METRORail University Line

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

With so much attention focused on Afton Oaks and all the press they are getting.....the crooks and criminals now know where to go. AO, area filled with elderly people some of which are jackassed to no end. I see a spike in crime coming your way.... Wont be the LRT line you will have to worry about......

Oh please- spare me your wrath oh mighty one. I tremble at the very prospect of having you pummel me with clever repartee.

You are probably trembling because you havent had your metamucil and prune juice. Try having a bowel movement from your ass and not your mouth, you may feel a lot better.

[TheNiche]

You know, it's mighty funny--

From the anti-METRORail-as-is folks, I keep hearing the same things...at-grade, traffic nightmare, etc. I also keep hearing how Dallas has a better set up.

Do we care to refresh our memories? How much of Dallas' system was built completely on their own dime? Who in Dallas' congressional delegation actually made it against the law to fund rail projects in Dallas? And are we talking about the same Dallas that just got ANOTHER $700 million in funding from the Feds for more rail projects? And are we talking about the same Dallas that can do more with less money because they already own a good chunk (if not all) of the ROW to be used (through buying abandoned RRs years ago on the cheap--something that I think Houstonians would have had a problem with METRO doing if given the opportunity).

Also, did anyone see the editorial in Sunday's paper, stating how the late Sen. Bentsen had $200 million ready for a rail system that I believe would have been grade-separated back in the early 80s (IIRC) the same system that Houstonians voted down?

Look at it this way, if Houston got the funding help that Dallas did, imagine what could have been done with the Red Line. If METRO spent $300 million alone, then imagine if that line was matched with $300 million from the Feds. What would a $600 million Red Line have looked like? If we have so many people who agree with rail but disagree with how METRO builds it, then why aren't those same ones on the phone with Culberson telling him to make sure METRO has enough money to build an aerial system? Seems to me that this would get rid of the traffic concerns and speed complaints all at once. And while everyone is at it, how about prodding Culberson for money to construct a subway underneath the Red Line with stations only at Fannin South, TMC, Wheeler, DTC, Main Street Square, and the Intermodal Terminal? There's your time savings.

Uh, no. Building a subway under the existing line would require that we REMOVE the existing line and start from scratch. Bad idea.

Don't even get me started on places like Charlotte, who actually only have to contribute 25% to LRT construction, because the Feds pay half and the State of North Carolina has agreed to pay 25%. In case anyone was wondering, that's a big reason (along with an aggressive station-area planning process) why they will likely have no problems getting FTA funding in the future. And they operate on a 1/2 cent sales tax.

Almost all of your above comments are very true. I make my arguments for what I'd like to see based upon WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE...not what is possible given the nitwits that claim to serve their constituency. With constraints like these, I do not expect to obtain the desired outcome. But that won't stop me from putting it out there.

Lastly, regarding my comments of nearly 600 passengers carried on LRT...I am well aware that 3-car trains are unfavorable due to downtown's block lengths. HOWEVER, since I was referring to the University Line, I don't think that any of the blocks along Richmond, Westpark, or Alabama are nearly as short as downtowns--thus, they could possibly accomodate 3-car trains.

Don't forget that Midtown block size is the same as Downtown block size. Any east/west stops in that area would be limited to two vehicles at a time.

I'm responding to this because VelvetJ wanted a response. But I don't think that a response was really all that necessary. Good points about the practical realities of the political system are made and I don't really see myself as in conflict with your views.

[Houston19514]

Perhaps that explains why DART has 1311 riders per mile (59,000 daily riders) and METRORail has 5,333 riders per mile (40,000 daily riders)?

BTW, METRO will have the N. Main extension, Intermodal, Harrisburg, Southeast, Uptown and U-Line by 2012. I consider that good progress, considering the concerted opposition to everything METRO does.

Considering it has only hit 98 degrees ONCE all year, I expect a few people will walk a quarter mile.

Speak for yourself. I walk everywhere in Downtown every day...in a suit. And, I am not alone. There are not many unwalkable days in Houston...and when there are, only parts of the day are unwalkable. It is a myth that one cannot walk in Houston.

Excellent post, RedScare. Thank you for bringing a few facts to the discussion that might be inconvenient for some. I tire of the constant raving about the Atlanta and Dallas transit systems when they in fact perform not all that well compared to Houston's.

Here! Here! City kid - the whole point is to take cars off the freeways, save gas etc, etc, ad nauseum - and light rail just does not accomplish that goal. One Difference between MARTA, DART, and METRO is that the RT in MARTA and DART stands for Rapid Transit - METRO is not capable of thinking in those terms.

Metro rail is not taking cars off the freeways or saving gas, etc etc. etc.??? I guess those 35,000-40,000 riders per day would otherwise be walking or riding their bicycles?

[TheNiche]

Metro rail is not taking cars off the freeways or saving gas, etc etc. etc.??? I guess those 35,000-40,000 riders per day would otherwise be walking or riding their bicycles?

Busses, actually. Either that or they'd be driving to their final destination instead of the Fannin-South station.

[Houston19514]

It is amusing to see Houstonians fall for the bad weather propaganda, since they live here. Anyone who has lived in Northeastern and Midwestern cities can attest that our heat is 10 times better than their cold. Even when I lived in Fort Worth, on those days when the temperature was in the 20s with the wind blowing, I thought I would die. But, the perception continues.

Bravo!! Another excellent post RedScare. You are on a roll! The part you forgot to mention is that it is also significantly hotter (both nominal temperature and heat index) in many cities in the summer than in Houston (e.g., D-FW, OKC, Tulsa, St. Louis...). Houstonians (especially the Houston media) whine too much about the weather.

Busses, actually. Either that or they'd be driving to their final destination instead of the Fannin-South station.

So I guess then that it HAS taken cars AND Buses off the roads, and has surely saved gas. The University line will surely take cars (and possibly busses as well) off the freeways and roads.

[TheNiche]

Excellent post, RedScare. Thank you for bringing a few facts to the discussion that might be inconvenient for some. I tire of the constant raving about the Atlanta and Dallas transit systems when they in fact perform not all that well compared to Houston's.

There is more than one measure of a successful project than ridership per mile. The bottom line is how much time did you save various people and how valuable was the peoples' time that you saved. Remember...though the concept isn't politically kosher, wealthy peoples' time is worth more than poor peoples' time. It's all about opportunity cost.

So I guess then that it HAS taken cars AND Buses off the roads, and has surely saved gas. The University line will surely take cars (and possibly busses as well) off the freeways and roads.

Perhaps on a marginal scale, but for the most part it just reroutes the cars' trips to different destinations. It does take busses off the road, but I thought that we'd covered this already...in their place are intermodal transfers and a light rail that disrupts traffic flow. Gasoline may be saved, but the electricity used to power LRT has to come from somewhere, and in Texas, it is disproportionately from natural gas power plants.

Please go back and read the thread from the beginning.

[musicman]

Perhaps on a marginal scale, but for the most part it just reroutes the cars' trips to different destinations. It does take busses off the road, but I thought that we'd covered this already...in their place are intermodal transfers and a light rail that disrupts traffic flow.

And the disruption of traffic flow causes more gasoline to be used. So even though some vehicles are on the road less, the ones that remain are on the road more. That is why a dedicated path is the optimal choice.

[RedScare]

There is more than one measure of a successful project than ridership per mile. The bottom line is how much time did you save various people and how valuable was the peoples' time that you saved.

I'm confused. How does a person save time walking .66 miles (one-half the average distance between DART stations) to their destination, versus walking .25 miles (one-half the distance between METRO stations)?

Further, in an earlier post, you praised DART's light rail as a model of efficiency. Yet, in another post, you complain that Houston needs commuter rail to its suburbs, because it is faster. How can a light rail train stopping every 1.32 miles on its way to Plano be considered more efficient than a commuter train with limited stops, or for that matter, a Park&Ride bus, making NO stops between Downtown and the P&R lot?

[Houston19514]

There is more than one measure of a successful project than ridership per mile. The bottom line is how much time did you save various people and how valuable was the peoples' time that you saved. Remember...though the concept isn't politically kosher, wealthy peoples' time is worth more than poor peoples' time. It's all about opportunity cost.

If so, approximately 40,000 riders are determining for themselves every day that MetroRail saves them enough time to make it worthwhile. Not bad. And, as RedScare pointed out earlier, that's a lot more people per mile of trackage than have made that same determination for themselves regarding the Dallas rail system, whatever speed it may achieve.

And further to RedScare's post immediatly preceding this one, taking the DART red line from the Convention Center downtown to the Park Lane station covers approximately the same distance as Houston's red line. The trip on DART takes 25 minutes. In Houston, the trip from Fannin South to UHD is 32 minutes. Not a bad differential, especially when one considers the additional walking time many people would have to take to get to the more widely-spaced stations on DART (there are 10 stations in this stretch vs. 16 on Metro's red line), and the additional wait at the station because DART only runs trains every 10 minutes during rush hour and every 20 minutes the rest of the day, compared to every 6 minutes and 12 minutes for Metro.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Houston19514

[musicman]

I'm confused. How does a person save time walking .66 miles (one-half the average distance between DART stations) to their destination, versus walking .25 miles (one-half the distance between METRO stations)?

You can't take an egocentric view here. You have to consider all users' time. The commonality being time on the LRT. If the train itself runs quickly then everyone who uses it benefits. If the train runs slowly because of too many stops, then everyone is hurt. Ultimately, a quicker LRT travel time will save everyone who uses it time.

Further, in an earlier post, you praised DART's light rail as a model of efficiency. Yet, in another post, you complain that Houston needs commuter rail to its suburbs, because it is faster. How can a light rail train stopping every 1.32 miles on its way to Plano be considered more efficient than a commuter train with limited stops, or for that matter, a Park&Ride bus, making NO stops between Downtown and the P&R lot?

Commuter rail is faster because there are less stops. The distance travelled is also longer.

Niche said Dallas' light rail is more efficient than Houston's because the number of stops is less frequent. He did NOT compare it to commuter rail which is totally different.

Edited August 9, 2006 by musicman

[Houston19514]

You can't take an egocentric view here. You have to consider all users' time. The commonality being time on the LRT. If the train itself runs quickly then everyone who uses it benefits. If the train runs slowly because of too many stops, then everyone is hurt. Ultimately, a quicker LRT travel time will save everyone who uses it time.

That is preposterous. If that were the sole way to judge, then the most efficient LRT would have two stops: one on each end. Yes, you have to consider all users' time, but you have to consider their entire trip time, not just their time on the train. If a rider has to spend 30 minutes walking to the station, rather than 15, that is part of their trip time. A rail planner would be foolish not to consider the walking time as part of the trip time, because the potential riders most assuredly will consider the walking time when they decide whether to patronize the rail system.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Houston19514

[musicman]

That is preposterous. If that were the sole way to judge, then the most efficient LRT would have two stops: one on each end. Yes, you have to consider all users' time, but you have to consider their entire trip time, not just their time on the train. If a rider has to spend 30 minutes walking to the station, rather than 15, that is part of their trip time. A rail planner would be foolish not to consider the walking time as part of the trip time, because the potential riders most assuredly will consider the walking time when they decide whether to patronize the rail system.

To have two stations is preposterous. that is NOT efficient because then you will minimize the number of riders. you have to minimize travel times with the maximum number of riders so that monies spent will provide the most benefit. This is what I am striving for and i'm sorry if i wasn't clear previously.

Again the only commonality IS the time spent on the train and that is what we should strive to optimize. The quickest travel time with the most number of riders.

Edited August 9, 2006 by musicman

[RedScare]

Commuter rail is faster because there are less stops. The distance travelled is also longer.

Niche said Dallas' light rail is more efficient than Houston's because the number of stops is less frequent. He did NOT compare it to commuter rail which is totally different.

I agree that commuter rail, or Park&Ride busses are faster. And, that is exactly my point. Because DART chose to run slower technology out to the suburbs, it is ultimately less efficient. It takes longer to ride DART to Plano than it does to ride METRO's HOV busses.

METRO is therefore more efficient, even though some transit fans would rather see trains.

To have two stations is preposterous. that is NOT efficient because then you will minimize the number of riders. you have to minimize travel times with the maximum number of riders so that monies spent will provide the most benefit. This is what I am striving for and i'm sorry if i wasn't clear previously.

Again the only commonality IS the time spent on the train and that is what we should strive to optimize. The quickest travel time with the most number of riders.

That is why METRO spaces the stations every half-mile. A quarter mile is the farthest that most riders will walk, which is 4 blocks. Much farther, and you lose riders. 1.32 miles would put a station at either end of downtown, with none in between.

[musicman]

I agree that commuter rail, or Park&Ride busses are faster. And, that is exactly my point. Because DART chose to run slower technology out to the suburbs, it is ultimately less efficient. It takes longer to ride DART to Plano than it does to ride METRO's HOV busses.

You're comparing different technologies now....

METRO is therefore more efficient, even though some transit fans would rather see trains.

That is why METRO spaces the stations every half-mile. A quarter mile is the farthest that most riders will walk, which is 4 blocks. Much farther, and you lose riders. 1.32 miles would put a station at either end of downtown, with none in between.

You repeatedly mention METRO but are combining technologies.

The first METRO is Park and Ride. correct?

The second METRO is light rail. correct?

Your logic is unclear to me. You're saying METRO Park and Ride is more efficient and that is why METRO light rail spaces the stations every half-mile apart. I don't see the connection.

Remember I didn't say we need to place stations every 1.32 miles....we need to optimize where we place them.

Edited August 9, 2006 by musicman

[Houston19514]

To have two stations is preposterous. that is NOT efficient because then you will minimize the number of riders. you have to minimize travel times with the maximum number of riders so that monies spent will provide the most benefit. This is what I am striving for and i'm sorry if i wasn't clear previously.

Again the only commonality IS the time spent on the train and that is what we should strive to optimize. The quickest travel time with the most number of riders.

LOL I know having two stations would be preposterous. But that is exactly where your logic would lead us (ie, if the only consideration is time spent on the train.) In fact, by your logic, the best train system would have two stops, about one block apart. "Hey, look at our efficient train system. Our riders only have to spend 1 minute on the train!" :-) (and before you tell me that's preposterous, I already know that it is.)

You seem to perhaps be slowly stumbling to the truth, when you admit that having two stations would be inefficient because that would minimize the number of riders. Why do you suppose having just two stations would minimize the number of riders? Could it be because the stations would be too far from where people live and/or workd and therefore the total trip time was too long for too many people? But if that's the case, then it cannot be that the only important fact is the time spent on the train... hmmmm...

You do indeed have to minimize the travel times for the maximum number of riders. But the travel time that must be considered is the full trip - origin to destination - not just train station to train station. It's a balancing act for rail planners, to plan enough stops to minimize the walking times to and from stations without slowing the train down too much with too many stops. It is IN FACT ALL ABOUT THE TOTAL TRIP TIME, and the time spent on the train is only one part of the calculation, along with the time getting to the station, the time waiting for a train (hence the importance of frequent service), the time on the train, and the time walking to the final destination.

We're comparing different technologies now....

You repeatedly mention METRO but are combining technologies.

The first METRO is Park and Ride. correct?

The second METRO is light rail. correct?

Your logic is unclear to me. You're saying METRO Park and Ride is more efficient and that is why METRO light rail spaces the stations every half-mile apart. I don't see the connection.

Remember I didn't say we need to place stations every 1.32 miles....we need to optimize where we place them.

He's saying that Metro Park and Ride is more efficient than DART's suburban light rail service.

[CDeb]

but for the most part it just reroutes the cars' trips to different destinations.

Which is equally desirable. After all, the idea here is not to get cars off of this nebulous "the road", but to get them off of CERTAIN roads, congested roads.

[RedScare]

You're comparing different technologies now....

You repeatedly mention METRO but are combining technologies.

The first METRO is Park and Ride. correct?

The second METRO is light rail. correct?

Your logic is unclear to me. You're saying METRO Park and Ride is more efficient and that is why METRO light rail spaces the stations every half-mile apart. I don't see the connection.

Remember I didn't say we need to place stations every 1.32 miles....we need to optimize where we place them.

Yes, I am combining technolgies because that is the most efficient way to service varied densities. Commuter rail with limited stops is the best way to handle suburban traffic. In Houston's case, busses are substituted for rail. Those limited stops have big parking lots for suburban commuters to drive to the stops. The train (or bus) then speeds into town with no stops. Once in town, LRT services the many closeby destinations. An added advantage is that the light rail CAN be placed in the streets, so less property is taken and it is less expensive to build.

DART, on the other hand, runs its LRT to the suburbs. Even though it has fewer stops than Houston's downtown LRT, it has far more than commuter rail or HOV busses. While the bus and train can travel 60 mph, DART LRT must make too many stops. Therefore, its average speed is less than 30 mph, half that of Houston's busses.

The most efficient solution is to use BOTH, with each being used where it is most effective.

As for station placement, I think that the half-mile placement is ideal, not too close, but not too far to discourage riders. But, that is my opinion, not supported by any study other than my own use of the system. Taking out half of the stops would make it less appealing, while only saving a couple of minutes over the length of the line. I feel the tradeoff is worth it. By contrast, local busses stop every TWO blocks.

Edited August 9, 2006 by RedScare

[musicman]

You seem to perhaps be slowly stumbling to the truth, when you admit that having two stations would be inefficient because that would minimize the number of riders. Why do you suppose having just two stations would minimize the number of riders? Could it be because the stations would be too far from where people live and/or workd and therefore the total trip time was too long for too many people? But if that's the case, then it cannot be that the only important fact is the time spent on the train... hmmmm...

I don't believe i'm stumbling. My statements have been consistent. I still stand by my last post "you have to minimize travel times with the maximum number of riders so that monies spent will provide the most benefit." It is fairly obvious that you've never taken an industrial engineering class. There is an entire science to optimization and remember there are always tradeoffs.

But the travel time that must be considered is the full trip - origin to destination - not just train station to train station. It's a balancing act for rail planners, to plan enough stops to minimize the walking times to and from stations without slowing the train down too much with too many stops. It is IN FACT ALL ABOUT THE TOTAL TRIP TIME, and the time spent on the train is only one part of the calculation, along with the time getting to the station, the time waiting for a train (hence the importance of frequent service), the time on the train, and the time walking to the final destination.

This is where we definitely differ......With respect to METRO, remember the entire service area is large, not just near (within walking distance) the LRT is located. suburbs contribute to the fund as well as inner loopers. Now considering the full trip travel times, I understand what you're attempting to say but we can't be focused only on those living near the rail. We need to be concerned about EVERYONE in the METRO service area. Someone mentioned Dallas has a stop approximately every 1.3 miles and ours is approximately 0.4 miles. To be clear, i'm not saying that either number is the optimal number. Now let's say there will be a stop at Montrose and a stop at Shepherd. Houston19514, let's say you live at Dunlavy and you feel the walk is too long to either station. (and i'm not advocating these stations specifically either). NOT having the Dunlavy station will affect whom? Well Houston19514, it will affect YOU because it would make your walk longer because you live close to the dunlavy station that didn't get built. But it would also affect EVERYONE else in the METRO service area because without that particular station, travel time of the LRT would be quicker.

Now to total trip time, Houston19514 since you're on dunlavy, it will definitely increase YOUR total trip time not to have the Dunlavy station because you live close to the rail and have to walk farther. I live on the east side (could be anywhere not walking distance) and it will definitely affect MY total trip time by making it SHORTER because my time to the rail is the same (by car) but my trip on the rail will be shorter because the dunlavy station doesn't exist. So my total trip time is shorter.

So considering the entire METRO service area, not having a station affects everyone in positive and/or negative ways.

Edited August 10, 2006 by musicman

[musicman]

An added advantage is that the light rail CAN be placed in the streets, so less property is taken and it is less expensive to build.

And a disadvantage is that it IS placed in the streets causing travel times for vehicular traffic in the area to increase.

The most efficient solution is to use BOTH, with each being used where it is most effective.

Concur

As for station placement, I think that the half-mile placement is ideal, not too close, but not too far to discourage riders. But, that is my opinion, not supported by any study other than my own use of the system. Taking out half of the stops would make it less appealing, while only saving a couple of minutes over the length of the line. I feel the tradeoff is worth it. By contrast, local busses stop every TWO blocks.

I"m working on my previous post but will address the italicized text in that reponse regarding station placement. I take the 36 fairly regularly from the east side and it doesn't stop every two blocks. If that were the case I wouldn't be taking it and hopefully METRO would have added more buses to the route. If the bus you take does stop every 2 minutes you should contact METRO so that they can add more buses. It is a matter of probability and statistics as to how frequent the stops are.

[RedScare]

I"m working on my previous post but will address the italicized text in that reponse regarding station placement. I take the 36 fairly regularly from the east side and it doesn't stop every two blocks. If that were the case I wouldn't be taking it and hopefully METRO would have added more buses to the route. If the bus you take does stop every 2 minutes you should contact METRO so that they can add more buses. It is a matter of probability and statistics as to how frequent the stops are.

I'm only talking Downtown here. I am quite sure that non-uniform blocks outside of Downtown dictate different stop patterns, as does the number of potential riders. But, downtown, the busses stop every two blocks. This includes local, as well as Park&Ride.

[musicman]

i finished my 1317 post...redscare and Houston19514. i'm ready for you two too bleed all over it.

Edited August 10, 2006 by musicman

[RedScare]

Houston19514, let's say you live at Dunlavy and you feel the walk is too long to either station. (and i'm not advocating these stations specifically either). NOT having the Dunlavy station will affect whom? Well Houston19514, it will affect YOU because it would make your walk longer because you live close to the dunlavy station that didn't get built. But it would also affect EVERYONE else in the METRO service area because without that particular station, travel time of the LRT would be quicker.

An extra stop adds how long to the trip? A minute. Probably less. This is really mental gymnastics, since it has already been agreeed by all parties that their is an optimum number of stops, arrived at by weighing the number of potential riders versus the time added to the trip time. If a train passed by a baseball stadium, it would stop because of high ridership. If it passed by a basketball arena 2 blocks later, it would stop again. If it then passed by a one mile long brownfield, with no homes or businesses, it would not stop. The proposal for the 4.7 mile western leg of the U-Line bears this out, with only 4 or 5 stops planned at major population or activity centers, while downtown has stops every 6 blocks or so.

[dp2]

EDITED: (Because I misread a couple of items related to Clusterbuck's and Culberson's proposals.)

The Clusterbuck Plan and Culberson's proposal could actually produce an even better result, if altered sufficiently. If Metro routed it west on Richmond to Montrose (directly serving U. St. Thomas) and then south to the freeway, they'd only have to elevate it for slightly less than a half mile, between Montrose and the 1st bridge at Mandell. At Mandell there is enough of a shelf on the south side between the freeway/end of the upper bridge structure and the backyard walls. Technically the light-rail ROW can narrow to pass through a 20' ground choke point (slightly wider needed for the wire support poles) and it appears to be close to 30' at Mandell and widening to the west along the abandoned railroad ROW. So what is needed in this section is for the rail to be elevated over the freeway, but doesn't have to get higher than ground-level, and thus shielded from affecting adjacent homes by sound walls. Several possible ways to elevate this section:

1) Bridging to a single line of center poles in the median, if enough room can be found.

2) Bridging via a series of plank supports across half of the freeway for much of the way from each direction, which would require narrower center support poles. Uglier, but could be creatively decorated with sufficient will, budget, and the right artist.

3) Bridging via a series of plank supports across the entire freeway that wouldn't require any center supports. Similar opportunities for industrial artistry.

All expensive, but no apparent reasons why any homes need to be taken.

Now let's look at how we could adapt Clutterbuck & Culberson's freeway option to produce a better solution than any now proposed. The largest complexes along Richmond west to almost Kirby are within about a 1/4 mile of Montrose/Richmond. Some north of Alabama west of Shepherd, but that's more than a 1/4 mile north of Richmond to get to the edge of that. So not much ridership missed by skipping this section, though perhaps passing on some future redevelopment potential. In contrast there are apartments and employment along the abandoned railroad ROW (south side of the freeway) from Shepherd west to Kirby, and within a 1/4-1/2 mile of the latter intersection. Also might make for a nice transfer to a future Kirby/Rice Village shuttle or even trolley. In fact ridership (and redevelopment potential) is likely to be higher, with good station placement.

The key to this route is to then cross back north to hit the heavy employment on that side of the freeway. Head north to Richmond via Kirby, with another stop at that intersection. Since this south side alignment would be in exclusive ROW from Kirby-Montrose instead of street running and hitting lights on Richmond (regardless of theoretical signal pre-emption), the extra distance shouldn't result in any longer running times than Richmond. Going aerial down the freeway from Montrose to Mandell will add a huge expense (though the ROW west of Mandell will be cheaper than using Richmond), so they probably can't afford to lose the big chunk of Greenway Plaza/Richmond ridership that a pure south side line would result in. Trying to mitigate with long pedestrian skybridges over the freeway is going to drive up costs and be less effective than actually penetrating this district.

So head up Kirby to Richmond, lots more ridership potential here. But it requires 2 stops, Richmond/Kirby and one on the south side of 59 between Greenbriar and Kirby. Crossing under the freeway is just a huge psych disincentive for pedestrians, and with just a single station serving Kirby-Shepherd for both sides it is just too far for many people to walk, regardless of placement. Yeah, it may add another minute to the ride for the extra station, but this is where Metro is falling down in trying to make light-rail be all things to all people. You can't adequately serve spread out semi-dense housing/employment and also provide speedy long-distance commutes. Let the HOV buses and perhaps commuter rail handle the long/fast trips, and use LRT/trolleys to adequately distribute them and serve neighborhoods/districts.

Now that we are back on Richmond going west from Kirby, the same arguments/merits/disadvantages for the options west of Greenway Plaza are in play, though cost factors are probably more critical. My point is simply that this is an opportunity that could produce a better solution than the current ones being considered (and save lots of hassles and hardship along some portions of Richmond) as long as the line travels Richmond from Kirby west past Greenway Plaza. That is the heart of the line and its potential, until the line (or at least some of its trains) is extended up Post Oak through the Galleria district.

Do I think Metro will take advantage of this opportunity and suggest what I just laid out? Doubtful. More likely they'll do what they've too often done in the past (like many other transit agencies) and stack the deck in their modelling to favor their preferred outcome. But maybe not, maybe they really have changed. How they handle this could be quite revealing, either positively or negatively.

The more I've looked into this, the more I'm in favor of using Richmond through Greenway Plaza, but diverting south of 59 east from Kirby to Montrose. I urge you guys to carefully look over the aerial photos at HGAC's website.

Edited August 10, 2006 by dp2

[nmainguy]

This is the first post in this thread:

Post #1

Tory Gattis has a couple of posts on his blog about shortsighted political opposition to the University rail line allignment.

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/

Christof Spieler, who has a great blog about transportation, has some great comments, along with some good maps to make his point.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2006/02/09/23/

There are apparently some people hoping to derail the University Line before it even gets started. I'm posting their blogs here since there are 1500 members on this forum, and some thoughtful voices on mass transit. I also think they like the publicity.

What are your thoughts? I think this line is critical to LRT's success in Houston. I also think it will be a blockbuster success for businesses and residents in the Richmond corridor. I am at a complete loss as to why a business owner on Richmond would not support years of transit riders being dropped on his doorstep, as well as the massive upgrade of Richmond Avenue that the rail would bring.

The intelligent approach would be to express concerns about construction to METRO, while supporting the line, so that construction disruption can be minimized, similar to the Southwest Freeway construction was done. Political agendas dictate otherwise.

I'd also like to get some ideas to let METRO know that the future USERS of this line prefer this allignment (or whatever other allignment is preferred).

Speak up.

If the topic is rail on Richmond, couldn't all the back and forth regarding DART's heavy rail vs METRO's LRT; if a train stops at a ball park or two ball parks; if it passes a one mile long brownfield; fantasies about what some people want but will never have; etc... then could another thread be stared so you all could hash it out and leave this one to the U Line?

Just a thought.

[Houston19514]

I don't believe i'm stumbling. My statements have been consistent. I still stand by my last post "you have to minimize travel times with the maximum number of riders so that monies spent will provide the most benefit." It is fairly obvious that you've never taken an industrial engineering class. There is an entire science to optimization and remember there are always tradeoffs.

Yes, indeed; there are tradeoffs. That is precisely what I have been telling you. (And you're telling me that it's obvious I have not taken an industrial engineering class? It is to laugh.)

Your position has very cleverly evolved to where you are now emphasizing the balancing act of "minimizing travel times with the maximum number of riders." That is decidedly NOT what you were your promoting in your earlier posts, in which you repeatedly told us that the ONLY thing that matters is the time spent on the trains. The "maximum number of riders" is in part a function of the convenience of stations not only to where people live, but also to their work and leisure destinations (i.e., in part, the number of stations). As I said earlier, if the only factor were time on the train, the best system would be a very short one with two stops, one on each end. But of course, that would not attract many riders, hence the balancing act I have been suggesting all along. It's nice to see you have now finally abandoned your earlier insistence on the "time on the train" being the only important measure.

[ricco67]

The Clusterbuck Plan could actually produce an even better result, if altered sufficiently. Not that I am saying that she has thought this through (I am unfamiliar with her and won't draw any conclusions), but the talk of taking 75 homes seems to be a red herring on Metro's (or someone's) part. If they routed it west on Richmond to Montrose (directly serving U. St. Thomas) and then south to the freeway, they'd only have to elevate it for slightly less than a half mile, between Montrose and the 1st bridge at Mandell. At Mandell there is enough of a shelf on the south side between the freeway/end of the upper bridge structure and the backyard walls. Technically the light-rail ROW can narrow to pass through a 20' ground choke point (slightly wider needed for the wire support poles) and it appears to be close to 30' at Mandell and widening to the west along the abandoned railroad ROW. So what is needed in this section is for the rail to be elevated over the freeway, but doesn't have to get higher than ground-level, and thus shielded from affecting adjacent homes by sound walls. Several possible ways to elevate this section:

1) Bridging to a single line of center poles in the median, if enough room can be found.

2) Bridging via a series of plank supports across half of the freeway for much of the way from each direction, which would require narrower center support poles. Uglier, but could be creatively decorated with sufficient will, budget, and the right artist.

3) Bridging via a series of plank supports across the entire freeway that wouldn't require any center supports. Similar opportunities for industrial artistry.

All expensive, but no apparent reasons why any homes need to be taken. Though also no evidence that Clusterbuck's plan realized that, if she really did suggest running it on the north side. Or did she actually just suggest aerial over the freeway ROW, and the north side element was suggested by someone else to try and portray her idea as not feasible? Sandbagged by Metro and/or the Chronicle? Given past histories and bright yellow ink, hard to know whom to believe in this case.

Now let's look at how we could adapt Clusterbuck's freeway option to produce a better solution than any now proposed. The largest complexes along Richmond west to almost Kirby are within about a 1/4 mile of Montrose/Richmond. Some north of Alabama west of Shepherd, but that's more than a 1/4 mile north of Richmond to get to the edge of that. So not much ridership missed by skipping this section, though perhaps passing on some future redevelopment potential. In contrast there are apartments and employment along the abandoned railroad ROW (south side of the freeway) from Shepherd west to Kirby, and within a 1/4-1/2 mile of the latter intersection. Also might make for a nice transfer to a future Kirby/Rice Village shuttle or even trolley. In fact ridership (and redevelopment potential) is likely to be higher, with good station placement.

Now the key to this route is to then cross back north to hit the heavy employment on that side of the freeway. north to Richmond via Kirby, with another stop at that intersection. Since this south side alignment would be in exclusive ROW from Kirby-Montrose instead of street running and hitting lights on Richmond (regardless of theoretical signal pre-emption), the extra distance shouldn't result in any longer running times than Richmond. Diverting over the freeway is going to add a huge expense (though the ROW west of Mandell will be cheaper than using Richmond), so they probably can't afford to lose the big chunk of Greenway Plaza/Richmond ridership that a pure south side line would result in. Trying to mitigate with long pedestrian skybridges over the freeway is going to drive up costs and be less effective than actually penetrating this district.

So head up Kirby to Richmond, lots more ridership potential here. But it requires 2 stops, Richmond/Kirby and one on the south side of 59 between Greenbriar and Kirby. Crossing under the freeway is just a huge psych disincentive for pedestrians, and with just a single station serving Kirby-Shepherd for both sides it is just too far for many people to walk, regardless of placement. Yeah, it may add another minute to the ride for the extra station, but this is where Metro is falling down in trying to make light-rail be all things to all people. You can't adequately serve spread out semi-dense housing/employment and also provide speedy long-distance commutes. Let the HOV buses and perhaps commuter rail handle the long/fast trips, and use LRT/trolleys to adequately distribute them and serve neighborhoods/districts.

Now that we are back on Richmond, the same arguments/merits/disadvantages for options west of Greenway Plaza are in play, though cost factors are probably more critical. My point is that whether by design or happenstance, the Clusterbuck Plan could produce a better solution than the current ones being considered, and also save lots of hassles and hardship along some portions of Richmond. Do I think Metro will take advantage of this opportunity and suggest what I just laid out? Doubtful. More likely they'll do what they've too often done in the past (like many other transit agencies) and stack the deck in their modelling to favor their preferred outcome. But maybe not, maybe they really have changed. How they handle this could be quite revealing, either positively or negatively.

The more I've looked into this, the more I'm in favor of using Richmond through Greenway Plaza, but diverting south of 59 east from Kirby to Montrose. I urge you guys to carefully look over the aerial photos at HGAC's website.

While all that sounds good peachy keen, Ideally, I would prefer a Richmond alignment with an eventual extention out to to HWY 6. But I wouldn't mind a "true" Westpark alighnment as an express to downtown.

This way, people at westpark would then have an option of going "express" to wheeler or go down the Richmond to hit Greenway, Galleria, or possibly go the other direction on Richmond.

While driving Lower Richmond/59S/Smain area, it occured to me, that Richmond from S.W. Freeway to Fannin might need to be closed. Perhaps the traffic could be directed towards the North bound street at 59 (Travis?).

[CE_ugh]

http://www.metrosolutions.org/posted/1068/...ll01.125970.pdf

http://www.metrosolutions.org/posted/1068/...ay02.125975.pdf

http://www.metrosolutions.org/posted/1068/...ay03.125978.pdf

http://www.metrosolutions.org/posted/1068/...ay01.125973.pdf

These aerial photos contain property lines from 610 to UH

[nmainguy]

If they routed it west on Richmond to Montrose (directly serving U. St. Thomas) and then south to the freeway, they'd only have to elevate it for slightly less than a half mile, between Montrose and the 1st bridge at Mandell.

The first bridge after Montrose is Graustark so you may need to take a few homes there before you get to Mandell.

...and save lots of hassles and hardship along some portions of Richmond

any hassles will be temporary-the same way it will be in the near future when Richmond will need to be rebuilt from Greenway to the loop along with the new bridge over the tracks. I don't know if TXDOT will kowtow to Afton Oaks on that but I imagine in the end, TXDOT nor METRO is going to allow a very small minority to torpedo their plans.

I think you put a lot of thought into this plan but with federal dollars scarce, each city has to fight to get them by showing the feds the most efficient plan possible. Bridges and turns and cantilevers over the freeway and the possible destruction and rebuilding of some of the new 59 bridges will signal to the Feds we really aren't serious in our efforts. I truly believe that this is Culberson's goal: to make sure a plan is submitted that assures failure.

Edited August 10, 2006 by nmainguy

[musicman]

Your position has very cleverly evolved to where you are now emphasizing the balancing act of "minimizing travel times with the maximum number of riders." That is decidedly NOT what you were your promoting in your earlier posts, in which you repeatedly told us that the ONLY thing that matters is the time spent on the trains. The "maximum number of riders" is in part a function of the convenience of stations not only to where people live, but also to their work and leisure destinations (i.e., in part, the number of stations). As I said earlier, if the only factor were time on the train, the best system would be a very short one with two stops, one on each end. But of course, that would not attract many riders, hence the balancing act I have been suggesting all along. It's nice to see you have now finally abandoned your earlier insistence on the "time on the train" being the only important measure.

There's not a balancing act nor a clever evolution in what i've been saying. It may be more obvious to you however as i had to summarize it to one sentence. SSullivan asked a similar question last week to me as why i really wanted to attract new riders who don't live near or along the line. These are the NEW riders we need to make this successful. To gain these riders we have to minimize travel times to make it attractive. I did not say this is the ONLY factor, you did. But i sure feel it is the most important one. People aren't going to use it if it provides them no benefit. You will not maximize your increase in new riders by having only two stations.

I want what will provide the most relief for the most people. Replacing a bus line with a train that operates at the same speed won't provide relief.

It is obvious that you understand what i was saying now.

[dp2]

The first bridge after Montrose is Graustark so you may need to take a few homes there before you get to Mandell.

Darn it, I was looking at an aerial that was pre-59 reconstruction east of Mandell! But there are multiple ways to deal with a Graustark bridge:

1) Replace it with a compatable design.

2) Simply eliminate it as a through street.

3) On the northwest corner is a multifamily building, and in the northeast corner there appears to be about 90' between the freeway (overhead at the time) and the first building. 59 runs at a slight diagonal to the grid, creating leftover odd lot sections. Now if the new section of freeway here isn't any wider than it is at Mandell, there should be plenty of room to squeeze by on the north side of the bridge if they buy out that one multifamily building. If it is apartments, nobody loses a home, they just have to relocate, and the owner is compensated for the loss of one building.

4) Buy the entire multifamily complex fronting the narrow Graustark and turn south from Richmond to 59 on it.

5) Do as Clusterbuck had suggested and turn south from Richmond at Mandell. This would require crossing and taking a small corner of a house's driveway at the northwest edge of the Howie Mandell Memorial Bridge. Put in full crossing gates in all directions and a whistle ban, and nobody loses a home.

6) Go with Clusterbuck's other suggestion and turn south from Richmond at Dunleavy. The northwest corner is Mike Dunleavy Park, which would only lose a tiny corner of edge grass.

6 (and to a slightly lesser extent 5) is less disruptive, but you lose some of the speed advantage of a longer run on dedicated ROW instead of in-street. But we aren't talking about a huge detour, the extra length of crossing down and then back up at Kirby is less than 1/2 mile total. No more than 1.5 minutes added (at 20 mph average), and the higher speed in the southern section should reduce that to near zero.

I think you put a lot of thought into this plan but with federal dollars scarce, each city has to fight to get them by showing the feds the most efficient plan possible. Bridges and turns and cantilevers over the freeway and the possible destruction and rebuilding of some of the new 59 bridges will signal to the Feds we really aren't serious in our efforts. I truly believe that this is Culberson's goal: to make sure a plan is submitted that assures failure.

Elevated is more expensive, but street running ain't cheap, especially in this narrow section of Richmond. Probably around $30 million per mile here, so the cost differential may not be as great as some are thinking. On the other hand converting the abandoned rail ROW could be a lot cheaper than street running because you often can avoid digging and moving underground utilites and street replacement, instead just laying ballast and track on top. Turning south at Montrose requires almost 1/2 mile of elevated. Rough estimates at $100 million/mile for elevated adds $50 million to cost. Add 4500' of converting the abandoned rail line at approx. $6 million/mile, minus 4500' net less street running (eliminated Richmond but add Kirby and Montrose portion) at approx $30 million per mile comes to roughly $30 million in higher cost (50+5-25), plus the cost of dealing with the Graustark bridge and design complexities with this specific elevation. Same number of stations, similar number of cross streets/intersections. So rough estimate about $40-100 million more but with higher ridership, too.

Similar calculations can be done for the other options.

The key numbers to the feds isn't overall cost (though still important), but cost per rider and cost per new rider. Complicated design isn't a problem for funding if it can rationally be justified.