Transit Nut

METRO has broken ground on the Cypress Park & Ride: http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/116856/ If this is successful, perhaps they should convert some of their other suburban P&Rs to a similar layout.

Does anyone want to discuss the results of examining the "Clutterbuck alignment," the one cantilevered over the edge of 59? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...it/4145071.html http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112145/

I agree, dp2's reasoning is well thought out. You may also want to share this with RichmondRail.org, and even METRO themselves (so that they can better reason with anti-Richmond people). Actually, regarding the "we voted for Westpark" argument, you don't hear any of the people on the eastern end of the University Corridor arguing that (even though "Westpark" was supposed to end at Wheeler Station). They want light rail, although maybe not on Wheeler, but at least they are willing to work with METRO.

OK, let's all take a deep breath. Now, let's review where exactly in this process we are and where Culberson fits in. If I recall correctly, these are the steps that have to be taken before any money is allocated by anyone and construction starts. The University Corridor is currently around the Alternative Analysis (AA) stage. METRO, with input from the community (which it has already gotten), will determine the best alignment (or two). Next, it will go to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which is written by METRO and its consultants with assistance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The official scoping meetings at the end of June were the first step towards this. The East End and Uptown Corridors are probably about to get to this stage. After the DEIS is approved by the FTA, the public gets to read it and comment on it. The North and Southeast Corridors are at this stage. After the comments, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is written to respond to comments made on the DEIS. Based on the FEIS and Preliminary Engineering (PE), the FTA will evaluate all the projects in the U.S. that are submitted for federal funding each year. The FTA is not deeply involved in any one region (like we are to Houston), so they will evaluate all the projects nationwide more impartially. The FTA will then give each one a rating based on things like ridership and cost effectiveness, ranging from high to low. The projects rated high, medium-high, and medium will be recommended to Congress for funding. Only at this point, after the FTA has recommended certain projects, will Congress get involved. Prior to this, John Culberson can't do much; although he doesn't support rail on Richmond, he can't really prevent METRO from evaluating Richmond. Although Culberson is the only representative from Texas on whatever House transportation committee he is on and much of the University Corridor is in his district, he is not the only person in the committee or in Congress, and the fate of federal funding doesn't fall solely on him. Basically, Culberson said nothing new today that we couldn't already guess based on his previous actions. We are only at the beginning of a long process towards a new rail line; we must remember that the University Corridor is not nearly as far along, in terms of engineering analysis and development, as the other Corridors. Once METRO staff recommend the preferred alignment(s) next week, METRO will probably continue going through all the following steps toward FTA funding recommendation despite whatever Culberson says. One elected official can't stop the whole process, but he will probably make it more challenging. Of course, if someone sues or forces another referendum, that's another story. METRO will probably win, but there will probably be a delay (lowercase, not the person) in the timeline. Don't worry too much about METRO; they have the technical experience and knowledge and will not give up on their long range plans just because Culberson said he won't support rail on Richmond.

Mr. Spieler just posted some excellent observations in his blog: http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/ Also, in an e-mail from RichmondRail.org (since this is an immediate press release directly from them, I hope it's OK to repost it here):

The strange thing is, if he wants the transition between Westpark and Richmond at Shepherd, where the James Coney Island is, a significant part of the restaurant's parking lot will have to be acquired because of the turning radius of the tracks (see the METRO Solutions website: http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112145/ ). However, if the tracks continued westward along Richmond to any of the other transitions, they wouldn't have to cut through the lot. So basically he could be making an announcement at a location that would be affected more by transitioning to Westpark there than staying on Richmond further westward! Also, why choose James Coney Island? Why not one of those outspoken small businesses, or in the Afton Oaks neighborhood? Or at his office? I suppose we will have to wait patiently to hear what he says tomorrow; today, we can only make guesses.

I think light rail vehicles only honk (I think it's more of a whistle) at gated crossings. That Sam's Club (I'm guessing the one south of 610 on Fannin), for example, is near where the tracks transition from the west side of Fannin to the east side of Fannin; thus, it must honk or whistle. It's actually also close to where the tracks cross the EB and WB 610 frontage roads, so there are 3 gated crossings close together. Perhaps if TheNiche can identify the general location of his home, we can determine if there is a gated crossing nearby. Actually, if they can have quiet zones with freight trains, I wonder if they can also have quiet zones with light rail trains.

In case you didn't see it, an article about richmondrail.org: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/hei...ws/4074619.html Another article in the Heights/Neartown section: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/hei...ws/4072405.html If you support richmondrail.org's efforts, they will be having a "Get Out the Support" weekend, as stated in their e-mail:

Could we please return to the main subject, the University Corridor, and stop discussing people's age, socioeconomic background, neighborhood stereotypes, etc.? First, Mr. AftonAg, even though you may not do the same things your neighbors do all the time, would you say you represent the general position of your neighborhood, Afton Oaks, at least on this forum? Also, do you discuss these things with your neighbors and your neighborhood association, and do they have the same thoughts about the University Corridor as you? If so, perhaps you could summarize the concerns of your neighborhood in a short (bulleted) list. What exactly are the issues that your neighborhood has regarding rail on Richmond Avenue, through the Afton Oaks neighborhood? For example (and this is only an example): Increased traffic on Richmond during construction Increased traffic on other neighborhood streets during construction Increased traffic after opening Reduction in lanes along Richmond Decreased property values during construction or after opening Widening the road and taking away part of my lawn Cutting down trees in the median Decreased car access into and out of the neighborhood (restricted left turns) General aesthetics of Richmond after completion "We voted for Westpark" Now that you have concisely listed your (and your neighborhood's) concerns, perhaps we can discuss these things in a productive manner. In addition, have you looked at the presentation on the METRO Solutions website, which is the presentation they showed on Tuesday and will show at the two meetings next week? (http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112145/ and click on the large map) Since you wrote your first post before this meeting, I'm not sure if you took this into account. If METRO can do all it says it plans to do, in terms of maintaining traffic lanes, access, aesthetics, etc., would your neighborhood then be OK with light rail on Richmond Ave. in its neighborhood, which according to the map on the Afton Oaks website as being roughly bordered by the West Loop on the west and Midlane St. on the east (just west of the RR tracks)? If for some reason you believe your neighborhood would still not be OK with light rail along Richmond within the Afton Oaks boundary despite what METRO says it would do, why not? Alternatively, if METRO transitioned light rail over to Westpark at a point no further west of the RR tracks (which includes the RR tracks, Greenway Plaza, etc.), and that there would be no light rail on Richmond between the RR tracks and Post Oak, would your neighborhood be happy? Would Afton Oaks stop trying to challenge METRO, and would it give a good impression to John Culberson that you all are now happy and support light rail along the University Corridor so that he will help get funding?

Wow, that master plan is amazing. It looks like UH is on its way up in the rankings. Universities and mass transit usually go very well together because many students either commute, or live on campus but don't have a car. When all the problems with the University Corridor alignment can be resolved and the light rail line is finally constructed, it will definitely benefit UH and the surrounding area.

I'm not sure what additional displays they had at the meeting, but based on what they have online I don't see anything contradicting what Mr. Wilson said in the Chronicle. Look at the map here: http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112145/ "Wilson said Metro is also studying having the University Line light rail trains switch onto the planned Uptown Line on South Post Oak, enabling passengers to reach the Galleria shopping area without having to transfer." (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4054936.html) I think many of you are thinking, if it's going to the Hillcroft TC, it can't go to the Galleria as well. That may not be true. What if one train, headed west from Main St., terminated at Hillcroft, and the next train terminated at San Felipe at Post Oak, and trains keep alternating between termini? For example, in Dallas, both the Red and Blue lines share track in Downtown but then split off to different termini at Mockingbird Station. As long as they connect the University Corridor and the Uptown Corridor appropriately, there shouldn't be anything to prevent westbound trains from getting to the Galleria as well as to the Hillcroft TC. This dual-termini setup works especially well if the tracks transition from Richmond to Westpark, say around Greenway Plaza. This also avoids Afton Oaks.

The presentation for the 3 meetings is now on the METRO Solutions website! http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112145/ (click on the large map) The pictures and concepts in the presentation are quite excellent. Three of my favorites: The elevated station at Greenway Plaza (which ultimately depends on which alignment they go with) The renderings of neighborhood-friendly light rail The minimal amount of right-of-way needed Unfortunately I will not be able to attend these meetings, so if any of you do go, please let us know what they say!

For those of you that support light rail on Richmond, you may be interested in this website and their petition: http://www.richmondrail.org/blogs/. A person representing this group spoke at one of the City Councilpeople's meetings and mentioned their website (I found it in one of the METRO transcripts). The Gulf Coast Institute also has some interesting information: http://www.gulfcoastinstitute.org/ (click on the "University Line Light Rail" box). Read the report at the very bottom of the page, too. Apparently, not all the people who at first seem to oppose a Richmond alignment really do oppose it; they just have many concerns on many different aspects of the project. Hopefully the upcoming meetings will help them (and all of us too) to understand better what will be happening in the next few years. Although GCI appears to prefer a Richmond/Westheimer route (they don't actually officially recommend any particular alignment, though) based on job and population growth in the next 30 years, it appears the total population and jobs they project for 2035 actually shows the Richmond/Westpark/San Felipe (really Post Oak) route may connect more of the denser areas better. In other words, the University Corridor would actually share some track with the Uptown Corridor. However, if might be best if we all wait until after the first meeting on Tuesday to see what the professional engineers and planners have found out.

Just as a reminder, these scoping meetings will have a different format than the previous meetings coordinated by the City Councilmembers. http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/122997/ "Please note that there will be no formal presentations at the scoping meetings, nor will there be an open microphone or public Q & A session as was done at the April meetings." Thus, I don't think anyone will have a chance to be "vocal" or "heated," but those attending will be able to share their thoughts with METRO representatives in a productive manner.

OK, I just found this on the METRO website. METRO tells the public where it stands regarding the University Line, and they also give a timetable. http://www.ridemetro.org/news/releases/pr51.asp Also, there are public meetings coming up for the North and Southeast Lines, as well as some newsletters. http://www.ridemetro.org/Metro_Solutions/meetings.asp http://www.ridemetro.org/Metro_Solutions/corridors.asp

Here is a link to the news story mentioned in the previous post. http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...l.2edf68f5.html

According to their website, "The entire second floor of the development will be connected through walkways spanning Fannin St. and San Jacinto St." There probably won't be as many peds crossing the street within the complex, but people still will have to access the complex using the mode (vehicle) of their choice, whether car, light rail, or foot. There also appears to be a skybridge to the adjacent parking garage. The renderings on their redesigned website are really great, though!

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but there are a few things which should be addressed. The Overuse of the Term "Grand Central" and its Connotation First, the whole "Grand Central" thing. If you read the Chronicle article http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/3599661.html carefully, the person who was quoted as saying "Grand Central" was board member Gerald Smith. If you read his bio http://www.ridemetro.org/about/smithbio.asp, he had significant ties to New York, so perhaps this is what he visualized when he said "Grand Central." He could have just as easily used "Union Station" or "Penn Station," names of large stations in cities like Washington, DC, Newark, Toronto, or LA. It may be misleading that the Chronicle used the term a number of times, including in the title of the article. Houston's Intermodal Center may never be as grand or famous as the ones in NYC, but as long as it's better than the one in Dallas (that one needs some renovation), I'm sure it will be nice and functional. By the way, many people call it incorrectly as "Grand Central Station" instead its real name, "Grand Central Terminal" http://www.grandcentralterminal.com. Location of the Intermodal Facility Second, some people seem to have an issue with the Intermodal Center's location of N. Main/Hardy vs. Post Office. Based on the documents at http://www.houstonintermodal.org, the leaders looked at a number of zones around Houston for a Intermodal Center. In August 2005, they determined that somewhere in North Downtown would be best. This zone included the Hardy Yards, Post Office, and the site of the METRO bus facility. Apparently between then and now, they decided that the N. Main/Hardy area was best. Diversity of Types of Users I think the thinking of a number of supporters of the Post Office site is the walking distance to existing offices in downtown. However, it does not take into consideration the people using the Intermodal Center but are not M-F, 8-5 downtown commuters. Remember, this is only one part of the large METRO Solutions plan. There are already connections to the Med Center, Hermann Park, and Reliant, and there will eventually be connections to both airports, the Galleria, UH, etc. Not everyone who will use the Intermodal will be weekday commuters. Some types of people who may eventually use it: Downtown weekday commuters Med Center employees and patients Sports fans going to MMP, Toyota, and Reliant on evenings and weekends Visitors from south of the border going to special soccer/futbol events Families going to the museums Out of state students going home for the holidays Convention attendees Almost all of these people will have to make some sort of transfer to get to their final destination. Just because the facility is within walking distance of hundreds of offices doesn't mean it's in a good location. Platform Width Yes, people could walk a reasonable distance from the Post Office location to the UH-D station, but you also have to remember that the UH-D station was never meant to handle thousands of people. It is built on the historic Main St. bridge next to the historic UH Main building. The platform, which serves both directions, is only 10 feet wide because of the width of the bridge. This is the same width as other platforms that only serve one direction (Bell, McGowen, etc.). Other stations that have one platform to serve both directions (TMC TC, Reliant Park, etc.) are about 16-25 feet wide. If thousands of people on all these modes of transportation are going to pass through the Intermodal, there will have to be a light rail platform that can accommodate them all. When the existing light rail is extended to the N. Main/Hardy Intermodal location, they will be able to design the appropriate facilities. UH-Downtown Expansion If you look in another topic in this category, UH-D will be buliding a new College of Business building north of I-10, where one of their parking lots was. This is a huge, beneficial development that will connect the traditional northern edge of downtown with the other side of the freeway. With the new UH-D building, Hardy development, and the Intermodal Center, this will be a very nice place. Amtrak, Planning, and the Unexpected Yes, Amtrak service today is bad. However, when you plan for something that will open 5-6 years from now and last much longer, you can't always use what exists today as your guide. For example, METRORail construction began 6-7 years ago, around 2000. If you go back 6-7 more years to 1993-94, there wasn't even a plan for light rail. The Houston Pavilions will be open around Oct 2007, less than 2 years away. If we go back 2 years to 2004, I don't think anyone would have seen that a House of Blues would be coming to Houston. Same thing with the Astros; who would have thought in 2003 that Clemens and Pettitte would be playing in Houston and going to the World Serires in 2005? The point is, there are some things you can plan for, like LRT and BRT on the North, Southeast, Harrisburg, etc. corridors by 2012. Other things just happen out of the blue. Just because Amtrak has been bad doesn't mean that when the Intermodal opens in 2012 (6 years from now) things will still be the same. Hey, it may be replaced by something better. However, any Intermodal facility should have facilities for intercity rail, whatever and whenever that may be. Finally, remember the Intermodal Facility is not just a METRO thing. Other groups, like the City of Houston, the Downtown District, and Midtown are also part of it too.

Thanks for the welcome. There was just a live report on the 5 PM news on ABC 13. They had brief interviews with Geoff Jones and Bob Eury, and they showed a 3D scale model as well. Watch Ch. 13 at 6 PM for more news!

Hi Everyone, I've been visiting this forum for a while, but this is my first post. Anyways, it looks like they really will make a big announcement tomorrow, based on the Chronicle. ------------------------- Jan. 24, 2006, 8:12PM Houston Pavilions signs first big tenant By NANCY SARNOFF Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle A proposed $200 million real estate project near the convention center has landed its first big tenant, moving the project a step closer to reality. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/3610169.html