METRORail University Line

[ricco67]

Ciro Rodriguez's website.

This could be a very good thing for rail on Richmond, although I would think that Culberson's desires have already influenced any subcommitee members who are still members, and I wouldn't doubt that he's going to continue to try to influence the vote. I'm going to send Congressman Rodriguez my thoughts.

Hmm....I think it's time for a nice little letter writing campaign, don't y'all think?

[musicman]

Ciro Rodriguez's website.

This could be a very good thing for rail on Richmond, although I would think that Culberson's desires have already influenced any subcommitee members who are still members, and I wouldn't doubt that he's going to continue to try to influence the vote. I'm going to send Congressman Rodriguez my thoughts.

since he's in San Antonio, I think he'd fight for them.

[nmainguy]

I believe this but where's the source?

http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_tranurb.shtml

Hmm....I think it's time for a nice little letter writing campaign, don't y'all think?

I've already fired off two emails to Ciro to request his suport for the line in a addition to funding the most effficient route for the west end of the U-Line: Wheeler to Hillcroft on Richmond straight through Afton Oaks. He is not unreceptive to say the least. Apparently there could be a trade off with Culberson for votes on unrelated issues. Nothing says spineless like a Culberson flip-flop. It's politics people-not a tea party.

[IHB2]

I don't know which is more surprising, that Richmondrail.org is just now learning this fact - if in fact Richmondrail president Doug Childers, aka David Wolff's "stakeholder" mouthpiece, didn't already know - that was the talk of the hardcore U Line combatants (on both sides) at the U Line DEIS meetings in the spring, or that at least one among the omniscient HAIF regulars didn't already know it.

what is not surprising is that Culberson would continue to play that card for those not paying complete attention to every factor affecting the final decision.

when David Wolff condescendingly dismissed Culberson as a player this spring (when he was kowtowing to him as recently as last fall) now you know why he could. but he's still powerful as a U.S. Rep and retains the power of the quid pro quo b/c it's his district.

[Highway6]

I don't know which is more surprising.....or that at least one among the omniscient HAIF regulars didn't already know it.

You are an omniscient HAIF regular, regular enough anyways... at least as far as this Richmond Rail thread goes.

This hasn't been mentioned on this thread up until now. Why haven't you bothered to post this news then sometime over the last 6 months ?

[IHB2]

You are an omniscient HAIF regular, regular enough anyways... at least as far as this Richmond Rail thread goes.

This hasn't been mentioned on this thread up until now. Why haven't you bothered to post this news then sometime over the last 6 months ?

good point. along w/my opinions I have tried to offer factual info germane to the discussion when it was something I learned that others less directly involved in the process might not. I should have posted the info.

Culberson's committee assignments are certainly germane, but I don't think the change did anything to alter METRO thinking except to allow Wolff to be publicly dismissive of Culberson's demands.

Culberson is less of a story now than the Brass Maiden's lawsuit and METRO's August meeting where they say they will choose the 1 preferred route. If they choose the Cummins option it will demonstrate METRO's belief that Culberson can no longer affect the U Line in any politically meaningful way (although he already has had a profound affect on the alignment choices or the 3 finalist routes would be far different than what they are).

"Hello, I'm IHB2 and I'm an omniscient HAIF regular." "Hello IHB2."

[ricco67]

Culberson's committee assignments are certainly germane, but I don't think the change did anything to alter METRO thinking except to allow Wolff to be publicly dismissive of Culberson's demands.

Culberson is less of a story now than the Brass Maiden's lawsuit and METRO's August meeting where they say they will choose the 1 preferred route. If they choose the Cummins option it will demonstrate METRO's belief that Culberson can no longer affect the U Line in any politically meaningful way (although he already has had a profound affect on the alignment choices or the 3 finalist routes would be far different than what they are).

You know, I wasn't aware (or haven't had the time to think) of Culberson's role in the whole thing since the election, aside from the fact that he will be of a diminished capacity in his overall influence on the project. As exciting (heh) as the politics seem to be on a national, the local, or in our case, regional politics revolving this one issue should make for some interesting TV watching.

"Hello, I'm IHB2 and I'm an omniscient HAIF regular." "Hello IHB2."

IHB2, why didn't you answer me earlier? I got a beer for you. When you didn't show up, I drank it for you.

[shasta]

Can someone give me an update on the University Line? What's the latest? Where EXACTLY to they project is it going and when will construction finally begin?

[Trae]

They haven't decided west of Greenway Plaza.

[Ethanra]

Can someone give me an update on the University Line? What's the latest? Where EXACTLY to they project is it going and when will construction finally begin?

University Corridor Timeline

[Trae]

Is this what Metro will call the lines, or are they going to go with colors?

[musicman]

They haven't decided west of Greenway Plaza.

Trae you should go read the METRO website so you can clarify your answer.

[Houston19514]

Trae you should go read the METRO website so you can clarify your answer.

Excellent point, Musicman. It's quite comical that someone who thinks he has all the answers for Houston mass transit is so completely ignorant about the current system and plans.

[zaphod]

Has there ever been any predicted ridership statistics for this thing yet?

I dont know how much capacity train-wise the current red line has, but it might be interesting if they broke up the system into various lettered or numbered routes interlined from the different terminals to eliminate transfers.

Anyways, inevitably richmond will need to be torn up just like any other road right? Right now im home painting with my parents, might as well reorganize the furniture if you've got to move it all out in the garage, right?

Still, I wonder how much the construction can be mitigated? I mean lots of cities around the world have had to tear up streets for extended periods, surely at least one before Houston has had this kind of predicament and has successfully gotten around it?

[ricco67]

Has there ever been any predicted ridership statistics for this thing yet?

I dont know how much capacity train-wise the current red line has, but it might be interesting if they broke up the system into various lettered or numbered routes interlined from the different terminals to eliminate transfers.

Anyways, inevitably richmond will need to be torn up just like any other road right? Right now im home painting with my parents, might as well reorganize the furniture if you've got to move it all out in the garage, right?

Still, I wonder how much the construction can be mitigated? I mean lots of cities around the world have had to tear up streets for extended periods, surely at least one before Houston has had this kind of predicament and has successfully gotten around it?

I agree!

As I've stated on this topic sometime last year; Richmond is due for a serious repair job from Montrose out to 610. The Current shape of it is almost disgraceful and I'm sure it has beaten quite a few suspensions into submission. Such a project would take an extended amount of time. Since A-Oaks and other residences are complaining about the length of the construction that the U-Line would take. They fail to take into account on how long just a regular construction job will take.

either way, Richmond will be torn up.

[Deut28Thirteen]

I hope they put a line down Richmond. Like you said above it needs improvment why not put a rail line down one of Houston major streets. Why are people living in and around Richmond fighting it I thought the rail line will raise the price of their homes.

[musicman]

I hope they put a line down Richmond. Like you said above it needs improvment why not put a rail line down one of Houston major streets. Why are people living in and around Richmond fighting it I thought the rail line will raise the price of their homes.

the train and afton oaks aren't compatible and METRO has already confirmed that.

[Trae]

Excellent point, Musicman. It's quite comical that someone who thinks he has all the answers for Houston mass transit is so completely ignorant about the current system and plans.

I think I have all the answers? Okie...sit down.

[AftonAg]

I hope they put a line down Richmond. Like you said above it needs improvment why not put a rail line down one of Houston major streets. Why are people living in and around Richmond fighting it I thought the rail line will raise the price of their homes.

You must be new to Houston, or to this post - The people in Afton Oaks are fighting it for several reasons. None of them according to the popular posters on this forum are worthwhile reasons, but then I am the only poster on this forum that actually lives in Afton Oaks right now. In a nut shell:

1.) The referendum that approved rail called for a line in the Westpark Corridor - to the people that live and own businesses on Richmond that meant Westpark, not Richmond. METRO apparently is of the opinion that the Wespark Corridor is anywhere between Interstate 10 and South Loop 610.

2.) During the prolonged construction period those that live in Afton Oaks will be virtual prisoners to traffic. Richmond will be virtually impassable, traffic from Richmond will shift to Westheimer.

3.) Newcastle will experience an even higher incidence of "cut-through" traffic typically driving too fast and jeopardizing any and all foot traffic in the neighborhood.

4.) The constant noise associated with the rail line, a train every what 15 minutes?

5.) Closure of businesses up and down Richmond - just like those on main street - if you can't get to a business it can't turn a profit, no profit - no business.

6.) The Afton Oaks neighborhood would generate little if any ridership - we don't need it.

7.) there is absolutely no proof that a rail on Richmond would raise the property values. Rail in other cities in other states may have had raised property values, but the rail on Main, which was also supposed to raise property values can offer zero proof that it raised property values. If property values on Main went up they may have gone up in spite of the rail - of course there aren't really any residential neighborhoods on MAIN that the rail cuts through are there?

[TheNiche]

Anyways, inevitably richmond will need to be torn up just like any other road right?

Does anyone know whether Richmond would need to be completely reconstructed (even without rail along it) or whether it could just be resurfaced? Most of the OST resurfacing project was minimally disruptive, even though some issues with the contractor made it last longer than it should have in places, and OST was about as torn up as Richmond is before the job was done.

[AftonAg]

Does anyone know whether Richmond would need to be completely reconstructed (even without rail along it) or whether it could just be resurfaced? Most of the OST resurfacing project was minimally disruptive, even though some issues with the contractor made it last longer than it should have in places, and OST was about as torn up as Richmond is before the job was done.

Leave it to Niche to ask the $64 dollar question. The answer to your question will definitely cut to the very heart of this topic - I wish I had the answer, but alas, road construction isn't my area of expertise. I guess the CoH would ultimately have to make this decision and I wouldn't want to hazard a guess on their criteria for re-surface versus replace . . . .

[ricco67]

Leave it to Niche to ask the $64 dollar question. The answer to your question will definitely cut to the very heart of this topic - I wish I had the answer, but alas, road construction isn't my area of expertise. I guess the CoH would ultimately have to make this decision and I wouldn't want to hazard a guess on their criteria for re-surface versus replace . . . .

There hasn't been any major construction on Richmond for at least 20 years. Last construction I remember was the Widening of Richmond just past Wesleyan in the mid 80's and some minor widening just past 610 to Hillcroft. Beyond that, Richmond is almost an embarrassment to the history of road construction. It's on the verge of being disowned by other roads.

From what I have seen, some of the potholes are pretty deep. The Asphalt patches we see are simply covering up the potholes that had penetrated the actual concrete. It is particularly bad in the A-oaks area, Between Hillcroft and BW8, and before shepherd. Doing a dig and patch (with concrete) won't do it, the OLDER concrete around it will then fall apart over time (2-4 years). The only way o make this a workable road is to tear the whole thing up pour a nice even layer over rebar.

Richmond sees too much traffic for a simple asphalt roadway. In fact, OST should have been done that way instead of the half-assed job that was done.

[TheNiche]

Richmond sees too much traffic for a simple asphalt roadway. In fact, OST should have been done that way instead of the half-assed job that was done.

Whole freeways have received asphalt overlays (parts of I-45 and 225 come to mind), so I'm not sure that traffic volume by itself is a reason that it wouldn't work. I'm also quite satisfied with OST for the time being, but I can understand your reasoning regarding the potholes. ...I honestly don't know what the truth of the matter is.

[RedScare]

The argument for concrete over asphalt is durability. Concrete will last much longer before breaking down than asphalt. However, concrete is much more expensive, leading to the age old debate of spending more now or later.

The City seems to have taken the approach of replacing many heavily travelled roads with concrete. An example would be Studewood, or closer to Richmond, Kirby. Stormwater pipes were replaced under both streets. I don't know if the stormwater aspect dictated the decision or the fact that these heavily travelled streets will not need to be disturbed for repairs for a longer period. I would suspect that Richmond would be a prime candidate for concrete.

[AftonAg]

The argument for concrete over asphalt is durability. Concrete will last much longer before breaking down than asphalt. However, concrete is much more expensive, leading to the age old debate of spending more now or later.

The City seems to have taken the approach of replacing many heavily travelled roads with concrete. An example would be Studewood, or closer to Richmond, Kirby. Stormwater pipes were replaced under both streets. I don't know if the stormwater aspect dictated the decision or the fact that these heavily travelled streets will not need to be disturbed for repairs for a longer period. I would suspect that Richmond would be a prime candidate for concrete.

Isn't it interesting though that the only part of Richmond that has seen any significant upgrade is that area just outside 610? That portion was done when the whole Galleria area got its face lift, and all of the silver arches, new street lights etc. I doubt it was just politics and money, who was the Mayor when that was done anyway? It wasn't our current mayor Guillermo Blanco . . . I am thinking that was under the Lanier Regime - and he just happens to be good friends with one Gerald Hines - owner and developer of the Galleria. Sorry for straying off topic - I am sure I will be chastised accordingly - it is an intriguing aside though . . . . .

[ricco67]

Isn't it interesting though that the only part of Richmond that has seen any significant upgrade is that area just outside 610? That portion was done when the whole Galleria area got its face lift, and all of the silver arches, new street lights etc. I doubt it was just politics and money, who was the Mayor when that was done anyway? It wasn't our current mayor Guillermo Blanco . . . I am thinking that was under the Lanier Regime - and he just happens to be good friends with one Gerald Hines - owner and developer of the Galleria. Sorry for straying off topic - I am sure I will be chastised accordingly - it is an intriguing aside though . . . . .

If memory serves correct, I think the whole project was kicked off right around the transition time between the Brown and Lanier Administrations, so I'm not entirely sure which one initiated it. You have to remember it takes time just to just get studies done. But as far as I can remember, it happened about 18-22 years ago when the makeover occurred. Can someone back me up on time? I'm not certain. But I DO remember that A-oaks, Galleria, and all the other businesses along 610 from Richmond to I-10 were up in arms at the proposed improvements to both the Highway and the local roads because they claimed it would hurt their business and put off improvements on 610 for several years that resulted in the massive redesign that we currently have now. While I'm not about to look up the archived newspapers of that era, I do remember quite a bit of that, I just don't recall the exact year.

We were already somewhat off topic, and you didn't stray TOO far afield aside from just tossing out derogatory names. But I'll let it pass.

I always thought that Asphalt paving the freeways was just a lazy way of doing it. The ONLY benefit that I could see from it is the smoother and quieter ride. On a stormy night they were an absolute hazard, if this is done to Richmond it'll be a complete waste of money.

[TheNiche]

The argument for concrete over asphalt is durability. Concrete will last much longer before breaking down than asphalt. However, concrete is much more expensive, leading to the age old debate of spending more now or later.

The City seems to have taken the approach of replacing many heavily travelled roads with concrete. An example would be Studewood, or closer to Richmond, Kirby. Stormwater pipes were replaced under both streets. I don't know if the stormwater aspect dictated the decision or the fact that these heavily travelled streets will not need to be disturbed for repairs for a longer period. I would suspect that Richmond would be a prime candidate for concrete.

Come to think of it, you're right that stormwater drainage was critical in both the Kirby and Studewood street reconstruction projects. Same thing with a recent project along Almeda. But since Richmond runs parallel to the bayous, I don't follow your reasoning that it would be a prime candidate for concrete.

From what I can see in the GIMS system, there are only a couple stretches along Richmond where there is a continuous stormwater line; these are between Kirby and Edloe, and then from Timmons to Post Oak Blvd. But I can't tell how large the pipe is. There are no announced proposals to upgrade stormwater lines along any part of Richmond inside the loop, and the layout of stormwater lines under OST looks very similar to Richmond. So unless Ricco's pothole argument pans out, I'd put my money on asphalt resurfacing as the most likely outcome.

[CDeb]

So unless Ricco's pothole argument pans out, I'd put my money on asphalt resurfacing as the most likely outcome.

It would totally depend on the condition of the underlying concrete. If said concrete is not stable, then the new asphalt surface will feel remarkably like the old concrete one in a relatively short time.

[Jeebus]

Typical NIMBY post

Hey, its coming whether you like it or not. Even if the ballot said Richmond instead of Westpark, do you really think the vote would have went the other way?

You might as well sell, smile, or shut-up.

[TheNiche]

Hey, its coming whether you like it or not. Even if the ballot said Richmond instead of Westpark, do you really think the vote would have went the other way?

Actually, it probably would have. The referendum only passed by a pretty thin margin. METRO was very deliberate in dubbing the route "Westpark" because they wanted to keep the possibility of staunch NIMBYism among wealthy constituents (the only ones that ultimately matter) in that corridor in check, and Westpark was the most forgiving alignment where negative externalities are concerned. Notice that the other routes were "Southeast", "East", "North", and "Uptown". Names, of course, signify nothing, but very few voters read the full ballot language to understand that, and METRO knows this.

You might as well sell, smile, or shut-up.

This much is true. The opportunity to campaign is over. Disingenuous though METRO has been, they have what they need to do pretty much whatever they want.