METRORail Uptown Line

[RedScare]

Go here Uptown Corridor

Click on the "Uptown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report"

It is a PDF download. Once you download the file, look for the Executive Summary and open it. I think it abbreviated "Exec Sum". It goes through all of the options, none of which are subways. At the end, is the allignment they voted on. It does have a few hundred feet of tunnel, going under 610 southbound.

The only difference between what was already decided and today's vote, is that they decided to go LRT immediately. That does not change the allignment, only the cars.

This will answer all of your questions.

[Trae]

Yeah, I just downloaded it.

[TheNiche]

Go here Uptown Corridor

Click on the "Uptown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report"

It is a PDF download. Once you download the file, look for the Executive Summary and open it. I think it abbreviated "Exec Sum". It goes through all of the options, none of which are subways. At the end, is the allignment they voted on. It does have a few hundred feet of tunnel, going under 610 southbound.

The only difference between what was already decided and today's vote, is that they decided to go LRT immediately. That does not change the allignment, only the cars.

This will answer all of your questions.

Does it seem at all odd that METRO is required to put out all these documents that discuss alternatives, but the Board ultimately votes on something that wasn't even identified as an option? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of an impact study and throw transparency out the window?

If ever there were a justification for a lawsuit, might that be it?

[RedScare]

The LRT option was in the analysis of all 3 allignment options. So, it was considered and studied. That is in the summary also. They also pointed out that the uptown neighborhood was very involved in the process, and generally very much in favor of rail down Post Oak. A lawsuit on this leg would be extremely unlikely.

The U Line, on the other hand, was ALWAYS LRT.

[musicman]

Trae, I got a great idea. Why don't you go to the METRO website and read what WAS ALREADY DECIDED, instead of throwing out your ideas that absolutely will not happen?

Just a thought.

[Trae]

I know you love that musicman.

[musicman]

I know you love that musicman.

he does make a good point.

[KatieDidIt]

I agree that if you're just heading down Post Oak, it really isn't that bad. The problem, though, is everyone (like myself) that has to cross Post Oak on a regular basis from Westheimer, San Felipe, or Richmond. And with all the highrise development taking place along Post Oak, the other problem is that this is probably a 30-year investment, and that even in 5 years, Post Oak will be a different street than we know it today.

Sorry, but the traffic on Post Oak isn't bad enough to slam a train down the middle of it. The highrise residents bought there to walk to work, they aren't driving. Its becoming a livable, walkable downtown in the area. Most Uptown Houstonians stay within their "pod," they are'nt looking to hop a train to another hood.

Yeah yeah, I'm against any ABOVE GROUND rail in central Houston. Below, ok then.

[Jax]

I don't think it's about how bad the traffic currently is as much as it's about giving some people an option to get places without driving.

[ricco67]

There is that option as well. But also getting too and from the Galleria at certain times of day and year can drive you to the verge of homicide. There is also the fact that the Galleria has numerous hotels in the area and some either don't have a license to drive (such as people from New York, London, etc) or come from a small town in which the galleria traffic can be quite intimidating.

There are visitors that wish to get OUT of the galleria area to go to downtown or the museum district as well. Sitting for an hour in galleria traffic (during Christmas time) in a car isn't always the most pleasant of options.

It is in those cases that the line will prove its worth.

[templehouston]

Sorry, but the traffic on Post Oak isn't bad enough to slam a train down the middle of it. The highrise residents bought there to walk to work, they aren't driving. Its becoming a livable, walkable downtown in the area. Most Uptown Houstonians stay within their "pod," they are'nt looking to hop a train to another hood.

Yeah yeah, I'm against any ABOVE GROUND rail in central Houston. Below, ok then.

The Uptown Line is not for the residents of the Galleria area. It's for the people who work in the area and for the people who come to shop. Those are the people who create the traffic in the area. If you give them an alternative to searching for parking in the area by offering the rail line, they will probably take it. The merchants in the area wanted this line and they got it. You are wasting time talking about subways and elevated lines. Metro appears committed to street level for most of the light rail routes and you are 20 years late to be proposing Kathy Whitmire's monorail. There is still nothing to stop you from driving your car anywhere in this city you wish. You do have to use your head and learn the alternatives to direct left turns, however.

[wakester]

Yup. Only submerged section is where the line drops under the 610 median, travels under the southbound lanes and comes up in the Post Oak median. It also elevates up near Woodway to get into the 610 median. The rest is at street level.

I had read somewhere that TxDOT may be changing it tune on the line down the middle of 610.

[Trae]

Why would they?

[wakester]

Why would they?

Maybe after finishing 610, they don't want to tear it up again. It is too bad they couldn't have done the 610 leg during the construction. Metro could have used it for the 286 bus, and I would not have missed the 35 bus this morning!

[Trae]

Metro doesn't have to rip up 610. They can do the tunneling effect (like what happened in Dallas).

[ssullivan]

I don't understand the point of putting the Uptown line in the center median of 610. There is room along the median between the southbound 610 freeway lanes and the southbound frontage road to put an elevated rail line. Building it there would require minimal disruption to the traffic flow during construction, and has got to be less expensive than sticking it in the middle of the freeway.

[RedScare]

I don't understand the point of putting the Uptown line in the center median of 610. There is room along the median between the southbound 610 freeway lanes and the southbound frontage road to put an elevated rail line. Building it there would require minimal disruption to the traffic flow during construction, and has got to be less expensive than sticking it in the middle of the freeway.

They discuss two options in the Alternatives Analysis. One was to run it beside the feeder road. The other was to go down the 610 median through Memorial Park. The park people did not want to give up anymore parkland than necessary, while still having a station for park access. This was the compromise.

[The Great Hizzy!]

As a practice, I'm not a big fan of placing rail lines down the medians of freeways. The Gold Line in Los Angeles is designed in such away along the I-210 (Foothill Freeway) just before it terminates at Sierra Madre in Pasadena. The walk from the station across the freeway along the skywalk and then down the garage to street level isn't a bad one per se but it does seem to require more time than usual.

What's the convenience other than MAYBE saving space along the ROW?

The average rider would probably prefer to not have to use a skywalk to get to/from the train/street, given the extra time required.

METRO already has something close to this at the TMC Transit Center Station but I would imagine a crossover station in the middle of the West Loop would be longer by a good amount.

[RedScare]

No stations are planned on the 610 section. It only runs in the median through Memorial Park to avoid taking parkland.

[ssullivan]

They discuss two options in the Alternatives Analysis. One was to run it beside the feeder road. The other was to go down the 610 median through Memorial Park. The park people did not want to give up anymore parkland than necessary, while still having a station for park access. This was the compromise.

I still don't get it. Putting the line between the frontage road and freeway doesn't take an inch of park land. The line is still completely within the TxDOT ROW. What is the advantage of putting it in the middle of the freeway over betweeen the freeway and frontage road? Neither option affects Memorial Park. The only way the park would be affected is if the line was built along the 610 ROW (just west of the southbound frontage road or east of the northbound frontage road).

[RedScare]

Looking at the Alternatives Analysis, there is no evidence that an aerial structure between the mainlanes and the service road was ever considered. From reading the 3 alternatives considered, and looking at aerial photos of 610 southbound, I can think of 2 reasons why. One, elevated guideways are much more expensive to build. Alternative 2A, which would have elevated the guideway from Northwest Transit Center to south of Memorial, was far more expensive than the other options. Your suggestion that the guideway be elevated from north of Memorial to Post Oak would be even more expensive. The second reason I can see is space. While it seems like there is plenty of room for pylons between the freeway and feeder road, a look at aerial photos shows numerous entrance and exit ramps, as well as retaining walls for overpasses in the area. There is remarkably little space for pylons, though I imagine that, with enough money, it could be done.

That's my take on it. Reading between the lines, it looks like the much higher expense of elevated track would doom this option more than anything.

EDIT: Reading Alternative 2 a little closer, the section in the 610 median will also be elevated, so cost probably is not that much different. The bigger issue would be where the line goes underground to come up in the Post Oak median. As the exit ramps meet the feeder, and the feeder roads widen with extra turn lanes at Post Oak, there is no room for the line to transition from elevated structure to underground.

[The Great Hizzy!]

My only complaint really about the in-median rail section was with regard to the stations, but since the current plan doesn't call for stations along the in-median section, I could live with it.

I'll snicker, though, when I see one rolling down the middle of the West Loop, if for no other reason than I'm sure a lot of drivers will be thrown for a loop (no pun intended) when they first see it.

[ssullivan]

EDIT: Reading Alternative 2 a little closer, the section in the 610 median will also be elevated, so cost probably is not that much different. The bigger issue would be where the line goes underground to come up in the Post Oak median. As the exit ramps meet the feeder, and the feeder roads widen with extra turn lanes at Post Oak, there is no room for the line to transition from elevated structure to underground.

Exactly -- if it's going to be elevated anyway, then cost can't be the issue. You may be right with the transition from an elevated line between the freeway and frontage road at-grade on Post Oak. That is a tight space.

One interesting thing I noticed some months ago is that the new 610 overpass above Post Oak was built to accomodate the light rail line. If you look carefully, the support columns under the overpass on the north side of Post Oak have a large gap, that doesn't exist in the support columns on the south side of Post Oak. There's also a lot of empty space under that bridge on the north side of Post Oak, which I'm sure is there to allow for the light rail line. It's possible that section of freeway has other design features already built-in to help accomodate the future rail line.

[bcnet]

I'm kind of surprised there is not a stop on Post Oak at 610 near Uptown Park. This would better serve the multiple office towers right inside the loop at Post Oak as well Uptown Park itself.

[RedScare]

I believe there is. I cannot get the Alternatives Analysis to load today, but last time I looked at it, they showed a station about a block west of the Post Oak and 610 intersection. It probably depends on how quickly the line comes back up to the surface after going under the 610 southbound lanes, so it might be a couple of blocks in.

EDIT: Never mind. I got it to open, and the stops are 610/Memorial, then Post Oak/San Felipe. I guess since it goes underground at Post Oak/610, there is no way to put a station there.

[Deut28Thirteen]

Nice to see Metro building a respectable rail system but what happens if metro does not get Federal funding. Who is going to pay for the other half because metro cant pay for it by themselves.

[Mister X]

Nice to see Metro building a respectable rail system but what happens if metro does not get Federal funding. Who is going to pay for the other half because metro cant pay for it by themselves.

That's a good question. If Metro is denied, what's next? Also, what are the chances of Metro getting the necessary federal funding for all this rail? 50/50? Please tell me it's better than that ...something like 90/10 in favor of rail is what I want to hear.

Any thoughts out there?

[Trae]

I believe there is. I cannot get the Alternatives Analysis to load today, but last time I looked at it, they showed a station about a block west of the Post Oak and 610 intersection. It probably depends on how quickly the line comes back up to the surface after going under the 610 southbound lanes, so it might be a couple of blocks in.

EDIT: Never mind. I got it to open, and the stops are 610/Memorial, then Post Oak/San Felipe. I guess since it goes underground at Post Oak/610, there is no way to put a station there.

There is a way, just costs too much money. Subway stations under freeways can happen.

[ricco67]

Considering the heavy congestion in that area, I think an underground station is almost mandatory, but that would require a substantial underground network leading to a corner on the other side of 610 to get increased ridership, but I'm sure the numbers won't justify the cost, which is a pity since uptown park and that area would bring in a decent number of riders.

[desirous]

Wonderful! Maybe all the incendiary correspondence I sent calling Uptown BRT "a half-assed solution" did something.