METRORail University Line

[nativehoustonion]

They will get what they deserve.   Afton Oaks has no idea what will happen when 2929 Weslayen, Willowick Place, Buffalo Speedway, and Levy park opens up. 

[IronTiger]

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.

I doubt that the University Line would "screw over" "hundreds of thousands" of people over. Do neighborhoods that resisted freeways "screw over" thousands of potential commuters? Maybe. We're not here to discuss that.

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.

So you think that "we spent all this money, we should go for the rail anyway"? Congratulations, you've just done the sunk cost fallacy.

It really is a shame since I went in with the generally-agreeable "We need a world class transit system on the east-west corridor, but the University Line is broken and needs some serious thinking." Rather then getting some creative thinking, most of what I've got is "NOOOOAOOOOW! The University Line MUST be done as before the ANTI-RAIL DEVIL CULBERSON ruined it! Putting the rail on Westpark is the STUPIDEST IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD because the RIDERSHIP NUMBERS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. AFTON OAKS RESIDENTS ARE EVIL FOR NOT WANTING RAIL. BLAH BLAH BLAH."

What was I thinking? What did I expect?

[Slick Vik]

I doubt that the University Line would "screw over" "hundreds of thousands" of people over. Do neighborhoods that resisted freeways "screw over" thousands of potential commuters? Maybe. We're not here to discuss that.

So you think that "we spent all this money, we should go for the rail anyway"? Congratulations, you've just done the sunk cost fallacy.

It really is a shame since I went in with the generally-agreeable "We need a world class transit system on the east-west corridor, but the University Line is broken and needs some serious thinking." Rather then getting some creative thinking, most of what I've got is "NOOOOAOOOOW! The University Line MUST be done as before the ANTI-RAIL DEVIL CULBERSON ruined it! Putting the rail on Westpark is the STUPIDEST IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD because the RIDERSHIP NUMBERS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. AFTON OAKS RESIDENTS ARE EVIL FOR NOT WANTING RAIL. BLAH BLAH BLAH."

What was I thinking? What did I expect?

 

There's a big difference between a very wide freeway and a light rail taking three lanes of one street.

 

Sunk cost isn't a fallacy, that money has been spent.

 

I never said I disagreed with some of your ideas like the buried rail, in fact I like subways much better than light rail, they are much faster and carry more people. Unfortunately the situation here right now gives us no option for subway or elevated rail so the light rail is the next best option.

 

Ridership numbers being different is a pretty important criteria. There really isn't much on westpark for vast stretches, particularly after 610.

[nativehoustonion]

Who made you the ridership person?  Bellaire built a park and ride lot off Westpark.  The density off Gulfton, Hillcroft and Post Oak is high.  Why don't you ride the bus to the Hillcroft Transit Center and see how many people ride the buses.  Do not mock unless you know the facts. BLAH BLAH BLAH. 

[Slick Vik]

Who made you the ridership person?  Bellaire built a park and ride lot off Westpark.  The density off Gulfton, Hillcroft and Post Oak is high.  Why don't you ride the bus to the Hillcroft Transit Center and see how many people ride the buses.  Do not mock unless you know the facts. BLAH BLAH BLAH. 

 

I agree. I was just talking about the actual road of westpark, after 610 there isn't much on it itself. I'm glad they have a stop for Gulfton that's the most densely populated area of the city.

 

And I was referring the difference of ridership for westpark between shepherd and 610 against richmond between shepherd and 610.

[samagon]

More hyperbole about how it's "critical" it must be done that way. Would people really commute from TSU to Greenway Plaza? Probably not. But I'm not arguing if the line should be built or not, I just think that running it on Richmond is a bad idea.

 

Complains of hyperbole, makes own hyperbole.

 

No, people probably wouldn't travel from TSU to Greenway. They'd probably travel from TSU to the Galleria. They'd probably travel from Midtown to Greenway, or the Galleria. They'd probably travel from the Galleria (galleria area) to Greenway. They'd probably travel from anywhere to a stop near mandell to see the menil. They'd probably travel from anywhere to go to the westlayan movie theater. They'd probably commute to school at UH, or TCU.

 

Personally, I'd travel from the east end transit center to midtown, mandell, galleria, or the theater near greenway.

 

Would any of these people travel the university line if they had to cross a freeway to get to those locations?

 

That's the question you've got to ask yourself. I see the answer being no. even if they put in pedestrian bridges to cross the freeways (which I would see not happening). 

 

So yes, westpark would be more attractive from a lower impact build, but would people ride the rail to destinations on the other side of the freeway? I see the answer to that being no, and for that reason alone it makes the westpark corridor a waste of land use, a waste of money, and a waste of all the studies that have already been done showing that going straight down Richmond would provide the best benefit, and no, that's not hyperbole, that's from the study that they did. Richmond in the best impact for ridership going east/west.

 

edit: Is (effectively) making Richmond a 1 lane in each direction road, and cutting off access for street crossings as was done on main, and as is being done on the other lines the solution? I don't think it's the best solution, but I also think it is better than moving it over to westpark.

 

Personally, I think the best solution would be a mix of street level, elevated, and underground depending on the area. east of 59 (TCU and UH) street level, elevate from there all the way down to greenway, then go sub through afton oaks, and bring up to street grade again on the other side of 610. cost? yeah, right.

Edited March 18, 2014 by samagon

[nativehoustonion]

Sorry I know what you are talking about.  But the rail plan cannot be changed with so much paper work with our politicians involved.  We voted for METRO Solutions.  Everyone wants it changed it but we would have to go back and start over.  I thought the University Line could cut across Greenway Plaza and transit through the feeder off 59.  And elevated across 59 to Westpark to the Hillcroft station.  I'm so sad that we cannot build a light rail line to connect the other ones.  While the Grand Parkway, 290, and 288 are under construction.

[cloud713]

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

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

 

The High Line is pretty cool.. i havent seen it in person but its a great use of space in a city that doesnt have much land. someone once mentioned a High Line esque park/bridge idea i thought was kind of nifty (though it would never work unless GS and HC were owned by the same company, or somehow decided it would be in their best interests to work together) connecting GreenStreet to Houston Center, to link a proper shopping district in downtown.

a ) not a bad idea, and it would be a "mixed use" line in that it would serve Houstons light rail desires, while also being more commuter-esque/faster running time underground, so we wouldnt have to build LRT down Richmond, and later commuter rail down Westpark or subway down Westheimer. (though my ideal plan would be subway down Westheimer [where more of the people are] and Commuter-esque LRT down Westpark [available ROW.. much cheaper/higher speeds], nothing on Richmond.. except for possibly the short stretch between Montrose [or Yoakum] and Wheeler).

b ) im coming to the realization that this is the most ideal route, with a "mixed use" line as described above. it would be very quick and efficient with less cross streets, while being substantially cheaper to build. but would it jump over to Richmond at Yoakum? or would they elevate it past Montrose along the south side of 59 before jumping over to Wheeler Station? there isnt enough ROW IMO for rail east of Montrose unless they took out some of the parking lots and elevated it/got creative.

c ) no way.. if they are going to start demoing buildings along entire stretches of road (kind of barbaric and i doubt it would ever fly), it should be on Westheimer, where the people are, and there is absolutely no room for ROW expansion left. at least Richmond has the median for a couple more lanes of traffic (or the rail line)

 

There's a big difference between a very wide freeway and a light rail taking three lanes of one street.

 

Sunk cost isn't a fallacy, that money has been spent.

 

I never said I disagreed with some of your ideas like the buried rail, in fact I like subways much better than light rail, they are much faster and carry more people. Unfortunately the situation here right now gives us no option for subway or elevated rail so the light rail is the next best option.

 

Ridership numbers being different is a pretty important criteria. There really isn't much on westpark for vast stretches, particularly after 610.

yeah, the money has been spent. but due to Culbersons most recent antics, were going to have to resubmit a plan to the feds anyways, since he wont let the line run through his district (west of Shepherd), that routes the line over to Westpark at or before Shepherd. either way weve lost money. might as well just re route the whole thing down Westpark, up to Yoakum for the resubmission. it will be much cheaper in the end.

we all agree subways would be the best. but cut and cover isnt possible on many preferred routes and tunnel boring machine subways can cost up to 500 million a mile (almost 5 times the amount of Houstons LRT). we'd have to chose our subway routes wisely. and i think Westheimer would have higher ridership than Richmond. just as the Post Oak line should be subway through uptown. traffic in uptown is too big of a mess to have surface rail. they would have to make elevated rail look pretty damn swanky for it to fly along the university or uptown lines.

yeah localized ridership would be less on the Westpark corridor, but there would only be ~2-3 stops in between uptown and the Main St line, vs EIGHT stops on the planned University line. it would be MUCH faster and still serve the two biggest districts along the route (Greenway, and Kirby.. and possibly the Menil/St Thomas/Montrose, if it jumps over at Yoakum). thats beside the point though.. most of the traffic will be commuting between the west side/uptown and downtown/museum district/TMC. there isnt a very large population along Richmond ITL to boost local ridership that dramatically IMO.

 

Who made you the ridership person?  Bellaire built a park and ride lot off Westpark.  The density off Gulfton, Hillcroft and Post Oak is high.  Why don't you ride the bus to the Hillcroft Transit Center and see how many people ride the buses.  Do not mock unless you know the facts. BLAH BLAH BLAH. 

heh.. agreed. the ridership would possibly be just as high further west of Uptown as it would between Uptown and the Main St line. there is a lot of density in that area and large residential populations like you pointed out. look at a map and see how far out residential development takes place along the Westpark Corridor.. yeah the density drops off west of the beltway, but its built up almost all the way to Fulshear. would be a great commuter or LRT hybrid line.

[cloud713]

Would any of these people travel the university line if they had to cross a freeway to get to those locations?

 

That's the question you've got to ask yourself. I see the answer being no. even if they put in pedestrian bridges to cross the freeways (which I would see not happening). 

 

So yes, westpark would be more attractive from a lower impact build, but would people ride the rail to destinations on the other side of the freeway? I see the answer to that being no, and for that reason alone it makes the westpark corridor a waste of land use, a waste of money, and a waste of all the studies that have already been done showing that going straight down Richmond would provide the best benefit, and no, that's not hyperbole, that's from the study that they did. Richmond in the best impact for ridership going east/west.

whats wrong with crossing 59 if youre in an enclosed a/c skybridge with moving sidewalks, or underground, again in the comfort of a/c, with moving sidewalks, since walking all the way across a couple hundred foot wide freeway is such a hassle? heh. im not sure how extensive the greenway tunnel system is, but i hear one exists, so an underground tunnel below 59 connecting into GWs tunnel system sounds ideal. people wouldnt even know they were "crossing a freeway".

again, yes a line straight down Richmond (though preferably submerged) would have the highest ridership, but Culberson is forcing the route to be redirected AGAIN, this time jumping across 59 at or before Shepherd, so Greenway and Upper Kirby will have to utilize crosswalks or tunnels to get to the north side of 59 either way.

 

While the Grand Parkway, 290, and 288 are under construction.

288 is under construction? i was just visiting my parents last week and didnt notice anything major. though they were closing off one of the county roads that cross the median permanently, possibly in preparation for the new tollway? i agree though, it kind of sucks we cant figure out what to do with our rail system to benefit the future of Houston, but we sure are good at pouring concrete and widening every major freeway possible, promoting more sprawl/traffic. (i realize the complexities to building rail vs expanding highways that already exist.. just saying, its a bummer)

[samagon]

whats wrong with crossing 59 if youre in an enclosed a/c skybridge with moving sidewalks, or underground, again in the comfort of a/c, with moving sidewalks, since walking all the way across a couple hundred foot wide freeway is such a hassle? heh. im not sure how extensive the greenway tunnel system is, but i hear one exists, so an underground tunnel below 59 connecting into GWs tunnel system sounds ideal. people wouldnt even know they were "crossing a freeway".

 

It's more of a food court between the renaisance hotel, GW 15 and one of the other bigger buildings. It's not that impressive.

 

If it was AC, I could see it, maybe. I'm not thinking of my own use, I'm thinking of business people who would ride from midtown/montrose/galleria area to their job in greenway, walking across a freeway on a typical pedestrian bridge. I just can't see a guy in a suit (or even business casual) using one of those over a freeway. If it were enclosed and climate controlled, sure.

 

 

 

again, yes a line straight down Richmond (though preferably submerged) would have the highest ridership, but Culberson is forcing the route to be redirected AGAIN, this time jumping across 59 at or before Shepherd, so Greenway and Upper Kirby will have to utilize crosswalks or tunnels to get to the north side of 59 either way.

 

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but I just don't see how cutting off most of the destinations by having a freeway in the middle makes it a useful proposition. In my mind, I think Culberson is suggesting something that is purposefully idiotic as a solution because he knows that it's such a bad idea no one wants to waste money on it. If he were really pro-rail, and not veiled deceit his message to his constituents would not be saying that they're paying for something they'll never use, he would point out that for every rider that's one less car on the road they have to sit next to in traffic. That is what the benefit is. and that's why they need to find the money to pay to elevate the rail, or put it below grade on Richmond.

Edited March 18, 2014 by samagon

[cloud713]

It's more of a food court between the renaisance hotel, GW 15 and one of the other bigger buildings. It's not that impressive.

If it was AC, I could see it, maybe. I'm not thinking of my own use, I'm thinking of business people who would ride from midtown/montrose/galleria area to their job in greenway, walking across a freeway on a typical pedestrian bridge. I just can't see a guy in a suit (or even business casual) using one of those over a freeway. If it were enclosed and climate controlled, sure.

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but I just don't see how cutting off most of the destinations by having a freeway in the middle makes it a useful proposition. In my mind, I think Culberson is suggesting something that is purposefully idiotic as a solution because he knows that it's such a bad idea no one wants to waste money on it. If he were really pro-rail, and not veiled deceit his message to his constituents would not be saying that they're paying for something they'll never use, he would point out that for every rider that's one less car on the road they have to sit next to in traffic. That is what the benefit is. and that's why they need to find the money to pay to elevate the rail, or put it below grade on Richmond.

Oh. I'm not sure which buildings those are but I'll check it out when I'm free. They couldn't connect a tunnel under 59 to Lakewood and connect that to the existing "food court" tunnels? I guess many buildings are probably connected by skybridge instead of tunnels. I just figured a skybridgr over 59 would look weird, but I've seen some nice looking skybridges (Genslers ballet building comes to mind). Maybe they could include the color changing LEDs like on the Montrose bridges. And of course they wouldn't have people trekking across a freeway on a walkway open to the elements.. This isn't Astroworld, it's a legit business district like you pointed out. Heh.

Below grade on Richmond would be cool, but I think we can all agree that's not going to happen

[nativehoustonion]

Yes they are building a Tollway on 288.  Before you hit the medical center the are building a ramp straight to the TMC.  They are also building a interchange at the Beltway.  More concrete!  

[IronTiger]

Sunk cost isn't a fallacy, that money has been spent.

Sure it is, and it's a perfect example of which.

There's a big difference between a very wide freeway and a light rail taking three lanes of one street.

Light rail isn't supposed to compete against freeways, but I find it a bit hypocritical to have this sharp "people who fight against freeways in neighborhoods = heroes", "people who fight against light rail in neighborhoods = villains" rhetoric. And you said there's no black and white.

I never said I disagreed with some of your ideas like the buried rail, in fact I like subways much better than light rail, they are much faster and carry more people. Unfortunately the situation here right now gives us no option for subway or elevated rail so the light rail is the next best option.

I don't know if subways are unviable, it depends on the soil conditions. As someone said before, we have finally done elevated stations, but elevated stations tend to be problematic around stations (requiring a LOT of space). I also offered the suggestion of actually creating new ROW along Richmond, but as Cloud said, it is kind of barbaric (a reason, by the way, of why some of the anti-freeway HAIFers are like that--the Katy and Northwest expansions have already seen a lot of businesses get torn down). In fact, there might be a fourth situation--instead of light rail running IN the median, to shift Richmond over to the south (or north) side and have rail running parallel. There would be at-grade crossings for the rail, and yeah, it would kind of screw over access for many businesses, but that was always a given.

Ridership numbers being different is a pretty important criteria. There really isn't much on westpark for vast stretches, particularly after 610.

Ridership numbers are a funny thing. To get money from the feds, you would want it to have a high projected number, but if you have a low projected number, and it ends up getting HIGHER numbers, congratulations! It could be considered a success. The trick is to find the "magic number"--deliberately lowballing it to call it a success but high enough for it to get funding. This could potentially cause some conflicts, where one on paper seems to have much higher numbers than the other.

Who made you the ridership person? Bellaire built a park and ride lot off Westpark. The density off Gulfton, Hillcroft and Post Oak is high. Why don't you ride the bus to the Hillcroft Transit Center and see how many people ride the buses. Do not mock unless you know the facts. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Mostly I was on the fact that you start calling politicians names "evil" based solely on the fact that they nixed a rail line. Stupid, maybe, but a politician would have to do continuously reprehensible things to be called "evil", and there are few politicians that could be called that (surprising, I know). This is compounded by the fact that you seem to be wishing ill on Afton Oaks residents because they didn't like it--an extremely childish thing to do.

Complains of hyperbole, makes own hyperbole.

No, people probably wouldn't travel from TSU to Greenway. They'd probably travel from TSU to the Galleria. They'd probably travel from Midtown to Greenway, or the Galleria. They'd probably travel from the Galleria (galleria area) to Greenway. They'd probably travel from anywhere to a stop near mandell to see the menil. They'd probably travel from anywhere to go to the westlayan movie theater. They'd probably commute to school at UH, or TCU.

Personally, I'd travel from the east end transit center to midtown, mandell, galleria, or the theater near greenway.

Would any of these people travel the university line if they had to cross a freeway to get to those locations?

That's the question you've got to ask yourself. I see the answer being no. even if they put in pedestrian bridges to cross the freeways (which I would see not happening).

So yes, westpark would be more attractive from a lower impact build, but would people ride the rail to destinations on the other side of the freeway? I see the answer to that being no, and for that reason alone it makes the westpark corridor a waste of land use, a waste of money, and a waste of all the studies that have already been done showing that going straight down Richmond would provide the best benefit, and no, that's not hyperbole, that's from the study that they did. Richmond in the best impact for ridership going east/west.

From a ridership perspective, it does make more sense to have it on the Richmond side, you're right. Westpark corridor (that is, the rail line that used to parallel Westpark) wouldn't have that accessibility from south of 59. However, that's why I wanted it to be underground--everyone's always talking about the Inner Loop traffic going up: why are we taking out the roads that enable it to do that? After all, at the rate that buildings are going up and densifying, light rail isn't going to really stop that.

I also hope that when they do build the University Line, the Uptown/Galleria line parallels the University Line to Wheeler, since transferring that early is lame.

Sorry I know what you are talking about. But the rail plan cannot be changed with so much paper work with our politicians involved. We voted for METRO Solutions. Everyone wants it changed it but we would have to go back and start over. I thought the University Line could cut across Greenway Plaza and transit through the feeder off 59. And elevated across 59 to Westpark to the Hillcroft station. I'm so sad that we cannot build a light rail line to connect the other ones. While the Grand Parkway, 290, and 288 are under construction.

And sometimes what people vote on doesn't happen or fails for whatever reason. METRO's competence isn't known, and I feel that instead of focusing on the past (Culberson), we need to look for the future, alternatives. I also think that like Dallas, we need to start adding light rail out to make a hybrid LRT/commuter system except in places not viable (for example, while Pearland or Katy could get LRT out there.

The High Line is pretty cool.. i havent seen it in person but its a great use of space in a city that doesnt have much land. someone once mentioned a High Line esque park/bridge idea i thought was kind of nifty (though it would never work unless GS and HC were owned by the same company, or somehow decided it would be in their best interests to work together) connecting GreenStreet to Houston Center, to link a proper shopping district in downtown.

Yeah, because New York City was always pretty high density, it doesn't have enough parks (Central Park, and that's already crowded, plus a bunch of tiny neighborhood parks).

heh.. agreed. the ridership would possibly be just as high further west of Uptown as it would between Uptown and the Main St line. there is a lot of density in that area and large residential populations like you pointed out. look at a map and see how far out residential development takes place along the Westpark Corridor.. yeah the density drops off west of the beltway, but its built up almost all the way to Fulshear. would be a great commuter or LRT hybrid line.

It would be. There's still enough ROW that light rail could be comfortably built out all the way to Katy. Of course, we have to get the University Line built first, and that there's still too many stops along Richmond.

While the Grand Parkway, 290, and 288 are under construction.

Remember that the light rail and highways are by two entirely different agencies. If 290, Grand Parkway, and 288 were owned by METRO, rest assured, they'd NEVER be built or expanded.

And I always thought that 288 has enough space for new HOV lanes AND a light rail running down to Pearland, if they were to ever expand the Red Line south, but that's just me.

If he were really pro-rail, and not veiled deceit his message to his constituents would not be saying that they're paying for something they'll never use, he would point out that for every rider that's one less car on the road they have to sit next to in traffic. That is what the benefit is. and that's why they need to find the money to pay to elevate the rail, or put it below grade on Richmond.

Culberson (and/or his voters) aren't anti-rail, they're NIMBYs. If I didn't want, say, a freeway, or a gas station right behind my house (or in front of my house), that doesn't mean that I hated freeways or gas stations.

So that's some of my thoughts, some clarified, on the issue. Sorry if I insulted anybody.

[samagon]

Culberson (and/or his voters) aren't anti-rail, they're NIMBYs. If I didn't want, say, a freeway, or a gas station right behind my house (or in front of my house), that doesn't mean that I hated freeways or gas stations.

So that's some of my thoughts, some clarified, on the issue. Sorry if I insulted anybody.

 

That's a fair point, other than the inconvenience when it is built, and finding alternate methods of crossing the streets once it is built, there aren't many downsides to it. Upsides include long term reduction in traffic, long term land value increase, additional convenience by having multiple modes of transit available.

 

basically, a few short term distractions, and really good long term upsides.

[nativehoustonion]

Pearland is not part of METRO.

[nativehoustonion]

Oh yes he is evil he gave the federal money to Dallas. Denver and Phoenix.

 

[cloud713]

Yes they are building a Tollway on 288.  Before you hit the medical center the are building a ramp straight to the TMC.  They are also building a interchange at the Beltway.  More concrete!  

 

oh ok, yeah.. that hasnt started yet though? that new flyover into the TMC will be a huge relief for Pearland/southern metro TMC workers. and the new interchange at the Beltway looks to be the first 6 level vehicle overpass in the world (im 99% sure). the renderings make it look like the new toll lanes will fly over the Beltway, instead of going under the beltway/parallel with the 288 lanes, and then have the two flyovers above that, making it a 6 stack (and you guys thought the i-10W/Beltway interchange and the Dallas High Five were tall.. heh).

Note: China has a 6 stack, but one of the levels is a pedestrian bridge.

 

And I always thought that 288 has enough space for new HOV lanes AND a light rail running down to Pearland, if they were to ever expand the Red Line south, but that's just me.

agreed.. i hope they dont pave over the entire median. a Red Line extension down to Pearland Town Center would be awesome, or a commuter rail link from Highway 6 up to Fannin South, or the TMC (since so many people from the Pearland/southern portion of the metro work in the TMC) following the route of the new planned flyover into the TMC.

[IronTiger]

Pearland is not part of METRO.

Yeah, that's one hang up. If METRO got well organized, then we will see better performance across Houston and suburbia. Too bad it's not.

Oh yes he is evil he gave the federal money to Dallas. Denver and Phoenix.

He let federal money go to other cities. Oh the horror. Edited March 18, 2014 by IronTiger

[mollusk]

Repeating a point I've made before, the proposed University Line was relocated AROUND Afton Oaks years ago.  In my perception, Culberson just has a knee jerk reaction to rail, period, much as Tom DeLay did - that's why he keeps fighting the University Line, just as he effectively killed any rail along the Katy corridor whilst gleefully doing a photo op on a bulldozer on its way to cutting uncrossable six and seven lane frontage roads.

[mfastx]

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.

I don't see it happening either, and I understand the enormously high capital costs that are associated with heavy rail transit. I am just of the belief that the decades and even centuries of excellent transit service is worth the initial investment and occasional facelifts. I would like to see federal funds pay for most of the investment so the local transit isn't saddled with debt. To me, good transit isn't about making money, as no infrastructure makes money.

I wish we would have gotten this done in the 80s when the government was handing out money for systems like this, paying up to 80% of the cost.

[IronTiger]

Repeating a point I've made before, the proposed University Line was relocated AROUND Afton Oaks years ago. In my perception, Culberson just has a knee jerk reaction to rail, period, much as Tom DeLay did - that's why he keeps fighting the University Line, just as he effectively killed any rail along the Katy corridor whilst gleefully doing a photo op on a bulldozer on its way to cutting uncrossable six and seven lane frontage roads.

Katy Freeway and rail wasn't this conspiracy as some HAIFers have stated--the congestion was getting pretty high even in the late 1980s, and when the rail was bought in the early 1990s, it was decided against having a commuter rail and in 1997, the "free rides" on the train ran out (it was used up until that point, causing major traffic delays, and sometimes the train would stop, there's an article in the Chron about the train trapping people in the antique mall's parking lot (blocking both the main way out and the frontage road's crossing). The 50-odd crossings were problematic as well.

I'm not sure how or why METRO was conned into donating money to make the middle lane bridges strong enough for light rail--stations would be problematic to build since they would still require major engineering to work properly. It's worth noting that California has a light rail built in Interstate 210 (keep going west on Interstate 10 out of town, Exit 77C) but building stations on Houston's piece of 210 would be a major piece of engineering (either cutting holes in overpasses to allow elevators/stairs up, or adding more structures to go up and over the freeway, since Katy Freeway has no underpasses). The only thing that was really cut out from the plan was not having congestion pricing in the interior toll lanes, which SHOULD be done, but I'm not really sure who changed that around.

I don't know if anyone liked my fourth option (shift traffic permanently to one side or the other as a two-way road, and run rail in the remaining right of way as a parallel line), but if you haven't processed that, here's a fifth option: run it as is, just cut out extraneous stops. What say you?

[Slick Vik]

I think the three greenway stops are a bit much but I'm okay with the rest of them. If anything there should be one more stop for gulfton

[IronTiger]

A funny thing happened when I was in the shower--I actually started liking the University Line more and more. Does it still have too many stops? Yes (cut Kirby or Shepherd). Was it a good idea to avoid Afton Oaks? Very yes. Should the line have the capability to expand out the suburbs? Yup.

However, they should make the Uptown Line also link up with the Blue Line toward at least Wheeler, then split north, or something.

Is there any movement under way to strike down the Richmond ban on rail via a judge? Are there any pro-University Line donors that could donate money to rail construction, legally circumventing the "no federal funding" statute? See, those are solutions.

Going further, what if we could build a light rail vehicle facility here in Houston instead of importing them from overseas? Think of how that would lower the cost to entry.

[Slick Vik]

A funny thing happened when I was in the shower--I actually started liking the University Line more and more. Does it still have too many stops? Yes (cut Kirby or Shepherd). Was it a good idea to avoid Afton Oaks? Very yes. Should the line have the capability to expand out the suburbs? Yup.

However, they should make the Uptown Line also link up with the Blue Line toward at least Wheeler, then split north, or something.

Is there any movement under way to strike down the Richmond ban on rail via a judge? Are there any pro-University Line donors that could donate money to rail construction, legally circumventing the "no federal funding" statute? See, those are solutions.

Going further, what if we could build a light rail vehicle facility here in Houston instead of importing them from overseas? Think of how that would lower the cost to entry.

I think the Kirby and shepherd stops make more sense than three greenway stops. I'm not sure about the tier west stop either.

The issue is the buy America clause. Metro kind of got around it by buying spanish trains assembled in Elmira, ny. Labor costs are higher here and that adds to the cost.

Also rebuilding the roads rail is built on adds a lot too. Do all lanes get damaged or just the middle ones? If all do then it's a justifiable cost if not then it's not really sensible to add this to a rail project cost.

Also I recall a long time ago there were certain parts of the line where uptown and university ran together but I don't think that's the case anymore.

Also I think a key line would be down Washington from northwest transit center. That way you don't have to go to wheeler. This is especially important if/when 290 commuter rail gets built, direct connection to downtown.

[ArchFan]

It seems strange -- and perhaps I missed it -- but I don't recall every seeing any real evidence regarding how the majority of Afton-Oaks-area people feel on this subject.  For some time, the idea has been propagated that they are all against rail in any form.  Consequently, they & Culberson have often been vilified.   I generally don't feel its productive to paint others with such a broad brush.  However, I also live in the area and feel frustrated with our lack of progress in providing more transit options.

 

Frankly, I think a lot more people in the same area (more than is recognized) are in favor of some kind of mass transit alternatives nearby, at least if they were wisely planned and implemented.  I'm certainly one of those people (actually, I live 2 blocks north of Afton Oaks) ... not only do I think it would improve my personal QOL, but I think it would enhance my property values.  If it were along Westpark, perhaps the benefit would be not so much, at least in my lifetime.  I'm guessing it would take a lot longer (maybe 20-30 years) for redevelopment to yield similar benefits along that corridor.

 

As originally planned (as I understood it), the Westpark corridor was intended as a heavy-rail line that would bring commuters from the far western burbs into the inner city.  That's a quite different goal from what Metro proposed for the University Line, which was more of an inner-city circulator line.  The most credible narrative I've heard from Metro is about building the latter type of service before the former.  

 

 

[livincinco]

I don't see it happening either, and I understand the enormously high capital costs that are associated with heavy rail transit. I am just of the belief that the decades and even centuries of excellent transit service is worth the initial investment and occasional facelifts. I would like to see federal funds pay for most of the investment so the local transit isn't saddled with debt. To me, good transit isn't about making money, as no infrastructure makes money.

I wish we would have gotten this done in the 80s when the government was handing out money for systems like this, paying up to 80% of the cost.

I hear your point and agree that no infrastructure makes money. My point is more about financial accountability than profitability. I am by no means a proponent of the free market running rampant, but a big part of the reason that federal funding like you describe went away is because it was abused so heavily. In my opinion, there needs to be a degree of fiscal responsibility in any major infrastructure project and determining the cost/benefit is an important part of that.

[IronTiger]

Also rebuilding the roads rail is built on adds a lot too. Do all lanes get damaged or just the middle ones? If all do then it's a justifiable cost if not then it's not really sensible to add this to a rail project cost.

Repairing Richmond was a condition of the light rail. If we're going to go with rail down Richmond, then the lanes have to be rebuilt. Period. Yes, it adds a lot to the cost, but it's one of the "trade-offs" associated with rail.

Also I think a key line would be down Washington from northwest transit center. That way you don't have to go to wheeler. This is especially important if/when 290 commuter rail gets built, direct connection to downtown.

Yes, but transfers should be minimized. That's the idea of the University Line going all the way to the East End line instead of just jogging up the Main Line. Besides, if you ran the Gold Line down that part of the University Line, it could provide more service.

As originally planned (as I understood it), the Westpark corridor was intended as a heavy-rail line that would bring commuters from the far western burbs into the inner city. That's a quite different goal from what Metro proposed for the University Line, which was more of an inner-city circulator line. The most credible narrative I've heard from Metro is about building the latter type of service before the former.

When we talk about "heavy rail", we talk about services like the Washington DC Metro and the like, correct? With heavy rail, you're forced to make entire grade separations--and either way, something would have to be done about the conjunction with the rail just east of Newcastle since it never (at least for its last years of existence) crossed at grade with the other rail, and either way, any new thing by METRO would go over or under.

The light rail-as-commuter train I think is the best way to do it in the Sunbelt cities unless the "farther away" city has pre-existing rail, much like there's connections to Denton and Fort Worth via DART. It could also push the limits of the light rail when there's less stops.

Part of what I think METRO needs to do is "use what they have". For going out to south Katy, the Westpark line seems fine, but if it were Cypress, a commuter rail may be more useful (side note: I think the Gold/Uptown line should extend to Brookhollow, not terminate at the transit center).

The other major problem is that METRO is incompetent and disorganized. If donors plopped the needed money for University Line into their laps, they'd probably squander it.

[Slick Vik]

Repairing Richmond was a condition of the light rail. If we're going to go with rail down Richmond, then the lanes have to be rebuilt. Period. Yes, it adds a lot to the cost, but it's one of the "trade-offs" associated with rail.

Yes, but transfers should be minimized. That's the idea of the University Line going all the way to the East End line instead of just jogging up the Main Line. Besides, if you ran the Gold Line down that part of the University Line, it could provide more service.

When we talk about "heavy rail", we talk about services like the Washington DC Metro and the like, correct? With heavy rail, you're forced to make entire grade separations--and either way, something would have to be done about the conjunction with the rail just east of Newcastle since it never (at least for its last years of existence) crossed at grade with the other rail, and either way, any new thing by METRO would go over or under.

The light rail-as-commuter train I think is the best way to do it in the Sunbelt cities unless the "farther away" city has pre-existing rail, much like there's connections to Denton and Fort Worth via DART. It could also push the limits of the light rail when there's less stops.

Part of what I think METRO needs to do is "use what they have". For going out to south Katy, the Westpark line seems fine, but if it were Cypress, a commuter rail may be more useful (side note: I think the Gold/Uptown line should extend to Brookhollow, not terminate at the transit center).

The other major problem is that METRO is incompetent and disorganized. If donors plopped the needed money for University Line into their laps, they'd probably squander it.

Regarding the road repair, this isn't a condition of rail being built, it's something that was added when the streetcar was running by politicians to make it difficult to continue running cost wise. This adds a tremendous strain to building any new light rail and as I said before if it's not necessary it shouldn't be done by the transit authority logically.

[IronTiger]

Regarding the road repair, this isn't a condition of rail being built, it's something that was added when the streetcar was running by politicians to make it difficult to continue running cost wise. This adds a tremendous strain to building any new light rail and as I said before if it's not necessary it shouldn't be done by the transit authority logically.

I can't think of any modern LRT system that didn't rebuild the roads in the process. Lanes will be shifted around, construction vehicles damage it, you could argue that it's METRO's duty to repair it.

[nativehoustonion]

If METRO had more participants like Katy, Sugar Land, Pasadena, Missouri City and Baytown.  Then commuter rail could at least be a discussion or planned.  DART has Dallas, Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Farmers Branch, Garland, Glenn Heights, Highland Park, Irving, Richardson, Plano and University Park.  Something is wrong here.