Jump to content

METRORail University Line


ricco67

Recommended Posts

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.

just curious, is that even possible in houston? plus wouldn't the tunnel need to be really deep then?

Edited by zaphod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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.

I agree.. I was settling. I'd like it to be on Westeimer also starting at Weslayn.. but just the thought of surface rail on Westeimer, between 610 and Chimney Rock... the cars aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

So how bout this... Richmond, north on Weslayn, West on Westheimer.

There you have the Highland Park Station at Drexel...

Then Westeimer and the lightrail go under the railroad tracks.. but.. here's the kicker... West of the railroad tracks, only Westheimer comes back up... the lightrail at that point becomes the subway.

Its then not at grade as it crosses 610 or as it runs along the dreaded traffic stretch mentioned above.

You can still puncture in mini boarding stations whereever... one at 610.. one at postoak, wherever.. it can also directly connect to the underground galleria parking garage.

Then we pop it back up to the middle of the Westheimer once it crosses Chimney Rock.

We are freaking geniuses in this forum... how do we let Metro know of our ideas ?

Though.. i notice on their plan... They don't show Westheimer as an option.. I wonder if they have already ruled out anything on Westheimer.

_____________________________________________________

One thing I havn't seen discussed.

How does this line terminate ?

I just reexamined Metro's plan.. they just have it fizzling out past Sage.

Also.. the Uptown line, they have coming down PostOak.

They have a Transit station, i assume where these two lines meet. Does Metro own any land in this area?

It seems, they dont plan to have lightrail eventually ride out to 8 on either Richmond or Westheimer.. then, there is actually no reason for the above proposed to pop back abaove ground.

____________________________________________________

One last issue.....

Will each line need a maintenance/storage facility at one end like at South Fannin, or will the trains be able to switch lines. Also, what was the capacity and intent of the South Fannin yard... is it meant to grow and serve the trains for all future lines ?

* EDIT*

The uptown line, i just realized, is only BRT, not lightrail.

What is everyone's thoughts on Bus Rapid Transit here?

I think, one reason lightrail, or any rail is so appealing, is its appearance of consistency and permenance.

Rail can't move. I think psychologically, that does wonders for would-be riders.

They always know exactly where the route is. It can't change on a whim everytime Metro decides to realign things. Its less or not effected at all by vehicle traffic (in the case of subway). You don't have to worry about drivers filling in and not knowing the routes and missing stops. { Back in junior high, numerous times, I found myself having to tell lost drivers where the express route from downtown up 290 was supposed to go}

BRT is glorifed bus with a supposed rightt-of-way. And it may have dedicated right-of-way, but it still runs on tires and its own power, and is not tied to the earth in any sort of permanent way. I think one reason Transit Agencies like it is because of its flexibility. But I think that flexibility, or lack thereof, is the exact reason why commuters are more comfortable with rail then they are bus.

Edited by Highway6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are freaking geniuses in this forum... how do we let Metro know of our ideas ?

Though.. i notice on their plan... They don't show Westheimer as an option.. I wonder if they have already ruled out anything on Westheimer.

Here's a short statement from METRO regarding Westheimer: http://www.ridemetro.org/News/METROConnect...43862&mid=28506

There is contact info at the bottom.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this is giving me a headache. I wonder if any of the stations at the ends of the University line will have a park and ride lot like the currenlt line at Fannin South. If so, where would one terminate if placing the line on Westheimer?

Edited by WesternGulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a short statement from METRO regarding Westheimer: http://www.ridemetro.org/News/METROConnect...43862&mid=28506

There is contact info at the bottom.

B)

If Highland Village wants it than the Westhiemer would be a definite go.

Also, while I like Highway6's plan to go down Alabama; there are some hopping mad Afton Oaks people who may hit the ceiling if this was even hinted at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Highland Village wants it than the Westhiemer would be a definite go.

Also, while I like Highway6's plan to go down Alabama; there are some hopping mad Afton Oaks people who may hit the ceiling if this was even hinted at.

Underground, above ground, or not on the road, is the only way I can see it going anywhere near Westhimer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cost is probably the main reason this alignment was dropped from consideration.

Why? Other cities go all out for there rail systems, why does Houston have to be so cheap with minimum needs. I say atleast go all out on the one line that goes from downtown to uptown. This line should make people say WOW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me while i echo THE KID for a moment : face it folks! Houston needs subway or Monorail that's it! Any train that's at grade level for the cars is just a disaster waiting to happen. If so many accidents have happened on the Main Street (which doesn't carry half the amount of traffic as Westheimer or Richmond) then you can only imagine what will happen if there's an at-grade light rail built in that area. Disaster.

Anybody who doesn't agree with me is foolish and needs to be slapped for not thinking of people's safety and faster transportation options. PERIOD. I know THE KID and SCARFACE got my back on this issue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me while i echo THE KID for a moment : face it folks! Houston needs subway or Monorail that's it! Any train that's at grade level for the cars is just a disaster waiting to happen. If so many accidents have happened on the Main Street (which doesn't carry half the amount of traffic as Westheimer or Richmond) then you can only imagine what will happen if there's an at-grade light rail built in that area. Disaster.

Anybody who doesn't agree with me is foolish and needs to be slapped for not thinking of people's safety and faster transportation options. PERIOD. I know THE KID and SCARFACE got my back on this issue!

At the risk of being "slapped"-actually slapping me at this point in time would probably result in you having the crap beat out of you by my hulk of a partner-people need to be aware of the signage. People need to be aware of the trains..."Oh! Look! There's a big ol' train on rails imbedded in the street...but I'll go ahead and turn in front of them and they will just have to swerve out of my way".

Jesus, I am so tierd of hearing that argument re: cars running into trains. :blink:

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being "slapped"-actually slapping me at this point in time would probably result in you having the crap beat out of you by my hulk of a partner-people need to be aware of the signage. People need to be aware of the trains..."Oh! Look! There's a big ol' train on rails imbedded in the street...but I'll go ahead and turn in front of them and they will just have to swerve out of my way".

Jesus, I am so tierd of hearing that argument re: cars running into trains. :blink:

B)

Amen to that! Not to mention that many, if not most, of the accidents were the fault of drivers running red traffic lights! You don't run the red light, you don't get hit. It's not that hard to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Other cities go all out for there rail systems, why does Houston have to be so cheap with minimum needs. I say atleast go all out on the one line that goes from downtown to uptown. This line should make people say WOW!

I completely agree. I stated earlier in the thread that under Westhiemer was the only way to go. However, if the ridership isnt there (which I believe it is) they wont get federal funding, and it wont get built. I seriously think if Highland Village and developers at the old Central Ford site could be persuaded to push for a Westhiemer alignment; then it could happen. But dont get your hopes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this is giving me a headache. I wonder if any of the stations at the ends of the University line will have a park and ride lot like the currenlt line at Fannin South. If so, where would one terminate if placing the line on Westheimer?

I dont think either end would require one. UH has about 15000 students on campus during peak times and a 30 minute hop on the train would put them at the galleria, greenway plaza, or downtown. Thats the impetus for this line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest danax
Why? Other cities go all out for there rail systems, why does Houston have to be so cheap with minimum needs. I say atleast go all out on the one line that goes from downtown to uptown. This line should make people say WOW!

I agree. It would appear that we are not going "first class" here with our urban transit system. We're getting gussied-up buses for the Uptown line running down Post Oak, one of our classiest boulevards, so coming to the conclusion that we're getting a cheapie, entry-level transit system would seem to be accurate.

Therefore, hoping that they would go all-out and get a subway dug, technical challenges aside, is pure pipedream, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me while i echo THE KID for a moment : face it folks! Houston needs subway or Monorail that's it! Any train that's at grade level for the cars is just a disaster waiting to happen.

I think dislike of monorail is a function of the feeling of isolation.

I don't have a problem with Metrorail mainly going for at grade lightrail... I think some parts of the city... i like the idea thats its basically a streetcar, and one can enjoy seeing the city.

And i think if part of the reason for having a transit line is to spur development, density, urban feel, street life... monorail can't achieve this. Look at downtown. The tunnel system has the same effect. While downtown is somwhat getting livelier, the system of tunnels and skyways kills streetlife. I would be afraid monorail would do the same for urban growth along the rail line.

However.. i do think, Metro needs to be willing go go below grade at certain high traffic locations.. such as the Galleria.... I think Houston would best benfit with a subway/lightrail hybrid.

Even NYC's transit system.. its not all subway.. 40% is above ground.

Oh yes..

And I have contacted Metro.. asking them for more information on why Westheimer has been eliminated and about the Galleria's position on the line.

Edited by Highway6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suggestion that anyone who opposes a monorail is settling for mediocrity is ridiculous. I challenge any monorail supporter to show me a monorail installation that even remotely approaches affordability. The assumption that METRO not only has unlimited resources to install fanciful transit systems, but also has unanimous support to do so is a fantasy. Not only am I not the least bit convinced that monorail is more attractive than LRT, but I know that the amount of federal funding that METRO would get for an overpriced rail system is ZERO.

Posting your dreams of a transit system if price were no object is one thing. Ignoring the realities of slim majority support for ANY rail, plus opposition by our elected "leaders", and the reduced federal funding and tighter rail requirements from the current administration, is quite another. Calling the rest of us "foolish" for dwelling in reality rather than frolicking in your fantasy is off the mark. "PERIOD".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being "slapped"-actually slapping me at this point in time would probably result in you having the crap beat out of you by my hulk of a partner

this comment wasn't a display of your homosexuality was it? If so, Please spare me!

Amen to that! Not to mention that many, if not most, of the accidents were the fault of drivers running red traffic lights! You don't run the red light, you don't get hit. It's not that hard to figure out.

And you, i really wish there was a way to slap you through the internet by that comment. Like it or not, i don't think that we can put 100 % of the blame to the drivers. When i first drove down the Main Street line, i myself was confused at so many restrictions the train had put on Main Street that i could see how any driver or out of town visitor could easily make a mistake. But i don't care, part of it all is due to poor design and poor planning.

Who caused what accident is not really that important to me. The fact is there were accidents and one fatality. What is important to me is that a light rail or train system be designed and done right the first time around and then we won't have to go back and try to figure out what happened, correct, or either play the "blame game" by pointing the finger.

At the risk of sounding redundant, the only safe and sensible solution that i can think of for a train going out that way towards Uptown is to make sure it is not "at grade" with the cars. Either by going over or under. We build freeways here like its nothing. Why can't we build something in the air that's dedicated to a metrorail train or either clear a 2.5 mile passage underground to run a train underneath?

As MidtownCoog intelligently pointed out earlier: if we can destroy a neighborhood to build 288, why can't we sacrifice anything to build a smart rail plan the RIGHT way the first time? And to danax <slap> and Redscare <slap> Whether it be fantasy or not, i think that it is one option that might have to be considered if they're talking about expanding a line out that way. PERIOD!!!

Edited by tierwestah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this comment wasn't a display of your homosexuality was it? If so, Please spare me!

And you, i really wish there was a way to slap you through the internet by that comment. And to danax <slap> and Redscare <slap> Whether it be fantasy or not, i think that it is one option that might have to be considered if they're talking about expanding a line out that way. PERIOD!!!

Is it necessary to be so ugly and mean-spirited?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm right there with the headache about this...

and i also think that this issue has many problems, including poor planning/design/signage, AND drivers who cannot/will not/do not read the signs that are in place (these are the same type of drivers that stop on railroad tracks in general, of course :rolleyes: ).

also, it's obviously going to be hard to implement something that this city has avoided/shunned for so long...

Edited by sevfiv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm right there with the headache about this...

and i also think that this issue has many problems, including poor planning/design/signage, AND drivers who cannot/will not/do not read the signs that are in place (these are the same drivers that stop on railroad tracks in general, of course :rolleyes: ).

also, it's obviously going to be hard to implememnt something that this city has avoided/shunned for so long...

I think the rail line going along the road is just stupid. This stops traffic backs it up and defeats the whole purpuse of having rail. If it can't be above or below ground, atleast give the thing its own path that why it can go faster and not stop traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this comment wasn't a display of your homosexuality was it? If so, Please spare me!

And you, i really wish there was a way to slap you through the internet by that comment. Like it or not, i don't think that we can put 100 % of the blame to the drivers. When i first drove down the Main Street line, i myself was confused at so many restrictions the train had put on Main Street that i could see how any driver or out of town visitor could easily make a mistake. But i don't care, part of it all is due to poor design and poor planning.

Your first comment regarding my attempt at humor...irrelevant.

As for the rest of your rant, there is blame to be assigned: Bad and careless drivers who ignore and/or refuse to obey traffic signage.

If you have trouble obeying traffic signage, perhaps you'd be happier in a small one-light town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and amazingly, there has never been a SINGLE accident or fatality on any of those freeways.

You're misunderstanding my point- if we were to build monorail, that would involve building an above-grade bridge- simliar procedure to building an elevated freeway. this would be dedicated for the incoming and outgoing train lines exclusively.

Is it necessary to be so ugly and mean-spirited?

Read my signature- that says it all! >:)

Your first comment regarding my attempt at humor...irrelevant.

As for the rest of your rant, there is blame to be assigned: Bad and careless drivers who ignore and/or refuse to obey traffic signage.

If you have trouble obeying traffic signage, perhaps you'd be happier in a small one-light town.

i have no problem obeying traffic signs and rules- that's part of driving overall. But what about all those people who aren't familiar with the design of the street? People do tend to make honest and careless mistakes! Does that mean they should get clobbered by a train? I don't think so. The best way to cure this is to take preventative measures to help deter people from making these type of mistakes.

And yes, no one can change my mind on this- that part of Westheimer/Richmond near 610 is a jungle and putting any train at-grade level is just asking for trouble! Yall can say what you want about me but even a blind person could see that if you put a train in a much busier intersection than the first line (where our train has already been the butt of many jokes as the accident capital), this just spells disaster. PERIOD!!!

Edited by tierwestah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do tend to make honest and careless mistakes! Does that mean they should get clobbered by a train?

not necessarily, but that's what happens when you make a left turn over railroad tracks when a train is coming...just like making a left turn from the middle lane in regular traffic...

The best way to cure this is to take preventative measures to help deter people from making these type of mistakes.

so should we install nipples on coke cans now, too? :rolleyes:

Edited by sevfiv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not necessarily, but that's what happens when you make a left turn over railroad tracks when a train is coming...just like making a left turn from the middle lane in regular traffic...

so should we install nipples on coke cans now, too? :rolleyes:

whatever!!! You can make jokes all you want but the fact remains simple- You can't apply the same scenarios when talking about a lrt train that's designed to function in regular car traffic with a railroad train. For one, railroad trains are used to transport natural resources like coal and other resources. Rapid transit and LRT trains are supposed to be designed to transport people in a faster method. Normally when railroad trains come, there's almost always a red/white stripe arm that comes down keeping people from crossing anyway. LRT doesn't always have the arm at every intersection. And also to add, LRT trains come much more frequent than railroad trains.

Edited by tierwestah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're misunderstanding my point-

No, you misunderstand MY point. I asked you earlier if you could point out a monorail that didn't cost a fortune, but you ignored me. I assume that is because you could not find one. So let me explain. The Main Street LRT cost about $43 million per mile to build. Costs for the U-Line is expected to be similar. Seattle voters just cancelled their monorail because it was going to cost $136 million per mile...more than triple the cost of LRT. Want more? Las Vegas just built a monorail that cost $141 million per mile.

The U-Line is 10 miles. LRT would cost about $450 million. Monorail would cost about 1.4 Billion. So, what you suggest is that because ONE drunk ran a redlight and killed himself in 2 and a half years, METRO taxpayers should pay an extra $1 Billion.

I think you know the answer to that question....not no, but HELL NO!

TheNiche had a great explanation about risks vs. costs in another thread. You should read it. In short, it says that we weigh the risks against the costs to make our decisions. 350 people die on Harris County roads every year, yet you still drive your car on these roads. One person has died in 2 1/2 years of LRT. It is not worth an extra Billion dollars to protect him from the train, especially since he would have died anyway if that had been a bus instead of a train.

I know this won't change your mind. I only tell you this so you'll understand why no one is even listening to your argument. It's too expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you misunderstand MY point. I asked you earlier if you could point out a monorail that didn't cost a fortune, but you ignored me. I assume that is because you could not find one. So let me explain. The Main Street LRT cost about $43 million per mile to build. Costs for the U-Line is expected to be similar. Seattle voters just cancelled their monorail because it was going to cost $136 million per mile...more than triple the cost of LRT. Want more? Las Vegas just built a monorail that cost $141 million per mile.

What about from a ridership perspective..

These cities that have monorail, like Vegas.. it's my understanding that ridership is way less then what we experience here... Any validity to this or is it the same levels of ridership.. but becasue the cost is so much more, its just less cost effective ?

Edited by Highway6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever!!! You can make jokes all you want but the fact remains simple- You can't apply the same scenarios when talking about a lrt train that's designed to function in regular car traffic with a railroad train. For one, railroad trains are used to transport natural resources like coal and other resources. Rapid transit and LRT trains are supposed to be designed to transport people in a faster method. And also to add, LRT trains come much more frequent than railroad trains.

it may seem like a joke but i am dead serious.

i can apply the same "theory" that it is BAD to stop on any set of tracks or try to take the r-o-w from a train.

and for the frequency of lrt's, you'd think that would make them even MORE conspicuous, whether they are transporting people or coal.

argh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you misunderstand MY point. I asked you earlier if you could point out a monorail that didn't cost a fortune, but you ignored me. I assume that is because you could not find one. So let me explain. The Main Street LRT cost about $43 million per mile to build. Costs for the U-Line is expected to be similar. Seattle voters just cancelled their monorail because it was going to cost $136 million per mile...more than triple the cost of LRT. Want more? Las Vegas just built a monorail that cost $141 million per mile.

The U-Line is 10 miles. LRT would cost about $450 million. Monorail would cost about 1.4 Billion. So, what you suggest is that because ONE drunk ran a redlight and killed himself in 2 and a half years, METRO taxpayers should pay an extra $1 Billion.

I think you know the answer to that question....not no, but HELL NO!

TheNiche had a great explanation about risks vs. costs in another thread. You should read it. In short, it says that we weigh the risks against the costs to make our decisions. 350 people die on Harris County roads every year, yet you still drive your car on these roads. One person has died in 2 1/2 years of LRT. It is not worth an extra Billion dollars to protect him from the train, especially since he would have died anyway if that had been a bus instead of a train.

I know this won't change your mind. I only tell you this so you'll understand why no one is even listening to your argument. It's too expensive.

So what would the cost of a part subway/ part street level system be?

Edited by citykid09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about from a ridership perspective..

These cities that have monorail, like Vegas.. it's my understanding that ridership is way less then what we experience here... Any validity to this or is it the same levels of ridership.. but becasue the cost is so much more, its just less cost effective ?

That's an additional problem. My numbers are just construction costs, before a single rider steps on board. Low ridership would be a different set of numbers.

I do believe that street level transit gets the most ridership because it is the easiest to board and exit, versus going up and down stairs to get to elevated and subway stations. But, I'm leaving that out of this debate. I'm just saying the stronomical costs of monorail is why no one is installing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this won't change your mind. I only tell you this so you'll understand why no one is even listening to your argument. It's too expensive.

Oh COST! POSH be GOSH! No one is talking about making the subway or monorail real long, just at least under or over the 610 loop. Even if they didn't make a subway a mile long, that would still be long enough to avoid the 610/ Galleria area traffic.

Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that cities like Dallas don't have a problem raising the funds to bury their lightrail for 2-3 miles before it arrives downtown. AND, they just received federal funding and are moving toward building more subway lines. Houston can't even get one?

We can build all these buildings and skyscrapers that sit vacant for months before people rent them. And can also build monstrous freeways in everypart of the city. (That's more expensive than doing the same thing for a train and just laying train tracks over it?) I'm just talking about one 1-1.5 measley subway/monorail line here folks. No one says it has to go throughout the entire city. Just needs to be able to avoid the areas with the heaviest amounts of traffic! Someone on here has gotta feel what i'm sayin'.

Edited by tierwestah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you could start by using the right terminology. Dallas does not have a monorail. It is LRT. A monorail is a completely different type of transit, one that is very expensive to build. If you are suggesting elevating a portion of the LRT, or in the alternative, tunnelling a portion of it, that is a completely different story.

METRO has not decided where to put the line, nor has it decided whether to run it at street level, subway, or elevated. A combination of all 3 is even possible. There are some suggestions here to do some of that. I am confident that METRO will look into that, as well. The only thing we know for sure is that street level rail is least expensive to build. We also know that if it is too expensive, we will not get federal funding, which is critical to building the line.

An elevated line is much noisier than street level or subway, due to vibration. The neighbors would probably complain more about that. However, on those sections that are too narrow, it should be considered, along with all of the other options. Elevated rail is also imposing and frankly, ugly. It blocks out light and looks like a miniature freeway overpass. If this can be done without too many elevated sections, I think it will look better, and sound better. That's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh COST! POSH be GOSH! No one is talking about making the subway or monorail real long, just at least under or over the 610 loop. Even if they didn't make a subway a mile long, that would still be long enough to avoid the 610/ Galleria area traffic.

Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that cities like Dallas don't have a problem raising the funds to bury their lightrail for 2-3 miles before it arrives downtown. AND, they just received federal funding and are moving toward building more subway lines. Houston can't even get one?

We can build all these buildings and skyscrapers that sit vacant for months before people rent them. And can also build monstrous freeways in everypart of the city. (That's more expensive than doing the same thing for a train and just laying train tracks over it?) I'm just talking about one 1-1.5 measley subway/monorail line here folks. No one says it has to go throughout the entire city. Just needs to be able to avoid the areas with the heaviest amounts of traffic! Someone on here has gotta feel what i'm sayin'.

I feel what you're saying. I can't see a rail line passing on street level with all of the traffic in the Galleria area.

I personally would like to see a subway tunnel, it really doesn't even have to go that deep.

And there could be a station not to far from the Galleria, but not to close so you can get people walking.

Atlanta2023.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantics, Shemantics.

Okay.. i think we all agree here.

1) Monorail actually sucks and isn't feasible but elevated LRT is a possibility in short spurts.

2) Subway isn't feasible but submerged LRT is a possibility in short spurts.

3) While the majority of the LRT crashes are caused by dumbasses, as a city, we should take note that our city is full of dumbasses and in *some* places, separation of train and car is desirable.

4) The galleria area is one such place.

5) Separation underground would be favorable to separation by elevating becasue elevated transit is ugly, loud, expensive.

Edited by Highway6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantics, Shemantics.

Okay.. i think we all agree here.

1) Monorail actually sucks and isn't feasible but elevated LRT is a possibility in short spurts.

2) Subway isn't feasible but submerged LRT is a possibility in short spurts.

3) While the majority of the LRT crashes are caused by dumbasses, as a city, we should take note that our city is full of dumbasses and in *some* places, separation of train and car is desirable.

4) The galleria area is one such place.

5) Separation underground would be favorable to separation by elevating becasue elevated transit is ugly, loud, expensive.

Yes.

The line could possibly be elevated in the Greenway Plaza area to reduce congestion during high traffic times. Also it may be feasible to partially elevate the line above the Southwest Freeway if a Westpark alignment was put into place.

Edited by CE_ugh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there could be a station not to far from the Galleria, but not to close so you can get people walking.

Again, this is for looks and not for reasonable purposes right? Kind of like the subway tunnel eh? Why would it kill you to not have a station in front of the Galleria? For your own satisfaction to actually see pedestrians because it looks more urban right? Nothing wrong with an area "looking" urban but when you have an agenda to place things out of the way just to see a pedestrian and for no other purposes, it usually does not work out. Areas such as Main Street Square come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

The line could possibly be elevated in the Greenway Plaza area to reduce congestion during high traffic times. Also it may be feasible to partially elevate the line above the Southwest Freeway if a Westpark alignment was put into place.

Is Greenway really all that congested.. enough to warrant elevated ?

It seems most the congestion is on the freeway feeder and all the parking garage entries,/ ramps that lead to the feeder. I've never noticed Richmond right there to really be all that bad... no worse then the Med Center.. and I wouldn't say the rail down there adds to much to the vehicle congestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantics, Shemantics.

Okay.. i think we all agree here.

1) Monorail actually sucks and isn't feasible but elevated LRT is a possibility in short spurts.

2) Subway isn't feasible but submerged LRT is a possibility in short spurts.

3) While the majority of the LRT crashes are caused by dumbasses, as a city, we should take note that our city is full of dumbasses and in *some* places, separation of train and car is desirable.

4) The galleria area is one such place.

5) Separation underground would be favorable to separation by elevating becasue elevated transit is ugly, loud, expensive.

That's pretty much it, dude. :P

Except, of course, for citykid. His requirement is that it doesn't actually have to do anything, so long as it LOOKS urban. In fact, apparently he wants it to be somewhat inconvenient, because he thinks it is cool to watch people walk to a subway station. Kind of looks like MARTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you could start by using the right terminology. Dallas does not have a monorail. It is LRT.

Where in my post did i ever say that Dallas had monorail? I said that they buried a portion of their lightrail underground at Cityplace Station. Yes, i was suggesting just elevating or tunneling part of the train near 610 loop to avoid all that nasty traffic.

I'm kind of finding myself getting a little heated over this so i'm gonna end and say that i respect your opinion Red. I have no gripe with you. Whether if my idea is strictly fantasy, you have to admit that it makes sense and needs to be done or looked into.

Edited by tierwestah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty much it, dude. :P

Except, of course, for citykid. His requirement is that it doesn't actually have to do anything, so long as it LOOKS urban. In fact, apparently he wants it to be somewhat inconvenient, because he thinks it is cool to watch people walk to a subway station. Kind of looks like MARTA.

Thats not what I mean't to say. What I was really trying to say is that Uptown is not just the Galleria. There is much more to this area, so why just have it right next to the Galleria. There are many other developments like Boulevard Place, etc that can be the main station for uptown. and by not just putting it near the Galleria, It would encourage people to walk around other shopping areas in uptown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and by the way, when I temporarily lived in Atlanta in 2003, there were actually people who did not understand what was the need for a subway system. Atlanta sticks out like a sore thumb among cities that have HEAVY transit systems. Is that a good or bad thing? You be the judge. NYC, LA, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta. What is the difference? Densely populated cities compared to the least dense metro on the face of the planet. I personally believe Atlanta would be more of a transit friendly city, and I am not the only one, if the money that was used for their HEAVY rail system was used for more coverage on light rail or streetcars that fit their city's density and because of that MARTA might as well be a commuter based rail system. This is just from my experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty much it, dude. :P

Except, of course, for citykid. His requirement is that it doesn't actually have to do anything, so long as it LOOKS urban. In fact, apparently he wants it to be somewhat inconvenient, because he thinks it is cool to watch people walk to a subway station. Kind of looks like MARTA.

I think if one goal is to achieve the look and feel of something urban.. again.. lightrail is the way to go.

What could be more urban than a glorified modern trolley.

Monorails aren't urban.. they're faux futuristic and impractical.

Subways.. are urban.. but, you miss out on experiencing the city... its felels urban for those using it.. but its nonexistant and out of sight for those walking the street.. so it doesnt add to the urban feel of the city

This is what we do.. we add pits, and stairs going down to a hole in the ground with benches at evey LRT station.. we'll import some random NYC subway signs.. now everyone will be happy.

Thats not what I mean't to say. What I was really trying to say is that Uptown is not just the Galleria. There is much more to this area, so why just have it right next to the Galleria. There are many other developments like Boulevard Place, etc that can be the main station for uptown. and by not just putting it near the Galleria, It would encourage people to walk around other shopping areas in uptown.

Thats what the Uptown BRT line is for... the lesser Uptown destinations.

To pretend the Galleria is not the most important desitnation in uptown... is just plain silly.

If the West Univserity line is intent on servicing uptown.. then it should stop pussyfooting around and go right up to the front door of the galleria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Greenway really all that congested.. enough to warrant elevated ?

It seems most the congestion is on the freeway feeder and all the parking garage entries,/ ramps that lead to the feeder. I've never noticed Richmond right there to really be all that bad... no worse then the Med Center.. and I wouldn't say the rail down there adds to much to the vehicle congestion.

Correct. Richmond does flow pretty right now. The question is will the elimination of two lanes of traffic and the ability of auto traffic to turn left justify the need to seperate the track from the roadway in this area. It might. (and it looks urban :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and by the way, when I temporarily lived in Atlanta in 2003, there were actually people who did not understand what was the need for a subway system. Atlanta sticks out like a sore thumb among cities that have HEAVY transit systems. Is that a good or bad thing? You be the judge. NYC, LA, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta. What is the difference? Densely populated cities compared to the least dense metro on the face of the planet. I personally believe Atlanta would be more of a transit friendly city, and I am not the only one, if the money that was used for their HEAVY rail system was used for more coverage on light rail or streetcars that fit their city's density and because of that MARTA might as well be a commuter based rail system. This is just from my experiences.

I don't see anything wrong with MARTA, it took me everywhere I wanted to go. And if it didn't I could have always have taken a bus from there but I didn't.

To me MARTA's Transit is far more superior than METROLight Rail. Even if METRO Light Rail had the same amount of rail as MARTA, they still could not compare. And wheather its a subway or a lightrail why would you think the lightrail would bring in more urban development? Light rails stops in Houston are nothing more than a bus stop shead. And If development comes it wouldn't develop all along the rail line it would just develop around the stops. So how is that any diffrent from a Subway??? :blink:

And you guys say you want to see the city above ground, thats fine, but it takes longer, and I would prefer to leave an area downtown, go into a tunnel come out and end up uptown without having to see the stuff that is not that urban in the first place. When its in a tunnel and you have stops at major centers like the Medical center, Down Town, Uptown, Greenway etc, it feels more like your in a big city. When I was in Atlanta, the MARTA added to the feeling of being in a big city.

Even smaller cities now-a-days have light rail, and bigger cities are adding them in addition to the hevy rail they already have.

So what I don't understand WesternGulf is why do you put Houston on Par with cities like Denver, and San Deigo when it should stive for more? And I know you will get at me and say why do I look to Atlanta for advise on Houston and my answer to that is this: Atlanta knows that its bigger than cities like Denver and San Deigo so it strives to be cities like Chicago, LA, and New York. And to me it works for them, and it WILL work for Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a little extreme but I like the fact of cars bowing down to any sort of public transportation. Like my aunt said, I am sure a lot of people who work in the Texas Medical Center who get stuck in traffic at rush hour and wait for the train to cross south of the TMC station will get the idea. She sure as hell did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a little extreme but I like the fact of cars bowing down to any sort of public transportation. Like my aunt said, I am sure a lot of people who work in the Texas Medical Center who get stuck in traffic at rush hour and wait for the train to cross south of the TMC station will get the idea. She sure as hell did.

And one other thing those light rail cars don't hold many people compared to heavy rail system. You only see towo light rail cars togeather, but you see many on a heavy rail system. So thats another complant they don't hold many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I don't understand WesternGulf is why do you put Houston on Par with cities like Denver, and San Deigo when it should stive for more? And I know you will get at me and say why do I look to Atlanta for advise on Houston and my answer to that is this: Atlanta knows that its bigger than cities like Denver and San Deigo so it strives to be cities like Chicago, LA, and New York. And to me it works for them, and it WILL work for Houston.
Where has Atlanta's system that you claim tries to be like NYC and Chicago placed them? You have a lot of traveling to do if you think Atlanta's core or any other major sunbelt city except for New Orleans, LA and Miami is on par with San Diego and Denver. Why can't it be that cities like Denver, Portland, Seattle, and San Diego are way above par than cities in their own league and those cities transit system are a lot more convenient than Atlanta's.

Yes if Houston had as much light rail in the core of their city as Atlanta's subway, yes I think it would be better because it would actually be an urban rail transportation system that serves a wide array of neighborhoods in the urban core. I have friends that live in intown Atlanta neighborhoods that are better off taking a bus because MARTA's coverage does not service them without walking miles and miles and they live in the inner city. Dallas' DART light rail has just as many miles as Atlanta's subway and I would argue that they have the best system in the south. Why? Because it simply does not go north to south and east to west but they have better coverage.

And one other thing those light rail cars don't hold many people compared to heavy rail system. You only see towo light rail cars togeather, but you see many on a heavy rail system. So thats another complant they don't hold many people.

Do we need all of those? Dude I ride the system almost every day while you are simply an observer and I would argue from your post that you are hardly even that. There use to be times at rush hour in the afternoon where the light rail car would be busting at its seams (if I could say literally I would) because there was only one car that pulled into the stations. Now they double up on the cars at rush hour and there is no need for more than two cars. Both vehicles are decently filled now with actual space.

This is what I am talking about. Wanting things for no reasonable purposes. Maybe if you do want those sort of things for no purpose, move to a city that practices that since we know they exist.

Edited by WesternGulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where has Atlanta's system that you claim tries to be like NYC and Chicago placed them? You have a lot of traveling to do if you think Atlanta's core or any other major sunbelt city except for New Orleans, LA and Miami is on par with San Diego and Denver. Why can't it be that cities like Denver, Portland, Seattle, and San Diego are way above par than cities in their own league and those cities transit system are a lot more convenient than Atlanta's.

Yes if Houston had as much light rail in the core of their city as Atlanta's subway, yes I think it would be better because it would actually be an urban rail transportation system that serves a wide array of neighborhoods in the urban core. I have friends that live in intown Atlanta neighborhoods that are better off taking a bus because MARTA's coverage does not service them without walking miles and miles and they live in the inner city. Dallas' DART light rail has just as many miles as Atlanta's subway and I would argue that they have the best system in the south. Why? Because it simply does not go north to south and east to west but they have better coverage.

I have never been on DART before. But Rail aside from everything else, out of Denver, San Deigo, and Atlanta which city is known more? Atlanta. Which city has more stuff that you would only find in a big city? Atlanta. I am not trying to sound small minded, but on a national level Atlanta is thought more of as an Alpha city. They have stuff that you can only find in cities like itself. Highend shopping, etc. Also ESPN Zone NikeTown. I now Denver also has NikeTown, but Denver doesn't have HighEnd Shopping like Houston,or Atlanta.

Edited by citykid09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

citykid says

Atlanta knows that its bigger than cities like Denver and San Deigo so it strives to be cities like Chicago, LA, and New York.

I think it's fine to gather info from other cities-large and small. But if I wanted to be more like Chicago, LA or NYC, I'd just move there. I strive to make Houston be a better Houston so I won't be entering any pissing contests over who has the better city.

Back to the topic, I think any combination of tunnels, underpasses and elevated would help alleviate every body's concern for the almighty Car. But for the majority of the U Line, it will be at grade regardless of alignment.

As far as a Gallaria station...I say plop it right there-the Gallaria is THE premier destination in Uptown. Why would you put it anywhere else? If the train is in a tunnel from Highland to Sage, put the station in the damn Gallaria garage. If you don't think the owners and merchants wouldn't be ga ga for that you are from another planet.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...