METRORail University Line

[ricco67]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/2905358

Nov. 16, 2004, 11:23PM

DeLay helps get rail line on track

By RICK CASEY

Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

Congressman Tom DeLay changed his mind.

Back in July, a spokesman said the House majority leader had "no plans at this point to insert ourselves" into a raging controversy regarding a proposed new rail line that would carry hazardous materials near the homes of DeLay's suburban Clear Lake constituents.

The line was being pushed by petrochemical companies who said they were tired of paying high monopoly-level prices for low monopoly-level service to Union Pacific Railroad. Four shipping companies joined with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to propose a 12.8-mile "San Jacinto" line to break the monopoly.

But three weeks ago at City Hall, DeLay joined Mayor Bill White, County Judge Robert Eckels and U.S. Rep. Gene Green for a session with the CEOs of both Union Pacific and Burlington Northern. The message: Our constituents don't want another rail line in their back yards. Solve the problem.

DeLay gets credit for adding starch to the message by getting the two executives to commit to a Nov. 15 deadline.

Cautious hope

For good measure, the chairman of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation Board, Roger Nober, with whom White had discussed railroad problems for months, lined up with the elected officials at the meeting.

As of yesterday, the day after the deadline, spokesmen for both railroads declined to characterize the state of the negotiations.

But political and chemical industry sources said they were very close.

"We're extremely hopeful it will greatly reduce the need to build the new line," said Frank Michel, spokesman for White. But he offered a caution: "We can't say 100 percent this will be accomplished."

DeLay's office issued a joint statement with the mayor saying, "It is our hope that in a very short time, after the shippers in the Bayport Loop review the proposed deal, Burlington Northern will be able to use the existing Union Pacific rail line that serves the Bayport Loop."

David Harpole is a spokesman for Lyondell Chemical, one of the companies partnering with Burlington Northern to build the new line.

Harpole said he understood the railroad companies were close, but that Burlington Northern would have to present the proposal to the four partners for approval.

'True competition'

He said he understood the proposal falls short of what his company really wants

[RedScare]

Tory Gattis has a couple of posts on his blog about shortsighted political opposition to the University rail line allignment.

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/

Christof Spieler, who has a great blog about transportation, has some great comments, along with some good maps to make his point.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2006/02/09/23/

There are apparently some people hoping to derail the University Line before it even gets started. I'm posting their blogs here since there are 1500 members on this forum, and some thoughtful voices on mass transit. I also think they like the publicity.

What are your thoughts? I think this line is critical to LRT's success in Houston. I also think it will be a blockbuster success for businesses and residents in the Richmond corridor. I am at a complete loss as to why a business owner on Richmond would not support years of transit riders being dropped on his doorstep, as well as the massive upgrade of Richmond Avenue that the rail would bring.

The intelligent approach would be to express concerns about construction to METRO, while supporting the line, so that construction disruption can be minimized, similar to the Southwest Freeway construction was done. Political agendas dictate otherwise.

I'd also like to get some ideas to let METRO know that the future USERS of this line prefer this allignment (or whatever other allignment is preferred).

Speak up.

[bachanon]

great links red, thanks.

the maps make it clear that the richmond line is the logical next step. perhaps what these businesses fear most is the construction period? many of the locations served by the richmond line are places that i visit on a regular basis. this line would give me, a woodlands' resident, more reason to park my vehicle when coming in to town. isn't this the goal, or at least part of it? if the line were placed where it's convenient politically/financially (westpark), i would have no reason to ride it.

what's up with martha wong?

[TJones]

Red, I can't understand the business owners's concerns either, I think the big reason for Richmond instead of Westheimer is the major telephone and electrical conduits running under Westheimer. And a major water runoff as well. Richmond road is so desperately ineed of repair, I cannot wait for it to happen.

[RedScare]

Apparently, Culberson is trying to ditch Westheimer as a route as well. I think that his office, or his interests, are trying to misinform the business owners and residents to knock out BOTH corridors. When METRO caves and proposes Westpark, he'll then come down hard on that plan as not being useful to the riders. Or, he'll let that route go in, then complain that ridership is too low.

Either way, he is not being true to his fiscal conservative base. This federal money will go somewhere else if we don't get it, forcing METRO to pay for it itself...again. This doesn't save a dime for taxpayers. In fact, it costs us more. It is incumbent on us to let METRO AND Culberson know that he is not representing us well.

[Houston19514]

I am totally in agreement - running the Universities Line down Westpark would be a missed opportunity.

However, I fear the proposal to run on Richmond to just before the Loop and then switching to Westpark misses some great opportunities as well. I think we'd end up with a much better system (and more highly utlized) if it went down Richmond to Weslayan and then went north to Westheimer, then west through the Uptown area and then south back down to the Transit Center. It would add the whole Highland Village area, the new developments at the HISD HQ property, the new developments along Westheimer between Highland Village and the Loop, the existing properties along Westheimer (eg Hotel Derek, The Grotto) and add East-West service through the Uptown area. I think it might add so much additional benefit, that it might be worth tunneling it to get under the Loop and perhaps part of the Westheimer/Uptown stretch as well (to avoid adding to the existing congestion).

[RedScare]

what's up with martha wong?

Sounds like Martha's trying to suck up to a couple of anti-rail conservatives.

http://examinernews.com/articles/2006/01/2...nity/comm01.txt

Everything I've read so far fails to mention any opponent by name. I know there are some neighborhood concerns about trees and construction, which can be addressed by METRO, but I find the use of terms like "substantial opposition" to be curious, when not one opponent besides Culberson and Wong themselves, has been identified.

METRO appears to be leaning strongly toward Richmond, and seems to understand that a Westpark route will kill funding. Culberson and Wong may be thinking the same thing. We'll see how it plays out.

[MidtownCoog]

We met with Wong in the 90s on UH funding by the legislature.

Lets just say she cares more about Austin and UT than Houston and UH.

Two wongs don't make a right.

[bachanon]

[MaxConcrete]

I think part of the problem is that Metro wants to be the nice guy in town and let TxDOT be the bad guy, when in fact Metro needs to start acting more like TxDOT by standing firm and using eminent domain. In particular, they should acquire property along Richmond where needed to make this work, specifically in the neighborhood between the West Loop and Weslayan. In that neighborhood they should acquire all the homes on one side of the street and run the tracks in that space. That would allow trees to be preserved in the median of Richmond and also provide ample space for noise abatement and even a greenbelt.

Sure, the neighborhood would fight it but the end result would be much better for all remaining homes, traffic flow on Richmond, and the rail line.

We shouldn't have this standard whereby TxDOT is Dr. Evil and Metro is Mr. Nice Guy. If TxDOT can aquire homes for transportation, so should Metro when needed. But I realize the chances Metro will do this are slim. Still, I think it would be absurd to shift the line to Westpark west of Weslayan and terminate it on Westpark at 610. At the very minimum, it needs to terminate at Richmond and Post Oak.

[VicMan]

What are names and contact details of specific businesses who are protesting? I need to contact them and tell them to be patient while construction.

Also, my dad is a friend of Martha Wong. Maybe I could get in touch with Wong and work something out with this.

Edited February 11, 2006 by VicMan

[TJones]

I think instead of spending $200k per house, spend $2000 on each tree to carefully transplant it. I'm sure a good arborist or a team of them could make this a reality.

[dbigtex56]

I think part of the problem is that Metro wants to be the nice guy in town and let TxDOT be the bad guy, when in fact Metro needs to start acting more like TxDOT by standing firm and using eminent domain. In particular, they should acquire property along Richmond where needed to make this work, specifically in the neighborhood between the West Loop and Weslayan. In that neighborhood they should acquire all the homes on one side of the street and run the tracks in that space. That would allow trees to be preserved in the median of Richmond and also provide ample space for noise abatement and even a greenbelt.

Sure, the neighborhood would fight it but the end result would be much better for all remaining homes, traffic flow on Richmond, and the rail line.

We shouldn't have this standard whereby TxDOT is Dr. Evil and Metro is Mr. Nice Guy. If TxDOT can aquire homes for transportation, so should Metro when needed. But I realize the chances Metro will do this are slim. Still, I think it would be absurd to shift the line to Westpark west of Weslayan and terminate it on Westpark at 610. At the very minimum, it needs to terminate at Richmond and Post Oak.

As someone who normally champions the preservation of neighborhoods and distrusts the abuses of eminent domain, I'd normally oppose this proposal. In this case I'll make an exception.

A transportation artery is vital between downtown and Greenway Plaza/ the Galleria, and now is the time to deal with obstructions. Painful and expensive though it may be, the required demolition of homes and businesses along Richmond Avenue will be, in the long run, for the greater good of surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole. Delaying such a project will only prolong the agony, and can only lead to a compromised and perhaps unviable version of a modern public transportation system.

The question which must be addressed is how to widen the ROW along Richmond Avenue, and by what amount. It appears to me that many of the larger building on the north side of the street have sufficient set-back to allow for another lane of traffic to be installed. Will this be enough space to permit rail service in both directions? And would there be high enough ridership to offset the loss of existing parking lots?

[Guest danax]

Would they really need to widen the street? There are 5 lanes (or 6?) west of Kirby then it loses a lane proceeding east but the left turn lanes could be converted. And the really nice oaks, which I think as a city we need to save, could be left with the train and stations alongside them, and then east of Kirby there are few trees until.....close to 59, right? So it seems to be a workable route as is. Of course, that's just an arm-chair engineer's opinion.

I also like the idea to scoot over to Westheimer around Westlayan.

Westpark is a complete loser of an idea.

[nmainguy]

I've already expressed my views in another thread which boiled down is west on Richmond to Weslyan, north on Weslyan to Westheimer, west on Westheimer to Post Oak. The beautiful live oaks in Afton Oaks will remain un-touched as will the neighborhood, thus removing opposition on those points. This route hits every major current and future developement between Main and the loop. It is an absolute no-brainer.

Westpark is a deal killer-probably Culberson's motive.

Perhaps Martha Wong wouldn't like the construction disruption just one block from her condo at Greenway Plaza...perhaps she wont like the view...or maybe once the line is built, her beloved left turn onto Richmond will be no more.

Or maybe she's just in bed with Culberson on this one. Who knows. Anyone's guess is just as good.

You would think she would welcome such a great aminity within walking distance-seems it would only increase the value of her condo.

[Apt. 16F, if you were curious]

edit:

We seem to be ignoring the east leg of the University Line. Where will it be and how would that tie-in with the Richmond segment? Speaking of tie-ins, if Wong and Culberson prevail, what is their alternative? Get your key-map out and see where Westpark ends. How do they propose to get from Main to Kirby? Plow through Southhampton? Slap something onto the new segment of 59? Stop it at Main, get on a bus to Kirby then get back on to continue your trip to nowhere? I think attendance at next weeks Metro board meeting [Thursday Feb 16 at 1:00 pm; 1900 Main, 2nd floor Board Room

1:00 PM] by the anti Wong/Culberson forces could at least force them to come up with an alternative to this strip from Main to Kirby. Trust me. They will have their people there to do everything they can to kill a Richmond route.

Does anyone know what the format is for these meetings? Is there an opportunity to sign-up for public comments as in City Council meetings? Surely some of our fine HAIF associates must have this info.

Edited February 11, 2006 by nmainguy

[MiDTOWNeR]

The light rail down Richmond would be frickin' awesome. Hope it happens.

[VicMan]

I can't go... I have school that day..

[Jeebus]

I've already expressed my views in another thread which boiled down is west on Richmond to Weslyan, north on Weslyan to Westheimer, west on Westheimer to Post Oak. The beautiful live oaks in Afton Oaks will remain un-touched as will the neighborhood, thus removing opposition on those points. This route hits every major current and future developement between Main and the loop. It is an absolute no-brainer.

I'd have to disagree. It will take quite some brains to figure out how to get light rail to make a 90 degree right turn, and then just 8 blocks later another 90 degree left turn. Other than that, I agree with everyone here that Richmond is the way to go, and no Westpark.

[nmainguy]

I'd have to disagree. It will take quite some brains to figure out how to get light rail to make a 90 degree right turn, and then just 8 blocks later another 90 degree left turn. Other than that, I agree with everyone here that Richmond is the way to go, and no Westpark.

A 90 degree turn could be accomplished with the cooperation of the developers of the HISD property and the owners of the Central Market property. It would be irresponsible to their stakeholders not to. Imminent domain should only be used as a last resort.

[ssullivan]

I'd have to disagree. It will take quite some brains to figure out how to get light rail to make a 90 degree right turn, and then just 8 blocks later another 90 degree left turn. Other than that, I agree with everyone here that Richmond is the way to go, and no Westpark.

Why not? This was done on the current Main St. line with minimal additional right of way acquisition where the line turns off Greenbriar onto South Braeswood, and then just a couple of blocks later turns off South Braeswood onto Fannin. Yes, there is more development around the Richmond/Weslayan and Weslayan/Westheimer intersections, but it could be accomplished, as nmainguy said, but taking a small piece of property from the school on Richmond and a small piece of the corner of Central Market's parking lot.

[Jeebus]

What I'm asking is: is it possible for lightrail to make a 90 degree turn at a single intersection?

[RedScare]

What I'm asking is: is it possible for lightrail to make a 90 degree turn at a single intersection?

The short answer to your question is 'Yes'. However, I suspect that you are asking if a light rail vehicle can negotiate a 90 degree turn in a normal sized car lane, and that answer would be No. Just as an 18 wheeler has to take up more than one lane to achieve the proper radius to make the turn, so would METRO's LRTs. But, the radius required is not much larger than needed for an 18 wheeler. Some LRT turns have as little as a 100 foot radius. This requires the train to slow to as little as 10 mph, but the turn can be made.

If the turn is made from the median of Richmond to a median on Wesleyan, no additional ROW is required. There likely would not be a median on Weslayan, though, so some other method of making the turn would be required.

But, it IS possible.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure Dallas' LRT makes a 90 degree turn in Downtown. Can someone verify?

Edited February 12, 2006 by RedScare

[nmainguy]

I guess I'll ask this again because I really remain clueless.

If Wong and Culberson prevail, what is their alternative route between Main and Kirby where Westpark dead ends? Richmond? On 59? On top of the south wall of 59 adjacent to Southhampton and Broad Acres? You KNOW that will never happen.

Anyone have a clue or did W & C think it through that far-if at all? I read Culberson's letter [here's a snip]

I urge the METRO Board to respect the wishes of the people who have invested so much in their homes and businesses along Richmond, and build the rail line where it already has ample right of way along the Westpark Corridor.

and there was no mention of an alternate route.

There has also been little discussion on the eastern leg out to UH.

[ssullivan]

What I'm asking is: is it possible for lightrail to make a 90 degree turn at a single intersection?

Yes. I was simply pointing out that not only is it possible, Houston's existing rail line already does this at two intersections.

[CE_ugh]

There has also been little discussion on the eastern leg out to UH.

Because nobody in the Third Ward is throwing a hissy-fit about a rail line tearing up Elgin or Wheeler

[infinite_jim]

Yes. I was simply pointing out that not only is it possible, Houston's existing rail line already does this at two intersections.

I think the existing line 45's and ends up taking up a midtown city block in both instances

Why is Westpark overwhelmingly dismissed as a bad idea?

I believe the area surrounding Westpark west of the 610 loop one of the most densely populated areas and home to many of this city's poor (i.e. w/o access to an automobile)

or is this plan to only go as far as the 610 loop, if that is the case, I can see why Richmond would be the most logical choice.

[nmainguy]

I think the existing line 45's and ends up taking up a midtown city block in both instances

Why is Westpark overwhelmingly dismissed as a bad idea?

I believe the area surrounding Westpark west of the 610 loop one of the most densely populated areas and home to many of this city's poor (i.e. w/o access to an automobile)

or is this plan to only go as far as the 610 loop, if that is the case, I can see why Richmond would be the most logical choice.

Maybe you could tell us what the route would be between Main and Kirby if you want it on Westpark?

No one else seems to have a clue.

[The Great Hizzy!]

^^^ That would involve crossing the SW Freeway via a bridge, which will also be tricky given that Spur 527 is being reconstructed and you have several new bridges crossing 59 already.

The best idea IMO is to run the E-W line down Richmond, turn it north at Weslayan and then west again at Westheimer. Your best bet for ridership on the western half of the line is here. It makes absolutely no sense to run and E-W line that doesn't directly serve Uptown (particularly, the Galleria). Run it down Westheimer until Hillcroft and then run it south to the Hillcroft Transit Center.

I can't imagine not getting between 20K and 25K per day on this leg if run along this corridor.

[nmainguy]

^^^ That would involve crossing the SW Freeway via a bridge, which will also be tricky given that Spur 527 is being reconstructed and you have several new bridges crossing 59 already.

The best idea IMO is to run the E-W line down Richmond, turn it north at Weslayan and then west again at Westheimer. Your best bet for ridership on the western half of the line is here. It makes absolutely no sense to run and E-W line that doesn't directly serve Uptown (particularly, the Galleria). Run it down Westheimer until Hillcroft and then run it south to the Hillcroft Transit Center.

I can't imagine not getting between 20K and 25K per day on this leg if run along this corridor.

But where do you cross 59? And how do you get to this bridge from Main and Richmond? Run it on 527 to 59 then cross over...where?

It seems opponents to running it on Richmond don't have a clue of how to get it from Main to Kirby.

It really is time to call these people out and have them justify why it should be on Westpark and how do they propose "to get there from here."

A good start would be attending this Thursday's METRO board meeting.

BTW, Hizzy, your route is the same I have stated in addition to-I think-the majority in this thread.

[Christof Spieler]

To sign up to talk to the METRO board, call Rose Gonzales at METRO (713) 739-4842. Tomorrow (Tuesday) is your last chance (by noon, I think).