East End BRT

[Trae]

If they already have everything in place for LRT, what is the problem with putting it in. BRT will only last for above five years I'm sure, so why n ot delay the project a few months by putting in LRT. It would work better in the long run.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

If they already have everything in place for LRT, what is the problem with putting it in. BRT will only last for above five years I'm sure, so why n ot delay the project a few months by putting in LRT. It would work better in the long run.

I agree. Thats why it looks to me as it would be a double payment for a single service........

[CE_ugh]

I think that could work, then it could eventually dip down, or maybe build a new rail along navigation or another path as demand warrents.

It was my impression that they were planning on going subway in the downtown portion, so I assume that's totally off the table?

Apparently, the East End line will only be in a fixed guideway until the Harrisburg underpass at the railyards. From there it will run on the streets in a dedicated lane to either the Red line or down San Jacinto to the Intermodal Terminal. Rail would only be constructed past the underpass to Magnolia TC. The rest of the rail would be constructed at a future date. The downtown right of way would be shared with the SE line.

Also, these vehicle have a useful life of much longer than 5 years. My bet is they would still be used after conversion to light rail on most lines, and will probably be used for the future Inner Katy line.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

yeah, but there is already a large amount of people that use metro in that area of town....

[ricco67]

Apparently, the East End line will only be in a fixed guideway until the Harrisburg underpass at the railyards. From there it will run on the streets in a dedicated lane to either the Red line or down San Jacinto to the Intermodal Terminal. Rail would only be constructed past the underpass to Magnolia TC. The rest of the rail would be constructed at a future date. The downtown right of way would be shared with the SE line.

Also, these vehicle have a useful life of much longer than 5 years. My bet is they would still be used after conversion to light rail on most lines, and will probably be used for the future Inner Katy line.

So the underground portion will probably be built once the LRT conversion is OK'ed. This makes even better sense to me, then. This way the route is completed sans subway and can keep operating all during construction of the tunnel with just a little rerouting with minimal distruption.

What subway portion would take a little over a year to complete? If I remember the meetings correctly they had planned on the subway portion to be a cross platform station, meaning multiple routes would stop at the one station.

I'm starting to like the BRT concept if they use it correctly.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I want this to not be a BRT line, but a LRT line as approved by the voters. Looking at BRT lines in other cities, nothing is done to really beautify the street as it is done with LRT. BRT is a bad idea and i dont like it. The reasoning behind it is stupid. Low ridership my Texan ass..........

[Guest danax]

I want this to not be a BRT line, but a LRT line as approved by the voters. Looking at BRT lines in other cities, nothing is done to really beautify the street as it is done with LRT. BRT is a bad idea and i dont like it. The reasoning behind it is stupid. Low ridership my Texan ass..........

According to this Metrosolutions map, the BRT is now called GRT. No idea what the G stands for but I'm sure it's just a slicker name for the same thing.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

According to this Metrosolutions map, the BRT is now called GRT. No idea what the G stands for but I'm sure it's just a slicker name for the same thing.

That is a mess as well. It should be no less than this.......

[RedScare]

I think that is "Guided Rapid Transit", which would be an enhanced form of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The busses are in dedicated guideways, hence the new and improved moniker.

[ricco67]

Well, looks like it will be six blocks short because UP won't let the rail cross the lines at grade, which I think was a bad idea to begin with. Hopefully the city (which I believe was planning on a span over that rail line anyway) will accelerate its plans a bit.

Either way, this is a bummer.

BTW: MODS, I couldn't find the proper place to put it, so if there IS an east end line thread, I couldn't find it.

[TheNiche]

Well, looks like it will be six blocks short because UP won't let the rail cross the lines at grade, which I think was a bad idea to begin with. Hopefully the city (which I believe was planning on a span over that rail line anyway) will accelerate its plans a bit.

Either way, this is a bummer.

So now that it doesn't connect to Magnolia Transit Center, how is METRO going to force bus riders onto the East End Line?

Also, the prospect of an overpass at the tracks there ought to scare historical preservationists and urbanists on account of that all the commercial buildings east of the tracks come up to the street, an ideal environment for LRT to exist in. But an overpass for railroad tracks has to be especially high (look at Navigation further up the line for an example) but to accomodate LRT, the slope has to be shallower, and all the while there have to be access roads for the land owners. I forsee lots of demolition and effectively a dead streetscape in that area...but not before the entirety of the East End line is put on indefinite hold or converted back to BRT.

EDIT: I said from the beginning that it ought to have gone out Navigation. Far fewer eminent domain takings, lower construction cost, large parcels fronting a river which is ripe for redevelopment and a streetscape that can't be ruined but only improved on account of that it doesn't really exist in a meaningful way. And now this, that the rail line can cross the tracks without creating a broad swath of destruction.

[TheNiche]

Well, looks like it will be six blocks short because UP won't let the rail cross the lines at grade, which I think was a bad idea to begin with. Hopefully the city (which I believe was planning on a span over that rail line anyway) will accelerate its plans a bit.

Either way, this is a bummer.

So now that it doesn't connect to Magnolia Transit Center, how is METRO going to force bus riders onto the East End Line? The single-family, four-plexes, and scattered retail (much of which is auto-related) doesn't support much ridership, and aside from that there is another railroad line two blocks south of Harrisburg that shuts off pedestrian movement from the Eastwood area.

Also, the prospect of an overpass at the tracks there ought to scare historical preservationists and urbanists on account of that all the commercial buildings east of the tracks come up to the street, an ideal environment for LRT to exist in. But an overpass for railroad tracks has to be especially high (look at Navigation further up the line for an example) but to accomodate LRT, the slope has to be shallower, and all the while there have to be access roads for the land owners. I forsee lots of demolition and effectively a dead streetscape in that area...but not before the entirety of the East End line is put on indefinite hold or converted back to BRT.

Navigation would've been the better choice for the route all along. Large formerly industrial parcels fronting a river, a wide median that means that basically no eminent domain would be necessary, a streetscape that isn't particularly historical and therefore can be altered (positively or negatively) without ruining anything unique. Its much less expensive, could spur a development boom, and could get across the railroad tracks without creating a wide swath of destruction.

Honestly, who is METRO's due diligence guy? Somebody needs to run over him with a bus.

[musicman]

Wolff said he hoped the city of Houston would build an overpass at the tracks.

IMO METRO needs to step up to the plate and build an underpass otherwise there is no chance for success. to even suggest that the city should do something is ludicrous. METRO's planners should be fired!

to blame UP for this is also a cop out. METRO is JUST finding this out? sound familiar?

[VicMan]

Wolff said he hoped the city of Houston would build an overpass at the tracks.

IMO METRO needs to step up to the plate and build an underpass otherwise there is no chance for success. to even suggest that the city should do something is ludicrous. METRO's planners should be fired!

to blame UP for this is also a cop out. METRO is JUST finding this out? sound familiar?

Should I contact the Community Outreach address here and then send a written letter to the HQ - http://www.ridemetro.org/contact/index.asp ? Before a route is planned a guy should visually see the entire stretch and make notes of the terrain, and METRO ought to step up to the plate and simply build the underpass.

[musicman]

i'm going to contact councilmembers rodriguez and noriega and see what their response will be. METRO didn't publicize this cause they didn't want negative publicity.

[TheNiche]

METRO didn't publicize this cause they didn't want negative publicity.

Obviously. But the larger crime here is that they proceeded so far along the wrong path befor UP told them 'No'. The same kind of crap was responsible for the TMC Transit Center snafu.

Poor communication with key stakeholders.

[musicman]

Obviously. But the larger crime here is that they proceeded so far along the wrong path befor UP told them 'No'. The same kind of crap was responsible for the TMC Transit Center snafu.

Poor communication with key stakeholders.

concur!

[ricco67]

According to the article, they initially had the line (street level) for the BRT and UP was okay with that. It's when they switched over to light rail is when they (UP) kinda' freaked out (again, justifiably) at the possibility of LightRail crossing THEIR line at ground level.

This engineering (and PR) SNAFU is simply unacceptable, they should have foreseen and planned for an elevated portion.

I don't think an elevated portion can work and won't mark that section of the neighborhood IF they plan it properly. An elevated platform would work just fine for the area and I think it would be an overreaction from local business and neighborhoods if they strongly oppose and elevated portion.

But otherwise, METRO is going to have to work fast and hard to get over this hump.

[TheNiche]

An elevated platform would work just fine for the area and I think it would be an overreaction from local business and neighborhoods if they strongly oppose and elevated portion.

If METRO was going to do an LRT-only elevated section, that'd be very true. It keeps them from having to do eminent domain or any teardowns of historical buildings. But if the City puts in a grade-seperation in addition to LRT, as it has been planning, then we've got a ROW problem, a demolition problem, an urbanism problem, a historical preservation problem, and a visual blight problem.

[musicman]

According to the article, they initially had the line (street level) for the BRT and UP was okay with that.

Asked why the issue is surfacing now, Salazar said Metro initially hoped to obtain permission from the railroad for a street-level crossing.

In 2003, when Metro changed its plans from light rail to Bus Rapid Transit, thinking that was necessary to qualify for federal funding, the issue was moot because the buses would cross the tracks with other street traffic. looks like UP was never asked.

[arisegundo]

What an embarrassment.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

I want to know what kind of drugs the folks at METRO were taking if they really, truly thought that UP would *ever* let them cross their tracks at grade. In fact, I didn't know that it was even permissable per FTA and FRA regulations to begin with.

Sigh...

[musicman]

I want to know what kind of drugs the folks at METRO were taking

that's the train drivers.

[wernicke]

I'm curious... from an engineering/construction standpoint, is it more or less expensive to make an elevated section over the tracks or to tunnel (no, not a negative-pressure tunnel) underneath the tracks? A short underpass seems more appealing to me, but maybe it isn't feasible for some reason.

[ricco67]

I'm curious... from an engineering/construction standpoint, is it more or less expensive to make an elevated section over the tracks or to tunnel (no, not a negative-pressure tunnel) underneath the tracks? A short underpass seems more appealing to me, but maybe it isn't feasible for some reason.

Niche, I'm not caring too much for your comment about "forcing riders" onto the metrorail. You make it seem like there is a conspiracy to force rail down our throats.

I never thought about a tunnel in the area. It's been a number of years since I've been in the area during a substantial rainstorm, but I think I think the impact would be lower (so to speak) and wouldn't require such a large footprint and if its engineered properly, a flooding wouldn't be an issue.

[Trae]

It doesn't have to be tunneled, either. Just a little underpass.

[TheNiche]

I'm curious... from an engineering/construction standpoint, is it more or less expensive to make an elevated section over the tracks or to tunnel (no, not a negative-pressure tunnel) underneath the tracks? A short underpass seems more appealing to me, but maybe it isn't feasible for some reason.

Tunnelling is much more expensive.

EDIT: So it trenching.

[ricco67]

Underpass indeed, perhaps a road underpass (A la' TMC's Fannin route) would be a more practical solution for the area. But then you have to deal with what to do with the oversized rigs that go into the old Hughes' site.

be it an over pass or an underpass, we're talking money. The underpass would prove a better method that may be more pleasing to the eye.

[TheNiche]

Niche, I'm not caring too much for your comment about "forcing riders" onto the metrorail. You make it seem like there is a conspiracy to force rail down our throats.

Conspiracies are secret, this one is pretty much out there.

[T 2 THA C]

This is disappointing that there will not be lines to Eastwood or Magnolia TC's, but something is better than nothing. It seems that Metro changes its minds and plans so quickly I would put it past them to go ahead and build an overpass. I'm sure once more find out the will be pressured to complete this.