[MiDTOWNeR]

H-Town Man, on Monday, February 20th, 2006 @ 2:36am, said:

Someone needs to go out in the middle of the night and chainsaw those damn trees. That'll take the wind out of their sails real quick.

WOOHOO!!!!!

[The Voice of University Oaks]

dp2, on Thursday, February 16th, 2006 @ 1:20am, said:

And yet Portland is planning to build several more of these in the middle of their downtown with their next LRT extension. With their streetcar line already crossing the existing LRT line downtown. Going from the current 4 downtown intersections with an at-grade rail crossing to 12, while also adding auto lanes to the currently bus only transit mall the new line will run down. Yeah, must be such a traffic nightmare that they decided to go from 4 to 12. I can see why similarly gridded midtown Houston can't handle a single one of these intersections.

Good thing that the experienced light-rail pioneers at Metro know better those urban and transit novices in Portland.

I said that nowhere in the United States do two *actual* light rail systems cross at grade. The TriMet South Corridor project you reference will be the first in the nation to do so if they build it as proposed (it's still in design). It will be interesting to see how TriMet operates all these intersections, how they prioritize the trains, how they affect vehicular traffic, etc. The Portland streetcar, meanwhile, is just that: a streetcar, operating under line-of-sight rules. MAX (the "full" light rail) has priority at the streetcar/light rail junction.

Furthermore, nobody said it "couldn't be done." Grand junctions of two rail systems crossing at grade occur all the time. It takes a lot of coordination to move trains through a single point at grade, but it is possible. What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

Anyway, these issues will be explored in detail as preliminary engineering begins.

[dp2]

The Voice of University Oaks, on Tuesday, February 21st, 2006 @ 12:11pm, said:

I said that nowhere in the United States do two *actual* light rail systems cross at grade.

Which is why I snarked about a *streetcar exemption.*

There isn't any significant difference between a streetcar line and a light-rail line when it comes to at-grade crossings. That's like trying to make an operational distinction between a 2-door Honda Accord and a 4-door Accord. Meaningless in this context. Now if it was a crossing of a light-rail line and a freight/commuter rail line then you'd have a point. But we aren't. The streetcar doesn't operate at quite as frequent headways as LRT, but at some point Tri-Met will increase those and the intersections will handle it just fine.

Quote

The TriMet South Corridor project you reference will be the first in the nation to do so if they build it as proposed (it's still in design). It will be interesting to see how TriMet operates all these intersections, how they prioritize the trains, how they affect vehicular traffic, etc. The Portland streetcar, meanwhile, is just that: a streetcar, operating under line-of-sight rules. MAX (the "full" light rail) has priority at the streetcar/light rail junction.

Your Metro pals are just throwing rationalizing smoke out their butts. No big deal to signalize a crossing, there are thousands in use on railroads across the country. Can easily set up an approach-activated crossing (sensors, operator request button, etc.) with a first-come, first-serve setup. With the relatively short-length of LRT trains, no train would be delayed more than 30 seconds, which can easily be incorporated into the schedule (which already has padding.) Plus such a crossing would be near a station, so we aren't talking high speeds. If the signals go down, just have backup operating rules with stop and proceed and directional priorities.

Quote

Furthermore, nobody said it "couldn't be done." Grand junctions of two rail systems crossing at grade occur all the time. It takes a lot of coordination to move trains through a single point at grade,

Yes, such as the incredible complex concept of the 4-way stop sign (though perhaps difficult for some of the quivering fools at the FTA and FRA to grasp.)

Quote

but it is possible. What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

Your 'sources' are feeding you BS. The differences aren't the type to prevent an LRT/LRT crossing.

Quote

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

Anyway, these issues will be explored in detail as preliminary engineering begins.

Yes, let's get Metro's BS excuses in writing, and then subject it to peer review. It will end up looking like swiss cheese. Funny how so much of their claims, grand plans, and promises they suckered the public and voters with didn't hold up when scrutinized by the FTA for funding. And poof, LRT became BRT.

I'd venture to guess that perhaps grade separation is one of those crowd-pleasing measures Metro will promote beforehand and then drop as soon as the FTA tells them to get their project costs down. Kinda like the girlfriend who says she'll always be thin, and then grabs the sweatpants and twinkies once she gets the ring.

This post has been edited by dp2: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 7:30 PM

[RedScare]

Don't forget that the FTA has changed the rules on funding, pushing very hard for BRT over rail. This change came about AFTER the METRO referendum, forcing METRO to be flexible in what they ask for, or risk getting nothing. Mass transit foes recognize this. It is in their self-serving interest to convince METRO to go with the easier path of Westpark, which will result in lower ridership, and probably less or no federal funding. Then they can blame METRO for not getting funding.

The emphasis on homeland security and defense spending is also sapping needed money from domestic needs. New Start money is scheduled to shrink by 1.5% next year, the same year that Bush pledged to help the US get over its "addiction to oil". Doesn't make sense, but that is the new reality.

[nmainguy]

The Voice of University Oaks, on Tuesday, February 21st, 2006 @ 12:11pm, said:

What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

No one I've spoken with ever hinted there would be a junction at the Main/Wheeler intersection. I don't know why METRO is putting such a spin on a non-issue. Go to the Wheeler station and LOOK at the amount of land METRO has aquired. Why would they even consider the hassel of dealing with the intersection when they could put their junction on their own property with room to spare. From there, the west bound leg of the University line could take off across Main south of the intersection. We need to keep a focus on what is possible-not on what might be "too hard".

[dp2]

RedScare, on Tuesday, February 21st, 2006 @ 6:46pm, said:

Don't forget that the FTA has changed the rules on funding, pushing very hard for BRT over rail. This change came about AFTER the METRO referendum, forcing METRO to be flexible in what they ask for, or risk getting nothing. Mass transit foes recognize this. It is in their self-serving interest to convince METRO to go with the easier path of Westpark, which will result in lower ridership, and probably less or no federal funding. Then they can blame METRO for not getting funding.

The emphasis on homeland security and defense spending is also sapping needed money from domestic needs. New Start money is scheduled to shrink by 1.5% next year, the same year that Bush pledged to help the US get over its "addiction to oil". Doesn't make sense, but that is the new reality.

Actually several (the majority, IIRC) of Metro's proposed lines were on the low-end of ridership, 8-11,000 per line. Those would have had a hard time against other city's proposals even before the changes. But lower ridership on an entire Westpark route wouldn't necessarily sink it, because the critical stat for funding isn't overall cost, but cost per rider. So while all-Westpark would have lower ridership, it also may have much lower costs (since there is the cheaper option of using the pre-existing rail ROW for much of the route, instead of more expensive laying tracks in the street), resulting in perhaps a more favorable cost/rider ratio.

But I do believe that Metro is going to go all out and get this line on the best route, Richmond( at least east of Greenway Plaza.) The rest is just going through the (required) motions. West of Greenway Plaza may be up in the air, but their proposal to shift down to Westpark makes the most sense. There's already an office park and high-density housing in the SE corner of 610/59, with potential in the SW corner, too. Then turning north and running up Post Oak through Uptown also would serve the most potential riders. I think Metro did a good job with that route selection, especially if they split the east-west line into an Uptown line and a Westpark line west of 610. The trend for some transit planners is for short-yellow bus simplicity and thus single-routes only with transfers being no big deal, but there are examples all over the country of multiple lines combining through a central trunk. Though when the Washington line (east-west through downtown) comes online and serves the Uptown corridor that would provide a one seat ride from there to downtown. I'd like to see some sort of junction at Wheeler (grade-separated from the road would of course be better, I just hate it when someone at Metro throughs out BS instead of the truth) with perhaps an Uptown-Med Center service, a Westpark-UH-Hobby service, and a Westpark-Uptown-Downtown-1836 District-Hobby line. No more than 2 services on any segment, but more one seat ride options. NYC, Portland, Chicago, Boston, Philly, and San Francisco are some examples of multiple routes joining into shared trunk lines.

[nmainguy]

dp2, on Tuesday, February 21st, 2006 @ 7:31pm, said:

West of Greenway Plaza may be up in the air, but their proposal to shift down to Westpark makes the most sense. There's already an office park and high-density housing in the SE corner of 610/59, with potential in the SW corner, too. Then turning north and running up Post Oak through Uptown also would serve the most potential riders.

Shifting south to Westpark only decreases ridership. You lose new developments at HISD, Highland Village, in addition to possible new developments on Westheimer between the SP line and the loop. Far better ridership numbers than you would achieve by servicing a group of office buildings and a couple of apartment complexes crammed between a Home Depot and Westpark.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

Quote

Your 'sources' are feeding you BS. The differences aren't the type to prevent an LRT/LRT crossing.
Yes, let's get Metro's BS excuses in writing, and then subject it to peer review. It will end up looking like swiss cheese. Funny how so much of their claims, grand plans, and promises they suckered the public and voters with didn't hold up when scrutinized by the FTA for funding. And poof, LRT became BRT.

I'd venture to guess that perhaps grade separation is one of those crowd-pleasing measures Metro will promote beforehand and then drop as soon as the FTA tells them to get their project costs down. Kinda like the girlfriend who says she'll always be thin, and then grabs the sweatpants and twinkies once she gets the ring.

Hey, I'm just passing along what I've been told. Perhaps you need to contact METRO's rail engineers and knock some sense into them. METRO's switchboard is 713-739-4000.

[RedScare]

Plastic, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:50pm, said:

What I say is they put a monorail down Westheimer,our most used street and commuter rail lines to all the suburbs. There would be a stop on the 45-Clear Lake line at The University Of Houston Transit center.

As for slower scenic trains those would only be for Westheimer and 1960 like the one on Main.

Plastic, read this article, then see if you can explain why this is a good idea for Houston.

http://www.reviewjou...ws/5833357.html

[Jeebus]

RedScare, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 @ 1:46pm, said:

Plastic, read this article, then see if you can explain why this is a good idea for Houston.

http://www.reviewjou...ws/5833357.html

I've been to Vegas twice a year for the last three years and never knew they had a monorail. I guess its from staying west of the Strip, and spending alot of time downtown.

I don't think a monorail would be a logical answer here in Houston. i think lightrail inside the loop (and just beyond in some more dense areas) and then commuter rail from the suburbs in.

[CE_ugh]

Plastic, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:50pm, said:

What I say is they put a monorail down Westheimer,our most used street and commuter rail lines to all the suburbs. There would be a stop on the 45-Clear Lake line at The University Of Houston Transit center.

As for slower scenic trains those would only be for Westheimer and 1960 like the one on Main.

So youre talking about having a Commuter Rail stop, right in the middle of Cullen Blvd.!

Also what 'scenery" are you talking about of Westiemer and 1960.

[dp2]

CE_ugh, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 @ 7:29pm, said:

So youre talking about having a Commuter Rail stop, right in the middle of Cullen Blvd.!

Also what 'scenery" are you talking about of Westiemer and 1960.

Rainforest Cafe at the mall?

[VicMan]

Okay, I have planned a nice little route for the Richmond Line.

*Start at Wheeler Station. West along Richmond.
*Stop at Richmond @ Weslayan (This avoids Afton Oaks).

Two options:
*North along Weslayan
*Stop at Weslayan @ Westheimer. West along Westheimer

or

* South along Weslayan
* Stop at Weslayan @ Westpark. West along Westpark

This post has been edited by VicMan: Sunday, February 26, 2006 at 4:46 PM

[nmainguy]

Plastic, on Sunday, February 26th, 2006 @ 4:40pm, said:

No no it would run from Downtown go down say Smith to Westheimer. Then stop at Montrose,Shepeard, Kriby, BUffalo Speedway and all the major intersection all the way to HWY 6.

No no...Westheimer doesn't intersect with Kriby
I still like the idea of tele-porting through a worm hole in the time-space continum therby arriving at the Galleria from Wheeler 2 years ago...with you by my side, plastic.

[nmainguy]

Plastic, on Sunday, February 26th, 2006 @ 7:14pm, said:

It doesn't? Well where was I the thousands of times when I was at the intersection of Westheimer and Kirby?

Oh! You meant "Kirby" and not "Kriby"?
Sorry, Plastic.
Your mistake.

[RedScare]

Article detailing METRO's attempts to be open about it's decision making process on the University Line.

http://www.chron.com...ro/3732023.html

Nice to see that METRO understands openness in government is preferable to secrecy. I wish all government, including METRO, did this more often.

[elecpharm]

West U. favors Metro's rail plan

Council won't back challenge to Richmond line

"Opponents of a Metro light rail line being considered for Richmond Avenue found no allies in their fight to reroute the line to Westpark Drive at West University Place's City Council meeting Monday."

good news for those of us favoring the richmond route.

[Trae]

A line needs to go up Buffalo Speedway, from Richmond, and make a left at Westheimer to Highway 6.

Would a line down Highway 6/ FM 1960 work?

This post has been edited by Trae: Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 11:28 AM

[citykid09]

Really good article!

This post has been edited by citykid09: Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 6:40 PM

[dp2]

A shame that:

1) Mr. Crossley apparently doesn't even know how to use the scale on a map

2) Mr. Crossley apparently doesn't feel the need to proofread

3) His sloppiness and errors tend to be more and more indicative of his visioning abilities

Overall (beyond just this article) he raises some good points and ideas, but too often then wanders into goofball territory. I'd use him on the Brainstorming team, and keep him the hell away from the Design, Review, and Implementation groups. Though honestly his creativity seems rather limited, compared to how some would portray him.

This post has been edited by dp2: Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 9:46 PM

[nmainguy]

dp2, on Sunday, March 19th, 2006 @ 8:44pm, said:

A shame that:

1) Mr. Crossley apparently doesn't even know how to use the scale on a map

2) Mr. Crossley apparently doesn't feel the need to proofread

3) His sloppiness and errors tend to be more and more indicative of his visioning abilities

Overall (beyond just this article) he raises some good points and ideas, but too often then wanders into goofball territory. I'd use him on the Brainstorming team, and keep him the hell away from the Design, Review, and Implementation groups. Though honestly his creativity seems rather limited, compared to how some would portray him.

How did your article pan out in intown magazine? I didn't see it but I'm assuming you understand the restraints in posting graphics on an 8.5/11 sheet of print...and I'm sure you realize the job of the publication's proof readers.

Other than these sarcastic responses to points one through three in your post, I havn't a clue what the rest of it is about.

[Jeebus]

I agree that about our urban centers and the need to connect them. I also agree that with one good shot, METRO could hit the big 3 heading west (Greenway, Uptown, Westchase), with the possible expansion to extend to the Energy Corridor (Westlake, Park Ten).

I think the developing line to IAH will include Greenspoint, so that's not of much concern. Hobby would be covered by the University Line, correct? The only other area that would need connection would possibly be the southwest side.

[nmainguy]

Jeebus, on Sunday, March 19th, 2006 @ 10:48pm, said:

I agree that about our urban centers and the need to connect them. I also agree that with one good shot, METRO could hit the big 3 heading west (Greenway, Uptown, Westchase), with the possible expansion to extend to the Energy Corridor (Westlake, Park Ten).

I think the developing line to IAH will include Greenspoint, so that's not of much concern. Hobby would be covered by the University Line, correct? The only other area that would need connection would possibly be the southwest side.

Good post, Jeebs but the U Line does not include Hobby...yet. A lot of the routes have evolved from the original plans and to be honest I just haven't kept up with the current changes. I could see Hobby being an extension but I have concerns about mass transit emanating from any airport.
My personal experience is that after being crammed into a tube flying at 500 MPH+ for 3 to 10 hours with many times smelly, chatty people and wailing babies, I long for the silence and comfort of a taxi to get me to my hotel.

[Subdude]

Having direct rail links to the airport would be great. People flying in don't necessarily want to rent a car and drive 20 miles down I-45. One thing I loved about working in Atlanta was that I could take the train from the airport terminal to a block from my hotel. So much easier than renting a car!

Friday night I met a woman who owns a business on Richmond. She was quite vociferous about how Westpark would be a better route. To be honest, I felt bad for her. I think she is legitimately concerned about the impact on businesses during the construction period. Other points she made were that Richmond is very susceptible to flooding, and that a huge bridge would be necessary to carry the rail over the tracks by Afton Oaks. I had thought that Richmond made sense because of Greenway Plaza, but she said that very few of the employees there would be able to use the rail line for commuting.

It's a tough call.

[Highway6]

Subdude, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 8:57am, said:

I had thought that Richmond made sense because of Greenway Plaza, but she said that very few of the employees there would be able to use the rail line for commuting.

What is her basis for saying that ? How could she possibly know where most or even some of the people that work in Greenway live? (besides herself)

Construction will always hurt some people. You can't go by that though, and the people of Afton Oaks, eventhough I feel sorry for them too, they are being selfish. Any city transit corridor should be planned so that it best benifts the city as a whole.... not planned so that it doesn't disrupt a few....

Benefit the whole, don't let a minority part sidetrack it.... This sounds familiar..... 1836, anyone !?!?!

[Subdude]

Quote

What is her basis for saying that ? How could she possibly know where most or even some of the people that work in Greenway live? (besides herself)

You know, I didn't think to ask. Her numbers sounded so precise that I just thought there was some kind of survey or something.

She also said that construction would require demolition of a lot of the businesses between Montrose and Shepherd, where Richmond is narrower than it is from Shepherd out. Has anyone heard that?

[Jeebus]

nmainguy, on Sunday, March 19th, 2006 @ 11:16pm, said:

My personal experience is that after being crammed into a tube flying at 500 MPH+ for 3 to 10 hours with many times smelly, chatty people and wailing babies, I long for the silence and comfort of a taxi to get me to my hotel.

Touching on Subdude's post about out-of-towners, I'm sure there are just as many people like your self that would rather take the rail instead of a taxi. Perhaps you could take the rail to get to the airport, and later when you return, you could take a taxi. I know the rail would definitely be cheaper. It cost me $65.00 to take a yellow cab from IAH to my house (highway 6 & Westheimer) back in the fall. Riding the rail couldn't cost more than 10 both ways.

[Highway6]

How does lightrail intersect with existing heavy rail ?
The existing lightrail line doesn't not cross regular railroad anywhere does it?
This new line will have to cross no matter what - westpark, richmond or westeimer.... how does it do this ?
Does it have to go over/under, or can it intersect and just have to stop like regular auto traffic ?

Also.. how expensive is tunneling for brief runs so it acts as a subway ? Is this even fiscally feasible that the City would consider it anywhere ?


Of the three possible East-West possibilities :
I think, it has to run Richmond, at least between Kirby and Weslayn in order to hit Greenway.
Also.. for the Eastern end.. I think Richmond is again the best bet in order to hit UST and the mini-museum district.

Another major issue is how does the rail interact with the Galleria?
It has to be close enough to be effective and I think this eliminates both Westpark and Richmond
But, it also can't add to the traffic nightmare that is Westeimer & 610.

If i had any say.. this would be the proposal i'd put forth for study.

Run the length of Richmond, Turn North on Weslayn, Turn Left on West Alabama.
Have the "Highland Village" Stop at thie location.
At this point, it tunnels under West Alabama becoming a subway... bypassing under Afton Oaks ( Yes they'd still have to deal with construction ), bypassing under the railroad, bypassing under 610 ( avoiding both the Westeimer and Richmond intersections ), coming back to grade just West of Post Oak.
Have the "Galleria" stop here at McCue.
Continue West and rejoin Westeimer bypassing most Galleria traffic.

[Subdude]

Quote

How does lightrail intersect with existing heavy rail ?
The existing lightrail line doesn't not cross regular railroad anywhere does it?
This new line will have to cross no matter what - westpark, richmond or westeimer.... how does it do this ?
Does it have to go over/under, or can it intersect and just have to stop like regular auto traffic ?

According to that woman, the plan was to build a large bridge over the tracks. It would need long ramps to keep the grade relatively flat. I don't know if that is really case, or if she was just saying it.

[CE_ugh]

Subdude, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 1:41pm, said:

According to that woman, the plan was to build a large bridge over the tracks. It would need long ramps to keep the grade relatively flat. I don't know if that is really case, or if she was just saying it.

It's unlikely they would opt for a bridge. A bridge would require a 25 foot minimum clearance to clear the railroad track. Going underneath the track only requires a 15 ft.

Also Richmond between Montrose and Shepherd is just as wide a Main Street is thru Midtown. Sure some businesses may lose parking space or access to the other side of the roadway. But no demolition should be required

Another thing, what "plans" are she talking about. They have only begun to survey and no schematics have been made.

Highway6, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 11:14am, said:

Another major issue is how does the rail interact with the Galleria?
It has to be close enough to be effective and I think this eliminates both Westpark and Richmond
But, it also can't add to the traffic nightmare that is Westeimer & 610.

If i had any say.. this would be the proposal i'd put forth for study.

Run the length of Richmond, Turn North on Weslayn, Turn Left on West Alabama.
Have the "Highland Village" Stop at thie location.
At this point, it tunnels under West Alabama becoming a subway... bypassing under Afton Oaks ( Yes they'd still have to deal with construction ), bypassing under the railroad, bypassing under 610 ( avoiding both the Westeimer and Richmond intersections ), coming back to grade just West of Post Oak.
Have the "Galleria" stop here at McCue.
Continue West and rejoin Westeimer bypassing most Galleria traffic.

W. Alabama is a non continuous residential street in the heart of Afton Oaks. No Way!

This post has been edited by CE_ugh: Monday, March 20, 2006 at 3:46 PM

[Jeebus]

Highway6, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 11:14am, said:

This new line will have to cross no matter what - westpark, richmond or westeimer.... how does it do this ?
Does it have to go over/under, or can it intersect and just have to stop like regular auto traffic ?

It can't intersect at-grade because of the electrical lines that power the METRORAIL. If you've ever traveled south on Fannin towards 610, there is a height clearance warning bar with only 12-13 feet of clearance warning you before you turn right and go under the power-lines.

[skwatra]

CE_ugh, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 2:48pm, said:

W. Alabama is a non continuous residential street in the heart of Afton Oaks. No Way!

in his plan, the W Alabama portion would tunnel underdneath (purple=tunnel)

[Highway6]

skwatra, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 3:12pm, said:

in his plan, the W Alabama portion would tunnel underdneath (purple=tunnel)

How much more or less disruptive would the construction be for a tunnel be compared to at grade tracks ?

This post has been edited by Highway6: Monday, March 20, 2006 at 4:15 PM

[CE_ugh]

Jeebus, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 3:08pm, said:

It can't intersect at-grade because of the electrical lines that power the METRORAIL. If you've ever traveled south on Fannin towards 610, there is a height clearance warning bar with only 12-13 feet of clearance warning you before you turn right and go under the power-lines.

theres about a foot of clearance between the bottom of that bar and the actual power lines. The long-distance Metro busses scrape the bottom of the bar but function well in Downtown. Just dont tell anybody with a large truck that.

[Highway6]

Jeebus, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 3:08pm, said:

It can't intersect at-grade because of the electrical lines that power the METRORAIL. If you've ever traveled south on Fannin towards 610, there is a height clearance warning bar with only 12-13 feet of clearance warning you before you turn right and go under the power-lines.

Ok.. so that means, no matter where it crosses.. this corridor will either have to bridge over or tunnel under, right ?

[CE_ugh]

Highway6, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 3:14pm, said:

How much more or less disruptive would the construction be for a tunnel be compared to at grade tracks ?

Just as disruptive if not moreso. Have you seen pictures of the Big Dig in Boston. Imagine that in the middle of a neighborhood.

[ssullivan]

CE_ugh, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 3:16pm, said:

theres about a foot of clearance between the bottom of that bar and the actual power lines. The long-distance Metro busses scrape the bottom of the bar but function well in Downtown. Just dont tell anybody with a large truck that.

The MetroRail power lines are much lower at Fannin and 610 than anywhere else along the route because of the 610 overpass. The overpass is relatively low by modern standards, and because of the low clearance, the power lines dip down there. Over the rest of the line they are higher, hence the lack of clearance warning bars at other crossings.

At the Pierce Elevated crossing, the overpass is higher, so the warning bars are not needed, because the power lines aren't much lower under the overpass than they are along the street.

[Jeebus]

The news (Channel 11) did a story about the Anti-Rail Richmondites. They were at a meeting at what looked like St. Lukes Methodist on Westheimer. It looked like a fool house as well.

(Yes, I spelled fool correctly.)

This post has been edited by Jeebus: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 1:09 AM

[The Great Hizzy!]

Quote

(Yes, I spelled fool correctly.)

And I'm proud of you.


And putting the rail on Alabama at any point would be a disaster, not just because of the residential component, but because A) you'd have to cross the West Loop via bridge (which would be costly and time consuming to construct) and B.) You'd have a major opponent in the Galleria, which would be greatly affected by large-scale construction lodge between Gallerias I-III and Galleria IV. No bueno.

[Highway6]

The Great Hizzy!, on Tuesday, March 21st, 2006 @ 8:35am, said:

And I'm proud of you.
And putting the rail on Alabama at any point would be a disaster, not just because of the residential component, but because A) you'd have to cross the West Loop via bridge (which would be costly and time consuming to construct) and B.) You'd have a major opponent in the Galleria, which would be greatly affected by large-scale construction lodge between Gallerias I-III and Galleria IV. No bueno.

Why bridge over 610...Why can't it tunnel under 610 at Alabama ?
They tunneled under the Beltway and the 610/59 intersection for the Westpark tollway ramps.

I do see that having the lightrail bisect parts of the galleria could be a problem. So why not keep it underground until it passes Sage. Still have a stop at Mccue, but underground with above grade access.. or have the stop directly connect to the underground parking that is already there.

If the Galleria had any say.. they wouldn't pick Westeimer. That is their main access, with much more vehicle traffic. Westeimer would be the disaster.
Richmond is too far south.. For such a major stop, you dont want it half a mile away.
Isn't the only store south of Alabama the foley's and an additional parking garage? And that foleys has bridge access to the rest of the galleria. If ultimately they would benfit from having rail access so close, and at the same time, not screw with their main Westeimer access.. i find it hard to beleive the galleria wouldn't put up with a few yrs of construction pains.

[Saddleman]

Speaking of the Galleria. Has Simon ever said anything about the rail line? Do they have a position? If Simon was to lobby for the line to have stop(s) near, in, or under the Galleria, I'm sure that would go a long way to keeping the line from being to far south. It would seem that a stop(s) near, in, or under the Galleria would be something they would want. A few years of construction means nothing when you think about the benefits that will be reaped for years after. Why not go down Richmond, and then begin to tunnel at the HISD site to the Galleria. That way Afton Oaks has no arguement about unsightly bridges and the line can get people where they want and need to go. I feel for the businesses along Richmond, but I'm calling bullshit on their arguements about the trees and construction. I know that if the city were to say that they were going to widen the street instead and the trees would still have to go...well, those same ones trying to 'save the trees' would be chopping them drop and induring years of road construction because it's good for the city as a whole.

This post has been edited by kingkirbythegreatoftexas: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 10:49 AM

[Subdude]

Quote

March 20, 2006, 11:59PM
Richmond rail plan draws a crowd
Most of the 500 at town hall talk oppose Metro idea
By RAD SALLEE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

More than 500 people attended a town hall meeting Monday night on the controversial choice of a route for the Metropolitan Transit Authority's next light rail line, most opposing plans to build on Richmond Avenue.

Those who spoke at the meeting, at St. Luke's United Methodist Church, 3471 Westheimer, were each given one minute to talk, and most said they favored a line on nearby Westpark.

Some, like Christina Campbell, said construction on Richmond would disrupt neighborhoods and destroy business.

"The construction will kill businesses and rail will not support businesses there," said Campbell, who owns a hair salon at Richmond and Kirby.

Link to Chronicle article

[nmainguy]

Highway6, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 11:14am, said:

How does lightrail intersect with existing heavy rail ?
The existing lightrail line doesn't not cross regular railroad anywhere does it?
This new line will have to cross no matter what - westpark, richmond or westeimer.... how does it do this ?
Does it have to go over/under, or can it intersect and just have to stop like regular auto traffic ?

Also.. how expensive is tunneling for brief runs so it acts as a subway ? Is this even fiscally feasible that the City would consider it anywhere ?
Of the three possible East-West possibilities :
I think, it has to run Richmond, at least between Kirby and Weslayn in order to hit Greenway.
Also.. for the Eastern end.. I think Richmond is again the best bet in order to hit UST and the mini-museum district.

Another major issue is how does the rail interact with the Galleria?
It has to be close enough to be effective and I think this eliminates both Westpark and Richmond
But, it also can't add to the traffic nightmare that is Westeimer & 610.

If i had any say.. this would be the proposal i'd put forth for study.

Run the length of Richmond, Turn North on Weslayn, Turn Left on West Alabama.
Have the "Highland Village" Stop at thie location.
At this point, it tunnels under West Alabama becoming a subway... bypassing under Afton Oaks ( Yes they'd still have to deal with construction ), bypassing under the railroad, bypassing under 610 ( avoiding both the Westeimer and Richmond intersections ), coming back to grade just West of Post Oak.
Have the "Galleria" stop here at McCue.
Continue West and rejoin Westeimer bypassing most Galleria traffic.

Highway6,
This is an interesting and imaginative solution that I've never considered and I applaud your ingenuity. However [you saw that coming ] as feasable as tunneling technolgy has become-regardless of what the nay-sayers may try to foist on you as "fact"-your route misses important existing and proposed future high density developement. From your Alabama/Weslyan Station, it would be quite a hike to Highland Village. I don't buy it when some say no one would take LRT to Highland-but I do think no one would take it if the hike was that long. Second is your route misses the proposed developement at the old Ford dealership and the adjacent one at Westcreek. I still think the Richmond to Weslyan to Westheimer route is the wisest course. The crossing at the tracks adjacent to Highland could actually be a win-win solution if the LRT tracks and Westheimer were built as an underpass. How many times have I been stuck on Westheimer waiting for the damn train to pass? About a Gazillion. When people say: "Well what do you do about the existing rail while construction is going on?" Refer them to the rebuilt underpass on Shepard north of the loop.
As far as the argument that LRT on Westheimer at 610 would only add to the congestion at that point-of course it will as long as people cram the traffic lanes with single passanger vehicles. If it really becomes a deal breaker, then a tunnel beginning at Mid Lane and terminating at McCue-with underground stations inbetween-could be a realistic solution. The U-Line is not meant to accomodate cars and trucks. It is meant to move people.


BTW, I love your idea of a Galleria station...I would think the owners and merchants would more than salivate through the construction in anticipation of future sales.

This post has been edited by nmainguy: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 8:54 PM

[dp2]

nmainguy, on Sunday, March 19th, 2006 @ 8:56pm, said:

How did your article pan out in intown magazine? I didn't see it but I'm assuming you understand the restraints in posting graphics on an 8.5/11 sheet of print...and I'm sure you realize the job of the publication's proof readers.

Other than these sarcastic responses to points one through three in your post, I havn't a clue what the rest of it is about.

I have proofed every article I've ever written. They taught that back in junior high at my public school. Not a good idea when writing about distances to confuse kilometers with miles. Worse to give one set of facts (specific distances) in an article and have conflicting information in the graphics (which are supposed to reinforce your message, not highlight that your information is wrong in multiple ways.) Compounded that neither the quotes nor the graphics ever gave the accurate figure. Not to mention that we aren't talking about lots of complicated tables and charts, but about as simple a graphic as there can be.

Everyone makes a mistake now and then, it really isn't a big deal, but multiple obvious errors in your own publication send a bad message about your competency and how well developed your message actually is. As I said, I think this sloppiness is actually representative and extends through his 'visioning'. What I wrote is pretty clear to anyone who has read much of his work and those of his organization and is familiar with what he is trying to accomplish, and his role in shaping the future of Houston on multiple large and important projects. (Yes, I dearly love the naughty tool that is the run-on sentence.) Some of the ideas that he (and they) are pushing are in serious need of tough peer review, but with the real risk that little such scrutiny will actually occur. Houston has done some great things to improve this town in the last decade, with much more to come, but there are also some real boneheaded ideas being pushed around at high levels that would be tremendous planning blunders if they come to pass. I have yet to be able to discern if he is going to be more a part of the solution or the problem.

That doesn't mean that everyone will agree with my opinion, but it was pretty self-explanatory. Sorry that it went over your head.

[nmainguy]

dp2, on Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 @ 11:40pm, said:

I have proofed every article I've ever written.

I wasnt referring to "every article I've ever written"-but you knew that
I was talking about intown.
As far as what you might think is over one's head, most of my generation of junior high school graduates can convert metric to imperial before you could even locate a dictionary to define the word "proofed".
Anyway, where were you published and what were your topics? I'm just curious as I can't seem to find any thing you have written other than what has been published here on HAIF.
Don't worry, "everyone makes a mistake now and then, it really isn't a big deal, but multiple obvious errors in your own publication..."......YIKES!!! Now I have a publication???? I demand compensation!!!!!...for my publication...because I'm a poet and didn't even know it!!!!

[Houston19514]

Highway6, on Monday, March 20th, 2006 @ 11:14am, said:

How does lightrail intersect with existing heavy rail ?
The existing lightrail line doesn't not cross regular railroad anywhere does it?
This new line will have to cross no matter what - westpark, richmond or westeimer.... how does it do this ?
Does it have to go over/under, or can it intersect and just have to stop like regular auto traffic ?

Also.. how expensive is tunneling for brief runs so it acts as a subway ? Is this even fiscally feasible that the City would consider it anywhere ?
Of the three possible East-West possibilities :
I think, it has to run Richmond, at least between Kirby and Weslayn in order to hit Greenway.
Also.. for the Eastern end.. I think Richmond is again the best bet in order to hit UST and the mini-museum district.

Another major issue is how does the rail interact with the Galleria?
It has to be close enough to be effective and I think this eliminates both Westpark and Richmond
But, it also can't add to the traffic nightmare that is Westeimer & 610.

If i had any say.. this would be the proposal i'd put forth for study.

Run the length of Richmond, Turn North on Weslayn, Turn Left on West Alabama.
Have the "Highland Village" Stop at thie location.
At this point, it tunnels under West Alabama becoming a subway... bypassing under Afton Oaks ( Yes they'd still have to deal with construction ), bypassing under the railroad, bypassing under 610 ( avoiding both the Westeimer and Richmond intersections ), coming back to grade just West of Post Oak.
Have the "Galleria" stop here at McCue.
Continue West and rejoin Westeimer bypassing most Galleria traffic.

I like your thinking and your plan, except it should go down Westheimer, rather than Alabama. If you are going to put it in a tunnel (and I totally agree with that thought, it would not add to the traffic nightmare along Westheimer, and that would give it better access to Highland Village, the two new developments along Westheimer (Westcreek and whatever the other one is called, and also better access to the rest of Uptown, not just the Galleria.

The disruption of a tunnel construction depends on how it's done, of course. I doubt if it would be built with an open trench construction, but would probably be built by actually tunnelling under ground, with little surface disruption.