized.

If they really are underutilized then we can relax the HOV requirements, maybe allowing certain types of single passenger cars, like EV's, to encourage their use.

[mfastx]

HOV's should stay.  They are well utilized and now that they are tolls they are even better. 

 

Oh, and that would be really cool if we could put our freeways underground, 45 is a good candidate for that. 

[livincinco]

HOV's should stay. They are well utilized and now that they are tolls they are even better.

Texas A&M proposed not to long ago that a much better utilization of HOV lanes would be to make them truck only lanes instead of HOV. Isolating trucks would have a huge benefit for everyone.

[urban909]

I think a lot of people have hit on what I would consider an "ideal" transit system for Houston; dedicated BRT/busways (I always have been a fan of the trolleybus), inner-city light rail tied into a commuter rail system that hit some of the outer suburbs/economic areas (i.e. Katy, The Woodlands, etc) along with HOV lanes, etc. I would also like to throw in dedicated (and seperated bike lanes) not only from a safety standpoint, but from an business economic stimulator. Along with streetcars in dedicated areas that tie into the larger system light rail/commuter rail/bus system (East End, Washington/Montrose areas); this as a "people accelerator" or "last mile" solution/business economic stimulator. Also would be ideal to have car sharing programs around major economic/employment/residential areas.

[Montrose1100]

I doodled this up today, this is my heavy rail plan, obviously buyin the summit and turning it into a Central Station.

[Slick Vik]

I doodled this up today, this is my heavy rail plan, obviously buyin the summit and turning it into a Central Station.

 

Cool. Would have to get it from Lakewood Church who now is there though.

 

I'll say it once I'll say it again. Our public transportation is in the stone age compared to other cities our size. LAOS is building a high speed rail. In our own country, Denver, Seattle, Orlando, Salt Lake City, New York City, Charlotte, San Jose, Phoenix, Detroit, Sacramento, Washington DC, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Portland, Albuqurque, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Philadelphia are expanding rail operations. At some point you have to think, if EVERYONE is seeing something in this rail thing, there must be something to it. The stubborn nature of people in this town when it comes to mass transit is unbearable and quite frankly sad.

[livincinco]

I think that this is where I got on this merry go round. Please feel free to reference any of the half dozen threads that we have already covered this topic on if you have any questions.

[Slick Vik]

I think that this is where I got on this merry go round. Please feel free to reference any of the half dozen threads that we have already covered this topic on if you have any questions.

Feel free to reference the transit plans of say every major city in North America if not the world. I have the world on my side.

[mfastx]

Montrose 1100, that's a very interesting plan.  I like how you have the main transfer point in Greenway Plaza, not many people would think to put it there but it is very central as most of the pop is west of downtown.  I like it.

[livincinco]

Feel free to reference the transit plans of say every major city in North America if not the world. I have the world on my side.

Yep. All those cities have suburbs. They must be right about that too.

[Montrose1100]

Montrose 1100, that's a very interesting plan. I like how you have the main transfer point in Greenway Plaza, not many people would think to put it there but it is very central as most of the pop is west of downtown. I like it.

Well I printed out a Google map of Houston and Greenway Plaza just worked better as a central hub then downtown.

[Naviguessor]

Montrose 1100, very impressed by your concept. Greenway does make a very logical hub. Not the bigges business center, but perhaps the most central. Like to see more of your doodles. Extra marks for repurposing Lakewood's Religatorium.

[crunchtastic]

Interesting that everyone's solutions are automatically all (assuming so) public or majority publicly funded capital projects. Perhaps my answer doesn't fit within the definition of "mass transit," but I would propose the addition of a smaller-scale, private option. Open up the market to short-hop jitney companies to service people on the street grid within the mass transit routes. Seems like there's  plenty of middle ground  to be served that's not bus/rail, biking/walking and private cars. Metro and the taxi cartel can learn to share.    

[livincinco]

Interesting that everyone's solutions are automatically all (assuming so) public or majority publicly funded capital projects.

Sure, it's fun and easy to design transit plans when you don't have to worry about economic and demographic realities.

[Slick Vik]

Sure, it's fun and easy to design transit plans when you don't have to worry about economic and demographic realities.

More like political hypocrisy

[mfastx]

Interesting that everyone's solutions are automatically all (assuming so) public or majority publicly funded capital projects. Perhaps my answer doesn't fit within the definition of "mass transit," but I would propose the addition of a smaller-scale, private option. Open up the market to short-hop jitney companies to service people on the street grid within the mass transit routes. Seems like there's  plenty of middle ground  to be served that's not bus/rail, biking/walking and private cars. Metro and the taxi cartel can learn to share.    

 

I'm pretty sure the market is open to things like that.  The problem is that it just doesn't make money.  There are already private shuttle companies and such from hotels etc. 

[crunchtastic]

Sure, it's fun and easy to design transit plans when you don't have to worry about economic and demographic realities.

 

 Demographic reality?  Houston's population in the core absolutely lends itself to  private, circulating  minibus. 

As an addition to funded transit. 

[livincinco]

More like political hypocrisy

And that, in a nutshell, is why no one takes you seriously. Unwillingness to acknowledge the real world. I do give you credit for being entertaining though.

[livincinco]

Demographic reality? Houston's population in the core absolutely lends itself to private, circulating minibus.

As an addition to funded transit.

Crunch - that wasn't meant as a critique of your plan, it was meant to support your observation that most of the plans required assumptions of private funding. I agree that a private bus service makes sense in key areas, something along the lines of the Washington Wave service.

Does anyone know whether the downtown service has been successful?

[Slick Vik]

And that, in a nutshell, is why no one takes you seriously. Unwillingness to acknowledge the real world. I do give you credit for being entertaining though.

Look at the percentage of funds txdot spends on rail against roads