What is your ideal transit plan for Houston?

[Ross]

I'm always amazed when people who don't want to use transit, for whatever reason, want passionately to engage in dialog about it.

I've used transit in other cities, particularly London. It gets people where they need to go, but during peak times, it's crowded, smelly, and very uncomfortable. If you have to stand for an hour in a crowded train car, it's really no better than driving, and no less stressful. I'm tired of hearing transit proponents prattle on about how great it is, when the reality is generally far different.

 

Why would you be amazed that non-proponents of transit want to engage in dialog about it? All of your grandiose plans involve our money as well, and we don't think spending bilions on poorly designed and implemented plans is a good idea, especially when there is an undercurrent of doing nothing to improve roadways that will continue to provide the bulk of our overall transit capability.

[gmac]

We engage in this dialog, David, because you want to spend our money in ways we don't necessarily agree with.

[Naviguessor]

But, others do. 

[David Crossley]

I've used transit in other cities, particularly London. It gets people where they need to go, but during peak times, it's crowded, smelly, and very uncomfortable. If you have to stand for an hour in a crowded train car, it's really no better than driving, and no less stressful. I'm tired of hearing transit proponents prattle on about how great it is, when the reality is generally far different.

 

Why would you be amazed that non-proponents of transit want to engage in dialog about it? All of your grandiose plans involve our money as well, and we don't think spending bilions on poorly designed and implemented plans is a good idea, especially when there is an undercurrent of doing nothing to improve roadways that will continue to provide the bulk of our overall transit capability.

It's the comments about how nasty it is to be in close contact with other humans as the reason not to ride transit that misses the point that too many people want to use transit so it's crowded. It's a Yogi Berra thing. Obviously, it would be more comfortable if there was more of it, but as long as people are arguing against transit and for diverting money to poorly conceived road projects that do no one any good, there won't be more and better transit.

 

The plan I'm arguing for is almost out of desperation, realizing that there isn't going to be any money for perfect transit and that many people who argue passionately for transit technology have insufficient basis in understanding the system or even where the people are.

[Slick Vik]

I've used transit in other cities, particularly London. It gets people where they need to go, but during peak times, it's crowded, smelly, and very uncomfortable. If you have to stand for an hour in a crowded train car, it's really no better than driving, and no less stressful. I'm tired of hearing transit proponents prattle on about how great it is, when the reality is generally far different.

 

Why would you be amazed that non-proponents of transit want to engage in dialog about it? All of your grandiose plans involve our money as well, and we don't think spending bilions on poorly designed and implemented plans is a good idea, especially when there is an undercurrent of doing nothing to improve roadways that will continue to provide the bulk of our overall transit capability.

 

So have I, and usually whatever time you spend on the subway is a lot less than you would spend in your car, and a lot cheaper than gas and parking too.

 

All of the absurd highway expansion plans involved our money too and not everyone agreed with them.

[IronTiger]

It's the comments about how nasty it is to be in close contact with other humans as the reason not to ride transit that misses the point that too many people want to use transit so it's crowded. It's a Yogi Berra thing. Obviously, it would be more comfortable if there was more of it, but as long as people are arguing against transit and for diverting money to poorly conceived road projects that do no one any good, there won't be more and better transit.

The plan I'm arguing for is almost out of desperation, realizing that there isn't going to be any money for perfect transit and that many people who argue passionately for transit technology have insufficient basis in understanding the system or even where the people are.

The current transportation system is rather congested, but not "desperate" enough to build some elaborate, reactionary, and extremely expensive mass transit (of course, we are imagining things here). The rhetoric of how highways create sprawl (also: the bypass in College Station, Texas, my hometown, did not develop much of anything for years, and most of the commerce is still along the business route), how anyone wanting to expand highways or limit light rail growth in areas is either some backwards loser or the Antichrist, and a lack of subtlety of how anyone who's driving ought to be riding mass transit, whether they like it or not.

[Slick Vik]

The current transportation system is rather congested, but not "desperate" enough to build some elaborate, reactionary, and extremely expensive mass transit (of course, we are imagining things here). The rhetoric of how highways create sprawl (also: the bypass in College Station, Texas, my hometown, did not develop much of anything for years, and most of the commerce is still along the business route), how anyone wanting to expand highways or limit light rail growth in areas is either some backwards loser or the Antichrist, and a lack of subtlety of how anyone who's driving ought to be riding mass transit, whether they like it or not.

 

It's congested, and the situation will be desparate. Would you rather wait or build now? ROW only gets more expensive over time.

 

College Station should be used in comparison to Waco or Beaumont, not Houston.

[IronTiger]

It's congested, and the situation will be desparate. Would you rather wait or build now? ROW only gets more expensive over time.

ROW should be acquired, but we don't have to build it yet. Remember, TxDOT owns ROW for TX-35 to go to Loop 610 and beyond, but it's not built (if ever).

College Station should be used in comparison to Waco or Beaumont, not Houston.

Both have been growing since the 1980s. College Station isn't the best litmus test in comparing to Houston, but it's more similar then say, Europe.

[Slick Vik]

ROW should be acquired, but we don't have to build it yet. Remember, TxDOT owns ROW for TX-35 to go to Loop 610 and beyond, but it's not built (if ever).

Both have been growing since the 1980s. College Station isn't the best litmus test in comparing to Houston, but it's more similar then say, Europe.

 

Good luck buying ROW from businesses on Richmond

[cloud713]

Finally thought up something a little more creative than just rail down wide roads.. This would have flyover ramps from Allen parkway, across shepherd, over to memorial, which would be widened a few lanes in this section, west to crest wood dr, before branching off south, around the southern edge of memorial park, to run into most likely the other side of 610 across from uptown park blvd, or get creative and possibly buy out or relocate a few things and connect into Post Oak (the dashed line).. I wish they didn't dead end post oak the way they did...

[cloud713]

ignore everything except the black, orange, and blue. im not finished with the other modes of transport yet and this is only a small part of a much bigger map. haha, the black is of course highways, the light blue is light rail, and orange is subway. 

i would run subway lines through downtown as express routes with less stops, and turn the light rail on the surface above into streetcars that can drop you off much closer to wherever youre trying to go.
have the Post Oak line also be a subway through the uptown portion, before having the option to either split off onto the surface streets down 610 to the Northwest Transit Center, or continue on underground below the south side of Memorial park, (along a similar route as my Post Oak road extension to Memorial Dr above) before going east under Memorial Dr/Allen Parkway before running into the submerged East End/Southeast subway line that ends just west of the theater district. so there would be a direct completely submerged route that goes through all of uptown and downtown, with no transfers. it would be the ultimate commuter service between uptown and downtown, instead of sitting through the miserable traffic on 59, or taking the much slower University Line light rail that would probably take around 45 minutes, including the two transfers from the Post Oak line and the Main St line. you could get from uptown to downtown in less than 10 minutes since i dont see the need for many stops in between 610 and 45 except two. a transfer point if people want to go south on the Kirby line, near Shepherd, and a stop at Montrose.

i know people gawk at the idea of subways in Houston, but ive heard of some subway lines around the world being built for around the same cost per mile as the Katy Freeway expansion. uptown to downtown is less than 5 miles apart, so your looking at around 6 miles to cover the full length of uptown and downtown and in between. maybe a billion dollars? weve already spent around 3 billion on our 23 miles of light rail.. is subway really that much more/that radical?

[Ross]

I'm curious as to why you think we can build subways for the same price as countries where the average income is much smaller than it is here. Wouldn't comparisons to other US cities be more reasonable?

[cloud713]

I'm curious as to why you think we can build subways for the same price as countries where the average income is much smaller than it is here. Wouldn't comparisons to other US cities be more reasonable?

good question. not sure really.. NYC obviously has the most subway construction in the country, but building subways in NYC is very expensive with all the infrastructure they have to work around, ect, so they drive the national average up. i wouldnt think building a subway in Houston would cost as much, but who knows. anyways i saw an average of around 500 million a mile. so your looking at maybe the cost weve invested in the whole 23 mile light rail system over the last decade (~3 billion dollars, which probably will serve around 45-50,000 people a day when the new lines are open).. im sure a subway line between the two biggest urban districts in town would transport at least that many people, especially if it meant getting there a lot faster than driving (unlike light rail). would it not be worth it?

the traffic on post oak will be slammed in the coming years with all of the redevelopments like BLVD Place, Uptown Park, and the other strip malls that are bound to be turned into vertical mixed use projects. theres no room to expand the road beyond the BRT/LRT plan without eating up the sidewalks, going underground just makes more sense than surface light rail in the busy urban districts.

Edited February 21, 2014 by cloud713

[cloud713]

heres my ideal transit plan for the metro.. it would be a long term plan (~50 years?) and cost 15 billion dollars..
keep in mind weve spent 3 billion in light rail over the last decade.. if we continue getting at least 3 billion, this plan could be completely funded in less than 50 years. and the subways are 10 billion of the cost, so the whole rest of the plan could be implemented in less than 20 years with the current funding rates.
light rail through the energy corridor, from City Center/Beltway 8 out to somewhere between Barker-Cypress and Fry; an extension of the Post Oak line from the Northwest TC to the Hempstead commuter line. 
subways down Westheimer from beltway 8 to Main St in midtown; Kirby from Bellaire to Shepherd/Memorial; and the three lines current lines on the portions going through downtown.
streetcars along the East Ends plans, Washington Ave, Montrose, Bellaire, Fondren, Hilcroft, Fountain View, Sage, and San Felipe.
commuter rail to Hobby down 45 and broadway, Hardy to Bush and the Woodlands, 290, i 10 to beltway 8, westpark to highway 6, 288 from the med center to highway 6, sugar land to South Fannin, and downtown to galveston.
BRT down the beltway from 59 southwest up to hardy toll road; up 59 from highway 6 to the Hilcroft Transit Center; and up highway 6 from 288, along 1960 all the way back over to 45N.

14 miles of additional light rail (beyond the 5 lines Metro has planned/built) (BLUE)
20 miles of subway (ORANGE)
66 miles of streetcars (GREEN)
160 miles of commuter rail (YELLOW) [and PINK for trenched {Hempstead line} and elevated {Westpark line} portions]
? miles of BRT (BROWN/multi colored)

Edited February 22, 2014 by cloud713

[mfastx]

Interesting plan, I like the subway in downtown but I also think that the TMC/Midtown sections should be subway as well. Especially TMC, traffic is really bad out there.

For the subway lines elsewhere, they seem to link into the light rail, I'm assuming that when you say "subway" you mean "light rail in a subway?"

For the east-west subway line, I'd like to see heavy rail instead. Much faster and higher ridership. Over long distances speed of heavy rail is a huge advantage. Unless you get a light rail car designed to go fast (which is rare) but then capacity issues arise.

[cloud713]

Interesting plan, I like the subway in downtown but I also think that the TMC/Midtown sections should be subway as well. Especially TMC, traffic is really bad out there.

For the subway lines elsewhere, they seem to link into the light rail, I'm assuming that when you say "subway" you mean "light rail in a subway?"

For the east-west subway line, I'd like to see heavy rail instead. Much faster and higher ridership. Over long distances speed of heavy rail is a huge advantage. Unless you get a light rail car designed to go fast (which is rare) but then capacity issues arise.

i considered that, but it be another couple billion to do all of that, and i didnt figure traffic was as bad in TMC vs uptown or downtown. (admittedly i dont spend nearly as much time in TMC as ive spent in downtown and uptown, so i guess i could be wrong.. thinking about it, i remember going to a museum recently and traffic kind of sucked around the rail).. i suppose it could be a later addition, but i was trying to keep the budget "reasonable".

yeah i basically mean light rail in a tunnel. may not even be as much as the 500 million figure they had listed for subways, if we were able to trench and cap parts of the underground segments.

the east west subway line is down Westheimer. i agree that one could be heavy rail since the whole line runs underground, and i like the benefits of heavy rail, but modern LRT vehicles can go over 60 mph, and you can add more carriages to increase capacity. (the current surface LRT train car length is limited by the lengths of the blocks in downtown, but with the subway it wouldnt matter if your train extended over a block downtown (or anywhere else for that matter), as it wouldnt be disrupting any cross flow street traffic. it would kind of be a hybrid rail serving light rail functions on the surface roads (though the light rail through memorial park and along Memorial dr would be limited service, with just 2 stops, one at Shepherd for people to transfer to the Kirby line, and one at Montrose) and kind of like commuter/heavy rail with the underground aspects, higher speed, and additional capacity (im talking 5-6 carriages vs the 2 Metro runs now)

here is the population density map i used to plot some of the rail lines, and a transit website i got the figures for the cost per mile.

http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Projects/a/How-Much-Do-Rail-Transit-Projects-Cost-To-Build-And-Operate.htm

Edited February 22, 2014 by cloud713

[Naviguessor]

Awesome plan, again Cloud. I like the "all of the above" approach since different challenges will have different solutions. A Westheimer Subway is the best commonsense idea out there. I think, however, that it would have to include a turn and an extension toward and into downtown, somehow.

[cloud713]

Awesome plan, again Cloud. I like the "all of the above" approach since different challenges will have different solutions. A Westheimer Subway is the best commonsense idea out there. I think, however, that it would have to include a turn and an extension toward and into downtown, somehow.

Thanks! I agree ending it at main st in midtown is kind of funky and a turn north to downtown would be optimal. (I actually sketched a very similar route for a westheimer subway before that I think I posted on here. Running the westheimer rail up to/onto the main st subway in downtown makes a lot of sense. Before I wasn't sure where to go with the subway once I got to downtown ..

[cloud713]

since i already had a big ass map sketched out i figured i may as well go ahead and add onto it (though my OCD forced me to resketch the center page after all the white out corrections..) heh, so here is the update. 
(everything is drawn to scale so the roads/corridors shouldnt be too hard to figure out)

i added a couple commuter rail lines, (northwest Houston/the tracks that run near 249, and a trenched bypass/connector on the westside to connect the hempstead line to i10, Westpark, and 90A lines/avoid having to go into the city and transfer over on slow light rail), and then rerouted my Hobby line because i didnt like the fact it was taking up the only room for HOV on that portion of 45 (unlike i10 where there could still be 1 HOV lane in each direction, along with rail). it now goes down Mykawa/spur 5 and hits the Eastwood TC/end of the university line, and also hits the end of a slightly extended (half mile at the most) southeast line to where the train tracks cross at Griggs/Long, before continuing down Mykawa and finally over/east on Airport Blvd to Hobby.
then a few more streetcars on the west and northwest sides, covering a few other densely populated areas (blue and light blue/grey on the population density map i posted a few posts up) that i had missed.. (the only blue area in the metro not being serviced by this system is in Greenspoint) and i added in streetcars in the Woodlands. (along with the Galveston streetcars, there would also possibly be a streetcar in Webster going down Nasa Parkway, past Nasa and on to Kemah, but thats outside of my map [i didnt continue the map down 45S because it would of gone on another 4 or so sheets of paper until it finally hit Galveston])

heres a close up of the inner city system..

[5o3x]

I've always been curious, why do transit advocates always seem to favor subway and light rail, yet never monorail? I think that monorail would really serve Houston since it does not take away from any existing traffic lanes as light rail does, and doesn't have as much of a problem dealing with preexisting infrastructure like subway.

 

Aside, I don't understand why they do not use the existing rail that runs from Galveston to Downtown as a commuter rail? All it would take is to build a few stations and the passenger train and it could bring people Clear Lake/League City and alleviate quite a bit of traffic on I45.

Edited May 4, 2014 by 5o3x

[IronTiger]

Monorail requires elevated pillars and is very expensive to build and maintain, even Sydney dismantled theirs.

[IronTiger]

A train to Galveston sounds like a great idea in theory, in practice not so much. The distance between Galveston and Houston's downtown is around 50 miles, and including stops, would end up being much slower than the freeway. (Yes, I once thought it was a good idea myself)

Of course, you'll also have people telling you on this thread that freeways are worthless and rail is the solution to everything, but there you go.

[Slick Vik]

I've always been curious, why do transit advocates always seem to favor subway and light rail, yet never monorail? I think that monorail would really serve Houston since it does not take away from any existing traffic lanes as light rail does, and doesn't have as much of a problem dealing with preexisting infrastructure like subway.

Aside, I don't understand why they do not use the existing rail that runs from Galveston to Downtown as a commuter rail? All it would take is to build a few stations and the passenger train and it could bring people Clear Lake/League City and alleviate quite a bit of traffic on I45.

I'm not sure why monorail has never caught on.

As far as the downtown to galveston rail there was a plan for that but once bob Lanier and his cronies moved the now minute maid park to union station that idea went up in flames. It is said that Lanier and co moved the location to crush the hopes of having a commuter terminal at union station.

[Slick Vik]

A train to Galveston sounds like a great idea in theory, in practice not so much. The distance between Galveston and Houston's downtown is around 50 miles, and including stops, would end up being much slower than the freeway. (Yes, I once thought it was a good idea myself)

Of course, you'll also have people telling you on this thread that freeways are worthless and rail is the solution to everything, but there you go.

Not everybody takes the full route. Also there is the option of having express and local trains. And even if it was a local train how many stops would there be realistically? You are exaggerating.

Monorail requires elevated pillars and is very expensive to build and maintain, even Sydney dismantled theirs.

Lol at elevated pillars. I guess Chicago, New York, Delhi, and others will dismantle elevated rail according to that logic.

[Naviguessor]

I could see a circulating monorail in the med center. The anticipated expansion and pending traffic issues could be relieved by satellite parking near freeways and arteries.

[IronTiger]

As far as the downtown to galveston rail there was a plan for that but once bob Lanier and his cronies moved the now minute maid park to union station that idea went up in flames. It is said that Lanier and co moved the location to crush the hopes of having a commuter terminal at union station.

Well, at least you said "it is said" instead of parroting and presenting a rumor/opinion/misquote/extrapolation as fact.

 

Not everybody takes the full route. Also there is the option of having express and local trains. And even if it was a local train how many stops would there be realistically? You are exaggerating.

The 50 mile figure wasn't an exaggeration. Houston sprawls, and even if there are just a few, it will give an edge to I-45. Besides, I doubt there are that many Galveston commuters to justify running it.

The problem, as you can see, is a catch-22. More stations mean more people served but also means slower overall service.

 

Lol at elevated pillars. I guess Chicago, New York, Delhi, and others will dismantle elevated rail according to that logic.

Chicago isn't building anymore elevated rail, and New York did in fact bury most of its elevated rail (they're called subways now!)

In fact, elevated projects aren't especially popular anymore--elevated freeways are a victim of this. Monorails suffer a stigma caused by the Disney monorails (not taken seriously as a transit option), no clear examples of success (Sydney's removal probably set back monorails years)...this article explains some about this stigma...and the Simpsons episode Marge vs. the Monorail.

 

I could see a circulating monorail in the med center. The anticipated expansion and pending traffic issues could be relieved by satellite parking near freeways and arteries.

Well, part of the appeal of monorail in Disneyland is that it works on a point-to-point basis. The Disneyland monorail currently stops at (and correct me if I'm wrong), the Grand Californian Resort Hotel, Tomorrowland, the tram back to the parking garage, and Downtown Disney. It will work better if people go from building to building, and not a mini-commuter rail of sorts (besides, that's what the light rail is for). To make it work, it would have to have free transfers to bus/LRT AND must be built for commuting workers AND make it a more desirable option than what's there...otherwise you'll end up with another Detroit PeopleMover. Edited May 4, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

Well, at least you said "it is said" instead of parroting and presenting a rumor/opinion/misquote/extrapolation as fact.

The 50 mile figure wasn't an exaggeration. Houston sprawls, and even if there are just a few, it will give an edge to I-45. Besides, I doubt there are that many Galveston commuters to justify running it.

The problem, as you can see, is a catch-22. More stations mean more people served but also means slower overall service.

Chicago isn't building anymore elevated rail, and New York did in fact bury most of its elevated rail (they're called subways now!)

In fact, elevated projects aren't especially popular anymore--elevated freeways are a victim of this. Monorails suffer a stigma caused by the Disney monorails (not taken seriously as a transit option), no clear examples of success (Sydney's removal probably set back monorails years)...this article explains some about this stigma...and the Simpsons episode Marge vs. the Monorail.

Well, part of the appeal of monorail in Disneyland is that it works on a point-to-point basis. The Disneyland monorail currently stops at (and correct me if I'm wrong), the Grand Californian Resort Hotel, Tomorrowland, the tram back to the parking garage, and Downtown Disney. It will work better if people go from building to building, and not a mini-commuter rail of sorts (besides, that's what the light rail is for). To make it work, it would have to have free transfers to bus/LRT AND must be built for commuting workers AND make it a more desirable option than what's there...otherwise you'll end up with another Detroit PeopleMover.

It is a fact.

Answer me. How many stations would there be? A lot of commuters go to galveston and to downtown this would serve both of them.

[IronTiger]

It is a fact.

Yes, along with "Houston said complete streets must include parking and they won't upgrade any streets unless they have street parking", and "I talked with my buddies in Midtown, I think I have enough evidence that most young people move to cities"

Answer me. How many stations would there be? A lot of commuters go to galveston and to downtown this would serve both of them.

That depends. Do you want a daily running train from Houston to Galveston, or something only on special occasions? How many commuters do you think really go from Galveston to downtown Houston (not either/or) or vice-versa?

Remember, the electric interurban (which has been romanticized, like other interurban/streetcar systems) was rendered obsolete by the freeway. You can't recreate that. I can imagine a HSR down to Galveston entirely grade-separated, but that's years away.

[Slick Vik]

Yes, along with "Houston said complete streets must include parking and they won't upgrade any streets unless they have street parking", and "I talked with my buddies in Midtown, I think I have enough evidence that most young people move to cities"

That depends. Do you want a daily running train from Houston to Galveston, or something only on special occasions? How many commuters do you think really go from Galveston to downtown Houston (not either/or) or vice-versa?

Remember, the electric interurban (which has been romanticized, like other interurban/streetcar systems) was rendered obsolete by the freeway. You can't recreate that. I can imagine a HSR down to Galveston entirely grade-separated, but that's years away.

1. It is a fact. Reading is fundamental.

http://m.chron.com/opinion/article/Houston-deserves-better-rail-service-4337295.php

2. You either are avoiding the question or can not comprehend it. If there is a houston to galveston rail with stops it doesn't just serve people going from one to the other, it serves people going both directions, as there are commuters to galveston and downtown houston from various points between the two.

3. The inter urban right of way was "donated" to the city because of heavy pressure by mayor oscar holcombe. Please read up on history before making blatantly false commentary.

[Ross]

3. The inter urban right of way was "donated" to the city because of heavy pressure by mayor oscar holcombe. Please read up on history before making blatantly false commentary.

 

Given that the interurban was dead at that point, what else do you think was going to happen? According to my Dad, who rode the Houston Galveston line, as well as teh Houston Baytown line, most folks were more interested in  buying a car than worrying about whether the interurban was still around. Besides, it disappeared 70+ years ago, and it's not really rational to complain about it now.