METRORail Uptown Line

[citykid09]

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

I and plenty others raised hell also, but every little bit helped. Now we should focus on the best way to do the uptown line, the phase 2 line that I am most excited about. I think going underground into a subway and into the uptown park area would would work. you know what would be really cool though, a subway station inside the Galleria. Shoppers could catch a ride from anywhere and end up inside the Galleria.

[ricco67]

While that would be cool, I'm sure some workers of the nearby buildings or people going to nearby hotels wouldn't be as enthusiastic about the idea.

[Jax]

Sounds like a good idea. There were malls in Montreal that were directly connected to subways stations (2 that I can think of), and it seemed to work pretty well for both of them.

[desirous]

While that would be cool, I'm sure some workers of the nearby buildings or people going to nearby hotels wouldn't be as enthusiastic about the idea.

There could be three exits: Galleria, Westheimer South, and Westheimer North. The latter two can form a much-needed pedestrian underpass open during all Metrorail operating hours. If we do incur the significant expense of building an underground station, a direct link to the Galleria basement could only make sense.

[Trae]

While that would be cool, I'm sure some workers of the nearby buildings or people going to nearby hotels wouldn't be as enthusiastic about the idea.

Why wouldn't they be enthusiastic about that idea?

[lockmat]

Sounds like a good idea. There were malls in Montreal that were directly connected to subways stations (2 that I can think of), and it seemed to work pretty well for both of them.

There's a stop on the Paris subway station that was underneath a mall.

[Captain Impossible]

I think going underground into a subway and into the uptown park area would would work.

In Houston? Really?

[HtownWxBoy]

In Houston? Really?

[Trae]

In Houston? Really?

I know that was a joke, but it could work easily. If Amsterdam can do it (and is expanding their subway), then Houston can do it, too.

[Highway6]

In Houston? Really?

Houston's trenched I-10 and 59 are designed to flood. They are designed to take the bayou overflows when that 100 yr storm or pesky tropical storm blows through.

They are designed to flood to protect property... not cars.. cars are cheap and expendable compared to property. In 59's case, protecting the museum district and TMC is more important than a few hundred cars. Our freeways are designed to flood if need be. Period. So stop with this stupid "Houston should never tunnel since we flood" mentality... esp. if you're then going to back it up with a TS Allison photo.

2nd.. we have a tunnel system under downtown... and over 99.99% of the time it has stayed dry while rains and floods haven't bothered it. The tunnel system downtown was drained, cleaned, shops repaired, and everything back to normal in a relatively short period of time after Allison.

3rd.. Tunnels for transit can be made even more flood proof. To date, the Washburn Tunnel under the Ship Channel has never been flooded.

[RedScare]

2nd.. we have a tunnel system under downtown... and over 99.99% of the time it has stayed dry while rains and floods haven't bothered it. The tunnel system downtown was drained, cleaned, shops repaired, and everything back to normal in a relatively short period of time after Allison.

Everyone conveniently ignores...or doesn't even know...why the downtown tunnels flooded in the first place.

[lockmat]

Everyone conveniently ignores...or doesn't even know...why the downtown tunnels flooded in the first place.

I still don't know. Have any answers?

----

Also...I'm sure subways can be made not to flood. But say for instance it did. Are there ways to protect the trains themselves?

[Highway6]

Everyone conveniently ignores...or doesn't even know...why the downtown tunnels flooded in the first place.

Well, my point was on that item, that the vast majority of the time, flooding isn't an issue and even if it does flood once every five-ten years, who cares.. It can be fixed relatively quickly.

But no.. i don't know why the tunnel system failed in the case of Allison, except that the bayous and the rest of the drainage systems set up downtown were overloaded.... please do tell.

Does it have to do with the fact that it isnt a closed system and has numerous weak spots, such as parking garage access ?

[RedScare]

I know this will infuriate the "urbanistas", but I don't see why an underground would be all that desirable. Putting aside the cost of a subway...and cost is THE reason a subway will NOT be built...subways are flat out LESS convenient than street level stations. So are elevated stations. If you place a subway, a street level station, and an El next to each other, all going to the same place, which one will everyone ride? I know that some would love the "urban" subway station (we all know who they are), but 99% of the riders will choose the MOST visible and MOST convenient station...the one without stairs.

Now, this is not a fat bashing statement. I often take the stairs to my 9th floor office as a form of exercise. But, if I am in a hurry, or not feeling like exercising, I take the more convenient elevator. It is human nature not to make your trip harder than it has to be.

As for riders wanting an underground station to protect their Galleria purchases...well, hogwash. Those people will not ride mass transit, even if it had leather seats and Waterford windows. Besides, eventually they have to get off the train and WALK...somewhere! If they are worried about Houston's heat or humidity, they will not walk to a station in the first place. You build mass transit for those who will actually USE it. You do not build it for the elitist who is terrified that a *gasp* homeless man might be on the train or bus.

Like I said, I know the Urbanistas will not like this explanation, but it is what transit experts are looking at. They will not build something because it is "cool" or "urban". They build it because it works. Street level rail is visible and convenient. It is its own publicity. As people see it, they are subconsciously encouraged to use it. Subways and Els put the transit farther away from the people that use it. And those people are on the ground.

[RedScare]

The downtown tunnels flooded when a wall of the Bayou Place underground garage failed. The wall was built of concrete block, and never intended to hold back flood water. Once it broke, water rushed throughout the system, flooding the entire tunnel. Unlike the County Courthouse, where water flowed down parking ramps, the tunnels did not flood from above ground. That wall has since been repaired. Additionally, flood gates were installed on garage ramps, just in case.

But, the main flood was caused because that one wall was not designed to hold back flood water. It had nothing to do with the tunnels themselves. You can see that wall at the northwest corner of Bayou Place as you drive in on Memorial. Normally, it is about 20 feet above the bayou.

[lockmat]

Red, say for instance in the next 50/75 years, Inner Loop Houston is extremely densified. Do you think METRO would plan on more Rail lines or just increase the bus service?

The reason I ask, is that people are already complaining about how the rail gets in the way of the car. With all these lines, those complaints are probably gonna grow. So say after this huge densification more lines are needed, it could end up being a huge mess.

It just seems that w/ subways, cars and rail could better coexist.

[Highway6]

They build it because it works.

I agree with all except to note that, in this particular case, At-grade station right at the corner of post oak and westhiemer would not work. So the solution is, don't move the station up or down, move it north and south... which is what they're doing.

Also, just because the at grade station is a suitable distance from the troublesome intersection, should not exclude the rail line from then bypassing that troublesome intersection either above or below..... Just like the Red Line goes under Holcomb between the Dryden and TMC stations.

But.. i was never arguing for a subway station in this location.. I was only yelling at the people that think showing a flooded freeway in Houston is evidence that Houston should never build tunnels generally.

[RedScare]

I agree with you, Hwy6. Showing a flooded open trench means nothing. I was adding to your yelling.

lockmat, there could well be situations that require underground service. In addition to your Holcombe example, the uptown line will go underground at the loop and San Felipe. The North Line will elevate over Crosstimbers. As the system expands...and density increases...more of these situations will arise. When they do, the less convenient subway or El will be built. The next expansion will be down Washington, which is wide enough to go at grade. They could also run it down Center street, but I doubt they would. However, when some north/south lines start to go in, I could definitely see some underground or elevated possibilities. Shepherd is a prime example.

[houstonmacbro]

Red, say for instance in the next 50/75 years, Inner Loop Houston is extremely densified. Do you think METRO would plan on more Rail lines or just increase the bus service?

The reason I ask, is that people are already complaining about how the rail gets in the way of the car. With all these lines, those complaints are probably gonna grow. So say after this huge densification more lines are needed, it could end up being a huge mess.

It just seems that w/ subways, cars and rail could better coexist.

You could always make some streets rail only. Get rid of cars altogether.

[Highway6]

The Red line submerged section at Holcomb is roughly 800 ft long, so roughly 400 ft would be needed to get to a low enough level to pass under a road on each side.

If the Galleria station was at grade between West Alabama and the crosswalk between Neiman Marcus and Dillards, you would still have 500' to get just the rail line trenched and running under Westheimer. It would be road construction nightmare, but it seems like it could be done.

[KatieDidIt]

The Red line submerged section at Holcomb is roughly 800 ft long, so roughly 400 ft would be needed to get to a low enough level to pass under a road on each side.

If the Galleria station was at grade between West Alabama and the crosswalk between Neiman Marcus and Dillards, you would still have 500' to get just the rail line trenched and running under Westheimer. It would be road construction nightmare, but it seems like it could be done.

Construction Nightmare you aren't kidding. Not to mention the Westpark dumps out very close to there.

[Highway6]

Construction Nightmare you aren't kidding. Not to mention the Westpark dumps out very close to there.

The Westpark is 3/4 miles away. Construction at the Westheimer/PostOak intersection is already going to suck when the rail comes through.

Thats not reason to have the intersection suck after the construction is finished.

Trenching the rail under Westheimer would increase the construction time at this insection... but wouldn't it be worth it once the construction is done to not have to deal with the rail.

...

Does trenching rail take up less lateral distance then elevating rail over an intersection ??

Also.. anyone else notice that google maps has added a pretty pointless [Terrain] option... least for houston.

[KatieDidIt]

The Westpark is 3/4 miles away. Construction at the Westheimer/PostOak intersection is already going to suck when the rail comes through.

Thats not reason to have the intersection suck after the construction is finished.

Trenching the rail under Westheimer would increase the construction time at this insection... but wouldn't it be worth it once the construction is done to not have to deal with the rail.

No, I totally agree with you on having it underground. Not having more things that I could hit in that area is a good idea! I do like the idea in this thread about a station inside the Galleria though.

Westpark is 3/4 of a mile from NM? Wow, it doesn't feel that far.

[TheNiche]

Red, say for instance in the next 50/75 years, Inner Loop Houston is extremely densified. Do you think METRO would plan on more Rail lines or just increase the bus service?

The reason I ask, is that people are already complaining about how the rail gets in the way of the car. With all these lines, those complaints are probably gonna grow. So say after this huge densification more lines are needed, it could end up being a huge mess.

It just seems that w/ subways, cars and rail could better coexist.

I suspect that within just 15 to 25 years, the Red Line in its existing form will have high enough ridership that METRO is forced to run a parallel reliever bus service. They might first increase the frequency of rail vehicles, but you can only turn all traffic signals at an intersection red so many times per hour before complete gridlock is induced--and also bear in mind that the traffic counts through those intersections will have also grown by that time. They still won't be able to run trains more than two vehicles in length, and skywalks in the TMC prevent some any sort of attempt at creative rewiring to use a double-decker vehicle.

When the design capacity is exceeded and cannot be added to the existing infrastructure, we'll find ourselves tearing out well-maintained rail that was originally financed with the intent that it be used for a much longer period of time, and (assuming that technology hasn't fundamentally changed the way we get around, such as it did in the early 20th century when busses replaced streetcars) replacing it with a far more expensive system built the way it should've been in the first place. We'll have subway Downtown and in the TMC, and we'll have elevated segments over major intersections; the project will drastically reduce auto congestion, increase average transit speeds thus inducing even greater ridership, and will allow longer trains and more frequent service so that METRO can accomodate that ridership.

I'm not prepared to look out 50 to 75 years in the future. I'd be as willing to believe that cities will grow more vertically in response to better transit technology as I would that personal aircraft will cause a great exodus from the nation's cities to little ranchettes throughout the countryside. ...or that we'll be beyond even that.

[Highway6]

Westpark is 3/4 of a mile from NM? Wow, it doesn't feel that far.

I'm slightly off.. its closer to half a mile from West Alabama to Richmond.. and about 3/5 a mile from Westhiemer to Richmond..

[lockmat]

I'm not prepared to look out 50 to 75 years in the future. I'd be as willing to believe that cities will grow more vertically in response to better transit technology as I would that personal aircraft will cause a great exodus from the nation's cities to little ranchettes throughout the countryside. ...or that we'll be beyond even that.

Yeah, I just went way out in fear that I might be scolded for being so bold as to predict a highly dense Houston sooner than later.

[bachanon]

suspect that within just 15 to 25 years, the Red Line in its existing form will have high enough ridership that METRO is forced to run a parallel reliever bus service. They might first increase the frequency of rail vehicles, but you can only turn all traffic signals at an intersection red so many times per hour before complete gridlock is induced--and also bear in mind that the traffic counts through those intersections will have also grown by that time. They still won't be able to run trains more than two vehicles in length, and skywalks in the TMC prevent some any sort of attempt at creative rewiring to use a double-decker vehicle.

why can't they run trains with three cars? i thought the line was created to handle three. have i missed something?

[TheNiche]

why can't they run trains with three cars? i thought the line was created to handle three. have i missed something?

The rails themselves can handle three without any trouble whatsoever. Downtown blocks cannot. ...not without blocking an intersection, anyhow.

[RedScare]

It is far easier politically to renovate a highly successful system than it is to build from scratch to accomodate 20 year ridership projections...especially, when those projections were attacked so furiously in the first place. If the Red Line reaches such a capacity that headways are increased to its maximum of minutes, and that causes unacceptable congestion, then METRO will happily tunnel some sections, and the populace will happily support it. These issues are extremely relevant to the time when the decisions are made. What the populace will accept today (or in 2000) are very different from what they will acccept in 2020 or 2030.

There are also many ways to address the problem. Currently, the Red Line carries 45,000 per day on 6 minute headways. Going to the maximum 3 minutes would double capacity to 90,000 daily (BTW, 45,000 daily is not even max capacity). Dumping the current 92 foot long trains for 80 footers would allow 3 car trainsets to run in Downtown, increasing capacity per car trainset.

As you stated in another thread, downtown is not impacted very much by the Red Line. Most downtown traffic runs north/south, as does the train. Increased headways may be manageable in downtown. Only those intersections where the congestion is unacceptable might need elevated or submerged track. Tweaks to a successful system would be acceptable and encouraged.

[bachanon]

i haven't ridden the rail for awhile, but i seem to remember stations made for trains with three cars. do i remember correctly?