METRORail University Line

[IronTiger]

Good. That keeps the cost of building the rail low. Metro should not be paying for complete street reconstruction.

Building rail will still be expensive. Having METRO tear up the road and not repair it will give anti-light rail people ammunition.

[Slick Vik]

Building rail will still be expensive. Having METRO tear up the road and not repair it will give anti-light rail people ammunition.

The anti rail people should rebuild the road themselves.

[Naviguessor]

Slick-  Take a break, will ya!?

[august948]

The anti rail people should rebuild the road themselves.

 

If they did that, they might decide to arrange the drainage so that it flows onto the tracks.  Better to have it rebuilt by the city and/or metro in a complete streets format.

 

[Slick Vik]

If they did that, they might decide to arrange the drainage so that it flows onto the tracks. Better to have it rebuilt by the city and/or metro in a complete streets format.

They don't have the money to do it that's why when rail wants to go down a road they use it as an excuse to rebuild the road also.

[Dakota79]

Because of your traffic flow predictions, or is it alluding to your insane plan involving mobs of angry anti-Culberson protesters to start bashing some heads in and burning houses?

I haven't predicted any traffic flow issues. I think they will regret it because once it is in (maybe in our lifetimes if we are young enough) people will use it to go the the galleria and downtown - and Afton Oaks will be left out. (As they should be)

Edited September 17, 2014 by Dakota79

[IronTiger]

They don't have the money to do it that's why when rail wants to go down a road they use it as an excuse to rebuild the road also.

Do you have any proof of that, or is this just another myth?

Really, guys...I am pro-rail (but not pro-METRO) but when nonsense like this comes up, I have to wonder what side I really am on.

Edited September 17, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

Do you have any proof of that, or is this just another myth?

Really, guys...I am pro-rail (but not pro-METRO) but when nonsense like this comes up, I have to wonder what side I really am on.

Read the history of houston streetcars. One big reason they went bankrupt is a law that made them responsible for the roads they ran on, which makes no sense.

It seems the same rules are in effect today which is why I'm surprised metro wasn't forced to spruce up MLK.

Also there is no money Richmond has been complaining to be fixed for years but yet don't want the university line which would fix it. If that's not hate for rail I don't know what is.

[Naviguessor]

The city has said that they aren't going to invest/fix Richmond unless Metro decides and states that it does not intend to run rail down the street. Reasonable. If metro does start work on the line then the steet will be fixed.

[august948]

Read the history of houston streetcars. One big reason they went bankrupt is a law that made them responsible for the roads they ran on, which makes no sense.

It seems the same rules are in effect today which is why I'm surprised metro wasn't forced to spruce up MLK.

Also there is no money Richmond has been complaining to be fixed for years but yet don't want the university line which would fix it. If that's not hate for rail I don't know what is.

 

Does that law still exist and, if so, is Metro legally bound by it?  If not then the whole GM streetcar conspiracy is irrelevant and I can't fathom why you keep bringing it up.

 

If some rules about rebuilding roads are in effect that just reflects good judgement by our public officials.  If you're going to tear up a road to do any kind of major repairs or changes it just makes good sense to go ahead and fix the whole thing.

 

Obviously those objecting to rail on Richmond think that is worse than getting the road fixed.  Why they don't like it I can't really fathom except maybe for those whose houses would front on the rail line and even then they already front on Richmond so I'm not sure the noise would be any worse.  Are they losing some of their property perhaps?  Or maybe it forms a physical barrier that psychologically divides the neighborhood like a Robert Moses creation or like the Pierce Elevated (where have I heard that argument before?  hmmm....)?

 

[IronTiger]

Does that law still exist and, if so, is Metro legally bound by it?  If not then the whole GM streetcar conspiracy is irrelevant and I can't fathom why you keep bringing it up.

 

If some rules about rebuilding roads are in effect that just reflects good judgement by our public officials.  If you're going to tear up a road to do any kind of major repairs or changes it just makes good sense to go ahead and fix the whole thing.

 

Obviously those objecting to rail on Richmond think that is worse than getting the road fixed.  Why they don't like it I can't really fathom except maybe for those whose houses would front on the rail line and even then they already front on Richmond so I'm not sure the noise would be any worse.  Are they losing some of their property perhaps?  Or maybe it forms a physical barrier that psychologically divides the neighborhood like a Robert Moses creation or like the Pierce Elevated (where have I heard that argument before?  hmmm....)?

Culberson and Afton Oaks have reasons to not want the Richmond light rail line. And personally, I don't favor street-running light rail (slows down trains, limits turns). But I'm not a traffic engineer nor do I even use the roads in that area. However, if the Richmond line is really such a good idea, then why is there a compulsion to fabricate information?

[Slick Vik]

As Streetcars had operated on the same 1890s fare for decades, Houston Electric (the streetcar company) eventually ran into financial trouble. Additionally, they were burdened by the city’s requirement that they bear the costs for paving streets where they extended their railways. This would essentially usher in their eventual downfall by subsidizing greater ease of mobility for private automobiles.

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

[Howard Huge]

^ I think it was Tom Delays great grandfather who passed that city ordinance.

[BigFootsSocks]

...illuminati conspiracy?!

[IronTiger]

As Streetcars had operated on the same 1890s fare for decades, Houston Electric (the streetcar company) eventually ran into financial trouble. Additionally, they were burdened by the city’s requirement that they bear the costs for paving streets where they extended their railways. This would essentially usher in their eventual downfall by subsidizing greater ease of mobility for private automobiles.

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

Again, unless this law is still on the books, it's completely irrelevant to the decision on hand.

[Slick Vik]

I know metro was responsible on the original red line to totally repair Main Street. I'll have to take a look around the new ones but it looks like they did a lot of work on Harrisburg.

[IronTiger]

I know metro was responsible on the original red line to totally repair Main Street. I'll have to take a look around the new ones but it looks like they did a lot of work on Harrisburg.

Yeah, just like it's anything else. If you tear up a bit of sidewalk to work on utilities, you replace the sidewalk. Why should Metro be any different?

[Slick Vik]

Yeah, just like it's anything else. If you tear up a bit of sidewalk to work on utilities, you replace the sidewalk. Why should Metro be any different?

Well a bit and total rebuild are two different things. It's just using metro as an excuse to fix roads when there isn't money to otherwise do so.

[IronTiger]

Well a bit and total rebuild are two different things. It's just using metro as an excuse to fix roads when there isn't money to otherwise do so.

Again, you're using false conjecture to propel your arguments. Does the city truly not have money for it? We know that Richmond is deferred because METRO is planning to re-do it anyway.

Furthermore, if METRO was so pressed for funds that they don't have money to fix the roads, why would they undergo a still-very expensive light rail system?

Edited September 18, 2014 by IronTiger

[mfastx]

Considering that METRO forks over over a quarter of its revenue towards building roads (something no other major transit agency in the US is required to do) then I would think that the city should foot the bill for the "street" portion of light rail projects. 

 

In fact, a METRO board member even suggested this as a plan to get the University line built.  METRO would pay for the rail lines and the city (using GM payments) would contribute a few hundred million dollars for road reconstruction. 

Edited September 18, 2014 by mfastx

[scarface]

What makes you say that?  It's still on the Metro Website.

 

I don't know i must be going crazy. Because I swear I was looking at a page from metro's website that only had the 3 lines uc with no future lines in the works. Now, its there.

[Slick Vik]

Considering that METRO forks over over a quarter of its revenue towards building roads (something no other major transit agency in the US is required to do) then I would think that the city should foot the bill for the "street" portion of light rail projects.

In fact, a METRO board member even suggested this as a plan to get the University line built. METRO would pay for the rail lines and the city (using GM payments) would contribute a few hundred million dollars for road reconstruction.

Exactly road cost is a huge portion of the cost

[IronTiger]

While using the GMP to rebuild the road seems like a kind of fair idea, it's been proven that METRO will waste money like nothing else if left what with they have. So here's an idea--the GMP would go into a "hold" every fiscal year (since Houston has been asleep at the switch at repairing roads in the last few years), and if METRO proves that they have been good stewards with their money, they get that money back as bonus during the next year's budget. If not, that goes for road repairs, and the process repeats anew. Other than that, it's not necessary...why not fund METRO with 75% instead of 100%-75% and use that small 25% as another tax for road repairs, but all invisibly so that there's no change for consumers and retailers?

[bobruss]

Pardon me, but I didn't go back to the beginning of this argument, but it seems to me that Metro has been hamstrung in many ways by backwards politicians, vigilante neighborhood groups (Afton Oaks), a city with no zoning and relatively no planning.

They have also been their own worst enemies in poor management and waste.

However to blame Metro for the city streets is unfair. I think the duty of Metro is to provide transportation for citizens in need of alternative forms of mobility.

Many years ago the city took 25% of Metro's funding to pay for street repair and I believe even police pay, for a short time.

Street building and maintenance are part of the cities job.

Metro is not responsible for maintaining streets. They have coordinated efforts with the city to help in some projects.

As far as telephone poles in the middle of the sidewalks, that happen to be along Metros new rail lines when you only have so much right of way you are sometimes forced to deal with it the best way you can. Unfortunately Metros budget to build these rail lines didn't include putting all power lines underground. That would have been cost prohibitive.

You should look to the city  for answers to why so many sidewalks are blocked by power poles, fire hydrants, intersection stop light control boxes, and many other objects, or why they are so narrow two people can't pass one another on the same sidewalk. Houston never put any thought into the pedestrian and unfortunately not until recently with the new street design and consideration  of the public realm became the new mantra in the urbanism of Houston.

[IronTiger]

Metro should be responsible for rebuilding roads in light rail conversions (and making sure not to have power poles blocking sidewalks) but not maintaining them, that is the city's job. After all, a lot of developers build streets in subdivisions, but maintenance is still left up to the city.

[bobruss]

I believe that the lines that Metro has either completed or are in the slow process of finishing, they have rebuilt the streets haven't they? I was speaking to the subject of Metro paying for more street and sidewalk repair. That's not their duty.

I think that the 25% the city extracts from Metro is more than a fair amount and therefore I think most of the burden should be on the city.

Its a damn shame that when this city was in the position to plan for wider sidewalks and mass transit options, the city fathers decided instead to forego the public realm and put all of their chips in for more freeways, beltways, toll ways, and grand parkways, but very little if any thought or money into public transportation or  pedestrians and cyclists.

[txn4art]

As far as telephone poles in the middle of the sidewalks, that happen to be along Metros new rail lines when you only have so much right of way you are sometimes forced to deal with it the best way you can. Unfortunately Metros budget to build these rail lines didn't include putting all power lines underground. That would have been cost prohibitive.

You should look to the city  for answers to why so many sidewalks are blocked by power poles, fire hydrants, intersection stop light control boxes, and many other objects, or why they are so narrow two people can't pass one another on the same sidewalk. Houston never put any thought into the pedestrian and unfortunately not until recently with the new street design and consideration  of the public realm became the new mantra in the urbanism of Houston.

 

Most of the blocked sidewalks in question are not ADA-compliant. Both COH and Metro should have addressed this during the planning period.

[IronTiger]

Its a damn shame that when this city was in the position to plan for wider sidewalks and mass transit options, the city fathers decided instead to forego the public realm and put all of their chips in for more freeways, beltways, toll ways, and grand parkways, but very little if any thought or money into public transportation or pedestrians and cyclists.

But that's done, paid for, and maintained by entirely different agencies.

[Slick Vik]

Metro should be responsible for rebuilding roads in light rail conversions (and making sure not to have power poles blocking sidewalks) but not maintaining them, that is the city's job. After all, a lot of developers build streets in subdivisions, but maintenance is still left up to the city.

Only if there is damage. It shouldn't be responsible for total rebuild for the hell of it.

[bobruss]

My point, it's not Metros' job to plan and build and maintain roads. There main function is in transporting people from

one place to another. Look I'm not an apologist for metro. They have not done a very good job in putting together a plan that could be defended and promoted and maybe thats why they're in this position.

As far as the sidewalks not being ADA compliant, then what I don't understand is why that wasn't brought up in all of the public meetings that were held all over the city in the planning stages for these lines. I attended meetings for the Richmond line several years ago and they had engineers and other representatives with maps, diagrams, drawings, and literature explaining the plan. They were there for input and to answer any questions that people had and I heard some serious grilling going on about several different issues.

It seems if this had been an important issue that would  affect people with disabilities, someone with a voice for those causes should have been making more noise. I'm sorry if this is indeed true but for the life of me I can't understand with all of the meetings held that this was not addressed.

[IronTiger]

Only if there is damage. It shouldn't be responsible for total rebuild for the hell of it.

When building the original light rail line, METRO had to rip up pavement to move utilities and prepping the area for light rail* (remember, power is now running up and down the middle of these streets, not just for the trains, but for ticket machines, lights, etc.).

So no, they are not rebuilding the road "for the hell of it".

*"Light rail construction set to begin Main Street turmoil to last for four years", Wednesday, March 21, 2001, Houston Chronicle

Edited September 19, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

When building the original light rail line, METRO had to rip up pavement to move utilities and prepping the area for light rail* (remember, power is now running up and down the middle of these streets, not just for the trains, but for ticket machines, lights, etc.).

So no, they are not rebuilding the road "for the hell of it".

*"Light rail construction set to begin Main Street turmoil to last for four years", Wednesday, March 21, 2001, Houston Chronicle

In that case it would make sense

[samagon]

See, I don't know where this whole "Afton Oaks doesn't want poor people riding through the neighborhood" rhetoric developed. I can't find a Chron article that actually references it or any other articles that reference it. Mostly what I could find involved things about not wanting the oak trees gone or maybe something about local street accessibility. There was even a forum thread on HAIF referencing a talk in the bar about light rail and Afton Oaks and the response was not getting to the restaurants they want, or something rather mundane like that.

What Culberson did was definitely unethical (I'm not debating that) but resorting to questionably sourced commentary as use for an argument is a rather poor way of gaining support for your side.

 

I'm surprised you can't find anything. The neighborhood was definitely behind the move of the line from straight down richmond to being diverted to go down westpark. 

 

The neighborhood was littered with yard signs when the rail line was being looked at.

[IronTiger]

I'm surprised you can't find anything. The neighborhood was definitely behind the move of the line from straight down richmond to being diverted to go down westpark. 

 

The neighborhood was littered with yard signs when the rail line was being looked at.

Well, of course, Afton Oaks hated the idea, but I don't think it was "we don't want poor people riding through our neighborhood", which I can't find anything on, and besides, the nicer parts of Kirby/Allen Pkwy. have buses on them.

 

There are of course other reasons why Afton Oaks hated the rail, and while I don't know the exact number one, here are some of the reasons opponents picked out:

 

- for the main Richmond line, a water main that could fail if METRO's currents contacted it somehow. That was one thing posted by the anti-rail crowd, which METRO successfully countered.

- Afton Oaks and others used yellow ribbons to show how much METRO would condemn, and that would lose businesses. In the end, the study showed that 40 businesses would lose a bit of curb space and only 5 would be condemned entirely. For what it's worth, the light rail does use up a lot of ROW (more than one would expect). In places like North Main, the light rail takes up two northbound and two southbound lanes. Doesn't that sound like a bit much?

- Supposedly the 2003 ballot involved Westpark, not Richmond as the line in which the light rail would travel on. This was specifically referred to as the "Westpark line" in the ballot. Whether deception was actually meant in the ballot or not is unknown, but certainly cause for concern.

- Part of the problem was the trees on Richmond. It's a well-known tree fact that if you disturb the areas around trees, they can take up to 2-3 years to die (see the sidewalk thread). The Richmond line work would've disturbed them.

- Not specifically I could find where the rail really limits access on where you could turn, which is definitely a minus to light rail.

- Going over the railroad at Richmond would've required an overpass, as an underpass wouldn't work due to the buried culvert running parallel to the railroad. Even if Afton Oaks was generally in favor of the rail, there would've been a stink raised over that for sure.

- It wasn't until 2008 that the City Council actually approved five light rail lines (13-2). If they had said no, would people be up in arms that COH "overruled the vote of the people" or something? In fact, up until 2007, they were still thinking about BRT for some lines.

 

Nowhere could I find the "Afton Oaks residents are racists" rhetoric oft-repeated. Until I can find real proof of that, I'm just going to regard it as nonsense, perpetuated by pro-rail extremists.

[samagon]

These reasons are fairly minor, at least in my mind, compared with the benefit of having the rail go directly down Richmond (especially if you factor in cost of the diversion).

 

I think though that if you were to find some television reports where they actually had interviews with people who lived in the neighborhood, things like "the rail will be too loud" and "we just don't want that coming through our neighborhood" would be heard.

 

While I doubt anyone ever said "I don't want THOSE people riding through my neighborhood", it was fairly clear that the ticki-tacki nimby hate was just that, ticki-tacki nimby hate.

Edited September 22, 2014 by samagon

[Slick Vik]

I do recall at meetings concern about rail bringing in crime into the neighborhood

[IronTiger]

These reasons are fairly minor, at least in my mind, compared with the benefit of having the rail go directly down Richmond (especially if you factor in cost of the diversion).

I think though that if you were to find some television reports where they actually had interviews with people who lived in the neighborhood, things like "the rail will be too loud" and "we just don't want that coming through our neighborhood" would be heard.

While I doubt anyone ever said "I don't want THOSE people riding through my neighborhood", it was fairly clear that the ticki-tacki nimby hate was just that, ticki-tacki nimby hate.

I'm also pretty sure that Afton Oaks was also part of the Uptown coalition that prevented any widening of 610 over the years (different thing, yeah I know) but NIMBYs are NIMBYs, with both valid (oak tree deaths) and invalid (stray currents) arguments.

[IronTiger]

I do recall at meetings concern about rail bringing in crime into the neighborhood

I'm sure some people said that. But it wasn't the top argument in preventing rail down Richmond, was it?

[Moore713]

I do recall at meetings concern about rail bringing in crime into the neighborhood

Because Criminal commit crimes then wait for the rail???..

[Slick Vik]

Because Criminal commit crimes then wait for the rail???..

Yea makes no sense to me. Just racism. But the same people already take the bus so it's an invalid argument.

I'm sure some people said that. But it wasn't the top argument in preventing rail down Richmond, was it?

It was one of them.

I'm also pretty sure that Afton Oaks was also part of the Uptown coalition that prevented any widening of 610 over the years (different thing, yeah I know) but NIMBYs are NIMBYs, with both valid (oak tree deaths) and invalid (stray currents) arguments.

Difference is 610 widening probably meant destruction of some homes but rail didn't

[IronTiger]

Yea makes no sense to me. Just racism. But the same people already take the bus so it's an invalid argument.

It was one of them.

Difference is 610 widening probably meant destruction of some homes but rail didn't

Well, rail and 610 widening would mean primarily business condemnation (I don't think any homes front 610 like they do 290...or 10). Either way, focusing in on a few off-hand unfounded views is a pretty lame way to paint rail opponents (specifically, Afton Oaks) in a bad light. Invalid arguments exist on both sides, and using the whole "Afton Oaks is racist" line is a strawman argument and ends up undermining your own position.

 

That kinda brings me back to my point of why if Richmond rail is such a good idea (not saying it is or isn't), why are strawman arguments being used to defend it?

[BigFootsSocks]

What strawman arguments are being used against it? Serious question.

[IronTiger]

What strawman arguments are being used against it? Serious question.

Strawman arguments used against the rail or Afton Oaks (and by extension, rail opponents)?

 

Slick (maybe others, like the one with a cat as an avatar) used that argument for months of why Afton Oaks residents/Culberson supporters/Culberson were horrible/wrong people of why rail should have blasted west toward 610 instead of jogging south and over (or under) 59.

 

I'm personally glad that rail doesn't go west on Richmond, not because I'm a huge Culberson supporter, but mostly to retain the road's partial use as a major thoroughfare, accessibility, and those trees, of course.

 

However, there are really good valid reasons for opposing the route, and good valid reasons for supporting through there. By picking the most dubious, least-stated reason of why the rail shouldn't go through Afton Oaks and attacking that idea, your actual reasons for opposition of their opposition seem weak. How would you defend the other, better arguments, like disturbing (and likely killing) the oak trees, or limiting where you could turn, or by forcing all the traffic onto the outermost lane, you'd be putting all traffic onto the lane that runs closest to houses? 

 

On the other hand, if your arguments can be distilled into "If you're against light rail running through your neighborhood, you're a racist", then trying to argue anything else is pointless.

[samagon]

I think that the majority of people don't use that argument though, vocal minorities on both sides have brought it up though. So there is that. 

[nativehoustonion]

All this bickering is pointless.  Richmond is in such bad shape, potholes, it floods all the time.  They are building midrises from Kirby to the spur and Richmond Ave will only get worse.  Since Culberson got his way.  They should rebuilt it to one lane in each direction in the middle.  And the rest of it have bike lanes, huge sidewalks with a park.  Add lots of tress and landscaping.  That would make everybody happy!  There is a book called "Made for Walking" by Julie Campoli.  How so many cities transformed from traffic, closed business into walkability. 

[IronTiger]

I think that the majority of people don't use that argument though, vocal minorities on both sides have brought it up though. So there is that.

Yup. If you're defending or attacking light rail, it's a bad argument.

But further east along Richmond, the right of way looks very tight already. How are they going to actually fit in light rail and sidewalks with that?

[nativehoustonion]

I want the rail down Richmond Ave.  Metro spend millions for the study but Culberson killed it.  Time to move on, I hope they build a Tollway from Kirby to the Galleria right through Afton Oaks!  They did not want rail and got their way.  Now it all the mid rises and retail off Westheimer.  Hundreds of cars will cut through Afton Oaks due to all the traffic.  Unless they can build bridges over Westheimer and Richmond.  

[samagon]

I want the rail down Richmond Ave.  Metro spend millions for the study but Culberson killed it.  Time to move on, I hope they build a Tollway from Kirby to the Galleria right through Afton Oaks!  They did not want rail and got their way.  Now it all the mid rises and retail off Westheimer.  Hundreds of cars will cut through Afton Oaks due to all the traffic.  Unless they can build bridges over Westheimer and Richmond.  

 

They certainly will have to deal with the traffic that their opposition to rail bought them.

 

I often cut through their neighborhood getting from 59 to Richmond, exiting Newcastle and going down Lancashire to go west down Richmond. It's just easier.

 

Yup. If you're defending or attacking light rail, it's a bad argument.

But further east along Richmond, the right of way looks very tight already. How are they going to actually fit in light rail and sidewalks with that?

 

ROW is tight, but no tighter than in other places they've made it work. I think linking Greenway to the light rail should be important, so even if it didn't go farther, it would be good if it went at least that far. If there was a commuter rail from sugar land (or Richmond/Rosenberg, or hell, just go all the way out to El Campo), maybe the terminus could be at Greenway, and you make your way to other parts of town via the light rail and buses.

 

Even if they didn't do that, it would be cool to have at least the eastern portion of the University line to help tie stuff together. From eastwood transit center (or a little farther up to connect into the green line at harrisburg) to the main street line would get a lot accomplished and it could still be expanded later.

[nativehoustonion]

METRO is already doing a study on US90A/Southwest Rail Corridor commuter rail from Fort Bend to Harris county to connect with the Fannin rail station.  Currently it is in EIS (ROD) Final design will be in 2015.  That should help some commuters once it is completed. 

[Slick Vik]

Strawman arguments used against the rail or Afton Oaks (and by extension, rail opponents)?

Slick (maybe others, like the one with a cat as an avatar) used that argument for months of why Afton Oaks residents/Culberson supporters/Culberson were horrible/wrong people of why rail should have blasted west toward 610 instead of jogging south and over (or under) 59.

I'm personally glad that rail doesn't go west on Richmond, not because I'm a huge Culberson supporter, but mostly to retain the road's partial use as a major thoroughfare, accessibility, and those trees, of course.

However, there are really good valid reasons for opposing the route, and good valid reasons for supporting through there. By picking the most dubious, least-stated reason of why the rail shouldn't go through Afton Oaks and attacking that idea, your actual reasons for opposition of their opposition seem weak. How would you defend the other, better arguments, like disturbing (and likely killing) the oak trees, or limiting where you could turn, or by forcing all the traffic onto the outermost lane, you'd be putting all traffic onto the lane that runs closest to houses?

On the other hand, if your arguments can be distilled into "If you're against light rail running through your neighborhood, you're a racist", then trying to argue anything else is pointless.

I think what annoys people the most is that one neighborhood is stopping a major project the rest of the city voted for.