METRORail University Line

[Highway6]

Does that mean we are done? Hardly we still have a war chest full of money to spend - and we intend to spend it to keep rail off of Richmond.

The reason I originally responded was I questioned who your interpretation of "WE" was? The make-up of your group.

Your claim was that your group was still concerned about Richmond as a whole, eventhough you had won the "going through AOaks battle"

My reply about the much less vocal presence Metro meeting was meant to imply that, No, Most of you do no longer care.. The core of your group is in fact primarily AOakers only concerned about the welfare of the stretch of Richmond through AOaks.

So, please answer to that.

Who is the WE in your above statement.. yes, the people that run the Mobility Coalition and a few others along Richmond, some biz owners, not in AOaks might still care and still not want rail on their street. But i dont think that you really do, becasue it no longer directly effects you. Your battle is won.

And as for pretending your group is in the majority along Richmond.. Im sorry man.. you're wrong. The majority of your group, a small minority of people on Richmond, got their way and no longer care. Your Mobility Coalition group has 76 signatures on their petition... RichmondRail has letters of support from 100 different organizations including pretty much every neighborhood civic group in the area.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Highway6

[musicman]

I can't speak for the conversations METRO may or may not have had with UP regarding the Northwest commuter rail line.

that's the line UP was talking about in their article from earlier this yr

[AftonAg]

The reason I originally responded was I questioned who your interpretation of "WE" was? The make-up of your group.

Your claim was that your group was still concerned about Richmond as a whole, eventhough you had won the "going through AOaks battle"

My reply about the much less vocal presence Metro meeting was meant to imply that, No, Most of you do no longer care.. The core of your group is in fact primarily AOakers only concerned about the welfare of the stretch of Richmond through AOaks.

So, please answer to that.

Who is the WE in your above statement.. yes, the people that run the Mobility Coalition and a few others along Richmond, some biz owners, not in AOaks might still care and still not want rail on their street. But i dont think that you really do, becasue it no longer directly effects you. Your battle is won.

And as for pretending your group is in the majority along Richmond.. Im sorry man.. you're wrong. The majority of your group, a small minority of people on Richmond, got their way and no longer care. Your Mobility Coalition group has 76 signatures on their petition... RichmondRail has letters of support from 100 different organizations including pretty much every neighborhood civic group in the area.

Well then that settles that. I find it hard to believe that you are that naive, but apparently you are. What do you expect me to do provide you with a membership roster complete with names and addresses? Sorry sweetheart but that ain't gonna happen. We have a robust membership, and we know who we are by our list of donators - perhaps even some that you think are for rail . . . . alack poor Yorick.

[Mister X]

Afton Ag's group sounds more and more like the Ku Klux Klan of transportation. Next, they will have signs up on Richmond saying "White Cars Only".

Edited August 25, 2007 by Mister X

[Jax]

Maybe this was fabricated by the "liberal media" , but here is a statement from a civic asociation on the issue.

and another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Jax

[Highway6]

Well then that settles that. I find it hard to believe that you are that naive, but apparently you are. What do you expect me to do provide you with a membership roster complete with names and addresses? Sorry sweetheart but that ain't gonna happen. We have a robust membership, and we know who we are by our list of donators - perhaps even some that you think are for rail . . . . alack poor Yorick.

No names and addresses necessary...I can see all 76 of them on your feable petition.

How bout instead you just match JAX and provide us with 5 links to statements of support for your cause, statements opposed to rail on richmond by a civic association or institutions on Richmond.

I dont think that's asking too much.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Highway6

[bachanon]

i avoid this thread for long periods of time and then i see that aftonag is still going strong. aftonag gets my nomination for the "stick-with-it" award. 143 pages and still going. you are indeed the energizer bunny of haif threads, or at least this haif thread. this guy has been through hell and back, through personal attacks, statements out of context and then some. yes, he's taken some things out of context himself and towed the anti-rail party line, but damn! i like this guy, even though i disagree with his stand on rail. hang in there aftonag. i'm a reticent fan.

[musicman]

Maybe this was fabricated by the "liberal media" , but here is a statement from a civic asociation on the issue.and another.

i like how the guy from the menil spells weslayan incorrectly. makes you wonder how long he's been in houston.

request to AftonAg. are you in charge of ANY group? did you single handedly stop METRO rail in your neighborhood?

Edited August 25, 2007 by musicman

[Guest Marty]

I used to be a fan of METRO a few years back, but I see it in a new light now. You are all lucky this town wouldn't elect me for Mayor. I would shut down METRO and sell all its assets to improve the police, fire and the schools ect....

[musicman]

I used to be a fan of METRO a few years back, but I see it in a new light now. You are all lucky this town wouldn't elect me for Mayor. I would shut down METRO and sell all its assets to improve the police, fire and the schools ect....

...and you came to this conclusion because?

[bachanon]

we would need the improved police force to direct the traffic and deal with all the new criminals when transportation to jobs became an impossibility if metro were dissolved. houston is TOO BIG to be without public transportation. imagine houston with a (largely poor/middle class) segment of the population with "less" transportation options. we need "more" transportation options.

being ticked at metro is one thing, but dissolution? are you for real?

[Guest Marty]

we would need the improved police force to direct the traffic and deal with all the new criminals when transportation to jobs became an impossibility if metro were dissolved. houston is TOO BIG to be without public transportation. imagine houston with a (largely poor/middle class) segment of the population with "less" transportation options. we need "more" transportation options.

being ticked at metro is one thing, but dissolution? are you for real?

Yes, I am for real quit popping out baby's that you cant afford and get off the government's tit.

[musicman]

being ticked at metro is one thing, but dissolution? are you for real?

bach i sure can see your side but marty while i don't see METRO dissolving, i sure can see them being limited in their powers. currently METRO appears to be having grand dreams but aren't even communicating with local entities such as the City of Houston and TMC to see if these dreams are even plausible.

Yes, I am for real quit popping out baby's that you cant afford and get off the government's tit.

LOLOL LOVE IT!! i was reading an article recently that stated that METRO received a $6 federal subsidy for each bus rider but a $25 subsidy for each LRT rider. sounds like at LEAST a DD. LOL Edited August 25, 2007 by musicman

[Guest Marty]

bach i sure can see your side but marty while i don't see METRO dissolving, i sure can see them being limited in their powers. currently METRO appears to be having grand dreams but aren't even communicating with local entities such as the City of Houston and TMC to see if these dreams are even plausible.

I agree with that. It seems METRO eyes are bigger than there stomach. anybody over 30 should get that.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Marty

[musicman]

I agree with that. It seems METRO eyes are bigger than there stomach. anybody over 30 should get that.

[Guest Marty]

LOL

[bachanon]

double d!!!!!! government teets!!!!!! ROTFL!!!!!! it must be 1AM.

[Trae]

I found this diagram of DART's subway station:

http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/attachme...tachmentid=3068

Is it possible for a subway in Houston to get that deep? The one I posted is ten floors below US 75, which is depressed itself. Think of a subway below I-10 West, or I-45 North, or 59 South.

[Jax]

I think the water table is too high in Houston to dig that deep, but I could be wrong. The other problem we seem to have is flooding. I believe that is why we don't have many basements here. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Houston19514]

I found this diagram of DART's subway station:

http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/attachme...tachmentid=3068

Is it possible for a subway in Houston to get that deep? The one I posted is ten floors below US 75, which is depressed itself. Think of a subway below I-10 West, or I-45 North, or 59 South.

Interesting link. But according to the information in the link, the station is 109 feet below ground. NOT ten stories below US 75. (I realize the idiots who drew the thing have a little caption in there saying that the station is 10 stories below Central Expressway, but if you look it over more carefully, it gives more detail, to-wit: passengers descend 69 feet from the surface to the first level, then another 40 feet down to the station platform. Total depth 109 feet below the surface, less than that below Central Expressway)

And there is also a clue in the link as to why such things are not being built in Houston; and I don't believe any additional such stations are being built in Dallas, or even the much-hallowed Atlanta: That station alone cost $50 Million (and that was, what, ten years ago).

[ricco67]

I think the water table is too high in Houston to dig that deep, but I could be wrong. The other problem we seem to have is flooding. I believe that is why we don't have many basements here. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Metro at one point was talking about putting in a subway in downtown, but they could only build it if it was past Capital street(if I remember properly) because the elevation would allow it to do so. I believe the further north and west you go, the better off you are as subway construction potential. They also explained that the pumps that would be used should be able to alleviate any problems with flood waters.

Interesting link. But according to the information in the link, the station is 109 feet below ground. NOT ten stories below US 75. (I realize the idiots who drew the thing have a little caption in there saying that the station is 10 stories below Central Expressway, but if you look it over more carefully, it gives more detail, to-wit: passengers descend 69 feet from the surface to the first level, then another 40 feet down to the station platform. Total depth 109 feet below the surface, less than that below Central Expressway)

And there is also a clue in the link as to why such things are not being built in Houston; and I don't believe any additional such stations are being built in Dallas, or even the much-hallowed Atlanta: That station alone cost $50 Million (and that was, what, ten years ago).

I never could understand WHY 10 storeys, when I was in chicago, I didn't pay attention to how deep the tunnels were.

The Houston Tunnels are what, two storeys underground? So any potential subway would probably be about 10 storeys.

[Jax]

10 stories underground would be crazy! You'd have to ride an en elevator to get to the damn thing!

[Trae]

Or a nice escalator. I would love to see a subway in Houston.

[ricco67]

Or a nice escalator. I would love to see a subway in Houston.

Actually, if it's like other cities, it would be a combination of an escalator and elevator for those that can't use stairs.

The one in Chicago was a surprisingly long ride down.

[Trae]

I went to one in D.C. We came out of the subway, and just looked up. One looooooong escalator.

If Metro had proposed this maybe ten-twenty years ago, I think it could have been done. Dallas has had their subway since 1996. The station opened in 2000.

[ChannelTwoNews]

Actually, if it's like other cities, it would be a combination of an escalator and elevator for those that can't use stairs.

The one in Chicago was a surprisingly long ride down.

Same story in Boston on several of the subway's stops.

This is a two-story stop along Blue Line at Aquarium Station. In this station the escalators only go up though at others there's more than one available on each platform so there's both up and down ones. Newer stops have elevators while older ones may just have escalators and some have neither.

[Houston19514]

I went to one in D.C. We came out of the subway, and just looked up. One looooooong escalator.

If Metro had proposed this maybe ten-twenty years ago, I think it could have been done. Dallas has had their subway since 1996. The station opened in 2000.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

I found this diagram of DART's subway station:

http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/attachme...tachmentid=3068

Is it possible for a subway in Houston to get that deep? The one I posted is ten floors below US 75, which is depressed itself. Think of a subway below I-10 West, or I-45 North, or 59 South.

And more. Also on the link, it says that DART expected that the $50 million station "could see as many as 1,700 passengers daily." And this is the kind of transportation planning you and others think Houston should emulate?

(For the record, none of Houston's stations cost anywhere near $50 million and the average ridership at those stations is over 3,000 daily.)

Edited August 26, 2007 by Houston19514

[ricco67]

And more. Also on the link, it says that DART expected that the $50 million station "could see as many as 1,700 passengers daily." And this is the kind of transportation planning you and others think Houston should emulate?

(For the record, none of Houston's stations cost anywhere near $50 million and the average ridership at those stations is over 3,000 daily.)

Answered my question before you asked it.

But also ask what kind of area does this station service?

Do they anticipate future development in this area?

How far into the future do these numbers quantify?

While it's apparent that high ridership aren't in the numbers, the cost can be attributable by the fact that it IS underground and would help the other stations down the line. The Bell street station probably doesn't get that high of a numbers right now, but as development grows, it can be very important.

[RedScare]

And more. Also on the link, it says that DART expected that the $50 million station "could see as many as 1,700 passengers daily." And this is the kind of transportation planning you and others think Houston should emulate?

(For the record, none of Houston's stations cost anywhere near $50 million and the average ridership at those stations is over 3,000 daily.)

Left out of this equation is the DISTANCE one must walk (or escalate) to get to the platform from the sidewalk. To descend 190 feet at a 30 degree angle requires somewhere on the order of 250 feet, approximately one city block. This must be done by escalator or elevator, taking even more time. In contrast, to get to the platform on Houston's Red Line from the sidewalk requires walking 25 feet across a level street.

So, aside from the astronomical cost of building a subway, they are inconvenient to get to, requiring one to walk 500 extra feet to enter and exit the platform. Street level platforms are much more accessible, even if some people don't think they are "urban" enough. Frankly, it is not a question of "could it be done?", but more a question of "why would we?".

Edited August 26, 2007 by RedScare