METRORapid University Corridor

[004n063]

@rechlin I agree with your points, but I think it's the wrong argument. . And I tend to agree - convertability seems like more of a question of will than of capacity.

But if METRO is committed to building great BRT lines, I'm fine with the mode. The critical thing is not stopping with the University and Inner Katy lines. We need a much more robust long-term plan than what's included in METRONext 1.0 - would love to see a 2.0 plan in the next few years.

[Ross]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:29 PM, IWantTransit555 said:

The city (and greater region) has a lot of work to do on this front.

Despite what others may say, I think the greater Houston area (6 million people!) needs heavy rail.

The Washington Ave corridor seems perfect for light rail! I am still mad that it never happened. Maybe it could have been built on center street.

There are some issues with building heavy rail here. First, is where do you run it? I don't think anyone would sell the concept of taking houses and businesses to build rail - there would be torches and pitchforks. The railroads are not going to give up their right of way at all. The only real alternative is along freeways, and that will bring screams from all directions. If you think the opponents of the 11th Street road diet were loud and shrill, it would be far worse for heavy rail. There's also the folks who will refuse to ride rail, because they might have to mix with poor people. I'm not sure where you would start, either, since metro flat out told me that heavy rail can't be built until there is a comprehensive light rail system to connect the heavy rail. And, where does the money come from?

On 3/22/2023 at 9:46 PM, chempku said:

Maybe because local people will get madder if it's built, .. LRT is not a bike lane or a car travel lane, it need to be connected to somewhere, also it need platforms and wider sidewalks. Squeezing in LRTs in narrower streets essentially kills most car traffic. 

Note that some existing LRT segments spread into two adjacent streets where the ROW is not wide enough (e.g. the Green/Purple line in downtown, the Red line in museum district). 

I'm not sure Washington is a good choice. It's too useful for cars right now, and building rail would eliminate a lot of capacity on one of the main East West routes out of Downtown. 

[IWantTransit555]

3 minutes ago, Ross said:

There are some issues with building heavy rail here. First, is where do you run it? I don't think anyone would sell the concept of taking houses and businesses to build rail - there would be torches and pitchforks.

Elevated above the many wide arterial roads throughout the metro area.

6 minutes ago, Ross said:

The railroads are not going to give up their right of way at all.

Why not, it has worked in many other cities?

8 minutes ago, Ross said:

If you think the opponents of the 11th Street road diet were loud and shrill, it would be far worse for heavy rail. There's also the folks who will refuse to ride rail, because they might have to mix with poor people.

I am pretty sure these kinds of people are not the majority, they are just Very vocal about their views.

9 minutes ago, Ross said:

I'm not sure where you would start, either, since metro flat out told me that heavy rail can't be built until there is a comprehensive light rail system to connect the heavy rail.

Well waiting indefinitely to build heavy rail is not going to improve the transit situation in Greater Houston. And if Metro wants a comprehensive light rail system first, why are they not building it now?

12 minutes ago, Ross said:

where does the money come from?

Preferable federal (and state in the future if we can stop electing fools to Austin.)

17 minutes ago, Ross said:

I'm not sure Washington is a good choice. It's too useful for cars right now, and building rail would eliminate a lot of capacity on one of the main East West routes out of Downtown.

Maybe it could be built on Center Street?

[rechlin]

8 minutes ago, IWantTransit555 said:

26 minutes ago, Ross said:

There are some issues with building heavy rail here. First, is where do you run it? I don't think anyone would sell the concept of taking houses and businesses to build rail - there would be torches and pitchforks.

Elevated above the many wide arterial roads throughout the metro area.

People in Houston are very opposed to elevated transit.  Metro has even postponed a decision on this line as a result of opposition to the overpass over the railroad tracks (see a few posts back).  So I suspect that's a non-starter.  But I agree, it's way cheaper than a subway and would work well for speeding up mass transit while minimizing ROW acquisition.

[chempku]

1 hour ago, IWantTransit555 said:

Maybe it could be built on Center Street?

Try design something within ~50' ROW. I am curious to know how this can be done. 

[JClark54]

1 hour ago, IWantTransit555 said:

 

Why not, it has worked in many other cities?

 

In the current Houston heavy rail environment, that's a tough ask. Even if the railroads granted trackage rights, passenger rail timetables likely would not be reliable with the existing infrastructure.

Edited March 27, 2023 by JClark54

[Ross]

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

In the current Houston heavy rail environment, that's a tough ask. Even if the railroads granted trackage rights, passenger rail timetables likely would not be reliable with the existing infrastructure.

Since railroads have already given up right of way, as along the Katy Freeway, there's not really enough tracks to support current freight movement, much less passenger, without significant delays. Heavy rail only works if the timetables are reliable.  And Houston has far too many people who are just flat out opposed to rail at all to attract enough ridership to make heavy rail even semi-successful

[mfastx]

To maximize any fixed guideway line (whether it's heavy rail, light rail or BRT) it shouldn't be built on railroad ROW or highways. Richmond, Westheimer and Washington Ave are all good east-west corridors to build a line and would maximize ridership. People don't want to get dropped off in the middle of a highway wasteland or along and old railroad ROW where there isn't much development. 

[samagon]

On 3/24/2023 at 9:51 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm scratching my head wondering how it couldn't be converted. You would already have the dedicated space to lay down tracks. 

I would guess the foundation of the roadbed would be the primary constraint, I'd guess the foundation needed for the heavier LRT vehicles are probably more substantial than what would be needed for BRT vehicles. if the roadbeds are only designed to accommodate the BRT vehicles, then they'd probably have to redo the whole thing to switch to LRT.

[JClark54]

5 hours ago, Ross said:

Since railroads have already given up right of way, as along the Katy Freeway, there's not really enough tracks to support current freight movement, much less passenger, without significant delays. Heavy rail only works if the timetables are reliable.  And Houston has far too many people who are just flat out opposed to rail at all to attract enough ridership to make heavy rail even semi-successful

The Houston complex is the most congested in the country, which would make passenger rail timetables challenging without further investment.

UP and Amtrak are in a years-long dispute over the Sunset Limited route, as an example. Amtrak claims UP's new operational model of running longer trains without upgrading infrastructure to support them has resulted in blockages that hinder on-time performance. 

"Many of the delays incurred by the Sunset are attributable to UP corporate decisions, operational practices, or failures that result in systemic violations of Amtrak preference rights and cause substandard customer on-time performance. Among those are that UP regularly runs freight trains longer than sidings along its route; when UP dispatches freight trains that do not fit into sidings, the Sunset Limited trains must follow that non-fitter, which can result in hours of passenger delay.

I imagine the passenger rail route for the western suburbs would utilize the terminal line through the inner loop, which is the same as Amtrak. Per evidence presented in Amtrak's suit, delays have resulted in some passengers arriving more 181 minutes late.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by JClark54

[wilcal]

Eastwood Civic Club announced that METRO has agreed to work towards a BRT/pedestrian-only underpass for the crossing at the UP railroad tracks on Lockwood just south of Harrisburg.

I really think that this is the best result. No elevated BRT station at Harrisburg will be required now, either. 

[cspwal]

This is probably the best solution, pedestrian & neighborhood wise. I wonder how it will affect the flooding right now - they mentioned the current tracks acting like a flood barrier 

[cougarpad]

On 3/27/2023 at 11:33 AM, JClark54 said:

The Houston complex is the most congested in the country, which would make passenger rail timetables challenging without further investment.

UP and Amtrak are in a years-long dispute over the Sunset Limited route, as an example. Amtrak claims UP's new operational model of running longer trains without upgrading infrastructure to support them has resulted in blockages that hinder on-time performance. 

"Many of the delays incurred by the Sunset are attributable to UP corporate decisions, operational practices, or failures that result in systemic violations of Amtrak preference rights and cause substandard customer on-time performance. Among those are that UP regularly runs freight trains longer than sidings along its route; when UP dispatches freight trains that do not fit into sidings, the Sunset Limited trains must follow that non-fitter, which can result in hours of passenger delay.

I imagine the passenger rail route for the western suburbs would utilize the terminal line through the inner loop, which is the same as Amtrak. Per evidence presented in Amtrak's suit, delays have resulted in some passengers arriving more 181 minutes late.

 

The corridor that needs a commuter rail is the UP line going down highway 3 going through clear lake , League City, and Dickinson to Galveston ending at thre cruise terminal at the big  railroad museum that be a peferfect endind terminal for the commuter rail that is across from the Island Transit Center and more importantly the cruise terminal. The only way to deal with UP is to build a third track down that corridor and there is room. This commuter line would get major ridership. It will be direct stop at the terminal instead of cruisers arriving at Hobby with no direct connection to the cruise terminal other then waiting on a shuttle. The line would get major ridership added with Houstonians going to the Strand for yearly festivities along with going beach. This line would also get heave ridership from workers commuting to downtown from Clear Lake area and South. The Harrsiberg line that will connect to the  Univeristy BRT can be extended down to a station where the Houston Galveston Commuter line ends at transport center across 45 from Hobby, and the Extension of East End line being sent to Hobby can cut across under 45 to connect with a station where the commuter line ends near Hobby airport to connect Hobby to the commuter rail for cruise passengers going to Galveston. 

 

If Houston and Galveston are serious about ridership on Light rail and BRT along with have commuter rail between the two cities then this set up can be done and should be done. There will have to be State an Federal funds to add a 3rd track going down next Highway 3 UP corridor but this can be done and should be a prioritized project to add commuter passenger rail in a corridor where is needed and also to appease UP who will wine and cray about commuter rail being ran on their current two tracks on the rail corridor. If Housto,Metro and Galveston are serious then this should and can be done. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by cougarpad

[004n063]

On 3/26/2023 at 9:48 PM, Ross said:

I'm not sure Washington is a good choice. It's too useful for cars right now, and building rail would eliminate a lot of capacity on one of the main East West routes out of Downtown. 

Part of the purpose of rail is to provide a viable alternative to driving. Lots of the drivers who currently need to use Washington would need it no longer if there were a good rail line.

Obviously, Washington gets more traffic in general than Harrisburg or Fulton, but it's worth noting that the flow for cars along both of those streets is actually quite smooth. I could see the road-diet element having a similar simplifying/smoothing effect on Washington.

That it could disincentivize more discretionary auto traffic (as the red line has done along Main) is a bonus, in my opinion.

[JClark54]

3 hours ago, cougarpad said:

The corridor that needs a commuter rail is the UP line going down highway 3 going through clear lake , League City, and Dickinson to Galveston ending at thre cruise terminal at the big  railroad museum that be a peferfect endind terminal for the commuter rail that is across from the Island Transit Center and more importantly the cruise terminal. The only way to deal with UP is to build a third track down that corridor and there is room. This commuter line would get major ridership. It will be direct stop at the terminal instead of cruisers arriving at Hobby with no direct connection to the cruise terminal other then waiting on a shuttle. The line would get major ridership added with Houstonians going to the Strand for yearly festivities along with going beach. This line would also get heave ridership from workers commuting to downtown from Clear Lake area and South. The Harrsiberg line that will connect to the  Univeristy BRT can be extended down to a station where the Houston Galveston Commuter line ends at transport center across 45 from Hobby, and the Extension of East End line being sent to Hobby can cut across under 45 to connect with a station where the commuter line ends near Hobby airport to connect Hobby to the commuter rail for cruise passengers going to Galveston. 

 

If Houston and Galveston are serious about ridership on Light rail and BRT along with have commuter rail between the two cities then this set up can be done and should be done. There will have to be State an Federal funds to add a 3rd track going down next Highway 3 UP corridor but this can be done and should be a prioritized project to add commuter passenger rail in a corridor where is needed and also to appease UP who will wine and cray about commuter rail being ran on their current two tracks on the rail corridor. If Housto,Metro and Galveston are serious then this should and can be done. 

In public hearings about trains parking on streets, UP brass claimed adding capacity to that line would've already happened were it feasible.

The ROW narrows in stretches where not-UP-owned buildings or roadways are close. The line drops from two tracks to one as a result, forcing trains to wait until passing ones clear the area before merging. 

Land acquisition is possible, but it's not on the table at this time, they said. 

[JClark54]

It appears to be single track for a good stretch of the route, including over the intercostal waterway. 

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by JClark54

[cougarpad]

On 4/2/2023 at 2:31 PM, JClark54 said:

It appears to be single track for a good stretch of the route, including over the intercostal waterway. 

 

Instead of railroad track, if clearance is an issue can put light rail trach which is smaller. Putting in light rail tracks probably less cost too because dont have to deal with UP but can still use the corridor.  I know the stretch of highway 3 where the tracks run along in Clear Lake and League City have good clearance if added light rail tracks

[samagon]

1 hour ago, cougarpad said:

Instead of railroad track, if clearance is an issue can put light rail trach which is smaller. Putting in light rail tracks probably less cost too because dont have to deal with UP but can still use the corridor.  I know the stretch of highway 3 where the tracks run along in Clear Lake and League City have good clearance if added light rail tracks

someone said once, I have no valid verification, but it was said that the easement for the railway is necessary to be empty for liability. if a rock is thrown from a railcar and hits someone or something within that easement, the railway is on the hook, so they just don't let anyone use it.

there'd have to be agreements in place like what there is with the city and CPE for the powerline easements for bike trails. the problem is there's no incentive for the railways to do it.

again, this is all what I remember from one comment years ago that someone said. so it could be completely off base.

[JClark54]

Per METRO's web site, it appears the METRORail runs on a standard gauge railway. That's the same gauge, or width, as the UP line running along Highway 3.

It's possible light rail carriages are smaller, but I can't imagine by too much as railcar construction in the USA is standardized to ensure system fluidity -- minus the handful of narrow gauge railways used for tourism purposes.

I agree there are stretches of that line with two tracks and possibly ample space for a third line or sidings. People with more knowledge about railroad construction than me say there are other stretches where adjacent infrastructure proximity is so tight the line drops to a single track, and land acquisition would be required for expansion. 

If our state leaders' approach to the Texas Central high-speed railway is any indication, I presume they won't support land acquisition for passenger rail anytime soon.

Edited April 4, 2023 by JClark54

[hindesky]

"A Lockwood underpass would allow buses, and emergency vehicles if necessary, to drive below the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, which are another source of frustration for the East End community. A pedestrian and bicycle path also would flow under the tracks, while automobile drivers still would cross the tracks at ground level."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-university-corridor-lockwood-eastend-17876361.php

[hindesky]

"Metro officials on Wednesday approved a path for the 25.3 University Corridor line in a rare split vote that keeps the region’s largest bus rapid transit project on track for a 2028 opening, but also deepened concerns among some who said the public is not completely behind the planned route.

Under the current schedule, construction could begin as early as late next year, though riders will not hop aboard the large buses operating in their own lanes for another three or four years."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-approves-route-big-brt-line-community-17880770.php

[004n063]

22 hours ago, hindesky said:

"Metro officials on Wednesday approved a path for the 25.3 University Corridor line in a rare split vote that keeps the region’s largest bus rapid transit project on track for a 2028 opening, but also deepened concerns among some who said the public is not completely behind the planned route.

Under the current schedule, construction could begin as early as late next year, though riders will not hop aboard the large buses operating in their own lanes for another three or four years."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/metro-approves-route-big-brt-line-community-17880770.php

That was a really frustrating read for many reasons, but especially because of all of the Lockwood-versus-Jensen stuff. That's not Shepherd-versus-Durham or even Shepherd-versus-Kirby. Lockwood and Jensen are miles apart. Only if you're stuck in a park-and-ride mindset could you conceive of a Jensen alignment as a viable eplacement for a Lockwood alignment.

Jensen and Lockwood, though...that could be interesting. Especially if the Jensen line ran through EaDo, cut over to Crawford, and continued along Almeda...

[JClark54]

I'm trying to understand the Jensen route but can't find datails in the project documents or public hearings that METRO posted online. Only cursory remarks that it was studied but scored lower than Lockwood.

Would the route use St Emmanuel?

 

[j.33]

@JClark54 Pg 25 of the document: 

 

METRORapid University Public Meeting Presentation (resourcespace.com)

[JClark54]

Thanks for the information. Yes, I saw that map during my research.

It's what led to confusion about the Jensen route based on the following graf: 

"After opposition to the project built in the community, many also questioned Metro’s decision to run the line along Lockwood at all."

Some in the piece want it off Lockwood entirely. I heard that repeated many times in the public hearing posted online, too, and on Nextdoor. 

But the Jensen route in the map above shows a jag to Lockwood through Eastwood at Polk. 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

Disregard the comments above. just got a message answering my question. 

[IWantTransit555]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:39 PM, JClark54 said:

It's possible light rail carriages are smaller, but I can't imagine by too much as railcar construction in the USA is standardized to ensure system fluidity -- minus the handful of narrow gauge railways used for tourism purposes.

I agree there are stretches of that line with two tracks and possibly ample space for a third line or sidings. People with more knowledge about railroad construction than me say there are other stretches where adjacent infrastructure proximity is so tight the line drops to a single track, and land acquisition would be required for expansion. 

TRAX light rail in Salt Lake City shares track with a freight rail line (Salt Lake City Southern). The old causeway bridge also used to carry tracks for a few other railroads, including an interurban.

[JClark54]

21 hours ago, IWantTransit555 said:

TRAX light rail in Salt Lake City shares track with a freight rail line (Salt Lake City Southern). The old causeway bridge also used to carry tracks for a few other railroads, including an interurban.

Yes, I am the person who wrote the METRORail track and Galveston sub are the same gauge width, so light rail can most certainly run on the Galveston sub. I don't even need to look as far as Utah for an example of passenger rail service operating on a freight railroad line: Amtrak's Sunset Limited route on the Terminal line in Houston.

I'm not a passenger rail opponent. Actually quite the opposite. I just understand there are many more issues than fitment keeping a third-party operator from successfully utilizing the Galveston sub for passenger rail service to Galveston. A regional mobility entity like METRO or Texas Central can't tell UP what to do, and without change at the Congressional level, the FRA can't force them to cooperate. 

-UP owns the Galveston sub. It would have to grant trackage rights, an outcome I seriously question in this climate. It's currently engaged in a years-long lawsuit with Amtrak over this very issue. UP point blank writes to regulators it wants Amtrak, a current trackage rights holder, and freight operators like Canadian Pacific that don't currently have trackage rights now but stand to gain it through a merger with an operator that does off its right of way. 

-The line drops to one track in various sections, so trains frequently stop for hours until the one with right of way clears the area. Sometimes, blockages are also caused by trains being longer than yard sidings can support, thus they stick out onto the main line. Amtrak argues in the Terminal line lawsuit (see posts above) that these two commonalities cause trains to arrive late with regularity.

Would a passenger still buy a ticket if there's a lateness chance of, say, 90 minutes (splitting the difference of Amtrak's lateness states in the UP suit) between Houston and Galveston? There's a thread in this forum where someone wrote that the arrival times of Amtrak trains to New Orleans (Terminal line) made them second guess that mode of transportation. 

UP and BNSF have said in meetings with communities impacted by their new operating model the only way to improve fluidity -- making prolonged blockages on streets a thing of the past -- is expanding the current infrastructure to better support the longer trains they have every intention to continue building. CP-KCS plans to break the record for longest train length in the Houston complex, as an example. It wants to exceed 12,000 feet in length. 

This means expanding yards and adding tracks to existing lines, something they say is impossible on the Galveston sub and many other lines in Houston. The current political climate doesn't look kindly upon land acquisition. They also claim some of the industrial properties needed to be acquired to add tracks are worth quite a lot of $$$. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

If there's a groundswell of resident support for acquiring private property to expand rail infrastructure, I imagine it easily could be accomplished. Freight rail reps say their analysis found zero political backing for eminent domain in this climate, or they would have already expanded the lines. 

It appears to be the age-old adage that many elected officials view land acquisition for highways as a public benefit, whereas they seem to view land acquisition for rail as the opposite. 

The Texas AG has filed suit, claiming the Texas Central passenger railway isn't a true railroad and thus shouldn't have eminent domain authority. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

6 hours ago, JClark54 said:

It appears to be the age-old adage that many elected officials view land acquisition for highways as a public benefit, whereas they seem to view land acquisition for rail as the opposite. 

How about highway acquisition for rail?

(Regional, not metro/LRT/tram)