METRORail University Line

[H-Town Man]

Someone needs to go out in the middle of the night and chainsaw those damn trees. That'll take the wind out of their sails real quick.

[zaphod]

Someone needs to go out in the middle of the night and chainsaw those damn trees. That'll take the wind out of their sails real quick.

\

now thats a plan!

[nmainguy]

From today's Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/3671366.html

From the ballot:

1. NORTH HARDY

**A. UH-Downtown to Northline Mall

B. Northline Mall to Greenspoint

C. Greenspoint to Bush IAH Airport

2. SOUTHEAST

**A. Downtown/Bagby to Dowling

**B. Dowling to Griggs/610

C. Griggs/610 to Park & Ride in the vicinity of Hobby Airport

D. Sunnyside: Southeast Transit Center to Bellfort

E. Sunnyside: Bellfort to Airport Blvd.

3. HARRISBURG

**A. Dowling to Magnolia Transit Center

B. Magnolia Transit Center to Gulfgate Center

C. Gulfgate Center to Telephone Road

4. WESTPARK

**Wheeler Station to Hillcroft Transit Center

5. UPTOWN/WEST LOOP

Westpark to the Northwest Transit Center

6. INNER KATY

Downtown/Bagby to Northwest Transit Center

7. SOUTHWEST COMMUTER LINE

Fannin South Park & Ride to Harris County line

So if we use the anti's argument The North Hardy line can only be built on Hardy? But A, B, and C are not on Hardy...

Uptown/West Loop can only be built on the West Loop or is Uptown a loose enough designation to allow it to be built anywhere in Uptown?

The Westpark line can only be on Westpark...but Westpark doesn't go to Wheeler...so do we go by the letter of the ballot...but if the ballot has flawed language [because Westpark does not go to Wheeler]...do we take it all literally or do we...man! I am one confused guy here!!!

[MidtownCoog]

Rail on Westpark?

Westpark is crying for Super Buses, but rail? No freaking way.

[ssullivan]

Well the letters concerning rail on Richmond are finally showing up in the Chronicle. There are four of them in today's edition -- one against rail on Richmond proposing an elevated line above the Southwest Freeway, one pushing a line on Westpark, one against all rail (calling the current Main St. line a "dismal failure" and having nothing positive to say about it), and one pushing for rail on Richmond. I'm thinking it's time to fire off a pro-Richmond e-mail to the editor, in hopes that it might get published and even out the debate a little.

You can read today's letters to the editor by clicking here.

[Houston19514]

METRO says: "METRO will study thoroughly all alignment alternatives, including Westpark, Richmond and variations combining the two and adjacent streets."

First, excessive turns slow down any vehicle, whether it be a car, bus, or light rail train. You may drive along a street at 35 mph, but you don't make a right turn at 35 mph. You don't want to have to switch between Westpark and Richmond multiple times just because some people don't want it here, and some others want it there. One or two turns might be fine, but four or five may be too many.

It seems like putting stations at those 90 degree turns (and both Weslayan-Richmond and Weslayan-Westheimer seem like ideal locations for stations), would substantially ameliorate, if not totally eliminate the slow-down caused by the turns. (Because the trains have to slow down for stations anyway.)

METRO says: "METRO will study thoroughly all alignment alternatives, including Westpark, Richmond and variations combining the two and adjacent streets."

Another thing to think about is interconnectivity and future extensions. METRO already has a Transit Center at Hillcroft and Westpark and will have another one at Westpark and S. Rice. There are also Park and Rides further down Westpark near Beltway 8 and Highway 6. If METRO is able to extend light rail beyond S. Rice at some point in the future (like after 2025), you want the current terminus of the line to be in a position to accommodate that. Outside of 610, the light rail line would probably serve more lower density areas than medium-to-high density areas. Therefore, the stations may be further apart and have more parking. METRO already has a ROW and existing transit facilities along Westpark, so it may be better than Richmond (or Westheimer) for any future extensions outside 610. Depending on how METRO designs the junction at Westpark and 610, trains may also eventually be able to go directly from Greenway Plaza to the Galleria (but bypass Afton Oaks) as well.

Taking all these things into consideration, a potential ideal route may be west on Richmond from Main to west of Greenway Plaza, then south along Weslayan or the existing railroad, then west on Westpark to S. Rice.

I think bypassing Afton Oaks makes a great deal of sense as well, and your points about interconnectivity and future extensions are very wise. However, I think you can achieve that AND have a better system in the second phase, by turning North on Weslayan, instead of South, and then go down Westheimer, through Uptown, then loop back down to the South Rice Transit Center, and then in future expansions, on out Westpark. I'll repeat some of my earlier comments in this regard: I think we'd be missing out on too many existing and future transit-oriented developments by not running through that stretch of Westheimer. Also, I think it's important to be able to get from downtown to Uptown with a maximum of one transfer. And, I think the Uptwon area is plenty big (bigger than downtown Denver, etc etc, etc) to handle service from two intersecting transit lines, both running through the core of Uptown.

[nmainguy]

Well the letters concerning rail on Richmond are finally showing up in the Chronicle. There are four of them in today's edition -- one against rail on Richmond proposing an elevated line above the Southwest Freeway, one pushing a line on Westpark, one against all rail (calling the current Main St. line a "dismal failure" and having nothing positive to say about it), and one pushing for rail on Richmond. I'm thinking it's time to fire off a pro-Richmond e-mail to the editor, in hopes that it might get published and even out the debate a little.

You can read today's letters to the editor by clicking here.

I agree regarding pro-Richmond emails to the Chronicle. There are so many positve suggestions just from this thread alone-imagine them bundled together in an intellegently written response.

A last resort tact would be to insist that the antis be consistant in regards to what they call following the ballot language word for word. Once other areas of town that want rail see the entire proposed system at risk because a very small but vocal group is trying to take ownership of the debate with fear and false information-it may rally those groups.

But again I emphasize the word "positive". I think it is important to avoid the type of shrillness displayed at last Thursday's board meeting.

[MidtownCoog]

If we can destroy a neighborhood to build 288, we can surley build rail down Richmond.

It's called progress, folks.

[scarface]

Agreed ^^^

But i will say this, while many of you may disagree with me, i still think if we're going to put ANY kind of transit system near 610 going into uptown, i think a portion of it should go underground. Face it folks! That's the safest and most sensible option! That would deter business opponents real easily because they wouldn't have to worry about rail jeapordizing their business. While a subway might be more expensive, it's better to do the system right the first time and not have to learn mistakes by the cost of traffic accidents and lost lives. Build a subway folks. Monorail could work too but not for asthetics!

[ssullivan]

Yes, but scarface, building a subway is often just as disruptive as building an at-grade system. It depends on the method of construction. If a subway line is bored through the ground, the negative affects to businesses and homes at street-level are somewhat minimalized. But if a cut-and-cover construction method is used (which may be a more likely scenario), the end result is probably a longer, messier construction period.

I'd love to have subways in Houston, especially where right of way is limited. But outside of a few places, like downtown and maybe through parts of the Galleria area, I don't really see it happening due to the enormously higher costs.

[MiDTOWNeR]

Someone needs to go out in the middle of the night and chainsaw those damn trees. That'll take the wind out of their sails real quick.

WOOHOO!!!!!

[The Voice of University Oaks]

And yet Portland is planning to build several more of these in the middle of their downtown with their next LRT extension. With their streetcar line already crossing the existing LRT line downtown. Going from the current 4 downtown intersections with an at-grade rail crossing to 12, while also adding auto lanes to the currently bus only transit mall the new line will run down. Yeah, must be such a traffic nightmare that they decided to go from 4 to 12. I can see why similarly gridded midtown Houston can't handle a single one of these intersections.

Good thing that the experienced light-rail pioneers at Metro know better those urban and transit novices in Portland.

I said that nowhere in the United States do two *actual* light rail systems cross at grade. The TriMet South Corridor project you reference will be the first in the nation to do so if they build it as proposed (it's still in design). It will be interesting to see how TriMet operates all these intersections, how they prioritize the trains, how they affect vehicular traffic, etc. The Portland streetcar, meanwhile, is just that: a streetcar, operating under line-of-sight rules. MAX (the "full" light rail) has priority at the streetcar/light rail junction.

Furthermore, nobody said it "couldn't be done." Grand junctions of two rail systems crossing at grade occur all the time. It takes a lot of coordination to move trains through a single point at grade, but it is possible. What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

Anyway, these issues will be explored in detail as preliminary engineering begins.

[dp2]

I said that nowhere in the United States do two *actual* light rail systems cross at grade.

Which is why I snarked about a *streetcar exemption.*

There isn't any significant difference between a streetcar line and a light-rail line when it comes to at-grade crossings. That's like trying to make an operational distinction between a 2-door Honda Accord and a 4-door Accord. Meaningless in this context. Now if it was a crossing of a light-rail line and a freight/commuter rail line then you'd have a point. But we aren't. The streetcar doesn't operate at quite as frequent headways as LRT, but at some point Tri-Met will increase those and the intersections will handle it just fine.

The TriMet South Corridor project you reference will be the first in the nation to do so if they build it as proposed (it's still in design). It will be interesting to see how TriMet operates all these intersections, how they prioritize the trains, how they affect vehicular traffic, etc. The Portland streetcar, meanwhile, is just that: a streetcar, operating under line-of-sight rules. MAX (the "full" light rail) has priority at the streetcar/light rail junction.

Your Metro pals are just throwing rationalizing smoke out their butts. No big deal to signalize a crossing, there are thousands in use on railroads across the country. Can easily set up an approach-activated crossing (sensors, operator request button, etc.) with a first-come, first-serve setup. With the relatively short-length of LRT trains, no train would be delayed more than 30 seconds, which can easily be incorporated into the schedule (which already has padding.) Plus such a crossing would be near a station, so we aren't talking high speeds. If the signals go down, just have backup operating rules with stop and proceed and directional priorities.

Furthermore, nobody said it "couldn't be done." Grand junctions of two rail systems crossing at grade occur all the time. It takes a lot of coordination to move trains through a single point at grade,

Yes, such as the incredible complex concept of the 4-way stop sign (though perhaps difficult for some of the quivering fools at the FTA and FRA to grasp.)

but it is possible. What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

Your 'sources' are feeding you BS. The differences aren't the type to prevent an LRT/LRT crossing.

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

Anyway, these issues will be explored in detail as preliminary engineering begins.

Yes, let's get Metro's BS excuses in writing, and then subject it to peer review. It will end up looking like swiss cheese. Funny how so much of their claims, grand plans, and promises they suckered the public and voters with didn't hold up when scrutinized by the FTA for funding. And poof, LRT became BRT.

I'd venture to guess that perhaps grade separation is one of those crowd-pleasing measures Metro will promote beforehand and then drop as soon as the FTA tells them to get their project costs down. Kinda like the girlfriend who says she'll always be thin, and then grabs the sweatpants and twinkies once she gets the ring.

[RedScare]

Don't forget that the FTA has changed the rules on funding, pushing very hard for BRT over rail. This change came about AFTER the METRO referendum, forcing METRO to be flexible in what they ask for, or risk getting nothing. Mass transit foes recognize this. It is in their self-serving interest to convince METRO to go with the easier path of Westpark, which will result in lower ridership, and probably less or no federal funding. Then they can blame METRO for not getting funding.

The emphasis on homeland security and defense spending is also sapping needed money from domestic needs. New Start money is scheduled to shrink by 1.5% next year, the same year that Bush pledged to help the US get over its "addiction to oil". Doesn't make sense, but that is the new reality.

[nmainguy]

What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

No one I've spoken with ever hinted there would be a junction at the Main/Wheeler intersection. I don't know why METRO is putting such a spin on a non-issue. Go to the Wheeler station and LOOK at the amount of land METRO has aquired. Why would they even consider the hassel of dealing with the intersection when they could put their junction on their own property with room to spare. From there, the west bound leg of the University line could take off across Main south of the intersection. We need to keep a focus on what is possible-not on what might be "too hard".

[dp2]

Don't forget that the FTA has changed the rules on funding, pushing very hard for BRT over rail. This change came about AFTER the METRO referendum, forcing METRO to be flexible in what they ask for, or risk getting nothing. Mass transit foes recognize this. It is in their self-serving interest to convince METRO to go with the easier path of Westpark, which will result in lower ridership, and probably less or no federal funding. Then they can blame METRO for not getting funding.

The emphasis on homeland security and defense spending is also sapping needed money from domestic needs. New Start money is scheduled to shrink by 1.5% next year, the same year that Bush pledged to help the US get over its "addiction to oil". Doesn't make sense, but that is the new reality.

Actually several (the majority, IIRC) of Metro's proposed lines were on the low-end of ridership, 8-11,000 per line. Those would have had a hard time against other city's proposals even before the changes. But lower ridership on an entire Westpark route wouldn't necessarily sink it, because the critical stat for funding isn't overall cost, but cost per rider. So while all-Westpark would have lower ridership, it also may have much lower costs (since there is the cheaper option of using the pre-existing rail ROW for much of the route, instead of more expensive laying tracks in the street), resulting in perhaps a more favorable cost/rider ratio.

But I do believe that Metro is going to go all out and get this line on the best route, Richmond( at least east of Greenway Plaza.) The rest is just going through the (required) motions. West of Greenway Plaza may be up in the air, but their proposal to shift down to Westpark makes the most sense. There's already an office park and high-density housing in the SE corner of 610/59, with potential in the SW corner, too. Then turning north and running up Post Oak through Uptown also would serve the most potential riders. I think Metro did a good job with that route selection, especially if they split the east-west line into an Uptown line and a Westpark line west of 610. The trend for some transit planners is for short-yellow bus simplicity and thus single-routes only with transfers being no big deal, but there are examples all over the country of multiple lines combining through a central trunk. Though when the Washington line (east-west through downtown) comes online and serves the Uptown corridor that would provide a one seat ride from there to downtown. I'd like to see some sort of junction at Wheeler (grade-separated from the road would of course be better, I just hate it when someone at Metro throughs out BS instead of the truth) with perhaps an Uptown-Med Center service, a Westpark-UH-Hobby service, and a Westpark-Uptown-Downtown-1836 District-Hobby line. No more than 2 services on any segment, but more one seat ride options. NYC, Portland, Chicago, Boston, Philly, and San Francisco are some examples of multiple routes joining into shared trunk lines.

[nmainguy]

West of Greenway Plaza may be up in the air, but their proposal to shift down to Westpark makes the most sense. There's already an office park and high-density housing in the SE corner of 610/59, with potential in the SW corner, too. Then turning north and running up Post Oak through Uptown also would serve the most potential riders.

Shifting south to Westpark only decreases ridership. You lose new developments at HISD, Highland Village, in addition to possible new developments on Westheimer between the SP line and the loop. Far better ridership numbers than you would achieve by servicing a group of office buildings and a couple of apartment complexes crammed between a Home Depot and Westpark.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

Your 'sources' are feeding you BS. The differences aren't the type to prevent an LRT/LRT crossing.

Yes, let's get Metro's BS excuses in writing, and then subject it to peer review. It will end up looking like swiss cheese. Funny how so much of their claims, grand plans, and promises they suckered the public and voters with didn't hold up when scrutinized by the FTA for funding. And poof, LRT became BRT.

I'd venture to guess that perhaps grade separation is one of those crowd-pleasing measures Metro will promote beforehand and then drop as soon as the FTA tells them to get their project costs down. Kinda like the girlfriend who says she'll always be thin, and then grabs the sweatpants and twinkies once she gets the ring.

Hey, I'm just passing along what I've been told. Perhaps you need to contact METRO's rail engineers and knock some sense into them. METRO's switchboard is 713-739-4000.

[Guest Plastic]

What I say is they put a monorail down Westheimer,our most used street and commuter rail lines to all the suburbs. There would be a stop on the 45-Clear Lake line at The University Of Houston Transit center.

As for slower scenic trains those would only be for Westheimer and 1960 like the one on Main.

[RedScare]

What I say is they put a monorail down Westheimer,our most used street and commuter rail lines to all the suburbs. There would be a stop on the 45-Clear Lake line at The University Of Houston Transit center.

As for slower scenic trains those would only be for Westheimer and 1960 like the one on Main.

Plastic, read this article, then see if you can explain why this is a good idea for Houston.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...ws/5833357.html

[Jeebus]

Plastic, read this article, then see if you can explain why this is a good idea for Houston.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...ws/5833357.html

I've been to Vegas twice a year for the last three years and never knew they had a monorail. I guess its from staying west of the Strip, and spending alot of time downtown.

I don't think a monorail would be a logical answer here in Houston. i think lightrail inside the loop (and just beyond in some more dense areas) and then commuter rail from the suburbs in.

[CE_ugh]

What I say is they put a monorail down Westheimer,our most used street and commuter rail lines to all the suburbs. There would be a stop on the 45-Clear Lake line at The University Of Houston Transit center.

As for slower scenic trains those would only be for Westheimer and 1960 like the one on Main.

So youre talking about having a Commuter Rail stop, right in the middle of Cullen Blvd.!

Also what 'scenery" are you talking about of Westiemer and 1960.

[dp2]

So youre talking about having a Commuter Rail stop, right in the middle of Cullen Blvd.!

Also what 'scenery" are you talking about of Westiemer and 1960.

Rainforest Cafe at the mall?

[VicMan]

Okay, I have planned a nice little route for the Richmond Line.

*Start at Wheeler Station. West along Richmond.

*Stop at Richmond @ Weslayan (This avoids Afton Oaks).

Two options:

*North along Weslayan

*Stop at Weslayan @ Westheimer. West along Westheimer

or

* South along Weslayan

* Stop at Weslayan @ Westpark. West along Westpark

[Guest Plastic]

No no it would run from Downtown go down say Smith to Westheimer. Then stop at Montrose,Shepeard, Kriby, BUffalo Speedway and all the major intersection all the way to HWY 6.

[nmainguy]

No no it would run from Downtown go down say Smith to Westheimer. Then stop at Montrose,Shepeard, Kriby, BUffalo Speedway and all the major intersection all the way to HWY 6.

No no...Westheimer doesn't intersect with Kriby

I still like the idea of tele-porting through a worm hole in the time-space continum therby arriving at the Galleria from Wheeler 2 years ago...with you by my side, plastic.

[Guest Plastic]

It doesn't? Well where was I the thousands of times when I was at the intersection of Westheimer and Kirby?

[nmainguy]

It doesn't? Well where was I the thousands of times when I was at the intersection of Westheimer and Kirby?

Oh! You meant "Kirby" and not "Kriby"?

Sorry, Plastic.

Your mistake.

[Guest Plastic]

Of all people you measure my mistakes.

WHo knows somewhere in Houston there might be a Kriby.

[RedScare]

Article detailing METRO's attempts to be open about it's decision making process on the University Line.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/3732023.html

Nice to see that METRO understands openness in government is preferable to secrecy. I wish all government, including METRO, did this more often.