METRORail University Line

[Slick Vik]

this.. do we want a slow University Line with ELEVEN stations between Hilcroft and Wheeler, that runs on surface streets, or a University Line with 4 stations between Hilcroft and Wheeler that runs in its own designated ROW with fewer street crossings (and the possibility of building overpasses or underpasses on the few busy cross streets along Westpark, like Kirby, Buffalo Speedway, and Edloe)..

if were not going to have an east-west commuter/express route anytime soon then this needs to be our express route, with minimal stops for quicker travel time. when we build another east/west express route then we can come back and add stations to the university line. for now though if we want that "world class system", the Richmond route with 13 stops is not the way to do it.

Less stops + westpark = less riders

[cloud713]

Less stops + westpark = less riders

i dont think it would be significantly less. there would still be direct access to Uptown (the major destination along the route), Greenway Plaza (the second biggest destination on the route), Kirby (possibly the third biggest destination on the route), and Montrose/St Thomas/The Menil (another popular destination along the route, and this stop would be in the same location as it was planned on the original line, on Richmond).

like i said, i dont think dumping a few stops like Dunlavy, Shepherd (again, south of 59. north of 59, yes, a Shepherd stop would be warranted), Eastside, one of the two stops at greenway (Edloe would be more centrally located than either of the 2 planned on Richmond/Cummins anyways), Weslayan, New Castle, or S Rice Rd.

if anything, having the route be more of an express/commuter route would make it more appealing to people trying to get from the west side of the city to the center of the city, so that could even out the ridership numbers that were lost by taking out the less popular stops.

and again, in the future if we get an express East-West route then we can add more stations to the westpark/university line route.

not to mention it would be a ton cheaper building the line on the pre-existing ROW METRO already owns down Westpark/the power lines, and as was pointed out before, stations are pretty expensive, so the less stations, the cheaper the total cost as well. id imagine they could build a minimal stop Westpark line like i previously described, for less than half of what the 13 station Richmond/University line would of cost.

Edited March 20, 2014 by cloud713

[Slick Vik]

i dont think it would be significantly less. there would still be direct access to Uptown (the major destination along the route), Greenway Plaza (the second biggest destination on the route), Kirby (possibly the third biggest destination on the route), and Montrose/St Thomas/The Menil (another popular destination along the route, and this stop would be in the same location as it was planned on the original line, on Richmond).

like i said, i dont think dumping a few stops like Dunlavy, Shepherd (again, south of 59. north of 59, yes, a Shepherd stop would be warranted), Eastside, one of the two stops at greenway (Edloe would be more centrally located than either of the 2 planned on Richmond/Cummins anyways), Weslayan, New Castle, or S Rice Rd.

if anything, having the route be more of an express/commuter route would make it more appealing to people trying to get from the west side of the city to the center of the city, so that could even out the ridership numbers that were lost by taking out the less popular stops.

and again, in the future if we get an express East-West route then we can add more stations to the westpark/university line route.

not to mention it would be a ton cheaper building the line on the pre-existing ROW METRO already owns down Westpark/the power lines, and as was pointed out before, stations are pretty expensive, so the less stations, the cheaper the total cost as well. id imagine they could build a minimal stop Westpark line like i previously described, for less than half of what the 13 station Richmond/University line would of cost.

 

Honestly west of 610 I would build 1 additional stop at chimney rock because that would help capture Gulfton's population even more. I agree with a lot of your east of 610 criteria I need to go down westpark and see what there is between 610 and kirby on it.

[Slick Vik]

The Canada Line was anticipated to see 100,000 boardings per day in 2013 and 142,000 boardings per day by 2021, but it has consistently exceeded early targets.^[4] Ridership has grown steadily since opening day, with average ridership of 83,000 per day in September 2009,^[5] 105,000 per day in March 2010,^[6] and over 136,000 passengers per weekday in June 2011.

[cloud713]

Got bored and made another sketch up of what it would look like with an additional bridge over 59 between Montrose and Graustark along with a train. Couldn't squeeze in the last bridge at Hazzard though. Ah well.. You get the idea. I don't think the bridges are too cluttered/gaps too close together with a bridge at Yoakum. Aside from the gap between Mandell and Graustark, the gap between Graustark and Montrose is/was the biggest.

[samagon]

There's a conspiracy theory that I believe that COH is going out of its way to not make any effort to rebuild Richmond as punishment for culberson blocking rail.

 

Probably not, if it is on a list to get redone (which the list is short due to funds) they probably defer because of the impending rail project (whether it will happen or not).

[Slick Vik]

Probably not, if it is on a list to get redone (which the list is short due to funds) they probably defer because of the impending rail project (whether it will happen or not).

 

Makes sense. What do you think is going to happen?

[cloud713]

how long does the average train stop take at stations? a minute?

[The Pragmatist]

Less stops + westpark = less riders

 

Slick, I would think that after a certain point additional stops would start to cause a decrease in ridership as the time to get to the intended destination starts becoming inordinate.

[cloud713]

with an average maximum acceleration and deceleration time of 3mph per second, it would take the trains over 20 seconds to pick up speed and another 20+ to slow down, for each station. 

averaging 30mph (around half the speed between full speed and stop, assuming the train accelerates at a constant rate), it would take the train 880 feet to pick up speed, and 880 feet to slow down. over the course of 12 start/stop cycles (in between the 13 stations from Hilcroft to Wheeler) it would take the train 21,120 feet just to speed up and slow down. thats exactly 4 miles that you are spending speeding up and slowing down, and its less than 7 miles between Hilcroft and Wheeler, so you are spending the majority of your time accelerating or decelerating when you have 13 stations on that portion of the line. that leaves you with around 2.8 miles of track that you can comfortably do 60mph on (theoretically.. obviously they wouldnt allow trains to do 60 down the middle of a city street [most likely they would limit the speed of the train if it were on Richmond.. something they wouldnt have to worry about on the Westpark ROW with a few simple gates for street crossing, or a couple elevated/trenched sections. i believe right now the fastest they go is around 40mph, on the stretch between Hermann Park and the Museum District] but assuming they did, and all the red lights were timed perfectly). 
you end up spending 2 minutes and 48 seconds at top speed, 8 minutes accelerating/decelerating, and 6 minutes waiting at each station (assuming stops are 30 seconds in length). thats almost 17 minutes. sounds pretty fast, but like i pointed out right before this.. trains would never hit 60mph on Richmond. they would be lucky to hit 40mph (there are way more cross streets/red lights on Richmond than there are on that stretch along Hermann Park where the red line approaches 40mph). now if the same train ran down Westpark it would spend 5 minutes and 8 seconds traveling at 60mph, 3 minutes and 20 seconds accelerating/decelerating, and 2 minutes 30 seconds waiting at the stations (assuming there were 6 total stations on the Westpark line [you would only have to wait 5 times as you get off at the last stop/dont have to wait])

so since the Richmond figures were flawed.. well assume the train tops out at 30mph for Richmond. 440 feet x's 2 (one for accel, one for decel) x's 12 cycles (13 stations) is exactly 2 miles. that would take you 8 minutes averaging 15mph. that would leave the other 4.8 miles to be traveled at a top speed of 30mph, which would take 9 minutes and 48 seconds, and then 6 minutes of waiting at stations. thats almost 25 minutes just to get from Hilcroft to Wheeler, assuming you catch every single green light and dont have to stop anywhere besides the stations (we all know thats not going to happen), vs around 11 minutes to get from Hilcroft to Wheeler on Westpark.

so the Westpark line would be over twice as fast.

(my math is somewhat flawed as the Westpark line would still have a short journey along Richmond for the last half mile or so, and the Richmond line travels down Westpark for about 3 miles, so the Westpark line would be slightly slower than 11 minutes, and the Richmond line would be a little faster than 25 minutes, though the Richmond line has many more intersections to traverse than the Westpark line, so its going to have to stop many more times than the Westpark line possibly has to stop. in the end youre probably looking at close to a 30 minute trip from Hilcroft to Wheeler (the original main street line was around 8 miles with 16 stations and took exactly 30 minutes. this line is 7 miles and 13 stations), compared to less than 15 minutes for the Westpark line.

notes.. i dont think 15 minutes is particularly fast for an express route between Uptown and the center of the city. but i also think 30 minutes just to get part way to your destination (lets be honest.. i doubt most peoples final destination is Wheeler. they are probably going to transfer north or south) is a deterrent that could lower ridership numbers.

in the end i would like to see an express route down Memorial Dr, cutting through the south side of Memorial Park, and hitting the northern portion of Uptown/somewhere in the middle of the Post Oak LRT/BRT line. i think that one could easily do 60 along most of the route and wouldnt need but one or two stations (if any) in between downtown and uptown. and best of all.. NO TRANSFERS! if that happens id be more than happy to add more stations to the University Line. but right now our traffic isnt nearly bad enough to warrant sitting for 30 minutes to get from ~uptown to ~downtown (5 miles distance). if we want this to be successful it has to be faster.

 

[JamesL]

if were not going to have an east-west commuter/express route anytime soon

 

Already do. Southwest Freeway HOT lane.

 

Alternatives considered, for your reading pleasure:

http://www.ridemetro.org/CurrentProjects/Archives/2010/FEIS%202010/University-Corridor-FEIS-Vol-1-Pt2.pdf

 

Competing for federal funding means optimizing cost effectiveness, or cost per rider, and that's what they did.

[mfastx]

DART really just needs riders.  Always seems like the next line is going to be the one that delivers them.

 

DART had a ridership of 11.51 million annually in 2001 with a 20 mile network.  (575,000 annual riders/mile).  In 2011, they had an annual ridership of 22.3 million on a 72 mile network.  (310,000 annual riders/mile).  The population of the Dallas metro increased by 23.4% during that time period.

 

https://www.dart.org/news/dartrailhistory.asp

 

I expect the same thing to happen in Houston.  The lines that are currently under construction will reduce the riders/mile on average and proponents will continue to say that the next line will add the riders.

Another weird thing about DART is that it only serves Dallas and the adjacent suburbs, Ft. Worth and it's suburbs (which is a huge chunk of the metro) are not served, which skews overall transit ridership numbers for the metro as a whole.

[IronTiger]

Another weird thing about DART is that it only serves Dallas and the adjacent suburbs, Ft. Worth and it's suburbs (which is a huge chunk of the metro) are not served, which skews overall transit ridership numbers for the metro as a whole.

Distance, distance, distance. As discussed before, because Dallas is geographically much smaller than Houston, the suburbs are much, much closer than you'd think they would be. There is a commuter rail link to Fort Worth (Trinity Rail, I think)

From Plano to Dallas CBD, it's about 20 miles. From Fort Worth to Dallas, it's 30 miles. If you wanted to go from a SW Fort Worth suburb to a northeast Dallas suburb, that's almost 60 miles.

[nativehoustonion]

I forget sometimes dallas needs Forth Worth to put on their boots.  I had more fun in Forth Worth then dallas, they are friendly there unlike little d.

[nativehoustonion]

I emailed Culberson and told him to read our blog.  If you are in his district please do the same.  He has some nerve going to Tony's one of the most expensive restaurants here and claim the University Line is now dead.  What a jerk.

[samagon]

Makes sense. What do you think is going to happen?

 

what do I think is going to happen? Nothing. at least not until people who live on Richmond complain enough about the quality of the road. Then (hopefully) they'll talk about doing LR at the same time, or they'll just redo it.

[cloud713]

will the Hardy Tollroad downtown connector be all elevated, like Westpark? if so, am i the only one who thinks they should build a wider elevated platform than needed, for future commuter rail to run on, headed north until it runs on a new set of tracks along/in the middle of the current Hardy Tollroad, with a spur to the airport, and stops at The Woodlands and possibly Conroe? we need to start planning ahead...

[HoustonIsHome]

I haven't done it in a while but I rode the westheimer and richmond buses for years and greenway plaza barely saw action.

I agree with whomever said less stops means less riders.

I stopped getting excited about the university line when I found out it wasn't going on westheimer.

The only plan I would get excited over is an underground line with stops at Main, Montrose, Shepherd, Buffalo Speedway, Drexel, Post Oak, Chimney Rock and Hilcroft.

That's 8 stations, 7 stops each a mile apart. Shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to get from end to end and still hit the major spots

[trymahjong]

There's a conspiracy theory that I believe that COH is going out of its way to not make any effort to rebuild Richmond as punishment for culberson blocking rail.

at the CIP meeting Ellen Cohen put together March 5, The COH pwee guy (public works) stated that no improvements to Richmond would be considered until Metro resolves its plans for the University line.

[livincinco]

Another weird thing about DART is that it only serves Dallas and the adjacent suburbs, Ft. Worth and it's suburbs (which is a huge chunk of the metro) are not served, which skews overall transit ridership numbers for the metro as a whole.

Even if you look at overall numbers, not expressed as a percentage, the numbers are disappointing.

I do think that it's important to consider travel time when assessing ridership on the University line. The University line is approx. 11 miles in length. Assuming that it travels at the same speed as the Main St line, it will have an average speed of 15 mph, which means it will take approx. 45 min to travel the length of the line. That's a concern. The network may connect together, but the additive time of moving from line to line will quickly prove to be a problem and I believe that ridership is going to reflect that.

[nativehoustonion]

Slick Vik I went to a fundraiser and Ellen the Mayor  Parker were there and said they are working on a plan to get the University Line built.

[cloud713]

I haven't done it in a while but I rode the westheimer and richmond buses for years and greenway plaza barely saw action.

I agree with whomever said less stops means less riders.

I stopped getting excited about the university line when I found out it wasn't going on westheimer.

The only plan I would get excited over is an underground line with stops at Main, Montrose, Shepherd, Buffalo Speedway, Drexel, Post Oak, Chimney Rock and Hilcroft.

That's 8 stations, 7 stops each a mile apart. Shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to get from end to end and still hit the major spots

did you not see my math on the previous page? even a line down Westpark (with only 4 stations in between Hilcroft and Wheeler) that runs for over 5 miles at a top speed of 60 mph would take around 15 minutes to traverse between the two hubs. underground would be nice, but it wouldnt be any quicker than the line described down Westpark, and would be much more expensive. especially when METRO already owns the empty Westpark/power line ROW up to Montrose. would it have higher ridership? sure.. but depending on the cost difference between tunneling a line down Richmond and building one along Westpark, it might not be worth it. i think that is the real argument here..

 

at the CIP meeting Ellen Cohen put together March 5, The COH pwee guy (public works) stated that no improvements to Richmond would be considered until Metro resolves its plans for the University line.

 

i wonder why they cant reconstruct Richmond west of Shepherd since Culberson wont allow rail in his district? might as well rebuild the part that wont see any new rail (whenever they finally build the line), instead of just making the people of Houston and their vehicles suffer every time they drive down that stretch of Richmond.

 

Even if you look at overall numbers, not expressed as a percentage, the numbers are disappointing.

I do think that it's important to consider travel time when assessing ridership on the University line. The University line is approx. 11 miles in length. Assuming that it travels at the same speed as the Main St line, it will have an average speed of 15 mph, which means it will take approx. 45 min to travel the length of the line. That's a concern. The network may connect together, but the additive time of moving from line to line will quickly prove to be a problem and I believe that ridership is going to reflect that.

this. around 30 minutes just to get from Hilcroft to Wheeler? thats too long. people from uptown would probably be better off getting in their car and sitting in rush hour traffic if they wanted to travel to downtown/the museum district/the TMC/all the other destinations serviced by the current rail. a slow LRT line with many stops would be fine if we had an express/commuter-esque line alternative for people to take when trying to travel between the uptown line and the main street line, but for now i think a "hybrid" LRT line with minimal stops is our best bet for this route. we can come back and add more stations as needed in the future once another E/W line gets built.

[largeTEXAS]

Thank you for providing a textbook example of a false equivalency. Parks are good, therefore we must subsidize rail in Houston? Also appreciate your providing such a great example to strengthen my point.

Discovery Green (I didn't look up Hermann Park), self-funds its operating costs. Discovery Green has an annual budget of $3.4 million that is paid for by fundraising and rental fees (restaurant and usage fees).

So yes, I completely approve of the way that Discovery Green was financed because it was able to provide improved quality of life in a completely responsible financial manner. The park analogy that I would make to transit is there basic parks and basic transit (buses) that government should provide. There are also premium parks (Discovery Green) and premium transit (rail) that have a higher cost to build and that those should be constructed in a fiscally responsible model.

 

"Subsidizing" rail seems to be thrown around quite a bit by rail opponents. I think it would be helpful to look at a slightly bigger picture of "subsidies" for transit vs the automobile. 

 

Subsidyscope published by the Pew Charitable Trusts, an independent non-profit, non-governmental organization, tallies the amount of subsidies in each sector. At approx $51.3 Billion in grants, $3.9 Billion in tax expenditures, and $43.3 Billion in non-competed contracts, Transportation is third behind subsidies given to healthcare and education.  

 

The Cato Institute, an American Libertarian think tank whose mission is "To increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace," publishes an account of how the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, the Bureau of Public Roads, Federal Highway Administration, and the Transportation Administration, uses its funding, apportionment, revenues, and earmarks. The statement many highway advocated claim that highway users pay for the highway system is far fro accurate. Taxes paid on gasoline come nowhere close to paying for the construction and reconstruction of the nation's highways. Furthermore, federal subsidies for parking are about six times as much as subsidies for transit, nationwide. 

 

This Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the US Department of Transportation also shows all the money spent on different forms of transportation. Historically, before the automobile in about 1900, the huge highway system of the United States, consisted of about 2 million miles of dirt roads (with a few exceptions) and was about 10 times the length of the railroad system. These roads were almost all 100% subsided by the general taxpayer. Except that major bridges charged tolls to cross rivers.

 

Starting with the Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Turnpike in 1794, there had been a large number of toll roads, but by 1860 they had mostly failed due in large part to competition from canals and railroads. The turnpike era from 1800 to 1830 saw the construction of many better quality unpaved toll roads known as "turnpikes". From 1845 to almost 1860 was the era of plank toll roads introduced from Russia. Vehicles rolled along on thick wood planks but the exposed wood soon deteriorated. Several thousand miles of toll roads were built. SeeTransportation Revolution and Transportation (by Bigham)

 

But even during the toll road era most of the roads were still free (100% subsidized) but in poor condition. The toll roads were 100% pay and usually in good condition. But remember that due to the typical poor condition of the roads and the slow speeds (usually a few miles per hour or less) and low population, there was little travel (from the perspective of today).

 

The last two decades of the 1800's saw the start of the "good roads movement which was mostly due to support of farmers and bicyclists who wanted the government to pay for good roads. As a result, some states created highway departments with highway financial aid from the states. New Jersey was first in 1881 but it wasn't until 1917 that all state governments were aiding (subsidizing) highways. and Transportation (by Bigham) p.103. There is lots more information and history, but this is just an idea of how things got started. 

 

In conclusion, while transit is indeed subsidized, automobiles are also subsidized, and, as some would argue, to a far greater extent. Transportation has always been subsidized by this country. And, as reported by this NY Times article, with transit ridership rising significantly across the country, now at the "highest rate since 1956," isn't it fair to look at the way these subsidies are divided? Highways can still have their subsidies, but shouldn't transit users also benefit from a fair share? 

 

Or, just take away all subsidies and see what happens

 

[nativehoustonion]

So what is would be a alternative.  I could walk 2 blocks and get on the University Line.  Maybe you do nor live in the Upper Kirby District, but traffic is bad.  So stupid with million dollars homes with torn up roads and no rail.

[IronTiger]

Highways can still have their subsidies, but shouldn't transit users also benefit from a fair share?

What is "fair share"? Would based on mileage work, or not? Ridership?

There's a whole lot of problems when you get into "fairness". The other thing to note that canal and railroads were privately owned (even the streetcars of old). If METRO was privatized, would it take off or need even more money to survive?

[livincinco]

"Subsidizing" rail seems to be thrown around quite a bit by rail opponents. I think it would be helpful to look at a slightly bigger picture of "subsidies" for transit vs the automobile.

Subsidyscope published by the Pew Charitable Trusts, an independent non-profit, non-governmental organization, tallies the amount of subsidies in each sector. At approx $51.3 Billion in grants, $3.9 Billion in tax expenditures, and $43.3 Billion in non-competed contracts, Transportation is third behind subsidies given to healthcare and education.

The Cato Institute, an American Libertarian think tank whose mission is "To increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace," publishes an account of how the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, the Bureau of Public Roads, Federal Highway Administration, and the Transportation Administration, uses its funding, apportionment, revenues, and earmarks. The statement many highway advocated claim that highway users pay for the highway system is far fro accurate. Taxes paid on gasoline come nowhere close to paying for the construction and reconstruction of the nation's highways. Furthermore, federal subsidies for parking are about six times as much as subsidies for transit, nationwide.

This Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the US Department of Transportation also shows all the money spent on different forms of transportation. Historically, before the automobile in about 1900, the huge highway system of the United States, consisted of about 2 million miles of dirt roads (with a few exceptions) and was about 10 times the length of the railroad system. These roads were almost all 100% subsided by the general taxpayer. Except that major bridges charged tolls to cross rivers.

Starting with the Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Turnpike in 1794, there had been a large number of toll roads, but by 1860 they had mostly failed due in large part to competition from canals and railroads. The turnpike era from 1800 to 1830 saw the construction of many better quality unpaved toll roads known as "turnpikes". From 1845 to almost 1860 was the era of plank toll roads introduced from Russia. Vehicles rolled along on thick wood planks but the exposed wood soon deteriorated. Several thousand miles of toll roads were built. SeeTransportation Revolution and Transportation (by Bigham)

But even during the toll road era most of the roads were still free (100% subsidized) but in poor condition. The toll roads were 100% pay and usually in good condition. But remember that due to the typical poor condition of the roads and the slow speeds (usually a few miles per hour or less) and low population, there was little travel (from the perspective of today).

The last two decades of the 1800's saw the start of the "good roads movement which was mostly due to support of farmers and bicyclists who wanted the government to pay for good roads. As a result, some states created highway departments with highway financial aid from the states. New Jersey was first in 1881 but it wasn't until 1917 that all state governments were aiding (subsidizing) highways. and Transportation (by Bigham) p.103. There is lots more information and history, but this is just an idea of how things got started.

In conclusion, while transit is indeed subsidized, automobiles are also subsidized, and, as some would argue, to a far greater extent. Transportation has always been subsidized by this country. And, as reported by this NY Times article, with transit ridership rising significantly across the country, now at the "highest rate since 1956," isn't it fair to look at the way these subsidies are divided? Highways can still have their subsidies, but shouldn't transit users also benefit from a fair share?

Or, just take away all subsidies and see what happens

As I've stated several times, I fully agree that all highway costs should be covered by usage fees, be those either gas taxes or tolls. I don't agree with a VMT, primarily because of the level of overhead required to administer it. It will create another level of bureaucracy, just to track it.

Automobiles are subsidized to a far greater extent than transit only if you don't consider percentage of use. Only 2-3% of the population uses transit, but it receives about 20% of the overall subsidies, so yes, you can make an argument that it receives more in raw dollars, but it receives significantly less based on usage. That being said, I agree that the gas tax should have been indexed to inflation years ago.

That being said, I think that you're greatly exaggerating the growth of transit. It's at its highest since the 1950's in terms of raw numbers of trips, but it's at the same level that it was 5 years ago in comparison to population. The amount of usage of transit isn't going up significantly, the population is growing. And let's also not forget that these are unlinked passenger trips, so if you ride a bus or CR to LRT and then switch to another line, you just counted as 3 trips.

Vehicle miles travelled are down, but it's questionable to link that to mass transit. Most impartial analysts link it to increases in technology and work at home trends. Mass transit is still in that 2-3% range that it's been in for decades and the overwhelming amount of usage is in six metros.

NOTE - citations are from The Washington Post. Article is linked on the thread on transit usage which is probably a better thread for this anyway.

[mfastx]

Even if you look at overall numbers, not expressed as a percentage, the numbers are disappointing.

I do think that it's important to consider travel time when assessing ridership on the University line. The University line is approx. 11 miles in length. Assuming that it travels at the same speed as the Main St line, it will have an average speed of 15 mph, which means it will take approx. 45 min to travel the length of the line. That's a concern. The network may connect together, but the additive time of moving from line to line will quickly prove to be a problem and I believe that ridership is going to reflect that.

Speed is definitely a concern with respect to the type of light rail we are building, and we are even starting to see that now with the Red Line extension. Which is why I maintain that surface light rail is great for shorter distances less than 10 miles or so, but its effectiveness decreases the longer the lines are.

This is another reason why I think heavy rail could work better in Houston than most people think, the average speed for heavy rail systems is over double that of most light rail systems. And in Houston where distances are vast, it would cut down on transit times for people traveling long distances, something that surface rail and local buses can't accomplish.

I would like to see some grade separations for whatever mode we end up building.

[cloud713]

Speed is definitely a concern with respect to the type of light rail we are building, and we are even starting to see that now with the Red Line extension. Which is why I maintain that surface light rail is great for shorter distances less than 10 miles or so, but its effectiveness decreases the longer the lines are.

This is another reason why I think heavy rail could work better in Houston than most people think, the average speed for heavy rail systems is over double that of most light rail systems. And in Houston where distances are vast, it would cut down on transit times for people traveling long distances, something that surface rail and local buses can't accomplish.

I would like to see some grade separations for whatever mode we end up building.

agreed.. i would like to see commuter (heavy?) rail lines down Westpark (unless we build a LRT/commuter hybrid line along University Line/Westpark, then extend that out to the suburbs, like Dallas' lines), Hempstead/290 railroad, and Hardy out to The Woodlands or Conroe. possibly even one to Galveston, but that would obviously have way less riders and make much fewer trips. i still wish a Galveston extension could be worked in to the Houston-Dallas high speed rail line. the other corridors like 288, 90A, (possibly Westpark), and i10 could be fine with a LRT hybrid line, as i dont think they need the capacity for commuter or heavy rail, or (in the case of i10) needs more stops than optimal for commuter rail (through the Energy Corridor).. Westpark and i10 are the only two out of those 4 i see that might need additional capacity, so the trains could either be longer than the standard 2 car METRO trains, or they could run the LRT trains along those routes more periodically. i definitely think Houston will need some form of express rail in the next few decades..

[HoustonIsHome]

did you not see my math on the previous page? even a line down Westpark (with only 4 stations in between Hilcroft and Wheeler) that runs for over 5 miles at a top speed of 60 mph would take around 15 minutes to traverse between the two hubs.

underground would be nice, but it wouldnt be any quicker than the line described down Westpark, and would be much more expensive. especially when METRO already owns the empty Westpark/power line ROW up to Montrose. would it have higher ridership? sure.. but depending on the cost difference between tunneling a line down Richmond and building one along Westpark, it might not be worth it. i think that is the real argument here..

i wonder why they cant reconstruct Richmond west of Shepherd since Culberson wont allow rail in his district? might as well rebuild the part that wont see any new rail (whenever they finally build the line), instead of just making the people of Houston and their vehicles suffer every time they drive down that stretch of Richmond.

you are taking into account all sorts of external set backs.

Even the red line fighting lights and surface traffic hauls ass sometimes. Off peak it takes about a minute from station to station.

Anyway high ridership rail is more about convenience than speed. getting around london makes you think you are traveling so far but in reality the area isnt that big. If I remember correctly metropolitan London is about the size if the city of Houston.

Point is, everyone didn't have to go from the start of the rail to the end, but at least the train has to go where people want to go. I don't see GW plaza as that big a draw.

The red line is successful because it picks up high use corridors. Compare that to most of the DART routes with fewer stations and longer distances between stops.

[RocketSci]

Since we are re-imagining the University line, how about this:

 

In addition to a "local" Richmond section of the line with many stops, also include an "express" section that utilizes the existing HOV lanes between Kirby and Main Street - 

 

The existing HOV ROW is about 2.5 to 3 lanes wide (due to merging traffic lanes) plus a shoulder lane in the main traffic lanes provide about 40 to 45 feet between the main lanes at a minimum. The width of the double rail lines on Fannin in the Med Center is about 25 to 30 feet, so depending on how these rail and lanes are structured it is possible to maintain 2 rails plus 1 HOV lane.

 

Wherever the Westpark to Richmond split occurs (Cummins), the bridge crossing can include a spur that runs down the center of the Fwy, with no additional stops until Wheeler Station. The existing exit to Main Street at Wentworth or a new rail only bridge at Boldgett can be created to reconnect to Richmond at Main Street. There was a proposal from the Culberson camp to use some of the FWY ROW in lieu of Richmond, but the difference here is that the key would be preserving local service  - to connect Montrose, Museum, UST, Shepherd, and Kirby - but also maintain the HOV; total number of traffic lanes; no impact to homes, neighborhoods or grade crossings; and support an express line to bypass the most heavily driven sections for those riders who want to go outside the loop. Express service could be limited to rush hour times or weekdays to minimize the cost of running parallel rail on Richmond.

 

So, to summarize:

- stick to the current Westpark/Richmond/Wheeler plan for local service

- create a new "Express" lane between Main Street and Cummins rail bridge with no grade crossings

- modify SW FWY HOV to support 2 rail lines (no stops) and 1 HOV from Cummins to Main

- add 1 new rail-only bridge to Wentwoth or Blodgett

 

Nonstop from Main to Cummins via Express rail at 60 mph (max speed of rail cars is documented at 66) is 3 minutes. That would certainly gain the attention of the drivers sitting still on the SW FWY and perhaps gain a few more rail riders.

 

The express service could even be developed as a phase 1 of Richmond service, since much of the infrastructure is already there, and few if any utilities need to be relocated.

 

Edited March 23, 2014 by RocketSci