METRORail University Line

[citykid09]

Yeah, i know you included some weasel words. It's still not true. Have you heard of the enormous new campus Exxon-Mobil is building? Phillips 66 will be starting on a new campus soon as well. Neither of these are 4-5 story apartment complexes.

Plus, as you now have mentioned, the three high-rises currently under construction in the Galleria area.

Plus a high-rise office tower just announced last week in the Energy Corridor.

Plus 31-story Anadarko II.

Plus additional office construction on the Waterway in the Woodlands.

Just for the record, according to the linked article, Toronto had 132 high-rises under construction. Very impressive indeed. To be clear, they are counting according to Emporis' definition of High-rise, which starts at approximately 12 stories. I wonder how many high-rises are under construction in Atlanta? Or DFW for that matter?

Here is a list of the top 14 cities in highrise construction as of 2011: http://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=739

[Houston19514]

Here is a list of the top 14 cities in highrise construction as of 2011: http://www.buzzbuzzh...x?g=posts&t=739

Interesting. You mean to say Houston has more high-rises under construction than either Dallas or Atlanta???????? Get out!

Cool chart. I'd love to be able to find updates on that from time to time. Toronto is indeed out of control when it comes to high-rises. Good for them. That has next to nothing to do with Houston or Texas.

Just out of curiosity, what are the 3 high-rises under construction in Dallas, other than Museum Tower?

Edited April 17, 2012 by Houston19514

[citykid09]

Interesting. You mean to say Houston has more high-rises under construction than either Dallas or Atlanta???????? Get out!

Have I mentioned either of those cities?

With that said, I want to end this off track conversation. This thread is about the potential University line on Richmond.

[Houston19514]

Have I mentioned either of those cities?

With that said, I want to end this off track conversation. This thread is about the potential University line on Richmond.

LOL Maybe not today...

Of course, NOW you want the thread to focus on the potential of the University line on Richmond. Where was that desire when you decided to post falsehoods about Houston's development?

Edited April 17, 2012 by Houston19514

[totheskies]

I clicked on this thread with the hopes of some "breaking news" pertaining to the U Line. This argument was a big let down

[Houston19514]

I clicked on this thread with the hopes of some "breaking news" pertaining to the U Line. This argument was a big let down

I clicked hoping to see a contribution to the discussion. This post was a big let down.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Houston19514

[samagon]

Have I mentioned either of those cities?

With that said, I want to end this off track conversation. This thread is about the potential University line on Richmond.

I tried to find an animated gif of a guy pedaling backwards on a bicycle, but can't find one.

[ChrisPHous]

Just out of curiosity, what are the 3 high-rises under construction in Dallas, other than Museum Tower?

Off the top of my head I think 1900 Hi-Line, supposedly The Stoneleigh is back on, and I think some sort of Cresent development but that is in development.

[Pumapayam]

Previous information on the Uptown and University Lines have been demoted and scrubbed and those lines are no longer on the "schedule" with the East, SE, and North lines

There are now listed as future stations with all "news" removed.

[woolie]

It's ok, Metro, it's not like I expected anything great to ever happen in this shitty cow town anyway.

[urban909]

There is a symposium/workshop on May 19th regarding Houston's transit future. Might be an interesting event.

http://www.houstonto...transit-future/

[TheNiche]

I will let you win that one, only because I am to lazy to look. But I asure you that there are more and more to come.

Do you think that TOD in the Dallas area will ever comprise more than a sliver of a fraction of a percent of their housing stock?

[Houston19514]

Do you think that TOD in the Dallas area will ever comprise more than a sliver of a fraction of a percent of their housing stock?

Of course Citykid thinks it will. Reality, of course, is another matter. ;-)

And, when TOD means suburban-style apartment complexes (in the suburbs), that are TOD only because they are within a block of a rail stop (and may include some park & ride parking) ... who really cares?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Houston19514

[IHB2]

There is a symposium/workshop on May 19th regarding Houston's transit future. Might be an interesting event.

http://www.houstonto...transit-future/

high potential for an echo chamber event. the lineup looks like a bizarro-world Fox News discussion panel w/Crossley as bizarro-world Sean Hannity - a full decade into "Solutions," this fair and balanced panel is unlikely to address the causes of METRO's failure to implement the 2003 plan on budget and on schedule while simultaneously depleting METRO's operating cash, other than to blame the blowhards DeLay and Culberson and the lost 25% of the transit tax.

[citykid09]

Interesting video from the former Mayor of Houston Kathy Whitmire on why Houston has built the wrong rail system and Honolulu has built the better rail system.

[woolie]

I wrote this response to this, but just realized it was citykid who posted the video, and that the video is more than 2 years old. So, now I'm wondering why I bothered. Anyway...

Well, I disagree. Elevated rail avoids some issues with at-grade rail, but is more expensive, requires much larger and more complicated stations that break sight lines, and are harder to get on and off. I've been on the Las Vegas system, and it's awful and very expensive to use. I haven't been on the Miami or Detroit systems, but I am under the impression being elevated didn't make them successful. Vancouver and Seattle are elevated, but those are much denser cities to begin with. And just as relevant, at-grade light rail and tram systems are popular and successful all over the world.

So, if elevated rail is not an automatic guarantee of success, is being at-grade really a major disadvantage? I think most issues with at-grade rail can be ameliorated by dedicated lanes and traffic signal coordination. I think accidents are a non-issue after an adjustment period -- it just happens to make good local news. Good traffic signal coordination gives OK average speeds -- the stops only 1/2 mile apart. At-grade systems have some limitations on maximum car length and frequency, but light rail can't compete with a heavy rail subway system in those aspects (at 10x the cost.) Personally that kind of density would be a good problem for Houston to have -- it means everything worked!

Finally, I think all arguments about traffic, congestion, taking cars off the road, etc., aren't worth making. They aren't real arguments grounded in reality, just something politicians think people might believe. Light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, and can easily increase traffic congestion (taking up ROW, elevated or not, and at-grade pre-empting stop lights.) I don't use these arguments at all. What I think matters is that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density. The infrastructure to service cars (roads, garages, driveways...) adds significant cost and takes up valuable space in your highest density areas. How much of DT Houston and the TMC are parking garages or parking lots? The more people use transit, the smaller this % can become. I say this all the time, but density is the reason for a city to exist -- the concentration of human capital, goods, services, ideas, etc. The city, at least the core, should be as dense as possible -- it represents billions of dollars of investment in high density buildings. And proper transit makes this goal much easier to achieve.

Edited May 10, 2012 by woolie

[IHB2]

and defining the "core" in Houston seems to me to be a huge part of the problem. I live inside the loop less than 4 miles from dead center downtown, always have, and the neighborhoods are suburban no matter how much densification proponents wish it weren't so.

so when you argue that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density, don't you also have to propose where, how ,and why that densification will replace the lower density status quo?

[Houston19514]

I wrote this response to this, but just realized it was citykid who posted the video, and that the video is more than 2 years old. So, now I'm wondering why I bothered. Anyway...

Well, I disagree. Elevated rail avoids some issues with at-grade rail, but is more expensive, requires much larger and more complicated stations that break sight lines, and are harder to get on and off. I've been on the Las Vegas system, and it's awful and very expensive to use. I haven't been on the Miami or Detroit systems, but I am under the impression being elevated didn't make them successful. Vancouver and Seattle are elevated, but those are much denser cities to begin with. And just as relevant, at-grade light rail and tram systems are popular and successful all over the world.

So, if elevated rail is not an automatic guarantee of success, is being at-grade really a major disadvantage? I think most issues with at-grade rail can be ameliorated by dedicated lanes and traffic signal coordination. I think accidents are a non-issue after an adjustment period -- it just happens to make good local news. Good traffic signal coordination gives OK average speeds -- the stops only 1/2 mile apart. At-grade systems have some limitations on maximum car length and frequency, but light rail can't compete with a heavy rail subway system in those aspects (at 10x the cost.) Personally that kind of density would be a good problem for Houston to have -- it means everything worked!

Finally, I think all arguments about traffic, congestion, taking cars off the road, etc., aren't worth making. They aren't real arguments grounded in reality, just something politicians think people might believe. Light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, and can easily increase traffic congestion (taking up ROW, elevated or not, and at-grade pre-empting stop lights.) I don't use these arguments at all. What I think matters is that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density. The infrastructure to service cars (roads, garages, driveways...) adds significant cost and takes up valuable space in your highest density areas. How much of DT Houston and the TMC are parking garages or parking lots? The more people use transit, the smaller this % can become. I say this all the time, but density is the reason for a city to exist -- the concentration of human capital, goods, services, ideas, etc. The city, at least the core, should be as dense as possible -- it represents billions of dollars of investment in high density buildings. And proper transit makes this goal much easier to achieve.

Great post. Agree with almost everything in it.

BUT, if light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, how will it ever be able to reduce the demand for parking garages/lots in downtown or TMC in any significant amount?

[Houston19514]

Interesting video from the former Mayor of Houston Kathy Whitmire on why Houston has built the wrong rail system and Honolulu has built the better rail system.

There is probably a reason Kathy Whitmire got 20% and finished in third place when she ran for reelection in 1991. ;-)

$5.2 BILLION for a 20-mile line.

Broke ground in February 2011. First segment scheduled to open in 2015. The full 20-mile line is not scheduled to be completed until 2019. It remains to be seen whether this project will in any sense be a better rail system than Houston's.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Houston19514

[ricco67]

Great post. Agree with almost everything in it.

BUT, if light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, how will it ever be able to reduce the demand for parking garages/lots in downtown or TMC in any significant amount?

I think that I a city such a ours, I don't think that moving people from their cars is a major goal, bit rather to offer an alternative to driving to areas that are heavily congested.

I have saved time going in from webster, parking downtown and taking the train to and from the med center and reliant.

[Houston19514]

I think that I a city such a ours, I don't think that moving people from their cars is a major goal, bit rather to offer an alternative to driving to areas that are heavily congested.

I have saved time going in from webster, parking downtown and taking the train to and from the med center and reliant.

Not sure that it's not a major goal... but it is certainly not the only goal; maybe not even the primary goal. I was not suggesting otherwise; merely pointing out that Woolie's argument failed because you really can't have it both ways. If rail is not going to significantly reduce cars on the road then it is also not going to significantly reduce the need for parking.

[woolie]

so when you argue that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density, don't you also have to propose where, how ,and why that densification will replace the lower density status quo?

Houston is very much a node and edge city. Some of these nodes are quite large, and some of the edges are already quite dense. This is where you start -- and indeed, we have started. The Red line was the best 1st line possible. The University line, when it is eventually built, will be the second element. Followed by the Uptown line. The East End and Southeast lines are nice to have, and might result in increased density down the road, but I don't really consider them integral to the system.

I've been drawing a map in my head recently of what I think Houston will look like in 2030 (at least, inner loop and uptown). In another thread we discussed that six stories is the new four stories. Soon, as the last empty and large parcels have been redeveloped, it will be ten stories. Prices will reach a point where alot of low-density single-story car-oriented commercial properties (aka strip malls) are the next frontier for redevelopment. It will still be a very long while before large blocks of single family neighborhoods are town down for larger buildings -- too expensive, too many owners to negotiate with. Unless your house is within a couple blocks of a planned LRT line, you won't see anything denser than townhomes for a while.

BUT, if light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, how will it ever be able to reduce the demand for parking garages/lots in downtown or TMC in any significant amount?

Roads take up a certain amount of space and can support so many cars. Garages cost alot to build, and take time to get in-and-out. The higher the density gets, the more expensive parking becomes. Transit lets you bring many more people into an area without increasing road and parking requirements. And when there is enough good residential space on the transit system, all the incentives start to align. For instance, I can take the train from my house to my office in the TMC about as quickly and less expensively (20 mins, $2.50) than driving my car and parking in the garage (20 mins, $12).

Transit doesn't get rid of cars and parking. There are parking garages in Manhattan, but they are astronomically expensive. But it drives people to use the resource more sparingly. Through demand destruction, people can use more of the high density areas for productive uses instead of roads and parking.

[TheNiche]

So, if elevated rail is not an automatic guarantee of success, is being at-grade really a major disadvantage? I think most issues with at-grade rail can be ameliorated by dedicated lanes and traffic signal coordination. I think accidents are a non-issue after an adjustment period -- it just happens to make good local news. Good traffic signal coordination gives OK average speeds -- the stops only 1/2 mile apart. At-grade systems have some limitations on maximum car length and frequency, but light rail can't compete with a heavy rail subway system in those aspects (at 10x the cost.) Personally that kind of density would be a good problem for Houston to have -- it means everything worked!

I've come to believe that the optimal solution with the best bang for the buck is a hybrid system with grade separations (elevated-only, no subway)...but only at major intersections and in Uptown.

For instance, the Red Line should've had separation from the South Loop feeder roads, where signal timing and especially a right-turn interruption creates a huge problem that will only get worse with time. (Or maybe it'd have been less expensive to build direct ramps from the South Loop to/from Fannin or Cambridge.) The idea of a grade separation within downtown or the TMC would probably be cost prohibitive due to tunnels, skywalks, and massive utilities systems competing for the same physical space; and besides, those areas have good parallel alternatives for traffic. If block length becomes a problem, then that's a good thing because it means that so many people are using the train. At that point, I don't mind combining a couple of adjoining blocks along the route at each Downtown station; the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

The Universities and Uptown lines will be more complex, though. I'd think that grade separations at Kirby, Shepherd are necessary and appropriate. Kirby and Shepherd are the first/last exits before 59 goes into the trench and lead to the last bridge over Buffalo Bayou before a three-mile gap in the street grid that extends all the way to the West Loop. Those thoroughfares are already congested and are only going to get worse as the inner loop gets denser; we don't want signal timing interruptions there for the next 40 years. And the Uptown Line...about half is already proposed to be grade-separated as it travels along the West Loop. The rest is on Post Oak Blvd. and Uptown in general is not on a viable street grid; there are no good alternate routes for traffic congestion that is already soul-crushingly bad at peak hours (even though Uptown isn't as dense as DT or the TMC). I tend to think that METRO should be more aggressive with Park-and-Ride service to Uptown in the short term and that in the long term...total grade separation is unavoidable. It will be expensive and it may not be as convenient or visually appealing, but that's the price we pay for the mistakes of yesteryear. We need to accept it on move on.

[Houston19514]

Roads take up a certain amount of space and can support so many cars. Garages cost alot to build, and take time to get in-and-out. The higher the density gets, the more expensive parking becomes. Transit lets you bring many more people into an area without increasing road and parking requirements. And when there is enough good residential space on the transit system, all the incentives start to align. For instance, I can take the train from my house to my office in the TMC about as quickly and less expensively (20 mins, $2.50) than driving my car and parking in the garage (20 mins, $12).

Transit doesn't get rid of cars and parking. There are parking garages in Manhattan, but they are astronomically expensive. But it drives people to use the resource more sparingly. Through demand destruction, people can use more of the high density areas for productive uses instead of roads and parking.

I think I now better understand what you are saying. Not that we will be able to get rid of the current parking, but that less additional parking will be required. Makes sense. Similarly, fewer additional cars will be on the roads.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Houston19514

[hbcu]

The Vegas rail sucks.....you have to walk a mile to get to it and it doesn't hit all areas

[woolie]

The Vegas rail sucks.....you have to walk a mile to get to it and it doesn't hit all areas

And costs $5 per *ride*.

[samagon]

at least with the Vegas rail you get to have an entire car to yourself. although when you think about that, plus how easy it is to get hookers, I'd say it's a good idea not to touch anything, and maybe go as far as burning your shoes after you ride.

[TheNiche]

at least with the Vegas rail you get to have an entire car to yourself. although when you think about that, plus how easy it is to get hookers, I'd say it's a good idea not to touch anything, and maybe go as far as burning your shoes after you ride.

Just how easy is it to get hookers in Vegas, samagon?

[samagon]

Just how easy is it to get hookers in Vegas, samagon?

lol, I assume it's very easy, last time I went I had people trying to trade hooker baseball cards with me on the strand pretty much morning, day and night.

I had looked at a few of them, but it didn't include anything other than their vital stats on the back of the card, I was assuming there would be the hooker equivalent of batting average, RBIs, HR, singles, doubles, triples, or for the pitcher's equivalent hooker, there'd be an ERA.

Anyway, I'd assume it would be as easy, probably even easier than renting a car, maybe even as easy as hailing a taxi, granted if you have to wait in line like you do at the airport for a taxi...

I'm thinking about this too much, aren't I?

[woolie]

n/m, I should avoid making jokes that could be embarrassing to me in the future

Edited May 11, 2012 by woolie