METRORail University Line

[Howard Huge]

Can someone explain the legislation that he got passed that effectively "killed richmond rail forever"?

Ive heard alot of posters here say there is no such thing as "forever" and that there are ways to reverse it or work around it.

Also, are there any term limits for culberson? And even if he was voted out, isnt his rail killing legislation already in place?

[BigFootsSocks]

I'm pretty sure it was like this ;

He passed a bill in congress for the budget for this year that says no federal funding can go towards rail solely on Richmond Ave. That's only for this year however: it could easily get turned around for the next budget.

[IronTiger]

He also denied FEDERAL funds for it, and if METRO was halfway competent, they could use it on their budget.

[DNAguy]

He also denied FEDERAL funds for it, and if METRO was halfway competent, they could use it on their budget.

 

As much as I hate METRO and their incompetence, they did already fund the original main street line w/out any fed help. I don't know of any other transit agency that could/ would fund multiple rail lines w/out fed $.

[BigFootsSocks]

It's a shame HCTRA couldn't pay part of the tab..

[Howard Huge]

So whatever he wrote up that blocked the federal money from being used, is that written in stone? Or is that reversible at some point in time?

[BigFootsSocks]

It comes up every year

[IronTiger]

Even if Culberson was out of the picture, what's to prevent another roadblock in the way of the University Line? Think of the stink East End raised over the whole underpass/overpass issue...what if Richmond-area NIMBYs had something like that?

[Slick Vik]

Well afton oaks are the NIMBYs that started all this

[Naviguessor]

Tiger,

The current route is a compromise to go around the only organized opposition (Afton Oaks).  The Voters voted/passed the idea of the corridor.  True...if Culberson was removed from his position, another politician would slip in and could. also. choose to insert language into bills that could block funding.  But I doubt anyone would run on That Platform.    The population wants the line.  Some people that are close to Culberson are against it.  That's it. 

[Dakota79]

Afton oaks will be sorry, of that I am confident.

[IronTiger]

Afton oaks will be sorry, of that I am confident.

Because of your traffic flow predictions, or is it alluding to your insane plan involving mobs of angry anti-Culberson protesters to start bashing some heads in and burning houses? 

Edited September 17, 2014 by IronTiger

[Howard Huge]

Because of your traffic flow predictions, or is it alluding to your insane plan involving mobs of angry anti-Culberson protesters to start bashing some heads in and burning houses?

Your posting is getting extremely tired and one dimensional.

Every post you make is anti-rail, pro highway, pro sprawl trolling.

EVERY. SINGLE. POST.

Either that or you follow Slick Vik all over the board and reply to all of his threads/posts with the same rhetoric, often needlessly insulting him.

Its getting old.

[IronTiger]

Your posting is getting extremely tired and one dimensional.

Every post you make is anti-rail, pro highway, pro sprawl trolling.

EVERY. SINGLE. POST.

Either that or you follow Slick Vik all over the board and reply to all of his threads/posts with the same rhetoric, often needlessly insulting him.

Its getting old.

First off, every post I've made is not anti-rail, pro-highway, or pro-sprawl. Not at all. I could pull up any number of threads or posts of mine in the last six months that don't deal with that. 

 

Secondly, and I will repeat verbatim from another post, "I have never actually bashed rail in any way, not like you do freeways. I've questioned the effectiveness of rail in certain areas and have spoken out against rail in certain corridors, but I haven't actually bashed rail in any ways." Well, okay, I did bash the idea of monorail, but again, that's in certain corridors. I never said that we should not build more rail ever or remove railways, for instance, and in fact, searching my posts you'd find that I really am pro-rail, just not in the same way as you.

 

Thirdly, there have been a number of posts that I've replied with non-insult posts to him (see the ride points thread, where I told him that it was a data mining scam, or liability issues regarding Lyft/Uber). And I wasn't even responding to Slick, unless Dakota79 is a sockpuppet of his. (fwiw, I realized that I was counter-trolling Slick and I stopped that)

 

Anti-Culberson/Afton Oaks posts (especially one line ones) are getting old of course, but I can do that too (and poke a bit of fun in the process).

 

Fourthly, I do not believe there's a strict line between rail and highways...you CAN be a fan of both, contrary to popular opinion.

Edited September 17, 2014 by IronTiger

[ArchFan]

Personally, I can't see why the folks who live in Afton Oaks -- at least those a block or more off Richmond -- would even feel that light rail on Richmond would affect their property values or quality of  life.  For those right on Richmond, it's already such a nasty street ... a wide, bumpy road with lots of speeding traffic and buses ... that I can't see how they could think a light rail line down the middle could make it much worse.  Actually,    I think a light rail project would bring along repaving and landscaping enhancements that would lift their property values.

 

As for me, I live a bit north of Afton Oaks and I'd be delighted to have light rail running right by my place.  I might or might not use it every day, but would be useful and convenient for me and I don't fear that it would bring "undesirables" into the neighborhood.   Or ... perhaps "undesirable" to some means young inside-the-loop people with money who want to have a convenient way to travel to restaurants and shops in the area?

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2014 by ArchFan

[IronTiger]

As for me, I live a bit north of Afton Oaks and I'd be delighted to have light rail running right by my place.  I might or might not use it every day, but would be useful and convenient for me and I don't fear that it would bring "undesirables" into the neighborhood.   Or ... perhaps "undesirable" to some means young inside-the-loop people with money who want to have a convenient way to travel to restaurants and shops in the area?

See, I don't know where this whole "Afton Oaks doesn't want poor people riding through the neighborhood" rhetoric developed. I can't find a Chron article that actually references it or any other articles that reference it. Mostly what I could find involved things about not wanting the oak trees gone or maybe something about local street accessibility. There was even a forum thread on HAIF referencing a talk in the bar about light rail and Afton Oaks and the response was not getting to the restaurants they want, or something rather mundane like that.

What Culberson did was definitely unethical (I'm not debating that) but resorting to questionably sourced commentary as use for an argument is a rather poor way of gaining support for your side.

[JLWM8609]

For those right on Richmond, it's already such a nasty street ... a wide, bumpy road with lots of speeding traffic and buses ... that I can't see how they could think a light rail line down the middle could make it much worse.  Actually,    I think a light rail project would bring along repaving and landscaping enhancements that would lift their property values.

 

I wouldn't count on light rail necessarily leading to repaving. MLK Blvd. was mostly untouched when the SE line was built. It still has the same asphalt overlay and bumps from before the project with a shiny new light rail line running down the middle.

[mollusk]

I wouldn't count on light rail necessarily leading to repaving. MLK Blvd. was mostly untouched when the SE line was built. It still has the same asphalt overlay and bumps from before the project with a shiny new light rail line running down the middle.

 

Whut th'??????  

 

That's just wrong.  

 

One of the main reasons a lot of the arterials are cratered is the busses, and the theory behind METRO giving money to the city was to provide funds to pay for that damage.  At least, that's the somewhat plausible story they were telling us at the time (right before promising clowns and balloons and ice cream).

 

(***SFX - Marge Simpson growl***)

[JLWM8609]

Whut th'??????  

 

That's just wrong.  

 

One of the main reasons a lot of the arterials are cratered is the busses, and the theory behind METRO giving money to the city was to provide funds to pay for that damage.  At least, that's the somewhat plausible story they were telling us at the time (right before promising clowns and balloons and ice cream).

 

(***SFX - Marge Simpson growl***)

 

Funny you should mention that. In 1984, METRO took delivery of some Crown-Ikarus 286 articulated buses and put some on the 77 MLK route. From what I remember reading somewhere, MLK was so crater filled that the new buses kept getting damaged and going into the shop and they had to discontinue sending articulated buses down that route.

 

Here's one when they were brand new.

[Slick Vik]

Whut th'??????

That's just wrong.

One of the main reasons a lot of the arterials are cratered is the busses, and the theory behind METRO giving money to the city was to provide funds to pay for that damage. At least, that's the somewhat plausible story they were telling us at the time (right before promising clowns and balloons and ice cream).

(***SFX - Marge Simpson growl***)

Good. That keeps the cost of building the rail low. Metro should not be paying for complete street reconstruction.

[IronTiger]

Good. That keeps the cost of building the rail low. Metro should not be paying for complete street reconstruction.

Building rail will still be expensive. Having METRO tear up the road and not repair it will give anti-light rail people ammunition.

[Slick Vik]

Building rail will still be expensive. Having METRO tear up the road and not repair it will give anti-light rail people ammunition.

The anti rail people should rebuild the road themselves.

[Naviguessor]

Slick-  Take a break, will ya!?

[august948]

The anti rail people should rebuild the road themselves.

 

If they did that, they might decide to arrange the drainage so that it flows onto the tracks.  Better to have it rebuilt by the city and/or metro in a complete streets format.

 

[Slick Vik]

If they did that, they might decide to arrange the drainage so that it flows onto the tracks. Better to have it rebuilt by the city and/or metro in a complete streets format.

They don't have the money to do it that's why when rail wants to go down a road they use it as an excuse to rebuild the road also.

[Dakota79]

Because of your traffic flow predictions, or is it alluding to your insane plan involving mobs of angry anti-Culberson protesters to start bashing some heads in and burning houses?

I haven't predicted any traffic flow issues. I think they will regret it because once it is in (maybe in our lifetimes if we are young enough) people will use it to go the the galleria and downtown - and Afton Oaks will be left out. (As they should be)

Edited September 17, 2014 by Dakota79

[IronTiger]

They don't have the money to do it that's why when rail wants to go down a road they use it as an excuse to rebuild the road also.

Do you have any proof of that, or is this just another myth?

Really, guys...I am pro-rail (but not pro-METRO) but when nonsense like this comes up, I have to wonder what side I really am on.

Edited September 17, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

Do you have any proof of that, or is this just another myth?

Really, guys...I am pro-rail (but not pro-METRO) but when nonsense like this comes up, I have to wonder what side I really am on.

Read the history of houston streetcars. One big reason they went bankrupt is a law that made them responsible for the roads they ran on, which makes no sense.

It seems the same rules are in effect today which is why I'm surprised metro wasn't forced to spruce up MLK.

Also there is no money Richmond has been complaining to be fixed for years but yet don't want the university line which would fix it. If that's not hate for rail I don't know what is.

[Naviguessor]

The city has said that they aren't going to invest/fix Richmond unless Metro decides and states that it does not intend to run rail down the street. Reasonable. If metro does start work on the line then the steet will be fixed.

[august948]

Read the history of houston streetcars. One big reason they went bankrupt is a law that made them responsible for the roads they ran on, which makes no sense.

It seems the same rules are in effect today which is why I'm surprised metro wasn't forced to spruce up MLK.

Also there is no money Richmond has been complaining to be fixed for years but yet don't want the university line which would fix it. If that's not hate for rail I don't know what is.

 

Does that law still exist and, if so, is Metro legally bound by it?  If not then the whole GM streetcar conspiracy is irrelevant and I can't fathom why you keep bringing it up.

 

If some rules about rebuilding roads are in effect that just reflects good judgement by our public officials.  If you're going to tear up a road to do any kind of major repairs or changes it just makes good sense to go ahead and fix the whole thing.

 

Obviously those objecting to rail on Richmond think that is worse than getting the road fixed.  Why they don't like it I can't really fathom except maybe for those whose houses would front on the rail line and even then they already front on Richmond so I'm not sure the noise would be any worse.  Are they losing some of their property perhaps?  Or maybe it forms a physical barrier that psychologically divides the neighborhood like a Robert Moses creation or like the Pierce Elevated (where have I heard that argument before?  hmmm....)?