Lightrail/BRT Discussion

[ricco67]

Sorry, but the posts to various threads keep getting hijacked, so I figured we'd throw them all in here.

As far as tunneling goes, L.A. has more soil issues than we do, but they have underground transit.

[Double L]

We could probably make Light Rail/BRT it's own subforum under Transportation. That way we can spread the various discussions out among many threads rather than just lump them all into one.

[Pumapayam]

We could probably make Light Rail/BRT it's own subforum under Transportation. That way we can spread the various discussions out among many threads rather than just lump them all into one.

I dunno, seem like other than Red Lights, LRT is the big thing on here, but I guess I would not mind either.

I just don't want to be called a Forum Nazi if a LRT thread is created under some other section and then I try to correct it.

[Montrose1100]

I think LTR going under, or elevated in certain (dense) sections would help.

[TheNiche]

I've heard from sources in the know that METRO is in the process of ****ing up the BRT routes with their preliminary designs.

They seem to be cheaping out on everything. Very few takings for the ROW, so not much room for adequate sidewalks, which is how people would get to the stops. Very infrequent stops with a lack of parallel bus service, so it can be difficult to get to BRT platforms even if your end destination is along the lines...on top of the inadequate sidewalks, which make it even more difficult. My source concluded with a great deal of disappointment that METRO does not appear to be committed to creating the pedestrian infrastructure that is necessary to be supportive of transit on a fixed guideway.

Preliminary plans also lack grade-seperations at any major thoroughfares or even at railroad crossings. It is bad enough that the BRT will be subject to delays from freight trains, but since LRT tracks are being laid underneath the BRT lanes, it will be our future LRT routes that get delayed by freight trains too.

They appear to be undermining their own efforts even though matching federal funding is so much more likely this time around. I have long been concerned that the inadequate design standards of the Red Line would be replicated on future routes...but I was wrong. They've evidently gotten worse.

[Montrose1100]

I've heard from sources in the know that METRO is in the process of ****ing up the BRT routes with their preliminary designs.

They seem to be cheaping out on everything. Very few takings for the ROW, so not much room for adequate sidewalks, which is how people would get to the stops. Very infrequent stops with a lack of parallel bus service, so it can be difficult to get to BRT platforms even if your end destination is along the lines...on top of the inadequate sidewalks, which make it even more difficult. My source concluded with a great deal of disappointment that METRO does not appear to be committed to creating the pedestrian infrastructure that is necessary to be supportive of transit on a fixed guideway.

Preliminary plans also lack grade-seperations at any major thoroughfares or even at railroad crossings. It is bad enough that the BRT will be subject to delays from freight trains, but since LRT tracks are being laid underneath the BRT lanes, it will be our future LRT routes that get delayed by freight trains too.

They appear to be undermining their own efforts even though matching federal funding is so much more likely this time around. I have long been concerned that the inadequate design standards of the Red Line would be replicated on future routes...but I was wrong. They've evidently gotten worse.

Shouldn't be a surprise Niche, METRO cheaps out on alot of things.

[TheNiche]

Shouldn't be a surprise Niche, METRO cheaps out on alot of things.

Not surprising at all. Disappointing nevertheless.

[Montrose1100]

Not surprising at all. Disappointing nevertheless.

I know... :closedeyes: Just when you think the city could be speeding up into a good direction... But I guess any stride is a good one.

[TheNiche]

But I guess any stride is a good one.

Not if you trip and fall.

[Transit Nut]

I don't think they are allowed to cross freight tracks at grade.

[TheNiche]

I don't think they are allowed to cross freight tracks at grade.

That's what was on the set of diagrams, per my source. That doesn't mean that METRO hasn't initially screwed up and that it won't have to go back and change things if you're correct...but that's what they've got in mind for the time being.

[CDeb]

But I guess any stride is a good one.

I don't subscribe to the theory that any LRT/BRT is better than no LRT/BRT. A bad one is much worse than none at all.

[musicman]

I don't subscribe to the theory that any LRT/BRT is better than no LRT/BRT. A bad one is much worse than none at all.

Very true CDeb. METRO's not having a plan helped them at the polls, but is hurting them as details are being slowly released and people are realizing how it will affect them. I still wonder how METRO believes no lanes will be lost on Richmond because quite a few structures are basically at the sidewalk. Losing vehicular lanes would be a nightmare on Richmond.

[Montrose1100]

I was talking about METRO atleast trying to improve, not just because its BRT/LRT. But I suppose good intentions only work in sentimental hopes, and not reality.

[CDeb]

I was talking about METRO atleast trying to improve, not just because its BRT/LRT.

Well, you have a point there.

[houstonfella]

I think what bothers me the most is METRO and Houston talks and talks and talks and talks and does studies, more studies and doesn't construct. I was surprised they actually got the 7.5 mile rail line (and it is a great one) done. But let's stop talking and studying and git 'r dun.

[Houston19514]

I've heard from sources in the know that METRO is in the process of ****ing up the BRT routes with their preliminary designs.

They seem to be cheaping out on everything. Very few takings for the ROW, so not much room for adequate sidewalks, which is how people would get to the stops. Very infrequent stops with a lack of parallel bus service, so it can be difficult to get to BRT platforms even if your end destination is along the lines...on top of the inadequate sidewalks, which make it even more difficult. My source concluded with a great deal of disappointment that METRO does not appear to be committed to creating the pedestrian infrastructure that is necessary to be supportive of transit on a fixed guideway.

Preliminary plans also lack grade-seperations at any major thoroughfares or even at railroad crossings. It is bad enough that the BRT will be subject to delays from freight trains, but since LRT tracks are being laid underneath the BRT lanes, it will be our future LRT routes that get delayed by freight trains too.

They appear to be undermining their own efforts even though matching federal funding is so much more likely this time around. I have long been concerned that the inadequate design standards of the Red Line would be replicated on future routes...but I was wrong. They've evidently gotten worse.

Oh, for crying out loud. Metro is truly an agency that cannot possibly win, no matter what they do. We have seen on this board many complaints about Metro having built TOO MANY stations on the Red Line, resulting in too-slow travel. Now, based on some alleged inside information, we are already getting complaints about too FEW stations. Likewise, we have seen many complaints about the supposed "forcing" of people off buses and on to the Red Line by the reconfiguration of bus lines, and now, already, again based on some alleged inside information of questionable authority, we are already getting complaints about a supposed failure to do the very same thing. Sheesh. (And fwiw, anyone can look at the plans in the FEIS documents on Metro's website. They define where the stations will be etc.)

[TheNiche]

Oh, for crying out loud. Metro is truly an agency that cannot possibly win, no matter what they do. We have seen on this board many complaints about Metro having built TOO MANY stations on the Red Line, resulting in too-slow travel. Now, based on some alleged inside information, we are already getting complaints about too FEW stations. Likewise, we have seen many complaints about the supposed "forcing" of people off buses and on to the Red Line by the reconfiguration of bus lines, and now, already, again based on some alleged inside information of questionable authority, we are already getting complaints about a supposed failure to do the very same thing. Sheesh. (And fwiw, anyone can look at the plans in the FEIS documents on Metro's website. They define where the stations will be etc.)

Different lines serve different purposes. Some routes collect directly from residential areas and some routes feed to employment centers. A BRT line in the heart of the East End, for instance, is neighborhood-dependent, and there is no disputing it because it serves high-density residential areas, does not have a P&R lot, and connects to a less critical or well-positioned transit center. For that reason, there need to be at least one of three things to make the current configuration reasonable: 1) more stops per mile of track, 2) significant pedestrian infrastructure, or 3) parallel bus route or shuttle.

In contrast, the Red Line connects distinct employment centers and neighborhoods without a great deal of residential density. It depends upon ridership provided by bus connections at major transit centers and commuter traffic at P&R lots. Therefore, it should have stations spaced further from one another. Additional stations could have been built along the route as population/employment density warranted them.

[Houston19514]

Different lines serve different purposes. Some routes collect directly from residential areas and some routes feed to employment centers. A BRT line in the heart of the East End, for instance, is neighborhood-dependent, and there is no disputing it because it serves high-density residential areas, does not have a P&R lot, and connects to a less critical or well-positioned transit center. For that reason, there need to be at least one of three things to make the current configuration reasonable: 1) more stops per mile of track, 2) significant pedestrian infrastructure, or 3) parallel bus route or shuttle.

In contrast, the Red Line connects distinct employment centers and neighborhoods without a great deal of residential density. It depends upon ridership provided by bus connections at major transit centers and commuter traffic at P&R lots. Therefore, it should have stations spaced further from one another. Additional stations could have been built along the route as population/employment density warranted them.

So, how many stations are planned for the East End line? Surely you can reveal that bit of information without jeopardizing your top-secret clearance.

And what would make you think that bus lines will not be reconfigured between now and the time the line opens 4-5 years from now, to create greater intermodal connections? Seems quite unlikely. Also seems fairly unlikely that they would those detailed reconfigurations figured out this far in advance.

[TheNiche]

So, how many stations are planned for the East End line? Surely you can reveal that bit of information without jeopardizing your top-secret clearance.

And what would make you think that bus lines will not be reconfigured between now and the time the line opens 4-5 years from now, to create greater intermodal connections? Seems quite unlikely. Also seems fairly unlikely that they would those detailed reconfigurations figured out this far in advance.

If I am not mistaken, it was four stops along 3 1/4 miles, so that the distance between stops averages about 0.8 miles. Compare that to the Red Line, where between Downtown and the TMC, stops average one per 0.38 miles, many with lower ridership potentials.

I fully expect that the bus lines will be reconfigured and that parallel routes will be removed. That would be tolerable, except that improvements to pedestrian infrastructure will be minimal, which means that it is possible to have an origin or destination point along the Harrisburg corridor and not be served reasonably by transit.

Furthermore, I do not expect that the Magnolia TC will become a major hub the way that Downtown TC, TMC TC, Hillcroft TC, and Eastwood TC will be in such a way that they justify faster movement between extremely-high-traffic stops. Magnolia is not well-located, accessible, or visible enough to allow the East BRT route to serve the same purpose, and it would be nearly impossible to reroute busses in such a way that both it and other transit centers connected to the new rapid transit system would be of regional importance.

[Houston19514]

If I am not mistaken, it was four stops along 3 1/4 miles, so that the distance between stops averages about 0.8 miles. Compare that to the Red Line, where between Downtown and the TMC, stops average one per 0.38 miles, many with lower ridership potentials.

Okay, so then we can say with confidence that 1 stop for every 1.733 miles of line is, according to your analysis, far too few. And 1 stop for every 1.23 miles (the approximate number on the Red Line) is far too many. What is the optimum number of stations for a rail line?

I recognize that different line serve different communities and needs, so let's just put aside the whole Red Line for now. In your analysis, how many stations should be placed on a 3 1/4 mile line?

Having one station every 0.8 miles does not seem that bad. If you draw circles around the stations showing 1/2 mile radii, you will see that (presuming the stations are roughly evenly scattered), the circles will overlap, perhaps creating the optimum number of people within 1/2 mile of a station, while keeping the train moving at a reasonable pace. Sounds like a pretty reasonable number of stations to me...

[TheNiche]

Okay, so then we can say with confidence that 1 stop for every 1.733 miles of line is, according to your analysis, far too few. And 1 stop for every 1.23 miles (the approximate number on the Red Line) is far too many.

You're miscalculating those figures, evidently by reversing the numerator and denominator...and without need. I've already done it for you in post #20.

I recognize that different line serve different communities and needs, so let's just put aside the whole Red Line for now. In your analysis, how many stations should be placed on a 3 1/4 mile line?

Having one station every 0.8 miles does not seem that bad. If you draw circles around the stations showing 1/2 mile radii, you will see that (presuming the stations are roughly evenly scattered), the circles will overlap, perhaps creating the optimum number of people within 1/2 mile of a station, while keeping the train moving at a reasonable pace. Sounds like a pretty reasonable number of stations to me...

The characteristics of neighborhoods served differ from corridor to corridor, so lines should be designed within the context of their surroundings. There is no such thing as an absolute solution, and even on the same route, it may be preferable to have some areas where spacing is relatively little and other areas where there are up to several miles between stops.

However, for the 3.25-mile Harrisburg corridor, I believe that an average distance between 0.4 and 0.55 miles would be acceptable on the assumption that pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate, as planned, and there is no parallel route. I base this upon the academic research that has been conducted that has determined that an acceptable service area to transit situated within a grid is approximately 0.25 miles. That doesn't sound like much, but it is reasonable if you consider that actual quarter-mile distances on grids turn into diamond-shaped boundaries inscribed within the circle formed by quarter-mile radii. Once the 0.25-mile radius is exceeded, people's willingness to walk further drops off pretty quickly.

So service to neighborhoods where ridership is generated by high population densities situated just off of the major thoroughfare should ideally allow for somewhat more accessibility along the corridor than is necessary to serve those businesses, by themselves, because residential areas are also critical, but aren't reached as easily. It all just depends on where the ridership is coming from.

[musicman]

Furthermore, I do not expect that the Magnolia TC will become a major hub the way that Downtown TC, TMC TC, Hillcroft TC, and Eastwood TC will be in such a way that they justify faster movement between extremely-high-traffic stops. Magnolia is not well-located, accessible, or visible enough to allow the East BRT route to serve the same purpose, and it would be nearly impossible to reroute busses in such a way that both it and other transit centers connected to the new rapid transit system would be of regional importance.

I will have to disagree with you concerning the Magnolia TC. I've ridden the bus through both the Eastwood and the Magnolia TCs and the Magnolia one consistently has more foot traffic. There is also a latin bus station adjacent to the Magnolia transit center which also provides some traffic to the TC. The shopping area where the old Sears was definitely adds to the foot traffic.

[TheNiche]

I will have to disagree with you concerning the Magnolia TC. I've ridden the bus through both the Eastwood and the Magnolia TCs and the Magnolia one consistently has more foot traffic. There is also a latin bus station adjacent to the Magnolia transit center which also provides some traffic to the TC. The shopping area where the old Sears was definitely adds to the foot traffic.

Yes, that is the current situation. But it sounds like there is a very strong possibility that the University Line will terminate at the Eastwood TC. If so, bus routes would then be realigned in such a way as to feed the Eastwood TC to make it more of a regional hub and boost LRT ridership counts. It is my belief that Eastwood TC's gain will be Magnolia TC's loss.

[musicman]

Yes, that is the current situation. But it sounds like there is a very strong possibility that the University Line will terminate at the Eastwood TC. If so, bus routes would then be realigned in such a way as to feed the Eastwood TC to make it more of a regional hub and boost LRT ridership counts. It is my belief that Eastwood TC's gain will be Magnolia TC's loss.

We will see I guess. The presentation on METRO's website had words to the effect that the Eastwood link was not likely.

[Guest danax]

Once the 0.25-mile radius is exceeded, people's willingness to walk further drops off pretty quickly.

So service to neighborhoods where ridership is generated by high population densities situated just off of the major thoroughfare should ideally allow for somewhat more accessibility along the corridor than is necessary to serve those businesses, by themselves, because residential areas are also critical, but aren't reached as easily. It all just depends on where the ridership is coming from.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by the possiblility of Metro "cheaping out" on the East End route, but I'll check the plans before I get too soured.

Might their larger spacing of stops also be based on their deciding that "poor people" are dependent on the rail, and thus will walk .4 miles if they have to, whereas those riders on Main have more transportation options, and will thumb their noses at any walk that might cause sweat to flow beneath their attire.

I guess we'll know whether they think this way or not if the SE line gets the same "po' folk" spacing.

[TheNiche]

We will see I guess. The presentation on METRO's website had words to the effect that the Eastwood link was not likely.

See slide 18 of this document. Note that ridership for the east section of the University Line was between 5,750 and 5,850 for any route connecting to the Eastwood TC, but only between 3,600 and 3,900 for any other possible alignment.

Also note on slides 21 and 23 that the lack of future connectivity with Eastwood TC is seen as a major disadvantage for the two other shortlisted alternatives. And the only major destination that isn't served by the route terminating at the Eastwood TC is HCC Central Campus, except that the Alabama route doesn't really do a very good job serving it and that it is already served by the Red Line. The only route that has no disadvantages and that "provides good walk access to population densities in the corridor" is the route that terminates at the Eastwood TC. There is no mention of any obsticales to a route terminating at the Eastwood TC.

I'm not quite sure why METRO isn't going with the US 59/Almeda/Elgin/Eastwood TC route, since it has both the highest ridership and the best federal funding ratio, except possibly that it doesn't serve TSU, which is probably a political necessity, but in any case, it seems to me as though Eastwood TC is the inevitable destination.

[TheNiche]

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by the possiblility of Metro "cheaping out" on the East End route, but I'll check the plans before I get too soured.

Might their larger spacing of stops also be based on their deciding that "poor people" are dependent on the rail, and thus will walk .4 miles if they have to, whereas those riders on Main have more transportation options, and will thumb their noses at any walk that might cause sweat to flow beneath their attire.

I guess we'll know whether they think this way or not if the SE line gets the same "po' folk" spacing.

Valid argument if one assumes that all neighborhoods served were equally dense. But because poor people tend to reside in relatively high densities (as they do in the East End), and because the elderly demographic of riders aren't willing to walk very far at all to access transit, placing stations closer to one another in these areas is still likely warranted.

[musicman]

See slide 18 of this document. Note that ridership for the east section of the University Line was between 5,750 and 5,850 for any route connecting to the Eastwood TC, but only between 3,600 and 3,900 for any other possible alignment.

Also note on slides 21 and 23 that the lack of future connectivity with Eastwood TC is seen as a major disadvantage for the two other shortlisted alternatives. And the only major destination that isn't served by the route terminating at the Eastwood TC is HCC Central Campus, except that the Alabama route doesn't really do a very good job serving it and that it is already served by the Red Line. The only route that has no disadvantages and that "provides good walk access to population densities in the corridor" is the route that terminates at the Eastwood TC. There is no mention of any obsticales to a route terminating at the Eastwood TC.

I'm not quite sure why METRO isn't going with the US 59/Almeda/Elgin/Eastwood TC route, since it has both the highest ridership and the best federal funding ratio, except possibly that it doesn't serve TSU, which is probably a political necessity, but in any case, it seems to me as though Eastwood TC is the inevitable destination.

You had made a statement comparing Eastwood and Magnolia transit centers' volume of people which use the 2 facilities. This is what i commented on. Was not commenting on how the university numbers varied if the line terminated at UH vs. Eastwood.

Slides 21 and 23 mention the potential conflict of extending line to Eastwood TC which is what i was commenting on not that if it doesn't go to Eastwood the ridership will be lower. I believe i read in another document the conflict concerned spur 5.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by the possiblility of Metro "cheaping out" on the East End route, but I'll check the plans before I get too soured.

Might their larger spacing of stops also be based on their deciding that "poor people" are dependent on the rail, and thus will walk .4 miles if they have to, whereas those riders on Main have more transportation options, and will thumb their noses at any walk that might cause sweat to flow beneath their attire.

I guess we'll know whether they think this way or not if the SE line gets the same "po' folk" spacing.

The spacing will depend on their implementation. The red line is basically a bus replacement hence the closer spacing and slower travel times.

[TheNiche]

You had made a statement comparing Eastwood and Magnolia transit centers' volume of people which use the 2 facilities. This is what i commented on. Was not commenting on how the university numbers varied if the line terminated at UH vs. Eastwood.

Slides 21 and 23 mention the potential conflict of extending line to Eastwood TC which is what i was commenting on not that if it doesn't go to Eastwood the ridership will be lower. I believe i read in another document the conflict concerned spur 5.

I made an assumption on the layout of the future system (because, after all, individual routes do not exist in a vacuum) and was not sufficiently clear. Excuse me.