Jump to content

cloud713

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,366

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

 Content Type 

Everything posted by cloud713

  1. cloud713
    yeah i agree about St Thomas/Montrose/The Menil area having a stop (thats the "additional stop" i mentioned), right before the train jumps over 59 to the power line ROW. but since that would still be on Richmond (we all agree there is no room for a train east of Montrose along the power line ROW.. plus METRO doesnt own that land, so the train would have to at least partially traverse Richmond) you dont have to worry about fitting a station in the ROW. there is plenty of room on Richmond for a station. yeah, either way the rebuild is going to be a mess (i think its more an excuse for Culberson to use as to why they supposably dont want LRT). and Dallas didnt trench under existing/operating railroad ROW. it was under an old abandoned ROW. still not sure why we would need a mile of (or any, besides the trenched station at Greenway) underground along the Westpark ROW. a walkway over 59 works too i suppose (vs the tunnel i mentioned going under 59 into the greenway tunnel system), but it would be nice if it were a fancy walkway like the arch bridges further east, and not just some boring long rectangle. ahh the existing tunnels. youre right, but couldnt we bury the LRT one level below the tunnels? i agree, underground is the most optimal, but its very expensive (a decision i was forced to face when sketching out my fantasy ideal transit plan for Houston.. i had way too many subways in the plan). utilizing the existing ROW along Westpark would be much cheaper, and could be just as fast.
  2. cloud713
    the only station i think they should have on the Westpark/power line ROW between Post Oak and Wheeler Station (unless they go down Richmond for a short stretch before cutting over to the ROW west of Montrose, then also have one additional stop on Richmond) is at Edloe/Greenway Plaza (where there is more room to work with btw), and ive wanted that station to be underground all along, connecting into greenways tunnels, so room for the station wouldnt be a problem there. the other stations would be at Post Oak and Hillcroft, where there is plenty of room as well. i dont see the need to take any of those houses out because there is no need to put a station anywhere behind them/along that section. it doesnt make sense, and we both want the route to be minimal stops for faster speeds, so why have unnecessary stops? yeah Westheimer would be a nightmare.. they could probably keep half the road open and build one set of tracks at a time, but it would be a mess and screw up a lot of business access, ect. maybe a tunnel boring machine would be more appropriate for that line. again, i dont see the need to cut and cover or tear down houses when you can just run the rail lines between/under the power lines, and not have any stops along that narrow section. and i meant "true pre existing ROW" like Westpark.. not ROW that previously existed as a median or lanes of traffic that has to be rebuilt. i guess you misunderstood me. yeah the main street line is pretty slow and i wish they cut and covered the sections through downtown. i do like the little pedestrian plaza at main street square though. heh and i believe he is basically against any rail in his district. note the Westpark route is outside of his district. cut and cover along Richmond (even in the median) would be just as much of a pain during the construction process as building surface LRT and "negatively affect businesses" like hes arguing.
  3. cloud713
    heh, sorry to put you to work. thanks though!
  4. cloud713
    ohh ok. there was one of downtown too that someone did as a "future skyline" thread or something. both were great though and very informative visually. id say no worries on mapping out all the new projects, but you or the original owner if he felt more comfortable doing it could use one of the future downtown skyline renderings that already has most of the new projects included. it was a few different people in "Skyline Update" thread in the downtown subforum.. http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/28345-skyline-update/page-2 heres Brijonmangs sketch.. (looks like there are at least 4 new towers that could go in this shot.. 38 story by Hess garage, the 28 story next to fingers, Hines Market Square, and this 40 story)
  5. cloud713
    You don't think they can squeeze 2 rail lines under/between the power lines up to Yoakum? Why would METRO bother buying that ROW up to Montrose if they can't fit rail along it? I don't see why it would be cheaper to build the whole thing underground vs a couple high traffic cross streets, when both ways are essentially the same in the "cut" phase that's part of trenching a line. They just don't fully "cover" the "cut" for underpasses. Id rather see the Westpark/power line ROW be used for commuter (or at least fast minimal stop LRT) rail, and an under ground line go along Westheimer. Thats where all the new mixed use developments seem to be popping up and it would probably serve even more people than a Richmond line. I still don't think we'd have to knock down houses, but even if we did that would be cheaper than an underground subway line below Richmond. LRT historically for Houston has been over 100 million a mile. You could probably buy those houses for a few hundred thousand dollars each, and it would be much cheaper to build rail along an open ROW vs down the middle of a street you have to rebuild completely.. Here's the article.. I wasn't trying to paint Culbetson as a super-villain, just putting it how it is in terms of what the quotes/article said.. http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/01-28-14-light-rail-on-richmond-dead-forever-congressmen-crows-over-saving-post-oak-from-metro-destruction/
  6. cloud713
    Has the effort to reshift metros focus from rail to the bus network again started yet? If so, looks like we're seeing positive results. If not, that's pretty cool that ridership increased that much without assistance.
  7. cloud713
    There are enough people on this forum well versed with that type of thing who could probably easily whip is up one of those. Who did the future skyline 2017 sketch up? And there are plenty of other buildings uglier than this. Is it mediocre? Well yeah.. But as someone pointed out, most of manhattans skyline is mediocre. It's the density and height that are impressive. This building will add to both densify and height in the northern portion of downtown.. I'm surprised there is so much hate for the new possible tallest residential tower in downtown/the city(?). I bet most of the people here would complain if a JP Morgan tower were built today.. (Even with such desire to get another supertall) But without JPM our skyline wouldn't look nearly as powerful. Is 432 Park ave or w/e visually appealing? No, but it's massive height will add to the already impressive ny skyline. They can't all be beauty queens, but a cluster of 4-500 footers on the north side of the downtown skyline will make our skyline even more substantial..
  8. cloud713
    Yes Culberson recently said he would support the 90A commuter rail line, but didn't want LRT anywhere in his district (which includes the University line west of Shepherd, and the lower half of the uptown line..
  9. cloud713
    Terrible pic but it's gained a few floors..
  10. cloud713
    The structure is above ground..
  11. cloud713
    Damn... Just drove by this site. It looks like the woodlands. They are going to tear down a ton of trees.. I wish they had fewer buildings and made them taller so they would be more spaced out and retained the woodedness of the property.
  12. cloud713
    No, he's saying the plan we voted for is clearly not working (Culberson doesn't want rail coming past Shepherd) so we need to scrap it and vote on a new plan that we can make work..
  13. cloud713
    The below grade dips/underpasses at intersections would surely help, but be expensive. Though I think there should be one or two underpasses on the Westpark segment (especially if it jumps over further east like I was saying at Yoakum), at Kirby and again at Edloe for an underground station connecting under 59 into the greenway tunnel system, there are just much more cross streets to deal with on Richmond. Plus Richmond will need more lanes of traffic one day (would slightly relieve thru traffic on Westheimer and San Felipe too). Do you really want to take up all that space with LRT on one of the busier streets in Houston?The ROW/easement is clear between Kirby and Shepherd.. METRO owns all that land up until Shepherd. Slick, I'm aware the Richmond route would have a higher ridership. Believe me, I wanted the Richmond line and was pissed about Afton Oaks, but we have to compromise.. And besides there really aren't many large destinations along the route.. The segment between uptown and the main st line should be as quick as possible to transfer people between the large hubs of the city. Not have 12 or so stops and take almost an hour to traverse. Some would say as should build the Richmond line as was planned, and have a faster commuter route between uptown and downtown along Memorial (would be awesome), but given our track record for getting rail built, I think all that is wishful thinking, at least for the immediate future, so iron tiger is trying to get a hybrid line built that can serve both needs (at least that's what I take from it, sorry for putting words in your mouth i.t.)
  14. cloud713
    Agreed.. That's why I suggested jumping it over on Yoakum across 59. I don't think they'd be able to cross at Montrose, which is where METROs Westpark ROW starts, so Yoakum would be the best alternative to cross over into the ROW while maintaining the most amount of track along Westpark for higher speeds and a cheaper build.
  15. cloud713
    did you mean south of 610 or south of 59? i assume you meant south of 59. in which case, i believe METRO owns the other half of the Westpark ROW all the way up until Montrose. i dont see why they couldnt fit tracks under the power lines/ROW that continues past Montrose, almost all the way across from Wheeler Station. but i suppose i would like to see a Menil/St Thomas stop on Richmond before it jumps over to the Westpark ROW, so maybe that power line stretch east of Montrose doesnt matter. just run it down the planned/original University Line route from the east all the way up to Yoakum BLVD, so it still somewhat serves the Menil and St Thomas.. and then turn south, down the wide median on Yoakum, and build a new matching bridge across 59 for the train to jump over to the METRO/Westpark/power line ROW.
  16. cloud713
    I thought the downtown population was over 4,000 when there were 2,500 units.. It would be interesting to compare how many of the new units are 1 bedroom vs multiple.
  17. cloud713
    Exactly.. Which is why I say just put the whole University Line down the westpark ROW to Wheeler (though it will unfortunately miss st Thomas, the Menil, ect). As for cut and cover, I agree. So when the roads are being rebuilt is a perfect time to run a line under them. I think post oak, Westheimer, the current LRT lines through the downtown and TMC portions, and maybe even part of Kirby could use cut and cover subways next time they are repaired. The DART line under cityplace is neat huh? I envision something line that for the Greenway stop connecting into it's tunnel network.
  18. cloud713
    subway would be amazing (hopefully in the next 50 years), but i would prefer it go under Westheimer, not Richmond. a 4 stop line (seems like i heard that was a consideration once) running from Wheeler Station, across 59 into the Westpark/METRO/powerline ROW would be ideal for speed, but it wouldnt be able to serve nearly as much as a Richmond line. there could still be a stop for Wheeler, Edloe (Greenway/UK), Post Oak, and then Hillcroft TC, but with less traffic to deal with compared to down the middle of Richmond. maybe they could even submerge the tracks under the few crossroads there are along that route (or at least a couple of the more busy ones, and have a submerged station at Edloe with a tunnel under 59 over to the Greenway tunnel system).
  19. cloud713
    i foubt they spent much time on a logo.. id imagine that will change, just like the name will likely change when the lead tenant is announced..
  20. cloud713
    that would be one badass treehouse.. it was the onramp to Hardy tollroad heading south.
  21. cloud713
    The Hines building is on like a quarter to a third of the block, vs half the block for block 35
  22. cloud713
    I agree with Larry, but the sovereign and the whitco? No way.. This tower is way nicer looking.
  23. cloud713
  24. cloud713
    The cladding is almost done on the south tower and the skybridge is starting to go in (don't know if you can see it from the angle I took the pic)
  25. cloud713
    Rail (LRT, not commuter) was never a part of the plan, yet they spent money to reinforce all the new bridges for LRT..? Sounds like it was part of the plan to me.. And I kind of agree with Slick, it will be hard to convert money making toll lanes into rail..
×
×
  • Create New...