METRORail University Line

[nmainguy]

Sorry the the link triggered the Haiku! Try again!

Sorry, my mistake. try again. [Damn Haiku ]

[TheNiche]

Jeez. I leave a computer for a day and a half and come back to find all this material. Although much of it is very worthy of response, I'm only going to address a few specific criticisms, but will start with a monologue on transit optimization. I do this because it seems that someone or some people can't handle non-technical simplifications.

I was very relieved when Musicman mentioned the concept of optimization. The meaning of the very word is key to the understanding of functional systems. It was evidently taught to him as part of engineering coursework, but I picked it up on a qualitative level as part of my economics coursework.

For any public investment, the objective of the mathematical function utilized to determine the optimal inputs (independent variables) is to Maximize the Present Value of Net Benefits (dependent variable). The Net Benefit comes in many forms, all of which can be measured in denominations of currency with inflation factored out. The potential benefit/cost items are as follows: Time, Out-of-Pocket Costs (or Cost Savings), and Leisure. There may be more, but these are the big ones. They all need to be considered in marginal terms (i.e. present vs. proposed alternative), rather than on their own.

Time: Valued by multiplying the marginal opportunity cost of individuals' time by the amont of time saved. In aggregate, the marginal opportunity cost of time varies around a mean in a bell-shaped distribution. This is important to note because it leads to the effective conclusion that an hour of time saved of a mid-level office manager is more beneficial than an hour of low-level clerk or housekeeper's time and that it is possible to serve one more effectively at the expense of the other and still come out ahead (see 'Pareto Efficiency'). There are some subtle nuances to this assertion among various projects, but the premise will hold true in nearly all cases. The input variables will include an enormous variety of items, obtained in part by a demographic profile of the ridership and a study of use patterns. Use patterns are critical because, for instance, users of the Smithlands station are more likely to have a higher opportunity cost of time than users of the TMC Transit Center station, but are less likely to ride the train as far, thus making their opportunity for time-savings from the LRT much more limited. These are methodological issues. However, the basic variables that are necessary to calculate time savings will include but are not limited to the following: ridership, average marginal opportunity cost of time, average trip length, average vehicle speed, and then all the same data for the next best alternative to LRT use. Dependent variables used to calculate these middle-level inputs will get into the nitty gritty stuff and are the big sticking point on this thread. These data would necessarily take into account EVERYBODY affected by the existence of the LRT. That includes people who don't ride it, too.

Out-of-pocket costs (or cost-savings): The difference in all cash outlays, both private and public. This can make for tricky accounting because you've often got to adjust numbers to avoid double-counting. (i.e. when METRO buys land for a park-and-ride's parking lot and then charges user fees to recoup the cost; doing so will indirectly affect other variables). In most other respects, however, this aspect is pretty straightforward. Variables may include infrastructure cost, fuel costs, parking garage use fees, and vehicle maintenance. They can also include additional healthcare costs (that's what happens when you stuff a bunch of people into a confined space) and benefits (more walking, etc.). Just remember: the present value of cash flows are key.

Leisure: The Bell Curve has a strong application here. Some people really like interacting in the LRT vehicle. They really like people-watching. And they really like being able to read the newspaper or listen to their discman. Other people (like myself) are introverts, enjoy privacy, or just plain enjoy the act of driving more than they do the act of riding the LRT, so riding the LRT is a disamenity. The experience of sickness from disease communication also falls into this category. There are a myriad of effects that must be accounted for here, and valuation can be very difficult (but not impossible). It is important to note that some people may have the preference for LRT and would stand to gain a great deal of consumer surplus in the form of Leisure, but cannot reasonably use it because the service is so ineffective as to nullify the benefit; likewise, even I could be persuaded to ride the thing if it took me where I wanted efficiently enough.

Real Estate Impacts are NOT included in this analysis. Land value changes are indicators of benefit. However, just because the rail line added $10psf to its service area doesn't mean that it didn't subtract $0.01psf in an area 1,000 times larger, ceteris paribum. If so, then we have witnessed a transfer payment with zero net benefit.

Reconciling all these variables in a mathematical model requires incredible depths of knowledge with respect to econometrics. I'm not qualified to construct this thing quantitatively. Very few people are. But I can tell you qualitatively how various dependent variables will behave when independent variables related to design are changed. For instance, if you elevate the line, there will be no interaction with stop lights, cars stopped in intersections, vehicular crashes, stupid pedestrians, debris on the tracks, etc. For all intents and purposes, unless the LRT vehicle itself breaks down, service is uninterruptible and almost always perfectly reliable; an operator is not required. Without even taking into account the faster service, the reliability alone will have a positive effect upon ridership because people are averse to uncertainty. The additional speed of service will further help in making this form of transit useful to both those that already ride the line and those that are induced to ride it.

Now, to address the thorny issue of station placement optimization: Everything described above can be duplicated for a variety of configuration alternatives. There are two extremes, neither of which are at all likely to be feasible (nobody's suggesting either of them, either): on the one hand, a line could connect two points; on the other, stations would be placed one after another without any gap between them whatsoever. The OPTIMAL point lies somewhere in the middle. Although there IS a formula that can be used to calculate the appropriate distance between one station and another, distances are site-specific. In other words, what works downtown doesn't necessarily work in midtown, doesn't necessarily work in the TMC, and doesn't necessarily work at Hermann Park or the museum district. Red, I noticed that you have repeatedly cited the average distances between stations in Houston and Dallas as absolute distances that apparently apply universally along the DART system. You know better, you dastardly lawyer, you.

This image below illustrates how frequent stops can be of greatest use in a very dense area with a lot of demand generators loosely clustered throughout the service area. Note how points A and F are fully served, but how LRT users would begin to experience inconvenience as they travel outward, toward points D and C, respectively (there is no point B and D & C are out of order, but its 4AM, so screw it). Point E is underserved because only a very few people will walk that far. If Red says simply "space each station a half-mile apart, as pictured in Alternative A, downtown will suffer from a shortage of stations because the underserved area formed between radial service areas along the line will create pretty gaps in the quality of service. Alternative B shows a case where point G is included in an area with adequate service and point H is in an even better circumstance because there is overlapping coverage, which means that LRT users can use whichever station is in the right general direction that they want to go. On the other hand, Alternative A would be very well suited for Midtown, where there's still a lack of sufficient demand in most areas to justify the downtown configuration, but where City planners would like there to be a corridor-oriented redevelopment. In other areas, there simply isn't enough benefit gained in adding a station to justify wasting up to a minute of every single rider's time as well as the benefits created by making the line faster and inducing more ridership.

OK...I'm done... not because I don't have anything else to say, but because I'm exhausted. To wrap this up, a little Q&A:

I'm confused. How does a person save time walking .66 miles (one-half the average distance between DART stations) to their destination, versus walking .25 miles (one-half the distance between METRO stations)?

Addressed above, if you can follow. Mass transit can't be everything to everyone. Just isn't happening, no matter how much money you throw at it.

How can a light rail train stopping every 1.32 miles on its way to Plano be considered more efficient than a commuter train with limited stops, or for that matter, a Park&Ride bus, making NO stops between Downtown and the P&R lot?

You mistook an average figure for an absolute figure. By eyeballing it, once out of downtown Dallas, the DART makes stops at increments of 1.75 miles, 3.25 miles, 1 mile, 2.25 miles, 1 mile, 2 miles, 1.5 miles, 2.25 miles, 2 miles, 2 miles, 1.75 miles, 1.75 miles, and 1 mile (averaging 1.8 miles per stop). The furthest distance between Red Line stops is 0.87 miles between Smithlands and Reliant Park. The DART's route to the south, southwest, and especially to Garland rarely have stops within a mile of eachother.

that's a lot more people per mile of trackage than have made that same determination for themselves regarding the Dallas rail system

The number of "people per mile of trackage", though politically relevant, is really only a tiny tiny peice of a really big picture. Within the context of that puzzle, which must be assessed segment by segment, your number is meaningless. Moreover, the Red Line is suitable for a 'bus replacement' philosophy, whereas most of DART is more suitable as a commuter or hybrid-type line that I would argue effectively suppliments bus service rather than replaces it.

DART only runs trains every 10 minutes during rush hour and every 20 minutes the rest of the day, compared to every 6 minutes and 12 minutes for Metro.

Well that does suck. Dallas could use more vehicles. But that plays up my argument that DART is very much differentiated from a 'bus replacement' system because it makes intermodal transfers that much more of a hassle.

A rail planner would be foolish not to consider the walking time as part of the trip time, because the potential riders most assuredly will consider the walking time when they decide whether to patronize the rail system.

Correct. Just as a rail planner would be foolish not to consider transit time as part of the trip time. Hence the discussion of multivariate optimization, above.

That is why METRO spaces the stations every half-mile. A quarter mile is the farthest that most riders will walk, which is 4 blocks. Much farther, and you lose riders. 1.32 miles would put a station at either end of downtown, with none in between.

See above. Everything must be put in proper context.

It's a balancing act for rail planners, to plan enough stops to minimize the walking times to and from stations without slowing the train down too much with too many stops.

There are more than two independent variables. A planner can sacrifice ridership in one low-ridership area completely in favor of inducing a better combination of ridership and higher average marginal opportunity cost of time.

Which is equally desirable. After all, the idea here is not to get cars off of this nebulous "the road", but to get them off of CERTAIN roads, congested roads.

I was countering a point made that we simply need to get cars off the road...I think it was made with environmental considerations as one important aspect. I'm not going to reread it, as the time is now 4:18AM.

DART, on the other hand, runs its LRT to the suburbs. Even though it has fewer stops than Houston's downtown LRT, it has far more than commuter rail or HOV busses. While the bus and train can travel 60 mph, DART LRT must make too many stops. Therefore, its average speed is less than 30 mph, half that of Houston's busses.

The most efficient solution is to use BOTH, with each being used where it is most effective.

CORRECT. The Plano DART route is able to effectively serve the various pods of development all up and down US 75, but an express P&R-like bus system with possibly one stop at the midpoint of the DART line would do an excellent job at covering all the bases.

An extra stop adds how long to the trip? A minute. Probably less.

How much is a minute of time for all the riders that will ever have to wait out the Bell station worth? I can't speak for you, but I value my time. Even little wastes add up when applied to the number of people we've got going through it every day.

If a train passed by a baseball stadium, it would stop because of high ridership. If it passed by a basketball arena 2 blocks later, it would stop again. If it then passed by a one mile long brownfield, with no homes or businesses, it would not stop.

Speaking of which, I kind of wish that METRO would only make the Reliant Park stop active when there are events. Otherwise, it is dead zone.

OK. I'm done. Finally. GOOD MORNING HOUSTON!

EDIT: DAMN! Quotes didn't work. Sorry folks...not gonna fix them. Not at this time, anyway.

Edited September 27, 2006 by TheNiche

[nmainguy]

If the topic is rail on Richmond, couldn't all the back and forth regarding DART's heavy rail vs METRO's LRT; if a train stops at a ball park or two ball parks; if it passes a one mile long brownfield; fantasies about what some people want but will never have; etc... then could another thread be stared so you all could hash it out and leave this one to the U Line?

Just a thought.

[TheNiche]

If the topic is rail on Richmond, couldn't all the back and forth regarding DART's heavy rail vs METRO's LRT; if a train stops at a ball park or two ball parks; if it passes a one mile long brownfield; fantasies about what some people want but will never have; etc... then could another thread be stared so you all could hash it out and leave this one to the U Line?

Just a thought.

I agree, but you know how topics have this way of morphing into other things. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I expect half the time that I'll be able to deal a knock-out argument that'll wrap up the conversation for good. I'm hoping that my above discourse will pretty much do that so that we can get back to the topic.

[AftonAg]

Jeez. I leave a computer for a day and a half and come back to find all this material. Although much of it is very worthy of response, I'm only going to address a few specific criticisms, but will start with a monologue on transit optimization. I do this because it seems that someone or some people can't handle non-technical simplifications.

I was very relieved when Musicman mentioned the concept of optimization. The meaning of the very word is key to the understanding of functional systems. It was evidently taught to him as part of engineering coursework, but I picked it up on a qualitative level as part of my economics coursework.

For any public investment, the objective of the mathematical function utilized to determine the optimal inputs (independent variables) is to Maximize the Present Value of Net Benefits (dependent variable). The Net Benefit comes in many forms, all of which can be measured in denominations of currency with inflation factored out. The potential benefit/cost items are as follows: Time, Out-of-Pocket Costs (or Cost Savings), and Leisure. There may be more, but these are the big ones. They all need to be considered in marginal terms (i.e. present vs. proposed alternative), rather than on their own.

Time: Valued by multiplying the marginal opportunity cost of individuals' time by the amont of time saved. In aggregate, the marginal opportunity cost of time varies around a mean in a bell-shaped distribution. This is important to note because it leads to the effective conclusion that an hour of time saved of a mid-level office manager is more beneficial than an hour of low-level clerk or housekeeper's time and that it is possible to serve one more effectively at the expense of the other and still come out ahead (see 'Pareto Efficiency'). There are some subtle nuances to this assertion among various projects, but the premise will hold true in nearly all cases. The input variables will include an enormous variety of items, obtained in part by a demographic profile of the ridership and a study of use patterns. Use patterns are critical because, for instance, users of the Smithlands station are more likely to have a higher opportunity cost of time than users of the TMC Transit Center station, but are less likely to ride the train as far, thus making their opportunity for time-savings from the LRT much more limited. These are methodological issues. However, the basic variables that are necessary to calculate time savings will include but are not limited to the following: ridership, average marginal opportunity cost of time, average trip length, average vehicle speed, and then all the same data for the next best alternative to LRT use. Dependent variables used to calculate these middle-level inputs will get into the nitty gritty stuff and are the big sticking point on this thread. These data would necessarily take into account EVERYBODY affected by the existence of the LRT. That includes people who don't ride it, too.

Out-of-pocket costs (or cost-savings): The difference in all cash outlays, both private and public. This can make for tricky accounting because you've often got to adjust numbers to avoid double-counting. (i.e. when METRO buys land for a park-and-ride's parking lot and then charges user fees to recoup the cost; doing so will indirectly affect other variables). In most other respects, however, this aspect is pretty straightforward. Variables may include infrastructure cost, fuel costs, parking garage use fees, and vehicle maintenance. They can also include additional healthcare costs (that's what happens when you stuff a bunch of people into a confined space) and benefits (more walking, etc.). Just remember: the present value of cash flows are key.

Leisure: The Bell Curve has a strong application here. Some people really like interacting in the LRT vehicle. They really like people-watching. And they really like being able to read the newspaper or listen to their discman. Other people (like myself) are introverts, enjoy privacy, or just plain enjoy the act of driving more than they do the act of riding the LRT, so riding the LRT is a disamenity. The experience of sickness from disease communication also falls into this category. There are a myriad of effects that must be accounted for here, and valuation can be very difficult (but not impossible). It is important to note that some people may have the preference for LRT and would stand to gain a great deal of consumer surplus in the form of Leisure, but cannot reasonably use it because the service is so ineffective as to nullify the benefit; likewise, even I could be persuaded to ride the thing if it took me where I wanted efficiently enough.

Real Estate Impacts are NOT included in this analysis. Land value changes are indicators of benefit. However, just because the rail line added $10psf to its service area doesn't mean that it didn't subtract $0.01psf in an area 1,000 times larger, ceteris paribum. If so, then we have witnessed a transfer payment with zero net benefit.

Reconciling all these variables in a mathematical model requires incredible depths of knowledge with respect to econometrics. I'm not qualified to construct this thing quantitatively. Very few people are. But I can tell you qualitatively how various dependent variables will behave when independent variables related to design are changed. For instance, if you elevate the line, there will be no interaction with stop lights, cars stopped in intersections, vehicular crashes, stupid pedestrians, debris on the tracks, etc. For all intents and purposes, unless the LRT vehicle itself breaks down, service is uninterruptible and almost always perfectly reliable; an operator is not required. Without even taking into account the faster service, the reliability alone will have a positive effect upon ridership because people are averse to uncertainty. The additional speed of service will further help in making this form of transit useful to both those that already ride the line and those that are induced to ride it.

Now, to address the thorny issue of station placement optimization: Everything described above can be duplicated for a variety of configuration alternatives. There are two extremes, neither of which are at all likely to be feasible (nobody's suggesting either of them, either): on the one hand, a line could connect two points; on the other, stations would be placed one after another without any gap between them whatsoever. The OPTIMAL point lies somewhere in the middle. Although there IS a formula that can be used to calculate the appropriate distance between one station and another, distances are site-specific. In other words, what works downtown doesn't necessarily work in midtown, doesn't necessarily work in the TMC, and doesn't necessarily work at Hermann Park or the museum district. Red, I noticed that you have repeatedly cited the average distances between stations in Houston and Dallas as absolute distances that apparently apply universally along the DART system. You know better, you dastardly lawyer, you.

This image below illustrates how frequent stops can be of greatest use in a very dense area with a lot of demand generators loosely clustered throughout the service area. Note how points A and F are fully served, but how LRT users would begin to experience inconvenience as they travel outward, toward points D and C, respectively (there is no point B and D & C are out of order, but its 4AM, so screw it). Point E is underserved because only a very few people will walk that far. If Red says simply "space each station a half-mile apart, as pictured in Alternative A, downtown will suffer from a shortage of stations because the underserved area formed between radial service areas along the line will create pretty gaps in the quality of service. Alternative B shows a case where point G is included in an area with adequate service and point H is in an even better circumstance because there is overlapping coverage, which means that LRT users can use whichever station is in the right general direction that they want to go. On the other hand, Alternative A would be very well suited for Midtown, where there's still a lack of sufficient demand in most areas to justify the downtown configuration, but where City planners would like there to be a corridor-oriented redevelopment. In other areas, there simply isn't enough benefit gained in adding a station to justify wasting up to a minute of every single rider's time as well as the benefits created by making the line faster and inducing more ridership.

OK...I'm done... not because I don't have anything else to say, but because I'm exhausted. To wrap this up, a little Q&A:

Addressed above, if you can follow. Mass transit can't be everything to everyone. Just isn't happening, no matter how much money you throw at it.

You mistook an average figure for an absolute figure. By eyeballing it, once out of downtown Dallas, the DART makes stops at increments of 1.75 miles, 3.25 miles, 1 mile, 2.25 miles, 1 mile, 2 miles, 1.5 miles, 2.25 miles, 2 miles, 2 miles, 1.75 miles, 1.75 miles, and 1 mile (averaging 1.8 miles per stop). The shortest distance between Red Line stops is 0.87 miles between Smithlands and Reliant Park. The DART's route to the south, southwest, and especially to Garland rarely have stops within a mile of eachother.

The number of "people per mile of trackage", though politically relevant, is really only a tiny tiny peice of a really big picture. Within the context of that puzzle, which must be assessed segment by segment, your number is meaningless. Moreover, the Red Line is suitable for a 'bus replacement' philosophy, whereas most of DART is more suitable as a commuter or hybrid-type line that I would argue effectively suppliments bus service rather than replaces it.

Well that does suck. Dallas could use more vehicles. But that plays up my argument that DART is very much differentiated from a 'bus replacement' system because it makes intermodal transfers that much more of a hassle.

Correct. Just as a rail planner would be foolish not to consider transit time as part of the trip time. Hence the discussion of multivariate optimization, above.

See above. Everything must be put in proper context.

There are more than two independent variables. A planner can sacrifice ridership in one low-ridership area completely in favor of inducing a better combination of ridership and higher average marginal opportunity cost of time.

I was countering a point made that we simply need to get cars off the road...I think it was made with environmental considerations as one important aspect. I'm not going to reread it, as the time is now 4:18AM.

CORRECT. The Plano DART route is able to effectively serve the various pods of development all up and down US 75, but an express P&R-like bus system with possibly one stop at the midpoint of the DART line would do an excellent job at covering all the bases.

How much is a minute of time for all the riders that will ever have to wait out the Bell station worth? I can't speak for you, but I value my time. Even little wastes add up when applied to the number of people we've got going through it every day.

Speaking of which, I kind of wish that METRO would only make the Reliant Park stop active when there are events. Otherwise, it is dead zone.

OK. I'm done. Finally. GOOD MORNING HOUSTON!

EDIT: DAMN! Quotes didn't work. Sorry folks...not gonna fix them. Not at this time, anyway.

Dissertation n Aformal discourse, esp. a doctoral thesis.

From this point forward Theniche shall be addressed as Dr. Theniche on this forum. Well done.

AO, I have never attacked you, I might have attacked your idea, but that is what this forum generally is. If anything I have asked for people to tone down any of the attacks on here.

The High street project is a major development that is where the ford dealership was located at.

I can't find the link to the thread, but basically, it's going to be a series of midrise residences built above ground level retail.

As active as you claim to be in your community, surely you have heard of this happening, quite literally, across the street from you.

Actually I hadn't heard of it until it was mentioned here - and honestly I don't expect it to impact Afton Oaks at all. Why do you expect that I would be so concerned about it?

Come to think of it you are right, you have not attacked me, only my arguments, which is perfectly acceptable, and as you state, the purpose for this forum. I also note that you have asked people to tone down the personal attacks. Please accept my apology.

Oh no, please don't write a dissertation on a huge development planned at the Kettering entrance on Westhiemer facing Afton Oaks that's been in the news for over a year...called High Street that has nothing on earth to do with bridges.

Now where did you say you lived again?

As I stated in the post, this forum is the first place that I have seen or heard anything about it, and frankly I don't see any reason to be the least bit concerned about it. Which is why I never commented on it. I will say that the residential properties should have a high selling price. The view of Afton Oaks alone should command that. Are there any similar developments planned for your neighborhood? Wonder why?

[largeTEXAS]

A lot of the criticism for the proposed train seems to be concerning the actual relief it will cause to the congestion in the areas served.

I wanted to chime in here a little.

Any new train line that is built will absorb the current bus passengers along the route. This is pretty much a given. Certain other people that weren't attracted to riding the bus will also add to readership. Immediately those numbers might be slightly negligible, but they are still important. All this is good and everything, but the real benefits come later.

Since the train is fixed and offers a predictable route for riders far into the future, my opinion is that the greatest benefit is the difference in perception by people in my field (development) towards sites along the route. With the growing national trend in residential, retail, and commercial development to be more urban and dense in nature, companies are now looking for sites with a different set of criteria.

Taking a cue from trendy European development, Gerald Hines

Edited August 12, 2006 by largeTEXAS

[CE_ugh]

Today, I notice the old Mayflower warehouse at South Rice and Westpark was recently abandoned as well as the Leather furniture store next door. I would guess that now this is almost certain to beome the site of the South Rice station.

Also with regards to largeTEXAS's post:

It's been shown that rail systems dont decrease traffic delays or the amount of traffic on freeways they parallel. For example, take Portland's MAX system. Most of the original line paralleled a heavily congested freeway. Today that freeway is still as congested as before, but anyone who says that Portland's system is a failure and a waste of taxpayer money would be laughed out of the city on a rail; probably the airport line.

Even on our own HOV system, appearances would indicate that the HOV lanes have done nothing for traffic relief, when in fact they themselves are becoming more congested. There are regular slowdowns and choke points on all of the HOV lanes and buses are usually standing room only, especially on the Gulf route. But at least commuters have the choice of letting somebody else deal with the traffic.

Inner-city commuters dont have a choice like suburban commuters do. It's either drive and sit in traffic or wait on a bus and sit in traffic. Most people that have a car will drive it rather than take a bus, particuarly a bus on a congested street like Richmond or Bellaire, where delays are the norm. At some point however, the traffic will get so bad, people will make another choice; to leave the city. Either that or the city widens the roads, further eating away at taxpayer property and their own revenues. Rail has the handy advantage of offering another choice. Even with a train running at street level, delays will be at a minimum offering a reliable mode of transportation. Sure auto traffic mobility will be sacrificed but most will eventually decide they dont actually need to take their car to work and make the choice to catch a train.

[jm1fd]

Jeez. I leave a computer for a day and a half and come back to find all this material.

<SNIP>

Wow. He is so incredibly full of himself.

[zebra]

As big as this thred got so fast was becuse of AftonAg

I wiling to bett AftonAg is not even fro Afton Oaks, he's probly a teenage kidd loning for attenchion. he just messing with your minds

[bachanon]

Today, I notice the old Mayflower warehouse at South Rice and Westpark was recently abandoned as well as the Leather furniture store next door. I would guess that now this is almost certain to beome the site of the South Rice station.

Also with regards to largeTEXAS's post:

It's been shown that rail systems dont decrease traffic delays or the amount of traffic on freeways they parallel. For example, take Portland's MAX system. Most of the original line paralleled a heavily congested freeway. Today that freeway is still as congested as before, but anyone who says that Portland's system is a failure and a waste of taxpayer money would be laughed out of the city on a rail; probably the airport line.

Even on our own HOV system, appearances would indicate that the HOV lanes have done nothing for traffic relief, when in fact they themselves are becoming more congested. There are regular slowdowns and choke points on all of the HOV lanes and buses are usually standing room only, especially on the Gulf route. But at least commuters have the choice of letting somebody else deal with the traffic.

Inner-city commuters dont have a choice like suburban commuters do. It's either drive and sit in traffic or wait on a bus and sit in traffic. Most people that have a car will drive it rather than take a bus, particuarly a bus on a congested street like Richmond or Bellaire, where delays are the norm. At some point however, the traffic will get so bad, people will make another choice; to leave the city. Either that or the city widens the roads, further eating away at taxpayer property and their own revenues. Rail has the handy advantage of offering another choice. Even with a train running at street level, delays will be at a minimum offering a reliable mode of transportation. Sure auto traffic mobility will be sacrificed but most will eventually decide they dont actually need to take their car to work and make the choice to catch a train.

imagine how horrible i-45, i-59 and i-10 would be without loop 610 and beltway 8. just a thought.

i'm not sure that rail in houston, at this time, is about removing people from the freeways. i think it is more about encouraging centralized growth and reducing inner city automobile travel.

[templehouston]

imagine how horrible i-45, i-59 and i-10 would be without loop 610 and beltway 8. just a thought.

i'm not sure that rail in houston, at this time, is about removing people from the freeways. i think it is more about encouraging centralized growth and reducing inner city automobile travel.

Re comment on missing loops. I'm afraid I miss your point here. Those freeways are horrible enough and these looped feeders (610 and BW8) just feed more people onto those freeways. I don't see that they relieve the congestion on those freeways at all. Please explain what you are thinking.

Re comment on "removing people from the freeways." If you are saying that the transit system is more than just moving commuters, thank you. The op ed in today's Chronicle (by someone from some property tax group) surely represents the school of thought that any transportation proposal is about commuters and only commuters. It appears that people with that perspective will not "hear" anything being said that's premised on something other than commuters only transport. I guess it's very simple for them: Point A (me) and Point B (my job). Everything else would be irrelevant.

Edited August 12, 2006 by templehouston

[musicman]

Re comment on missing loops. I'm afraid I miss your point here. Those freeways are horrible enough and these looped feeders (610 and BW8) just feed more people onto those freeways. I don't see that they relieve the congestion on those freeways at all. Please explain what you are thinking.

The loops are great way to get traffic off of i-10, 45, etc. for instance many who live outside the beltway use them to bypass downtown...i.e. a trip from Clear Lake to Katy. Without them, they would be forced to travel through downtown making it worse for us inner loopers

[tamtagon]

So, like, why isnt Westheimer a consideration?

Edited August 12, 2006 by tamtagon

[largeTEXAS]

Westheimer would be great! I kind of think the best would be to run the rail west along Richmond from Main St through Greenway Plaza, north on or around Weslayan, west on Westheimer through the Galleria area. I'm not sure why Westheimer has been eliminated as a choice.

[IHB2]

Westheimer would be great! I kind of think the best would be to run the rail west along Richmond from Main St through Greenway Plaza, north on or around Weslayan, west on Westheimer through the Galleria area. I'm not sure why Westheimer has been eliminated as a choice.

that was almost exactly the favored proposal by METRO planners/engineers in 2003 (maybe 2002) before the referendum. the difference was the line would swing north from Richmond on Timmons, not Wesleyan, then west through Highland Village to the Uptown Line, then south and west to the Hillcroft Transit Center.

apparently it was still the favored route before the public meetings began in 2005 and the anti-richmond group got Culberson on board.

by May of this year Frank Wilson was saying that the Westheimer/610 offramps-feeder rd intersection was too crowded and complicated to add LRT tracks to the mix so Westheimer was no longer under study.

more bs from the METRO master of doubletalk.

[bachanon]

Re comment on missing loops. I'm afraid I miss your point here. Those freeways are horrible enough and these looped feeders (610 and BW8) just feed more people onto those freeways. I don't see that they relieve the congestion on those freeways at all. Please explain what you are thinking.

if beltway 8 didn't exist, traffic would be heavier at loop 610 and 1960 to go west from the north side. people would have to stay on i-45 to downtown or the 610 loop. cars on beltway 8 would not disappear from the roads. they would simply be crowding existing thoroughfares. i'm not quite sure how you think the existence of 610 and beltway 8 ADD to the north/south or east/west traffic. these loops relieve traffic through the city center.

when i was a kid, our family took vacations every summer. if we were headed to south padre or san antonio we drove from conroe on i-45 to downtown or loop 610 to go west or southwest. now days, we go west at greenspoint/beltway 8. we no longer travel on i-45 between greenspoint and 610 or through downtown on i-45. imagine the thousands of people who live on the north side and work in the 290 corridor or near memorial city. thousands of people no longer drive in to loop 610 or cut through neighborhoods to get to the northwest/west side because of beltway 8.

Re comment on "removing people from the freeways." If you are saying that the transit system is more than just moving commuters, thank you. The op ed in today's Chronicle (by someone from some property tax group) surely represents the school of thought that any transportation proposal is about commuters and only commuters. It appears that people with that perspective will not "hear" anything being said that's premised on something other than commuters only transport. I guess it's very simple for them: Point A (me) and Point B (my job). Everything else would be irrelevant.

smart planning, smart infrastructure can encourage smart growth.

[AftonAg]

As big as this thred got so fast was becuse of AftonAg

I wiling to bett AftonAg is not even fro Afton Oaks, he's probly a teenage kidd loning for attenchion. he just messing with your minds

Right. I think some one else made the same comment several pages ago. That just isn't the case. I am fairly sure that a teenage kid would have gotten bored with this forum along time ago. Also how many teenage kids would have known about the 1984 murder of an Afton Oaks architect, or his mentor Le Corbusier. I don't recall any information about Le Corbusier or the Academie de Beaux Arts being mentioned in the news reports or his obituary. So that should end the "teenager from Katy" theory.

if beltway 8 didn't exist, traffic would be heavier at loop 610 and 1960 to go west from the north side. people would have to stay on i-45 to downtown or the 610 loop. cars on beltway 8 would not disappear from the roads. they would simply be crowding existing thoroughfares. i'm not quite sure how you think the existence of 610 and beltway 8 ADD to the north/south or east/west traffic. these loops relieve traffic through the city center.

when i was a kid, our family took vacations every summer. if we were headed to south padre or san antonio we drove from conroe on i-45 to downtown or loop 610 to go west or southwest. now days, we go west at greenspoint/beltway 8. we no longer travel on i-45 between greenspoint and 610 or through downtown on i-45. imagine the thousands of people who live on the north side and work in the 290 corridor or near memorial city. thousands of people no longer drive in to loop 610 or cut through neighborhoods to get to the northwest/west side because of beltway 8.

smart planning, smart infrastructure can encourage smart growth.

We agree on that Bachanon - The loops are much more efficient for the surburbians that want to travel without going through Houston. I use Beltway 8 regularly, it runs near my office on the Northside and I have used it to traverse to 290, I-10 East and West, and to the Westpark tollway. It is conveinent and fast and without it, as you say, I would have to return to 610 or take I-45.

that was almost exactly the favored proposal by METRO planners/engineers in 2003 (maybe 2002) before the referendum. the difference was the line would swing north from Richmond on Timmons, not Wesleyan, then west through Highland Village to the Uptown Line, then south and west to the Hillcroft Transit Center.

apparently it was still the favored route before the public meetings began in 2005 and the anti-richmond group got Culberson on board.

by May of this year Frank Wilson was saying that the Westheimer/610 offramps-feeder rd intersection was too crowded and complicated to add LRT tracks to the mix so Westheimer was no longer under study.

more bs from the METRO master of doubletalk.

Another consideration on the Westheimer route is the numerous pipelines that run under the street. There is an Exxon pipeline - gas I think that crosses Newcastle around Devon in the very heart of Afton Oaks, I am not sure of the exact route but I know it goes under some of the parking lots in the Galleria. I believe there are also some other gas and possibly gasoline or other product lines that run down Westheimer.

A lot of the criticism for the proposed train seems to be concerning the actual relief it will cause to the congestion in the areas served.

I wanted to chime in here a little.

Any new train line that is built will absorb the current bus passengers along the route. This is pretty much a given. Certain other people that weren't attracted to riding the bus will also add to readership. Immediately those numbers might be slightly negligible, but they are still important. All this is good and everything, but the real benefits come later.

Since the train is fixed and offers a predictable route for riders far into the future, my opinion is that the greatest benefit is the difference in perception by people in my field (development) towards sites along the route. With the growing national trend in residential, retail, and commercial development to be more urban and dense in nature, companies are now looking for sites with a different set of criteria.

Taking a cue from trendy European development, Gerald Hines

[TheNiche]

A lot of the criticism for the proposed train seems to be concerning the actual relief it will cause to the congestion in the areas served.

I wanted to chime in here a little.

Any new train line that is built will absorb the current bus passengers along the route. This is pretty much a given. The truth of this statement is dependent upon the design of the transit system. Certainly your statement applies to the Red Line. However, it would not apply to a line that bypassed a number of local bus stops in favor of hitting those with the highest ridership potentials. Certain other people that weren't attracted to riding the bus will also add to readership. Immediately those numbers might be slightly negligible, but they are still important. True. Also, the faster the service, the more induced ridership will be generated. The induced ridership typically has a higher opportunity cost of time (i.e. implied higher average incomes) and are the bread and butter of retail TOD. All this is good and everything, but the real benefits come later. In making a public investment, the stream of future benefits must be discounted to NPV. If the benefits are too far out in the future, their impact on the cost-benefit calculus becomes very much discounted.

Since the train is fixed and offers a predictable route for riders far into the future, my opinion is that the greatest benefit is the difference in perception by people in my field (development) towards sites along the route. The predictability rationale is one of the weaker arguments in favor of the implementation of LRT as a means of encouraging TOD. Most LRT routes run along streets where busses already exist and are unlikely to disappear anytime soon unless they are replaced by LRT of the Red Line design. With the growing national trend in residential, retail, and commercial development to be more urban and dense in nature, companies are now looking for sites with a different set of criteria. Some are; most are not. Banks put up many hurdles to non-conventional development.

Taking a cue from trendy European development, Gerald Hines

Edited August 13, 2006 by TheNiche

[TheNiche]

Today, I notice the old Mayflower warehouse at South Rice and Westpark was recently abandoned as well as the Leather furniture store next door. I would guess that now this is almost certain to beome the site of the South Rice station.

Also with regards to largeTEXAS's post:

It's been shown that rail systems dont decrease traffic delays or the amount of traffic on freeways they parallel. For example, take Portland's MAX system. Most of the original line paralleled a heavily congested freeway. Today that freeway is still as congested as before, but anyone who says that Portland's system is a failure and a waste of taxpayer money would be laughed out of the city on a rail; probably the airport line.

That basic argument has been applied to the Katy Freeway by people that believe that expanding it won't do any good because more cars will just fill it in. However, can you imagine what it would be like without the capacity improvements? Its not as though growth ever slowed down out west.

Even on our own HOV system, appearances would indicate that the HOV lanes have done nothing for traffic relief, when in fact they themselves are becoming more congested. There are regular slowdowns and choke points on all of the HOV lanes and buses are usually standing room only, especially on the Gulf route. But at least commuters have the choice of letting somebody else deal with the traffic.

Would you rather that all the riders on the P&R busses be sitting in their single-occupant cars on the freeway? Can you imagine how much worse it would be with them on the freeway than not? I'd personally like to see two lanes in each direction of High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes on nearly every freeway.

Inner-city commuters dont have a choice like suburban commuters do. It's either drive and sit in traffic or wait on a bus and sit in traffic. Most people that have a car will drive it rather than take a bus, particuarly a bus on a congested street like Richmond or Bellaire, where delays are the norm. At some point however, the traffic will get so bad, people will make another choice; to leave the city. Either that or the city widens the roads, further eating away at taxpayer property and their own revenues. Rail has the handy advantage of offering another choice. Even with a train running at street level, delays will be at a minimum offering a reliable mode of transportation. Sure auto traffic mobility will be sacrificed but most will eventually decide they dont actually need to take their car to work and make the choice to catch a train.

If it hasn't worked with busses, and LRT in it's Red Line configuration is only marginally better than busses, what makes you think that its so much better than something not at street level (i.e. faster and less disruptive, albeit more expensive)?

Wow. He is so incredibly full of himself.

Well isn't that just the most brilliant, insightful comment in the history of this board?

Seriously, if you've got any specific questions or comments relevant to the substance of the conversation, I'd love to take a crack at them.

I guess it's very simple for them: Point A (me) and Point B (my job). Everything else would be irrelevant.

It actually is pretty simple. When we're talking about investments of hundreds or billions of dollars at a time, the best and most reliable forms of time-savings can be had by putting transit from where people live to where they work. Can't put it just anywhere because we have an effectively-finite budget, but that kind of routing is generally a pretty low-risk proposition.

Edited August 13, 2006 by TheNiche

[musicman]

Even on our own HOV system, appearances would indicate that the HOV lanes have done nothing for traffic relief, when in fact they themselves are becoming more congested. There are regular slowdowns and choke points on all of the HOV lanes and buses are usually standing room only, especially on the Gulf route. But at least commuters have the choice of letting somebody else deal with the traffic.

METRO does monitor traffic patterns on the HOV lanes and accordingly adjusts restrictions on its use. Again, it is about optimization. For instance, that's why the rules on the Katy and NW vary compared with the other HOV lanes. Yes slowdowns do occur occasionally due to stalled vehicles ,etc but the average speed on the lanes is double that of the freeways at peak travel times.

Edited August 13, 2006 by musicman

[Furious Jam]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4113284.html

Light rail in a box?

Culberson gives Metro only a little wiggle room in choice of a new route

By RAD SALLEE

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

U.S. Rep. John Culberson may have put the Metropolitan Transit Authority in a box by announcing his opposition to light rail on Richmond Avenue

[Furious Jam]

Culberson said last week that "to my mind, the only way Metro can make this work is to find a way to do an elevated line down the Southwest Freeway that doesn't destroy traffic lanes or homes or businesses."

Basically, rail isn't allowed to touch a single inch of anything, but the Katy Freeway can gobble up everything around it. Why the difference? Rich people will drive the Katy Freeway out to their giant homes in the suburbs, but they won't use public transportation. This is evil at its best.

Of course, if the rail isn't allowed to go near anything else, that makes it completely pointless.

Can we just have another vote next year whereby the city as a whole expressly authorizes rail straight down Richmond to the Galleria area? Then Culberson wouldn't be able to claim this will-of-the-people garbage. I'd rather have that vote and slow the process down by another year or two rather than throw away millions of dollars building rail down the middle of 59.

[templehouston]

Culberson said last week that "to my mind, the only way Metro can make this work is to find a way to do an elevated line down the Southwest Freeway that doesn't destroy traffic lanes or homes or businesses."

Basically, rail isn't allowed to touch a single inch of anything, but the Katy Freeway can gobble up everything around it. Why the difference? Rich people will drive the Katy Freeway out to their giant homes in the suburbs, but they won't use public transportation. This is evil at its best.

Of course, if the rail isn't allowed to go near anything else, that makes it completely pointless.

Can we just have another vote next year whereby the city as a whole expressly authorizes rail straight down Richmond to the Galleria area? Then Culberson wouldn't be able to claim this will-of-the-people garbage. I'd rather have that vote and slow the process down by another year or two rather than throw away millions of dollars building rail down the middle of 59.

We have had election after election. If you want to have another election, get Culberson to pay for it. I'm sure all those businesses on Richmond will be glad to form a PAC to oppose rail on Richmond. So who is going to pay for the pro-Richmond line side? How about this? There's an election in November and Culberson is on the ballot. True, the district is heavily Republican, but you can still vote against him. I'm sure he won't carry my precinct.

Am I correct that the University line as presently proposed was put together to get Culberson (and that creature, DeLay) on the program.? Now Culberson is trying to manipulate the situation to block a useful rail line. I guess Metro can't kill the University line and put the trains where people want them on the North Side and the East End.

[IHB2]

the most interesting thing in that article is White's admission of deference to Culberson's wishes apparently well in advance of any detailed METRO studies of possible routes.

a total abrogation of his role as elected leader who bears the most responsibility for the local decision on spending mass transit $$.

from the spotty email quotes now White appears to be perturbed that Culberson's tactics have made the mayor look like a fool.

[Furious Jam]

Call me a pessimist, but I've just about lost all hope for rail on Richmond. Can anyone come up with a viable alternative (as supposed to running it through a dead zone like 59 or Westpark)?

Could it be put on Westheimer without upsetting so many fatcat homeowners and businesses with tiny parking lots? I know that building it would be havoc on traffic, but would it be that much worse than the Katy Freeway?

Is a subway the answer? If Culberson really cared about mass transit, you'd think he'd ask for federal funds to bury the line down Richmond. Metro could create a tunnel system down there with retail that connects to the Galleria - might pay for itself.

Let's get proactive here.

[ricco67]

You have a point there.

What could be fascinating would be if one of the proposals made would be a subway system going all the way down Richmond.

Whether or not this would be breaking his "promise" to A-oaks about rail on Richmond, it would be a pretty good compromise, especially if he's willing to open the purse strings.

The alternative of it being on W. Alabama or Westhiemer is that they would either have to close down a portion of the street and make lower part and make it pedestrian only or elevate it to highland village.

The only bad part would it would have few population or employment centers until you get to Wesleyan.

Another interesting thing is that all this would happen (if it does happen) during the construction of High Street and THAT should be interesting indeed!

'scuse me, I need to throw some darts at small doll of Culberson I made. (I should have brought that to the party!)

[dp2]

I've looked at this some more, and am convinced that regardless of Culberson's original intent, this is a tremendous opportunity IF Metro takes advantage of it (of course it can also easily end up being a disaster.) The key to making this work is smart design (duh) and extracting a tradeoff from Culbertson in return. More about that at the end, let's examine this by section, but the exec. summary is that an option via the SW Fwy west to Kirby then elevated on the north side of it to at least Edloe may be pretty close in cost to the current proposal via Richmond.

As I noted in an earlier post, east of Kirby using the freeway ROW isn't insurmountable, as long as they don't get stuck on having it on one side or the other, We are talking about bridging less than a 200' width. There is a shelf on the south side (where the power lines are) wide enough to accomodate 2 tracks east to at least Mandell and probably past Graustark. This south shelf extends east of Montrose, though I don't know how wide.

Check it out here:

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/modern/2005...ton_update.aspx

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/modern/2005-08-13_us59.aspx

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/modern/2005...ton_update.aspx

It may not be wide enough for two tracks all the way to Montrose, but there also appears to be a narrow shelf on the north side, at least in places, so perhaps the tracks could split with one running on each side from east of Mandell to Montrose. And there is also the option of building on the shelf and cantilevering out just a bit if extra room is needed.

The point being that there isn't any need for a long and costly elevated stretch over the SW Fwy between Kirby and the Main St. line, just a bridge (or perhaps too if split into 2 separate tracks.) Since the reconstruction required for placing tracks in the street make it pretty costly ($30+ million per mile) using this shelf should be comparable in cost to routing via Richmond between Main and Kirby. And as I noted in an earlier post, the amount of density and redevelopment potential bypassed in that stretch is pretty small.

So head west from Main on Richmond, turning south on Montrose and then turn southwest to bridge the fwy and head west on the shelf to Kirby. While Montrose appears to be as wide sidewalk to sidewalk as Richmond, the intersection of them might be a traffic problem for turning the corner and Metro's half-assed compromise to conserve street width of only having two widely-spaced single-direction platforms isn't ideal, either. So perhaps going west it should elevate to go around the corner before descending, which would allow for a single tight station near the intersection (and closer to U. St. Thomas), though that will drive up costs. But either way Richmond to Montrose can work, and Culberson already said that he's ok with using this small segment of Richmond.

What will make or break this line is how well it accesses Greenway Plaza and the adjacent areas. A route along the south side of the fwy through here just won't cut it. (Along the abandoned SP railroad ROW that some incorrectly call Westpark, which is actually a parallel road that has never been been proposed to have light-rail on it, so much for the BS lie about voting for rail on Westpark.) As I noted earlier, turning north on Kirby and routing along Richmond west to the UP railroad tracks before turning south back to the abandoned SP ROW would work, and combined with the south fwy shelf route east of Kirby produce the same ridership (or probably slightly more account of adding in 1/4 or 1/2 mile density and redevelopment potential around the south side fwy/Kirby intersection) and virtually the same timing account of faster non-street running. So that option would work.

But the split station designs and their resulting multi-block walk for virtually every rider regardless of destination isn't ideal, nor is some of their placements, and the street-running is slower and interferes with traffic more than a shorter elevated line along the north side of the fwy west of Kirby would. Elevation here is going to add big time to the cost, and in some places there appears to be no other option than to build above or below the feeder road. But the distance needed to be elevated here is only about 1 to 1.5 miles (depending on where to cross back over to the south side of the fwy and the abandoned SP rail ROW) and the station placement and design could be vastly better than the current proposal. Access to Greenway Plaza's climate-controlled pedestrian passageways would be better and most riders wouldn't have to fight crossing the streets as compared to the Richmond center median stations (both of which should result in higher ridership.) You'd lose some of the riders from the density north of Richmond towards Alabama, but gain much of that back from areas south of the fwy (IF station location, design, and pedestrian bridges are done correctly) and there appears to be more redevelopment potential.

Here's my proposal: Westbound approaching Kirby elevate from the abandoned rail ROW and turn north crossing the fwy at Kirby with a station that bridges the freeway. This would allow for pedestrian access to all 4 corners without having to cross the street. Would need to be enclosed to mitigate the freeway noise, but would be air conditioned (as would the enclosed pedestrian connections, which extends the distance riders would be willing to walk to/from the station.) Encloser would require electrification or special ventilation, but with current diesel prices electrification might be more justifiable again. Stations bridging freeways aren't unique, MARTA has one in downtown Atlanta.

Stay elevated to a Greenway Plaza station on the east side of Edloe. Might be possible to duck down to ground-level after Buffalo Speedway to Cummins, but the savings might not be worth the extra traffic hassles of crossing in the tight confines along this strip and under Edloe. Probably best to stay elevated, and add a pedestrian bridge from the GP Station to the south side of the fwy. Then cross 59 at Weslayan with another enclosed station straddling the freeway and pedestrian connections to the 4-corners. All that adds a lot of cost, but it also simplifies the bridging of the railroad tracks with a cheaper arrangement.

An option to reduce the cost would be to have the Greenway Plaza station bridge the freeway east of Edloe and onto the abandoned SP ROW west of there. That would reduce the distance needed to be elevated from about 7000' to about 5000', but a south side Weslayan station would be slightly more than 1/4 mile walk from the hospital and anything on Richmond, and would still really need a ped bridge across the freeway. However Greenway Plaza and serving both sides of the freeway at Kirby are the meat of this corridor, so this might be an acceptable compromise if the proposal is on the bubble for FTA recommendation.

Cost is the huge issue, but one way to reduce its impact and get this corridor built right would be to go to Culberson and propose that as a tradeoff for moving away from a viable and cheaper Richmond alignment he commit to securing the funding difference from fed or state sources. Fed would require a specific earmark, though the state might be a good option to pursue. Let's see some of that power in action, is he actually seeking a reasonable solution? (To all, please spare us anymore spamming of anti-Culberson rants, we have read plenty, it is time to end the temper tantrums and talk about how we can get this built. Save it for after this is finally decided one way or another.)

Metro still has to be concerned about meeting the FTA's somewhat tough cost per rider standards, so let's look at costs. Very rough industry rule of thumbs for light-rail are $30-50 million per mile for at-grade/street running, $100 mil. per mile for elevated, and $200 mil. per mile for subway. This is a very rough average allocated total costs including land, stations, construction, etc. The Main St. line was about $50 million per mile, and almost entirely street running, so I'll use that for Richmond, but subtract out for electrification, roughly about $4 million per mile. Going west, from Montrose to the UP RR tracks is 3 miles, so 3 x $46 = $138 million. It is about 1800' along the RR tracks from Richmond to the abandoned SP ROW, but not in-street, so at roughly $10 million per mile (average allocated cost of double-track commuter rail on undeveloped ground) add another $3 for a total of $141 million via Richmond. If electrified, add 3 miles x $4 mil. = $12 million, for a total of $153 million.

For the other two options, going down Montrose (assume street running) is about 1000' x $50 mil per mile so about $10 mil. Need to bridge the freeway at an angle, so about 200' at $100 million = roughly $4 million. Along the south shelf of the freeway and the abandoned SP ROW to Kirby is about 7000', so 1.3 x $10 = $13 mil. Now assume that we have to shift the power poles east of Mandel. Moving high-power lines is roughly $1 mil per mile, but less than a half mile, so will round up and add $1 mil. Kirby to Weslayan elevated on the north side and back across is about 7200', so 1.4 x roughly $100 mil. per mile is $140 mil. Another 1700' on the abandoned SP ROW gets us to the UP railroad tracks, so .3 x $10 mil. = $3 mil. Total so far is $160 million, vs. $141 via Richmond. But the 2 enclosed stations over the freeway and their pedestrian connections would probably add a bit more to the costs. How much I have no idea, so how about costing them as if the stations were built elevated but next to rather than straddling the fwy (which would already be costed in the $100 mil. per mile average) and cost out separate connecting ped bridges instead. Roughly 350 feet each, but to hit all 4 corners let's say 600' total per set, and use that for Greenway Plaza's, too. I've seen estimates from $.5 to $1 mil per 100', so let's go on the high-end (gotta have a semi-World-Class City piece of art, donchaknow) and say $6 mil. each. Total cost of roughly $189 for this segment vs. $141 via Richmond.

Or how about the shorter elevated option, crossing back at Edloe. 2200' fewer elevated @$100 mil. per mile drops the cost by $40 mil, then 2000' on undeveloped abandoned railroad ROW @ $10 per mile adds to the cost $4, for a net total of $153 million. Roughly comparable to via Richmond.

Doublecheck the math: 1000' on Montrose = $10 million, bridge over fwy is $4, 7000' on south side of fwy to Kirby is $13, utility pole shift is $1, 5000' elevated on north side to Edloe is $100, 2000'+1700' of abandoned SP ROW is $4 + $3, plus a package of pedestrian bridges at each of 3 stations =$18. Total = $153.

So Montrose to the UP railroad tracks at the SP RR ROW via Richmond is approx. $141 million ($153 if electrified.) Via the SW Fwy and then elevated on the north side from Kirby to Edloe is roughly $153 million, and if the elevation continues to Weslayan it goes up to around $189 million. These latter two options are also several minutes faster, as there is only 1000' of slower street running instead of 3 miles of it.

Are my cost estimates off? Surely, perhaps quite a lot, but OTOH they do suggest that if Metro wants to come up with a good solution using Culberson's current restrictions, they can almost certainly do so without breaking the bank. Also that these options would be close enough in costs so as to not threaten fed funding. It would only require 1 mile of elevation, and there are potential cost savings east of Kirby and west of Edloe to mitigate some of that. The key is to be on the best side of the freeway in the heart of the area with the vast majority of the ridership potential. Stations that straddle the freeway would maximize that, and air-conditioned ped walkways that allowed bridging of intersections would extend the distance riders are willing to walk. So we get a better and faster system design if Metro gets an agreement from Culberson to find funding for the difference.

Edited August 14, 2006 by dp2

[dp2]

Call me a pessimist, but I've just about lost all hope for rail on Richmond. Can anyone come up with a viable alternative (as supposed to running it through a dead zone like 59 or Westpark)?

The abandoned SP railroad ROW that partially paralleled by Westpark is inferior, but 59 doesn't have to be a transit dead zone. Transit routes down the middle of a freeway usually are pretty inferior at creating TOD's, in large part because of the unappealing long walk across a usually open and noisy ped bridge. However unlike lines that run down a fwy, my suggestion in the prior post would have 2 stations cross the SW Fwy at sharp angles. That mitigates some of the problems because the station ends are now beyond the freeway and one just descends shorter (climate-controlled) ramps and stairs on the desired side of the street at the foot of the development. Much less a sense of traversing a vast wasteland. Most of the complexes on the north side of the fwy are very ped friendly or with high redevelopment potential, but there are a heck of a lot of jobs and some multi-family within 1/4-1/2 mile. But on the south side there is a lot of potential for some pretty good-sized redevelopment, could see projects similar to what is going up along the east side of 610 in the Galleria area or as it moves up from Rice Village. And keep in perspective the fact that the area of Richmond in question doesn't have near the TOD potential that the Main Street line had.

Don't analyze this as a stand-alone line, but as part of a much wider comprehensive system. Is this section of the line's primary purpose to generate riders all along the way, or deliver riders from elsewhere and other lines/modes to the big employers along it? West of 610 and east of Main will probably produce most of the line's originating traffic, but in between the employment centers are probably more important.

Edited August 14, 2006 by dp2

[bachanon]

how about running it straight down richmond?

or just eliminate the university line between main and the galleria area. let the west side of town gridlock, more and more people will use afton oaks as an alternative route. see how they feel about traffic and mass transit in ten years. the idea of using the 59 ROW is ridiculus. metro should tell culberson to go jump off a cliff and start the line. or, as someone else suggested, take it to a vote again, delay the line and prove to culberson and his ilk that they are outnumbered.

i can't believe that people are seriously considering tearing up 59 AGAIN so that 20 or 30 homeowners aren't made uncomfortable. what about the tens of thousands of people using 59 every day. i think that culberson and metro should bite the bullet, let the homeowners rant and build the freakin best and most affordable route. the 59 corridor is not the most cost efficient.

[AftonAg]

the most interesting thing in that article is White's admission of deference to Culberson's wishes apparently well in advance of any detailed METRO studies of possible routes.

a total abrogation of his role as elected leader who bears the most responsibility for the local decision on spending mass transit $$.

from the spotty email quotes now White appears to be perturbed that Culberson's tactics have made the mayor look like a fool.

Oh please the Mayor doesn't need any help when it comes to looking like a fool. He does a pretty good job of that on his own.

Isn't the real problem the prediction by some posters on here that Culberson alone couldn't stop the Railroading of Richmond? And now they find out . . . OMG . . . the Mayor has told metro to make sure they have Culberson's support on the route they select. I love it when politics work.