METRORail Uptown Line

[Trae]

Yes, which is why I emailed METRO about overpasses/underpasses and such at major intersections. Got a weird response though.

Your concerns about traffic when the Uptown line crosses Richmond,

Westheimer and San Felipe are noted. However, please also note that

light rail and automobiles supplement each other in synchrony to

support the overall transportation network. In other words, with the

addition of the rail, folks like you will be on the train and won't be

driving and having to "worry about having to stop at red lights".

Sincerely,

Donna Lane

I don't really know what that means.

[musicman]

since you're interested in rail, you'll most likely be riding it, whatever the configuration.

Edited August 14, 2008 by musicman

[RedScare]

RedScare, I think METRO is underestimating their new line ridership numbers (just like they did with the Red Line). I think the University Line, and possible Uptown Line will have about the same amount of riders as the Red Line.

Perhaps. But, my point is that even if they are off by 100%, it still won't matter. What is the ridership estimate that you are aware of, and what level of ridership do you suspect would be more accurate?

It's pointless to build this thing and later have to come back and tear it up for subway.

Exactly. That is exactly the reason that there is zero chance of a subway replacing the uptown line 7 years after it opens.

[TheNiche]

since you're interested in rail, you'll most likely be riding it, whatever the configuration.

The first argument that Ms. Lane obtusely makes is that although light rail will have adverse impacts on traffic flow, there will be less traffic along those corridors. And I agree that there won't be as much traffic volume; much of it will be displaced to alternative routes. I don't really buy for a second that this is going to relieve congestion in a broader sense.

Where she tries to reiterate and clarify, she really makes an altogether different statement. She's really communicating that to the extent that she may be wrong, ____ anyone that isn't riding the train.

This kind of commentary just goes to show that METRO is not interested in a balanced approach to regional mobility. They are not team players with other governments and do not respect the well-being of their constituents. And the City of Houston should not give them our sanction.

Edited August 14, 2008 by TheNiche

[rsb320]

I think they should really elevate the lines or atleast build a monorail. I know it's cheaper than subway but more expensive than building on the surface. It's pointless to build this thing and later have to come back and tear it up for subway. How about we just wait 20 years to build any type of public transit, that's how long we'll probably have to wait anyway.

Underground will not work here. Remember the flooded downtown tunnels during Allison. Hell, the train can't run sometimes on fannin, under Holcombe, due to rain.

I was for the proposed elevated Monorail in the 80's and voted as such. Better yet, let's do elevated Mag-Lev like they've got in China. I think the elevated option has a more futuristic appeal than subway.

[Mister X]

Underground will not work here. Remember the flooded downtown tunnels during Allison. Hell, the train can't run sometimes on fannin, under Holcombe, due to rain.

I was for the proposed elevated Monorail in the 80's and voted as such. Better yet, let's do elevated Mag-Lev like they've got in China. I think the elevated option has a more futuristic appeal than subway.

The bay above the subway that runs under San Francisco bay is flooded 24/7. If they can make it physically possible to run trains under a bay, they can make it physically possible to run trains under the ground in the flood prone areas of Houston. In fact, if I remember correctly there was/is a tunnel under the Houston Ship Channel.

Subways in Houston may be a long shot, but they ARE possible.

[TheNiche]

The bay above the subway that runs under San Francisco bay is flooded 24/7. If they can make it physically possible to run trains under a bay, they can make it physically possible to run trains under the ground in the flood prone areas of Houston. In fact, if I remember correctly there was/is a tunnel under the Houston Ship Channel.

Subways in Houston may be a long shot, but they ARE possible.

The NYC subways would completely fill with groundwater within about three days if the sumps weren't there. That part is easy. Keeping out floodwater is more difficult...if floodwater is really and truely not wanted belowground and instead is considered to be less damaging aboveground. Personally, I think that if we're looking at a flood event, subways should be considered and implemented as part of a floodwater drainage and detention system. That's an added bonus.

All the same, I think that elevated lines are really the way to go for the most part.

[Trae]

Underground will not work here. Remember the flooded downtown tunnels during Allison. Hell, the train can't run sometimes on fannin, under Holcombe, due to rain.

I was for the proposed elevated Monorail in the 80's and voted as such. Better yet, let's do elevated Mag-Lev like they've got in China. I think the elevated option has a more futuristic appeal than subway.

Can you tell me how many times the Washburn Tunnel under the ship channel flooded? Also, the downtown tunnels only flooded because a parking garage wall not made to hold up water, caved in. The underpass on Fannin under Holcombe is nothing what a subway would be like.

Also, Amsterdam is below sea-level and has subways.

[Highway6]

Can you tell me how many times the Washburn Tunnel under the ship channel flooded? Also, the downtown tunnels only flooded because a parking garage wall not made to hold up water, caved in. The underpass on Fannin under Holcombe is nothing what a subway would be like.

Also, Amsterdam is below sea-level and has subways.

some people think subways and underground tunnels of any sort are just holes in the ground where water is freely allowed to flow in and cause havoc. apparently no engineering goes into making sure they don't flood.

some people see pictures of trenched 10 and 59 under water during allison and think, tunnels wont work here without realizing that those two segments of freeway were designed as overflow and are meant to flood in 100yr flood situations. Better to lose cars then property.

the washburn tunnel has never flooded according to the county.

More information on the feasibility of tunnels:

http://www.i45parkway.com/i45-tunnel.htm

http://www.i45parkway.com/i45-concept.htm

i'm not advocating subway be used here.. but i do get tired of the 'subway wont work in houston' posts.

[musicman]

but i do get tired of the 'subway wont work in houston' posts.

that's understandable however factoring in METRO's desire to fund the line entirely and their propensity to design with their wallet, the only subway on post oak will be a sandwich shop.

[RedScare]

that's understandable however factoring in METRO's desire to fund the line entirely and their propensity to design with their wallet, the only subway on post oak will be a sandwich shop.

Staying within one's budget. Now THAT's just un-American!

[ssullivan]

Also, the downtown tunnels only flooded because a parking garage wall not made to hold up water, caved in.

Correct, and not even all of the tunnels downtown flooded.

After Allison, many steps were taken to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. There are now flood gates at the entrance ramps to the underground garage in the Theatre District that was involved in letting water into the downtown tunnel system, and the garage was reinforced to better hold back a flooded Buffalo Bayou.

[totheskies]

Can you tell me how many times the Washburn Tunnel under the ship channel flooded? Also, the downtown tunnels only flooded because a parking garage wall not made to hold up water, caved in. The underpass on Fannin under Holcombe is nothing what a subway would be like.

Also, Amsterdam is below sea-level and has subways.

BTW, the Washburn tunnel flooded during Hurricane IKE

I spent the Hurricane weekend in Dallas, and got to ride the DARTRail pretty extensively. As you all know, there is only one subway section, which frankly they could have done without. What's more impressive is that most of the line is built on above ground platforms. the Rail stations fit easily within the platform, so there's no need to build extra space when you get to a station. I really liked the system, and I hope Houston considers this model as we extend to Phase III.

[ssullivan]

As you all know, there is only one subway section, which frankly they could have done without.

Actually the short subway section was kind of needed. The rail line has to dip down to get under the Central Expressway, and the Cityplace complex. Had it been elevated through this section it would have had make some sharp curves to deal with the buildings and the freeway's curving route in this area. It made sense to go underground for a more direct route without the sharp curves, which allows trains to run at a faster speed.

When that rail line first opened, the underground Cityplace station didn't even exist. It was nearly three years later before it was opened in late 2000 (that section of rail opened in 1997).

[Trae]

BTW, the Washburn tunnel flooded during Hurricane IKE

I spent the Hurricane weekend in Dallas, and got to ride the DARTRail pretty extensively. As you all know, there is only one subway section, which frankly they could have done without. What's more impressive is that most of the line is built on above ground platforms. the Rail stations fit easily within the platform, so there's no need to build extra space when you get to a station. I really liked the system, and I hope Houston considers this model as we extend to Phase III.

The Washburn Tunnel was barely flooded. Even New York subways have flooded before, so nothing new.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Trae

[musicman]

The Washburn Tunnel was barely flooded. Even New York subways have flooded before, so nothing new.

the northside doors failed and according to county commissioner garcia over a million gallons of water are in there and it will take 4 to 5 days to drain.

[memebag]

I've always been told that our gumbo soil prevented us from having subways. Something about it being too expensive to dig or something. Anyone know if that's based on truth?

[musicman]

soil conditions definitely affect building costs.

[dudemeister]

I think construction costs would be too high because of the high gound water level.

However METRO can always build the heavy rail aboveground, similar to what Chicago or Miami has been doing.

[tierwestah]

I wish Houston would quit being so damn cheap and build a transportation system the right way (grade separated) rather than having to do it anyway by the time 610 loop densifies and building costs are trippled.

[ricco67]

I wish Houston would quit being so damn cheap and build a transportation system the right way (grade separated) rather than having to do it anyway by the time 610 loop densifies and building costs are trippled.

The fault doesn't fall with the city of Houston, but Houston having to come up a plan that can be FUNDED by the Government. They can put together an awesome system, but it wouldn't pass muster with the bean counters up in DC.

As far as the uptown line itself is concerned, I believe Metro is footing the entire bill, but even Metro has to meet budgetary constraints.

[Highway6]

There hasnt been much news on any of the rail lines in awhile.

Christof has been silent for months.

Metro has been silent for months.

Tory has been silent for months.

[totheskies]

There hasnt been much news on any of the rail lines in awhile.

Christof has been silent for months.

Metro has been silent for months.

Tory has been silent for months.

Did anyone attend the METRO webchat today?? I wanted to but I had to go to a lunch meeting.

[Highway6]

Does this concept for the Uptown/University connection make any sense whatsoever?

I pulled from the Sept. newsletter on the Metro Solutions - Uptown page.

If this is what actually gets built, they will have defeated the purpose of even having a station here.

The only reason to have a station here would be to transfer.

3 lines meet at a point.. each line faces a fork in the road at that point. If you get on any train, get to this point and realize its not going down the path you want.. you get off and transfer to the next one that is going the direction you want....

I applaud them for having connections in both directions from one line to the other. But this arrangement is dumb. It solely serves as a station, not a transfer, for people going Univ W-bound to Uptown. And a station for who... a handfull of warehouses across a busy Westpark?

IF anyone finds themselves approaching this juncture from any direction and they realize its not going the way they want... they'll have to ride to one station out in any direction to switch. Even worse.. this station will add to the confusion.

Ex. Guy heads south from Galleria intending to go downtown. Realizes he is on the wrong train when it turns west. Gets off at this South Rice Station so that he can get on the right train into downtown. But wait.... That train barrels past on the opposite side of Westpark without even stopping at this station. So having wasted 6-10 minutes, he gets on the next train in the wrong direction, heads even further west, before being able to course correct at the Gulfton Station.

Metro is retarded if they go with this concept and even if they dont, it's retarded of them to publicize such a dumb concept.

http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112150/

map

I realize it is impossible here for a transfer station to serve all 3 legs at such a busy interestion. But it should least serve 2... and if it doesnt, then it's not a transfer at all and no station should be built here.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Highway6

[ricco67]

You bring up a good point.

One option I was thinking about while doodling (I hate phone conferences with a passion that's almost holy) and pondered why they couldn't have over other train switch to uptown from the U-line. Just make every other train from the west hop on the U-line.

But this would also bring up additional issues on THAT line as well as far as boarding issues.

[Highway6]

You bring up a good point.

One option I was thinking about while doodling (I hate phone conferences with a passion that's almost holy) and pondered why they couldn't have over other train switch to uptown from the U-line. Just make every other train from the west hop on the U-line.

But this would also bring up additional issues on THAT line as well as far as boarding issues.

I assume that is their plan. The next three stations out from this intersection are Gulfton, Newcastle, and Richmond. Let's assume they are alternating in each direction from each direction. At Gulfton, you get one train going to Newcastle, next to Richmond etc.. and the same for the other 2 stations.

Still.... What is the point of having a station actually at the intersection but to act as a transfer if you had previously gotten on the wrong train.

Those 3 above stations actually arent that far from this intersection... so maybe the solution is to have no station actually at the intersection... but to rely on the above 3 stations to course correct if needed.

But by golly, if you're going to put one there... if you're going to have a black dot on a map right at the intersection of 3 colored lines.. you better be able to transfer at that dot. Otherwise.. its just confusion.. and its a pointless waste of money.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Highway6

[Pumapayam]

Does this concept for the Uptown/University connection make any sense whatsoever?

I pulled from the Sept. newsletter on the Metro Solutions - Uptown page.

If this is what actually gets built, they will have defeated the purpose of even having a station here.

The only reason to have a station here would be to transfer.

3 lines meet at a point.. each line faces a fork in the road at that point. If you get on any train, get to this point and realize its not going down the path you want.. you get off and transfer to the next one that is going the direction you want....

I applaud them for having connections in both directions from one line to the other. But this arrangement is dumb. It solely serves as a station, not a transfer, for people going Univ W-bound to Uptown. And a station for who... a handfull of warehouses across a busy Westpark?

IF anyone finds themselves approaching this juncture from any direction and they realize its not going the way they want... they'll have to ride to one station out in any direction to switch. Even worse.. this station will add to the confusion.

Ex. Guy heads south from Galleria intending to go downtown. Realizes he is on the wrong train when it turns west. Gets off at this South Rice Station so that he can get on the right train into downtown. But wait.... That train barrels past on the opposite side of Westpark without even stopping at this station. So having wasted 6-10 minutes, he gets on the next train in the wrong direction, heads even further west, before being able to course correct at the Gulfton Station.

Serves perfect for the homeless to get to and from work, the freeway underpasses. . .

[Houston19514]

I assume that is their plan. The next three stations out from this intersection are Gulfton, Newcastle, and Richmond. Let's assume they are alternating in each direction from each direction. At Gulfton, you get one train going to Newcastle, next to Richmond etc.. and the same for the other 2 stations.

Still.... What is the point of having a station actually at the intersection but to act as a transfer if you had previously gotten on the wrong train.

Those 3 above stations actually arent that far from this intersection... so maybe the solution is to have no station actually at the intersection... but to rely on the above 3 stations to course correct if needed.

But by golly, if you're going to put one there... if you're going to have a black dot on a map right at the intersection of 3 colored lines.. you better be able to transfer at that dot. Otherwise.. its just confusion.. and its a pointless waste of money.

Calm down. It merely says "potential" station. It says nothing whatsoever about using the station for transfers. I'm not sure who the station would serve. Perhaps Metro isn't entirely sure either. Hence the labeling of it as a potential station. Perhaps they have in mind creating a large park and ride facility there some time in the future. Bottom line. They have not said or implied anything about it being a transfer station. There will no doubt be different trains going to different destinations. This is not hard to do and not hard for customers to figure out. Most rail systems have this.

[RedScare]

Ex. Guy heads south from Galleria intending to go downtown. Realizes he is on the wrong train when it turns west. Gets off at this South Rice Station so that he can get on the right train into downtown. But wait.... That train barrels past on the opposite side of Westpark without even stopping at this station. So having wasted 6-10 minutes, he gets on the next train in the wrong direction, heads even further west, before being able to course correct at the Gulfton Station.

Metro is retarded if they go with this concept and even if they dont, it's retarded of them to publicize such a dumb concept.

METRO is retarded if they do not design the system for retarded guys who cannot read, and therefore get on the wrong train? My reccomendation to the mentally challenged is to use the METROLift service, which is designed to get the handicapped where they need to go.

[Highway6]

METRO is retarded if they do not design the system for retarded guys who cannot read, and therefore get on the wrong train? My reccomendation to the mentally challenged is to use the METROLift service, which is designed to get the handicapped where they need to go.

There are plenty of retarded metro users around...

It would be worse to design a station to be an the juncture of multiple rail lines, yet design it so that transfers are not possible.