Jump to content

Bill Sets Off Alarm For METRO Light Rail


musicman

Recommended Posts

I agree our system needs to have more grade separations but there really aren't any stops that we can do without on the University Line and Uptown Line, in my opinion. I am not nearly as familiar with the North, SE, and East End line to comment on those lines. However, looking at the LRT map I wouldn't say it has "excessively frequent stops". What stops would you do away with?

Niche's list of dubious LRT stops:

University Line (from west to east) - N. 1st Street, Weslayan, Mandell, Almeda, Hutchins

North Line (from south to north) - Quitman, Cavalcade, Sylvester

Southeast Line (from west to east) - Leeland is the only one, although the crap-tastic alignment of this route means that there are a couple of stops that are only tolerable because there aren't any good alternatives (ex. MLK & OST, where the only ridership justification is that there has to be a bus link back to the Southeast Transit Center and the retail all around it).

East End Line (from west to east) - York, Altic.

Red Line (from north to south) - In hindsight, would eliminate Bell and have built the Downtown Transit Center two blocks to the north, would eliminate the Hermann Park/Rice U. stop and developed the Museum District stop to in between Montrose and Hermann Dr. Would not have built it beyond the TMC Transit Center and would have retained the pre-existing shuttle services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went on one of my photo exploration expeditions and found a fair amount of people walking at North Main and Quitman. Also some new townhome construction. I'd keep the Quitman stop on the North Line.

The Downtown Transit Center stop is where it needs to be. Bell was dubious when built, but I don't see the point in removing it now that it is. That's close enough to Houston Pavilions too.

Remember that we're not building this for the now, but for the future. Don't base everything on what you see right now, especially since none of this is coming until 2012 at the earliest. We Houstonians tend to live in the moment, but some are utterly incapable of looking past today. That's part of why a lot of things in this city are the way they are, and why people complain so much about the rail system when what we have is just the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what was your specific concern about fannin/san jacinto near the park? you seem to be ignoring that question.

@ Musicman: First off, you have to keep in mind that I don't live in Houston, so my comments are naturally going to lean on the idealistic side, but I'm going to try hard to keep in reality. Musicman, I would close OFF the roads from vehicular traffic, giving it exclusively light rail.

the roads parallel to the light rail aren't the main problem, it's the ones that cross them.

There's lights-and-guards at Fannin and Blodgett, also at Wentworth and San Jacinto, plus on San Jacinto.

I understand. do you understand why they are there specifically?

I'm afraid to say this, but isn't a given that if unless a light rail avoids roads via underpasses and overpasses, it's going to block vehicular traffic either way?

your earlier statement was regarding a train too long to fit on a block. now you're talking a train that crosses a road. two different scenarios altogether.

So I'm going to go with my first plan and expand the cars to four cars. Yeah, it will impede traffic, but that's what light rails do anyways, right?!

no not if designed in a manner to minimize interruptions. purposely utilizing trains that are longer than the block will do the opposite.

Meanwhile, if Houston was to build anymore light rails, it would be more "traditionally" like what a heavy rail would do. Specifically, they could use a couple of abandoned ROWs I know of...

If houston were to build any more? there's another thread with the proposed routes, etc.

which rows are you referring to and how specifically would they help houston's mass transit issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went on one of my photo exploration expeditions and found a fair amount of people walking at North Main and Quitman. Also some new townhome construction. I'd keep the Quitman stop on the North Line.

The Downtown Transit Center stop is where it needs to be. Bell was dubious when built, but I don't see the point in removing it now that it is. That's close enough to Houston Pavilions too.

There isn't much density around Quitman, and that stop is very close to another one at Ryon. One or the other would be adequate. Both are unnecessary.

I concur that Bell was dubious when built and also would not see any point in removing it now. Had it not been built, which would've been my preference, then and only then would I prefer that the Downtown Transit Center have been a little north of its present location.

Remember that we're not building this for the now, but for the future. Don't base everything on what you see right now, especially since none of this is coming until 2012 at the earliest. We Houstonians tend to live in the moment, but some are utterly incapable of looking past today. That's part of why a lot of things in this city are the way they are, and why people complain so much about the rail system when what we have is just the start.

If and when additional stops yield sufficient ridership to justify them, then we should implement them then. I'm talking about concrete platforms and excessively-artsy shelters. These things should not take especially long or especially much additional capital to design and build when they make sense to have. Until such time, however, let us not be inconvenienced by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's the guy that caused the uproar...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6442457.html

Don Hooper, an 'energy trader' who owns land along the proposed line.

It's fascinating that an owner of raw land would be concerned over the light rail. The experience in Midtown has been good for property owners that held land along Main Street, in sharp contrast with those whose property values were heavily influenced by improvements. I have to say, I smell a rat.

Does anybody know where this land is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fascinating that an owner of raw land would be concerned over the light rail. The experience in Midtown has been good for property owners that held land along Main Street, in sharp contrast with those whose property values were heavily influenced by improvements. I have to say, I smell a rat.

Does anybody know where this land is?

It is rather stunning that a (presumably) commercial landowner would oppose the light rail at all, much less go to such lengths to sabotage it. Virtually every study that looks at land values around light rail stations shows an increase in value for the land within walking distance of the station. I can understand why some residential landowners might complain, but not a commercial land owner. Perhaps his general hatred for METRO overrode his financial interests in seeing the rail get built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not every platform needs the artsy stuff, at least not paid for publicly.

Get rid of Ryon and go with Quitman then. I haven't really put much thought into the stops on the North Line, mind. Remember too that bus routes will be redone around the rail once it's built, and Quitman -> White Oak across 45 going toward the Heights.

This area is too close to downtown to remain like it is for long - I look at it as the next Midtown.

What became of the Intermodal Transit Center? Is that still in the plans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rather stunning that a (presumably) commercial landowner would oppose the light rail at all, much less go to such lengths to sabotage it. Virtually every study that looks at land values around light rail stations shows an increase in value for the land within walking distance of the station. I can understand why some residential landowners might complain, but not a commercial land owner. Perhaps his general hatred for METRO overrode his financial interests in seeing the rail get built.

...no, I can think of lots of exceptions to the rule, where commercial property owners wouldn't want to be along the rail line. Diminished access from having left turn restrictions, traffic counts being displaced to alternate thoroughfares, existing commercial tenants that aren't compatible with narrow access-restricted roads (for instance anything involving warehousing or logistics). Vacant land is one thing, but it's a complete wild card if there's anything more on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not every platform needs the artsy stuff, at least not paid for publicly.

Sure it does. METRO says so. :rolleyes:

Get rid of Ryon and go with Quitman then. I haven't really put much thought into the stops on the North Line, mind. Remember too that bus routes will be redone around the rail once it's built, and Quitman -> White Oak across 45 going toward the Heights.

Nah, Ryon is about equidistant between a big, dense public housing project and the Jeff Davis High School, which is also adjacent to a Fiesta supermarket. It is superior to the Quitman stop.

This area is too close to downtown to remain like it is for long - I look at it as the next Midtown.

Yeah, that's what most people think of places like "EaDo" or the East End. But the fact is that there's just too much land area divided amongst Midtown, 1st Ward, 4th Ward, the East End, 3rd Ward, and the Near Northside to take on truely urban characteristics in a reasonable time frame.

Like I said before, at such time as the stops yield sufficient ridership, then and only then should they be implemented.

What became of the Intermodal Transit Center? Is that still in the plans?

Sort of. But not without commuter rail that terminates there, and that's up in the air as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what was your specific concern about fannin/san jacinto near the park? you seem to be ignoring that question.

There's just a lot of traffic there on weekends and vacations when schools and tourists jam the stoplight, and you can't make left or right hand turns from the north due to the light rail. Getting rid of the grade crossing somehow would probably alleviate at least one headache.

the roads parallel to the light rail aren't the main problem, it's the ones that cross them.

I see. They seem to be too close to the stop line (San Jacinto/Fannin) without sufficient space for a full crossing. This can impede right and left turns. A full crossing like in Dallas would allow both parties to stop for each other (cars and LRT) while roads that don't have light rail can make easier turns.

I understand. do you understand why they are there specifically?

Do you honestly not know, or are you quizzing me? :huh:

I would say it's because the trains there are either too fast or come in at a different angle. There is something different about it.

your earlier statement was regarding a train too long to fit on a block. now you're talking a train that crosses a road. two different scenarios altogether.

Not really. If longer trains would be "too long to fit on a block", I assume you're saying that it would block more than one road downtown. But if the trains had an overpass or an underpass, one or less would be blocked, thus eliminating the "too long for a block" problem. Do you see what I'm saying?

no not if designed in a manner to minimize interruptions. purposely utilizing trains that are longer than the block will do the opposite.

Good point, it would increase interruptions, thus increasing traffic, and defeating the purpose of a light rail. Still, I can't see how just one or two more cars would make that much of a difference...

which rows are you referring to and how specifically would they help houston's mass transit issues?

which rows are you referring to and how specifically would they help houston's mass transit issues?

Why, the Texas and New Orleans Railroad, parallel from US-59. It would provide a speedy way to get from the Beltway 8 to downtown without driving on US59.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's just a lot of traffic there on weekends and vacations when schools and tourists jam the stoplight, and you can't make left or right hand turns from the north due to the light rail. Getting rid of the grade crossing somehow would probably alleviate at least one headache.

i usually just follow the sign that says where to turn to go to hermann park and museum. i've had no headaches. you do have to be observant though.

I see. They seem to be too close to the stop line (San Jacinto/Fannin) without sufficient space for a full crossing. This can impede right and left turns. A full crossing like in Dallas would allow both parties to stop for each other (cars and LRT) while roads that don't have light rail can make easier turns.

taking a right turn there seems odd since you'd be back tracking at that point. i'd just turn right on hermann.

Do you honestly not know, or are you quizzing me? :huh:

I would say it's because the trains there are either too fast or come in at a different angle. There is something different about it.

yes the rails actually cross the road and these arms prevent vehicles from hopefully pulling too far up so the train won't hit them as it curves toward the station. so how would arms help at the san jacinto/fannin area you keep referring to since the rails don't cross the road?

Not really. If longer trains would be "too long to fit on a block", I assume you're saying that it would block more than one road downtown. But if the trains had an overpass or an underpass, one or less would be blocked, thus eliminating the "too long for a block" problem. Do you see what I'm saying?

but again going back to reality that's not an option at this point. the rail runs at street level.

Good point, it would increase interruptions, thus increasing traffic, and defeating the purpose of a light rail. Still, I can't see how just one or two more cars would make that much of a difference...

must not be a good point if you can't see how just one or two more cars would make that much of a difference. ;)

increasing frequency will resolve your concern.

Why, the Texas and New Orleans Railroad, parallel from US-59. It would provide a speedy way to get from the Beltway 8 to downtown without driving on US59.

have a map by chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the numbers for State Rep. Joe Pickett

512-463-0596 For the phone at the capital.

915-490-4349 District office

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist79/pickett.php

Be sure to let him know how you feel.

Spread the word. :ph34r:

Just called and voiced my displeasure. The page person who answered sounded really annoyed and said that they'd been receiving angry calls all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just called and voiced my displeasure. The page person who answered sounded really annoyed and said that they'd been receiving angry calls all day.

Thanks for calling... I sent an e-mail voicing my opinion. At the end of my e-mail, I let him know that I would be supporting whom ever is running against him no matter what position he is running for. I hope Joe Pickett political career is over. He basically took a bribe from some rich pain-in-the -***. He tried to sneak this nonsense into an existing bill....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda wonder what the Putz that started all this thought about all the comments he probably read about himself in the Chron.com comments. Most of them were quite nasty.

Personally, I think he doesn't care and believe that he just has a blind hatred for Metro now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Bill Sets Off Alarm For METRO Light Rail

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...