METRORapid University Corridor

[JClark54]

12 hours ago, 004n063 said:

How about highway acquisition for rail?

(Regional, not metro/LRT/tram)

I'm not opposed to your suggestion, but the highway purists on this board may differ. 

The Palestine derailment has garnered attention from local and federal legislators. As a result, legislators on both sides of the aisle have begun scrutinizing precision scheduled railroading's growing impact on communities large and small. Many bills have been filed that would give regulators more means to inhibit what many analysts and leaked internal company memos claim are dangerous train-building practices. 

The so-called bipartisan railway safety act of 2023, as an example, includes language empowering the FRA administrator to set train length caps locally based on the factors prevalent to that area. By the railroads' own admission, they have not invested in Houston rail infrastructure in any meaningful way to support their new model, and they really don't intend to without regulatory requirement.

Passage of the above bill or any of the similarly styled ones theoretically would provide reprieve to the communities bearing the brunt of so-called super train parking. Trains must fit in yards or sidings. So either they return to pre-PSR lengths or railroads expand their infrastructure to support the longer, heavier trains they've been building in recent years. Both would likely result in less street blockage, bettering quality of life for residents and Amtrak, or another passenger rail authority, alike. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by JClark54

[mkultra25]

ProPublica published a piece last week concerning trains blocking crossings for extended periods of time. It touches on some of the same issues @JClark54 mentions:

As Rail Profits Soar, Blocked Crossings Force Kids to Crawl Under Trains to Get to School

[hindesky]

https://www.ridemetro.org/about/metronext/metrorapid/metrorapid-university-corridor-project

[Texasota]

ugh I want it now.

[samagon]

On 5/24/2023 at 6:46 PM, Texasota said:

ugh I want it now.

settle down Veruca 😉

[004n063]

On 5/24/2023 at 6:05 PM, hindesky said:

I am a little concerned about Segment 2. Specifically, I think that the currently planned "station" locations between Shepherd and Wheeler TC are not optimized.

Mandell and Montrose are not inherently objectionable locations, of course. A decent number of people live within walking distance of both, and there are a decent number of destinations within walking distance of both. Plus Montrose has the 56 bus.

However, I think stops at Greeley/Jack, Graustark, and Dunlavy would ultimately be better than the current layout. 

Obviously, three stops is more expensive than two, and it slows down the end-to-end time for the line (probably - I can't help but wonder whether it'd be easier to optimize the Woodhead, Mandell, Montrose, and Milam signal cycles with my alignment, though). But I think there are a lot of marginal differences that add up here.

Let's take Jack/Greeley vs. Montrose to start. While you'd lose some potential (but demographically unlikely to be transit-inclined) catchment from the towers south of 59, you'd see a lot of (demographically more likely to be transit-inclined) people in those Westmoreland blocks just north of Alabama move from a walk of >15min to a walk of <10min to reach a stop. And with the barrier created by spur 527 and all of that awkward no-man's land just east of it, Wheeler doesn't really feel like a walkable option from that side. And the stop itself would have multiple large apartment buildings and streetfront businesses immediately adjacent (with additional activation potential on the north side of Richmond as well) versus a gas station, a CVS with a huge corner parking lot, and a Chase bank with a big parking lot. Biggest downside (in my opinion) is that you'd need to do some tree removal from the median.

Now let's look at Graustark+Dunlavy vs. Montrose+Mandell. Graustark puts basically all of UST, half a dozen apartment buildings, and the one area south of 59 where catchment might actually be worth trying to catch within a 5min walk. Marginally further to the Menil, Hotel St. Augustine, Toasted Coconut, but all still within 10min. Dunlavy puts multiple large apartment complexes right there, plus a 5min walk to HEB - and with groceries, 5min vs 10min is a big difference. 

As I said, these are all marginal differences. But they're the kind of differences that, taken together and applied at the scale of a district, could have real impact. It wouldn't be a big difference maker for commutes, I suspect, but it could make a real dent in those ~2mi discretionary journeys that comprise a majority of American car trips.

In a way, it comes down to deciding whether this part of the line is more of a "street" or a "road" - that is, whether it's more important to maximize throughput efficiency or neighborhood access. I'd argue that Montrose decidedly warrants the latter.

Edited June 7, 2023 by 004n063

[samagon]

you first have to realize that most of the stops on the proposed BRT correspond to existing bus routes, and very likely, those stops are the ones that are not as negotiable as other stops.

in the flyover video they show the stations right on the intersections, but it also says on that video that the locations are subject to change.

if I were to guess, I'd guess that the Mandell station might end up in the middle of the block between Dunlavy and Mandell, the Shepherd station will end up on the West side of Shepherd, and the Montrose station will stay on the West side to keep it as safe as possible for the students of the university.

since both Shepherd and Montrose have existing bus routes, I am not sure those stops will be subject to change.

[004n063]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

you first have to realize that most of the stops on the proposed BRT correspond to existing bus routes, and very likely, those stops are the ones that are not as negotiable as other stops.

in the flyover video they show the stations right on the intersections, but it also says on that video that the locations are subject to change.

if I were to guess, I'd guess that the Mandell station might end up in the middle of the block between Dunlavy and Mandell, the Shepherd station will end up on the West side of Shepherd, and the Montrose station will stay on the West side to keep it as safe as possible for the students of the university.

since both Shepherd and Montrose have existing bus routes, I am not sure those stops will be subject to change.

I figured they'd do the stations similarly to how they did them for the silver line, with each direction's stop being on the "before" side of the intersection.

I agree that the Montrose and Shepherd ones probably aren't changing - just making a minor critique. I think there could have been more discretionary trip catchment than there ultimately will be.

[Houston19514]

6 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I figured they'd do the stations similarly to how they did them for the silver line, with each direction's stop being on the "before" side of the intersection.

I agree that the Montrose and Shepherd ones probably aren't changing - just making a minor critique. I think there could have been more discretionary trip catchment than there ultimately will be.

Have you taken any of the opportunities to share those thoughts with Metro?

[004n063]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Have you taken any of the opportunities to share those thoughts with Metro?

I did go to two of the public meetings last summer, but these are new thoughts (i.e. as of yesterday's walk), so no. But I don't think it'd matter - they're probably too far along in the planning now, and they've probably already considered everything I wrote.

[Brooklyn173]

I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I do think that it's interesting.

 

[004n063]

11 hours ago, Brooklyn173 said:

I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I do think that it's interesting.

 

Saw this on Reddit. A couple of thoughts:

1) It's fantasy fuel, that's for sure.

2) The population numbers are deeply misleading and imply that the Houston metro area has nearly twice the density of Berlin. In reality, the Berlin metro area is much denser than the Houston metro area, and the city of Berlin is much denser than the city of Houston. But that's just at the overall level - when it comes down to neighborhoods, the gap is much bigger (Berlin, like most Euro metros, is primarily dense urban or "empty" green space; single-family sprawl, stripmalls, and huge parking lots (and ubiquitous big-ish parking lots) are not a significant factor like they are here.

All of that is just to say that overlaying the Berlin rail transit system over Houston in its current state would be colossally inefficient.

However, there are at least half a dozen rapidly densifying nodes that are worthy of rail transit and likelh won't be getting any in the next twenty years, and that is very unfortunate.

I think the Washington corridor is probably the most obvious, but a Kirby-Gray or Kirby-Dallas line would also make a lot of sense right now. I also think that an Almeda/Crawford/Jensen line would be a worthwhile investment.

All that said, I think there are a lot of other things that Metro and COH could start doing tomorrow that would have just as much impact (in the short-to-medium term, at least) as any feasible rail network expansion, and would cost far less in both political and financial capital, including:

-improving signals to optimize for buses, dedicating lanes for buses on all major routes (start with just paint and just key areas, then incrementally expand),

-increasing frequencies on all (/prioritize by ridership potential) local routes (bus and rail),

-improving pedestrian infrastructure (including shade, ideally via trees),

-eliminating minimum parking requirements (at least along rail, BRT, and HF bus routes to start, but ultimately citywide) and reducing building setback requirements (along aforementioned routes and within half a mile of priority stops), and

-increasing fares to $1.75 (and using various partnerships to maintain and increase reduced fare options).

In other words, apply the "BRT Creep" phenomenon intentionally, but in reverse:

"It's just a bus route - but we're giving it its own lane at the Shepherd intersection."

"It's just a bus route - but it runs every five minutes, alternating express and local services."

"It's just a bus route - but the express stops have offboard payment."

"It's just a bus route - but you can bring your bike straight on board with you."

"It's just a bus route - but the roadway is always well-maintained."

Edited August 12, 2023 by 004n063

[BEES?!]

Sort of like what they’re doing with some of the BOOST routes- trying to speed up the routes and make them more efficient through little infrastructure changes. (IIRC BOOST routes have some kind of signal improvements, raised stops so the bus doesn’t have to kneel, among other things.) 

[004n063]

1 hour ago, BEES?! said:

Sort of like what they’re doing with some of the BOOST routes- trying to speed up the routes and make them more efficient through little infrastructure changes. (IIRC BOOST routes have some kind of signal improvements, raised stops so the bus doesn’t have to kneel, among other things.) 

Same idea, but the BOOST improvements are more about accessibility and don't really have any teeth when it comes to lane control or headway reductions. Tbh I wasn't aware that signal optimization was a part of it either.

[BEES?!]

I was surprised to find out about it, too! Honestly METRO’s descriptions of the BOOST routes are a bit…vague, but that’s info I cobbled together from their videos, site, and meeting packets 😅 

I hope we see a move to bus-lanes in the future, esp. on their high ridership routes. I’m kind of shocked that this isn’t the plan for 82, because I wanna say that is the bus route with not only the highest ridership in Houston, but in all of Texas, too. (I’m also not entirely clear on what their Signature Service is gonna mean, infrastructure improvements- wise. METRO being a little opaque again.)

[004n063]

10 hours ago, BEES?! said:

I was surprised to find out about it, too! Honestly METRO’s descriptions of the BOOST routes are a bit…vague, but that’s info I cobbled together from their videos, site, and meeting packets 😅 

I hope we see a move to bus-lanes in the future, esp. on their high ridership routes. I’m kind of shocked that this isn’t the plan for 82, because I wanna say that is the bus route with not only the highest ridership in Houston, but in all of Texas, too. (I’m also not entirely clear on what their Signature Service is gonna mean, infrastructure improvements- wise. METRO being a little opaque again.)

I think the problem with the 82 is that it's a state FM road, so neither Metro nor COH has the authority to alter the ROW configuration? (Somebody please correct me if I've got that wrong!)

What I've seen of the "Signature Service" is that it will use the 59 HOV between Edloe and Downtown, which suggests to me that Metro doesn't really think there's anything they can do to improve the lower Westheimer roadway or bus experience.

[Texasota]

Well, there is also a plan to rebuild lower westheimer, but improving the 82 along it mostly comes down to better stop spacing and transit priority at lights.

Lower Westheimer is pretty space constrained. Westheimer outside the loop is very much not; ideally that would get full BRT treatment though that's not planned. 

[editor]

4 hours ago, Texasota said:

Well, there is also a plan to rebuild lower westheimer, but improving the 82 along it mostly comes down to better stop spacing and transit priority at lights.

Lower Westheimer is pretty space constrained. Westheimer outside the loop is very much not; ideally that would get full BRT treatment though that's not planned. 

I know it's a fantasy in Houston, but this is a solved problem:  Tunnel.

You run surface BRT on the western part of Westheimer, and then run it in a tunnel when you get inside 610.

That's what they did in Seattle, and it works great.  I've used it hundreds of times.  It started with just city buses, but now city buses, commuter buses, and light rail use it.  It acts like one long intermodal transit hub.  One end even connects to the monorail, the street car, and the Greyhound station.

I don't have access to my full photo archive right now, but here's a few pictures:

I know that every time anyone on HAIF uses the "T" word, someone pipes up about how it would never work in Houston.  Completely forgetting that Houston already has not only a pedestrian tunnel system, but also a vehicle tunnel that somehow work fine; and that there are cities with far worse water infiltration problems and a lot less stable earth that somehow make tunnels work fine.

[mollusk]

11 minutes ago, editor said:

I know it's a fantasy in Houston, but this is a solved problem:  Tunnel.

You run surface BRT on the western part of Westheimer, and then run it in a tunnel when you get inside 610.

That's what they did in Seattle, and it works great.  I've used it hundreds of times.  It started with just city buses, but now city buses, commuter buses, and light rail use it.  It acts like one long intermodal transit hub.  One end even connects to the monorail, the street car, and the Greyhound station.

I know that every time anyone on HAIF uses the "T" word, someone pipes up about how it would never work in Houston.  Completely forgetting that Houston already has not only a pedestrian tunnel system, but also a vehicle tunnel that somehow work fine; and that there are cities with far worse water infiltration problems and a lot less stable earth that somehow make tunnels work fine.

Tunnels make sense in some places, like inside the loop Westheimer (and maybe the Washington corridor, too) where ROW acquisition would be really painful.

[BEES?!]

They’re doing a BRT tunnel at the Wheeler Station intersection with the Red Line, aren’t they? It’d be neat if they could do more of them, though. 

[004n063]

5 hours ago, mollusk said:

Tunnels make sense in some places, like inside the loop Westheimer (and maybe the Washington corridor, too) where ROW acquisition would be really painful.

I'm not sure I agree about the Washington corridor. Mostly because I think that taking away car ROW on Washington would be a feature, not a bug, of a westward green line extension along the corridor.

[IWantTransit555]

17 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I think the problem with the 82 is that it's a state FM road, so neither Metro nor COH has the authority to alter the ROW configuration? (Somebody please correct me if I've got that wrong!)

What would be the process to get the road into city control?

[EastwoodEnvoy]

Metro gained a NEPA categorical exclusion for the University Line today.

Quote

This favorable determination is a significant milestone that allows this METRONext project to move forward within the Capital Improvement Grants process

https://metro.resourcespace.com/pages/download.php?direct=1&noattach=true&ref=13472&ext=pdf&k=