METRORail University Line

[nmainguy]

METRO Wolff says the board prefers the option mentioned above. it is the only 1 of the 2 remaining options (I'm not including Culberson's I'm covering my ass route as a serious option) that is currently designed to be elevated within a few feet of the property lines of single family home neighborhoods - Sunset Terrace/College Court/West U.

Aside from the same noise issues currently being fought by the homeowners next to the new 610 flyovers, there will be other environmental impacts and all of these impacts will extend further into the neighborhoods than would be the case w/at-grade rail, which will generate more opposition.

maybe litigation won't be necessary. if enough delay can be predicted from having to deal with the EPA and the process for EIS METRO may choose a route that makes more sense.

Read this:

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...e-politics-are/

[IHB2]

Read this:

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...e-politics-are/

yes what christof said then is true today, and METRO and all pertinent elected officials also have known it for months, so Wolffs' surprise touting of a Cummins to Wpark El resulted in the neighborhoods seeking something other than a political solution. nobody can delay a project or mandate big $$ mitigation better than the EPA.

that possibility puts Culberson's comment today about building a completely elevated line down the 59 ROW to the Westpark TC w/o taking any traffic lanes or properties north OR south of the freeway in a different context. amazingly, that may turn out to be the only viable route politically, although there are developers envisioning dense TOD on Richmond who will fight it to the end.

[musicman]

that possibility puts Culberson's comment today about building a completely elevated line down the 59 ROW to the Westpark TC w/o taking any traffic lanes or properties north OR south of the freeway in a different context. amazingly, that may turn out to be the only viable route politically, although there are developers envisioning dense TOD on Richmond who will fight it to the end.

I"m not sure developers are willing to get involved. If they were, I think more would be built along Main by now.

[Double L]

Even if Culberson has supported METRO in the past; I still believe he would rather kill the university line entirely than have it go down Westpark. Also the article has a point, there are no Westpark proponents, only Richmond opponents.

I still say that the best way to solve the problem is solving the serious technical issues and those issues can be solved by seperating the rail from the roads, stop lights, trees, and grass by going elevated. Elevated rail would leave more room for auto mobility and reduce noise pollution; we could even preserve greenery. That eliminates a lot of the rail on Richmond opponents argument.

[H-Town Man]

Culberson penned a brilliant editorial in the Houston Chronicle today. The Richmond/Westpark issue has never been explained more clearly or logically:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4504928.html

Tears came to my eyes when he evoked the memory of the late Gerald Ford. We should all feel humbled to have such a courageous, intelligent politician working for us.

Please, just by reading this, you can see what a soulless liar the man is. First he says that rail on Richmond differs from the Katy Freeway expansion he championed because the Katy Freeway was already there, whereas Richmond was never intended as a rail corridor. Then he praises himself for securing funding for Metro's north and southeast rail lines, which of course will run on public streets that were also never intended to serve as rail corridors. The fact is that the Katy Freeway, Richmond, and the other streets targeted for rail are all the same in that they are reserved for transit and, as our population grows, they need to be expanded and/or modified to handle the load in the best interests of the majority of people. What makes Richmond different is that a few of Culberson's deep pocket contributors live along it. But he can't say that in the Chronicle, can he?

Also, his "97 percent of people who have contacted me oppose rail" assertion remains despicably disingenuous. As a politician, Culberson knows what a scientific poll is and what is BS, and this is obviously BS. Like pro-rail people would gain anything from writing a letter to his office anyway.

Was the sarcasm in my post not apparent?

[KinkaidAlum]

The sad part is, while Houstonians sit around and bicker amongst ourselves, other cities will gladly take OUR federal tax dollars and use it to expand their systems.

We've lost out on federal funding once while cities like Dallas-Ft Worth, Minneapolis, and Portland got lavished in dollars that could have been ours.

While our pols fight about corridor definitions and call for horribly expensive and totally unnecessary elections (after the rail line was already started), other metro areas are working together collaboratively to expand their service. They see that while they themselves might not be a fan of lightrail or other transit options, that by offering it, they can help do other things (like hopefully decrease car dependency, help with pollution control standards, spur development in the central cities, and lure today's creative class that likes things like public transit, urban living, and cities that care more about quality of life than making a quick buck).

[VelvetJ]

Please, just by reading this, you can see what a soulless liar the man is. First he says that rail on Richmond differs from the Katy Freeway expansion he championed because the Katy Freeway was already there, whereas Richmond was never intended as a rail corridor. Then he praises himself for securing funding for Metro's north and southeast rail lines, which of course will run on public streets that were also never intended to serve as rail corridors.

Because the Katy Freeway, " was already there", as Culberson says, didn't some of the residents in his district ask that the "stacked" freeway option be explored and considered more? The Katy freeway couldn't be moved of course but it could have been stacked, particularly on the segments that most affected businesses and homes. Did Culberson legitimately consider that option? Did he listen to those business and homeowners that preferred that option like he is listening to some in Afton Oaks, on whom the rail would have a lesser effect on as the widening of the Katy did on those residents and business owners along that project?

Also, yes he has secured funding in the past, but was it because he wanted to?

Because I can be somewhat of a conspiracy theorist, I hold to my belief that the fact that Houston's Energy Corridor sits in his district, has played a heavy hand in his rail decisions, and someday that will be proven.

[nmainguy]

More from Christof:

The best way to build a successful transit line is to serve high density employment centers. Greenway is such a place, and the best way to serve it is on Richmond.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...tions-greenway/

It's a great counterpoint to the SOS Culberson had the Chronicle print.

[TheNiche]

More from Christof:

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...tions-greenway/

It's a great counterpoint to the SOS Culberson had the Chronicle print.

Christof has some very good points, but I still think that a properly-designed Westpark route could be vastly superior if and only if 1) grade seperations occur at major thoroughfares and 2) 'ped-shed' is extended and reshaped by way of elevated walkway with escalators and conveyors.

One other comment. The way that Christof illustrates his 'ped-sheds' may be a bit visually misleading to someone looking over his website in a cursory way. I say this because the way that his maps are cropped, the 'ped-sheds' for routes that he prefers tend to be centered within the map, whereas 'ped-sheds' for routes that he dislikes are located nearer to the periphery of the map, where much of them are not shown. I would have preferred it if he'd zoomed out just a little bit more.

[AftonAg]

The sad part is, while Houstonians sit around and bicker amongst ourselves, other cities will gladly take OUR federal tax dollars and use it to expand their systems.

We've lost out on federal funding once while cities like Dallas-Ft Worth, Minneapolis, and Portland got lavished in dollars that could have been ours.

While our pols fight about corridor definitions and call for horribly expensive and totally unnecessary elections (after the rail line was already started), other metro areas are working together collaboratively to expand their service. They see that while they themselves might not be a fan of lightrail or other transit options, that by offering it, they can help do other things (like hopefully decrease car dependency, help with pollution control standards, spur development in the central cities, and lure today's creative class that likes things like public transit, urban living, and cities that care more about quality of life than making a quick buck).

If the people in those cities are behind what their transit org's are doing and those transit org's aren't playing BS games with the verbage on the ballot regarding routes then more power to them. I am glad we are not wasting tax dollars on an ill conceived, unwanted line on Richmond.

You Go John Culberson!

[Guest danax]

If the people in those cities are behind what their transit org's are doing and those transit org's aren't playing BS games with the verbage on the ballot regarding routes then more power to them. I am glad we are not wasting tax dollars on an ill conceived, unwanted line on Richmond.

You Go John Culberson!

I agree with you on the apparent ballot bait and switch, although I haven't read the ballot, I'm just going on what I've gleaned from HAIF and others. But to say it's ill conceived and unwanted I think is stretching the truth. The "Culberson" proposal matches that description perfectly, however.

Greenway needs to be serviced in a first class manor, and Westpark will never do that. A compromise is in order here but it's looking like that not's going to happen and Houston will take it in the chops once again.

[Furious Jam]

Was the sarcasm in my post not apparent?

My bad. Just angry.

[wakester]

Right now the people that ride the bus to Greenway either the commuter bus (286/283) or the local city bus get dropped off on Richmond. Why would they switch to use the train if it drops them off at Westpark?

[TheNiche]

Right now the people that ride the bus to Greenway either the commuter bus (286/283) or the local city bus get dropped off on Richmond. Why would they switch to use the train if it drops them off at Westpark?

I'd expect that the folks coming in on the 283 would get dropped off at the intermodal terminal and be expected to transfer to the Red Line, then transfer to the westbound University line. If the "Culberson route" were selected, and many stops were removed en route to Greenway from the Red Line, then this might actually make their trip faster. If one were to add to that the benefit of grade-seperations at major thoroughfares and a 'people mover', I'd think that they'd be much better off. The alternative is a grueling stop-fest along Richmond.

As for the folks coming in on the 286 from W. Little York, it doesn't seem like their route would tie in very well with the U Line until the Uptown BRT provides an effective connection, so the bus service may be preserved (if METRO has the balls to sacrifice the slightest bit of rail ridership for systemwide efficiency). Otherwise, it might suck for them.

And local service...well that's harder to say. With the fewer stops as provided by the "Culberson route", it may mean fewer rail transfers, which results in less disruption of bus service. In my mind, knowing METRO's penchant for unnecessary transfers, that's probably a good thing.

[musicman]

Because the Katy Freeway, " was already there", as Culberson says, didn't some of the residents in his district ask that the "stacked" freeway option be explored and considered more?

The stacked option was considered. Evidently the little cities in the area were against the noise of an elevated structure. They thought it would cause the noise to go farther into the neighborhood

[Houston19514]

The stacked option was considered. Evidently the little cities in the area were against the noise of an elevated structure. They thought it would cause the noise to go farther into the neighborhood

I think you are exactly right, Musicman. The stacked option has been shot down every time it has been proposed in Houston beause of the aesthetics and because of the noise effects. (Southwest Freeway, West Loop, Katy Freeway). And of course the neighbors are correct, it would cause the noise go further into the neighborhood.

[musicman]

I think you are exactly right, Musicman. The stacked option has been shot down every time it has been proposed in Houston beause of the aesthetics and because of the noise effects. (Southwest Freeway, West Loop, Katy Freeway). And of course the neighbors are correct, it would cause the noise go further into the neighborhood.

and the various villages (piney point, hedwig, etc) have the money to back up their words with legal action.

[Furious Jam]

Can someone please explain to me why we can't just run a subway down Richmond? Sure, it would cost double, but let Culberson worry about that. Is it not technically feasible? If we can put a man on the moon...

Also, is it possible to build just the Richmond portion of the line without federal funding?

[Pumapayam]

Can someone please explain to me why we can't just run a subway down Richmond?

I think it is money. . .or maybe the soft clay of the earth. . . I forget.

[TheNiche]

Can someone please explain to me why we can't just run a subway down Richmond? Sure, it would cost double, but let Culberson worry about that. Is it not technically feasible? If we can put a man on the moon...

Also, is it possible to build just the Richmond portion of the line without federal funding?

A subway would cost more than just double. We're talking about vast sums of money. Although technically feasible, it is absolutely not in any way shape or form to be considered economically feasible. It isn't even feasible for us if the feds give matching funds. You may as well erase the notion from your mind. It isn't happening.

It is always possible to spend our own money (at least up until the point that METRO's financial resources are tapped out and leveraged to their extreme limits). But that doesn't mean that we should. We made a big enough mistake with the Red Line.

[Furious Jam]

It is always possible to spend our own money (at least up until the point that METRO's financial resources are tapped out and leveraged to their extreme limits). But that doesn't mean that we should. We made a big enough mistake with the Red Line.

Let's say we do finance a line on Richmond, like Main. Would Culberson respond by blocking funding for the other lines? If not, I say go for it. We can finance it by increasing fares by 25 cents. We can call it the "Culberson Transit Tax on the Poor" - he'd love that. How about threatening him to run it straight through Afton Oaks on our own dime? He'd love that too. Given that he seems unwilling to compromise, I think you need to look at tactics like these to force his hand.

[TheNiche]

Let's say we do finance a line on Richmond, like Main. Would Culberson respond by blocking funding for the other lines? If not, I say go for it. We can finance it by increasing fares by 25 cents. We can call it the "Culberson Transit Tax on the Poor" - he'd love that. How about threatening him to run it straight through Afton Oaks on our own dime? He'd love that too. Given that he seems unwilling to compromise, I think you need to look at tactics like these to force his hand.

That is a dangerous game of chicken. If he does not capitulate, we the people get royally screwed. METRO can be pretty incompetent, but not to this extent. It won't happen.

[Furious Jam]

We know that rail on Richmond has many notable proponents. I think that these politicians, business people, and neighborhood associations need to come together and draft some kind of formal request to Culberson for him to get out of the way - something that can be simultaneously published in the Chronicle. Mayor White should lead this effort - he has enough political capital to make it happen. Right now, no one is applying public pressure to this jerk - that needs to change. Culberson has spun all of this as him defending the interests of people along Richmond (which is, at best, a half-truth, to say nothing of his real motivation for doing so). The only way to counter that spin is to publicly expose him as defying the interests of the rest of the city.

[Ethanra]

I know one of the arguements against rail on Richmond is that the ballot language read "Westpark Corridor". Someone may have brought this up before but the Main Street Corridor runs on Fannin and other roads. Doesn't corridor mean, a name for an area not a specific street? Also if the only way we will get this line built is by it being on Westpark, is it an option to run down Westpark but have it turn towards Richmond at the Greenway Plaza area and run it through their and then run it back to Westpark?

[Furious Jam]

I know one of the arguements against rail on Richmond is that the ballot language read "Westpark Corridor". Someone may have brought this up before but the Main Street Corridor runs on Fannin and other roads. Doesn't corridor mean, a name for an area not a specific street?

Yes, this is obvious to all and conveniently ignored by rail opponents. To reach Main, the line would obviously have to run on Richmond at least in some part. The fact that all of the current Metro proposals do indeed utilize Westpark would seem to logically settle this issue - the ballot suggests that Westpark will be used for some of the line, but not all, so Metro will indeed use Westpark for some of the line, but not all. So what's the problem? Rail opponents are no more interested in logic than they are in compromise. The problem is that there is no reasoning with unreasonable people.

[nmainguy]

We know that rail on Richmond has many notable proponents. I think that these politicians, business people, and neighborhood associations need to come together and draft some kind of formal request to Culberson for him to get out of the way - something that can be simultaneously published in the Chronicle. Mayor White should lead this effort - he has enough political capital to make it happen.

As you can see from this list, it didn't matter to the mayor.

http://www.richmondrail.org/blogs/?page_id=20

I know one of the arguements against rail on Richmond is that the ballot language read "Westpark Corridor". Someone may have brought this up before but the Main Street Corridor runs on Fannin and other roads. Doesn't corridor mean, a name for an area not a specific street?

Here's METRO's map circulated to the public prior to the referendum:

Here's a blow-up of the Westpark Corridor:

[TheNiche]

We know that rail on Richmond has many notable proponents. I think that these politicians, business people, and neighborhood associations need to come together and draft some kind of formal request to Culberson for him to get out of the way - something that can be simultaneously published in the Chronicle. Mayor White should lead this effort - he has enough political capital to make it happen. Right now, no one is applying public pressure to this jerk - that needs to change. Culberson has spun all of this as him defending the interests of people along Richmond (which is, at best, a half-truth, to say nothing of his real motivation for doing so). The only way to counter that spin is to publicly expose him as defying the interests of the rest of the city.

Nobody seems to want to touch it except for METRO, Culberson, and those that are directly impacted. Mayor White has a fair bit of political capital, but this doesn't seem like the kind of issue that he's willing to spend it on. I don't think it'll even be necessary though. METRO plays the game very well when motivated to.

In fact, if METRO were as good at building rail as they are at politicking, they wouldn't need to.

[713 To 214]

Some people want rail, others want a bus. Some people want a Richmond alignment, others want a different one. This rail expansion looks so messy, right now, and it sends a bad message to congress. The message being sent is that everyone isn't on the same page, and not in support of 1 plan. How can METRO expect to get funding from the feds under those circumstances? This is sad. The way it stands now, it won't matter where/when they break ground. . .and it won't matter what they're breaking ground for. . .bus or rail. Someone's going to file a lawsuit, get injunctive relief, and hold the process up for years, anyway. . .just like with the starter line.

The leaders of this City (state/local reps, council members, METRO Board) need to be locked in a hotel room this weekend, and not be released until they can emerge with one consensus plan.

[musicman]

Here's METRO's map circulated to the public prior to the referendum:

Hmmm...and where's the University portion of the university line?

[TheNiche]

Hmmm...and where's the University portion of the university line?

Can we please not get back on this ballot language debate? METRO ensured that the ballot language was adequate so as not to hold them to any given plan. This matter is a non-issue.