METRORail University Line

[tierwestah]

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'.

[RedScare]

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.

[citykid09]

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.

[Highway6]

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.

[CE_ugh]

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.

[WesternGulf]

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.

[Highway6]

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.

[texasboy]

Does anyone know how much money Houston got for federal funding with this line?

[RedScare]

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.

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.

[tierwestah]

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.

[citykid09]

That's pretty much it, dude.

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.

[WesternGulf]

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.

[Highway6]

That's pretty much it, dude.

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.

[CE_ugh]

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 )

[citykid09]

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???

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.

[WesternGulf]

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.

[citykid09]

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.

[WesternGulf]

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.

[citykid09]

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.

[nmainguy]

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.

[WesternGulf]

^^^ Proof why I need to quit this thread. I never knew WesternGulf could be so mean.

edit: post #203 that is.

[RedScare]

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.

You never said Dallas had monorail. And I'm not trying to trash your idea. There have been some previous threads by people who have a fantasy for monorail, i.e. mag-lev technology, and it is just too expensive for what you get. Now that I know that is not what you were advocating, I agree with you that the best route might include elevated or submerged sections of LRT.

You know, WesternGulf is correct. Heavy rail is much more expensive than LRT. In lesser density cities like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, you don't need a long train. METRO carries 200 people per car. Linking 2 gives you 400. They travel every 6 minutes. That's 4000 per hour, 72,000 per 18 hour day, more than any of the lesser density cities need. Plus, Houston's original plan WAS for heavy rail in 1983. It would've cost $1.3 Billion for 11 miles or so of rail. Voters shot it down, and looking back, that was smart of Houstonians to do. Heavy rail is most useful on commuter lines, where the train doesn't run as often.

[Highway6]

[MidtownCoog]

Other than this freaking message board, I never even HEAR about Atlanta.

Kinda funny, eh?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Other than this freaking message board, I never even HEAR about Atlanta.

Kinda funny, eh?

I agree. I have been to Atlanta many many times, but i have learned more about that city here than i have on my many trips there.

[Trae]

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.

...And I only hear about Atlanta from CityKid. Do you honestly think Atlanta is thought of as an Alpha city. On the same level as NYC, LA, and Chicago. Atlanta is a third tier Gamma City, and will be like that for some time.

Also, San Diego is more widely known than Atlanta. More people know about SD than the big bad ATL.

[MidtownCoog]

Citykid listens to too much rap music., that's all.

And he's also guilty of watching WAY too much CNN.

[Trae]

^So do I, but I don't like Atlanta's rap. It is pretty crappy.

[MidtownCoog]

That's what I meant to say. Atlanta Rap. Outkast was good, but they are over.

[Highway6]

Maybe Warner Bros. will come out with HOU

Then we won't have to feel all inferior and stuff.