METRORail University Line

[VelvetJ]

Ok, I will admit I am feeling lazy today and have not read all of the pages, so I will post a few questions and hope someone is gracious enough to answer them for me. Some of the questions are really to residents of Afton Oaks that visit this site. I would really be curious to hear your answers to these questions. Thanks in advance.

1. Will someone please provide a link showing facts and or evidence explaining how and why property values will DECREASE, SPECIFICALLY in Afton Oaks due to rail? A study, a survey, anything.

2. How will the residents and businesses of Afton Oaks cope when Richmond has to be reconstructed? It actually could use a complete makover immediately imo. How have they continued to thrive in the past during constuction?

3. Fastforward to 2011, what are your opinions of what gas prices will be? Will the residents of Afton Oaks be willing to privately pay for a station in their neighborhood or will they be willing to walk to the nearest rail station ( at least 8 months out of the year. We all know why summer would be tough).

4. For the residents of Afton Oaks that visit this site, have either of you lived in a place with light or any other types of rail as mass transit? What was that experience like?

5. Oppositition to the line has been well documented by the residents of Afton, but are there any positive aspects of placing rail through Afton Oaks that the residents there can see? If so what are they in your opinions?

Edited July 25, 2006 by VelvetJ

[dp2]

Hey Afton Ag, why exactly would property values go down for the Afton Oaks neighborhood if light-rail runs through there on Richmond? Without a station stop the effect on values should be minimal (whether positive or negative), though perhaps with a slight premium for being within easy driving distance of a nearby station.

Risk of LRT raising crime rates? Since there isn't going to be a station, the opportunity for criminals to ride in isn't a possibility, so we can rule that argument out.

Train noise? How is light-rail any noiser than the diesel buses (and cars and trucks) that already run down Richmond? In fact once the line is electrified the LRT vehicles will be noticeably quieter than buses. If the line ends up going through AO on Richmond, maybe it would be wise to push for electrification from startup as a reasonable and achievable compromise. That is what far north Dallas residents did (and won as a concession) in their compromise, a more wealthy and political powerful neighborhood than AO that had to settle for a transit rail line through it.

Horn noise? A problem, but again, why not push METRO for concessions as part of a compromise? Have them do whatever it takes to eliminate horn blowing in the neighborhood, perhaps gates at intersections (which would also make it safer for all involved.)

Aesthetics? Again a potential problem, but one that only affects those residences actually fronting Richmond. Those are just a small percentage of the entire neighborhood, no logical reason why it would affect values anywhere else but on Richmond itself. And since those Richmond houses already front a busy 6-lane arterial hosting buses and trucks, their value has already been reduced by that. Why would adding light-rail trains while reducing buses make any difference, especially if the louder buses are reduced more than trains are added (since trains have much higher capacity)?

That being said, while I could live with an Richmond via AO alignment, I am strongly in favor of a route on Richmond west to the RR tracks and then south to Westpark. The Westpark area around 610 has a large number of jobs and dense housing, with potential for far more. Would be quite a waste to avoid all that just to save 1-3 minutes, as long as at least half the service turns north and goes up Post Oak to serve the Galleria area (always hated that artificial 'Uptown' new-marketing-gimmick-of-the-week-because-we-must-be-a-WORLD-CLASS-CITY label.) Really would be best to turn south at the railroad tracks, and doing so would probably favor depressing the railroad tracks in a trench instead of a complicated road and LRT bridging. This would be preferable since car/LRT collisions are not nearly as deadly and destructive as car/freight train wrecks, which can cause derailments (and resulting hazmat releases. That area has already experienced their chlorine quota!) Plus the wait for a 1-2 mile freight train to clear is far longer than for a short LRT train. A freight rail trench would likely extend south of I-59's feeders and north past Westheimer and perhaps San Felipe, all of which currently can get snarled by waits for freight trains. So let's kill several birds with one stone.

A response to another poster somewhere back:

If today you plant a seed and water it, you'd be foolish to go outside tomorrow and be disappointed that a tree or flower hasn't yet sprung up. The argument that the Main Street Line hasn't produced development reminds me of the same arguments made against Dallas' light rail almost a decade ago. There is usually a time lag for the development, for a variety of reasons. But now that new projects and redevelopment has risen up in Plano, Richardson, and north Dallas along the original line (and with even more in the planning/approval process pipeline) many of the skeptical suburbs have switched their tune and have been pressuring DART to try and move up construction or add new lines to the long-range plan. Same with the American Airlines Center that was supposed to fuel dense redevelopment in the Victory area. Nothing happened for several years, but now all kinds of projects are springing up. Lots of construction cranes were in the TV pictures of the area during the NBA Finals.

[AftonAg]

Risk of LRT raising crime rates?

Train noise?

Horn noise?

Aesthetics?

I am strongly in favor of a route on Richmond west to the RR tracks and then south to Westpark.

Dp2 - I don't believe I mentioned a rise in crime rates - perhaps one of my neighbors did. As you state I do not see that as a problem.

Train noise is certainly an issue - not so much for me - I live in the middle of AO but for those closer to Richmond.

Horn Noise - definitely a problem - again more for those closer to Richmond.

AESTHITICS - BINGO! I do not believe for even a nano second that the trees along the esplenade will survive the construction - spare me what metro says.

I have discussed that route with a few more neighbors (while I was canvassing the neighborhood today letting everyone know that Ricco has determined that this argument is over and so we might as well just get ready for rail) and most of them said that they could live with that option.

[musicman]

For anyone who says that there has been NO development on the Main St/Fannin line, then they obviously NEVER went in that vicinity before the rail. Here's a list of things, off of the top of my head, that have been built or are planned for the Redline area...

1) New UH Downtown classroom for Criminal Justice

2) Hotel Icon

3) Main St Square

4) Commerce Towers

5) Humble Tower Apartments

6) Kirby bldg condo conversion

7) Marriott Courtyard

8) Residence Inn by Marriott

9) McKinney Garage with ground floor retail

10) Catholic Diocese Hdqts

11) Metro Hdqts with transit center

12) Citiplace Apartments by farb

13) T'afia

14) Byrd's Lofts

15) Hotel ZaZa

15) 1000 Main/Reliant Energy Plaza

16) Laidback Manor

17) Memorial Hermann Medical Plaza

18) Texas Woman's University Health Science Center

19) TMC Transit Center development by Transwestern

20) Heart and Vascular Institute

21) Texas Children's Nureoscience Center

22) Texas Children's Maternity Care Tower

23) Museum Tower Apartments

24) American Apparel

25) Inman Gallery at Isabella Courts

26) Calais at Courtlandt Square Apartments

27) Ventanna Apartments by Farb

28) Toyota Center

29) Hilton Americas Hotel

So you're saying because of the light rail that these were all built? I would have to disagree.

My cousin is on the board of UHD. They were growing by leaps and bounds already. They were talking expansion prior to the light rail.

The medical center was also growing by leaps and bounds prior to light rail.

The diocese of Houston had also been talking expansion for years. The headquarters was placed where it was due to the proximity of the co-cathedral, not because of the rail. This was passed on by a good friend of mine who has worked for the diocese for at least 15 yrs.

The Hilton was tied into the GRB expansion not the birth of light rail. And like Toyota Center all govt funded.

I will give you the new METRO headquarters, TMC Transit Center and Main street square which are all government projects. The only private funded one would be the Reliant Plaza which resulted from the split up of HL&P, which was already in the area.

A DIRECT correlation is impossible to make with every property mentioned here.

Edited July 25, 2006 by musicman

[nmainguy]

After all the @#%@$$ Afton Oaks residences have given METRO, why would they reward that area with a station.

I hope not only does METRO run strait down Richmond all the way, becasue that makes the most sense, but perhaps orginally there was a station slated for say Newcastle and Metro changed their mind

" !#@@%!@$ them.. they wanna give us @#%@$@ and derail the entire line ?!?! Okay, take their station off the table... that'll teach them.. one day !! "

YO! 6!!! You're going to kill your fingers with all that@#%&*

As far as a "station" goes maybe we should be calling them "stops" or "platforms" because that's really all they are on the Red Line with the exception of TMC. I haven't read that METRO is planning a stop in AO but if they go by the designs on the Red Line, they can come back with one at a later date at a pre-planned location. Make any sense?

Edited July 25, 2006 by nmainguy

[ricco67]

I can't remember which city (San Fransisco?) in which a subburb actually has a small bus picking up people to go to the nearest rail platform. It's almost door-to-door as far as pick up and drop off. Don't know what it was like in the afternoon, though.

[KinkaidAlum]

Actually, it is not impossible to make.

1000 Main was built specifically for the light rail. The developers from Century will tell you that to your face. Same can be said for the Memorial Hermann Plaza. That one is being built to fit the light rail stop and to provide ground level retail, something that was quite lacking in the Medical Center before the rail.

Also, talk to Monica Pope about why she moved from Montrose to Midtown. She'll tell you part of it was to be near the light rail. Same can be said for the Gallery owner in the Isabella Courts.

Additionally, if you are so certain that all of the residential development that has taken place in downtown and midtown would have taken place regardless of the light rail, can you explain to me why almost zero projects had been built until the rail line was announced? Can you explain why every one of them markets themselves to folks who are interested in living near the rail? Can you also point out which one of these developments (Commerce Towers, Ventanna, Calais, Kirby, Capitol Lofts, St Germain, etc...) are government projects?

Going further, why it is true that the Hilton was built largely in part to be near the George R Brown, that doesn't discount the fact that the folks who try and lure conferences to this city (Greater Houston Covention Bureau) go out of their way to talk about the light rail and easy access to various parts of the city. The rail is a major component of our ability to get major events to this city.

As for UH-Downtown, I know very well that the enrollment there is booming. However, they designed their first major expansion specifically to fit in with downtown and the rail. It would have been MUCH cheaper for them to build where the campus is currently expanding, but they didn't go in that direction first. They wanted a world class building on the rail line. I doubt anyone from UHD is complaining about the increased visibility.

I also see that you forgot to mention the Houston Pavilions. Convenient. A 3 block development that will bring housing, new office space, and over 300,000 square feet of retail and entertainment space by the same PRIVATE developers who built Denver's Pavilions, another light rail inspired development. I suppose you are going to tell me that this would have happened without the rail?

As for the TMC Transit Center, it is NOT a government funded project. Metro is just leasing the air rights. Transwestern is very much a private developer. They won out over 13 other companies who wanted to develop that space.

Again, you can be against rail all you want, but the absolute dishonesty that goes with some of you folks is unbecoming!

[nmainguy]

You know, a quick history lesson is in store. I heard that this debate is very similar to the Georgetown-WMATA debate for a DC subway line. End result, no station was placed in Georgetown then. Now, apparently residents of Georgetown are wondering why there's no station there.

This is a cautionary tale from October 30, 2001...a snipit

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:J30jC...t=clnk&cd=5

According to D.C. Council Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who represents Georgetown, the community should have actively sought a Metro stop when the WMATA proposed one in the

[GovernorAggie]

So you're saying because of the light rail that these were all built? I would have to disagree.

My cousin is on the board of UHD. They were growing by leaps and bounds already. They were talking expansion prior to the light rail.

The medical center was also growing by leaps and bounds prior to light rail.

The diocese of Houston had also been talking expansion for years. The headquarters was placed where it was due to the proximity of the co-cathedral, not because of the rail. This was passed on by a good friend of mine who has worked for the diocese for at least 15 yrs.

The Hilton was tied into the GRB expansion not the birth of light rail. And like Toyota Center all govt funded.

I will give you the new METRO headquarters, TMC Transit Center and Main street square which are all government projects. The only private funded one would be the Reliant Plaza which resulted from the split up of HL&P, which was already in the area.

A DIRECT correlation is impossible to make with every property mentioned here.

BINGO!!! AftonAg, while I trust that we will both be waiting to see the effects of the rail on Richmond or Main or anywhere else, this kind of argument is what I think we will see even if things turn out not to be doomsday on Richmond.

We can believe all day that LRT helps development of a certain kind, just like many believe that freeways help development of a certain kind. However, at the same time, I don't think that you will be easily convinced that rail helps property values in AO, as musicman has so displayed regarding the Main St. Line.

I must also say, however, that if musicman refuses to give substantial (on the contrary, he gives very little) credit to the rail for the development along the current line, then I think that it's only fair that METRO should not get all the blame for 'killing' business along the corridor through construction and removing traffic lanes.

[musicman]

Actually, it is not impossible to make.

1000 Main was built specifically for the light rail. The developers from Century will tell you that to your face. Same can be said for the Memorial Hermann Plaza. That one is being built to fit the light rail stop and to provide ground level retail, something that was quite lacking in the Medical Center before the rail.

Also, talk to Monica Pope about why she moved from Montrose to Midtown. She'll tell you part of it was to be near the light rail. Same can be said for the Gallery owner in the Isabella Courts.

Additionally, if you are so certain that all of the residential development that has taken place in downtown and midtown would have taken place regardless of the light rail, can you explain to me why almost zero projects had been built until the rail line was announced? Can you explain why every one of them markets themselves to folks who are interested in living near the rail? Can you also point out which one of these developments (Commerce Towers, Ventanna, Calais, Kirby, Capitol Lofts, St Germain, etc...) are government projects?

Going further, why it is true that the Hilton was built largely in part to be near the George R Brown, that doesn't discount the fact that the folks who try and lure conferences to this city (Greater Houston Covention Bureau) go out of their way to talk about the light rail and easy access to various parts of the city. The rail is a major component of our ability to get major events to this city.

As for UH-Downtown, I know very well that the enrollment there is booming. However, they designed their first major expansion specifically to fit in with downtown and the rail. It would have been MUCH cheaper for them to build where the campus is currently expanding, but they didn't go in that direction first. They wanted a world class building on the rail line. I doubt anyone from UHD is complaining about the increased visibility.

I also see that you forgot to mention the Houston Pavilions. Convenient. A 3 block development that will bring housing, new office space, and over 300,000 square feet of retail and entertainment space by the same PRIVATE developers who built Denver's Pavilions, another light rail inspired development. I suppose you are going to tell me that this would have happened without the rail?

As for the TMC Transit Center, it is NOT a government funded project. Metro is just leasing the air rights. Transwestern is very much a private developer. They won out over 13 other companies who wanted to develop that space.

Again, you can be against rail all you want, but the absolute dishonesty that goes with some of you folks is unbecoming!

For everyone that you mentioned it IS impossible to make a direct correlation. The new construction is still minimal in my opinion. Go from downtown to the museum area. what is NEW construction ON the rail line? The HCC garage i know of. What else is NEW construction?

I will defininitely say that some of those are getting some benefit as a result of the rail. There is no doubt.

as for the statement " that all of the residential development that has taken place in downtown and midtown would have taken place regardless of the light rail." I didn't say that. I"m just saying that MOST of the growth would have happened anyway. There are many factors to consider here. For instance the Montrose housing prices forced those who could not afford them to search out nearby areas. well, from there, the only "cheaper" areas were east of Montrose. Many of the pioneers already realized it and decided to move there. I know at least 3 friends who did that and took a chance on the area and built new structures prior to any light rail vote. They were willing to take the chance is how i look at it. Two of those live really close to the McGowen station but don't utilize the train. Cheap land can spur quite a bit of growth.

as for the lofts....i didn't say they were govt projects nor did I imply they were.

UHD of course likes the fact that they are a "stop" on the rail. I didn't say that either. I just said they were going to expand anyway due to the huge student boom.

The Hilton was built as a result of the supposed lack of hotel space downtown for the GRB period. It would have been built anyway due to complaints of conventioneers. The train IS a selling point for the convention bureau. I agree with you there. Now whether it is an effective tool, we'd have to ask those from the last big convention. I know the ones i spoke with during the Essence festival didn't see it as a plus.

As for the Pavillions, I like that effort. The city has been looking at this land for years due to the large number of parcels that were available. This in combination with the park could be a premier project. I know the parking situation near the hilton/grb will be horrendous which is a bad thing for Houstonians who are used to ample parking situations. It is THESE houstonians that can make the project a REAL success or just a partial one like Bayou PLace.

I didn't say I was against rail. To use your quote "the absolute dishonesty that goes with some of you folks is unbecoming!" I am all for it if it is done correctly. right now it is just a glorified bus line, traveling at the same speeds as the buses it replaced.

Edited July 25, 2006 by musicman

[Highway6]

YO! 6!!! You're going to kill your fingers with all that@#%&*

...was just playing a little "fly on the wall at metro hq" there...

um.. i've heard they cuzz alot.

[GovernorAggie]

This is a cautionary tale from October 30, 2001...a snipit

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:J30jC...t=clnk&cd=5

It's interesting in that crime was a concern then but now it's not. Of course crime is another straw man argument as Spike isn't going to get off at the non-existant AO stop, go burgle a house and catch the next train with his loot....or will he?????

Great find, nmain! I don't know what's more incredible--the fact that these people changed their tune after 30 years or the fact that WMATA was honest about having a deficit of over $5 B-B-B-BILLION!!! That's 5 with nine zeroes behind it, as in $5,000,000,000. That is over $250 million a year of red ink.

Can you imagine if METRO ran that kind of deficit? Throw in the fact that these people who initially didn't want a station could get their wish thirty years later at the expense of only more than doubling WMATA's debt to over ELEVEN BILLION dollars. Simply incredible.

Would people in Houston be comfortable if METRO came out and said, "Hey, change of heart--subway everywhere, but we will operate in an $11 BILLION deficit over the next 20 years"???

[ricco67]

I would not have a problem with metro running in the red for awhile in order to get this off the ground. As far as I'm concerned, I see this as a long term investment for the city and people need to see it as such.

As gas prices and density increases, ridership will follow suit and increase revenue by that alone.

metro has stated that ridership has increased noticably over the past year, due to in part to the katrina's people as well as a monthly increase everytime the price of gasoline ticks up a penny or two.

[GovernorAggie]

I would not have a problem with metro running in the red for awhile in order to get this off the ground. As far as I'm concerned, I see this as a long term investment for the city and people need to see it as such.

As gas prices and density increases, ridership will follow suit and increase revenue by that alone.

metro has stated that ridership has increased noticably over the past year, due to in part to the katrina's people as well as a monthly increase everytime the price of gasoline ticks up a penny or two.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either, to be honest. I just think that people who already have a problem with METRO would have another arrow in their quivers.

[nmainguy]

Great find, nmain!

No problem. I posted it mainly as a cautionary tale regarding that ol' smack in the forehead you give yourself years later when you realize you blew a golden opportunity.

I knew someone would bring up the deficit, BTW. That's a pretty big deficit streched over 2 decades for a pretty big line and definatly is gist for the naysayers. On the other hand, transit systems aren't constructed to make cash. They are constructed to move people. But it's always a good idea for it to be as efficient as possible. That's my reason for wanting it down Richmond instead of the twists and turns it would take to get it to the HC Transit Center via Westpark.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

speaking of the east side of the University Rail, i would prefer the rail going through Alabama and ending at UH entrance 14. makes more sense than putting it down Wheeler....the TSU students do not want it but i am sure that many of us UH students would want the rail to drop us off right in front of our school....as far as Richmond is concerned...just build the damn thing on it...leave off a stop at Afton Oaks because they will not use it anyways..

[ricco67]

speaking of the east side of the University Rail, i would prefer the rail going through Alabama and ending at UH entrance 14. makes more sense than putting it down Wheeler....the TSU students do not want it but i am sure that many of us UH students would want the rail to drop us off right in front of our school....as far as Richmond is concerned...just build the damn thing on it...leave off a stop at Afton Oaks because they will not use it anyways..

Well, the other routes will serve the UH/TSU areas well. Wheeler is a bit more practical. The cool thing about the elgin route is that at some point it could go to Lockwood and serve points north.

The way it's currently planned, TSU and UH will be served by TWO rail lines which will give an excellent option to those going to downtown and those going off points south.

An additional bonus is if the dynamos stay in the stadium, it'll relieve some of the traffic and parking issues.

My only beef is that some effort should be made for parking at a couple of the stops.

[GovernorAggie]

No problem. I posted it mainly as a cautionary tale regarding that ol' smack in the forehead you give yourself years later when you realize you blew a golden opportunity.

I knew someone would bring up the deficit, BTW. That's a pretty big deficit streched over 2 decades for a pretty big line and definatly is gist for the naysayers. On the other hand, transit systems aren't constructed to make cash. They are constructed to move people. But it's always a good idea for it to be as efficient as possible. That's my reason for wanting it down Richmond instead of the twists and turns it would take to get it to the HC Transit Center via Westpark.

Agreed. By nature, transit is a money-loser. But highways are money losers as well (with the exception of toll roads, of course).

[Dream]

For anyone who says that there has been NO development on the Main St/Fannin line, then they obviously NEVER went in that vicinity before the rail. Here's a list of things, off of the top of my head, that have been built or are planned for the Redline area...

1) New UH Downtown classroom for Criminal Justice

2) Hotel Icon

3) Main St Square

4) Commerce Towers

5) Humble Tower Apartments

6) Kirby bldg condo conversion

7) Marriott Courtyard

8) Residence Inn by Marriott

9) McKinney Garage with ground floor retail

10) Catholic Diocese Hdqts

11) Metro Hdqts with transit center

12) Citiplace Apartments by farb

13) T'afia

14) Byrd's Lofts

15) Hotel ZaZa

15) 1000 Main/Reliant Energy Plaza

16) Laidback Manor

17) Memorial Hermann Medical Plaza

18) Texas Woman's University Health Science Center

19) TMC Transit Center development by Transwestern

20) Heart and Vascular Institute

21) Texas Children's Nureoscience Center

22) Texas Children's Maternity Care Tower

23) Museum Tower Apartments

24) American Apparel

25) Inman Gallery at Isabella Courts

26) Calais at Courtlandt Square Apartments

27) Ventanna Apartments by Farb

28) Toyota Center

29) Hilton Americas Hotel

Stop lying.

Why don't you list all of the business that have come and gone or been put under by the rail? You know you are really reaching when you put AA, Museum Tower, ZaZa, & anything in the TMC. Did you used to work at Enron because your'e dreaming? I'll stop lying when you stop reaching Enron boy.

For the record, I support the rail on Richmond. It just makes sense. I believe in rail for Houston. I just don't like the way they sold it, built it, run it, and their economic impact projections are a joke. I think they boost ridership numbers by playing with the bus routes.

Since you mentioned it, Metro HQ with the attached bus barn in back is embarrasing, ugly, and down right sad. It was a chance for the city to do something great and they didn't but they built a stupid fountain down the steet for like 13 million bucks that doesn't work. Also, I hate the name Lee P. Brown Building, that guy was the worst mayor ever.

The poor guy from Afton Oaks is getting this University Line jammed down his throat and he's gonna lose, I think it's unfair.

Dream

[IHB2]

dang dp2 that long post was too well reasoned for an online forum.

I mostly agree w/everything you say except I don't think dropping the UP track below grade is something UP (maybe even the EPA) would agree to. they build those roadbeds higher than grade for a reason, especially in Houston.

however it has been mentioned in public comment by Frank Wilson and a few METRO planners and engineers.

but what would it take to guarantee all-weather reliability for a cut that long and deep?

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Well, the other routes will serve the UH/TSU areas well. Wheeler is a bit more practical. The cool thing about the elgin route is that at some point it could go to Lockwood and serve points north.

The way it's currently planned, TSU and UH will be served by TWO rail lines which will give an excellent option to those going to downtown and those going off points south.

An additional bonus is if the dynamos stay in the stadium, it'll relieve some of the traffic and parking issues.

My only beef is that some effort should be made for parking at a couple of the stops.

The Wheeler route would serve TSU well, except for the fact that it would slice their campus in two, going right down the main pedestrian center of campus. A UH analogy would be putting a light rail line right between the E. Cullen building and the Cullen Family Fountain...or maybe right down the middle of the walkway in front of the UC Satellite. I don't think either one of those ideas would be safe or welcomed by the UH community...and I definitely understand why TSU and its students don't want the light rail right through the center of their campus.

In my opinion, Wheeler is not a viable option...at least not through TSU campus. However, I could see a Wheeler route from 59/288 up to Ennis, then cutting over to Alabama. This would allow the rail to be aligned with Richmond, it would directly connect to one side of the TSU campus, and then the Alabama alignment between TSU and UH is exactly where UH wants the line. The Alabama alignment would also serve Cuney Homes.

Alabama is a very good alignment for UH and TSU. It's only a short walk from TSU campus (3 blocks), and it is UH's preferred alignment, coming close to the middle of campus. That alignment into UH campus doesn't have the same pedestrian problems that the Wheeler alignment does for TSU.

I think Elgin makes the least sense. It's not as useful for TSU (9 blocks away), and it would touch the least populated side of UH. The McDonald's on Elgin might get a little more business, I guess.

METRO could investigate a Wheeler+Alabama alignment that crosses over at either Dowling or Ennis. A light rail line on Dowling could be pretty cool...Then again, if light rail crosses 59/288 at Wheeler, it completely bypasses HCC.

Looking at it from HCC's point of view, the Alabama alignment again makes the most sense. Alabama touches their campus...Elgin is close-by (3 blocks?), but Wheeler is not as close (about 6 blocks).

I think when you look at the pros and cons, Alabama is the best alignment for the three schools (HCC, TSU, UH). Both Wheeler and Elgin have pretty big flaws. Wheeler is bad for TSU and HCC, Elgin is not really good for anyone.

[nmainguy]

Why don't you list all of the business that have come and gone or been put under by the rail?

Since you mentioned it, Metro HQ with the attached bus barn in back is embarrasing, ugly, and down right sad. Also, I hate the name Lee P. Brown Building, that guy was the worst mayor ever.

The poor guy from Afton Oaks is getting this University Line jammed down his throat and he's gonna lose, I think it's unfair.

Dream

So far you've assumed the apartments on Fannin are suffering from rail when perhaps it's the transient nature of med school students.

You don't like the architecture of METRO's headquarters and you hate the name Lee Brown. Both items irrelevant to the topic but some of us get off track once in awhile.

Why don't you come back with some facts and a list to counter Kinkaid's?

I wouldn't worry about the "poor guy" from AO. He's already told us he's wealthy. He says he's in the construction buisness and we know all about his kids and what schools they attend. All of which is irrelevant to the discussion. No one is cramming rail down his throat. If he's so adament about it, I would suggest he wait till it's built then sell when his property values rise because of location, location, location.

[kennyc05]

I hate the name Lee P. Brown Building, that guy was the worst mayor ever.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The Wheeler route would serve TSU well, except for the fact that it would slice their campus in two, going METRO could investigate a Wheeler+Alabama alignment that crosses over at either Dowling or Ennis. A light rail line on Dowling could be pretty cool...Then again, if light rail crosses 59/288 at Wheeler, it completely bypasses HCC.

Dowling is a potential path for the Southest Line that will eventually go out to Hobby Airport...

[ricco67]

The Wheeler route would serve TSU well, except for the fact that it would slice their campus in two, going right down the main pedestrian center of campus. A UH analogy would be putting a light rail line right between the E. Cullen building and the Cullen Family Fountain...or maybe right down the middle of the walkway in front of the UC Satellite. I don't think either one of those ideas would be safe or welcomed by the UH community...and I definitely understand why TSU and its students don't want the light rail right through the center of their campus.

In my opinion, Wheeler is not a viable option...at least not through TSU campus. However, I could see a Wheeler route from 59/288 up to Ennis, then cutting over to Alabama. This would allow the rail to be aligned with Richmond, it would directly connect to one side of the TSU campus, and then the Alabama alignment between TSU and UH is exactly where UH wants the line. The Alabama alignment would also serve Cuney Homes.

Alabama is a very good alignment for UH and TSU. It's only a short walk from TSU campus (3 blocks), and it is UH's preferred alignment, coming close to the middle of campus. That alignment into UH campus doesn't have the same pedestrian problems that the Wheeler alignment does for TSU.

I think Elgin makes the least sense. It's not as useful for TSU (9 blocks away), and it would touch the least populated side of UH. The McDonald's on Elgin might get a little more business, I guess.

METRO could investigate a Wheeler+Alabama alignment that crosses over at either Dowling or Ennis. A light rail line on Dowling could be pretty cool...Then again, if light rail crosses 59/288 at Wheeler, it completely bypasses HCC.

Looking at it from HCC's point of view, the Alabama alignment again makes the most sense. Alabama touches their campus...Elgin is close-by (3 blocks?), but Wheeler is not as close (about 6 blocks).

I think when you look at the pros and cons, Alabama is the best alignment for the three schools (HCC, TSU, UH). Both Wheeler and Elgin have pretty big flaws. Wheeler is bad for TSU and HCC, Elgin is not really good for anyone.

The thing is that all options are decent options. I don't know how far north TSU is going to expand, but since it looks like parking is going to be an issue, then they will be walking quite a few blocks anyway.

While I'm not overly fond of the wheeler route cutting through campus, I think in the long run it might be benificial to both campuses. I KNOW TSU will be expanding towards scott and both campuses are going to running shuttles to the rail station. UH already has shuttles for it's campus, so there is little costs for one additional costs.

If the line is located on Elgin, it's not that big of a deal, the parking lots for UH are north of Elgin by almost two blocks and again, the shuttle buses should be able to handle that flow if they're not willing to hoof it that far.

The fact of the matter is that while none of the alignments are perfect, it's the best compromise for all those involved. I would not be surprised if HCC would expand a bit further to the south in the future to take advantage of this fact.

[ricco67]

dang dp2 that long post was too well reasoned for an online forum.

I mostly agree w/everything you say except I don't think dropping the UP track below grade is something UP (maybe even the EPA) would agree to. they build those roadbeds higher than grade for a reason, especially in Houston.

however it has been mentioned in public comment by Frank Wilson and a few METRO planners and engineers.

but what would it take to guarantee all-weather reliability for a cut that long and deep?

the problem with trenching the rail along that particular route is that it will have to be done from memorial all the way past bellaire and there wouldn't be enough room to put in a proper drainage system AND to keep that line running during construction. That in addition to how Richmond ponds during some of the heavier downpours it would be inevitable that flooding would shut down that particular line.

While this would only be a minor disruption if it happend for a few hours, on some of our wetter months that could be a potential of days and that would be incredibly chaotic to the ENTIRE rail system for this region due to the fact that this particular is already busting at the seams with railtraffic to the point where any disruption would almost be a major economic calamity for not only the railroads, but the clients that depend on them heavily.

[MiDTOWNeR]

Sheesh - seems like just the other day we agreed to disagree without being disagreeable. Please provide facts that there are any Hillbillies in the (I presume you meant Afton Oaks although you spelled it Ashton Oaks and I can not find that on my keymap) Afton Oaks neighborhood.

Prove that you are not a hillbilly. You sound like un from yer posts

[tierwestah]

WOW! this thread has gotten BIG! I think its gaining on the Houston Pavilions thread. It will probably even surpass that thread.

But as far as rail going near TSU. How will that work when Wheeler dead ends right in front of the rec center? I think if rail should go anywhere near TSU, Blodgett is the logical choice.

As far as Afton Oaks residences, i noticed nobody ever answered Ricco's question. What are the AO residences going to do once the High Street Development takes place? They're pushing so hard to fight rail, they'll just have another problem to deal with. It's kind of humorous.

tierwestah jones

[dp2]

AESTHITICS - BINGO! I do not believe for even a nano second that the trees along the esplenade will survive the construction - spare me what metro says.

Well I'm certainly not a Metro apologist, as my posting history shows (defense of Tom DeLay's standing up to the old corrupt lying Metro back when they were run by a gal with a fraudulent resume, and a skepticism going back to Tootsie's monorail), but I can give you a viewpoint from someone who used to do landscaping and studied horticulture. Yes, construction carries a risk that some will die, but some or all could survive, too. There are plenty of examples around Texas of where streets were widened and the existing medians with trees were narrowed and many of the trees surviving. It just depends on each tree and how careful the crews are. I assume these are Live Oaks? That's a pretty tough species, one reason it is so overused for street plantings.

One danger is from soil compaction, which crushes the tiny pockets in the soil and makes it harder for the roots to 'breathe'. Most of the tree deaths on construction sites are the result of the heavy equipment packing down the soil over the roots, which is why a good contractor will put up temporary fencing around each tree to prevent this. So Metro can take measures to prevent compaction, though it would be very wise to have volunteers keep an eye on them during the process to make sure. But luckily Live Oaks are more tolerant of soil compaction than most trees.

Another problem is that the surface area where the shallow roots take in nutrients will (obviously) be reduced as the median is narrowed. So it will depend on how well each tree adapts to that change, but Live Oaks usually put down plenty of deep roots and are less dependent on their shallow ones. You might recall how small an open area street trees in downtown and dense nieghborhoods have beneath their grates (with paving and buildings everywhere else around them.) The AO trees in the narrowed medians will still have much more surface area than those trees, but again it depends on how well these mature trees adapt. Not sure how deep Metro's rail construction will go and if there are any special techniques they can use to reduce disturbance of the highest roots, but I'd say the odds are good that most or all of the trees will survive.

And we are talking about less than a dozen mature trees, yes? I looked at recent aerial photos and those from 1995, and this is what I see:

The trees are along a 1/4 mile strip of 2 main and 2 lesser medians. The 2 main medians (middle) each have 5 trees, with there is 1 on a lesser median to the east, and 3 trees with much smaller canopies on the lesser median to the west, and maybe a 4th tree that is a new planting without much of a canopy yet? In the 1995 photo those western 3 seem to cast short, thin shadows, perhaps being newly planted then. Also looks like 1 of the 4 in the 1995 photo didn't survive to the 2004 photo.

So at worst the neighborhood would lose 11 mature trees and 3 younger ones, but more likely all but perhaps one or two would survive.

Why not get an arborist out there to do an assessment? If the plan really does threaten the trees, this would bolster your argument and undercut Metro's credibility when they claim most or all of them can be saved. And if he/she finds that most or all should survive, then you won't have to worry about that aspect.

[dp2]

the problem with trenching the rail along that particular route is that it will have to be done from memorial all the way past bellaire

No it wouldn't. Buffalo Bayou makes that impractical, it would have to come up and go back down to cross it. All that is needed is San Felipe through the 59 frontage roads, the rest was just an idea thrown out by someone pandering to IMBY me-too-ism and the Mothers for Memorial Park utopians.

and there wouldn't be enough room to put in a proper drainage system AND to keep that line running during construction. That in addition to how Richmond ponds during some of the heavier downpours it would be inevitable that flooding would shut down that particular line.

While this would only be a minor disruption if it happend for a few hours, on some of our wetter months that could be a potential of days and that would be incredibly chaotic to the ENTIRE rail system for this region due to the fact that this particular is already busting at the seams with railtraffic to the point where any disruption would almost be a major economic calamity for not only the railroads, but the clients that depend on them heavily.

Actually the rail and parallel electric utility corridor is more than 200' wide, and even discounting the parking lots around Westheimer (which can have drainage tunnels placed beneath them) the remaining ROW is 120' wide. Anything can be engineered, it is just a matter of cost. The UP railroad already has a multi-mile trench recently built in Los Angeles (where contrary to lyrics it does flash flood occassionally), and this one can be designed with pumps to handle pretty much any storm. The I-10, I-45, and 59 trenches are far bigger catch basins. How do you think they were going to design the (wider) proposed tollway in this corridor? It would have tunneled under Memorial Park and Buf Bayou, but only been trenched south of there to at least 59.

BTW, notwithstanding any public statements, the plans for adding a tollway (either in the utility easement or eventually rerouting the UP railroad) in that corridor are far from dead. Shelved for now, but watch how the bridge design over the UP (regardless of route) leaves room for a 6-lane tollway to pass beneath. Almost seems like there is an unspoken agreement to trade transit rail now for the tollway later.

If they won't let the West Loop be double-decked, what's the alternative other than a lowered tollway in the utility/rail corridor?

Edited July 26, 2006 by dp2