METRORail University Line

[IronTiger]

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

It was one of them.

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

Well, rail and 610 widening would mean primarily business condemnation (I don't think any homes front 610 like they do 290...or 10). Either way, focusing in on a few off-hand unfounded views is a pretty lame way to paint rail opponents (specifically, Afton Oaks) in a bad light. Invalid arguments exist on both sides, and using the whole "Afton Oaks is racist" line is a strawman argument and ends up undermining your own position.

 

That kinda brings me back to my point of why if Richmond rail is such a good idea (not saying it is or isn't), why are strawman arguments being used to defend it?

[BigFootsSocks]

What strawman arguments are being used against it? Serious question.

[IronTiger]

What strawman arguments are being used against it? Serious question.

Strawman arguments used against the rail or Afton Oaks (and by extension, rail opponents)?

 

Slick (maybe others, like the one with a cat as an avatar) used that argument for months of why Afton Oaks residents/Culberson supporters/Culberson were horrible/wrong people of why rail should have blasted west toward 610 instead of jogging south and over (or under) 59.

 

I'm personally glad that rail doesn't go west on Richmond, not because I'm a huge Culberson supporter, but mostly to retain the road's partial use as a major thoroughfare, accessibility, and those trees, of course.

 

However, there are really good valid reasons for opposing the route, and good valid reasons for supporting through there. By picking the most dubious, least-stated reason of why the rail shouldn't go through Afton Oaks and attacking that idea, your actual reasons for opposition of their opposition seem weak. How would you defend the other, better arguments, like disturbing (and likely killing) the oak trees, or limiting where you could turn, or by forcing all the traffic onto the outermost lane, you'd be putting all traffic onto the lane that runs closest to houses? 

 

On the other hand, if your arguments can be distilled into "If you're against light rail running through your neighborhood, you're a racist", then trying to argue anything else is pointless.

[samagon]

I think that the majority of people don't use that argument though, vocal minorities on both sides have brought it up though. So there is that. 

[nativehoustonion]

All this bickering is pointless.  Richmond is in such bad shape, potholes, it floods all the time.  They are building midrises from Kirby to the spur and Richmond Ave will only get worse.  Since Culberson got his way.  They should rebuilt it to one lane in each direction in the middle.  And the rest of it have bike lanes, huge sidewalks with a park.  Add lots of tress and landscaping.  That would make everybody happy!  There is a book called "Made for Walking" by Julie Campoli.  How so many cities transformed from traffic, closed business into walkability. 

[IronTiger]

I think that the majority of people don't use that argument though, vocal minorities on both sides have brought it up though. So there is that.

Yup. If you're defending or attacking light rail, it's a bad argument.

But further east along Richmond, the right of way looks very tight already. How are they going to actually fit in light rail and sidewalks with that?

[nativehoustonion]

I want the rail down Richmond Ave.  Metro spend millions for the study but Culberson killed it.  Time to move on, I hope they build a Tollway from Kirby to the Galleria right through Afton Oaks!  They did not want rail and got their way.  Now it all the mid rises and retail off Westheimer.  Hundreds of cars will cut through Afton Oaks due to all the traffic.  Unless they can build bridges over Westheimer and Richmond.  

[samagon]

I want the rail down Richmond Ave.  Metro spend millions for the study but Culberson killed it.  Time to move on, I hope they build a Tollway from Kirby to the Galleria right through Afton Oaks!  They did not want rail and got their way.  Now it all the mid rises and retail off Westheimer.  Hundreds of cars will cut through Afton Oaks due to all the traffic.  Unless they can build bridges over Westheimer and Richmond.  

 

They certainly will have to deal with the traffic that their opposition to rail bought them.

 

I often cut through their neighborhood getting from 59 to Richmond, exiting Newcastle and going down Lancashire to go west down Richmond. It's just easier.

 

Yup. If you're defending or attacking light rail, it's a bad argument.

But further east along Richmond, the right of way looks very tight already. How are they going to actually fit in light rail and sidewalks with that?

 

ROW is tight, but no tighter than in other places they've made it work. I think linking Greenway to the light rail should be important, so even if it didn't go farther, it would be good if it went at least that far. If there was a commuter rail from sugar land (or Richmond/Rosenberg, or hell, just go all the way out to El Campo), maybe the terminus could be at Greenway, and you make your way to other parts of town via the light rail and buses.

 

Even if they didn't do that, it would be cool to have at least the eastern portion of the University line to help tie stuff together. From eastwood transit center (or a little farther up to connect into the green line at harrisburg) to the main street line would get a lot accomplished and it could still be expanded later.

[nativehoustonion]

METRO is already doing a study on US90A/Southwest Rail Corridor commuter rail from Fort Bend to Harris county to connect with the Fannin rail station.  Currently it is in EIS (ROD) Final design will be in 2015.  That should help some commuters once it is completed. 

[Slick Vik]

Strawman arguments used against the rail or Afton Oaks (and by extension, rail opponents)?

Slick (maybe others, like the one with a cat as an avatar) used that argument for months of why Afton Oaks residents/Culberson supporters/Culberson were horrible/wrong people of why rail should have blasted west toward 610 instead of jogging south and over (or under) 59.

I'm personally glad that rail doesn't go west on Richmond, not because I'm a huge Culberson supporter, but mostly to retain the road's partial use as a major thoroughfare, accessibility, and those trees, of course.

However, there are really good valid reasons for opposing the route, and good valid reasons for supporting through there. By picking the most dubious, least-stated reason of why the rail shouldn't go through Afton Oaks and attacking that idea, your actual reasons for opposition of their opposition seem weak. How would you defend the other, better arguments, like disturbing (and likely killing) the oak trees, or limiting where you could turn, or by forcing all the traffic onto the outermost lane, you'd be putting all traffic onto the lane that runs closest to houses?

On the other hand, if your arguments can be distilled into "If you're against light rail running through your neighborhood, you're a racist", then trying to argue anything else is pointless.

I think what annoys people the most is that one neighborhood is stopping a major project the rest of the city voted for.

[IronTiger]

Or one man who doesn't even live in or near said neighborhood...

 

Well, see, that's the thing--the "Culberson overruling the voters" schtick actually isn't true, because it glosses over a few details:

 

- The 2003 referendum didn't actually decide the routes, just that X miles of mass transit would be created in Y corridors, and Z would be allocated for it. At the time, it wasn't even clear that all of that would be light rail (METRO decided that in 2007).

- It wasn't until 2008 that the City Council voted (13-2) to allow the light rail on certain city streets.

- Even if you were to change your argument that Culberson overruled the vote of the city, he only prohibited federal funding on the Richmond corridor, which is only less than 3 miles. Can METRO honestly not fund just 3 miles of light rail locally? Probably not, since METRO is the king of wasting money, irrelevant of Culberson's decisions and views.

 

 

 

METRO is already doing a study on US90A/Southwest Rail Corridor commuter rail from Fort Bend to Harris county to connect with the Fannin rail station.  Currently it is in EIS (ROD) Final design will be in 2015.  That should help some commuters once it is completed.

 

I have a sinking feeling that this is what wastes money...commuter rail has been discussed for years (decades), and since UP owns the lines, it's unlikely that they would agree to that. 

 

 

 

ROW is tight, but no tighter than in other places they've made it work.

North Main (and Main Street, too, IIRC) was six lanes wide before light rail was added. Now, for most of the route, save for a few spots, it's just two drivable lanes. Richmond only has five.

Edited September 23, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

Well, see, that's the thing--the "Culberson overruling the voters" schtick actually isn't true, because it glosses over a few details:

- The 2003 referendum didn't actually decide the routes, just that X miles of mass transit would be created in Y corridors, and Z would be allocated for it. At the time, it wasn't even clear that all of that would be light rail (METRO decided that in 2007).

- It wasn't until 2008 that the City Council voted (13-2) to allow the light rail on certain city streets.

- Even if you were to change your argument that Culberson overruled the vote of the city, he only prohibited federal funding on the Richmond corridor, which is only less than 3 miles. Can METRO honestly not fund just 3 miles of light rail locally? Probably not, since METRO is the king of wasting money, irrelevant of Culberson's decisions and views.

I have a sinking feeling that this is what wastes money...commuter rail has been discussed for years (decades), and since UP owns the lines, it's unlikely that they would agree to that.

North Main (and Main Street, too, IIRC) was six lanes wide before light rail was added. Now, for most of the route, save for a few spots, it's just two drivable lanes. Richmond only has five.

You don't understand how federal funding works it's not piecemeal. And the line was built for maximum ridership taking it off Richmond counters that.

[Slick Vik]

I actually don't live in Houston, but resorting to the "Inner Loop Master Race" mindset is a fallacy as well. Did you guys not take any sort of debating class in college?

You sound like culberson's lawyer I hope he pays you at least. But it's true you have little to no interaction with the area being spoken of so your opinion on the subject is mostly meaningless.

[IronTiger]

You don't understand how federal funding works it's not piecemeal. And the line was built for maximum ridership taking it off Richmond counters that.

Fair enough. How does Culberson's restriction on not funding rail for the Richmond portion scuttle the whole line? If that was the case, why can't METRO break it into separate projects to bypass that restriction?

Serious question.

[IronTiger]

You sound like culberson's lawyer I hope he pays you at least. But it's true you have little to no interaction with the area being spoken of so your opinion on the subject is mostly meaningless.

Well, I'm not Culberson's lawyer, because I would be terrible at it (did I mention that I found the whole thing unethical?).

It would be like two people having a conversation in 2008:

A: "So who are you voting for?"

B: "Barack Obama."

A: "Why?"

B: "Because Sarah Palin's an idiot."

A: "How so?"

B: "She said that she could see Russia from Alaska, that's total BS."

A: "Umm...but Sarah Palin didn't actually say that, that was a Saturday Night Live sketch."

B: "YOU'RE SUPPORTING SARAH PALIN, WE ARE NO LONGER FRIENDS."

A: "Uh, no, I actually was voting for...hey, where are you going?"

Again, friendly reminder, I'm not really against rail, I want to find the truth about the Richmond rail line, but it's hard to have talks about that when I'm up against pro-rail extremists who will happily trot out misinformation and resort to other tactics to try to shut down conversation when anything runs contrary to that.

[nate4l1f3]

Wow I didn't realize how small afton oaks is. 525 residents and doesn't cover that much land.

[Slick Vik]

Fair enough. How does Culberson's restriction on not funding rail for the Richmond portion scuttle the whole line? If that was the case, why can't METRO break it into separate projects to bypass that restriction?

Serious question.

I believe the study was for one line and that's what metro would apply for federal funding for. The Feds made it clear already that there are many projects applying for funding and they are not going to play these kind of games like splitting a line when there are other cities waiting without such problems. Edited September 23, 2014 by Slick Vik

[Subdude]

Reported topic.  A number of off-topic posts were removed.

 

Please keep things on-topic, and refrain from personal remarks about other posters.  If you find some members unbearable, and they're not breaking forum rules, you can flag them to be ignored.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[kdog08]

Bottomline, this line would connect to dense centers with hundreds of thousands of workers/visitors/residents/students etc to another "dense" center with hundreds of thousands of workers/visitors/residents/students etc while passing through a "dense" center tens of thousands of workers/visitors/residents/students etc. This thing needs to be built so we can continue to build an actual system. 

[kdog08]

Yup. If you're defending or attacking light rail, it's a bad argument.

But further east along Richmond, the right of way looks very tight already. How are they going to actually fit in light rail and sidewalks with that?

 

There's a big world out there, a big public transit world out there..... That's a pretty lame excuse.

[j_cuevas713]

Based upon where the current lines are built, I could see a wave of new dense construction all built up on the east side of town while the west side lags behind in transit and development. This would densify older Houston, which is what we want around downtown. Until just a few years ago, I always looked at the wave of development in Houston as backwards. With so many people moving west, the east side, where most of Houston's older structures and neighborhoods are located was being neglected. I see this an opportunity for Houston to densify and grow in the areas where we really want people to come, especially tourists. Over time it will only solidify Houston as a more transit oriented, pedestrian city. Hope my opinion makes sense.

Edited September 24, 2014 by j_cuevas713

[nativehoustonion]

Off the subject but all this bickering gets nowhere.  Forth Worth is going to build a 27 mile commuter rail called TexRail from downtown to serve north of the city to connect to DFW.  We are doing nothing here.  That is why I now use UBER to get to the airport, well no choice. 

[IronTiger]

Off the subject but all this bickering gets nowhere.  Forth Worth is going to build a 27 mile commuter rail called TexRail from downtown to serve north of the city to connect to DFW.  We are doing nothing here.  That is why I now use UBER to get to the airport, well no choice.

Part of the problem is that DART is far better organized and literally got the other cities around the area "on board" with transit plans. That and abandoned railways, of which Dallas has in abundance (hence, a lot of their light rail lines) and Houston does not.

As for the Richmond corridor, in theory, if we go with the "four lanes required for light rail" standard and Richmond has five, then half a lane could be added on each side (not that much, I guess) to meet that standard. I guess it could work.

[nativehoustonion]

DART is not building this line.  The Fort Worth Transit Authority is to be completed by 2018.  By 2018 we will have no new lines and DFW will have a great transportation system.

[Slick Vik]

DART is not building this line. The Fort Worth Transit Authority is to be completed by 2018. By 2018 we will have no new lines and DFW will have a great transportation system.

Yea this half is Fort Worth to DFW the next half is DFW to Richardson via Plano

[IronTiger]

DART is not building this line.  The Fort Worth Transit Authority is to be completed by 2018.  By 2018 we will have no new lines and DFW will have a great transportation system.

Point still stands. Comparisons to DFW aren't really fair compared to Houston because they have a better transit authority and abandoned lines.

[nativehoustonion]

Your right.

[BigFootsSocks]

Point still stands. Comparisons to DFW aren't really fair compared to Houston because they have a better transit authority and abandoned lines.

How is it not fair to compare them? That makes no sense, what's unfair is how much better their transit system is. They got lucky with the abandoned rails but bringing the other cities on board took a successful and influential governing member to bring the together.

[JamesL]

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

 

That is not correct. They were all ADA compliant. The ADA has provisions for pinch points which they met.

 

http://ridemetro.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=705&meta_id=8203

 

Not saying the designers were smart, but they did comply with the regulations and their contract. Ultimately it was METRO's failing for not writing better specs in the design-build contract.

[kdog08]

I think a lot of people here are confusing the presence of rail with actual efficient rail. I personally think DART overbuilt rail, as what makes DART "successful" also harms it. Lots of rail to it's many member cities and using abandoned freight lines makes for low ridership per mile. Over investing in rail at the expense of the infrastructure to support rail and a total transit system will have it's consequences. DART is a case of building rail where the people aren't and METRO unable to build rail where the people are (that being a very general statement). Public transit use between metros isn't all that different. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by kdog08