METRORail University Line

[IronTiger]

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....)?

Culberson and Afton Oaks have reasons to not want the Richmond light rail line. And personally, I don't favor street-running light rail (slows down trains, limits turns). But I'm not a traffic engineer nor do I even use the roads in that area. However, if the Richmond line is really such a good idea, then why is there a compulsion to fabricate information?

[Slick Vik]

As Streetcars had operated on the same 1890s fare for decades, Houston Electric (the streetcar company) eventually ran into financial trouble. Additionally, they were burdened by the city’s requirement that they bear the costs for paving streets where they extended their railways. This would essentially usher in their eventual downfall by subsidizing greater ease of mobility for private automobiles.

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

[Howard Huge]

^ I think it was Tom Delays great grandfather who passed that city ordinance.

[BigFootsSocks]

...illuminati conspiracy?!

[IronTiger]

As Streetcars had operated on the same 1890s fare for decades, Houston Electric (the streetcar company) eventually ran into financial trouble. Additionally, they were burdened by the city’s requirement that they bear the costs for paving streets where they extended their railways. This would essentially usher in their eventual downfall by subsidizing greater ease of mobility for private automobiles.

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

Again, unless this law is still on the books, it's completely irrelevant to the decision on hand.

[Slick Vik]

I know metro was responsible on the original red line to totally repair Main Street. I'll have to take a look around the new ones but it looks like they did a lot of work on Harrisburg.

[IronTiger]

I know metro was responsible on the original red line to totally repair Main Street. I'll have to take a look around the new ones but it looks like they did a lot of work on Harrisburg.

Yeah, just like it's anything else. If you tear up a bit of sidewalk to work on utilities, you replace the sidewalk. Why should Metro be any different?

[Slick Vik]

Yeah, just like it's anything else. If you tear up a bit of sidewalk to work on utilities, you replace the sidewalk. Why should Metro be any different?

Well a bit and total rebuild are two different things. It's just using metro as an excuse to fix roads when there isn't money to otherwise do so.

[IronTiger]

Well a bit and total rebuild are two different things. It's just using metro as an excuse to fix roads when there isn't money to otherwise do so.

Again, you're using false conjecture to propel your arguments. Does the city truly not have money for it? We know that Richmond is deferred because METRO is planning to re-do it anyway.

Furthermore, if METRO was so pressed for funds that they don't have money to fix the roads, why would they undergo a still-very expensive light rail system?

Edited September 18, 2014 by IronTiger

[mfastx]

Considering that METRO forks over over a quarter of its revenue towards building roads (something no other major transit agency in the US is required to do) then I would think that the city should foot the bill for the "street" portion of light rail projects. 

 

In fact, a METRO board member even suggested this as a plan to get the University line built.  METRO would pay for the rail lines and the city (using GM payments) would contribute a few hundred million dollars for road reconstruction. 

Edited September 18, 2014 by mfastx

[scarface]

What makes you say that?  It's still on the Metro Website.

 

I don't know i must be going crazy. Because I swear I was looking at a page from metro's website that only had the 3 lines uc with no future lines in the works. Now, its there.

[Slick Vik]

Considering that METRO forks over over a quarter of its revenue towards building roads (something no other major transit agency in the US is required to do) then I would think that the city should foot the bill for the "street" portion of light rail projects.

In fact, a METRO board member even suggested this as a plan to get the University line built. METRO would pay for the rail lines and the city (using GM payments) would contribute a few hundred million dollars for road reconstruction.

Exactly road cost is a huge portion of the cost

[IronTiger]

While using the GMP to rebuild the road seems like a kind of fair idea, it's been proven that METRO will waste money like nothing else if left what with they have. So here's an idea--the GMP would go into a "hold" every fiscal year (since Houston has been asleep at the switch at repairing roads in the last few years), and if METRO proves that they have been good stewards with their money, they get that money back as bonus during the next year's budget. If not, that goes for road repairs, and the process repeats anew. Other than that, it's not necessary...why not fund METRO with 75% instead of 100%-75% and use that small 25% as another tax for road repairs, but all invisibly so that there's no change for consumers and retailers?

[bobruss]

Pardon me, but I didn't go back to the beginning of this argument, but it seems to me that Metro has been hamstrung in many ways by backwards politicians, vigilante neighborhood groups (Afton Oaks), a city with no zoning and relatively no planning.

They have also been their own worst enemies in poor management and waste.

However to blame Metro for the city streets is unfair. I think the duty of Metro is to provide transportation for citizens in need of alternative forms of mobility.

Many years ago the city took 25% of Metro's funding to pay for street repair and I believe even police pay, for a short time.

Street building and maintenance are part of the cities job.

Metro is not responsible for maintaining streets. They have coordinated efforts with the city to help in some projects.

As far as telephone poles in the middle of the sidewalks, that happen to be along Metros new rail lines when you only have so much right of way you are sometimes forced to deal with it the best way you can. Unfortunately Metros budget to build these rail lines didn't include putting all power lines underground. That would have been cost prohibitive.

You should look to the city  for answers to why so many sidewalks are blocked by power poles, fire hydrants, intersection stop light control boxes, and many other objects, or why they are so narrow two people can't pass one another on the same sidewalk. Houston never put any thought into the pedestrian and unfortunately not until recently with the new street design and consideration  of the public realm became the new mantra in the urbanism of Houston.

[IronTiger]

Metro should be responsible for rebuilding roads in light rail conversions (and making sure not to have power poles blocking sidewalks) but not maintaining them, that is the city's job. After all, a lot of developers build streets in subdivisions, but maintenance is still left up to the city.

[bobruss]

I believe that the lines that Metro has either completed or are in the slow process of finishing, they have rebuilt the streets haven't they? I was speaking to the subject of Metro paying for more street and sidewalk repair. That's not their duty.

I think that the 25% the city extracts from Metro is more than a fair amount and therefore I think most of the burden should be on the city.

Its a damn shame that when this city was in the position to plan for wider sidewalks and mass transit options, the city fathers decided instead to forego the public realm and put all of their chips in for more freeways, beltways, toll ways, and grand parkways, but very little if any thought or money into public transportation or  pedestrians and cyclists.

[txn4art]

As far as telephone poles in the middle of the sidewalks, that happen to be along Metros new rail lines when you only have so much right of way you are sometimes forced to deal with it the best way you can. Unfortunately Metros budget to build these rail lines didn't include putting all power lines underground. That would have been cost prohibitive.

You should look to the city  for answers to why so many sidewalks are blocked by power poles, fire hydrants, intersection stop light control boxes, and many other objects, or why they are so narrow two people can't pass one another on the same sidewalk. Houston never put any thought into the pedestrian and unfortunately not until recently with the new street design and consideration  of the public realm became the new mantra in the urbanism of Houston.

 

Most of the blocked sidewalks in question are not ADA-compliant. Both COH and Metro should have addressed this during the planning period.

[IronTiger]

Its a damn shame that when this city was in the position to plan for wider sidewalks and mass transit options, the city fathers decided instead to forego the public realm and put all of their chips in for more freeways, beltways, toll ways, and grand parkways, but very little if any thought or money into public transportation or pedestrians and cyclists.

But that's done, paid for, and maintained by entirely different agencies.

[Slick Vik]

Metro should be responsible for rebuilding roads in light rail conversions (and making sure not to have power poles blocking sidewalks) but not maintaining them, that is the city's job. After all, a lot of developers build streets in subdivisions, but maintenance is still left up to the city.

Only if there is damage. It shouldn't be responsible for total rebuild for the hell of it.

[bobruss]

My point, it's not Metros' job to plan and build and maintain roads. There main function is in transporting people from

one place to another. Look I'm not an apologist for metro. They have not done a very good job in putting together a plan that could be defended and promoted and maybe thats why they're in this position.

As far as the sidewalks not being ADA compliant, then what I don't understand is why that wasn't brought up in all of the public meetings that were held all over the city in the planning stages for these lines. I attended meetings for the Richmond line several years ago and they had engineers and other representatives with maps, diagrams, drawings, and literature explaining the plan. They were there for input and to answer any questions that people had and I heard some serious grilling going on about several different issues.

It seems if this had been an important issue that would  affect people with disabilities, someone with a voice for those causes should have been making more noise. I'm sorry if this is indeed true but for the life of me I can't understand with all of the meetings held that this was not addressed.

[IronTiger]

Only if there is damage. It shouldn't be responsible for total rebuild for the hell of it.

When building the original light rail line, METRO had to rip up pavement to move utilities and prepping the area for light rail* (remember, power is now running up and down the middle of these streets, not just for the trains, but for ticket machines, lights, etc.).

So no, they are not rebuilding the road "for the hell of it".

*"Light rail construction set to begin Main Street turmoil to last for four years", Wednesday, March 21, 2001, Houston Chronicle

Edited September 19, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

When building the original light rail line, METRO had to rip up pavement to move utilities and prepping the area for light rail* (remember, power is now running up and down the middle of these streets, not just for the trains, but for ticket machines, lights, etc.).

So no, they are not rebuilding the road "for the hell of it".

*"Light rail construction set to begin Main Street turmoil to last for four years", Wednesday, March 21, 2001, Houston Chronicle

In that case it would make sense

[samagon]

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.

 

I'm surprised you can't find anything. The neighborhood was definitely behind the move of the line from straight down richmond to being diverted to go down westpark. 

 

The neighborhood was littered with yard signs when the rail line was being looked at.

[IronTiger]

I'm surprised you can't find anything. The neighborhood was definitely behind the move of the line from straight down richmond to being diverted to go down westpark. 

 

The neighborhood was littered with yard signs when the rail line was being looked at.

Well, of course, Afton Oaks hated the idea, but I don't think it was "we don't want poor people riding through our neighborhood", which I can't find anything on, and besides, the nicer parts of Kirby/Allen Pkwy. have buses on them.

 

There are of course other reasons why Afton Oaks hated the rail, and while I don't know the exact number one, here are some of the reasons opponents picked out:

 

- for the main Richmond line, a water main that could fail if METRO's currents contacted it somehow. That was one thing posted by the anti-rail crowd, which METRO successfully countered.

- Afton Oaks and others used yellow ribbons to show how much METRO would condemn, and that would lose businesses. In the end, the study showed that 40 businesses would lose a bit of curb space and only 5 would be condemned entirely. For what it's worth, the light rail does use up a lot of ROW (more than one would expect). In places like North Main, the light rail takes up two northbound and two southbound lanes. Doesn't that sound like a bit much?

- Supposedly the 2003 ballot involved Westpark, not Richmond as the line in which the light rail would travel on. This was specifically referred to as the "Westpark line" in the ballot. Whether deception was actually meant in the ballot or not is unknown, but certainly cause for concern.

- Part of the problem was the trees on Richmond. It's a well-known tree fact that if you disturb the areas around trees, they can take up to 2-3 years to die (see the sidewalk thread). The Richmond line work would've disturbed them.

- Not specifically I could find where the rail really limits access on where you could turn, which is definitely a minus to light rail.

- Going over the railroad at Richmond would've required an overpass, as an underpass wouldn't work due to the buried culvert running parallel to the railroad. Even if Afton Oaks was generally in favor of the rail, there would've been a stink raised over that for sure.

- It wasn't until 2008 that the City Council actually approved five light rail lines (13-2). If they had said no, would people be up in arms that COH "overruled the vote of the people" or something? In fact, up until 2007, they were still thinking about BRT for some lines.

 

Nowhere could I find the "Afton Oaks residents are racists" rhetoric oft-repeated. Until I can find real proof of that, I'm just going to regard it as nonsense, perpetuated by pro-rail extremists.

[samagon]

These reasons are fairly minor, at least in my mind, compared with the benefit of having the rail go directly down Richmond (especially if you factor in cost of the diversion).

 

I think though that if you were to find some television reports where they actually had interviews with people who lived in the neighborhood, things like "the rail will be too loud" and "we just don't want that coming through our neighborhood" would be heard.

 

While I doubt anyone ever said "I don't want THOSE people riding through my neighborhood", it was fairly clear that the ticki-tacki nimby hate was just that, ticki-tacki nimby hate.

Edited September 22, 2014 by samagon

[Slick Vik]

I do recall at meetings concern about rail bringing in crime into the neighborhood

[IronTiger]

These reasons are fairly minor, at least in my mind, compared with the benefit of having the rail go directly down Richmond (especially if you factor in cost of the diversion).

I think though that if you were to find some television reports where they actually had interviews with people who lived in the neighborhood, things like "the rail will be too loud" and "we just don't want that coming through our neighborhood" would be heard.

While I doubt anyone ever said "I don't want THOSE people riding through my neighborhood", it was fairly clear that the ticki-tacki nimby hate was just that, ticki-tacki nimby hate.

I'm also pretty sure that Afton Oaks was also part of the Uptown coalition that prevented any widening of 610 over the years (different thing, yeah I know) but NIMBYs are NIMBYs, with both valid (oak tree deaths) and invalid (stray currents) arguments.

[IronTiger]

I do recall at meetings concern about rail bringing in crime into the neighborhood

I'm sure some people said that. But it wasn't the top argument in preventing rail down Richmond, was it?

[Moore713]

I do recall at meetings concern about rail bringing in crime into the neighborhood

Because Criminal commit crimes then wait for the rail???..

[Slick Vik]

Because Criminal commit crimes then wait for the rail???..

Yea makes no sense to me. Just racism. But the same people already take the bus so it's an invalid argument.

I'm sure some people said that. But it wasn't the top argument in preventing rail down Richmond, was it?

It was one of them.

I'm also pretty sure that Afton Oaks was also part of the Uptown coalition that prevented any widening of 610 over the years (different thing, yeah I know) but NIMBYs are NIMBYs, with both valid (oak tree deaths) and invalid (stray currents) arguments.

Difference is 610 widening probably meant destruction of some homes but rail didn't