METRORail University Line

[musicman]

Um, no. If the original Richmond proposal that AO complained about had the train turning left on Weslayan, then flying over their backyards, before finally #$%*ing up 59 with even more construction, then I'd be on even footing with them. But even considering the Culberson route's impact on Montrose, I'd still be open to it if it was designed by professional urban and transit planners as a route that would serve the greatest number of people in the most efficient way. But in reality, it's just something that Culberson pulled out of his @$$.

afton oaks residents were complaining about the rail going on richmond (thru afton oaks) because it would impact them just as you were complaining it "would impact traffic in my area far more" if it went by you. so you want it on richmond so it doesn't affect you directly.

[Furious Jam]

afton oaks residents were complaining about the rail going on richmond (thru afton oaks) because it would impact them just as you were complaining it "would impact traffic in my area far more" if it went by you. so you want it on richmond so it doesn't affect you directly.

Again, no. I live closer to Richmond than Montrose and I cross Richmond every day of my life, whereas I probably cross Montrose every other day. So there's no doubt that having rail on Richmond would affect me from a traffic standpoint, just as it would've affected AO under the initial plan. But unlike AO, I am not opposed to rail on Richmond, for a variety of reasons. However, forcing the rail make a sharp turn onto Montrose would create far greater traffic problems in my area than was ever threatened before, in AO or otherwise. Whatever traffic problems the rail might cause on Richmond would be duplicated on Montrose, and then the two problems would meet head-on at that intersection. Really, is there any other at-grade public rail in the world that makes such a turn in the intersection of two major streets?

And even then, as I said before, AO never faced a rail line elevated over their backyards.

So, with all due respect, you're comparing apples and oranges. My complaints aren't the same as AO's just because we're both concerned about traffic., even if that were my only concern. That would be akin to saying that that a 747 and a crop duster are the same thing because they are both "planes".

[nmainguy]

When one guy mentioned what Culberson' route would do, elevating the track over a hundred homes, adding noise, chasing so many away form thei homes... Culbersons stated many times that the elevated portion would down in the trench - elevated over the cars but under the homes.

Which Metro has said just isn't the case.... that it would have to go over the 59 cross bridges, it can't go in the trench- under them.

[musicman]

Again, no. I live closer to Richmond than Montrose and I cross Richmond every day of my life, whereas I probably cross Montrose every other day. So there's no doubt that having rail on Richmond would affect me from a traffic standpoint, just as it would've affected AO under the initial plan. But unlike AO, I am not opposed to rail on Richmond, for a variety of reasons. However, forcing the rail make a sharp turn onto Montrose would create far greater traffic problems in my area than was ever threatened before, in AO or otherwise. Whatever traffic problems the rail might cause on Richmond would be duplicated on Montrose, and then the two problems would meet head-on at that intersection. Really, is there any other at-grade public rail in the world that makes such a turn in the intersection of two major streets?

And even then, as I said before, AO never faced a rail line elevated over their backyards.

So, with all due respect, you're comparing apples and oranges. My complaints aren't the same as AO's just because we're both concerned about traffic., even if that were my only concern. That would be akin to saying that that a 747 and a crop duster are the same thing because they are both "planes".

It shouldn't be how it affects you but rather how it affects the city as a whole. AO was complaining that it will affect them by noise, increased traffic issues,etc just as you are saying it will affect you. You, just like the residents fronting richmond in AO don't want it to on "their" street as it will "cause far greater traffic problems in my area." unfortunately, for this to work, there will have to be some casualties whether it be on richmond or any of the proposed routes. and if it goes by you, then you have to accept the fact just as everyone will when the big decision is finally made.

notice how when METRO announced that it wouldn't be going thru AO, you hear less from those opponents which is good for those who want rail. the opposition is not as great when it doesn't affect them directly. The main opponents now are those that live ON richmond because their fates are unknown. METRO announced today on the other lines, properties that will have to be taken to build the rail. They definitely didn't announce the richmond ones because if they did decide on richmond, it would create more protests which wouldn't help their cause.

i do understand you're for rail. there's no problem with that. repeatedly saying that "it will cause more traffic in my area" for me means that rail isn't that important to you because you wouldn't accept it on your street. if you like rail, then you should be willing to accept the resulting consequences.

as for the intersection of montrose and richmond being busy, go farther down richmond. the traffic is worse and it will create more of a nightmare. I've mentioned before that the first line didn't affect neighborhoods. This is the first one that does and that is why people are more vocal.

[Furious Jam]

It shouldn't be how it affects you but rather how it affects the city as a whole. AO was complaining that it will affect them by noise, increased traffic issues,etc just as you are saying it will affect you. You, just like the residents fronting richmond in AO don't want it to on "their" street as it will "cause far greater traffic problems in my area." unfortunately, for this to work, there will have to be some casualties whether it be on richmond or any of the proposed routes. and if it goes by you, then you have to accept the fact just as everyone will when the big decision is finally made.

notice how when METRO announced that it wouldn't be going thru AO, you hear less from those opponents which is good for those who want rail. the opposition is not as great when it doesn't affect them directly. The main opponents now are those that live ON richmond because their fates are unknown. METRO announced today on the other lines, properties that will have to be taken to build the rail. They definitely didn't announce the richmond ones because if they did decide on richmond, it would create more protests which wouldn't help their cause.

i do understand you're for rail. there's no problem with that. repeatedly saying that "it will cause more traffic in my area" for me means that rail isn't that important to you because you wouldn't accept it on your street. if you like rail, then you should be willing to accept the resulting consequences.

as for the intersection of montrose and richmond being busy, go farther down richmond. the traffic is worse and it will create more of a nightmare. I've mentioned before that the first line didn't affect neighborhoods. This is the first one that does and that is why people are more vocal.

I don't know why you can't accept that there's a difference between a train running through an intersection on one street and a train turning in an intersection from one street to another. Unlike AO, I have no problem with a train running through my local intersection or any intersection. But turning through an intersection would produce more traffic headaches than it would be worth, regardless of whose neighborhood gets hit - I wouldn't wish that on AO or anyone. So again, no, I'm not favoring my neighborhood over a sensible citywide rail network. I'm arguing against a ridiculous rail plan that shouldn't be imposed on anyone, including my neighborhood.

Your statement, "if you like rail, then you should be willing to accept the resulting consequences" is laughably simplistic. Sorry, but there's big difference between a straight line that impacts traffic evenly along it and reaches the most people and points-of-interest, and a line that gridlocks a single neighborhood and actually avoids people and points-of-interest at a higher cost. Sorry, but I can't subscribe to your "all rail is good" theory. A bad rail plan is a bad rail plan, whether it harms my neighborhood or any other.

[RedScare]

They definitely didn't announce the richmond ones because if they did decide on richmond, it would create more protests which wouldn't help their cause.

They did not announce properties on Richmond, because their is no route chosen yet. The other routes have been decided, therefore they know which properties are needed.

[IHB2]

Also, it would have to cut through and be elevated above a strictly residential area, resulting in a far greater impact to people's homes than the Cummins route.

Not true. The Cummins route will be elevated above the homes in the Sunset Terrace and College Court neighborhood that back up to the ROW along 2 long blocks of Childress St - maybe 60-70 high $$ homes.

METRO plans show a shorter elevation there on both sides of Wesleyan dropping to grade only at Wesleyan and a few hundred feet west, but even METRO isn't stupid enough to run the train at grade ONLY where it's a traffic impediment while elevating it where it's not, so you can bet on elevation from Cummins St to west of the UPRR in the final plan.

[musicman]

I don't know why you can't accept that there's a difference between a train running through an intersection on one street and a train turning in an intersection from one street to another. Unlike AO, I have no problem with a train running through my local intersection or any intersection. But turning through an intersection would produce more traffic headaches than it would be worth, regardless of whose neighborhood gets hit - I wouldn't wish that on AO or anyone. So again, no, I'm not favoring my neighborhood over a sensible citywide rail network. I'm arguing against a ridiculous rail plan that shouldn't be imposed on anyone, including my neighborhood.

Your statement, "if you like rail, then you should be willing to accept the resulting consequences" is laughably simplistic. Sorry, but there's big difference between a straight line that impacts traffic evenly along it and reaches the most people and points-of-interest, and a line that gridlocks a single neighborhood and actually avoids people and points-of-interest at a higher cost. Sorry, but I can't subscribe to your "all rail is good" theory. A bad rail plan is a bad rail plan, whether it harms my neighborhood or any other.

i never said all rail is good. i agree that a plan needs to be developed that serves the most yet affects traffic the least. i personally hate to see neighborhoods divided by this because access will be restricted and worse traffic will result for those living on streets than remain open.

you said "But turning through an intersection would produce more traffic headaches than it would be worth, regardless of whose neighborhood gets hit". whatever route is chosen, the train will be turning at least twice to get from richmond to westpark, metro has already made that decision. there is no way you can get from richmond to westpark without turning. so at least two intersections will be affected with a turn plus all the other ones will be affected by more traffic. there is no proposed plan by metro than doesn't involve turns.

[musicman]

They did not announce properties on Richmond, because their is no route chosen yet. The other routes have been decided, therefore they know which properties are needed.

i agree partially. the part between main and montrose is on richmond in all options. so they could have produced a partial listing. IMO, it is in metro's best interest that they don't announce this small portion of richmond because properties will most likely be taken which would then mobilize the anti rail forces farther down richmond.

[H-Town Man]

Culberson even got to talk about how border patrol agents who are currently on trial for shooting at an unarmed border-crosser running away from them should---instead of being prosecuted---be required to take target-practice so they will be sure not to miss next time.

Evil.

[musicman]

Culberson even got to talk about how border patrol agents who are currently on trial for shooting at an unarmed border-crosser running away from them should---instead of being prosecuted---be required to take target-practice so they will be sure not to miss next time.

the agents are in jail. evidently homeland security prosecuted these agents and they were sentenced to prison as a result of a call from the mexican consulate to the us govt. and they were prosecuted blindly. when the story came out, it caught the eye of several reps. the person they shot is a drugrunner. when the us reps asked the homeland security for the story, turns out homeland agents lied to reps so they would stop asking questions.

now the drugrunner is suing the us govt for 5 million. the us really is a country of opportunity!

[Furious Jam]

i never said all rail is good. i agree that a plan needs to be developed that serves the most yet affects traffic the least. i personally hate to see neighborhoods divided by this because access will be restricted and worse traffic will result for those living on streets than remain open.

you said "But turning through an intersection would produce more traffic headaches than it would be worth, regardless of whose neighborhood gets hit". whatever route is chosen, the train will be turning at least twice to get from richmond to westpark, metro has already made that decision. there is no way you can get from richmond to westpark without turning. so at least two intersections will be affected with a turn plus all the other ones will be affected by more traffic. there is no proposed plan by metro than doesn't involve turns.

Come on! Are you being this simplistic just for the sake of fostering argument?

There is obviously a colossal difference between a train turning from Richmond onto Montrose versus a train turning from Richmond onto Cummins. Montrose is a major artery that is already heavy with traffic. Cummins is a small back street in a strictly commercial area with little traffic at all. I eat lunch at the shops behind Edwards about twice a week and I use Cummins to get back to the feeder every time, so I can tell you that even during the lunch rush, there is zero traffic on Cummins - it's more of a driveway for the Greenway Plaza area than anything else. That's exactly why Cummins is Metro's favorite option - the lack of impact from making a turn there. Again, you keep comparing apples and oranges if you see no difference between a turn onto Montrose and a turn on to Cummins. Are you so dense that you can't accept that not all streets are exactly the same? I don't mean to flame, but really.

It sounds like to me that you want rail, regardless of its impact on any particular neighborhood and regardless of its overall utility. But, as with anything, you have to weigh the pros and cons. Even though the Cummins option will affect traffic in a number of neighborhoods, it won't gridlock any of them as the 59 option would - that's a huge pro for Cummins and a large con for 59. And of course, the Cummins option will have much higher ridership than 59 and plus be cheaper to build - that's another huge pro for Cummins and a large con for 59. At some point, a route has so many cons and so few pros that it becomes a bad idea and so is worthy of opposition - that's 59 in a nutshell. I am not going to support rail just to have rail somewhere, regardless of the pros and cons. If you can't come up with something that makes sense, then you just shouldn't do it.

[musicman]

Come on! Are you being this simplistic just for the sake of fostering argument?

There is obviously a colossal difference between a train turning from Richmond onto Montrose versus a train turning from Richmond onto Cummins. Montrose is a major artery that is already heavy with traffic. Cummins is a small back street in a strictly commercial area with little traffic at all. I eat lunch at the shops behind Edwards about twice a week and I use Cummins to get back to the feeder every time, so I can tell you that even during the lunch rush, there is zero traffic on Cummins - it's more of a driveway for the Greenway Plaza area than anything else. That's exactly why Cummins is Metro's favorite option - the lack of impact from making a turn there. Again, you keep comparing apples and oranges if you see no difference between a turn onto Montrose and a turn on to Cummins. Are you so dense that you can't accept that not all streets are exactly the same? I don't mean to flame, but really.

It sounds like to me that you want rail, regardless of its impact on any particular neighborhood and regardless of its overall utility. But, as with anything, you have to weigh the pros and cons. Even though the Cummins option will affect traffic in a number of neighborhoods, it won't gridlock any of them as the 59 option would - that's a huge pro for Cummins and a large con for 59. And of course, the Cummins option will have much higher ridership than 59 and plus be cheaper to build - that's another huge pro for Cummins and a large con for 59. At some point, a route has so many cons and so few pros that it becomes a bad idea and so is worthy of opposition - that's 59 in a nutshell. I am not going to support rail just to have rail somewhere, regardless of the pros and cons. If you can't come up with something that makes sense, then you just shouldn't do it.

no i was attempting to make it obvious that your comment was simplistic. and it appears to have worked.

yes there is a colassal difference between the rail turning on montrose vs. cummins. but you can't compare the two either. turning at cummins now introduces many other major intersections along richmond (kirby, shepherd, etc) that are busier than montrose and affect more traffic, but it is your preference because now it won't affect you as much.. the design of ONE intersection shouldn't be THE make or break issue for you.

since you're a new poster and probably haven't read the entire thread (neither have i) you would realize that your statements about me are not true. i am totally against METRO's design because it is at grade (in a roadway) and as a result affects too much vehicular traffic. Traffic is bad in the area already and this will only make travel times increase for commuters and for local residents. closing cross streets will also result in worse traffic. Their design doesn't optimize ridership and travel times IMO. it is only a bus replacement not something that will make a real difference. i am for spending more if a better system will result (for example elevated portions on key intersections would help)

ironically your statement "I am not going to support rail just to have rail somewhere, regardless of the pros and cons. If you can't come up with something that makes sense, then you just shouldn't do it" is describing what METRO is doing.

when you speak of "neighborhood gridlock" on 59, what are you talking about exactly?

[Quinlan]

the agents are in jail. evidently homeland security prosecuted these agents and they were sentenced to prison as a result of a call from the mexican consulate to the us govt. and they were prosecuted blindly. when the story came out, it caught the eye of several reps. the person they shot is a drugrunner. when the us reps asked the homeland security for the story, turns out homeland agents lied to reps so they would stop asking questions.

now the drugrunner is suing the us govt for 5 million. the us really is a country of opportunity!

The agents should be in jail. I don't care if they shot at a drugrunner or not. You do not shoot at someone running away from you that is unarmed. And the person shot at should be able to sue, regardless of his citizenship: he was unarmed, running away from the officers, and they shot at him. Those facts do not seem to be disputed.

[Highway6]

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/

In case y'all were intersted.. Kuffner blogged about this Haif thread and quoted Quinlan and Furious Jam

[RedScare]

the agents are in jail. evidently homeland security prosecuted these agents and they were sentenced to prison as a result of a call from the mexican consulate to the us govt. and they were prosecuted blindly. when the story came out, it caught the eye of several reps. the person they shot is a drugrunner. when the us reps asked the homeland security for the story, turns out homeland agents lied to reps so they would stop asking questions.

now the drugrunner is suing the us govt for 5 million. the us really is a country of opportunity!

For the sake of those reading this post and thinking you may be correct, I'll point out a few things. Homeland Security does NOT prosecute anyone. The United States Attorney prosecutes both drugrunners and US agents who abuse their authority.

It is exceedingly rare for the Mexican Consulate to convince the US Attorney to do anything. If no crime was committed, no amount of foreign protests will convince the US Attorney to prosecute US agents. The agents were prosecuted because the US Attorney believed shooting unarmed people who pose no threat is illegal.

I have no idea what "prosecuted blindly" means, but I do know this: Criminal trials are public, not secret. In the area where the shooting occurred, there was likely plenty of media exposure. As for the rest of your opinions, they do not sound well researched, so I will not comment on them.

I am always concerned when people applaud the use of illegal deadly force by government agents. We could be their next target. I am especially concerned if our elected officials are applauding it.

Back to Richmond. Good to see Culberson outed so convincingly. When he makes ridiculous comments like he did the other night, his supporters quietly desert him. No one wants to defend an outright liar. Culberson may still veto Richmond, but at least now when he does so, everyone will know he did not do it for the sake of the voters, only to satisfy a secret agenda.

[musicman]

well...i won't comment anymore to keep on subj. i will say i'm definitely not the authority. the entire episode is only getting more interesting and more will come out.

[Furious Jam]

no i was attempting to make it obvious that your comment was simplistic. and it appears to have worked.

yes there is a colassal difference between the rail turning on montrose vs. cummins. but you can't compare the two either. turning at cummins now introduces many other major intersections along richmond (kirby, shepherd, etc) that are busier than montrose and affect more traffic, but it is your preference because now it won't affect you as much.. the design of ONE intersection shouldn't be THE make or break issue for you.

since you're a new poster and probably haven't read the entire thread (neither have i) you would realize that your statements about me are not true. i am totally against METRO's design because it is at grade (in a roadway) and as a result affects too much vehicular traffic. Traffic is bad in the area already and this will only make travel times increase for commuters and for local residents. closing cross streets will also result in worse traffic. Their design doesn't optimize ridership and travel times IMO. it is only a bus replacement not something that will make a real difference. i am for spending more if a better system will result (for example elevated portions on key intersections would help)

ironically your statement "I am not going to support rail just to have rail somewhere, regardless of the pros and cons. If you can't come up with something that makes sense, then you just shouldn't do it" is describing what METRO is doing.

when you speak of "neighborhood gridlock" on 59, what are you talking about exactly?

Your all-or-nothing approach is the reason your arguments are oversimplified and thus faulty. You think the rail should never cross any intersection at grade, but if it has to, then it doesn't matter which intersection or intersections it crosses, nor does it matter how it crosses them. To you, the train turning onto a 3 block back street is no different than, say, proposing a rail yard at an intersection next to the Galleria - same difference. Oh but wait, those are two completely different things! Like it or not, there is a difference between the intersection of an artery and a side street and the intersection of two arteries. So yes, the choice of intersections where a turn is made does make a huge difference in the overall utility of a rail line.

Not only are you wrong about my argument, you're wrong about your own. The Main Street line runs at grade and it has zero effect on traffic in downtown and midtown. I travel through midtown several times a week and through downtown at least once a week, and I've never witnessed traffic being backed up due to the rail. I would assume that the rest of the line is similar, though I don't often travel to the Medical Center or Reliant Stadium. Do people hit the train? Sure they do. They also hit each other, hit trees, and drive the wrong way on the freeway sometimes, so don't tell me that an at grade rail is necessarily dangerous or otherwise traffic inducing.

You want to know what causes traffic jams in this city? The constant #$%*ing road construction to make way for an ever growing number of cars. The only way to reverse that trend is to make this a mass transit friendly city, and rail on Richmond would be a huge step in that direction. Putting a train down in a freeway? Much, much less so.

[nmainguy]

Back to Richmond. Good to see Culberson outed so convincingly. When he makes ridiculous comments like he did the other night, his supporters quietly desert him. No one wants to defend an outright liar. Culberson may still veto Richmond, but at least now when he does so, everyone will know he did not do it for the sake of the voters, only to satisfy a secret agenda.

I'm not so sure his agenda is that secret. He of all people knows his route is a deal killer as far as federal funds go. That's why he and now the AOer's who say they will continue to fight ANY rail on Richmond west of Montrose are so insistant.

It would be great if METRO and the Mayor would grow a spine and build it straight through ON Richmond with our own money and throw Culberson and his thugs under the bus.

BTW: was the referendum binding or non?

[musicman]

Your all-or-nothing approach is the reason your arguments are oversimplified and thus faulty. You think the rail should never cross any intersection at grade, but if it has to, then it doesn't matter which intersection or intersections it crosses, nor does it matter how it crosses them. To you, the train turning onto a 3 block back street is no different than, say, proposing a rail yard at an intersection next to the Galleria - same difference. Oh but wait, those are two completely different things! Like it or not, there is a difference between the intersection of an artery and a side street and the intersection of two arteries. So yes, the choice of intersections where a turn is made does make a huge difference in the overall utility of a rail line.

i didn't say "the rail should never cross any intersection at grade." i did say that because it does it will affect vehicular traffic to the point of increasing travel times for vehicular traffic in the area which is the result of a bad design. Remember that the goal should be the optimize the number of stations to attract the most riders with the fastest travel times with negligible interference to vehicular traffic. i will say that overall a comparison between turning at montrose vs cummins is not easy. if you limit the boundaries to that intersection then yes i can see your point however you can't limit yourself to one intersection because the turn affects the remainder of the line which introduces more issues. i will say yes there are lots of issues but not having it turn at a certain intersection "because it affects you" isn't a defense.

Not only are you wrong about my argument, you're wrong about your own. The Main Street line runs at grade and it has zero effect on traffic in downtown and midtown. I travel through midtown several times a week and through downtown at least once a week, and I've never witnessed traffic being backed up due to the rail. I would assume that the rest of the line is similar, though I don't often travel to the Medical Center or Reliant Stadium. Do people hit the train? Sure they do. They also hit each other, hit trees, and drive the wrong way on the freeway sometimes, so don't tell me that an at grade rail is necessarily dangerous or otherwise traffic inducing.

so limiting access to main from hadley, mcilhenny, bremond, dennis, drew, tuam, anita, rosalie, stuart, francis, berry, windburn, turxillo, isabella, cleburn, eagle then as it transitions to fannin/sanjac you have wentworth, arbor, wichita, palm, oakdale, prospect and calumet has NO effect on traffic? Tell that to frankel's costume shop, new orleans po boys, the wheelchair place on sanjac. i think you'd hear some laughing. limiting access does affect traffic. close one end of your block down, it does affect traffic. As a result of the train many "no right turns on red" signs were installed. so that doesn't affect traffic either? After the downtown light synchronization was completed, i enjoy looking down downtown streets and seeing green except for the fairly frequent red light at main. doesn't affect traffic? how about closing main at the main street square? that doesn't affect it either?

as to whether people hit the train i made no mention.

You want to know what causes traffic jams in this city? The constant #$%*ing road construction to make way for an ever growing number of cars.

Now we know why you're furious

[bkjones98]

Your statement, "if you like rail, then you should be willing to accept the resulting consequences" is laughably simplistic. Sorry, but there's big difference between a straight line that impacts traffic evenly along it and reaches the most people and points-of-interest, and a line that gridlocks a single neighborhood and actually avoids people and points-of-interest at a higher cost. Sorry, but I can't subscribe to your "all rail is good" theory. A bad rail plan is a bad rail plan, whether it harms my neighborhood or any other.

I agree. Turning to Montrose from Richmond is beyond legitimate discussion. They would have to buy the WaMu lot at the intersection just to build the right-of-way.

Any tracks not leading to Greenway Plaza are simply a waste.

[TheNiche]

The Main Street line runs at grade and it has zero effect on traffic in downtown and midtown. I travel through midtown several times a week and through downtown at least once a week, and I've never witnessed traffic being backed up due to the rail. I would assume that the rest of the line is similar, though I don't often travel to the Medical Center or Reliant Stadium.

Completely and utterly false. It disrupts traffic in the following ways, which I have personally observed on multiple occasions:

• Conflicts with signal timing in downtown, where Main Street is often the only north-south street with a red light while all others are green. By my estimation, I am inconvenienced about every fourth time that I cross Main Street in downtown.
  
• Conflicts with signal timing in Midtown, where LRT vehicles crossing many intersections trigger four-way red lights and prevent continuous movement, as had been intended.
  
• Divides neighborhoods in half and eliminates the efficiencies of a grid. This applies not only to vehicular movement, but also to pedestrian movement, since crossing the tracks on foot is illegal.
  
• Traffic is displaced to Fannin and San Jacinto, which parallel Main Street. Unfortunately, Richmond and most other routes do not have any comparable parallel streets that can diminish the adverse effects on mobility along the LRT route.
  
• Because neighborhoods are divided with a limited number of crossing points, higher volumes of traffic are funnelled into fewer locations, creating congestion.
  
• Congestion caused at choke points often results in vehicles stuck in intersections, blocking and delaying the LRT vehicle.
  
• During peak hours, when LRT service is the most frequent and automotive traffic is the heaviest, grade-level turns can cause congestion similar to that of an additional stop light. Evidence this just north of Fannin & Braeswood.
  
• At the LRT crossing at Fannin and the South Loop, making a right hand turn from southbound Fannin to westbound 610 is exceptionally difficult at peak hours because even when the signal is green, the right-hand turn is often blocked as a result of LRT vehicles. I experienced that little problem at 4PM on Friday. I'd hate to see it at 5PM. Fannin is now desperately in need of a westbound flyover or two IMO.
  
• And of course, it takes up road lanes. That is a big opportunity cost that could be avoided if properly engineered.
  

In addition, it blows its horn at various intersections, which causes noise pollution. I live over a half-mile away and can hear it frequently. If there were grade-seperation, noise pollution could be reduced, safety issues could be almost completely resolved, and the LRT vehicle could travel at a higher average velocity because the automobile congestion along the route (that it contributes to) would not interfere with its movement.

Some of the problems that I've described above are only evident at peak hours (and others are partially-obscured by the relief valves that are Fannin and San Jacinto). so I can see how you might not observe these patterns. However, transportation systems are designed to cope with peak use, and mass transit can be enormously effective during those hours...but the way that the Red Line was implemented was self-defeating. If they do the exact same thing with no grade seperations at major intersections along Richmond, it could be a nightmare.

Btw, to be clear on my own position, I could live with either route, but they need more than just a bare-bones approach, as METRO seems so fond of. For instance, if they go with Richmond, they need to *at least* provide grade-seperations at major intersections. If they go with Culberson's route, which I'm sure that they won't even if it does have some valid advantages, they would absolutely need to provide enclosed air-conditioned elevated people-moving crosswalks that rapidly dump people directly into Greenway Plaza. ...but if they just replicate the Red Line on Richmond, I'm pretty certain that they'll do more harm than good. It wouldn't just be a matter of insufficient bang for the buck to justify the public investment--it'd be throwing money away to *harm* the city.

[TheNiche]

BTW: was the referendum binding or non?

Non. That is how METRO was able to change other LRT routes to BRT/GRT.

[Houston19514]

We didn't get federal funding for the Red Line, and funding it ourselves was pure idiocy.

To keep things accurate, it should be noted that the money spent on the Red Line is being credited as matching funds for the construction of the new lines. Therefore, in the end, Metro has achieved the same result as if the Red Line had received federal funding.

[dbigtex56]

I think John Culberson represents everything that's wrong with politics. I'm not saying that he's corrupt, but he is a shameless liar who only has his own best interests at heart.

Let's add "media whore" to that description. He sends his constituents (of which, unwillingly, I am one) emails alerting us to his talk show appearances. He seems to have acquired a taste for the camera; I cannot say the camera feels the same.

How I wish I'd held onto one of the Washington updates he sent to his constituents about three years ago. He explained how the war in Iraq would cost taxpayers nothing, as we'd soon be handsomely repaid with Iraq oil revenues. Like most of Rep. Culberson's statements, the credibility is highly questionable.

I'm always tempted to stop into businesses who proudly (still!) post his campaign signs on Richmond and ask "Are you dishonest or just stupid? Either way, I won't be patronizing your establishment." Any chance of starting an informal boycott of these places?

[wakester]

Of the other lines, only the Uptown line is in Culberson's district. If he tried to stop funding on the other lines I think he would risk provoking the other Houston Reps. Right now they are staying out of the fight because it is in his district but if he bothers their district in may be all out war. And the difference between now and when the red line went in is that now the Democrats are in power.

[RedScare]

I'm always tempted to stop into businesses who proudly (still!) post his campaign signs on Richmond and ask "Are you dishonest or just stupid? Either way, I won't be patronizing your establishment." Any chance of starting an informal boycott of these places?

There already is an informal boycott of pro-Culberson businesses. I have never set foot in a business with a Culberson or anti-rail sign. Further, I won't even give them the courtesy of letting them know it cost them business. Life is harsh sometimes.

[infinite_jim]

i've personally boycotted:

Chapultepec's (late night eatery) &

the Sky Lounge (former club night venue)

after speaking/working with the owners, since both do not display political signs

[nmainguy]

There already is an informal boycott of pro-Culberson businesses. I have never set foot in a business with a Culberson or anti-rail sign. Further, I won't even give them the courtesy of letting them know it cost them business. Life is harsh sometimes.

Do you know if the referendum was binding or not?

[musicman]

Completely and utterly false. It disrupts traffic in the following ways, which I have personally observed on multiple occasions:

• Conflicts with signal timing in downtown, where Main Street is often the only north-south street with a red light while all others are green. By my estimation, I am inconvenienced about every fourth time that I cross Main Street in downtown.
  
• Conflicts with signal timing in Midtown, where LRT vehicles crossing many intersections trigger four-way red lights and prevent continuous movement, as had been intended.
  
• Divides neighborhoods in half and eliminates the efficiencies of a grid. This applies not only to vehicular movement, but also to pedestrian movement, since crossing the tracks on foot is illegal.
  
• Traffic is displaced to Fannin and San Jacinto, which parallel Main Street. Unfortunately, Richmond and most other routes do not have any comparable parallel streets that can diminish the adverse effects on mobility along the LRT route.
  
• Because neighborhoods are divided with a limited number of crossing points, higher volumes of traffic are funnelled into fewer locations, creating congestion.
  
• Congestion caused at choke points often results in vehicles stuck in intersections, blocking and delaying the LRT vehicle.
  
• During peak hours, when LRT service is the most frequent and automotive traffic is the heaviest, grade-level turns can cause congestion similar to that of an additional stop light. Evidence this just north of Fannin & Braeswood.
  
• At the LRT crossing at Fannin and the South Loop, making a right hand turn from southbound Fannin to westbound 610 is exceptionally difficult at peak hours because even when the signal is green, the right-hand turn is often blocked as a result of LRT vehicles. I experienced that little problem at 4PM on Friday. I'd hate to see it at 5PM. Fannin is now desperately in need of a westbound flyover or two IMO.
  
• And of course, it takes up road lanes. That is a big opportunity cost that could be avoided if properly engineered.
  

great rebuttal to "it has zero effect on traffic"