METRORail Green Line

[102IAHexpress]

You're right about Hotel Alessandra. Forgot about that one.

 

The Skyhouses I say yes, you can attribute them to the rail.

 

609 Main. Yeah, I have to give you that one.

 

Hines Market Square. I think's that's more attributable to the park.

 

 

[j_cuevas713]

 

In the past 10 years there has been very little new construction development along the rail line. But please correct me if I'm wrong. The Red Line for example...You said there's a ton, okay name a few. The CVS on Main and Elgin, Skyhouse Houston....What else?

 

Seriously what have you been smoking? That list right above me says it all. All spurred by the Red Line alone. Even the developers of the new Skanska tower said that the Houston Club site was prime to it's proximity to the Red Line. So unless you want every developer to build right on the damn thing, there have been ton's of developments created by the Red Line. MATCH, Mid-Main, the new Midtown Park and Camden's new development to name a few. Not all of these projects are right on the rail. Developers are also building in proximity to it, that's just common sense.

 

Edited June 17, 2015 by j_cuevas713

[samagon]

It's false because you attribute the development to the light rail lines.

 

Catalyst: Not on the rail line.

Finger Ballpark Apartments: Not on the rail line

JW Marriot Hotel. Yes on the Rail line but, not new development. Redevelopment kick started with CoH subsidies and other public funding.

 

I can keep going?

How can you not?

 

Take a look at this development map:

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2015-04-08/150408_Development_Map__Renders_11X17.pdf

 

There is a white dotted line north/south, and two red dotted lines east/west. I assume you will agree that these represent the paths of the light rail through down town.

 

On that map there are city blocks colored blue, these indicate residential housing. which in and of itself isn't a big deal, COH gave a truckload of money to developers to build residential in downtown. HOWEVER...

 

Count how many there are total. 20, I count 20 residential downtown construction projects either planned/under construction/or complete. I assume you will agree, because it's a fact.

 

Now, let's look at how many of these are directly adjacent to a light rail line, that is, they are on the same street as a current light rail line. 9 that is fact. 45% of the new residential construction is on the same street as a light rail line. 

 

Now, let's expand a bit and look at how many are within 2 blocks of a light rail line (2 blocks is more than an acceptable distance to walk to get to fixed guideway mass transit). 13 that is fact. 65% of the new residential construction is within 2 blocks of a light rail line.

 

This is not coincidence, this is not because there is no where else to build, this is not because all empty lots are within 2 blocks of light rail. This is because the developers valued placing the residential sites close to fixed guideway mass transit.

 

I'll add that there are 8 hotels in downtown that are either planned/under construction/or complete. 7 of them (87.5%) are on the same street as light rail. all 8 of them (100%) are within 2 blocks of light rail.

 

This is played out over and over on the established portion of the red line, go to Midtown and look at where all the residential construction is. Near light rail. Go to the museum district, same thing. New residential up and down the corridor, planned/under construction/or complete.

 

Are there any explanations that you can provide that makes the fact that all of this residential that is planned/under construction/completed within 2 blocks of light rail is just a coincidence? What is the real catalyst that is causing all of this construction around the rail line, if it isn't the rail line?

 

This is a 10 year lag on when the south portion of the red line was completed and in service, you'll see the same level of construction on the north red, green and purple lines in the same time frame. Quote this text, and set a reminder in your google calendar to revisit this thread in 10 years.

Edited June 17, 2015 by samagon

[102IAHexpress]

The light rail line existed for a long a time and there was not much development along it. But as soon as the city offers subsidies and tax breaks we get more interest from developers. 

 

I agree with the list. It's impressive. You've convinced me. There is more development. I never said there was zero development just not much. And my biggest question mark was what was the factor in all this. Was it really the light rail line? Like I said it existed for years, and in fact the light rail line was the cause of business failing on Main street, or was it the tax breaks?

 

Are we going to have to offer more tax breaks so there can be more development along the rail line?

[BigFootsSocks]

It's false because you attribute the development to the light rail lines.

Catalyst: Not on the rail line.

Finger Ballpark Apartments: Not on the rail line

JW Marriot Hotel. Yes on the Rail line but, not new development. Redevelopment kick started with CoH subsidies and other public funding.

I can keep going?

I never said I attributed their development to the rail lines. Nice try, though. Your entire first couple of posts were about the success of these lines. You stated that you saw no one on the tram at the specific time that you rode it, and thus deemed it a failure, somehow. I refuted that claim with numerous specific examples of development proceeding in the vicinity of these lines, in hopes that you could put two & two together; i.e., more development, more population.

I NEVER said these lines jump started those developments. I simply listed many projects, specifically residential, that will spur population growth and usage of this line.

The light rail line existed for a long a time and there was not much development along it. But as soon as the city offers subsidies and tax breaks we get more interest from developers.

I agree with the list. It's impressive. You've convinced me. There is more development. I never said there was zero development just not much. And my biggest question mark was what was the factor in all this. Was it really the light rail line? Like I said it existed for years, and in fact the light rail line was the cause of business failing on Main street, or was it the tax breaks?

Are we going to have to offer more tax breaks so there can be more development along the rail line?

Not only did you not say there was zero development, you said the lines were "pushing away development"...

[cloud713]

i think i see the problem here guys.. he thinks the Red line is a "disaster" too. if thats a disaster to him then i can totally see how he would think the green/purple lines are disasters. but the red line is one of the most successful light rail lines in the country (the most successful modern day line i believe?).

for the record.. its a damn shame they couldn't have separated train traffic with vehicle traffic through downtown. or figured out a way to time the lights on those two streets for better flow when the trains are approaching/rolling through. that, along with Central Station are the two main screw ups i see with the line. though i wish they could have invested that $40 million surplus into a Buffalo Bayou station (it would appease the desire for a station by the courts too), and trail access point.

[BigFootsSocks]

i think i see the problem here guys.. he thinks the Red line is a "disaster" too. if thats a disaster to him then i can totally see how he would think the green/purple lines are disasters. but the red line is one of the most successful light rail lines in the country (the most successful modern day line i believe?).

for the record.. its a damn shame they couldn't have separated train traffic with vehicle traffic through downtown. or figured out a way to time the lights on those two streets for better flow when the trains are approaching/rolling through. that, along with Central Station are the two main screw ups i see with the line. though i wish they could have invested that $40 million surplus into a Buffalo Bayou station (it would appease the desire for a station by the courts too), and trail access point.

I'm almost positive it has the highest ridership per mile.

Anyway, as for the lights, we knew that this was going to be an issue, and I'm sure METRO is on top of this. Most intersections call for a year long traffic flow study to determine the volume of cars passing through each direction of the intersection, so this new team line brings up a new way of studying traffic flow. Like I've said, it's only been a month. Give it time, and I'm sure they'll figure out the most efficient ways of getting them through downtown.

We also have to remember that we're still down approximately 20 new trams, so wait times will definitely be an issue for the year.

I don't really have an issue with the lines running down driver lanes; I think it won't be an issue when people get used to them and just slow the hell down.

[102IAHexpress]

The ridership for the Red Light rail line is very high compared to other light rail lines on a per mile basis. True.

 

But the light rail line replaced busses that carried those same passengers. Buses with high ridership that connected the major economic centers of the city. But now we actually only have a few more passengers along the same route that was previously supported by all those buses, but at cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. Is that really a success?

 

What about all the businesses that failed along the red line early on in the first years of the Red Line? All the developments that avoided the Red Line? The lives lost in fatalities. The tax breaks and subsidies in order to have new development along the line...

[cspwal]

The ridership numbers compared to replaced busses are something I hear sometimes, but I've never seen references. Which lines were eliminated when the red line opened? How do you find historical ridership data for them?

[BigFootsSocks]

Are you serious? Lives lost? Really?? It's a FVKING TRAIN.

As for businesses that didn't make it; no one was building during the recession. I don't think it's fair to use that as an example because now we do see development along this route.

[BigFootsSocks]

Tax subsidies aren't anything new and are awarded to developments nowhere near these lines.

[Slick Vik]

lol haha

Yall are too funny. I said what I said. nobody has proved me wrong. including Samagon.

I never said failure, you can put words in my mouth but that only proves you more wrong.

In any event.

I hope it's not a failure. Unlike most of the 281'ers on here, I actually live and work in downtown. I need it to be a success. I really do. But I don't think it will be.

The fact that the line is one month old means nothing. The line should at least be carrying as many people as the busses it replaced. Metro didn't plan well. I'm Not shocked. It's Metro. You all can try to defend Metro but it seriously only makes you look more foolish.

Also that fact that it's a half mile walk from the last station to the CoH courts is not a huge deal in itself. It's that it's not that safe. I'm not even sure how you can cross capitol near the overpass without jaywalking. what if you're in a wheelchair? What if it's night time (the city has night court) makes the cross even more dangerous.

Point is Metro could have offered a useful station in front of the courts for it's citizens, but like always they drop the ball. It's not about me. I will be just fine. I own a car. But what about those who truly rely on Metro? Remember, one of the intended purposes of Metro is to provide transportation options for the mobility impaired and for those without the economic means to move around easily. A station in front of the Hobby Center does not help them.

Not safe? Give me a break. Also half a mile walk is reasonable to a reliable train station.

[BigFootsSocks]

Get'em Slick

[102IAHexpress]

Yes. I'm serious about lives lost. A lot of pedestrian fatalities.

 

No new development along the rail line in the first few years is one thing. But i'm talking about the businesses that existed along the line that failed after the line opened.

 

True, Tax Subsides are not new. But there's a tax breaks for downtown residential construction. that's a factor in new construction that cannot be ignored.

[BigFootsSocks]

do you just have a list of things you dislike about the line? Are we almost to the end of it? What else is left?

[102IAHexpress]

Not safe? Give me a break. Also half a mile walk is reasonable to a reliable train station.

 

Yes. not safe.

 

Try walking from the end/start of the line to the CoH courts. Try it. Let me know how reasonable it is for you...

[102IAHexpress]

do you just have a list of things you dislike about the line? Are we almost to the end of it? What else is left?

 

There's a lot I like about it. A lot I don't like about it. I actually use it everyday. I've been a Metro user for a long time. Longer than most probably. In my many years of being a rider I've heard a lot of Metro lies in the past. Sometimes I've seen Metro come through in the clutch.

 

I have opinions and observations over many years. But Bottom line, Metro Rail diverts a lot of funds that should go instead to our bus system, which is a system I like very much and that has a lot of potential. But I understand the problem, our city leaders want to be like SFO and NYC and have trains even though Houston is a bus city. Fine I can live with that, but then at least design a train system that benefits the city and doesn't hinder it.

 

If the rail lines were actually a catalyst for growth then developers would be fighting with each to build along it, instead the city has to beg them via tax breaks. Rail cost a lot of money for not that much more passengers versus buses. They are less flexible than busses and cannot easily adapt to changing populations centers as busses can. Light Rail especially does not blend well with shared streets with cars and often slows down traffic. Pedestrian fatalities especially with our light rail line are unusually high. All at very high cost$

 

For the money we spent on rail we could have started a revamped bus system that could have benefited the whole city. Instead we got the train of death.

 

So yes, it's been a disaster.

[BigFootsSocks]

To each his own, then. However, as to your point about developers not calling for rail, what do you say to Gerald Hines' call for more mass transit services and more rail in this city? It was mentioned a few weeks back at an event he spoke at.

I still disagree with the development issue though. It may not have to be exactly on the line, but we're still seeing a lot of new projects under construction and completed around these lines, all in the past few years, which brings me to my next point; how many boom cycles has this city gone through since the initial opening?

The recession may have hit us fairly late, but it was still a struggle to get anything developed. We're only now seeing this level of development because of the recent boom.

[KinkaidAlum]

#4? So... not the most common usage of the word?

 

LOL. Reaching a bit?

 

Google disaster, and look at the FIRST definition. That's exactly what the Red Line has been and what these new lines will be. Catastrophe that causes great damage and loss of life. Disaster is a perfect word.

 

As far as failure, I hope not. I hope they carry their expected ridership amounts, stay under budget, etc...

 

LOL.

 

I now don't think you know what exactly means either. 

 

Maybe you should have gone to Strake. 

[tigereye]

That's not poor design. There are multiple US cities that have the same design. It has to do with the fact that the train is more of a trolley for the downtown segments more than a high speed form of transportation like a subway. Look at cities like SF or Boston, they have the same design. Now as for Metro wanting a right of way and not getting city approval seems like Metro was stretching a bit.

I'm sure there is a plan to build lines further out, but for the time being, what the lines do is done well.

Thing is, we don't need a trolley. They just needed to obtain the same right-of-way as they did with the Red line and the "trolley" wouldn't face the delays it sees daily. This alone would be an improvement.

As more start to ride the new lines, I think this may become an issues that Metro eventually revisits. Luckily if the decide to revisit this, they may be able to easily create a right of way for the train by throwing up fences like on Texas Ave in front of BBVA, seperating the train from vehicular traffic.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yes. I'm serious about lives lost. A lot of pedestrian fatalities.

 

No new development along the rail line in the first few years is one thing. But i'm talking about the businesses that existed along the line that failed after the line opened.

 

True, Tax Subsides are not new. But there's a tax breaks for downtown residential construction. that's a factor in new construction that cannot be ignored.

 

Lots of pedestrian fatalities but yet you chose to DRIVE YOUR car to the courthouse?

 

Hmmm, let's compare the number of people killed by light rail with vehicular deaths. 

 

And, as for the businesses killed by the redline, that argument is stupid. Lets compare downtown and midtown today with that of the late 1990s/early 2000s. If you think downtown and midtown were better then than now...

[102IAHexpress]

To each his own, then. However, as to your point about developers not calling for rail, what do you say to Gerald Hines' call for more mass transit services and more rail in this city? It was mentioned a few weeks back at an event he spoke at.

I still disagree with the development issue though. It may not have to be exactly on the line, but we're still seeing a lot of new projects under construction and completed around these lines, all in the past few years, which brings me to my next point; how many boom cycles has this city gone through since the initial opening?

The recession may have hit us fairly late, but it was still a struggle to get anything developed. We're only now seeing this level of development because of the recent boom.

 

Hines is a major developer. True. But he is only one. But there are countless others who have put their money where their mouth is and avoided the rail all together.

 

Also even the developments that were listed before are still being designed with automobiles in the forefront. It's not like the developers are doing away with parking garages. As I mentioned before I work in Chase Tower, yet  I have never bumped into anyone on their way to or from the Tower who came from a light rail station. They all (the ones I've met) instead commute via their car or from a commuter Metro bus. Same thing in Rice Lofts. Everyone uses their cars, I've never seen one of my neighbors on the light rail.

 

In fact a lot of rail riders actually originate their journey on the bus, but are forced to transfer and feed into the light rail.

 

I'm not anti public transportation. Hines is right we need great mass transit. But that's doesn't necessarily mean a train. We have few transportation dollars, lets not squander them.

[cloud713]

Which developers have gone out of there way to "avoid rail all together"..? Sure they had to offer residential incentives to bring apartments downtown, but where are the majority of those new apartments being built? Along/near the light rail lines... They weren't forced to build there. They chose those properties..

Btw.. The Main St line has spawned well over a billion dollars in development, bringing with it a huge new tax base. If that's not enough to justify the $325 million or so cost to build it then I don't know what is..?

[cloud713]

Also even the developments that were listed before are still being designed with automobiles in the forefront. It's not like the developers are doing away with parking garages. As I mentioned before I work in Chase Tower, yet I have never bumped into anyone on their way to or from the Tower who came from a light rail station. They all (the ones I've met) instead commute via their car or from a commuter Metro bus. Same thing in Rice Lofts. Everyone uses their cars, I've never seen one of my neighbors on the light rail.

In fact a lot of rail riders actually originate their journey on the bus, but are forced to transfer and feed into the light rail.

I'm not anti public transportation. Hines is right we need great mass transit. But that's doesn't necessarily mean a train. We have few transportation dollars, lets not squander them.

Uhh.. We live in Houston? One of the most car centric cities in the country.. Of course there will still be parking garages built. Even if we wanted to get rid of garages it wouldn't be possible because our mass transit system isn't good enough to connect everyone to downtown.

As we've mentioned before, Chase tower is basically at the end of the rail line. Most people have likely gotten off/transferred at Central Station. There really isn't much need to ride the rail past that point yet except for theater and buffalo bayou. And no offense to the east side, but how many of them do you think work in corporate offices downtown?

You're being a bit unrealistic..

[tigereye]

Yes. I'm serious about lives lost. A lot of pedestrian fatalities.

No new development along the rail line in the first few years is one thing. But i'm talking about the businesses that existed along the line that failed after the line opened.

True, Tax Subsides are not new. But there's a tax breaks for downtown residential construction. that's a factor in new construction that cannot be ignored.

Whoa.

Are you kidding me? Look, I've been a Metro commuter for close to a decade. I have a personal vehicle but this my easy choice as my employer pays the fares.

Sure the train nowadays has had a few incidents here & there but to call it a "killer train" now is asinine, especially compared to back 2004 when it launched and set a record for most collisions. That was a different time with an awful adjustment period. People now generally understand to look & listen. It's not the death trap it once was.

As for rail spurred development and the DLI - EaDo Station apartments don't qualify for this, nor do all the condos going up in Eado. Neither does Mid-Main, Central Square renovation, Alexan Midtown, Camden McGowen Station or Camden Travis or MATCH or well anything else outside of Downtown. There's no debate here. It's clear - the trains are spurring rail development.

I have my gripes with Metro - ride the 36 or 40 bus and you'll know how pissed I can get. Point is - to call any of the train lines a disaster is senseless. They may need a few modifications here & there but rail ultimately will be a success in the long term.

Edited June 18, 2015 by tigereye

[102IAHexpress]

Uhh.. We live in Houston? One of the most car centric cities in the country.. Of course there will still be parking garages built. Even if we wanted to get rid of garages it wouldn't be possible because our mass transit system isn't good enough to connect everyone to downtown.

As we've mentioned before, Chase tower is basically at the end of the rail line. Most people have likely gotten off/transferred at Central Station. There really isn't much need to ride the rail past that point yet except for theater and buffalo bayou. And no offense to the east side, but how many of them do you think work in corporate offices downtown?

You're being a bit unrealistic..

 

We actually somewhat agree.

 

I agree that most of the east end riders do not work in corporate office towers downtown or live in downtown obviously. But I'll go one further and say most red line users in downtown do not either. And that's how I know the new developments in downtown have nothing to do with the light rail red/purple/green lines. Because the tenants of those developments don't use the rail.

 

Look, I live and work here in downtown. This is my neighborhood. The people who actually live here and the ones that will live in those new developments will use their cars exclusively to get around or walk to their job if it's near by. I am the exception that still uses Metro only because my fiancé is a doctor in the med center so I take the light rail to visit her side of town. But Most people who pay the rents they do in downtown wouldn't be caught dead on the light rail. Same thing with the tenants in those shiny new office towers. They drive or commute via a Metro commuter bus or car pool.

 

So who's actually using the light rail? I think its mostly people who were using the med center bus routes previously and people who are connecting to other buses. And a lot of homeless people. Again just my observations.

 

Yes there's been some developments within a few blocks of the rail, but if most of those tenants are using their cars then how is the rail responsible for that development?

[cloud713]

We actually somewhat agree.

 

I agree that most of the east end riders do not work in corporate office towers downtown or live in downtown obviously. But I'll go one further and say most red line users in downtown do not either. And that's how I know the new developments in downtown have nothing to do with the light rail red/purple/green lines. Because the tenants of those developments don't use the rail.

 

Look, I live and work here in downtown. This is my neighborhood. The people who actually live here and the ones that will live in those new developments will use their cars exclusively to get around or walk to their job if it's near by. I am the exception that still uses Metro only because my fiancé is a doctor in the med center so I take the light rail to visit her side of town. But Most people who pay the rents they do in downtown wouldn't be caught dead on the light rail. Same thing with the tenants in those shiny new office towers. They drive or commute via a Metro commuter bus or car pool.

 

So who's actually using the light rail? I think its mostly people who were using the med center bus routes previously and people who are connecting to other buses. And a lot of homeless people. Again just my observations.

 

Yes there's been some developments within a few blocks of the rail, but if most of those tenants are using their cars then how is the rail responsible for that development?

thats hard to say.. sure these few billion dollars worth of new developments along the rail line(s) since 2004 might of happened elsewhere, but because of the rail they happened in the core. its a start for smarter planning. we now have established corridors for development, sans zoning.

of course the majority of people will use their cars. that all goes back to the car centric point. but the rail provides an attractive timely option of visiting all the other destinations around the loop that the rail serves. and if you don't think the majority of the downtown residents would be caught dead on a light rail, what are your opinions on them riding busses?

look. we get that you aren't satisfied with the fact that red line trains are packed to capacity during rush, its the most successful modern light rail line in the country, and that its only spawned a few billion in new developments, but that doesn't mean its a failure.. you clearly have way to high of expectations.

[samagon]

The light rail line existed for a long a time and there was not much development along it. But as soon as the city offers subsidies and tax breaks we get more interest from developers.

I agree with the list. It's impressive. You've convinced me. There is more development. I never said there was zero development just not much. And my biggest question mark was what was the factor in all this. Was it really the light rail line? Like I said it existed for years, and in fact the light rail line was the cause of business failing on Main street, or was it the tax breaks?

Are we going to have to offer more tax breaks so there can be more development along the rail line?

I referenced downtown because that's the only one that I know of a development list that shows on a map the locations.

You completely don't answer the question about why the tax abatement developments chose locations near the light rail as opposed to the other just as available parking lots in downtown?

So while yes, the tax abatement did draw development that may not have otherwise come to downtown, but it's more about the where within that zone that they chose to build.

While I can't reference a map for midtown, museum, or any other area on the red line route, you can see the same tale being played out. Development is favoring proximity to the light rail. And there isn't a tax break drawing those developments.

As far as how long it took, it depends on what kind of relative timescale you compare it against. 30 years? Yeah, 10 years is a long time compared. 100 years? Now it's not so long comparatively. 200 years? Even less. How long do you think this light rail will be there? They'll outlast our time on this earth I'm thinking, so if it took 10 years for it to start gaining traction, who cares?

But in this world of needing immediate results, you're right the light rail is a disaster.

Which is why, only a month after the doors opened you're willing to call the new ones disasters. Let's revisit in 10 years then we'll have a better idea.

[samagon]

.. And no offense to the east side, but how many of them do you think work in corporate offices downtown?

You're being a bit unrealistic..

The question isn't how many do right now, but how many will in the next 5 years? The next 10 years?

[mollusk]

I'm still toying with trying to figure out how you can have a disaster that's not a failure in some way or another.  Put differently, can any of us think of a successful disaster? 

 

And one can cross Capitol from either end of the final westbound station at a marked, signaled crosswalk, one at Louisiana and one at Smith.

 

BTW, I'm now going to leave my 48th floor downtown office and hop on the next Green/Purple train to get over to Central Station, then take the Red Line down to a lunch appointment in midtown.  I would never have done that on a bus - or at least I never did in the decade or three that I've worked downtown.