Jump to content

METRORail University Line


ricco67

Recommended Posts

When a sufficient number of people prefer to walk, developers will provide pedestrian-friendly places in which they may do so.

Sounds like chicken and the egg. I always said it was a cycle. It all starts with regulated land use which Houston lacks for the most part.

edit: But I know that would be a commie liberal move. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It all starts with regulated land use which Houston lacks for the most part.

some ordinance updates in the midtown area would probably be all that is needed. don't think they'd need to go as far as regulating land use unless you want to keep certain things out like gas stations etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like chicken and the egg. I always said it was a cycle. It all starts with regulated land use which Houston lacks for the most part.

edit: But I know that would be a commie liberal move. ;)

Truely walkable environments developed prior to the existence of zoning on a completely market-driven basis. As more popular transportation options became available, preferences changed. If preferences were to change once again, developers would respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truely walkable environments developed prior to the existence of zoning on a completely market-driven basis.

I think it was more out of necessity, because naturally some cities were built without the car in mind but actual people, but too many people overlook how important walkable environments are today. Not just because it makes for a pretty streetscape or to have that nostalgiac feel.

I think it is still kind of silly to say that there are not any true walkable environments that evolved by regulations or zoning codes set by the local goverment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was more out of necessity, because naturally some cities were built without the car in mind but actual people, but too many people overlook how important walkable environments are today. Not just because it makes for a pretty streetscape or to have that nostalgiac feel.

I think it is still kind of silly to say that there are not any true walkable environments that evolved by regulations or zoning codes set by the local goverment.

Most every city has been built with people in mind (bearing in mind that it is in fact people that drive cars). If a city weren't built for people and the peoples' preferences, the people would move elsewhere.

More fundamentally, I would dispute that environments conducive to pedestrian activity are necessarily important for any reason other than having a pretty streetscape or a nostalgic feel. And I haven't said that true walkable environments couldn't be implemented by regulation; clearly any city can throw money at a perceived problem and see tangible results. Now, as for whether or not they're getting the bang for the buck (i.e. building with people in mind)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was more out of necessity, because naturally some cities were built without the car in mind but actual people, but too many people overlook how important walkable environments are today. Not just because it makes for a pretty streetscape or to have that nostalgiac feel.

I think it is still kind of silly to say that there are not any true walkable environments that evolved by regulations or zoning codes set by the local goverment.

I have to ask why are walkable environments important? As long as there's a sidewalk, it is easy to get around.

most of the environments you're thinking about tend to be new ventures. which can be established by zoning, ordinances, or a crafty developer who owns all the property and wants to build it that way.

As for existing areas. they can be build that way if someone is willing to foot the bill. most businesses aren't willing to redo sidewalks, plant trees, etc. the nodo area here is a good example where some entity paid for a large portion in conjunction with the city improvements. this is a "feel good" project only and was not a requirement to get around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct.

Another local on the committee is the only thing that would affect Culberson's influence on the project.

Like I said before, the other committee members are not going to force something in his district that he is against. They'll happily take their pork funds in their own districts.

Actually if Lampson is on the committee it will have no effect. You see Like Gene Green said in the Chronicle last Thursday or Friday. Representatives are very territorial - (paraphrased) "you stay out of my district and I will stay out of yours".

Someone else made the comment that Kay Bailey Hutchison might get involved if she received enough mail -also unlikely - she was still a Republican the last time I checked and it is very doubtful that she would go against a fellow Republican.

Maybe someone can persuade John Kerry to come speak on behalf of the University Line on Richmond - if that doesn't kill it once and for all nothing will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recieved yet another email today from gaylahamilton@sbcglobal.net-I'm assumiong with the Mobility Coalition. In it she asks everyone to contact Daphne Scarbrough at 713-523-8413 if they would like to be listed on the schedule to speak against rail on Richmond tomorrow.

I called the city secretary and asked if scheduling needed to be done through their office or could a group bring a list of people to be scheduled. He said they could indeed bring a list but none of those would be allowed to speak-unless they had signed up with the city secretary. Hmmmm....

I then called Daphne Scarbrough, informed her of her mistake and was immediatly called: trouble maker [MOI???], negative[little ol'me? :wub: ] and LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's the entire email text should anyone wish to respond to gaylahamilton@sbcglobal.net

Plans have changed while I was out of town last week and we will only be going to the Houston City Council on Tuesday, November 14, at 1:00 PM, and not going to The Houston Chronicle.

[Apparently their group and/or it's enthusiasm for over-turning the referendum results have faded.]

For all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most every city has been built with people in mind (bearing in mind that it is in fact people that drive cars). If a city weren't built for people and the peoples' preferences, the people would move elsewhere.

More fundamentally, I would dispute that environments conducive to pedestrian activity are necessarily important for any reason other than having a pretty streetscape or a nostalgic feel.

I would argue that industrial-age and postindustrial-age cities were built with the needs of business in mind, and rarely if ever reflected peoples' "preferences." thus the rise of reformers in the "parks" movement in the later 1800s, 20th century "City Beautiful" movement, and "New Urbanists" today.

Houston, with no geographical limits to growth, and experiencing it's greatest period of transformation from small city to big city in the late 1940s-late 1970s when gasoline was cheap, became a city based on personal transportation.

So Houston grew as an alternative vision to the existing industrial cities, a place where only the poorest HAD to use mass transit. It's tough to lay a fixed guideway system over that free-wheeling matrix, and it's naive not to expect heavy skepticism by metropolitan area residents who have not moved elsewhere in spite of the grind of the daily commute b/c they place a higher value on something else available here.

the 2nd point you make quoted above I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recieved yet another email today from gaylahamilton@sbcglobal.net-I'm assumiong with the Mobility Coalition. In it she asks everyone to contact Daphne Scarbrough at 713-523-8413 if they would like to be listed on the schedule to speak against rail on Richmond tomorrow.

I called the city secretary and asked if scheduling needed to be done through their office or could a group bring a list of people to be scheduled. He said they could indeed bring a list but none of those would be allowed to speak-unless they had signed up with the city secretary. Hmmmm....

I then called Daphne Scarbrough, informed her of her mistake and was immediatly called: trouble maker [MOI???], negative[little ol'me? :wub: ] and LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's the entire email text should anyone wish to respond to gaylahamilton@sbcglobal.net

Wow, nmainguy, you actually talked to the Brass Maiden lady! Have you notified the RichmondRail.org people to gather a pro-rail on Richmond group to speak at the meeting?

Also, can we keep this thread on topic (that is, light rail on Richmond)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask why are walkable environments important? As long as there's a sidewalk, it is easy to get around

IMO, walkable environments and good land use are intuitive. I know good land use can be subjective, but when in most communities the amount of developed land is growing faster than the population, it's kind of an issue and contrary to TheNiche's perspective it forces the general population to be overly dependant on automobiles increasing pollution, creates serious social issues by leaving the urban population behind to cater to what is happening on the fringes of metropolitan areas that probably destroyed farm land and open spaces that should have been conserved. My problem is alot of these problems are creeping up right on the border of downtown leaving this city with little options but to make true urban living in Houston a distant reality that we have to travel somewhere else to experience. Shouldn't have to be that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have a choice, therefore they aren't.

you mean they have a choice to move somewhere else. yes.

but for now, while they are living out their current choice to commute and be 458049085 miles from somewhere, they are dependent on their vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, nmainguy, you actually talked to the Brass Maiden lady! Have you notified the RichmondRail.org people to gather a pro-rail on Richmond group to speak at the meeting?

Also, can we keep this thread on topic (that is, light rail on Richmond)?

Well, it was more like I was ranted at by the Brass Maiden ^_^ , but yes, I spoke with her.

I have forwarded the email to:

Doug Childers, Chair

doug@richmondrail.org

As far as keeping the thread on topic, niche and the others are free to start another thread if they feel the need to debate a pro/con car dependant theory.

That's not what this topic is about. This topic is entitled: University Line On Richmond, Shortsighted opposition growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also sent Mr. Childers an e-mail.

Anyways, Mr. Spieler has a new post on his blog comparing some possible University Corridor alignments between Shepherd and Main at http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/index.php.

For those that haven't been to the METRO website lately, Mr. Wilson's State of METRO presentation at the Greater Houston Partnership luncheon is available at http://www.ridemetro.org/media/GHP/fvsf.asp. It's quite interesting (including pictures of the Intermodal Terminal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also sent Mr. Childers an e-mail.

Anyways, Mr. Spieler has a new post on his blog comparing some possible University Corridor alignments between Shepherd and Main at http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/index.php.

sheesh, doesn't sounds so good:

at Montrose, Chelsea Market would lose its parking. At Main Street a freeway detention pond would need to be bridged or moved. Crossing gates would be required at all cross streets.

Cost: Acceptable.

Ridership: Low. There

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that industrial-age and postindustrial-age cities were built with the needs of business in mind, and rarely if ever reflected peoples' "preferences." thus the rise of reformers in the "parks" movement in the later 1800s, 20th century "City Beautiful" movement, and "New Urbanists" today.

Houston, with no geographical limits to growth, and experiencing it's greatest period of transformation from small city to big city in the late 1940s-late 1970s when gasoline was cheap, became a city based on personal transportation.

So Houston grew as an alternative vision to the existing industrial cities, a place where only the poorest HAD to use mass transit. It's tough to lay a fixed guideway system over that free-wheeling matrix, and it's naive not to expect heavy skepticism by metropolitan area residents who have not moved elsewhere in spite of the grind of the daily commute b/c they place a higher value on something else available here.

Prior to zoning and low-cost transportation/communication options, adopted in the 1920's, development within American cities occured entirely on the premise of highest and best use. Office firms clustered around one another in a monocentric pattern, typically at or near transloading points (i.e. railroad station or port) and central to residential areas. Almost all of the office space would be concentrated in this one central business district because communication necessitated many face-to-face meetings for which journeys across town would've been cost-prohibitive; they also needed to draw from a pool of labor that typically walked to work. Manufacturers tended to locate just beyond the office firms because transportation of bulky goods was especially costly in a time when teams of draft animals were the most common mode. If this pattern of development had been disturbed, the costs of doing business and producing goods would have been increased, and the increase in costs would've been passed on to the consumers. At that time, given technological limitations, the marginal costs of zoning in the form that we know it today would've been tremendously high. People in those times and today prefer less expensive goods and services to more expensive goods and services: therefore, land uses predominant in industrial-age cities did in fact reflect people's preferences...even if that was sometimes true in a roundabout way.

Meanwhile, labor tended to locate within about a mile and a half of their place of employment in order to walk to work in a reasonable period of time. So as cities and employment centers grew, so did residential density; ultimately both CBD and the residential ring would be forced to grow upward. But at that time, density was not viewed as a positive thing. It was cramped. It lacked privacy. It was unsanitary...a petri dish for disease of every sort. The walkable environment was a product of the aggregate choices of hundreds of thousands of people that opted to take relatively high urban wages in spite of the walkable environment, and not because of it.

As technology developed (i.e. streetcars, cars/trucks, busses, telephones, paved streets, etc.), the costs of breaking out of the monocentric urban model were significantly reduced. Only then did zoning become practical. And at the time, there was a very legitimate public health concern, as heavily-polluting factories could now be moved away from residential areas, correcting a market failure. And when I'm talking about heavily-polluting, btw, I'm not talking about butadiene and ozone--I'm talking about soot. Particulate matter in extremely high concentrations. Toxic stuff. Stuff that you just don't see anymore except in some 3rd world countries.

Whether or not zoning was in play, with lower transporation/communication costs, labor could now locate in suburbs. For most people, that was the preference, and so that is how the first suburbs came to be. The pattern repeated itself continually: transporation/communicaiton costs per mile continued to fall, people kept moving outward, eventually employers no longer needed a CBD, and new manufacturers went to the edge of the city looking for cheaper land, usually developed in business parks. The big land use problems worked themselves out...and the best most efficient zoning codes only served to approximate market forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, walkable environments and good land use are intuitive.

No. It isn't.

I know good land use can be subjective, but when in most communities the amount of developed land is growing faster than the population, it's kind of an issue...

How is that an issue?

...and contrary to TheNiche's perspective it forces the general population to be overly dependant on automobiles...

By what mechanism are people forced to excessive dependence upon the automobile? What is excessive? Who decides? Shouldn't it be the individual that decides for themselves what is excessive? And if they don't like it, why don't they excercise their option to move to a place where automobile-"dependence" is not excessive?

...increasing pollution, creates serious social issues by leaving the urban population behind to cater to what is happening on the fringes of metropolitan areas that probably destroyed farm land and open spaces that should have been conserved.

Automobile pollution is overrated. We get by. And most of what people perceive to be pollution is just water vapor, anyway.

"Leaving the urban population behind"? You may view it as a bad thing, but that wealthy people tended to prefer to living further from employment centers is actually an enormous gift to the lower class. After all, for market forces to result in inexpensive housing with such close proximity to employment centers, and that these areas are so inexpensively served by mass transit, is a wonderful coincidence. If transportation costs had not declined over time, disallowing suburbanization, then can you imagine the problems we'd have with affordable housing?

The world has plenty of open spaces...but is open space really the issue or is it preservation of natural habitat? Before suburbs overran the farms, farms overran the natural habitats. Farms don't contribute much to ecological balance (they destroyed it), so their loss to the next highest use is pretty much inconsequential.

My problem is alot of these problems are creeping up right on the border of downtown leaving this city with little options but to make true urban living in Houston a distant reality that we have to travel somewhere else to experience. Shouldn't have to be that way.

"Creeping right up to the border of downtown"? Huh? I don't follow.

But as to your normative assumption that things "shouldn't have to be that way," I ask only why they shouldn't. Houston cannot and should not be all things to all people. It should be what individual citizens make of it.

you mean they have a choice to move somewhere else. yes.

but for now, while they are living out their current choice to commute and be 458049085 miles from somewhere, they are dependent on their vehicles.

If we phrase your assertion in such a way as to clarify that people can depend upon the truthfulness of their own choices, then yes, most people would be automobile-dependent...but only because they are choice-dependent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That people make decisions for themselves conciously and rationally is entirely relevent. They aren't car-dependent if they have the option not to be...and they do. Period.

many middle class families move out into the suburbs because it is cheaper, you can have a nice big house for a low price, i am pretty sure that many people would love to live inside loop 610, but lets be realistic, it is expensive, we can't afford to have the same luxuries inside the Loop like we do in the suburbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many middle class families move out into the suburbs because it is cheaper, you can have a nice big house for a low price, i am pretty sure that many people would love to live inside loop 610, but lets be realistic, it is expensive, we can't afford to have the same luxuries inside the Loop like we do in the suburbs.

Precisely. Choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, Mr. Spieler has a new post on his blog comparing some possible University Corridor alignments between Shepherd and Main at http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/index.php.

For those that haven't been to the METRO website lately, Mr. Wilson's State of METRO presentation at the Greater Houston Partnership luncheon is available at http://www.ridemetro.org/media/GHP/fvsf.asp. It's quite interesting (including pictures of the Intermodal Terminal).

Thanks Transit. I meant to post Christof's blog posts earlier but I was otherwise occupied. He always has a well thought-out stance on transit issues.

BTW, thanks for keeping it on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that don't get the weekly email...

This week's Tuesday night out for Richmondrail.org is at Collinas or Thai Cottage.

We know everyone missed getting together last week, so let's get back on track! In our "reader's choice" poll, we received more votes for Collina's Italian Cafe (review) than anywhere else - so that is where we are headed. Or if you prefer Thai, you should meet us at Thai Cottage (review) in the same shopping center. Arrive early -- Collinas gets crowded even on Tuesday -- and get a RichmondRail sticker from one of our volunteers. While you're there, be sure and talk to the managers/owners and let them know you support them and you support rail.

What: Tuesday Night Out

When: Tuesday November 14, 6:00 - 8:00 pm

Where: Collinas at 3835 Richmond or Thai Cottage at 3995 Richmond, in the shopping center on the southeast corner of Weslayan

We're building support for rail one restaurant at a time and we hope to see you all there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if we have devoted ourselves to providing a rail line through Houston (which we allready have done) than we need to devote ourselves to putting it where it will recieve the highest ridership.

That means we should put it down Richmond.

The only argument against that I see is the safety issue, so I think we need to get an elevated rail line down Richmond and go to the federal government to get it. Considering that we are dealing with a safety issue when we go elevated, we should have a convincing argument. The federal government has a stake in ensuring Houston will get good enough ridership to expand our system and if we go elevated and eliminate the traffic accident threat we should get more support in Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if we have devoted ourselves to providing a rail line through Houston (which we allready have done) than we need to devote ourselves to putting it where it will recieve the highest ridership.

That means we should put it down Richmond.

The only argument against that I see is the safety issue, so I think we need to get an elevated rail line down Richmond and go to the federal government to get it. Considering that we are dealing with a safety issue when we go elevated, we should have a convincing argument. The federal government has a stake in ensuring Houston will get good enough ridership to expand our system and if we go elevated and eliminate the traffic accident threat we should get more support in Houston.

The support in Houston is there. We voted FOR the referendum. The problem is the small minority who seek to overturn the majority's will.

Drivers need to do their part and adapt to this new concept in mass transit: obey traffic signals and signage keeping in mind that big silver train is on a fixed guideway and will not be getting out of your way.

Elevated rail may be prohibitively expensive for the funds available-at least for the U-Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivers need to do their part and adapt to this new concept in mass transit: obey traffic signals and signage keeping in mind that big silver train is on a fixed guideway and will not be getting out of your way.

Elevated rail may be prohibitively expensive for the funds available-at least for the U-Line.

nmain.....unfortunately, the majority of Houston drivers have NEVER experienced driving near the light rail. And when they do, it gets ugly. some of the Fannin/Blodgett driving is the most amazing i've ever seen. scares me to just look at them! cars (and i do mean more than one) going the wrong way during 1 light cycle. the area definitely requires some attention, even when you're familiar with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nmain.....unfortunately, the majority of Houston drivers have NEVER experienced driving near the light rail. And when they do, it gets ugly. some of the Fannin/Blodgett driving is the most amazing i've ever seen. scares me to just look at them! cars (and i do mean more than one) going the wrong way during 1 light cycle. the area definitely requires some attention, even when you're familiar with it.

That's why I said we need to adapt. LRT is going to be on the ground somewhere and it's not going away for the forseeable future. People just need to be aware of the realities of it and adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I said we need to adapt. LRT is going to be on the ground somewhere and it's not going away for the forseeable future. People just need to be aware of the realities of it and adapt.

well it's hard to adapt when exposure is limited. and honestly i think that's where we're at now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


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


×
×
  • Create New...