METRORail University Line

[AftonAg]

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?

Musicman - I assume that you mean the anti Rail Coalition? Have I ever stated that I was "in charge" of any group? The answer is no I am not "in charge" of any group that is against railroading Richmond. Have I ever claimed to have singlehandedly stopped METRO Rail in my neighborhood? The answer is no, I have never made that claim as it would have been ludicrous - not to mention untrue.

Whether or not I am in charge of a group is neither here nor there - I am involved with the group that stopped METRO from trashing Afton Oaks - by the way read the chronic liar this morning - Page B2 - Metro claims they will only destroy 197 MATURE LIVE OAKS in the current plan for the Railroading of Richmond. I will bet one hundred bucks that the actual number is well over 200 if the route ends up as currently proposed. The final count needs to be done about two years after installation - it may take a while to kill some of the old trees off.

[musicman]

Musicman - I assume that you mean the anti Rail Coalition? Have I ever stated that I was "in charge" of any group? The answer is no I am not "in charge" of any group that is against railroading Richmond. Have I ever claimed to have singlehandedly stopped METRO Rail in my neighborhood? The answer is no, I have never made that claim as it would have been ludicrous - not to mention untrue.

i know AAg. a few here think you're doing it singlehandedly. the coalition is definitely larger than one person/neighborhood.

[Jax]

I doubt anybody thinks he's doing it single handedly, but a few think his group is vastly outnumbered by the pro-rail people.

[musicman]

I doubt anybody thinks he's doing it single handedly, but a few think his group is vastly outnumbered by the pro-rail people.

i'd hope not...but when i saw "your petition" (with reference to aftonag), i guess had to ask. agree a few think his group is vastly outnumbered.

[AftonAg]

i know AAg. a few here think you're doing it singlehandedly. the coalition is definitely larger than one person/neighborhood.

Thanks for your help in making a point that has been the subject of no less than 20 of my posts.

And as for providing Links for Highway6 I am not going to do your research - I know there are links out there, and I know how to get in touch with the people that I need to get in touch with. I know that you think that since I post regularly on this forum I owe you all of the information that I have . . . . guess again sweety.

[KinkaidAlum]

i'd hope not...but when i saw "your petition" (with reference to aftonag), i guess had to ask. agree a few think his group is vastly outnumbered.

It isn't about thinking or guessing his group is outnumbered.

His group IS outnumbered. Just check the membership rosters, petition signatures, and even just glance around the Inner Loop to look at the support for the rail signs in MANY neighborhoods with the opposition signs being almost 100% centered in Afton Oaks.

[musicman]

It isn't about thinking or guessing his group is outnumbered.

His group IS outnumbered. Just check the membership rosters, petition signatures, and even just glance around the Inner Loop to look at the support for the rail signs in MANY neighborhoods with the opposition signs being almost 100% centered in Afton Oaks.

i see more opposition than just afton oaks from the signs i've seen along richmond.

[OkieEric]

i see more opposition than just afton oaks from the signs i've seen along richmond.

Agreed, especially among the businesses fronting Richmond...I see plenty of support signs in the neighborhoods a few blocks away, but I can't blame those business owners for wanting to protect their interests. La Tapatia is one that sticks out in my mind, as it's near my place... What happens if they have to take the building for ROW? Are they going to come back?

I remember seeing something about how much they'll have to take for ROW along the various strips, but is Richmond going to be left with a bunch of vacant, shallow lots along it? Even if they don't tear these businesses down, who knows if they'll survive the construction period

Though I wouldn't mind having rail a few blocks from my house (there are pro rail signs all around), I can't help but wonder how long it'll take businesses along Richmond to rebound - if ever

[musicman]

Agreed, especially among the businesses fronting Richmond...I see plenty of support signs in the neighborhoods a few blocks away, but I can't blame those business owners for wanting to protect their interests. La Tapatia is one that sticks out in my mind, as it's near my place... What happens if they have to take the building for ROW? Are they going to come back?

I remember seeing something about how much they'll have to take for ROW along the various strips, but is Richmond going to be left with a bunch of vacant, shallow lots along it? Even if they don't tear these businesses down, who knows if they'll survive the construction period

Though I wouldn't mind having rail a few blocks from my house (there are pro rail signs all around), I can't help but wonder how long it'll take businesses along Richmond to rebound - if ever

their building is fine...it's their parking that will be hurt. i know maria selma is also against it. of the people i know in castle court (only 2 houses that i've spoken with recently) they are both against it. because a civic club supports something doesn't mean everyone in the hood does. those who are/were officers know that.

[OkieEric]

their building is fine...it's their parking that will be hurt. i know maria selma is also against it. of the people i know in castle court (only 2 houses that i've spoken with recently) they are both against it. because a civic club supports something doesn't mean everyone in the hood does. those who are/were officers know that.

I'm personally somewhat torn on the issue - was all for it at first, but now I'm having doubts. Congestion will be a nightmare, I'm afraid...they better not pull that "all directions red" for a train, or Shepherd and Kirby could become a real nightmare... The real pain is that you already can't turn left off of Alabama onto several streets from downtown to Shepherd at certain times, and now you won't be able to turn left off of Richmond onto many of the smaller neighborhood streets along the same stretch. I'm all for progress (if this is progress?), but I also want to be able to turn left now and then

[musicman]

Congestion will be a nightmare, I'm afraid...they better not pull that "all directions red" for a train, or Shepherd and Kirby could become a real nightmare...

. I agree. the main st line doesn't affect a real "neighborhood." but the university line will and will force area residents to make changes. the shepherd and kirby intersections will become worse IMO.

[Trae]

Overpasses (even elevated stations) would do wonders.

[TheNiche]

. I agree. the main st line doesn't affect a real "neighborhood." but the university line will and will force area residents to make changes. the shepherd and kirby intersections will become worse IMO.

The Red Line also had San Jacinto and Fannin as release valves for many traffic issues that would have impacted Main Street. None of the east/west streets have as good a set of parallel streets.

[ricco67]

I'm personally somewhat torn on the issue - was all for it at first, but now I'm having doubts. Congestion will be a nightmare, I'm afraid...they better not pull that "all directions red" for a train, or Shepherd and Kirby could become a real nightmare... The real pain is that you already can't turn left off of Alabama onto several streets from downtown to Shepherd at certain times, and now you won't be able to turn left off of Richmond onto many of the smaller neighborhood streets along the same stretch. I'm all for progress (if this is progress?), but I also want to be able to turn left now and then

I think they did away with "All red" on main street, either that I haven't noticed it. Turning left really isn't that big of an issue, while it may take a bit to get used to, making all right turns is something that we'll get used to. I've had to do so on W. Alabama for years. I whined about it at first, but after awhile it isn't a big deal.

People made a huge issue about not being cross main at the various streets crossing main, but in reality, these just caused accidents and were a hazard. now that the flow of traffic is more regulated, I think it had improved traffic movement significantly.

Overpasses (even elevated stations) would do wonders.

The Red Line also had San Jacinto and Fannin as release valves for many traffic issues that would have impacted Main Street. None of the east/west streets have as good a set of parallel streets.

Now, I would prefer that U-line go UNDER certain portions of it's route, but I don't think it's going to happen, and there isn't enough room for the roads to be elevated.

[IHB2]

Turning left really isn't that big of an issue, while it may take a bit to get used to, making all right turns is something that we'll get used to.

you must not live in any of the neighborhoods to be affected by the U Line.

just eliminating the left turn from northbound Wesleyan to westbound Westpark, which will happen with all the options, will cause significant mobility problems for thousands of people in the neighborhoods south of Westpark.

and the problem will be exponentially worse along the dozens of intersections on Richmond, Wheeler, and Elgin.

[ricco67]

I drive the area often enough where I can usually nail how the traffic goes. You're right, it's a bit hellish as it currently stands, but I'm sure that IF a left turn is made there, it needs to be very well engineered so that the morons won't be stuck in the intersection.

[musicman]

Now, I would prefer that U-line go UNDER certain portions of it's route, but I don't think it's going to happen, and there isn't enough room for the roads to be elevated.

trae wants the rail line to be elevated not the roads.

People made a huge issue about not being cross main at the various streets crossing main, but in reality, these just caused accidents and were a hazard. now that the flow of traffic is more regulated, I think it had improved traffic movement significantly.

so more cars through fewer streets results improved traffic movement? interesting theory.

[ricco67]

Did I say "ELEVATE the roads?" No. I said what I said for a reason. It's easier to simply make a small underpass for the train than to make an overpass for the roads OR the rail.

Edited August 28, 2007 by ricco67

[KinkaidAlum]

I attended the meeting today at South Main Baptist Church.

I was very pleasantly surprised that the speakers spoke out in favor of the Richmond to Cummins option/pro-rail by about a 10 to 1 margin. The anti-rail crowd was definitely outnumbered.

The best part was the almost absolute universal rejection of Culberson's stupid route option over the freeway.

Pro-rail speakers for rail on Richmond to Cummins to the West and Eastwood Transit Center on the East included several business owners on Richmond, several heads of neighborhood organizations (only 1 neighborhood organization spoke out against it although I did leave at 4), a UST Professor of Int'l Studies, a UH student who lives one block North of Richmond/Montrose, Irving Phillips (architect), Sue Lovell from city council who also happens to live 2 blocks away from Richmond, and at least 30 folks who live within 1 to 5 blocks of the proposed routes.

From the opposition, only one claimed to be a Richmond Avenue resident and none (during the 2 hours that I was there) claimed to own a business on the route.

[musicman]

Did I say "ELEVATE the roads?" No. I said what I said for a reason. It's easier to simply make a small underpass for the train than to make an overpass for the roads OR the rail.

and you said nothing about elevating the rail, until now.

[ricco67]

Can't see how you could have missed it, but whatever.

As far as the "theory" goes, what is meant is that cars will come out at predictable points crossing going across.

I go out of my way at times to cross Montrose at a light as opposed to crossing at say, Kipling, Sul Ross, or Marshall. It's just plain safer to cross when the traffic is managed as opposed to trying to cross a major street with a bunch of random cars going at random speeds.

[Jax]

I attended the meeting today at South Main Baptist Church.

I was very pleasantly surprised that the speakers spoke out in favor of the Richmond to Cummins option/pro-rail by about a 10 to 1 margin. The anti-rail crowd was definitely outnumbered.

The best part was the almost absolute universal rejection of Culberson's stupid route option over the freeway.

Pro-rail speakers for rail on Richmond to Cummins to the West and Eastwood Transit Center on the East included several business owners on Richmond, several heads of neighborhood organizations (only 1 neighborhood organization spoke out against it although I did leave at 4), a UST Professor of Int'l Studies, a UH student who lives one block North of Richmond/Montrose, Irving Phillips (architect), Sue Lovell from city council who also happens to live 2 blocks away from Richmond, and at least 30 folks who live within 1 to 5 blocks of the proposed routes.

From the opposition, only one claimed to be a Richmond Avenue resident and none (during the 2 hours that I was there) claimed to own a business on the route.

Thanks for the update, KinkaidAlum. I'm really glad to hear that the pro-rail side was well represented!

[AftonAg]

It isn't about thinking or guessing his group is outnumbered.

His group IS outnumbered. Just check the membership rosters, petition signatures, and even just glance around the Inner Loop to look at the support for the rail signs in MANY neighborhoods with the opposition signs being almost 100% centered in Afton Oaks.

I wouldn't be so sure - the referendum was a pretty close vote - and when you consider that it included language that made many voters think the rail would be on Westpark, It makes me wonder if it would have passed if it had been called the Richmond Corridor.

If we are so vastly outnumbered as you claim Kinkaid then why was there ever any doubt that the rail would run exactly where METRO wanted it, why have there been so many townhall meetings, and so many different route proposals? Could it just be that the anti coalition is larger than any of you give it credit for? Which would mean of course that many of you are (God forbid, how could it be????) WRONG? LOL

[OkieEric]

Turning left really isn't that big of an issue, while it may take a bit to get used to, making all right turns is something that we'll get used to. I've had to do so on W. Alabama for years. I whined about it at first, but after awhile it isn't a big deal.

I think it's not that big of a deal on Main, since you can always just turn right and make a block...still a pain, but do-able. But what if you're on Richmond? The "make a block" option just isn't there, as you'd have to go who knows how far out of the way to get to a crossing. That would lead one to think they should just have more crossings, but that means more stop lights - can you imagine going down the length of Richmond with that many more lights?

I just wish there was a better solution...unfortunately, better = more $$, and I just can't imagine that ever happening when we can just throw a rail at-grade for relatively cheap. Just seems like an awkward solution.. Does Dallas have these same problems?

[Jax]

If we are so vastly outnumbered as you claim Kinkaid then why was there ever any doubt that the rail would run exactly where METRO wanted it, why have there been so many townhall meetings, and so many different route proposals? Could it just be that the anti coalition is larger than any of you give it credit for? Which would mean of course that many of you are (God forbid, how could it be????) WRONG? LOL

Whether or not there is much opposition, there should still be planning, meetings, different proposals, environmental impact studies, etc. before the final route is chosen. Nobody pro-rail says it should go wherever Metro wants it. They say it should go wherever it will serve the most people and impact the least - basically where it makes the most sense. And I think we've narrowed it down.

[AftonAg]

Whether or not there is much opposition, there should still be planning, meetings, different proposals, environmental impact studies, etc. before the final route is chosen. Nobody pro-rail says it should go wherever Metro wants it. They say it should go wherever it will serve the most people and impact the least - basically where it makes the most sense. And I think we've narrowed it down.

So what your saying then Jax is that if there had been zero opposition to Railroading Richmond there would have been exactly the same number of meetings, route proposals etc. The reason METRO wanted to run down Richmond in their original plan - through Afton Oaks and under 610 etc according to METRO was ridership, numbers, butts in the seats. According to METRO transitioning to Westpark east of Sage severely affected those precious ridership numbers, or so they said in the many meetings that I went to. What you are saying is that basically the miniscule anti rail coalition had virtually no effect on the process. The only effect we had was on the final route. That is an interesting take - does everyone on your little planet see it that way?

[GovernorAggie]

Can't see how you could have missed it, but whatever.

As far as the "theory" goes, what is meant is that cars will come out at predictable points crossing going across.

I go out of my way at times to cross Montrose at a light as opposed to crossing at say, Kipling, Sul Ross, or Marshall. It's just plain safer to cross when the traffic is managed as opposed to trying to cross a major street with a bunch of random cars going at random speeds.

Agreed. I was taught when I first started driving to always "go to the stoplight". It's safer, easier, and sometimes can even save more time. I'll actually make a right out of a lot, drive to the nearest light, turn, go back to the intersection (using a lot or local street) and wait. My safety is much more important than catching McDonald's before they stop serving breakfast. Houston has such high car insurance rates because of impatient drivers wanting to get where they want, when they want, not considering their fellow drivers. Hurried distracted drivers lead to more accidents.

Here's a hint--leave early, allowing for interruptions--like a train or one of those bat-outta-Hades minivans/suvs with the soccer balls on the back.

Edited August 28, 2007 by GovernorAggie

[Jax]

So what your saying then Jax is that if there had been zero opposition to Railroading Richmond there would have been exactly the same number of meetings, route proposals etc. The reason METRO wanted to run down Richmond in their original plan - through Afton Oaks and under 610 etc according to METRO was ridership, numbers, butts in the seats. According to METRO transitioning to Westpark east of Sage severely affected those precious ridership numbers, or so they said in the many meetings that I went to. What you are saying is that basically the miniscule anti rail coalition had virtually no effect on the process. The only effect we had was on the final route. That is an interesting take - does everyone on your little planet see it that way?

Yes I believe there would have still been meetings, and there would have still been an environmental impact study (which in that case would have mentioned the impacts on Afton Oaks), and there would have still been multiple routes, an they still would have had to chose one of those routes. No, I'm not saying there would have been the exact same number of meetings in any situation, all I am saying is that yes there would have still been a planning process.

I'm not saying the anti-rail coalition had no effect on the process, I'm saying that your group isn't the reason the planning process existed in the first place.

The planning process exists regardless of an opposition movement. Yes, you guys most likely inflected the decision to exclude your part of Richmond from the line, I'm not saying you didn't. I'm saying that the fact that there was a planning process does not prove that the anti-rail folks are the majority, as you implied in your earlier post.

If we are so vastly outnumbered as you claim Kinkaid then why was there ever any doubt that the rail would run exactly where METRO wanted it, why have there been so many townhall meetings, and so many different route proposals? Could it just be that the anti coalition is larger than any of you give it credit for?

Is it even possible to discuss this issue intelligently without personal attacks like "does everyone on your little planet see it that way?", and accusing people of being influenced by the "liberal media", and all that crap?

Edited August 28, 2007 by Jax

[wakester]

I wouldn't be so sure - the referendum was a pretty close vote - and when you consider that it included language that made many voters think the rail would be on Westpark, It makes me wonder if it would have passed if it had been called the Richmond Corridor.

If you took the number of people who would of switched there vote from yes to no because of Richmond, it would have still passed. Some how I find it hard to believe that the anti-rail people actually voted yes.

If we are so vastly outnumbered as you claim Kinkaid then why was there ever any doubt that the rail would run exactly where METRO wanted it, why have there been so many townhall meetings, and so many different route proposals? Could it just be that the anti coalition is larger than any of you give it credit for? Which would mean of course that many of you are (God forbid, how could it be????) WRONG? LOL

1) Metro is going to get the route that it wants. Down Richmond to Greenway plaza. If anything, the Afton Oaks route was a "Red Herring" to make the Richmond-Cummins-Westpark route look like a compromise.

2) You and the anti-rail group are a little full of yourself if you think that the townhall meetings and different route proposals were because of you. Hello, it is called the law. They are required to do it.

Face the facts, Metro got what they wanted and you and your group help make them look like they compromised to get it. Suckers.

Edited August 28, 2007 by wakester

[CDeb]

I wouldn't be so sure - the referendum was a pretty close vote - and when you consider that it included language that made many voters think the rail would be on Westpark, It makes me wonder if it would have passed if it had been called the Richmond Corridor.

If you're going to assume that people would have voted "NO" if the word "RICHMOND" had been on the ballot, you must also assume that some people voted "NO" because of the word "WESTPARK" being on the ballot. Afton Oaks does not corner the market on NIMBYs, I'm afraid.