—-
Today:
One METRORail line links Downtown and the Texas Medical Center. 7 METROExpress lines provide excellent service from suburban areas to Downtown. Of the 5 major activity centers in the urban core, though, 3 have no high-quality transit links at all.

—-
The beginning of an urban system:
METRO Solutions BRT service promises will begin to build an urban network, linking UH/TSU as well as several neighborhoods to Downtown. The Uptown line connects the Uptown area to 4 Westside METROExpress lines. New commuter rail lines augment METROExpress. But without an east-west line, there’s no service to Greenway Plaza and no link between Post Oak and the other activity centers.

—-
A key link:
The University Line provides a key east-west connection, connecting Uptown to the system, adding service to Greenway Plaza, and better linking UH/TSU. But this system involves a great many transfers – two between Downtown and Post Oak, for example – and it misses some potential connections.

—-
The “connected” University Line:
The connectivity of the University line is greatly enhanced with 4 key upgrades: through-running onto the Uptown line (for nonstop service to Uptown), track connections to the Main Street line (for nonstop service to Downtown and the TMC), an eastern extension (for connections to METROExpress, commuter rail, and the East End line), and a western extension (for future expansion and for better bus connections). These enable more convenient trips between activity centers (Downtown-Post Oak is now a 1-seat ride), better connections between lines (East End to Uptown, for example), more suburb-activity center commute possibilities (Gulf Freeway to UH or Greenway), and additional circulator service (within Uptown).

—-
An interim step:
It is possible that funding constrains will preclude construction or operation of the full “connected” University Line. But it is important not to let such constraints hobble the system permanently. By implementing the connections that give the “highest bang for the buck” and designing the system so as to allow future construction and operation of the others (by adding track connections even if they will not yet carry service, by designing terminal stations so as to allow expansion, and by planning and reserving right-of-way for extensions), we can make sure the system will be able to meet future demands.

—-
Decisions that are being made now and the concrete that will be poured shortly will shape the future of transit in Houston for decades. We are building a system, not a cluster of individual lines. Systems are measured by their connectivity. The University Line must be design to effectively connect to other transit corridors to enable the maximum number of trips, maximize the potential of other transit investments, and make service as convenient as possible for the public.

—-
I submitted a longer version (1.5 MB pdf) of the above to METRO today as part of the scoping process for the University Line.

And if you want that process to continue you might want to tell John Culberson, who seems to want to stop it right now. And be sure to attend METRO’s meetings next week where they will present drawings showing some of the options for the University Line. And you can always make unofficial comments in our forums.

The ITC is an important aspect of the revised METRO Solutions plan unveiled in June. This is where the Main Street light rail line, Bus Rapid Transit lines to the North Side, Harrisburg, and Southeast, and a commuter rail line to Cypress along US290 come together: probably the busiest transfer station in the new system.

The ITC is also the heir of a vision Downtown groups have been pushing since at least 2003: a new transit center where light rail, commuter rail, Amtrak, local buses, and long-distance buses come together. This would solve several problems:

• the Greyhound station, which Midtown interests feel discourages development, would be removed.
• the Amtrak station and its rail line, which stand in the way of redeveloping the Downtown post office and the Buffalo Bayou Partnership’s plan for a new bayou channel , could be removed.
• local buses could be rerouted from downtown streets.
• The Houston Airport System could address congestion at the airport by building a satellite terminal with parking, transit access, and baggage check-in counters, connected to the airport by shuttle bus.

The ITC is also a redevelopment opportunity. The adjacent Hardy Yards, once a major Southern Pacific Railroad locomotive maintenance facility, has been sold to private developers. So have the Missouri-Kansas-Texas yards on the other side of Main Street.

Last year, the Houston Downtown Management District lead a study (more details here) to determine the site and scope of an intermodal center, with funding provided by TXDOT, the City of Houston, METRO, the Downtown Management District, the Main Street Coalition, and the Midtown Management District. By a public meeting in August, that study had gotten as far as evaluating sites and recommending the north side of Downtown. At some point last year, though, the study seems to have been taken over by METRO. Meanwhile, last year’s federal transportation bill included a $500,000 earmark for the center, and METRO acquired $14.7 million of land near the site.

The real question remains: what will this center look like, and what functions will it serve? LRT, BRT, and commuter rail is a given. But those modes require no facilities beyond tracks, driveways, platforms, some shelters, benches, and ticket machines. That doesn’t explain the $150 million price tag mentioned in the Chronicle article. A bus station doesn’t add that much cost, either: McAllen built a new local and long-distance bus station with 14 bus bays, 14 ticket counters, and a 250-seat waiting room for $4.8 million (see this intermodal study pdf).

$150 million might be an appropriate price tag for a transportation facility combined with commercial development such as retail, restaurants, offices, and apartments. That could make a lot of sense in a location with excellent transit access, daily crowds of commuters passing through, and a strategic location near downtown and the Hardy Yards redevelopment. But, as with METRO’s joint development projects at the Texas Medical Center and the Cypress Park and Ride, that funding should come from private sources.

Regardless, the Grand Central Station comparison is off the mark. For one thing, Houston already had a Grand Central Station (picture below, from Steve Baron’s Houston Electric), on the site of today’s downtown post office and served by Southern Pacific trains and local streetcars. Beyond that, Houston will never have anything like New York’s Grand Central Terminal, a commuter rail terminal / subway station / shopping mall that serves 500,000 subway riders and commuter rail passengers daily in a grand historic landmark (and most of those passengers don’t even pass through the grand waiting room). What we need to make comparisons to is places like the intermodal center in Fort Worth, the commuter rail – light rail transfer at Mountain View, CA, and the transit-oriented development at Mockingbird Station in Dallas.

When it opens by 2012, the Intermodal Center will be an important link in Houston’s transit system. It may also be an architecturally impressive landmark. But we need to keep in mind that the former is what matters. The goal should be to build something that will be convenient for riders, useful for the city, and affordable.

Discuss this post in the CTC forums.

I was the only air traveler on my 6:00 pm Friday northbound run. The bus was fairly full, but at least half of the travelers got off at Greenspoint and most of the rest at other local stops. A few airport employees did ride all the way with me, and more got on the bus at the apartments.

If I end up in a conversation with someone about rail transit, odds are good that they will tell me we need trains to the airports. METRO responded to this demand, as have many other transit authorities, by including both airports in the 2025 METRORail plan. The paradox is that, by the numbers, trains to airports don’t make much sense. Many business flyers can put airport taxis on their expense accounts; leisure travelers are coming from home with many bags and it’s much more convenient to take a car. Even the best airport rail connections (Washington National, Atlanta, Chicago) serve only 10-15% of travelers, and many more people travel to Uptown, the Medical Center, or Downtown daily than travel to the airport. But perception matters, too, and the public’s perception is that airport service is important.
So here’s my question: why wait for a train in 2025? METRO could, at relatively low cost, implement a true airport express service. It might loop through Downtown, taking in the convention center, Houston Center, and the highrise district, and connecting to METRORail at the Downtown Transit Center, Then it would take the Hardy Toll Road straight to the airport, serving all terminals. The result would be a nice 30 minute ride to the airport, right now. (1)

Austin has an airport bus like this; they use dedicated busses with a big purple plane painted on the side. Marketing – not just the painted busses but a spiffy name, signs in the airport, a prominent link on the web site, ads in visitors’ guides, and a notation on the systems maps at METRORail trains and stations – would not only attract more riders, but demonstrate to the public that METRO is trying to meet their needs.

I’d love to take the train to the airport. But that’s not going to happen for a while. What’s keeping us from doing now what we can do now with the facilities we have?

Discuss this post in the CTC forums.

As of yet, we know very little about how METRO’s transit system would actually operate once the pre-2011 Solutions expansion is complete. But we do know that it could involve a lot of transfers. Here’s Metro’s map, with the simplest routing. Each color corresponds to a route. If two stations aren’t on line of the same color, you have to transfer; if they are, you can catch a through train/bus.

It’s not hard to see the problem with this scheme:

These numerous transfers come about because this scheme flies in the face of accepted transit wisdom: all lines in a system should converge on a central transfer zone, so that every trip can be done with one transfer. Furthermore, that central transfer zone should be the most important destination in the system, so that the maximum number of passengers won’t have to transfer at all. New York, for example, has 468 subway stations, of which only 12 do not offer direct service to either Midtown or Downtown Manhattan. London Underground is among the world’s most complex transit systems, with 12 lines and two dozen transfer stations in central London, yet upwards of two thirds of Tube passengers complete their journeys on one line.

What can we do to make METRORail (and METROBRT, or whatever it will be called) more like those systems? Four ideas:

(1) Combine the North and Southeast lines into one through service

(2) Add a connection track so that trains to and from the western end of the East-West line can run onto the Main Street Line towards Downtown

(3) Add a connection track so that trains to and from the eastern end of the East-West line can run onto the Main Street Line towards the Texas Medical Center

(4) Extend light rail overhead wire (the tracks, remember, will already be there) 1 1/2 mles north along the Uptown line so that light rail trains will run into Post Oak, not near it. Light rail trains can share the lane with BRT busses.

Better, right? Item (1) is probably free to implement, (2) and (3) can be done for the cost of a few switches and a few yards of track, and (4) costs perhaps $50 million. All in all, that’s a 5% increase in the cost of the LRT/BRT plan for a huge increase in rider convenience.

Operations planning – schedules and routes – for a transit system is usually not done until the system is under construction. But track connections and station layouts are set in concrete before then, and if they are not designed to allow through trains there will never be through trains. Thus, it makes sense to build the connections even if they won’t be used right away. The most important point, though, is that METRO needs to be thinking about this now, not later.

Discuss this post in the CTC forums.

type	local bus	BRT “lite”	full BRT	light rail
example	Houston 2 Bellaire	Los Angeles Rapid	Cleveland Euclid Corridor	Houston METRORail
stations with shelters and seating	sometimes	yes	yes	yes
	Shelters = a place to sit in the shade and out of the rain while you wait.
ticket machines at stations	no	no	yes	yes
	Ticket machines = you can board at any door and you won’t be held up while somebody fumbles for change.
simple routes and distinctive vehicles	no	yes	yes	yes
	Simple routes = you know you’re getting on the right bus without having to remember numbers.
traffic light priority	no	yes	yes	yes
	Traffic light priority = you get there faster.
reserved lanes	no	no	yes	yes
	Reserved lanes = you’ll be at your destination in the same time at nay time of day, regardless of traffic.
frequency of service	irregular	5-15 min.	5-15 min.	5-15 min.
	Frequent service = you can show up at the stop without checking a schedule and you’ll be on your way soon.

By no stretch of the imagination is “BRT lite” a light rail equivalent service. Full BRT is pretty close, though (light rail still has higher capacity and a smoother ride). The question is: which are we getting?

METRO says its BRT will be rail-ready, with the tracks already laid in the ground. That implies that the alignment will be to light rail standards, with reserved lanes, traffic light priority, and so forth. This should mean we’re getting full BRT, not “BRT lite”.

But the difference is in the details, and the kind of service we get will be determined by decisions made as design progresses. METRO may compromise in response to budget and community concerns, or they may hold firm to the goal of light rail equivalent service. For example, residents along Scott Street are worried both about traffic impacts from removing car lanes and impact on houses from widening the street. METRO might respond by having busses and cars share a lane, pleasing some residents but delivering an inferior transit system. Another instance: light rail can’t cross railroad lines at grade, but BRT can. Does “rail-ready” mean that the required overpasses will be built right away, or will METRO save money by postponing them, leaving busses stuck behind crossing gates and making conversion to rail more difficult?

Fundamentally, few people care about bus vs. rail. That’s a debate for politicians and transportation geeks. What riders care about is how soon their ride gets there, how comfortable it is, and how quickly they will get where they are going. That’s the bottom line, and that’s how this plan should be judged.

Discuss this post in the CTC forums.