Houston downtown highway project - Why are elevated highways not being proposed?

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by elnina

In short? It's the cost. Building an elevated highway cost 5x as much as building non-elevated highway.

To put into perspective:

The cost for an elevated section of 4 lane highway is roughly $50 Million per mile. A 4 lane urban highway, unelevated, is roughly $10 Million per mile.

Does that count the cost of buying additional ROW?
I've noticed that when a discussion comes up about light rail, the numbers always leave out the cost of ROW.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Such a tired argument. Take it from someone who uses commuter rail almost daily. This is pretty inaccurate. Commuter rail is more reliable than commuter buses. Have you seen these commuter buses try to cross the Katy Freeway to exit to get to a PnR? Or the backups in the HOV? How about the left lane hogging in the tollway because HCTRA had the brilliant idea to have the HOV on the left lane of the Katy Toll.

Also you wouldn't know how long people's walks are and making one transfer is not a big deal. People act like workers need to be dropped off inside their corner office or else it wouldn't work lol.

While reliability is important, frequency is as important or more important. Park & Rides leave every 10 minutes or less from the most popular lots.

You do realize that the commuter rail station would be at the very north end of Downtown, right? Yes, there could be one at the NWTC for Uptown transfers, OK. But in Downtown, the majority of commuters would be very, very far from their offices. How in the world would they prefer that instead of Park & Rides that go every 10 minutes and come within a couple blocks of their office?

If Houston ever did commuter rail, it should be COMPLETELY in addition to the Park & Ride system. Not instead of.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

If Houston ever did commuter rail, it should be COMPLETELY in addition to the Park & Ride system. Not instead of.

This is the problem with people that are against it
Always pushing the idea that if rail is built .... cars will be illegal

It's not one or the other,
it's a form of transportation for people that don't want to drive or own a car = less cars on the highways

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Such a tired argument. Take it from someone who uses commuter rail almost daily. This is pretty inaccurate. Commuter rail is more reliable than commuter buses. Have you seen these commuter buses try to cross the Katy Freeway to exit to get to a PnR? Or the backups in the HOV? How about the left lane hogging in the tollway because HCTRA had the brilliant idea to have the HOV on the left lane of the Katy Toll.

Also you wouldn't know how long people's walks are and making one transfer is not a big deal. People act like workers need to be dropped off inside their corner office or else it wouldn't work lol.

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

While reliability is important, frequency is as important or more important. Park & Rides leave every 10 minutes or less from the most popular lots.

You do realize that the commuter rail station would be at the very north end of Downtown, right? Yes, there could be one at the NWTC for Uptown transfers, OK. But in Downtown, the majority of commuters would be very, very far from their offices. How in the world would they prefer that instead of Park & Rides that go every 10 minutes and come within a couple blocks of their office?

If Houston ever did commuter rail, it should be COMPLETELY in addition to the Park & Ride system. Not instead of.

You both make some good points, but the bolded is definitely true.

Light rail and commuter rail have different strengths and weaknesses. The biggest strengths of commuter rail are passenger comfort and long-distance trip time. Light rail offers local service and more frequent service. For the I-10 corridor, I think both options would have been OK but light rail would have been a little better because it could have local stops and supplement the P&R system. Middle of freeway systems aren't ideal and I do agree that the walks would be perhaps a little longer than desired, but nothing ridiculous given good design. Commuter rail would have been largely duplicative with the existing P&R system and would have probably replaced it, not supplemented it. It would be better if the local system was stronger, but still would have been heavily used.

This ship has long since sailed, but the best corridor for commuter rail in Houston is easily I-45. A 90-mile line from Conroe to Galveston with 9 or 10 stops (both airports, northside, downtown, Woodlands, Spring, Conroe, Bay Area Blvd, Dickinson, Galveston) would have been an absolute game-changer.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

You both make some good points, but the bolded is definitely true.

Light rail and commuter rail have different strengths and weaknesses. The biggest strengths of commuter rail are passenger comfort and long-distance trip time. Light rail offers local service and more frequent service. For the I-10 corridor, I think both options would have been OK but light rail would have been a little better because it could have local stops and supplement the P&R system. Middle of freeway systems aren't ideal and I do agree that the walks would be perhaps a little longer than desired, but nothing ridiculous given good design. Commuter rail would have been largely duplicative with the existing P&R system and would have probably replaced it, not supplemented it. It would be better if the local system was stronger, but still would have been heavily used.

This ship has long since sailed, but the best corridor for commuter rail in Houston is easily I-45. A 90-mile line from Conroe to Galveston with 9 or 10 stops (both airports, northside, downtown, Woodlands, Spring, Conroe, Bay Area Blvd, Dickinson, Galveston) would have been an absolute game-changer.

It would be a game changer. It would have bankrupted Metro.

Bob Lanier said it best when killing Kathy's monorail, "Why spend a billion dollars for worse service?"

Unless you have an exceptionally dense metro like New York, rail to the distant suburbs makes no sense. You can do a park n ride that is more efficient and provides better service. The rail lines have to justify their capacity by making a lot of stops, meaning they are slower. And they don't drop you off a block from your destination like the park n rides.

For Houston, much outside Beltway 8 makes no sense for rail. Its billions of dollars more than express bus and worse service.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Dopo

This is the problem with people that are against it
Always pushing the idea that if rail is built .... cars will be illegal

It's not one or the other,
it's a form of transportation for people that don't want to drive or own a car = less cars on the highways

Huh? I wasn't talking about cars, I was talking about Park & Ride bus service.

[some one122]

Originally Posted by bu2

It would be a game changer. It would have bankrupted Metro.

Bob Lanier said it best when killing Kathy's monorail, "Why spend a billion dollars for worse service?"

Unless you have an exceptionally dense metro like New York, rail to the distant suburbs makes no sense. You can do a park n ride that is more efficient and provides better service. The rail lines have to justify their capacity by making a lot of stops, meaning they are slower. And they don't drop you off a block from your destination like the park n rides.

For Houston, much outside Beltway 8 makes no sense for rail. Its billions of dollars more than express bus and worse service.

The University BRT (which for half of its length runs on or near the former monorail proposal) is projected to garner about 59,000 daily riders. For reference, the Red line has about 40,000-50,000 riders, The MAX Blue line has 55,370 riders and the Expo line has about 61,000 daily riders. If the University BRT was built as light rail (or even commuter rail) it would've been one of the most successful light rail or commuter rail lines, and rival the Red line in terms of ridership (and also give the Purple and Green line a reason to exist).

As for your Bob Lanier quote, because a majority of Houstonians voted for it. The monorail, if built, would've gone through Westchase, Gulfton, Uptown, Greenway, Montrose, Midtown and Downtown. Maybe some corridors are better suited for buses but the monorail definitely would've been a game changer for Houston. Also you could apply that quote to pretty much anything, including the I-45 expansion.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by some one122

The University BRT (which for half of its length runs on or near the former monorail proposal) is projected to garner about 59,000 daily riders. For reference, the Red line has about 40,000-50,000 riders, The MAX Blue line has 55,370 riders and the Expo line has about 61,000 daily riders. If the University BRT was built as light rail (or even commuter rail) it would've been one of the most successful light rail or commuter rail lines, and rival the Red line in terms of ridership (and also give the Purple and Green line a reason to exist).

As for your Bob Lanier quote, because a majority of Houstonians voted for it. The monorail, if built, would've gone through Westchase, Gulfton, Uptown, Greenway, Montrose, Midtown and Downtown. Maybe some corridors are better suited for buses but the monorail definitely would've been a game changer for Houston. Also you could apply that quote to pretty much anything, including the I-45 expansion.

I voted for it too. But Lanier was right to kill it. It was basically just a loop for transfers and didn't hit enough residential population.

Note that I said much outside Beltway 8 rail makes no sense. The Richmond/Westpark corridor was always the best rail line for Houston. It was the main line in every plan going back 40 years. John Culberson personally killed it. It should have been built out to just beyond Beltway 8. And it would run through the densest part of Houston. Gulton has densities that rival the coastal cities. But it wouldn't make sense to take it out to Cinco Ranch.

[some one122]

Originally Posted by bu2

I voted for it too. But Lanier was right to kill it. It was basically just a loop for transfers and didn't hit enough residential population.

Note that I said much outside Beltway 8 rail makes no sense. The Richmond/Westpark corridor was always the best rail line for Houston. It was the main line in every plan going back 40 years. John Culberson personally killed it. It should have been built out to just beyond Beltway 8. And it would run through the densest part of Houston. Gulton has densities that rival the coastal cities. But it wouldn't make sense to take it out to Cinco Ranch.

Agree to disagree I guess. Though I do agree on the Richmond/Westpark corridor.