METRORail University Line

[AtticaFlinch]

I almost got attacked by a poodle hybrid. Does that count?

The owner was cute, though.

Was it a cockapoo?

[LTAWACS]

So.... when does this thing start?

[IHB2]

So.... when does this thing start?

that's the billion dollar question. METRO says they are continuing w/design, engineering b/c of the fed's Record of Decision re the U Line FEIS.

but METRO and Mayor Parker have acknowledged there is no money right now to build it.

METRO's cash on hand is supposedly about $100 million (and owes the COH $130 mil for its required "general mobility" contribution!), so might have to issue more bonds, which I think would require another vote based on the 2003 election.

At a meeting with the Harris County Democrats last week, Metro chairman Gilbert Garcia said that Metro had spent $640 million on light rail since the 2003 election, and we don't have any rail laid yet on the funded lines, so I assume actual construction on the U Line won't start anytime soon. A METRO person said last week that ROW land acquisition might start "next year" which could be anywhere from 6-17 months from now.

METRO is looking for I think $900 million in fed $$ for 3 of the lines, including the U Line, but will probably need $2 billion or so of its own $$ to complete. METRO says it will have the $$ but its sales tax collections are mighty optimistic (~$500 mil this year rising to ~$800 mil in 2015), and it predicts fare collections to rise from $60 mil this year to ~$160 mil in 2020.

None of the above touches on the design issues for the U Line, especially crossing elevated over 59 that not only requires TxDOT's blessing, but will be hard to justify cost-wise when there's not enough money to even build the at-grade miles.

Greanias and the new board certainly have their work cut out for them.

[sidegate]

...and boundaries - the southern demarcation for Montrose is US 59.

Was 59 there when Montrose was platted?

[TheNiche]

Was 59 there when Montrose was platted?

No. And Montrose is a mish-mash. The way that the term is used these days is very imprecise. I would argue that the Super Neighborhood boundaries are appropriate enough.

Still, clearly there are some parts of the neighborhood that are better served than others. It isn't enough to say that you're well-served by LRT if you're within a quarter mile of the line because you can only board at a station. It isn't enough to say that you're well-served by LRT if you're within a quarter mile of a station because you have to walk the street grid rather than fly the bee-line. It's not even enough to say that you're well-served by LRT if you're within a quarter-mile walking distance of a station because (although a quarter mile is generally recognized by urban planners as being the appropriate 'ped-shed'), some people are more willing to walk, and some people are less willing.

Bottom line: the University Line serves Montrose...but not very much of it, really, regardless of how you define it.

[rsb320]

Was 59 there when Montrose was platted?

Probably, but certainly not as it is now. Montrose (Super Neighborhood 24) was not platted. It's a cluster of many smaller (suburban) planned neighborhoods. I've seen older maps where the area is labeled as a Ward.

[samagon]

I've always been of the opinion that Montrose is more a state of mind than a place with boundaries.

that being said, shepherd on the west, bagby (continued on 527 spur) on the east, wgray on the north, and 59 on the south has always been the rough outline I've given to the shape of Montrose.

[sargento03]

The typical transit agency provides service at a total cost per passenger mile.

According to its FY 2009 Annual Report, METRO's expenditures totaled $558,551,442 and it logged 610,865,178 passenger miles. That equates to a cost of $0.914 per passenger mile. For the sake of comparison, the IRS mileage rate for passenger vehicles in 2009 was $0.55 per mile driven; we can debate whether that figure works as a true proxy for the operating cost of a passenger vehicle, but to make the figures truly comparable, we'd first have to adjust for the average number of occupants per vehicle mile driven in a passenger vehicle. I don't think that there is any reasonable way to show that a car is less efficient than transit.

I think these figures are interesting nonetheless. It probably shows that at the moment, in houston, public transit is inefficient...and it is. It would be interesting to show a comparison of other cities with a higher transit usage to see if have a figure maybe even lower than $0.55 per mile. It would also be interesting to see how Metro's figure of $0.91 has changed over the years.

[IHB2]

"Was 59 there when Montrose was platted?" Probably, but certainly not as it is now. Montrose (Super Neighborhood 24) was not platted. It's a cluster of many smaller (suburban) planned neighborhoods. I've seen older maps where the area is labeled as a Ward.

No 59 wasn't there. 59 (the Southwest Freeway) was constructed beginning in the mid-50s, and divided existing neighborhoods, none of which were considered to be "Montrose." in the 63 yrs I've lived here Richmond Ave was never considered to run through any part of what's been called "Montrose" since the 60s (admittedly, what's now included in that designation has grown as the area gentrified and was no longer the bohemian crazy quilt it was when I lived at 201 Westheimer in the late 60s ).

in terms of current names for neighborhoods in the area, the "Museum District" seems to extend all the way to Richmond and maybe W. Alabama (b/c of the Menil/Rothko/UST)bordered on the east by the Spur and on the west at Dunlavy. then "Montrose/Neartown" goes north from W Alabama to W Gray, west from Baldwin/Taft to maybe Shepherd. some of that eastern side might be current "Midtown" or 4th Ward.

IMO by METRO's guidelines for neighborhood LRT access (located within 1/4 mile of a station) the University Line does not serve an inch of Montrose unless you count the few blocks just north of W Alabama near enough to the proposed station at Montrose/Richmond

[DrLan34]

With the latest Record of Decision on July 26th, do you guys think the University Line is realistically on track with what is quoted on the website (below)?

Q: How long will construction take?

A: Construction for the entire University Line is expected to begin in late 2010 and take approximately four years. That does not mean the entire route will be torn up for that entire period. METRO is committed to minimizing the impact of construction by completing each segment of the route in as short a time as possible. Click here for some of the measures we're considering implementing.

Also, is the uptown line suppose to be completed by the same time, before, or after? Frustrating to see how fast Dallas is moving and how our lines keep being delayed (and investigated)...

No 59 wasn't there. 59 (the Southwest Freeway) was constructed beginning in the mid-50s, and divided existing neighborhoods, none of which were considered to be "Montrose." in the 63 yrs I've lived here Richmond Ave was never considered to run through any part of what's been called "Montrose" since the 60s (admittedly, what's now included in that designation has grown as the area gentrified and was no longer the bohemian crazy quilt it was when I lived at 201 Westheimer in the late 60s ).

in terms of current names for neighborhoods in the area, the "Museum District" seems to extend all the way to Richmond and maybe W. Alabama (b/c of the Menil/Rothko/UST)bordered on the east by the Spur and on the west at Dunlavy. then "Montrose/Neartown" goes north from W Alabama to W Gray, west from Baldwin/Taft to maybe Shepherd. some of that eastern side might be current "Midtown" or 4th Ward.

IMO by METRO's guidelines for neighborhood LRT access (located within 1/4 mile of a station) the University Line does not serve an inch of Montrose unless you count the few blocks just north of W Alabama near enough to the proposed station at Montrose/Richmond

[C2H]

^^^ I share you're frustration. The last thing that should be happening is more delays, but the Southeast line construction seems to be in full swing. On my way to work I always have to take detours to avoid the construction.

[ricco67]

Considering this line is supposed to merge with the South East line, I wonder if construction crews are going to go ahead and install the appropriate rails when the time comes instead of having to dig it all up again when Richmond finally breaks ground.

I just wish Metro would give a rough time line.

[Trae]

With the latest Record of Decision on July 26th, do you guys think the University Line is realistically on track with what is quoted on the website (below)?

Q: How long will construction take?

A: Construction for the entire University Line is expected to begin in late 2010 and take approximately four years. That does not mean the entire route will be torn up for that entire period. METRO is committed to minimizing the impact of construction by completing each segment of the route in as short a time as possible. Click here for some of the measures we're considering implementing.

Also, is the uptown line suppose to be completed by the same time, before, or after? Frustrating to see how fast Dallas is moving and how our lines keep being delayed (and investigated)...

It's because Dallas was able to get federal funding years ago, while Houston had some congressmen (Culberson, DeLay), that tried and succeeded in blocking Metro's request. You should go look at Dallas' plans now though. They've all been delayed since DART built the system too elaborate and now DART is out of funds for other projects.

[713 To 214]

I'll say this. . .Many people who post on this forum seem to think that when a plan is announced, they should start marking days off of their calendar to see a completed project. Well, especially with rail projects, there are a number if different studies, plans, meetings, approvals that must take place before these plans come to fruition. There probably will be several years before we see any progress on the U line. We probably shouldn't expect revenue service before 2018? At lest,

[Trae]

2018 being the most pessimistic view. It's not like Metro hasn't already done studies, etc., on the University Line. Mid-2014 to 2015 is the best bet.

[ricco67]

Figured I"d revive the thread a bit:

Here is a vid I took yesterday

The vid was originally 22min, but the trip with lights took about 35-40 minutes on a Sunday afternoon, plus tack on 5 minutes when the camera shut off because of overheating.

I tried something different with the camera, I added a UV and Polarizing filter to cut down on some of the glare. *I* think it turned out okay.

The thing that kinda' sucks about it is the fact I had to turn off the Steady shot and auto focus to see if that would extend the filming time...and yes it did, but at the cost of really unsteady shot compared to the even more rougher main street vid.

[mfastx]

Nice, video. Hopefully construction will start sometime this decade, lol.

[Simbha]

Here is a vid I took yesterday

If ever I'm in a hurry to get somewhere in this city, I'm calling on you to drive. Every red light you approached magically turned green!

(Seriously, nice vid. Thanks!)

Edited August 1, 2011 by Simbha

[Highway6]

Cool video.

Not that you'd do this with your nice camera, but if you have a spare point-in-shoot, I find fastening it to your front grill not only makes for a lower and cooler angle, but it really cuts down on shaking as well.

[ricco67]

If ever I'm in a hurry to get somewhere in this city, I'm calling on you to drive. Every red light you approached magically turned green!

(Seriously, nice vid. Thanks!)

I was quite fortunate, but the cuts that you see on some of lights show that I actually stopped for more than a minute at least. I turned it off for ease of editing, but also the camera has a tendency to overheat and it extended the time I was able to record. It only shut off on me once!

After looking at the video and comparing it with the others, I did notice the look was MUCH better with that filter on with the sky with a darker blue on it. Overall I'm pleased with it.

[IHB2]

I was quite fortunate, but the cuts that you see on some of lights show that I actually stopped for more than a minute at least. I turned it off for ease of editing, but also the camera has a tendency to overheat and it extended the time I was able to record. It only shut off on me once!

After looking at the video and comparing it with the others, I did notice the look was MUCH better with that filter on with the sky with a darker blue on it. Overall I'm pleased with it.

Nice vid of the proposed route. Too bad you couldn't fly over Westpark & 59 at Cummins to show the elevated portion

It's hard to see where the money's going to come from to build this line.

METRO's finances don't look sufficient over the next many years to interest the feds in funding their end of the deal.

[sidegate]

Every time I see a new post in this thread I arrive with hope and leave with disappointment. There were so many possibilities here.

[ricco67]

Every time I see a new post in this thread I arrive with hope and leave with disappointment. There were so many possibilities here.

I know, I'm rather heartbroken about it as well.

I kinda' wished there were more updates and as far as I know, METRO probably is keeping everything mum to not tip its hand to the A-oaks people.

This is the first time I've even driven Richmond down to midtown to 610 and I have to say, that road is going to have to be torn up in the near future for proper repairs. If people fighting the U-line because they don't want their street torn up for significant amounts of time are living in an alternate reality. Just REGULAR road construction is going to eat up the road for years.

[samagon]

I know, I'm rather heartbroken about it as well.

I kinda' wished there were more updates and as far as I know, METRO probably is keeping everything mum to not tip its hand to the A-oaks people.

This is the first time I've even driven Richmond down to midtown to 610 and I have to say, that road is going to have to be torn up in the near future for proper repairs. If people fighting the U-line because they don't want their street torn up for significant amounts of time are living in an alternate reality. Just REGULAR road construction is going to eat up the road for years.

and that's probably why it's left in such condition, cause they don't want to waste money fixing the road, only to tear it up again to widen and lay tracks.

I must say watching Harrisburg, it's actually quite amazing how quick it's all coming together, of course they still have to lay the track, and run the wires, make the stations, and whatever else, but it's moving pretty quickly, and it doesn't appear that aside from not knowing day to day where the cones and barriers are, access to streets and businesses aren't too badly affected.

then again, the amount of traffic running down Richmond vs Harrisburg probably isn't comparable in the least.

Edited August 4, 2011 by samagon

[sidegate]

I'm glad something's been built somewhere and am happy for the people that will be the beneficiaries of it. That said, from my reading of the Metro map, the Harrisburg line doesn't intersect with the Main Street line. I can't begin to convey how little sense this makes to me.

[Highway6]

That said, from my reading of the Metro map, the Harrisburg line doesn't intersect with the Main Street line. I can't begin to convey how little sense this makes to me.

????

Every line but the Uptown line will directly intersect with the Main St Line.

http://www.metrosolu...1068/387347.pdf

http://www.metrosolutions.org/clients/1068/367099.pdf

Edited August 4, 2011 by Highway6

[sidegate]

Well, not according to this map

http://bit.ly/eW4TMs

(Takes a while to render - apparently 1500000000000 dpi resolution is required and the name of every street in Houston is relevant.)

[Highway6]

Well, not according to this map

http://bit.ly/eW4TMs

(Takes a while to render - apparently 1500000000000 dpi resolution is required and the name of every street in Houston is relevant.)

I think graphically they just chose one of the two colors to show once the lines joined.. they could have gone the other way.

But it has always been the case that both lines would share track into downtown.. as opposed to East Line users forced to switch trains at the Bastrop Station.

[sidegate]

I think graphically they just chose one of the two colors to show once the lines joined.. they could have gone the other way.

But it has always been the case that both lines would share track into downtown.. as opposed to East Line users forced to switch trains at the Bastrop Station.

I see

[ricco67]

I think graphically they just chose one of the two colors to show once the lines joined.. they could have gone the other way.

But it has always been the case that both lines would share track into downtown.. as opposed to East Line users forced to switch trains at the Bastrop Station.

Yeah, downtown traffic should be interesting to see once they it goes into operation.

During the rush hour, there should be a train almost every two minutes going through downtown from these two lines. Oy!