METRORail University Line

[RocketSci]

Setting aside the number and characteristics of light rail ridership as a dispute for another day...my concern is less for the east/west traffic along Richmond than it is for the north/south traffic crossing Richmond, especially at Shepherd and at Kirby.

Other than construction interruptions, I don't see Kirby as being that much of an issue since Westpark, 59, and Alabama all within a very short distance keep that area bottlenecked enough that a train every 12 minutes or so will not make much of a difference.

I could see Shepherd being affected such that it is already backed up, and I could easily see traffic stopped and blocking the train on Richmond during evening rush hour. Having a crossing above or below grade at this intersection does not seem practical without bulldozing most of the businesses between Alabama and 59.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to consider modifying Greenbriar from Westheimer to 59 to support more of the traffic flow from Shepherd.

I know this wouldn't help commuters trying to travel from the Med Center to N. Shepherd, but it would be nice if Shepherd between 59 and Memorial was redesigned to act more as a "local" street, maybe reduce to 3 lanes with a center turn, etc. It really is not a suitable thoroughfare as-is, and a Rice Village style traffic pattern could actually help the local businesses. But, this being Houston, commuter is king, so I'm sure it will be turned into an expressway before anything like this ever happens.

[RedScare]

Other than construction interruptions, I don't see Kirby as being that much of an issue since Westpark, 59, and Alabama all within a very short distance keep that area bottlenecked enough that a train every 12 minutes or so will not make much of a difference.

I could see Shepherd being affected such that it is already backed up, and I could easily see traffic stopped and blocking the train on Richmond during evening rush hour. Having a crossing above or below grade at this intersection does not seem practical without bulldozing most of the businesses between Alabama and 59.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to consider modifying Greenbriar from Westheimer to 59 to support more of the traffic flow from Shepherd.

I know this wouldn't help commuters trying to travel from the Med Center to N. Shepherd, but it would be nice if Shepherd between 59 and Memorial was redesigned to act more as a "local" street, maybe reduce to 3 lanes with a center turn, etc. It really is not a suitable thoroughfare as-is, and a Rice Village style traffic pattern could actually help the local businesses. But, this being Houston, commuter is king, so I'm sure it will be turned into an expressway before anything like this ever happens.

Shepherd is a vital north-south corridor, as it is the only street between I-10 and SW Freeway all the way to 610 (due to Memorial Park). As such, virtually nothing can be done to localize it. It needs to be redone in the manner that Kirby was, but the ROW is rather tight all the way up its length. At some point, it will be completely rebuilt.

[TheNiche]

Other than construction interruptions, I don't see Kirby as being that much of an issue since Westpark, 59, and Alabama all within a very short distance keep that area bottlenecked enough that a train every 12 minutes or so will not make much of a difference.

I could see Shepherd being affected such that it is already backed up, and I could easily see traffic stopped and blocking the train on Richmond during evening rush hour. Having a crossing above or below grade at this intersection does not seem practical without bulldozing most of the businesses between Alabama and 59.

The University Line will be a major trunkline that branches off toward two very high ridership generators: Uptown and the Hillcroft TC. Unless METRO is able to start joining more than just two traincars together along that route, I would expect an increase in frequency during peak times of traffic congestion. Also double the frequency due to LRT vehicles travelling in both direction. If it gets to the point that there is one vehicle every three minutes or less during rush hour, then we've got a huge problem.

I think that a grade separation could be achieved with minimal ROW expansion. In fact, it might reduce the amount of ROW needed if guideways for trains and/or cars get cantilevered over one another.

[mfastx]

METRO arranged local funding for two very expensive grade separations at railroad tracks that cross Harrisburg, so in my mind, the funding is there for critical and sometimes non-critical infrastructure if constituents demand it. I would prefer that constituents think about things like this NOW, and not after the fact, once we're stuck with crappy and inadequate infrastructure and a multi-decadal traffic jam.

Good point, if local residents and/or the city of Houston agree to fund grade separations, I'd be all for it. Not only would it improve traffic flow, but it would also improve transit times for the University line.

Setting aside the number and characteristics of light rail ridership as a dispute for another day...my concern is less for the east/west traffic along Richmond than it is for the north/south traffic crossing Richmond, especially at Shepherd and at Kirby.

Good call, an argument with you would be another time sink.

On a side note, I think some might be overestimating the effect of a light rail at grade intersection. If trains come every 6 minutes (3 minutes for both directions), then that means that the light has to be red every 3 minutes for a train to pass. However, lights go red every minute to two minutes for cross traffic anyway, so I don't really understand that argument. Maybe I'm missing something?

[RedScare]

The University Line will be a major trunkline that branches off toward two very high ridership generators: Uptown and the Hillcroft TC. Unless METRO is able to start joining more than just two traincars together along that route, I would expect an increase in frequency during peak times of traffic congestion. Also double the frequency due to LRT vehicles travelling in both direction. If it gets to the point that there is one vehicle every three minutes or less during rush hour, then we've got a huge problem.

I think that a grade separation could be achieved with minimal ROW expansion. In fact, it might reduce the amount of ROW needed if guideways for trains and/or cars get cantilevered over one another.

The limitation on trainsets on the Red Line is due to the 250 foot long blocks in Downtown. For obvious reasons the trains cannot hang into intersections when they stop at a station. This limitation does not exist on the suburban style blocks of Richmond Avenue, with the possible exception of Wheeler Station. Further, METRO is ordering new longer cars that use up more of that 250 foot clearance, and have higher capacity than the Siemens cars now used. Lastly, it is unlikely that the U Line will have higher ridership than the Red Line. Downtown and the Med Center are both bigger employment centers than Uptown. Projections are less than the Red Line.

[TheNiche]

The limitation on trainsets on the Red Line is due to the 250 foot long blocks in Downtown. For obvious reasons the trains cannot hang into intersections when they stop at a station. This limitation does not exist on the suburban style blocks of Richmond Avenue, with the possible exception of Wheeler Station. Further, METRO is ordering new longer cars that use up more of that 250 foot clearance, and have higher capacity than the Siemens cars now used.

Fair points. Does anyone have engineering specs on the length of stations along the University Line? Or know for sure whether a different make or model of vehicle will be used on different portions of the LRT system?

Lastly, it is unlikely that the U Line will have higher ridership than the Red Line. Downtown and the Med Center are both bigger employment centers than Uptown. Projections are less than the Red Line.

Nope. Not going there.

You've argued that LRT is worth it and will be successful. If it is, then we need to consider the externalities. And since this is a multi-decadal piece of infrastructure, we should consider those externalities in terms of what they're like at a region of 6 million people and also what they're like at a region of 9 million people. Ask yourself, would Chicago be building this like we're building this?

[RedScare]

Well, I'll give you that METRO's numbers for the Red Line far surpassed their estimates, so these may well do the same. However, the specs on the new trainsets were about 275 per car, 20% higher than the current trainsets, so the 43,000 daily riders on the Red Line could go to 52,000 without any change in headways. I believe estimates for the U Line were in the 15,000 range. So, there is a lot of potential for growth, even with 2 car sets. Of course, that is with 6 minute headways, which will certainly not help rush hour traffic, even if it won't cause gridlock.

I am pulling these numbers from memory, so they may not be exact, but are in the ballpark. And, I am not arguing against grade separation at the big intersections by any means, only that they would be tolerable.

Edited February 12, 2012 by RedScare

[TheNiche]

Well, I'll give you that METRO's numbers for the Red Line far surpassed their estimates, so these may well do the same. However, the specs on the new trainsets were about 275 per car, 20% higher than the current trainsets, so the 43,000 daily riders on the Red Line could go to 52,000 without any change in headways. I believe estimates for the U Line were in the 15,000 range. So, there is a lot of potential for growth, even with 2 car sets. Of course, that is with 6 minute headways, which will certainly not help rush hour traffic, even if it won't cause gridlock.

I am pulling these numbers from memory, so they may not be exact, but are in the ballpark. And, I am not arguing against grade separation at the big intersections by any means, only that they would be tolerable.

I don't think that the assumptions fully accounted for where METRO had modified the bus routes to funnel people onto the Red Line or the elimination in duplication of service. It did take them a couple of years to figure all of that kind of thing out, after all. There's no especially compelling reason to think that they're any better now than they were then.

How does a 20% increase in vehicle capacity translate to a 20% increase in ridership during the average 24-hour traffic count? The effect of the vehicle capacity is limited to those times during the day that vehicle occupancy is currently being maxed out. Such a small capacity upgrade hardly seems adequate for a time horizon in which we become a big gigantic 'global' city like Chicago.

One might argue that the six-minute headway (which is only three minutes in between signal timing interruptions for drivers) is preferable during periods of peak use because it reduces the amount of time that people spend waiting during a transfer. Even if it was just one car...six minutes is better...and fewer is better still. I'd like for METRO to be able to enhance that aspect of the user experience without the potential for adverse external effects on other components of regional mobility.

[RedScare]

Since I know that you are intelligent enough to understand my point, I feel no need to engage in your nitpicking. If my points are wrong, feel free to point them out and offer your opinion. But, everyone else can figure out that trains with 20% more capacity can carry 20% more passengers per hour without changing headways. And, adding a third car to the trainset increases capacity by another 50% over a 2 car set. All of this on a line that does not project as many passengers as the Red Line, due to the areas that it serves.

[TheNiche]

How far does 20% go over a period of thirty to fifty years? Will METRO use trainsets with more than two cars? What will be the use characteristics of the new line? Will METRO want to increase service frequency for the sake of system efficiency at some point? You make good points, but they're wholly speculative. So are mine, but why chance it on such a crucial long-term set of infrastructure?

[samagon]

Lastly, it is unlikely that the U Line will have higher ridership than the Red Line. Downtown and the Med Center are both bigger employment centers than Uptown. Projections are less than the Red Line.

I was thinking about this over the weekend, and I guess it really depends. I know there are a lot of low wage people without cars living just outside the loop and south of 59 in a huge assortment of apartments that line westpark. I think it depends on where they work.

[ricco67]

I was thinking about this over the weekend, and I guess it really depends. I know there are a lot of low wage people without cars living just outside the loop and south of 59 in a huge assortment of apartments that line westpark. I think it depends on where they work.

Don't forget, there are more than a few workers in the galleria area will happily take the train to avoid having to deal with the parking headaches as well, not to mention a number of guests in the variety of hotels that are within reach of the stations.

[IHB2]

I know there are a lot of low wage people without cars living just outside the loop and south of 59 in a huge assortment of apartments that line westpark. I think it depends on where they work.

I don't have the #s readily available, but the Gulfton barrio is not particularly fertile ground for METRO ridership, even though it seems like it should be given the population density and general working class employment.The working population there is no more likely than in any other area to use specifically the Univ Line LTR for commuting, and maybe less likely than more affluent areas with higher #s of office workers and professionals, e.g St. George Place directly across 59.

And that gets back to Nick G's point about keeping the line on Richmond through the Uptown area and beyond. The Univ Line is a circulator, not commuter line, so if it's primary destinations west of Main are St. Thomas U, Museum Dist, Greenway Plaza, the south end of Uptown and the Hillcroft TC, and TSU and UH east of Main, then the line should serve people headed to those places.

It will be interesting to see ridership #s out of the 2 planned Gulfton barrio stations once the line is operational.

Don't forget, there are more than a few workers in the galleria area will happily take the train to avoid having to deal with the parking headaches as well, not to mention a number of guests in the variety of hotels that are within reach of the stations.

Until the Uptown Line is built, the nearest Univ Line station will be near the intersection of Westpark and the 610 south svc road. Currently there is no pedestrian route under 59 to Post Oak, and none planned. METRO's plan to move people from Westpark to the Galleria requires the existence of the Uptown Line, and there is no current timeline for building it.

Galleria workers and hotel guests are unlikely to make that walk or wait for some other type of surface transportation.

[Highway6]

I still think this is silly to even contemplate new routes at this point - especially anything involving going through Aton Oaks, but I'll play along. I can be a dreamer too.

I will throw out one possibilitiy that perhaps might be feasible due to a recent metro development - they purchased the traingular piece of land bordered by 610, Hildalgo, and Post Oak. So one ammended route that doesn't effect Afton Oaks and adds a minimum length of new track would be the following.

Thoughts behind this proposal:

• Segment A track gets moved from the Uptown line to the Univsities Line as far as schedulding and financing is concerned. Segment B track is not a new length since it is moved from the same span along Westpark. Segment C is .65 miles of new track.
  
• Currently drawn up - Hilcroft TC is a 0 stop transfer to the Redline while Uptown and the NWTC are a 1 stop transfer to the Redline. I beleive this should be flipped. It can be argued that Uptown and the NWTC should take priority over the Hilcroft TC as far as less-transfer connectibility is concerned to the rest of the system. Therefore, once Uptown line is funded and built it is actually considered an extension of the Universities line, with the Western section (W of Post Oak) segment of the univisity line give a new "Line name" and the little sister designation. - It would curve south and directly connect to the Universities line, like currently proposed - but as far as frequency and priority is concerned, it plays 2nd fiddle.
  
• New signature station built on the newly aquired land right across from the water wall. While not offering the direct connection a Westheimer location would - it would greatly enhance the walkability and greatly reduce the distance needed to reach the galleria. Plus, once the Uptown line is built, its a moot point since it would be an extension of the U line.
  
• A word on the routing - Hidalgo is 4 lane minimum, and 1 way = Ideal for track placement while avoiding the direct Galleria and 610 entrance traffic that exists on W Alabama. S Rice is barely used street that runs parallel to Sage and would be ideal for the segment connecting Hidalgo to 610, and then Westpark.
  

Edited February 13, 2012 by Highway6

[Houston19514]

Duplicate pos

Edited February 13, 2012 by Houston19514

[Highway6]

Interesting, Highway 6. But, when did Metro buy that triangle of land? Isn't that the triangle that is owned by Uptown and is Hidalgo Park?

http://swamplot.com/...day/2012-02-10/

[Houston19514]

http://swamplot.com/...day/2012-02-10/

That purchase is (a) much much smaller than the triangle, and ( is not even part of the triangle.

The purchase was of only a 3,589 square square foot strip of land. The triangle is 3 acres (approx. 130,000 square feet).

The purchased strip of land (according to the articles you linked) is on the northeast corner of the Hidalgo/Post Oak intersection. The triangle is on the southeast corner of that intersection.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Houston19514

[Highway6]

That purchase is (a) much much smaller than the triangle, and ( is not even part of the triangle.

The purchase was of only a 3,589 square square foot strip of land. The triangle is 3 acres (approx. 130,000 square feet).

The purchased strip of land (according to the articles you linked) is on the northeast corner of the Hidalgo/Post Oak intersection. The triangle is on the southeast corner of that intersection.

It seems you are correct. I missed the 3500 SF figure. That's nothing and close to useless. Oh well.

[citykid09]

You've argued that LRT is worth it and will be successful. If it is, then we need to consider the externalities. And since this is a multi-decadal piece of infrastructure, we should consider those externalities in terms of what they're like at a region of 6 million people and also what they're like at a region of 9 million people. Ask yourself, would Chicago be building this like we're building this?

Didn't you get the memo? You are not allowed to challenge METRO's light rail. If a select few on here say that the way METRO is building it is correct then you are not allowed to say anything negative about it. And rule number one on HAIF, never compare Houston to any other city.

What you are saying is what I have been saying for years, but the "bullies" of HAIF don't like being challenged and you will be shunned for it. Just a little bit of advice.

[ricco67]

Until the Uptown Line is built, the nearest Univ Line station will be near the intersection of Westpark and the 610 south svc road. Currently there is no pedestrian route under 59 to Post Oak, and none planned. METRO's plan to move people from Westpark to the Galleria requires the existence of the Uptown Line, and there is no current timeline for building it.

Galleria workers and hotel guests are unlikely to make that walk or wait for some other type of surface transportation.

Agreed. Until the uptown line is built, there will only be a limited amount of people that will get to it from the Galleria area, unless Metro is smart and run a trolly bus system.

Even if that's not a real option, the hotel guests can always access it via the various car/bus shuttles that most hotels have in the area.

[woolie]

If the Richmond line vastly overflowed the design capabilities when Houston is at 12 million people, you could add a parallel line down Westheimer, from UH all the way out to Westchase. Some areas of Westheimer would have to be reconstructed or lose lanes or parking, but that's the cost of progress when the population has doubled.

As long as we're playing fantasy rail, I'd also like to see the Green (?) line continue down Washington, then turns south and goes down Shepherd/Greenbriar to the Rice Village, then cuts down Holcombe (or similar) to the TMC intermodal station.

Edited April 10, 2012 by woolie

[Pleak]

If the Richmond line vastly overflowed the design capabilities when Houston is at 12 million people, you could add a parallel line down Westheimer, from UH all the way out to Westchase. Some areas of Westheimer would have to be reconstructed or lose lanes or parking, but that's the cost of progress when the population has doubled.

As long as we're playing fantasy rail, I'd also like to see the Green (?) line continue down Washington, then turns south and goes down Shepherd/Greenbriar to the Rice Village, then cuts down Holcombe (or similar) to the TMC intermodal station.

If we are playing fantasy - Houston at 12 million and the money to build a line down Westheimer. Go underground. Period. It would be well past time for that.

[Highway6]

If the Richmond line vastly overflowed the design capabilities when Houston is at 12 million people, you could add a parallel line down Westheimer, from UH all the way out to Westchase. Some areas of Westheimer would have to be reconstructed or lose lanes or parking, but that's the cost of progress when the population has doubled.

As long as we're playing fantasy rail, I'd also like to see the Green (?) line continue down Washington, then turns south and goes down Shepherd/Greenbriar to the Rice Village, then cuts down Holcombe (or similar) to the TMC intermodal station.

Westheimer is a terrible option inside the loop. No center lane plus narrower than average lanes. No bueno.

While I agree that from residential and commercial access standpoint, it would be ideal.. it just wouldn't be a feasible LRT route.

Lots and lots of those buisnesses would plowed under to get the ROW neccessary for both LRT and vehicle lanes to work... which would then defeat the purpose of using Westheimer to begin with.

Dream up a subway or Westheimer L.. then I'll go w/ your parallel line fantasy.

The Green line is already planned to continue down Washington. It was originally refferred to as the Inner Katy LRT in Metro's Phase III

I think Shepherd has the same drawbacks as Westheimer.. Too narrow in too many places with no center lane... and It's too important a NS route to lose vehicle lanes. There was talk at one point though to Montrose and HEights to be used as an old school Trolly line circulator that would act as a NS link for the Red Line, Universities, and future Washington line

[totheskies]

Westheimer is a terrible option inside the loop. No center lane plus narrower than average lanes. No bueno.

While I agree that from residential and commercial access standpoint, it would be ideal.. it just wouldn't be a feasible LRT route.

Lots and lots of those buisnesses would plowed under to get the ROW neccessary for both LRT and vehicle lanes to work... which would then defeat the purpose of using Westheimer to begin with.

Dream up a subway or Westheimer L.. then I'll go w/ your parallel line fantasy.

The Green line is already planned to continue down Washington. It was originally refferred to as the Inner Katy LRT in Metro's Phase III

I think Shepherd has the same drawbacks as Westheimer.. Too narrow in too many places with no center lane... and It's too important a NS route to lose vehicle lanes. There was talk at one point though to Montrose and HEights to be used as an old school Trolly line circulator that would act as a NS link for the Red Line, Universities, and future Washington line

Has anyone actually done a cost comparison for a grade-separated vs at-grade guideway?? It would be "more expensive", but definitely worth it. Ridership numbers for the 81/82 alone should justify that an "L" type system along Westheimer would be successful.

It would be ideal to have that in combination with the rail that is already planned.

[woolie]

A note for future reference: Shepherd to Main St. is 2.1 miles along Westheimer.

Beyond Shepherd seems to have a wider ROW, a little past Kirby there is even an esplanade, and Elgin is 4 lanes plus turning lane.

Isn't the county supposed to vote on spending $2B on freeways today?

Edited April 10, 2012 by woolie

[TheNiche]

Consider what we're all talking about, here. At present, approximately one out of every twenty-two new households formed in our region was formed inside the loop. That doesn't sound like much, but the inner loop isn't that big compared to the region; with that share of growth, the 2010 population of approximately 469,000 increases by 273,000 (58%) to 742,000. I also think that the potential exists for the share of household and population growth to increase, too, particularly as HISD schools improve.

Now consider that a study from Central Houston Inc. has determined that people living within about five miles of downtown are much less likely to take transit to work than to drive to work, and also consider that the type of person that moves into very dense parts of Houston is more likely to be a participant in the workforce and will need to be mobile. It's a recipe for automotive traffic congestion and a deteriorating quality of life.

Due to underground utility constraints, installing a subway line is far more complex than just a 'cut-and-cover' operation. Consequently, two or three miles of subway would probably cost about as much as our entire at-grade system. If LRT capacity is expected to be a problem concurrent with the infrastructure's life expectancy, then an elevated route is really the only solution, as that will cost-effectively allow for the frequency of trains to be increased or decreased without severe secondary impacts to other modes of transportation. However, since roadway capacity already is and will definitely continue to be a problem with respect to much of Richmond and definitely Post Oak, I tend to think that at-grade lines are inexcusably short-sighted. With traffic counts along those corridors as high as they are, minor interruptions in traffic flow can be magnified in major gridlock-inducing problems. It'll only get worse.

[ricco67]

Here are the stats from Metro's January report:

For the 81 for a weekday, saturday and sunday: 4,865 2,836 1,897

Avg it out and multiplied by 7 days is: 22395.

For the 81 for a weekday, saturday and sunday: 6,544 4,647 3,106

Avg it out and multiplied by 7 days is: 33360.

Those aren't bad numbers, and that doesn't take into account for special events that would swell numbers significantly.

The Elevated would be shot down by the NIMBY's at A-Oaks as they did the monorail back in the 80's, and there is surely a chance they'd protest like crazy against a street level alignment (which wouldn't be a good idea anyway), but I wouldn't doubt they'd protest anything that MIGHT have a stop at their neighborhood.

We all know thugs love using public transportation.

ANYHOO, I think a subway alignment would probably be best along this route, even though the numbers don't quite justify the cost of one.

If one is constructed, the ridership numbers would increase substantially simply by the amount of people that work on the west side and don't wish to get involved with the insane traffic in the galleria, along with the workers that have to be involved with that insanity, as well as the visitors at the many hotels in the area (what is it now? About 15 hotels in Uptown alone?).

[woolie]

I'm just imagining 30 years out. Habits and tastes change. Los Angeles in 1980 is pretty different than Los Angeles 2012.

It's well established that you can't just keep expanding freeways; you get less for your money with each round. Houston isn't geographically constrained, but every mile further out adds minutes to the amenities, job centers, etc. And these things are the products of the concentration of human capital, the reason and essence of a city in the first place. Eventually you'll get far enough out and disconnected enough from Houston that you might as well save money and time and live in a much smaller city. So eventually car transportation hits a wall (or even just a very steep hill.) Effectively this will cause prices to go up as a rationing mechanism (real estate prices, time spent in traffic, congestion pricing, toll roads, etc.) This will accelerate a cycle (already well underway) of changing land use patterns, and you get to a point where it's self reinforcing (people naturally want to protect their investments!) Use the clone stamp on these new 6 story apartment blocks a couple hundred more times and you start to get some real density. It's not like it hasn't been done in other car centric cities before. The climate isn't as awful as people make it out to be; people will walk when the infrastructure exists, it's a pleasant experience, and socially accepted among their peers.

NIMBYs are a just a transition state. The heat of a reaction. But not the final product. The incentives ($) causing the changes they complain about are powerful enough to win in the end (See: Ashby.)

Edited April 10, 2012 by woolie

[samagon]

Ugh, can't the city just use imminent domain and buy the houses of the people who would complain?

The city needs more parks, and it just so happens that the park land is going to be right where all of the complainers houses are!

Edited April 10, 2012 by samagon

[mfastx]

I agree with most of the posters that a subway line in the inner core (Whestheimer inside the loop, Richmond, etc.) would be ideal. However, if people do not get on board with the subway as we all know they wont, I think that Westheimer OUTSIDE the loop is the perfect place to impliment BRT right down the middle. Hopefully then voters would approve construction of a subway.

I wish we can just skip imcremental steps like that but in a city like this where most people immediately oppose the idea of any sort of train, it might be necessary.

Edited April 10, 2012 by mfastx