METRORail University Line

[livincinco]

So, let me get this straight.

 

Highways run huge operational losses = All good.

 

Rail runs huge operational losses = Terrible!

 

I've always maintained that the full operational cost of highways should be covered by usage fees (the gas tax) at either the federal and/or state level.  Those taxes should be raised to a level sufficient to cover those costs.  I'm very much in favor of new highway construction being financed by toll roads which covers both the construction and operational costs of those roads.  As you may have noticed, Texas has strongly adopted the toll road model.

 

I also have no issue with subsidizing a portion of the operationing costs of transit, because it serves as a public service for those who are less fortunate.  However, there's a big difference between subsidizing 25% of cost and 75% of cost.

[nativehoustonion]

We know the University Line is dead because of the devil!  The city of Houston, METRO, Harris County, and TXDOT must come together for a 20 year transportation plan that includes more freeways, toll roads, commuter rail, light rail and try to expand METRO'S area.  If we do not do anything we will choke on traffic.  We all know that will hurt our economy.  Inside the loop something must be done!  The traffic starts at 3pm till 7pm and you cannot get anywhere.  And a lot of these highrises and midrises are not open yet.  It's going to be like Manhattan here of course with no rail to catch.  So keep on bickering with no solution.    

[Slick Vik]

I've always maintained that the full operational cost of highways should be covered by usage fees (the gas tax) at either the federal and/or state level. Those taxes should be raised to a level sufficient to cover those costs. I'm very much in favor of new highway construction being financed by toll roads which covers both the construction and operational costs of those roads. As you may have noticed, Texas has strongly adopted the toll road model.

I also have no issue with subsidizing a portion of the operationing costs of transit, because it serves as a public service for those who are less fortunate. However, there's a big difference between subsidizing 25% of cost and 75% of cost.

I agree with raising the gas tax, but unfortunately I don't think any politician has the guts to do it.

I also think public transit should enhance quality of life for everyone regardless if he is fortunate or less fortunate. In the sense that it gives efficient transit from and where people need to go. This means whether or not you can afford to buy a car or not. It should b a viable alternative to the general population.

[mfastx]

The problem with heavy rail is that it runs huge operational losses if it doesn't get appropriate levels of ridership.  BART and MTA manage to cover between 70%-75% of their operating costs from fares, but most other systems in the US run a very large annual loss with several, such as Los Angeles, Miami, Cleveland, and Baltimore covering 30% or less of their operating costs.

 

That's not including the construction and interest costs which are obviously a lot higher.

 

The only cities that have had any significant investment in heavy rail in the last 10 years are markets where there was already a large heavy rail network.  Puerto Rico is the only exception and their project has been a fiscal disaster.

Well, then we have to make sure we do it right. After having ridden many, many forms of transit around the country, I can say with confidence that heavy rail is by far the best transit mode we've got in 2014, and I think it's at least worth a serious look. There's no reason cities like Washington, DC can build a heavy rail system from scratch and we can't (well, I guess DC has a hell of a lot larger pool of money to draw from lol).

As far as some of the cities you mentioned, there are some interesting statistics I found from the National Transit Database. For example, in Los Angeles, the operating cost for heavy rail is only $2.20/rider while for light rail it is a whopping $3.7/rider. The cost per bus rider is $2.40. And take a look at Atlanta's statistics, an operating cost of only $2.40/rider for their heavy rail system and a cost of $3.40/rider for their bus system.

Miami is a lot higher, with a $4.10/rider operating cost for heavy rail and a $3.90/rider cost for bus riders.

With that being said, I think it's important to look at cost per rider for specific modes of transportation as well. Heavy rail usually performs very well in this area. I think that if done right a few heavy rail lines in Houston can be very successful.

And for those who insist upon a rubber-tired solution, I just got back from Paris and they have a really cool little tram/subway thingy, which runs on rubber tires and is very cool.

Edited March 17, 2014 by mfastx

[IronTiger]

Another explanation: part of what got my interested in light rail is DART, and I got really turned off from light rail (and other rail based mass transit) amidst nonsense anti-freeway rhetoric and the way that light rail is built in Houston (street running).

So I finally rode DART again, and while I can't say it's the perfect solution, I think that it's a forward-thinking idea and definitely makes going downtown from the suburbs a lot easier. Is it for everyone? Will it make freeway traffic disappear? Probably not. It was even reasonably full, and a Friday afternoon (well before rush hour), the train was packed with kids and parents heading back from the zoo, which was on the light rail line.

 

as for affecting the Katy Freeway, im not sure if that was a joke (hard to tell as so many people make jabs about mass transit not improving traffic) or you were serious.

It was serious. I hold no delusions about the Katy Freeway being magically un-congested (it could make an impact, but not really enough to be "uncongested"), but the Westpark line is a great corridor for light rail out to that area. Houston is handicapped in that there are very few abandoned rail right of ways that have not been eaten up for highway expansion or used for a bike path. If they had built a tunnel for the Katy Freeway where light rail would go, that would probably be pretty cool.

The unfortunate thing is that rail based transit still cost far more in operating losses, but that's a price you pay for progress. The gas tax does need to be raised too. I don't agree that putting light rail on Westpark ROW is "pointless", though I can see some issues with unhappy neighbors.

With ANY form of mass transit, even BRT, they're still subjected to lights and other things (even if the mass transit gets green and lights will go red for it, it will destroy traffic patterns and reverting back to the simple "timed lights" that cities have made steps to eliminate. I had to once wait for a light with three (not two) cycles, which meant it would turn red at night when no one was there. It sucked.

And yes, Slick, I have ridden the Houston light rail. It is a smooth ride, but part of that versus buses (which I have not ridden) is the smoothness of the rail. If the roads were better maintained, perhaps through slightly higher taxes, and if there were modern buses (Texas A&M replaced their "school bus" style buses with modern buses, and it's great), then part of the thing about light rail is eliminated.

It's not very forward-thinking to have a slow train that has too many stops and does street running (freight trains, in particular, have gone through great lengths to ELIMINATE that--why are we doing that now?) nor does it make for a good 21st century choice, especially decades in the future.

Edited March 17, 2014 by IronTiger

[tamtagon]

I've been out of this loop for a long time, so please indulge me a minute....  Is this light rail corridor still up in the air?  It's going to happen, for sure, right, well beyond the Galleria?  Is the route mostly confirmed and just getting the enviro-study?  I was following the deal when the Afton Oaks roadblock/detour first started -- and that seems like forever-ago.  So frustrating!

[Ross]

A few points

 

The only effective way to build a rail transit system here is a bored tunnel subway. Cut an cover is horribly disruptive and hard on existing infrastructure, which is why London quit using that method a century or more ago. It is also much easier to make a bored tunnel system less prone to flooding, since openings into the tunnel are limited. In addition, underground lines are not restricted to the routes used by streets.

 

High speed commuter rail requires grade separation and complete fencing for safety.This is bad for any area where the lines are built. Elevated rail has other issues, including accessibility, cost, safety, and routing.

 

It is no surprise the Katy is congested during rush hour. It would be naive to think otherwise. During non-peak hours, the Katy is a pretty awesome way to get across town quickly.

 

Houston streets, in general are too narrow to support two traffic lanes and light rail

[IronTiger]

A few more things:

- I'd like to see a feasibility study if Houston's soil could support a bored tunnel system.

- If you think that the Westpark ROW is a bad idea for the houses it backs, and you were all "screw Afton Oaks", you are a hypocrite and a liar if you think otherwise.

- If you think that the Westpark ROW is a bad idea because you think it won't get as much ridership as a Richmond line is, it wouldn't be the huge impact you may think it is. It's hard to believe that Culberson is evil because he blocked a line but a line a few blocks south is a terrible idea that won't get enough ridership.

- Light rail damages access, just as any road construction project does (even median additions). I worked at Village Foods in Bryan--the next to last AppleTree, which was bought by its own landlord from the dwindling chain in 2008 (of course it was dwindling by that point--but remember, AppleTree lasted longer as an independent chain than it did when it was a major one) and construction permanently damaged the shoppers at the store (they even sealed off the main entrance in the process). I've seen reports of businesses closing along the light rail (East End Sonic). Suppose that instead of slowly killing businesses with limited access, why not buy a bunch outright and run light rail parallel to Richmond, with the road snaking around buildings that cannot be moved? After all, I'm sure the city would love to see 1901 Richmond gone...

[livincinco]

I agree with raising the gas tax, but unfortunately I don't think any politician has the guts to do it.

I also think public transit should enhance quality of life for everyone regardless if he is fortunate or less fortunate. In the sense that it gives efficient transit from and where people need to go. This means whether or not you can afford to buy a car or not. It should b a viable alternative to the general population.

I have no problem with subsidizing public transit for those who need it, but if you want to promote public transit as a lifestyle choice for those that have other options than that shouldn't be subsidized. You've spoken frequently about "rail bias". If you want to build trains for those who prefer to use public transit instead of buses for those who need to ride it, then I don't see why it is the taxpayers' responsibility to subsidize that.

I'm fine with building rail as long as it can prove itself to be financially viable, but that very rarely happens. METROrail currently covers about 23% of its operating costs through fares. If people feel that passionately about how important it is to have trains in Houston, then they should be willing to pay the $5.00 one way fare that it would take to keep it revenue neutral assuming current ridership.

[livincinco]

Well, then we have to make sure we do it right. After having ridden many, many forms of transit around the country, I can say with confidence that heavy rail is by far the best transit mode we've got in 2014, and I think it's at least worth a serious look. There's no reason cities like Washington, DC can build a heavy rail system from scratch and we can't (well, I guess DC has a hell of a lot larger pool of money to draw from lol).

As far as some of the cities you mentioned, there are some interesting statistics I found from the National Transit Database. For example, in Los Angeles, the operating cost for heavy rail is only $2.20/rider while for light rail it is a whopping $3.7/rider. The cost per bus rider is $2.40. And take a look at Atlanta's statistics, an operating cost of only $2.40/rider for their heavy rail system and a cost of $3.40/rider for their bus system.

Miami is a lot higher, with a $4.10/rider operating cost for heavy rail and a $3.90/rider cost for bus riders.

With that being said, I think it's important to look at cost per rider for specific modes of transportation as well. Heavy rail usually performs very well in this area. I think that if done right a few heavy rail lines in Houston can be very successful.

And for those who insist upon a rubber-tired solution, I just got back from Paris and they have a really cool little tram/subway thingy, which runs on rubber tires and is very cool.

 

The problem with looking exclusively at operating costs when comparing heavy rail to other systems is that it doesn't factor in the debt burden related to the construction costs.  The initial construction of heavy rail in LA cost $4.5 billion for a 17 mile line ($265 million/mile).  That's a lot of debt to carry and finance especially if it's considered on a per rider basis even assuming that the Federal Government picks up part of the tab.  Unfortunately, the way that most transit agencies finance debt, it never goes away either, they just pay down the interest without ever reducing the principal.

 

The University line is planned at 11 miles.  Assuming that costs were consistent with LA's $265 million/mile (highly questionable given that the North Line just came in at about $150 million/mile for light rail), that would put the cost of heavy rail at about $3 billion for that corridor.  I just don't see it happening.

[RocketSci]

Regarding Afton Oaks: was the rail planned to eliminate several blocks of homes along a 2 lane residential street? I thought that rail was planned to run along a 4 lane bus route with a center median and eliminate no houses? I fail to see the comparison, since Montrose, Mandell Place, and Boulevard Oaks all are roughly adjacent to Richmond comparable to Afton Oaks and other than the cleaners and ice machine business these neighborhoods supported rail.

[JamesL]

Still nothing.

 

It was word of mouth from staff, not a study, but we can easily check this on the back of an envelope.

 

FEIS says 49,200 riders a day in 2030.

Red line sees 5% of its daily boardings in the peak half hour.

So we can safely guess U Line sees 2,460 boardings in the peak half hour.

11.4 miles, 20 mph average speed (Red Line does over 17 south of Downtown and U line would have way more fast running)

That means roughly 70 minute round trip and 12 trains to operate the line at 6 minute headways.

So each train sees 205 boardings in that half hour.

If the average trip is 10 minutes then that's about 70 people on each train at one time.

BUT we peanut butter spread those passengers on all the trains which isn't realistic.

At any given time, let's say four of those trains are empty because they are at or near the end of the line.

That means 308 boardings per train in that half hour and 103 on each train at a time.

The analysis I spoke of was probably done in the era of 40 ft buses only, so that's a pair of crush loaded buses every six minutes.

So you'd probably want to make that three buses every six minutes or one every two.

Not quite a pair of buses every two minutes, but not too far off.

If we adjust the assumption to five empty trains and a 15 minute average trip then we get (351...176) 4.4 very full buses every six minutes, or 1.5 very full buses every 2.

 

So it seems within the realm of possibility. They also may have been looking at a further out year than 2030.

You think light rail trains mess up signals? Imagine a busway trying to get a bus through in each direction every minute or two.

I'm all about buses until the capacity issue arises, and in this case it seems to have arisen.

 

Final point, half of this discussion seems to be about whether light rail should serve urban circulation or suburban commutes. We all can have our opinions on what we'd like to see, but objectively one of those will serve far more riders than the other at a given level of investment.

[JamesL]

And therefore, I should add, one of those ways to invest in light rail makes a lot more sense for an agency that already has a highly effective commuter transit system.

[Ross]

Regarding Afton Oaks: was the rail planned to eliminate several blocks of homes along a 2 lane residential street? I thought that rail was planned to run along a 4 lane bus route with a center median and eliminate no houses? I fail to see the comparison, since Montrose, Mandell Place, and Boulevard Oaks all are roughly adjacent to Richmond comparable to Afton Oaks and other than the cleaners and ice machine business these neighborhoods supported rail.

 

Afton Oaks has houses on Richmond, and only has a couple of entrances off of Richmond, and one off of Westheimer. Rail along that stretch of Richmond would pretty much destroy the lives of the people who live on Richmond, and make access for those in the interior of the subdivision very difficult. The median, with trees, would be removed, and once construction was complete, there would be a single traffic lane in each direction and the rail. The areas you mention have numerous alternative entrances and routes, and there are very few, if any, residences on Richmond in those locations.

[JamesL]

That makes no sense. Today you've got three travel lanes in each direction plus an esplanade and sidewalks. Looks like a 120' right-of-way through the residential area. One lane each way plus rail is about a 48' section. Add 12 for sidewalks. Where did the other 60 feet go?

[Slick Vik]

Afton Oaks has houses on Richmond, and only has a couple of entrances off of Richmond, and one off of Westheimer. Rail along that stretch of Richmond would pretty much destroy the lives of the people who live on Richmond, and make access for those in the interior of the subdivision very difficult. The median, with trees, would be removed, and once construction was complete, there would be a single traffic lane in each direction and the rail. The areas you mention have numerous alternative entrances and routes, and there are very few, if any, residences on Richmond in those locations.

Destroy lives? The floods in Pakistan in 2010 destroyed lives. Please stop the hyperbole.

[Slick Vik]

I have no problem with subsidizing public transit for those who need it, but if you want to promote public transit as a lifestyle choice for those that have other options than that shouldn't be subsidized. You've spoken frequently about "rail bias". If you want to build trains for those who prefer to use public transit instead of buses for those who need to ride it, then I don't see why it is the taxpayers' responsibility to subsidize that.

I'm fine with building rail as long as it can prove itself to be financially viable, but that very rarely happens. METROrail currently covers about 23% of its operating costs through fares. If people feel that passionately about how important it is to have trains in Houston, then they should be willing to pay the $5.00 one way fare that it would take to keep it revenue neutral assuming current ridership.

I think rail should be built for the whole population. If it's built properly people of all incomes will ride it and it will improve quality of life overall and help the city.

[Slick Vik]

I have no problem with subsidizing public transit for those who need it, but if you want to promote public transit as a lifestyle choice for those that have other options than that shouldn't be subsidized. You've spoken frequently about "rail bias". If you want to build trains for those who prefer to use public transit instead of buses for those who need to ride it, then I don't see why it is the taxpayers' responsibility to subsidize that.

I'm fine with building rail as long as it can prove itself to be financially viable, but that very rarely happens. METROrail currently covers about 23% of its operating costs through fares. If people feel that passionately about how important it is to have trains in Houston, then they should be willing to pay the $5.00 one way fare that it would take to keep it revenue neutral assuming current ridership.

Was discovery green or Hermann park a bad investment? They don't bring in financial results but they improve quality of life. Everything isn't black and white.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Slick Vik

[Ross]

That makes no sense. Today you've got three travel lanes in each direction plus an esplanade and sidewalks. Looks like a 120' right-of-way through the residential area. One lane each way plus rail is about a 48' section. Add 12 for sidewalks. Where did the other 60 feet go?

 

The RoW through Afton Oaks is 100 feet. If you leave the esplanade, and I think you have to, you get one rail line and one lane of traffic on each side. If you rip out the esplanade, you lose the trees, the green stuff, and make life even worse for residents on that street. If you want to build rail on Richmond, condemn Afton Oaks and turn it into a park. Don't make it an unlivable subdivision.

[livincinco]

Was discovery green or Hermann park a bad investment? They don't bring in financial results but they improve quality of life. Everything isn't black and white.

Thank you for providing a textbook example of a false equivalency. Parks are good, therefore we must subsidize rail in Houston? Also appreciate your providing such a great example to strengthen my point.

Discovery Green (I didn't look up Hermann Park), self-funds its operating costs. Discovery Green has an annual budget of $3.4 million that is paid for by fundraising and rental fees (restaurant and usage fees).

So yes, I completely approve of the way that Discovery Green was financed because it was able to provide improved quality of life in a completely responsible financial manner. The park analogy that I would make to transit is there basic parks and basic transit (buses) that government should provide. There are also premium parks (Discovery Green) and premium transit (rail) that have a higher cost to build and that those should be constructed in a fiscally responsible model.

[Slick Vik]

The RoW through Afton Oaks is 100 feet. If you leave the esplanade, and I think you have to, you get one rail line and one lane of traffic on each side. If you rip out the esplanade, you lose the trees, the green stuff, and make life even worse for residents on that street. If you want to build rail on Richmond, condemn Afton Oaks and turn it into a park. Don't make it an unlivable subdivision.

It would only be troublesome for people that try to make a left on Richmond from th neighborhood. Also they will have the long term benefit of being able to walk to a train stop which can take them around at a cheap price in a comfortable manner.

[Slick Vik]

Thank you for providing a textbook example of a false equivalency. Parks are good, therefore we must subsidize rail in Houston? Also appreciate your providing such a great example to strengthen my point.

Discovery Green (I didn't look up Hermann Park), self-funds its operating costs. Discovery Green has an annual budget of $3.4 million that is paid for by fundraising and rental fees (restaurant and usage fees).

So yes, I completely approve of the way that Discovery Green was financed because it was able to provide improved quality of life in a completely responsible financial manner. The park analogy that I would make to transit is there basic parks and basic transit (buses) that government should provide. There are also premium parks (Discovery Green) and premium transit (rail) that have a higher cost to build and that those should be constructed in a fiscally responsible model.

Discovery green was a bad example on my part. But I disagree that every premium park has to be fiscally responsible. It's a place in concept that improves quality of life without money being a factor. Everything is black and white to you.

[IronTiger]

Destroy lives? The floods in Pakistan in 2010 destroyed lives. Please stop the hyperbole.

While not destroying lives, there is destroying a lifestyle. Remember that you've lamented about highways destroying or potentially destroying neighborhoods. If that was genuine regret of the failures of the past or just crocodile tears to advance your anti-freeway agenda, we'll never know. Either way, rail through Afton Oaks will seriously disrupt the neighborhood and those that live there.

 

I think rail should be built for the whole population. If it's built properly people of all incomes will ride it and it will improve quality of life overall and help the city.

Rail cannot be built for the whole population. One of my reasons for spacing out stations is that like in other cities (New York, for one), there's not subways everywhere and it could be blocks until there is one. That's why there's buses and taxis. The idea of New York City having a "world class transit system" is reality (well, if they keep subway cars from being nasty, graffiti'd messes), but even it doesn't have "rail everywhere". Want rail for the whole population? Well...

Edited March 18, 2014 by IronTiger

[Montrose1100]

I'm not an engineer, but I find this debate bordering on the ridiculous... Would it really be that much more difficult/ expensive to build an elevated line down Richmond?? Houston just built two elevated sections of the North Line (because that was their only option when crossing existing rail lines) and they work great.  Like Dallas, we have now successfully designed and built an elevated rail station.  These costs are not some vague abstraction anymore.  

 

Richmond needs to have an elevated line.  The costs couldn't be much more than expenses already needed to build the road.  Just elevate the whole damn thing, including stations.  

Elevated lines are an eyesore in my opinion. But it's not like Richmond is lined with anything other than suburban style office buildings and strip centers here and there. (excluding the intersection at Kirby).

[IronTiger]

Discovery green was a bad example on my part. But I disagree that every premium park has to be fiscally responsible. It's a place in concept that improves quality of life without money being a factor. Everything is black and white to you.

I know that Klyde Warren Park was underwritten by wealthy donors, with the park itself named after the young son of a Dallas area billionaire who obviously contributed much to the project. Memorial Park was bought by the city in the early 1920s, Hermann Park was similarly donated. Trust me, if some local billionaire donated $$$ to fund a major transit project, say, burying the light rail under Richmond, there wouldn't be a lot of quibbling. If it were entirely up to Houston's tax dollars to fund Discovery Green (notice that the amenities are named after donors), it probably would not have happened, and would probably be just greenspace and not the place it is today.

[Slick Vik]

I know that Klyde Warren Park was underwritten by wealthy donors, with the park itself named after the young son of a Dallas area billionaire who obviously contributed much to the project. Memorial Park was bought by the city in the early 1920s, Hermann Park was similarly donated. Trust me, if some local billionaire donated $$$ to fund a major transit project, say, burying the light rail under Richmond, there wouldn't be a lot of quibbling. If it were entirely up to Houston's tax dollars to fund Discovery Green (notice that the amenities are named after donors), it probably would not have happened, and would probably be just greenspace and not the place it is today.

 

The high line in new york is a good example, $50 million was paid by the city and it's been extremely popular. In Houston I'm sure that would have been shot down as a waste of money.

[Slick Vik]

While not destroying lives, there is destroying a lifestyle. Remember that you've lamented about highways destroying or potentially destroying neighborhoods. If that was genuine regret of the failures of the past or just crocodile tears to advance your anti-freeway agenda, we'll never know. Either way, rail through Afton Oaks will seriously disrupt the neighborhood and those that live there.

 

Rail cannot be built for the whole population. One of my reasons for spacing out stations is that like in other cities (New York, for one), there's not subways everywhere and it could be blocks until there is one. That's why there's buses and taxis. The idea of New York City having a "world class transit system" is reality (well, if they keep subway cars from being nasty, graffiti'd messes), but even it doesn't have "rail everywhere". Want rail for the whole population? Well...

 

The rail will not disrupt lives in Afton Oaks, other than making left turns on to Richmond, which is difficult as it is. In fact it will enhance it, but the people can't see the forest from the trees. Also there is a lot of not so subtle racism alive and well also, in addition to the not surprising NIMBYism.

 

I guess you haven't ridden the New York City subway, you must be thinking of the 80's when they were mostly full of graffiti. Most of that was cleaned up.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Slick Vik

[nativehoustonion]

Slick Vik is right.  My car was in the shop and METRO had the 82 Westheimer running every 10 minutes.  I hoped on it and got off at Taft.  I was there in 10 minutes.  If I worked Downtown I would use it.  I'm not poor to ride a bus.  Afton Oaks will get what they do not want.  When River Oaks District is done with two other high rises the traffic will be a parking lot.  Then every one in a car will cut through Afton Oaks.  They got their way with no rail.  Just wait all the traffic will flow into their area cutting through!  Oh and when the train comes! LOL!  When that happens they will ask Culberson to help them. 

[IronTiger]

The high line in new york is a good example, $50 million was paid by the city and it's been extremely popular. In Houston I'm sure that would have been shot down as a waste of money.

The High Line's main feature--a 1930s era viaduct--was built a long time ago.

 

The rail will not disrupt lives in Afton Oaks, other than making left turns on to Richmond, which is difficult as it is. In fact it will enhance it, but the people can't see the forest from the trees. Also there is a lot of not so subtle racism alive and well also, in addition to the not surprising NIMBYism.

Once again, we're making the "Afton Oaks will live, they're just whiny NIMBYs" and the unfounded racism accusations. It was also the "whiny NIMBYs" in the East End that demanded even the rail underpass, as opposed to the overpass, right? Oh wait, they don't count.

 

I guess you haven't ridden the New York City subway, you must be thinking of the 80's when they were mostly full of graffiti. Most of that was cleaned up.

Once again, we're back to the "I'm a smug urban traveler and you're just a yokel" rhetoric. As it turns out, as recently as 2006 (and yes, for what it's worth, I went to NYC in 2007), there was indelible "acid graffiti", and New York spent a huge amount of money to clean up their cars.

 

Slick Vik is right. My car was in the shop and METRO had the 82 Westheimer running every 10 minutes. I hoped on it and got off at Taft. I was there in 10 minutes. If I worked Downtown I would use it. I'm not poor to ride a bus. Afton Oaks will get what they do not want. When River Oaks District is done with two other high rises the traffic will be a parking lot. Then every one in a car will cut through Afton Oaks. They got their way with no rail. Just wait all the traffic will flow into their area cutting through! Oh and when the train comes! LOL! When that happens they will ask Culberson to help them.

Once again, we're back to the "Afton Oaks ruined the University Line, I hope those bastards get what they deserve" rhetoric.

All of you are reverting to the same posts that you've used for months and are missing the point. I think that a good future-oriented east-west line is needed. Traffic is continuing to increase on the Inner Loop roads, and replacing those with street-running light rail is not the best option especially for the future and we must use alternatives. We must either

a) bury the University Line under Richmond

run it on the Westpark ROW south of 59 for the entirety of the route

c) demolish buildings along Richmond and run the rail parallel to it

Edited March 18, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

The High Line's main feature--a 1930s era viaduct--was built a long time ago.

Once again, we're making the "Afton Oaks will live, they're just whiny NIMBYs" and the unfounded racism accusations. It was also the "whiny NIMBYs" in the East End that demanded even the rail underpass, as opposed to the overpass, right? Oh wait, they don't count.

Once again, we're back to the "I'm a smug urban traveler and you're just a yokel" rhetoric. As it turns out, as recently as 2006 (and yes, for what it's worth, I went to NYC in 2007), there was indelible "acid graffiti", and New York spent a huge amount of money to clean up their cars.

Once again, we're back to the "Afton Oaks ruined the University Line, I hope those bastards get what they deserve" rhetoric.

All of you are reverting to the same posts that you've used for months and are missing the point. I think that a good future-oriented east-west line is needed. Traffic is continuing to increase on the Inner Loop roads, and replacing those with street-running light rail is not the best option especially for the future and we must use alternatives. We must either

a) bury the University Line under Richmond

run it on the Westpark ROW south of 59 for the entirety of the route

c) demolish buildings along Richmond and run the rail parallel to it

1. Ok...the point is the city spent $50 million to restore it. It's not just a viaduct anymore. Check it out.

2. I go to New York 3-4 times a year and don't ever see subway cars with graffiti.

3. You're making suggestions that won't happen. The route as is has been studied and submitted to the Feds. There's no going back unless you want to restart everything, meaning feasibility studies, then environmental studies, meetings, ETc which would mean the tens if not hundreds of millions that were already spent are considered a waste.

 

4. The east end wanted rail, just in a certain way. Afton Oaks doesn't want it at all and as a result is screwing hundreds of thousands of people over. Big difference.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Slick Vik