Jump to content

METRORail Purple Line


Houstonian in Iraq

Recommended Posts

The Southeast line, which would run through the Third Ward from downtown to Palm Center, has generated relatively little controversy compared with the ongoing debate over a route for the planned University light rail line.

That's surprising, considering that building the Southeast line on Scott, Wheeler, Martin Luther King Boulevard and Griggs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's a tough call.

Scott Street down to Griggs is the right place to put it, but there's a lot of opposition from those that live along Scott Street between Wheeler and Griggs.

Unlike Afton Oaks, where residents might lose a 1-3 ft strip from their yards, I think that Metro would have to take a row of homes on both sides of Scott to make this work. The houses along there are probably 10 feet from the ROW (that's my guesstimate), so any widening is going to require not just property, but probably the loss of the entire house.

As much as I understand the opposition to taking those houses, I still say Scott Street to Griggs (rather than Wheeler to MLK through MacGregor Park) is the right route for the line.

It's a mistake to miss the OST/Scott intersection, plain and simple. In the event that the Wheeler/MLK route is chosen, Metro apparently plans to run "signature bus" service along Scott and OST, but it's not the same.

As one of the speakers at last week's forum said (paraphrasing), we're building this rail line for the ages. This system will last for 200 years, so don't let the politics of a handful of current residents determine the route. Put it where it needs to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been known for a while now that the people living in the Southeast area are as they were before and thats in favor of rail and expanded mobility options. I still say that METRO should proceed with LRT instead of that gloried bus service they are proposing. To say that the ridership levels are the reason LRT isnt being implemented is stupid and im not buying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite know if Delay is the blame for this particular problem of their needing to increase their numbers. A few years ago, it was practially a done deal that they would get rail.

But if this means that this will increase the number of lines gets, then I would be all for it. I do agree that an OST line is sorely needed in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a mistake to miss the OST/Scott intersection, plain and simple. In the event that the Wheeler/MLK route is chosen, Metro apparently plans to run "signature bus" service along Scott and OST, but it's not the same.

That's my basic stance. If they hit OST/Scott then they'll have ridership in the area south of Braes Bayou that is high enough to support LRT conversion. If not, then I'd think that there might be some legitimate doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand this "doubt". This line is going in an area that is transit dependant. Looking at the number of bus routes this line will cross and help to be shortened, im not getting the doubt factor. i think it is a bunch of BS. I am starting to see a little pattern here.......

Areas that are transit dependant that were originally slated for LRT are now being presented with BRT or GRT or whatever other colorful term they use to call these glorified busses. These very same areas are mostly populated by brown skinned and black skinned people. Just what the hell is going on here? Areas that are transit dependant, but not dependant enough to receive LRT? Its a bunch of BS and im not buying it!

Every single line that was slated for LRT that will now not be getting it is mostly populated by brown skinned and black skinned people, many of which are transit dependant.

METRO is going to have to come up with a better line than the one they are towing. The current line doesnt pass the sniff test!!!

Is anyone else seeing the same pattern? Are the heavily transit dependant areas not worthy of LRT from the start?

Garbage!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a list of the current bus lines that will come into contact with the Southeast Line outside of the downtown area busses.

5 Southmore

26 Outer Loop

27 Inner Loop

29 TSU/UofH

36 Lawndale

30 Cullen

40 Telephone RD

42 Holman

52 Scott

60 South MacGregor

68 Brays Bayou

80 Dowling

87 Sunnyside

If the MLK routing is chosen, add the 77 MLK to the list. I think i have covered most of them. 13 or 14 bus routes, not counting the other busses the line will come into contact downtown, doesnt seem like a little feed to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my basic stance. If they hit OST/Scott then they'll have ridership in the area south of Braes Bayou that is high enough to support LRT conversion. If not, then I'd think that there might be some legitimate doubt.

During the planning meetings on the SE side there were very vocal complaints about this intersection. I remember one couple who had just opened a new business at/near the intersection and the tracks would have taken down her business. If i remember correctly there was also a pastor of some church there complaining.

I remember too many of the neighborhoods along Scott complaining about their neighborhood being divided in half or having access limited. Of course METRO officials couldn't really assuage their concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a list of the current bus lines that will come into contact with the Southeast Line outside of the downtown area busses.

5 Southmore

26 Outer Loop

27 Inner Loop

29 TSU/UofH

36 Lawndale

30 Cullen

40 Telephone RD

42 Holman

52 Scott

60 South MacGregor

68 Brays Bayou

80 Dowling

87 Sunnyside

If the MLK routing is chosen, add the 77 MLK to the list. I think i have covered most of them. 13 or 14 bus routes, not counting the other busses the line will come into contact downtown, doesnt seem like a little feed to me.

That also means the 52 Scott will be eliminated in this corridor and curtailed to terminate at the OST/Scott transfer center as another Sunnyside circulator. Plus it would be split in three routes: the route number would have to be changed for McGowen and 52 Hirsch cuz that will terminate outside UH/TSU. And if MLK is chosen, don't even think about riding 77 MLK downtown along the Gulf because that will be gone if the BRT comes thru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single line that was slated for LRT that will now not be getting it is mostly populated by brown skinned and black skinned people, many of which are transit dependant.

METRO is going to have to come up with a better line than the one they are towing. The current line doesnt pass the sniff test!!!

Is anyone else seeing the same pattern? Are the heavily transit dependant areas not worthy of LRT from the start?

Garbage!!!!!!!!

The Uptown line will also be BRT. There may be many different colored skins there but mostly "blue blood".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The University Line was projected to have over 15,000 riders per day....double the next most popular line. The other lines were proposed as BRT because METRO feared that the proposed ridership on those lines would not qualify them for FTA funding.

There are no criteria for the race of proposed riders...or income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand this "doubt". This line is going in an area that is transit dependant. Looking at the number of bus routes this line will cross and help to be shortened, im not getting the doubt factor. i think it is a bunch of BS. I am starting to see a little pattern here.......

Areas that are transit dependant that were originally slated for LRT are now being presented with BRT or GRT or whatever other colorful term they use to call these glorified busses. These very same areas are mostly populated by brown skinned and black skinned people. Just what the hell is going on here? Areas that are transit dependant, but not dependant enough to receive LRT? Its a bunch of BS and im not buying it!

Every single line that was slated for LRT that will now not be getting it is mostly populated by brown skinned and black skinned people, many of which are transit dependant.

METRO is going to have to come up with a better line than the one they are towing. The current line doesnt pass the sniff test!!!

Is anyone else seeing the same pattern? Are the heavily transit dependant areas not worthy of LRT from the start?

Garbage!!!!!!!!

Si basura!

Houston1stWordOnTheMoon you should go speak before METRO's Board of Directors. Make sure and call me if you do, i'll be right behind you. i'd love to see their faces. a few years ago i sent a letter to city council on another METRO topic and i got to meet Ms. DiLibero herself. I think she wears Depends now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the planning meetings on the SE side there were very vocal complaints about this intersection. I remember one couple who had just opened a new business at/near the intersection and the tracks would have taken down her business. If i remember correctly there was also a pastor of some church there complaining.

I remember too many of the neighborhoods along Scott complaining about their neighborhood being divided in half or having access limited. Of course METRO officials couldn't really assuage their concerns.

There are definitely access problems for some of the neighborhoods along Scott Street. There are a few streets (Ruth, Blodgett, Wentworth and Arbor) that are dead end streets east of Scott. The proposed LRT/BRT could definitely give them some serious access problems unless existing median cuts are left open there.

As far as the taking of land goes...I understand the fear and irritation of those that would be affected, but at the same time, I don't think you should let the concerns of a relatively few residents and business owners outweigh a route that would provide greater benefit to the public as a whole.

The Scott-Griggs-Palm Center alignment would require more property acquisition than the Scott-Wheeler-MLK-Palm Center alignment, and much has been made of that fact. However, let's look at the numbers for a second:

Scott-Griggs-Palm Center - requires acquisition of 127 whole parcels and 138 partial parcels; requires relocation of 91 residences and 78 businesses. Total length = 6.84 miles.

Scott-Wheeler-MLK-Palm Center - requires acquisition of 93 whole parcels and 110 partial parcels; requires relocation of 64 residences and 35 businesses. Total length = 6.03 miles.

Therefore Scott-Griggs-Palm Center requires acquisition of 18.6 whole parcels/mile, and 20.2 partial parcels/mile. There will be 13.3 residences lost/mile and 11.4 businesses lost/mile.

The Scott-Wheeler-MLK-Palm Center route requires acquisition of 15.4 whole parcels/mile, and 18.2 partial parcels/mile. There will be 10.6 residences lost/mile and 5.8 businesses lost/mile.

The bottom line is: relatively equal land, homes and businesses will be lost regardless of which alternative is selected. Therefore, why not choose the alternative that will serve the most riders and allows for the greatest stimulation of development. That would be the alternative that delivers riders one block from OST/Scott...the Scott-Griggs-Palm Center alignment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is: relatively equal land, homes and businesses will be lost regardless of which alternative is selected. Therefore, why not choose the alternative that will serve the most riders and allows for the greatest stimulation of development. That would be the alternative that delivers riders one block from OST/Scott...the Scott-Griggs-Palm Center alignment!

Cause the other people were more vocal against the route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other lines were proposed as BRT because METRO feared that the proposed ridership on those lines would not qualify them for FTA funding.

Like the successful Red Line? Part of its success rest on the fact that it acts as a "hub and spoke" system with various bus routes that forces some riders onto the LRT. The same thing will happen with the SE line and the Eastend line. The argument METRO is using to justify those glorified busses is weak, stupid and it stinks!

With the proposed line for the BRT i would be one very pissed off pappa to have my home and or property taken away inorder to make way for a different type of bus instead of the trains i voted for. If the people in the SE corridor are not worthy enough for trains, trash the entire project altogether. I will not support the removal of personal property inorder to make way for busses. Im not comfortable with the promise to upgrade to LRT when METRO thinks it is ready. The BS is knee deep and rising.

To Musicman-- It would not be a good idea for me to speak at these meetings. If you havent noticed, i dont give a damn about diplomacy or feelings when i believe in something that i think is right. I will leave that to others that have those talents. I dont possess them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see why all these parcels are needed. Ive seen preliminary schematics for Wheeler and i believe only 6 feet of new ROW needs to be taken. Unless they are planning to make Scott or Wheeler grand boulevards with grand oak trees lining the rail line, why is so much land needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the issue is the fact that some of the homes are right up against the sidewalks. If some row is needed that that would impact quite a distance, but it would basically make that parcel of land unusuable.

My only real concern is the trees that are located above the power lines, I hope that the wires would be strong enough to withstand a few of those branches falling during a good storm. Heaven forbid a tree should fall. If that were to happen, i'm sure they can get it back up and running in under 24 hrs.

Then again, if we had a storm powerful enough to blow down a few trees, I don't think anyone would be going anywhere regularly for a couple of days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
Its been known for a while now that the people living in the Southeast area are as they were before and thats in favor of rail and expanded mobility options. I still say that METRO should proceed with LRT instead of that gloried bus service they are proposing. To say that the ridership levels are the reason LRT isnt being implemented is stupid and im not buying it.

A report METRO has online says the reason is because the FTA gave them a MID-LOW evaluation and that for LRT to be implemented, it must have a MID-HIGH rating.

--------------

I was reading the GRT (Guided Rapid Transit) document because I was confused as to what GRT and BRT exactly were. LRT and BRT fall under the umbrella of GRT; they both can be guided.

After looking at this document, it seems to me that BRT is a better choice for short distances. Why spend millions more if BRT will do the same job?

So what are the advantages of LRT over BRT anyway? I think long distance, LRT would be a better option, but not short. Is LRT that much quicker in speed or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at this document, it seems to me that BRT is a better choice for short distances. Why spend millions more if BRT will do the same job?

BRT is cheaper short or long route. Since both are on dedicated paths, i'm not sure why you believe BRT is better only for short distances.

So what are the advantages of LRT over BRT anyway? I think long distance, LRT would be a better option, but not short. Is LRT that much quicker in speed or what?

There are really no advantages. BRT is way cheaper per mile and requires less maintainance. No speed difference because they both have dedicated paths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BRT is cheaper short or long route. Since both are on dedicated paths, i'm not sure why you believe BRT is better only for short distances.

I thought BRT is better short distance (for instance inside the loop) because there might be more stops and what's the point of LRT if it's going to stop so frequently?

And LRT would be better long distance (further out to the suburbs) because of fewer stops and it could go faster.

But I'm only for BRT if they intend to give it dedicated lanes where other cars wouldn't have the ability to get in them. I'm not for just bus lanes in which cars could get in the way. It just seems like a waste of space.

But they do intend to give BRT dedicated paths don't they since they plan on converting it to LRT when ridership demands it?

Does LRT have an advantage b/c of more possible seats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought BRT is better short distance (for instance inside the loop) because there might be more stops and what's the point of LRT if it's going to stop so frequently?

And LRT would be better long distance (further out to the suburbs) because of fewer stops and it could go faster.

But I'm only for BRT if they intend to give it dedicated lanes where other cars wouldn't have the ability to get in them. I'm not for just bus lanes in which cars could get in the way. It just seems like a waste of space.

But they do intend to give BRT dedicated paths don't they since they plan on converting it to LRT when ridership demands it?

Does LRT have an advantage b/c of more possible seats?

design determines number of stops. has nothing to do with type of vehicles.

BRT and LRT have dedicated lanes by definition...however the current light rail system interacts with traffic therefore hi speeds cannot be achieved.

more seats perhaps but more cost as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

design determines number of stops. has nothing to do with type of vehicles.

BRT and LRT have dedicated lanes by definition...however the current light rail system interacts with traffic therefore hi speeds cannot be achieved.

more seats perhaps but more cost as well.

I must not be explaining myself very well.

In a place that's more dense like inside the loop, there would be more stops. I'm not saying just because BRT is being used that there will be more stops. I'm simply saying you would think there'd be more stops inside the city because of its density, and therefore higher speeds wouldn't happen and LRT's higher potential speeds wouldn't be necessary.

And yes, by defintion they have dedicated lanes. But are there places where they actually will? If so, especially if they're to go out to the suburbs, LRT would be more efficient. Since you would think there'd be less stops, LRT, if it has a dedicated lane, would have the ability to achieve it's quicker/faster speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must not be explaining myself very well.

In a place that's more dense like inside the loop, there would be more stops. I'm not saying just because BRT is being used that there will be more stops. I'm simply saying you would think there'd be more stops inside the city because of its density, and therefore higher speeds wouldn't happen and LRT's higher potential speeds wouldn't be necessary.

And yes, by defintion they have dedicated lanes. But are there places where they actually will? If so, especially if they're to go out to the suburbs, LRT would be more efficient. Since you would think there'd be less stops, LRT, if it has a dedicated lane, would have the ability to achieve it's quicker/faster speeds.

The way that LRT and BRT have and will be implemented in Houston, there are essentially no differences in levels of service. LRT vehicles can be hooked together and provide more seats, but most of the time that is not justified by ridership...and it almost certainly won't be justified for routes to Magnolia Transit Center or out to Griggs...of course, it remains to be seen how they'll change up the bus routes, so take that conclusion with a grain of salt. There are differences in capital and operating costs per passenger, however. BRT has the advantage in each.

METRO did a study several years ago to assess the business community's perceptions of LRT vs. BRT and found that developers preferred having LRT. It has a 'cool factor' associated with it that is apparently not captured by operating and cost characteristics alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way that LRT and BRT have and will be implemented in Houston, there are essentially no differences in levels of service. LRT vehicles can be hooked together and provide more seats, but most of the time that is not justified by ridership...and it almost certainly won't be justified for routes to Magnolia Transit Center or out to Griggs...of course, it remains to be seen how they'll change up the bus routes, so take that conclusion with a grain of salt. There are differences in capital and operating costs per passenger, however. BRT has the advantage in each.

METRO did a study several years ago to assess the business community's perceptions of LRT vs. BRT and found that developers preferred having LRT. It has a 'cool factor' associated with it that is apparently not captured by operating and cost characteristics alone.

Although I can understand and associate with the 'cool factor', it's just stupid.

I think it would be best to implement the BRT and when congestion and necessity to ride it come, the 'cool factor' won't be a factor at all.

And the fact that they're pretty much the same in terms of getting people around at the same rate and have the same ammenities like same grade entry, makes me wonder why METRO only plans on eventually building LRT when ridership 'demands it,' as if LRT has some kind of advantage.

Would LRT produce less pollution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must not be explaining myself very well.

In a place that's more dense like inside the loop, there would be more stops. I'm not saying just because BRT is being used that there will be more stops. I'm simply saying you would think there'd be more stops inside the city because of its density, and therefore higher speeds wouldn't happen and LRT's higher potential speeds wouldn't be necessary.

And yes, by defintion they have dedicated lanes. But are there places where they actually will? If so, especially if they're to go out to the suburbs, LRT would be more efficient. Since you would think there'd be less stops, LRT, if it has a dedicated lane, would have the ability to achieve it's quicker/faster speeds.

because a place is dense doesn't mean there are more stops. The more stops there are then the more like normal bus service it is. I think rail should augment current bus service vs. replace it. if you need to go a short distance on main then take a bus....if you need to go farther, then hop on the rail because there are less stops and hence it would be faster. Some of the stops are just too close which causes longer travel times.

stops are placed by design. METRO's design was to get rid of main street bus service and use light rail like a bus going along at slower speeds.

The BRT will have it's own lane but the advantages (faster travel times) will be lost because it will be intermingling with

vehicular traffic. Commit that to memory!

You have stated that LRT would be more efficient if it goes to the suburbs. I will reiterate. METRO's design is to use the rail as a bus replacement with numerous stops. Therefore your statement saying there will be LESS stops in the burbs is not correct based on their design of the preliminary line. The dedicated lane CAN result in quicker faster speeds IF it does not intermingle with vehicular traffic which is a design issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would LRT produce less pollution?

I would imagine so, but it's hard for me to make a comparison because I'm not an engineer. Both vehicles require energy to operate, so some amount of pollution is going to be released, whether from an internal combustion engine or at a power plant feeding the grid. The important difference, I suppose, is that BRT releases its pollution along the route, whereas LRT's pollution effects are at the power plant, which is usually somewhat more isolated from urban areas. So I'd expect that the advantage would go to LRT on the pollution issue.

Does that mean that it's worth the extra cost? Well that, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BRT will have it's own lane but the advantages (faster travel times) will be lost because it will be intermingling with

vehicular traffic. Commit that to memory!

I thought what makes BRT different from just regular buses is that it's separate from other traffic? It may not be physically separate, with curbs on each side, but it will at least have it's own lane in which other vehicles will not be permitted.

Plus, just like LRT, it will have technology that will signal to stop lights to give it the right-away to crossing traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...