The University Line: Shepherd to Main
Traveling inbound on the Southwest Freeway, one notices an obvious change at Shepherd: the frontage roads disappear, residential neighborhoods surround the freeway. METRO’s University Line will encounter the same thing. This is an older and denser part of the city. That means there’s less space for tracks, but it also means there’s more potential ridership.
So when we compare options here, we have to consider two things. The first is how easy it is to fit the light rail line into the city’s urban fabric. The second is how many people it will serve.
Every rail station has a circle of accessibility: a 1/4 mile radius for a five minute walk, a 1/2 mile radius for a 10 minute walk. The key to ridership is to have as many potential origins and destinations within that circle as possible. In that regard, there are two important things to keep in mind in this part of town. The first is that the freeway itself is a tenth of a mile wide; any part of it within those radii won’t generate any ridership. The second is that the area south of the freeway is considerably less dense than the area north of the freeway. South of the freeway (except for a small area at Montrose), we have large single family homes and only a handful of businesses. North of the freeway, the houses are on smaller lots, and they’re mixed with apartments, stores, office buildings, and major institutions like the Menil and the University of St. Thomas. The more of this area is inside our station radius, the more ridership we get.
The University line alignment is not a two-way choice. The best answer may well be a combination of different options. Today, I’ll just consider the section between Main and Shepherd. So what are our choices here?
Centerpoint right-of-way
What it is: The remains of an old railroad right of way, now occupied by powerlines. It’s bounded by the freeway sound wall on one side and the back yards of houses on the other.
Who controls it: Centerpoint Energy.
Implementation: For most of the way, there’s enough room for two tracks. Closer to Montrose, there are some tight stretches where more land would be required; at Montrose, Chelsea Market would lose its parking. At Main Street a freeway detention pond would need to be bridged or moved. Crossing gates would be required at all cross streets.
Cost: Acceptable.
Ridership: Low. There’s really not room for stations except perhaps at Montrose. Additional stations could be fit by taking property or parkland, but they’d serve mainly less dense neighborhoods.
Impacts (after construction): Trains passing feet away from residential back yards, crossing gates, and perhaps horns.
Opposition: The neighborhoods here are well-organized in opposition to the line.
Support: None (except by opponents of other options).
Inside the freeway trench
What it is: By restriping lanes and narrowing shoulders, the tracks could fit inside the trench now occupied by US-59.
Who controls it: TXDOT.
Implementation: It may be necessary to stack the tracks on top of each other, requiring additional excavation. There’s enough room to fit rail without taking traffic lanes permanently, but construction would require temporary lane closures.
Cost: Acceptable; high if tracks need to be stacked or trench is widened for stations.
Ridership: Low. There’s not enough room in the trench for stations; to fit them, additional right-of-way and heavy construction would be needed to widen the trench. Montrose is probably the only reasonable station location.
Impacts: Minor.
Opposition: None yet, but Southwest Freeway commuters might not take kindly to even more construction.
Support: None.
In the HOV lane
What it is: Laying tracks inside the existing HOV lane.
Who controls it: METRO.
Implementation: Would close this section of the HOV lane; new overpasses required at each end.
Cost: Acceptable.
Ridership: Low. There’s not enough room for stations.
Impacts: Longer and less reliable trips for bus riders and carpools from suburban Southwest Houston; additional congestion in an already congested section of freeway.
Opposition: Presumably, West Side commuters would be unhappy.
Support: None.
Elevated
What it is: A new elevated structure at the north edge of the freeway trench, crossing above north-south cross streets.
Who controls it: TXDOT
Implementation: The structure would be supported on top of or right next to the freeway retaining wall, with two tracks elevated about 25 feet above the surface streets. Some private property would be required, and much more property would be needed to fit in stations. The structure would pass right next to a building on the National Register of Historic Places.
Cost: Very high.
Ridership: Better than the south edge of the freeway – if stations can be fit in.
Impacts: Elevated tracks 25 feet above people’s backyards, less than 20 feet away from some houses. The structure would be visible from some distance and would likely reflect freeway noise into the surrounding neighborhoods.
Opposition: Strong and unified opposition from Neartown neighborhoods.
Support: None.
Richmond
What it is: A four-lane major arterial lined with businesses and multi-family residences.
Who controls it: City of Houston.
Implementation: The plan is to keep all traffic lanes and permit left turns at all intersections. Since the street right-of-way is narrower east of Shepherd than to the west, some right-of-way is required at stations and at left turn lanes to achieve this: a discontinuous strip 5 feet or less on one side of the street or the other, affecting a minority of the properties along the street.
Cost: Acceptable.
Ridership: High.
Impacts: Restricted left turns into some businesses; some property takings.
Opposition: Opposition from businesses on Richmond based on fears of construction impacts and limited access.
Support: Organized support in neighborhoods on either side of the street; institutional support from the Menil.
So what’s best?
The differences between these options in terms of ridership and cost can be considerable. Earlier this year, METRO analyzed Richmond vs. a route partially elevated along the freeway. The bottom line: the elevated option had less than half the ridership at over twice the cost.
Is there another option that METRO hasn’t considered? It’s doubtful. It may be possible to combine multiple options within this stretch, but since the north-south streets are narrow and largely residential it’s difficult to make the transition. There’s no magic bullet here.
METRO’s analysis has been pointing to a Richmond alignment in this section of the University Line. It’s easy to see why. Richmond between Shepherd and Main is not a perfect place to a light rail line. It’s narrow, construction will be painful (though there are good ways to minimize that pain), and, obviously, there’s some political opposition. But of all the options here, Richmond clearly offers the highest ridership. While it’s not necessarily the least expensive option, it’s not far from it. It has minimal impacts on residential neighborhoods. And, unlike any other option, there’s actually organized local support for it.
Comment in our forums.