Houston – Part 3

Today I’m going to continue looking at the regional rail system that would lay the groundwork for a state-wide service. We’ve already laid out a starter-project linking Downtown to Pearland, as well as a major line from Houston to Galveston. Now we need to go Northwest.

There are a number of potential options to go Northwest. Most people have focused on the old Hempstead highway and the ROW running alongside it. This route relates to 290 much the same way that the Hardy Toll Road parallels I-45. This route seems an obvious choice for Northwest Commuters, and as a connection to the rest of the state – after all, it’s close to the main route we drive on already. However, there are some serious drawbacks:

• The route isn’t within walking distance of any significant points of density.
• The route is located south of 290, whereas most of the commuters using 290 live north of it. If people have to deal with the traffic going to and from 290, they’ll probably just hop on 290 anyway.
• The existing mix of industrial distribution and vacant lots limits the near-term transit-oriented development potential of the corridor.

For these reasons I prefer a 249 alignment. When this basic alignment was espoused by Tory Gattis and Christof Spieler last fall, Tory had this to say about it:

…the real short-term opportunity is a 249 line to Tomball through the vast 1960-area suburbs, as well as picking up the back side of The Woodlands. This would attract many riders who do not currently have good access to HOV express bus service, and it would take traffic pressure off of both 290 and 45N. In fact, 249 ranked higher than 290 in H-GAC’s study (see figure ES-7)

One major difference from the H-GAC proposal is that this line can make the transition south to the Hempstead Corridor when it reaches Mangum / Watonga. The aerial guideway for the maglev doesn’t interfere with traffic below, and it’s much quieter than a conventional train.

One of the most important features of this concept is the creation of a significant new hub near the intersection of 290 and 610. This area, along with the entire West Loop, desperately needs improved transit service as an alternative to the persistent, mind-bending traffic congestion. A short extension of the planned Uptown Light-Rail line would give passengers a quick and easy connection into the heart of the Galleria area from a large-scale TOD redevelopment effort at Northwest Crossing.

Downtown the train would tie into METRO’s planned Intermodal terminal, offering passengers an option to transfer to the Red Line, or to continue around the West side of Downtown as shown in the diagram below.

I was asked in the last post whether or not the diagram of maglev lines downtown represents subway or elevated rail. I think either way could work.

If you were to build elevated it would probably be cheaper, but it would be more difficult to fit a double-track (20-30′ wide) between all the buildings, especially in the Allen Center (which is one of the most critical stops). It would not be feasible to do this without working closely with the building owners, and possible remodeling portions of existing buildings to integrate station platforms etc. into the buildings themselves. That’s a really intricate series of deals to negotiate, but it’s still probably cheaper than tunneling.

Tunneling is in some ways a cleaner option, but given how much stuff is already buried underground it would seem very expensive. In the end I kind of like the idea of the trains being developed as elevated systems that are artfully integrated into the buildings as needed. I think the ride would be more enjoyable if you could see the city, and it would serve as a stronger reminder that the train is an option.

Long story short, this is still a sketch. You imagine it how you prefer it.

Lastly, we have the ever-important travel times to consider.

These are calculated using the same assumptions as before, but in acknowledgement to some of the critiques raised with the last few posts I’ve added a margin-of-error of 10% to try and better account for the rate of change in acceleration/deceleration. It doesn’t make a huge difference – maglev is fast.

How fast? To get from Main St. in Tomball to Downtown Houston would take about 26 minutes. Willowbrook Mall to Downtown? 18 minutes. That’s faster than driving.

What about from Cypresswood (fairly central within the vast 1960/Champions Forest area) to Uptown? Well, it’s only about 11-12 minutes on the Maglev, so even if the Light-Rail portion took 15-20 minutes you’re still only looking at around a 30 minute trip – still competitive with off-peak drive-times, and much much faster than driving in rush hour.

This wraps up the incremental look at a Houston regional rail system as the foundation of an intercity system. These three corridors don’t reflect all the good options for service in Houston, just the ones that I think would need to come before an intercity rail system. With the next few posts I’ll look at how the regions can link together in more detail, and then will be back to look at an ultimate build-out of a Houston regional system.

A few last reminders before your comments:

1. Please read “Introduction” and “The Trains” if you haven’t already. These posts lay out the critical assumptions I’m making in writing this series.
2. As you’ll read in “The Trains,” I’m hypothetically developing this concept based on an elevated maglev system. The reason is that I think this is the kind of technology that could create a new transportation network that is actually more time-efficient for most people than the car. That’s the benchmark. If any new transportation system isn’t better for most people than what we’ve already got, why build it?
3. I have no relationship with AMT – the company whose trains I’ve been writing about. I have met and talked with them more than any other rail technology provider, and I like them. They seem to really understand the critical changes that could make a private system realistic: that it can be built at a reasonable cost, and that it offer fast and frequentservice that can compete with private automobiles.
4. I’m trying to imagine how such a system could be deployed privately. This is a challenge to say the least, but if it can be done it should be done. I’m not writing a business plan or a proforma, just sketching out an idea. Please keep that in mind when you’re writing your comments.
5. An essential element of a privately owned and operated system would be starting small with regional systems that can operate at a profit, then connecting the outer edges of the regions together. This is why I’ve started with a look at building a regional system in Houston, as it lays the foundation for an intercity system.
6. A second essential element of a privately owned system is TOD. One of the huge reasons for building the system – and probably the single biggest profit source – would be the opportunity to acquire fairly affordable land in between two destinations, make sure that the train stops at this site, and then develop the site to a high intensity level that otherwise would not have been possible. Thus, if some part of an alignment seems illogical from the perspective of what’s on the ground today, remember that with a privately-run system TOD is the highest priority, not merely a bonus.
7. Lastly, this is my blog, so I don’t have to worry about whether or not every detail of this idea is politically feasible. For the most part, Politics is the effort of the people who benefit from the status quo to prevent everyone else from doing what would be better for the rest of the country. If I were the mayor I’d have to worry about such things. I’m not, so I don’t. I think it’s more valuable to look at an example of an ‘ideal’ system first – then if it ever became real you can bend it to fit political reality.

And, as they say, that’s all folks! As always I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.