Subways: Are They Possible?

[Slick Vik]

Light rail doesn't "create" density (nor do highways "create" sprawl). If the demand is there, density will happen. After all, downtown started to sprout skyscrapers long before the light rail came down Main.

There are quite a few apartments being built along the red line.

[arche_757]

^Look to Harwin Drive and that neighborhood.  Highest density in the metro area - no rail transit.

 

Sprawl is something that came about (in its current guise) due to the freeway systems we have implemented.  One can of course argue that sprawl is/has always been - which it has - but there is something to a freeway helping developers access cheaper land further out that has seen the likes of Katy Mills (a great example of wanton sprawl ~15 years ago when it was built).  Plenty of demand for that mall closer in, but land was cheap and developers jumped on the band wagon and built it way - way - way out.  Of course now we have some sprawl all the way to Sealy, Tx.

[arche_757]

And Vancouver, Canada doesn't have a freeway or interstate equivalent in the city core, but it surely does outside of that area - and that's sprawl by any definition of the word!

 

That's also Canada.  I can't think of one city in the US over 50,000k that doesn't have a freeway at least some sort of bypass or other divided highway that hasn't allowed development out of the urban zone and into the surrounding countryside.  Maybe could argue the Aspen area or Santa Fe?  But I think even those have some form of freeway nearby (Santa Fe is off an interstate).

[Howard Huge]

The same anti-rail arguments keep being regurgitated ad nauseum.

"Rail or subways will not ease congestion or get people off the freeways"

"Rail is inefficient and I will not stop driving my car to use rail"

"I wont ever use the trains; therefore no one else will"

I dont think you understand how this works.

As hard as it may be to believe, there are a few people out of Houstons 2.2 million that, get this, dont have cars or cant afford them.

People that have NO CHOICE but to rely on public transportation to get to and from work, go shopping, kids and students that have to get to schools etc etc.

THOSE are the people that the additions to Houston mass transit system are being built for.

As "inefficient" as you think it may be to hop on a train and get to your destination, it is WAY more efficient for these people to walk to a rail stop and catch a train that runs every ten minutes, than to walk to a bus stop and sit there waiting for a bus that possibly comes by every hour or so, which is the case for many bus line, I know, I used to ride them.

Missed a train? No problem, next one will be here shortly.

Missed a bus?? Lol, youre ******.

Train broke down? No problem, tow it to a parallel track, next train is a few minutes behind.

Bus broke down? Well, you get the picture.

As far as easing congestion, its not entirely true to say trains dont do that.

As hard as it may be for you to believe, again, there ARE actually people on the trains who own cars! Mind blowing isnt it?

Hop on the Red Line on Texans game day, or during Rodeo season. Ride the train thru the med center on ANY day and tell me how many scrub wearing medical professionals (who arent strapped for cash, a few who might even own a vehicle!) riding the train.

And this is just our one and only train, imagine what a connected system going thru the west side/university corridor/uptown galleria would look like!

Oh thats right, no one would ever ride any of those trains and they'd be a waste of money because...........you said so.

[Howard Huge]

Too long didn't read?

Stop being selfish and thinking that, just because the train isnt for you and doesnt suit your needs, that it might not be a god-send for some, and may suit many other Houstonians needs perfectly.

[arche_757]

Too long didn't read?

Stop being selfish and thinking that, just because the train isnt for you and doesnt suit your needs, that it might not be a god-send for some, and may suit many other Houstonians needs perfectly.

 

Here, here!

When I worked downtown I had the option of using Light Rail or driving (or bus - but those take so long on some routes they are very inconvenient).  I decided to use Light Rail until I got to a position where I needed to drive more to-from work due to needing to get to another part of town not on the rail line.

 

I also think people forget how quickly the Red Line passed its projected 1-2-3 year ridership goals in the first months/year of operation.  I have little doubt other lines will do so as well, whether or not we have the "desired" density for transit in all areas.  Undoubtedly there will be some stations with little use, and others that are almost always busy.

[Howard Huge]

^ Ive lived in downtown and midtown for about 14 years, have 2 cars and hardly ever use them, wish I never had to, driving in Houston sucks!

[IronTiger]

Howard, did you even read the last page and a half?

Nobody said trains weren't useful at all. I tend to like light rail myself. I will tell my basic thoughts for rail-based transit summarized below:

1) I like rail-based mass transit. I think that all major cities (800k+ typically) should have one of some sort.

2) "Street running" rails aren't preferable. Heavy rail (Union Pacific, et. al.) have been trying to do away with similar things over the last past decades, and here people are arguing for it. It does not benefit the road, often cutting out lanes on major arterials and eliminating turns. It does not benefit many businesses when access has been limited. And it doesn't help the train, which has to stop at the intersections.

3) Just because someone opposes rail does not make them "evil" or "stupid". There's better reasons to hate politicians...

4) Freeways DO benefit more people but that doesn't mean rail doesn't benefit others.

5) There is a way that freeways and mass transit can co-exist. If you want to try to make roads miserable to encourage mass transit, that's wrong. If roads are miserable to begin with, that's okay.

6) We should not build rail (or highways, for that matter) "at any cost"

7) Transfers are bad and should be minimized. That's why I think there should be only light rail and commuter rail (compatible with freight) at most.

[Slick Vik]

The one good thing about having light rail on roads is that it's easy to get to the stations.

[mfastx]

We're just going to have to respectfully disagree on that. I think a $700 million - $1 billion per mile cost is pretty much in line with the very limited amount of subway construction going on in the US. I also think that you're overestimating the amount of demand on the discussed University corridor. Transit ridership tends to coorelate very heavily to the density of the area near to the stations and the area along the proposed University line really isn't that dense.

 

You're right in the likely cost estimates, I was just saying that a heavy rail line in Houston would likely only be submerged in certain areas, like downtown, uptown, TMC, Greenway Plaza etc.  

 

I believe the original heavy rail line proposition (which would have been a subway downtown and elevated elsewhere) would have cost about $4 billion in today's dollars, and it was 13 miles or something.  

[livincinco]

You're right in the likely cost estimates, I was just saying that a heavy rail line in Houston would likely only be submerged in certain areas, like downtown, uptown, TMC, Greenway Plaza etc.

I believe the original heavy rail line proposition (which would have been a subway downtown and elevated elsewhere) would have cost about $4 billion in today's dollars, and it was 13 miles or something.

Downtown, Uptown, and TMC are the only locations that I think could have arguably made sense to do underground in Houston, especially if downtown could have been directly connected to the tunnel system. I disagree with you on the others and even the ones I've listed would only make sense in limited areas. I've pointed out several times the coorelation between transit ridership and greater than 10k and 25k/sq mile density and since no one has questioned that, I'm staying with it. Look at density inside the loop with those numbers in mind.

[IronTiger]

Typically "heavy rail" implies a multiple-car, spaced out (by like, at least a mile) system with an electrified third rail. By building a LRT-compatible subway, there should be lower costs. The other reason it should be minimized (overall, at least less stations below ground) is ADA compliance. Everyone always talks about how great the NYC subway is but remember, there are 500 stations between the subway and Staten Island Railroad, and only a fifth of them are ADA (wheelchair) compliant (source) as of summer 2013.

Any new station in America will have to be such, and that will drive up costs and makes underground less appealing.

[Slick Vik]

Downtown, Uptown, and TMC are the only locations that I think could have arguably made sense to do underground in Houston, especially if downtown could have been directly connected to the tunnel system. I disagree with you on the others and even the ones I've listed would only make sense in limited areas. I've pointed out several times the coorelation between transit ridership and greater than 10k and 25k/sq mile density and since no one has questioned that, I'm staying with it. Look at density inside the loop with those numbers in mind.

You always point out the density numbers but I keep giving you cities with similar density that are expanding rail systems and your only argument is they will have rail regret.

[mfastx]

Downtown, Uptown, and TMC are the only locations that I think could have arguably made sense to do underground in Houston, especially if downtown could have been directly connected to the tunnel system. I disagree with you on the others and even the ones I've listed would only make sense in limited areas. I've pointed out several times the coorelation between transit ridership and greater than 10k and 25k/sq mile density and since no one has questioned that, I'm staying with it. Look at density inside the loop with those numbers in mind.

 

Yeah I think downtown subway stations with direct access to the tunnel system would be great.  

 

There are many cities with heavy rail lines that go through lower density areas and still receive good ridership.  DC is an example, outside of the city there's lots of low density areas that still have lots of people riding the rail via park and rides.  

[Tower26]

 I think the airport system may benefit from a subway system because it could link downtown without interruption as a express service from Bush and Hobby for business class travelers and tourists Houston being a travel destination may help revenue. I mentioned crime and one idea would be that of a constant police prescence on trains and platforms because underground crime is one of the deadliest crimes in any area especially in subway tunnels at night aswell as above ground LRT platforms and stations . There would have to be around the clock surveillance even after the last train has passed and the platforms and stations are closed for the night . In some cities that have a subway system , crime and safety is a top priority . That would be the most important factor to consider if Houston were to build a subway system .

[IronTiger]

You always point out the density numbers but I keep giving you cities with similar density that are expanding rail systems and your only argument is they will have rail regret.

If I recall correctly, you pointed out Los Angeles, which is currently adding a $40,000,000,000 new subway line extension. "Regret" would be a pretty light word if it didn't reach its lofty goals/drove the city into bankruptcy/etc.

[IronTiger]

I think the airport system may benefit from a subway system because it could link downtown without interruption as a express service from Bush and Hobby for business class travelers and tourists Houston being a travel destination may help revenue. I mentioned crime and one idea would be that of a constant police prescence on trains and platforms because underground crime is one of the deadliest crimes in any area especially in subway tunnels at night aswell as above ground LRT platforms and stations . There would have to be around the clock surveillance even after the last train has passed and the platforms and stations are closed for the night . In some cities that have a subway system , crime and safety is a top priority . That would be the most important factor to consider if Houston were to build a subway system .

If the STATIONS were not underground and spaced out enough, "underground crime" and all the problems associated with that would tend to be minimized.

I think that in terms of airport connections, an extension of the Red Line could involve jogging from Fulton Street to the inner median of Hardy Toll Road and that would be underground. Then it wouldn't be very far from the airport.

[Slick Vik]

I think the airport system may benefit from a subway system because it could link downtown without interruption as a express service from Bush and Hobby for business class travelers and tourists Houston being a travel destination may help revenue. I mentioned crime and one idea would be that of a constant police prescence on trains and platforms because underground crime is one of the deadliest crimes in any area especially in subway tunnels at night aswell as above ground LRT platforms and stations . There would have to be around the clock surveillance even after the last train has passed and the platforms and stations are closed for the night . In some cities that have a subway system , crime and safety is a top priority . That would be the most important factor to consider if Houston were to build a subway system .

I've never felt unsafe and I've taken subways through Jamaica, queens, the Bronx, queensbridge, ozone park, downtown LA, Brownsville Brooklyn, and Oakland in the middle of the night. The thing is if you are just passing through you have nothing to worry about. The area around the station may be sketchy but even then there isn't enough police to monitor every station around the clock. And chances something happen to you are slim. I feel this is more perceptive fear than reality.

[IronTiger]

See, I feel like that if the light rail was submerged for very short distances--1 to 3 miles, then that would keep costs down while ensuring accessibility of the light rail's speed and the road.

[Slick Vik]

See, I feel like that if the light rail was submerged for very short distances--1 to 3 miles, then that would keep costs down while ensuring accessibility of the light rail's speed and the road.

Not sure about cost but agree on the speed.

[livincinco]

You always point out the density numbers but I keep giving you cities with similar density that are expanding rail systems and your only argument is they will have rail regret.

 

Actually, my response is that they have poor ridership and are losing huge amounts of money.  We've reviewed the example of DART multiple times to that end.

 

[livincinco]

If I recall correctly, you pointed out Los Angeles, which is currently adding a $40,000,000,000 new subway line extension. "Regret" would be a pretty light word if it didn't reach its lofty goals/drove the city into bankruptcy/etc.

 

I think that it's important to point out that LA is financing this project primarily through local sales tax revenue and they are able to do so because they have the highest transportation sales tax in the United States.  That tax was passed even though it required a 2/3 majority.  Federal and state money is less than 40% of the total that is going to be spent on the subway extension

 

METRO gets approx. 50% of the sales tax rate that is designated for transit in Los Angeles and I question whether there is sufficient support for an increased sales tax in Houston.  METRO has squandered a lot of goodwill through their mismanagement of finances in the past.

 

Incidentally, LA didn't support transit until it got far bigger than Houston is today.  The first rail line in LA opened in 1993 and the population of LA county was 9.2 million at that time.  (By comparison, the current population of Harris County is 4.3 million).

[Slick Vik]

Actually, my response is that they have poor ridership and are losing huge amounts of money. We've reviewed the example of DART multiple times to that end.

Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, Oakland, and San Jose are all expanding.

[HoustonIsHome]

I think a lot of you on both sides are making lots of loose associations.

One factor usually doesn't prove or disprove a point on its own.

I could understand if downtown, midtown, TMC, and Reliant City were all filled with amenities, cheap land and few building regulations and the rail came in and only sluggish residential growth occurred. THEN, I could say that rail is not much of a factor in building density.

I think that looking at the four main areas that the rail went through gives more insight than comparing the entire length of the rail to nothing or to cities with a totally different set up.

1. RELIANT PARK/ SMITHLANDS AREA amenities:

Target

FIESTA

HEB

Lots of restaurants

Lots of strip centers

Sizeable pre-existing residential population

2. DOWNTOWN/Midtown

Large employment center

Excellent preexisting transportation via bus

Excellent dining and entertainment options

Poor access to major grocery stores

Small preexisting residential population

TMC

Huge employment/ student base

Non existent residential population

Non existent grocery options

Almost non existent retail

Poor dining availability

Looking at the list above it is no wonder that the lower portions of the rail took off right away. The land was the cheapest of the 4 main areas, it was filled with stores, groceries and restaurants and the area had a sizeable residential population so didn't shut down at five.

Midtown and downtown are catching up now cause they had to build up to what Reliant already had. People need creature comforts and just throwing up a rail in lonely areas is certainly not a big enough draw.

TMC is built out. It has done if the highest ridership numbers, but too late now for residents. I see tons more high density residences going up around TMC though.

The new lines are in an interesting situation. The land is cheaper than Downtown/Midtown but they are still low on groceries/retail like midtown.

The reason why a line to uptown is believed would be widely successful is that it combines all the plusses of the areas the original line went through without many of the minuses. By far the largest portion of the population lives in the SW part of town. That area had just about any type of grocery store or retail you can think of. Public transport is already highly used. A lot of the old housing stock is being replaced with higher density housing.

Anyway my point is that you can't put rail in an area where people don't want to live and when people don't flock there say that rail doesnt help with density.

Until midtown/ downtown gains amenities or the rail heads west, we won't have a glimse of a full potential Houston rail system as something would always still be missing

[livincinco]

Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, Oakland, and San Jose are all expanding.

 

So what?  You just identified seven out of the 52 major metros.  You provide no data regarding ridership and cost and this has nothing to do with whether subways are possible in Houston.

 

Just because something is getting built doesn't mean it makes sense. 

 

[IronTiger]

While I'd love to see Red Line expand at both ends, I'd be curious to see what the ridership of the Red Line extension actually is. North of downtown you've got a sizable residential base but very little retail (Fiesta and Walmart), practically no restaurants, and few reasons to go up there.

 

Suppose the Red Line got a 1.5 mile sunken (tunneled) connection and was in 288's median (surface) to Pearland. Besides the logistics of METRO going that far south (that is, it won't), would it even get a sufficient amount of riders to justify the amount of money spent for track? Same with north--running a tunnel of a few miles underground to get in the Hardy Toll Road's median for the airport.

 

And if the University Line was nearly as popular as some claim it is, then the money spent on tunneling underneath the road would more than be enough to make it worthwhile.

[livincinco]

While I'd love to see Red Line expand at both ends, I'd be curious to see what the ridership of the Red Line extension actually is. North of downtown you've got a sizable residential base but very little retail (Fiesta and Walmart), practically no restaurants, and few reasons to go up there.

 

Suppose the Red Line got a 1.5 mile sunken (tunneled) connection and was in 288's median (surface) to Pearland. Besides the logistics of METRO going that far south (that is, it won't), would it even get a sufficient amount of riders to justify the amount of money spent for track? Same with north--running a tunnel of a few miles underground to get in the Hardy Toll Road's median for the airport.

 

And if the University Line was nearly as popular as some claim it is, then the money spent on tunneling underneath the road would more than be enough to make it worthwhile.

 

The Red Line had an increase of approx. 2,800 average weekday trips in March 2014 v March 2013, I think that's a more accurate number than the approx. 4,000 daily boardings that has been publicized.  Probably highly likely that the decrease of approx. 1,200 on the previously existing stops is due to people that shifted their boarding location as new stops became available.

 

The official projection for ridership of the University Line is 32,100 average weekday trips in 2020 and 49,000 average weekday trips in 2030. 

 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TX_Houston_University_LRT_Profile_FY_2013_final_pdf.pdf

 

[HoustonIsHome]

Because the public transportation in Pearland is zero an extension among 288 would be just an expensive park an ride.

Huge parking lots would have to be built and prior would still have to drive miles to board the rail.

I do admit it would probably ease some of traffic on 288 (like the TMC park and ride the rail set up) but something tells me it won't have that big of an effect.

[Slick Vik]

So what? You just identified seven out of the 52 major metros. You provide no data regarding ridership and cost and this has nothing to do with whether subways are possible in Houston.

Just because something is getting built doesn't mean it makes sense.

I've provided the density numbers and they are similar to houston. Also they are sun belt cities that were mostly built out after world war 2. But so what is an awesome retort I suppose.

[Slick Vik]

While I'd love to see Red Line expand at both ends, I'd be curious to see what the ridership of the Red Line extension actually is. North of downtown you've got a sizable residential base but very little retail (Fiesta and Walmart), practically no restaurants, and few reasons to go up there.

Suppose the Red Line got a 1.5 mile sunken (tunneled) connection and was in 288's median (surface) to Pearland. Besides the logistics of METRO going that far south (that is, it won't), would it even get a sufficient amount of riders to justify the amount of money spent for track? Same with north--running a tunnel of a few miles underground to get in the Hardy Toll Road's median for the airport.

And if the University Line was nearly as popular as some claim it is, then the money spent on tunneling underneath the road would more than be enough to make it worthwhile.

I disagree on the lack of restaurants part. I go there often and have had various restaurants in the area. La macro, la michoacana, taconazo, abasolo, pizza patron, poppa burger, pollo riko, and some places at northside commons like cici's.