METRORail University Line

[Highway6]

I actually suggested that route not for the convienience of drivers but for the convienience of riders. LRT is not meant to accomodate and facilitate more auto traffic. It is meant to reduce such traffic.

It is meant to reduce traffic over the longhaul.. i still dont think it would be wise to run LRT at grade through perhaps the busiest intersection in the city.

The cars won't dissapear over night as soon as LRT is in place.

[Houston19514]

No, i do agree with you.. that would be my first choice too.. serves highland village and stops at the front door of the galleria.

But i also really don't see them paying to have half a mile running under ground to not interfere with galleria traffic or the 610 intersection.

so rr to westpark to sage would be my second and more doable choice.

I hate to see them settle for what I believe is clearly a "second-best" routing. It may be more easily doable in the short run, and pretty clearly cheaper. But in the medium and long run, I'm afraid we and metro and the city, etc. will regret a decision to avoid Westheimer. It seems pretty clear to me that the system would have much higher ridership with that routing, as opposed to turning south and taking the westpark route; for two reasons: (1) Riders would be able to get from downtown to Uptown with only one change of trains, rather than two, and (2) The university line would serve the core of Uptown, plus Highland Village, some relatively dense housing areas along that stretch of Westheimer, plus the new mixed-used developments that have been announced along that stretch of road. They need to bite the bullet and make it happen.

This reminds me so much of the discussions about locating the new baseball stadium a few years back. All of the momentum was behind building a new stadium on the Astrodome grounds because it was easier, cheaper, the county already owned the land, yadda yadda yadda. Many of the same reasons we are hearing today for running the rail line along Westpark. Thank God someone (and I'm pretty sure it was Ken Lay) came along with the vision and leadership to say "No, we need to build this stadium downtown. Let's do it right or not do it at all." I keep hoping for someone to pop up in a similar fashion on this rail line issue.

[Highway6]

I hate to see them settle for what I believe is clearly a "second-best" routing. It may be more easily doable in the short run, and pretty clearly cheaper. But in the medium and long run, I'm afraid we and metro and the city, etc. will regret a decision to avoid Westheimer. It seems pretty clear to me that the system would have much higher ridership with that routing, as opposed to turning south and taking the westpark route; for two reasons: (1) Riders would be able to get from downtown to Uptown with only one change of trains, rather than two, and (2) The university line would serve the core of Uptown, plus Highland Village, some relatively dense housing areas along that stretch of Westheimer, plus the new mixed-used developments that have been announced along that stretch of road. They need to bite the bullet and make it happen.

There is no mention of where this line ends.

If it curves south to Westpark at the RR then back up at sage.. whats to say it can't run up to westheimer or san felipe... or sometime in the future, have it cross over to postoack making the university line and the uptown line continous.

Just becasue it crosses 610 not at Westeimer doesn't mean it cant make a small run north and access the galleria just as well.

I do agree with you.. it would be great to have it also access highland village and any new developments... But... on none of metro's maps is a route anywhere on westeimer proposed... even this desirable yet tiny few blocks. For some reason, we don't know why, they have eliminated that as an option.

so.. 2nd best.. i think no matter where it crosses 610, it can still be made to stop adjacent to the galleria directly .. without getting on the uptown line.

I think its we can't assume it has to have a stop on westheimer at 610 to access the galleria.

Go to the meeting.. bring up westheimer.. see why they have eliminated that option.

I'll bring up, as im sure many others will, having it directly access the galleria if it does go richmond or westpark... by having it turn north at sage.

Westheimer does offer potential.. but i'm working with the options they have given us.

I rather argue to have the two options they have given us access the galleria directly as opposed to argue for a third option they have already taken off the table.

[Highway6]

Phase IV

Assuming Phase 2 and 3 are fully implemented, and successfully connect the majority of the commercial, educational, cultural centers and airports.... would there be an eventual phase IV to start connecting this network to more inner loop and inner beltway residential areas.

I guess I'm seeing most of the north-south lines running along freeways and this glaring white space in the heart of the city....

What about a line that starts at the Fannin south stop..goes north along kirby, hits the village, hits upper kirby, crosses over to shepherd, and runs north to river oaks, then the heights, than north to as much residential as can be afforded ?

That glaring white space makes me sad... we need a Shepherd corridor.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Highway6

[Houston19514]

There is no mention of where this line ends.

If it curves south to Westpark at the RR then back up at sage.. whats to say it can't run up to westheimer or san felipe... or sometime in the future, have it cross over to postoack making the university line and the uptown line continous.

Just becasue it crosses 610 not at Westeimer doesn't mean it cant make a small run north and access the galleria just as well.

I do agree with you.. it would be great to have it also access highland village and any new developments... But... on none of metro's maps is a route anywhere on westeimer proposed... even this desirable yet tiny few blocks. For some reason, we don't know why, they have eliminated that as an option.

so.. 2nd best.. i think no matter where it crosses 610, it can still be made to stop adjacent to the galleria directly .. without getting on the uptown line.

I think its we can't assume it has to have a stop on westheimer at 610 to access the galleria.

Go to the meeting.. bring up westheimer.. see why they have eliminated that option.

I'll bring up, as im sure many others will, having it directly access the galleria if it does go richmond or westpark... by having it turn north at sage.

Westheimer does offer potential.. but i'm working with the options they have given us.

I rather argue to have the two options they have given us access the galleria directly as opposed to argue for a third option they have already taken off the table.

From the Metro news release regarding the Westheimer routing:

"Although Westheimer has been eliminated from further study at this time, METRO would be willing to reconsider the alignment if a large segment of the corridor community were behind it."

[Highway6]

From the Metro news release regarding the Westheimer routing:

"Although Westheimer has been eliminated from further study at this time, METRO would be willing to reconsider the alignment if a large segment of the corridor community were behind it."

I stand (sit) corrected.

I haven't heard from any of these meetings people arguing for Westheimer...

If it's not too late.. i hope to hear some of you out there thursday arguing for the Westheimer Way then.

[Houston19514]

Highway 6, there certainly is mention of where the University Line ends. It is planned to end at a new Transit Center on South Rice. There is nothing in the works for it to turn back north after crossing 610.

BTW, I don't currently live in Houston. Otherwise, I would definitely be at the meetings. (I have, however, sent a message to Metro with my thoughts on the Westheimer routing.)

[uncertaintraveler]

I guess I'm seeing most of the north-south lines running along freeways and this glaring white space in the heart of the city....

What about a line that starts at the Fannin south stop..goes north along kirby, hits the village, hits upper kirby, crosses over to shepherd, and runs north to river oaks, then the heights, than north to as much residential as can be afforded ?

That glaring white space makes me sad... we need a Shepherd corridor.

I think that would be great. There is no point in building a rail line whose lines only connect with other lines at the end, or very near the end, of each of said lines. Thus, the more connections each particular rail line has with other rail lines, the better. And, as you stated, there is a glaring white space on the western side of the city.....for the rail lines to work for everyone on the western side, there has to be a way to connect to each of the three lines shown on your map without having to practically go downtown (or the Galleria) to do so. A Shephard line would be great....

[Highway6]

Did anyone go to the meeting last night and have anything interesting to report ?

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Did anyone go to the meeting last night and have anything interesting to report ?

I did attend last night. Nothing really interesting to report, but I'm glad my wife and I went and gave our comments to Metro.

Here's the set-up: as previously described, this is an open house session, the point of which is for Metro to gather public comments on the environmental and social impacts of proposed alignments. There were no speeches or formal presentations. It's a very free-form sort of thing, so don't expect to get your socks knocked off. You basically walk in, take a look at the information available, leave your comments, and are free to leave at your leisure.

There were four or five tables set up with identical aerial photographs/maps showing the proposed alignments of the University Corridor. Each table had an identical map, but there were several there so that many people could ponder the maps at once. There was an overall map of all the proposed rail corridors, and there were some presentation boards there to describe the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) process.

There were also numerous Metro employees there to answer questions...I found each of them that I spoke to to be VERY helpful.

The whole purpose is to gather public input. There are several ways to do that. There were two court reporters available to take down your comments, if you wanted to give them verbally (which my wife did). Also available at each aerial photograph/map, there were large sheets of paper and markers for you to write down comments. Or if you preferred, you were given an 8-1/2"x11" sheet of paper to write down comments and leave in a "comment drop box", which was collected at the end of the night. There is also an e-mail address which you can send public comments to, as well as a mailing address if you prefer to send comments by mail.

There was some lively discussion amongst some of the attendees last night. I had some disagreements with some of the attendees, and with my wife as well. Nothing was heated at all, but there was definitely some interesting discussion and it was good to hear viewpoints from a variety of people. My wife and I stayed for maybe 30 minutes, but it would have been interesting to stay longer for more debate.

I highly recommend that everyone get out there tomorrow night and give your input. I have a feeling that tomorrow night's meeting will be FILLED with folks from Afton Oaks, so I think there will be even more lively debate than we had in the Third Ward last night. Definitely show up and make your feelings known to Metro!!!

[The Voice of University Oaks]

VOUO, do you know the difference in projected ridership between the two alignments?

According to the METRO's presentation boards, the projected daily boardings are 4,990 for Scott/Griggs versus 3,625 for Wheeler/MLK. On the other hand, the Wheeler/MLK costs less, has fewer property acquisistions and displacements, and disrupts less vehicle traffic than a Scott/Griggs alignment. Is fewer riders worth it if the construction cost is cheaper? Or should the goal be to serve as many people as possible even if it costs more and stirs up more community opposition? I'm glad I'm not the one making these decisions!

There have been a number of new businesses built at Scott and OST since 2003: the CVS, the WAMU shopping center, the shopping center at Scott/Griggs, the new Sonic. I wonder how those new businesses would affect ridership projections, if the projections were done in 2006 (rather than 2003)?

That's a good point. I have no idea how recent these ridership projections are, i.e. if they were generated during the Alternatives Analysis in 2003 or if they were generated during the DEIS analysis this past spring.

Edited June 28, 2006 by The Voice of University Oaks

[Pumapayam]

Don't forget, tonight at the Holiday Inn Select off of the Southwest Freeway, between 4p.m. and 7 p.m.

Let's get the baby going down Richmond where it makes sense.

[nmainguy]

Don't forget, tonight at the Holiday Inn Select off of the Southwest Freeway, between 4p.m. and 7 p.m.

Let's get the baby going down Richmond where it makes sense.

From Tuesday's meeting:

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/heights/news/4009705.html

[VelvetJ]

For those in favor of placing rail on Richmond, please click on the link to support it and do it soon, as opponents are apparently on the move.

Support Link

[ProHouston]

I did attend last night. Nothing really interesting to report, but I'm glad my wife and I went and gave our comments to Metro.

Here's the set-up: as previously described, this is an open house session, the point of which is for Metro to gather public comments on the environmental and social impacts of proposed alignments. There were no speeches or formal presentations. It's a very free-form sort of thing, so don't expect to get your socks knocked off. You basically walk in, take a look at the information available, leave your comments, and are free to leave at your leisure.

There were four or five tables set up with identical aerial photographs/maps showing the proposed alignments of the University Corridor. Each table had an identical map, but there were several there so that many people could ponder the maps at once. There was an overall map of all the proposed rail corridors, and there were some presentation boards there to describe the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) process.

There were also numerous Metro employees there to answer questions...I found each of them that I spoke to to be VERY helpful.

The whole purpose is to gather public input. There are several ways to do that. There were two court reporters available to take down your comments, if you wanted to give them verbally (which my wife did). Also available at each aerial photograph/map, there were large sheets of paper and markers for you to write down comments. Or if you preferred, you were given an 8-1/2"x11" sheet of paper to write down comments and leave in a "comment drop box", which was collected at the end of the night. There is also an e-mail address which you can send public comments to, as well as a mailing address if you prefer to send comments by mail.

There was some lively discussion amongst some of the attendees last night. I had some disagreements with some of the attendees, and with my wife as well. Nothing was heated at all, but there was definitely some interesting discussion and it was good to hear viewpoints from a variety of people. My wife and I stayed for maybe 30 minutes, but it would have been interesting to stay longer for more debate.

I highly recommend that everyone get out there tomorrow night and give your input. I have a feeling that tomorrow night's meeting will be FILLED with folks from Afton Oaks, so I think there will be even more lively debate than we had in the Third Ward last night. Definitely show up and make your feelings known to Metro!!!

Here is the email address to write to: METROSolutions-University@ridemetro.org

[MexAmerican_Moose]

HAIF MEMBERS UNITE!!!!! and bring light rail to Richmond!!

[Highway6]

Here is the email address to write to: METROSolutions-University@ridemetro.org

I just tried submitting my comments to this email address.

It doesnt appear to be valid.

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

METROSolutions-University@ridemetro.org on 6/29/2006 10:52 AM

The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.

<mta.ridemetro.org #5.1.1>

[ProHouston]

I just tried submitting my comments to this email address.

It doesnt appear to be valid.

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

METROSolutions-University@ridemetro.org on 6/29/2006 10:52 AM

The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.

<mta.ridemetro.org #5.1.1>

Damn, mine too. That was the address from the Chronicle article. I saw that you can go online to the Metro Solutions website to leave feedback, but I'd rather have an email address.

[ProHouston]

I stand (sit) corrected.

I haven't heard from any of these meetings people arguing for Westheimer...

If it's not too late.. i hope to hear some of you out there thursday arguing for the Westheimer Way then.

I say we present Uptown Houston with our ideas of why running light rail on (or preferably under) Westheimer is the best choice for the area.

Here is their address: uptownhouston@uptown-houston.com

[Highway6]

I say we present Uptown Houston with our ideas of why running light rail on (or preferably under) Westheimer is the best choice for the area.

Here is their address: uptownhouston@uptown-houston.com

I intend to talk to them tonight.

I want to know their list of reasons why they took Westheimer off the board.

Perhaps they have already considered it and the cons outweighed the pros.

[IHB2]

just found this forum. all future posts will be much shorter I promise

I attended all METRO UC meetings, including last Thursday's Scoping Meeting. I submitted the comment below, which also appeared w/some changes as op-ed articles in May editions of 2 local sw Houston newspapers. There are a few points that have not been made by others on this thread regarding a Westpark alignment. In general, my point is that fixed rail mass transit planners, who want to move large numbers of people along a certain route and reduce personal vehicle #s, must accomodate the intent of the freeway/tollway system, which is to move large #s of personal vehicles. Screwing around with the freeway system by placing a collector/distributor line in close proximity is stupid. The line should be placed where riders are.

RAIL ON WESTPARK IS A BAD IDEA

Public debate over METRO's proposed "University Corridor" rail alignments has generated much information about positives and negatives for a Richmond line. Discussions of the Westpark option have focused on the 2003 referendum ballot language, cheaper construction costs, and less impact on nearby residents and businesses than rail on Richmond. But at-grade light rail (LRT) on the METRO-owned right-of-way along Westpark between Loop 610 and Kirby will result in a mobility nightmare, which makes Westpark the worst option.

One METRO proposal ending the LRT at a terminal and parking garage between 610 and South Rice Avenue, then crossing Westpark with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) under 59 northbound on Post Oak through the Galleria, seems to ignore the proximity of the Westpark Tollway terminus. Currently 30-40,000 vehicles per day use the Tollway. During peak AM and PM hours, as many as 2000 eastbound/westbound vehicles per hour pass through the 610/Westpark intersection in addition to traffic from the Bellaire/Gulfton area. This number will increase in future years as massive residential construction along the western end of the Tollway adds commuters. (data extrapolated from Harris County Tollroad Authority - HCTRA - statistics, April 2006)

The 610/Westpark intersection is bounded by the base of the 610/59 offramp overpasses and the 59 HOV entrance complex, which limits reconfiguration of the intersection to maintain traffic flow once fixed rail goes in. All-stop/no-turn traffic lights every 3 minutes as trains pass will further complicate traffic flow. Just a few hundred feet west of the intersection, where the proposed LRT connection to the Post Oak BRT crosses Westpark, another set of stoplights/crossing arms will be necessary because LRT and BRT cannot make 90 degree turns. (LRT crossing frequency per public statement of METRO CEO Frank Wilson at University Corridor Meeting April 18, 2006)

Predictable effects of placing LRT on this part of Westpark include reduced commuter mobility, a pedestrian-unfriendly transit center, and higher construction costs that negate benefits of METRO owning the right-of-way. Farther east on Westpark at-grade LRT will decrease general mobility for thousands of Houstonians.

U.S. 59 between 610 and Spur 527, the most traveled freeway in Texas, carries over 260,000 vehicles per day. What will it mean for approximately 50,000 residents living south of 59, between 610 and Shepherd, when rail crosses Wesleyan, Buffalo Speedway, and Kirby - the only through north/south routes between 610 and Montrose? Trains will pass each intersection every 3 minutes, 20 hours per day, with all-stop/no-turn lights possibly lasting longer than 1 minute. The LRT will be only 200-300 feet from the 59 service road where approximately 3000-4000 vehicles exit to those intersections during the AM peak alone. The intersections are too close to the freeway to be altered in elevation, so rail would have to be elevated or lowered from before Kirby to past Wesleyan (an "El" or a subway?), which would eliminate the only positive for a Westpark alignment - the cost of building it. (U.S.59 volume per Texas Dept. of Transportation - TxDOT - statistics 2005, population statistics per Houston-Galveston Area Council - HGAC - 2005, LRT crossing frequency/traffic control per public statement of METRO CEO Frank Wilson at University Corridor Meeting April 18, 2006)

Add Tollway vehicles to those intersections, thousands per hour at AM/PM peaks, and you have the real prospect of gridlock for people in West University, Bellaire, Sunset Terrace, Southside, Southampton, Ayreshire, and other neighborhoods who use these streets, not the freeways, to get around town inside the loop. Traffic on each street already backs up from 59 past Bissonnet during AM peaks, and from Westpark past Richmond at PM peaks. Traffic is fierce all day, but it's not gridlock - yet.

At-grade rail on Westpark will decrease mobility for inner loop neighborhoods south of 59, for commuters using 59 to access areas between 610 and Shepherd, and for Westpark Tollway users. In that context, U.S. Representative John Culberson's April 12 statement, that "those [on Richmond] west of Shepherd...ought to rest easy," because rail will cross 59 to Westpark east of Shepherd, is an ominous warning to everyone else. (Rep. Culberson Town Hall Meeting, Rice University, April 12, 2006).

Future public debate, METRO studies, and the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must address the wider effect of proposed routes in the University Corridor, rather than the current narrow focus on only a few blocks on each side of potential alignments. Fixed-rail mass transit cannot result in an overall decrease in general mobility. For that reason, Westpark is not the choice with, in Culberson's words, the "least impact." In fact, NO section of a University Corridor Light Rail alignment should be built on Westpark between Shepherd Drive and South Rice Avenue.

[IHB2]

Wheeler station down Richmond to Timmons to Westheimer to a block west of Sage back down to Richmond to Fountainview or Greenridge to the 59 service road to the already built and commuter- connected Hillcroft Transit Center.

Frank Wilson has said in public testimony that Westheimer is off the table b/c of the increased congestion LRT would cause crossing at Westheimer/610.

Since that's the case, Wheeler-Richmond-Fountainview-Hillcroft Transit Center would be the 2nd best choice. Yes, right through Afton Oaks, which is too bad b/c the rail really needs to be up on Westheimer by somewhere just east of Highland Village. (Wesleyan is a horrible choice for rail north or south off of Richmond for the same reasons Edloe, Buff Spdwy, Kirby, and Shepherd are - these are the only n/s arteries available to residents south of 59).

[IHB2]

Culberson, who proudly proclaims his leading role in bringing the Katy expansion to fruition, is probably the greatest enabler of eminent domain in the history of Harris County. Yet he stood at St. Luke's Church and took credit for that project and swore to protect Richmond Ave neighborhoods and businesses from evil METRO eminent domain in the same sentence!

At his Town Hall meeting at Rice U on 4/12 he opened by saying he is a "Jeffersonian republican" (small r). He then proceeded to shut down meaningful debate by 1. instructing his staff to allow only those living or owning property on Richmond to speak, and 2. stating, prior to ANY study or public vetting of options, the rail line would not go west of Shepherd on Richmond.

so much for the notion of the independent "yeoman," educated on the issues and engaged in the debate, that Mr. Jefferson deemed to be at the heart of successful self-government

so much for the civic virtue of those chosen to represent the people that Mr. Jefferson deemed to be at the heart of successful republicanism.

[wakester]

Contention remains on Richmond line

Metro foresees decision will come Jan. '07 at the latest

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/heights/news/4014297.html

When you hear someone like the person from the St George Place Civic Assoc talk in an openminded rational way, it makes the Afton Oaks people look like idiots.

Also, I like that it referred to Culberson as : State Sen. John Culberson, R-Houston.

[zaphod]

definetely good to hear what that st. georges place guy said.

"Twenty years from now, there won't be a debate about where to place this line," he added. "We'll be left with a line that either works or doesn't work. And if it's built on Richmond, it's going to work."

finally some sense.

I was thinking, is metro going to consider maybe doing construction section by section or something like that instead of all at once? that would fix the issue of accessibility problems hurting business along the line

[IHB2]

yes METRO CEO Wilson swears that wherever the line is built it will be done in small enough sections to minimze mobility and business disruption. there is some talk from Wilson about subsidizing private businesses w/tax$$ during the period when construction affects them.

of course, in April it was Wilson who said that METRO might solve the lt rail crossing the UP tracks by dropping the UP tracks below grade from Beechnut or Bellaire past San Felipe. He said, with a straight face, that doing so would also help solve the noise issue that the McMansion owners along the track complain about.

Wilson has admitted the Main St line was a boondoggle on every level during construction, but blames the COH and CofC requirement it be finished before the Super Bowl, and has promised METRO will do better next time.

we'll see. talk is cheap.

[zaphod]

trenching the tracks and killing two problems at once would be smart. it would be interesting though. thats quite a ways from beechnut to san felipe for one underpass. I know trains cant take very steep grades but thats a good 3 miles which might be sort of expensive to build sunken rail. Why not just have it go down after Bissonnett and then come up before westhiemer?Of course grade seperating westheimer from the tracks couldnt hurt, especially considering how long the trains that go through are. I can see what looks like a spur track leading to that power substation off newcastle. I wonder if that spur is still used? either way i bet it will be torn up when this is done.

[IHB2]

Or just tunnel the U Line under the tracks at Westhiemer all the way to the Galleria.

leaving the expense of tunneling aside, I am always amazed when proposed solutions to any transportation issue in Houston include below-grade construction. the geography and climate just aren't conducive to 24/7/365 dependability. and especially so where this electric train is concerned. with the technology METRO is committed to, it can't run in 2 inches of standing water.

Edited July 9, 2006 by IHB2

[ricco67]

The only time when the light rail has been hamped by two inches of rain, the ENTIRE city is generally limited in it's mobility, including the buses.

As far as tunneling goes, it should be interesting how that would work out. we'd have to wait quite a awhile before something like that would be completed.

[IHB2]

The only time when the light rail has been hamped by two inches of rain, the ENTIRE city is generally limited in it's mobility, including the buses.

it doesn't take 2 inches of rain to create 2 inches of standing water below grade in Houston. for 1 possible permanently wet outcome, even w/o rain, to below-grade construction, check out the Westpark Tollway where it drops under the 59 service road, and it's been unfixable for over a year.

i'm just saying that the electric technology METRO will use is susceptible to standing water. also it's on a fixed guideway, so no options to take another route if necessary, and i can imagine potential riders voting with their feet (or in this case their private vehicles) the 1st time a garden variety summer thunderstorm shuts down the Highland Village-Galleria section stranding 100s of high $$ shoppers or their nannies can't get to work.