METRORail On FM 1960

[ricco67]

So what are the numbers, eh? And what number of them are within a quarter mile of FM 1960, much less the rail platforms?

No, don't even bother saying "I don't know, a whole bunch," because I've done a lot of the work for you. Behold the marvelously low employment density along 1960 as compared to the Richmond/Westheimer corridors.

okay. I see two maps. There seems to be quite a bit of develoment along 1960 with a slight increase. slight. Uh-huh. Have you been down 1960 lately?

your pretty maps don't really give the overall picture of the place. 25 years ago, 1960 was a 4 lane road and 249 was a 4 lane road 20 years ago as well (someone will correct me I'm sure, but I lived in that area for a time.

So you say that there was ONLY a slight increase in the past 20 years for it to be an 8 lane roadway that is congested most of the day?

Right. Studies are nice and all, but they are merely projects and they rarely meet expectations. I'm sure if you come up with a study from 1970 saying what that part of town would be like in 1995, you would have a totally different result from what reality would be.

[T 2 THA C]

Also, the inverse, that commuter rail along the freeways would hurt the inner city is also not true. easier access to the facilities and events downtown and otherwise (Galleria, TMC) would only enhance the ability of white collar suburban families to come downtown and spend money...especially on the weekdays...

Having lived both in the city and the suburbs I believe we need both commuter rail and specially inner city rail. You need the inner city rail first so when commuter rail is built you have places go to. I also think that if there were rail down 1960 it should continue to 59 south so it would hit both the commuter lines planned on 290 and 90A, the Addicks P&R, and any future north or west lines. Having said that I will first settle for the planned lines to start construction.

[houstonmacbro]

Why is there this snobbery of inner loopers? I mean, as I've said before, people live where they can afford and what works for them. Just because someone chooses not to, or cannot afford to live somewhere doesn't make them less (Houstonian in this case).

[musicman]

Why is there this snobbery of inner loopers? I mean, as I've said before, people live where they can afford and what works for them. Just because someone chooses not to, or cannot afford to live somewhere doesn't make them less (Houstonian in this case).

not sure you can categorize all inner loopers as snobs. there are many places to live inside the loop that are affordable. they may choose not to live there, oh wait, that would make them snobs too.

[houstonmacbro]

Not everyone wants to live there. And no, not everyone in the loop is a snob.

[CDeb]

Why is there this snobbery of inner loopers? I mean, as I've said before, people live where they can afford and what works for them. Just because someone chooses not to, or cannot afford to live somewhere doesn't make them less (Houstonian in this case).

The way that some inner-loopers on this forum turn up their noses at suburbanites on one hand while calling them uppity snobs on the other hand is one of the fantastic institutional ironies of HAIF.

[houstonmacbro]

I mean really ... we're all Houstonians ... even those of us in the boonies.

[woolie]

This discussion fulfilled my quota of lulz for the day. All these people ranting about how slow/expensive/terrible the light rail based on their grand cumulative total experience of.. 1 trip.

I use it every day. It is vastly preferable to the horror of parking in the TMC. In fact, it's faster than parking -- even if you have a contract pass.

ITL is going to continue to increase in density and value. We need to be building out our transit infrastructure now, before it's even more costly and expensive. I think we should be using Los Angeles as a portal into the future; let's try to avoid making the same mistakes twice.

But as far as the OP, building out on 1960 or Hwy 6 or Beltway 8 or pretty much local-rail North, South, or East of the loop is silly. Even West of the loop you'd stick to just the Bellaire corridor, and probably stop at the Beltway. Commuter rail, sure. That's heavy rail. Light rail with local stops needs to stay in high density areas and exist as part of a transit fabric with many interconnects and limited express service.

[cnote]

This discussion fulfilled my quota of lulz for the day. All these people ranting about how slow/expensive/terrible the light rail based on their grand cumulative total experience of.. 1 trip.

I use it every day. It is vastly preferable to the horror of parking in the TMC. In fact, it's faster than parking -- even if you have a contract pass.

If you are referring to my comment that it was not as fast as you would have thought, I stand by it. Taking a bus would be easier than parking as well and much less expensive. The argument was not that the light rail is bad, but that it may not be best considering costs. I like the light rail, but wish it was faster. Also, I have been on it a few times, but does it change speeds if you ride it everyday? Of course, if you make it faster, that means more and worse accidents when it slams into a car...

[TheNiche]

okay. I see two maps. There seems to be quite a bit of develoment along 1960 with a slight increase. slight. Uh-huh. Have you been down 1960 lately?

your pretty maps don't really give the overall picture of the place. 25 years ago, 1960 was a 4 lane road and 249 was a 4 lane road 20 years ago as well (someone will correct me I'm sure, but I lived in that area for a time.

So you say that there was ONLY a slight increase in the past 20 years for it to be an 8 lane roadway that is congested most of the day?

Right. Studies are nice and all, but they are merely projects and they rarely meet expectations. I'm sure if you come up with a study from 1970 saying what that part of town would be like in 1995, you would have a totally different result from what reality would be.

I know 1960. It is not, nor will it ever have the equivalent employment density, walkability, of Richmond or Westheimer. A few new low- or mid-rise office buildings here or there, frequently removed from the roadway by some amount so as not to be easily within walking distance, are not indicators that transit can be supported...especially if ROW constraints would require that fixed-guideway transit would reduce the capacity for auto traffic.

Be realistic. That 1960 is largely built out means that in order to expand employment in the future, existing employment typically has to be removed first, so that the net employment gain is minimal compared to gains on greenfield sites. Moreover, consider that much of the area immediately around 1960 has been built out with suburban development, which limits future population growth which would justify more retail/office employment growth along 1960.

[TheNiche]

This discussion fulfilled my quota of lulz for the day. All these people ranting about how slow/expensive/terrible the light rail based on their grand cumulative total experience of.. 1 trip.

I use it every day. It is vastly preferable to the horror of parking in the TMC. In fact, it's faster than parking -- even if you have a contract pass.

ITL is going to continue to increase in density and value. We need to be building out our transit infrastructure now, before it's even more costly and expensive. I think we should be using Los Angeles as a portal into the future; let's try to avoid making the same mistakes twice.

But as far as the OP, building out on 1960 or Hwy 6 or Beltway 8 or pretty much local-rail North, South, or East of the loop is silly. Even West of the loop you'd stick to just the Bellaire corridor, and probably stop at the Beltway. Commuter rail, sure. That's heavy rail. Light rail with local stops needs to stay in high density areas and exist as part of a transit fabric with many interconnects and limited express service.

As a resident of the Inner Loop (near the TMC), I've used it a grand total of three times. I stopped using it because it didn't make sense to. It sounds like you would want to discount certain peoples' opinions of it because they tried it and didn't like it, and then had the sense not to try it again.

Perhaps it works for you...I know it works for a lot of TMC workers...and that's fine. It doesn't have to nor should it try to work for everybody. But why wouldn't something less expensive or disruptive to traffic flow, like a BRT or signature bus service also work for present riders? I don't understand that.

Another thing is that one of the common talking points made by people advocating light rail goes that 'we ought to build it now because it'll only cost more later.' That's very shortsighted. Inflation is a complicated beast, and for many years, it has been caused (in this category) by a falling value of the dollar. But that isn't a permanent trend; we've had weak dollars and strong dollars before, and our economy cycles in and out of it. Metals and electrical devices aren't as available to the U.S. because the price gets bid up by foreigners with more valuable currencies. If we wait to build light rail, real prices as we experience them may very well fall. (Case in Point: Hines is building MainPlace out of concrete because steel is too expensive; it will be the heaviest building ever constructed in Houston, and this is caused by the value of the dollar).

[woolie]

BRT is only equivalent to LRT if the level of service is equivalent. If we're constructing dedicated corridors, I say go ahead and make it rail. And it's loud, disgusting diesel to boot.

Much of the Paris metro has rubber tires. Is it BRT?

The Red line is of utility to few people atm because it is so limited. Any single line out of context of a proper Metro system is very limited, in any city. When I rode the Baltimore subway last year, it was almost completely empty, except for the "homeland security" agents harassing me for taking photographs.

The point about inflation isn't just from a matter of monetary and commodity inflation -- it's the fact that the city will become denser and more congested either way, making it more complicated, expensive, and disruptive to build when instead of planning and building ahead we're trying to mitigate an already desperate situation. I'll wager it'll be easier to get things accomplished when we're not already in 'crisis mode.'

[TheNiche]

The Red line is of utility to few people atm because it is so limited. Any single line out of context of a proper Metro system is very limited, in any city. When I rode the Baltimore subway last year, it was almost completely empty, except for the "homeland security" agents harassing me for taking photographs.

The point about inflation isn't just from a matter of monetary and commodity inflation -- it's the fact that the city will become denser and more congested either way, making it more complicated, expensive, and disruptive to build when instead of planning and building ahead we're trying to mitigate an already desperate situation. I'll wager it'll be easier to get things accomplished when we're not already in 'crisis mode.'

Level of service can be replicated and even improved at lower cost. You can make corridors dedicated without converting to rail, and still hitting the same levels of service, and still at a lower cost. Why LRT, then?

I don't know anything about Paris' transit situation, but I do know enough about Paris not to compare it with Houston.

The Red line is of utility to few people atm because it is so limited. Any single line out of context of a proper Metro system is very limited, in any city. When I rode the Baltimore subway last year, it was almost completely empty, except for the "homeland security" agents harassing me for taking photographs.

You were criticizing people for passing judgement on rail because they'd only ridden it once. My point is not that it couldn't be more useful if configured differently (I agree with that and under certain circumstance might become concerned that the Red Line could exceed capacity, causing other problems), but frequent and infrequent users can each be considered experienced in the matter and have valid opinions.

The point about inflation isn't just from a matter of monetary and commodity inflation -- it's the fact that the city will become denser and more congested either way, making it more complicated, expensive, and disruptive to build when instead of planning and building ahead we're trying to mitigate an already desperate situation. I'll wager it'll be easier to get things accomplished when we're not already in 'crisis mode.'

A municipality that knows that it will need extensive transit should be utilizing setback requirements on new development as a way to preserve corridors for future transportation projects while continuing to allow new development. ROW preservation does not necessitate a premature capital investment.

Generally speaking, if the services rendered by a public investment don't make sense today but are expected to in 15 years, it is better to save the money now and make the investment later (concept is related to the time value of money); the corrolary is that if people must be inconvenienced at some point on a timeline, it is generally better to do it at some point in the far-off future than to do it today.

[ricco67]

I know 1960. It is not, nor will it ever have the equivalent employment density, walkability, of Richmond or Westheimer. A few new low- or mid-rise office buildings here or there, frequently removed from the roadway by some amount so as not to be easily within walking distance, are not indicators that transit can be supported...especially if ROW constraints would require that fixed-guideway transit would reduce the capacity for auto traffic.

Be realistic. That 1960 is largely built out means that in order to expand employment in the future, existing employment typically has to be removed first, so that the net employment gain is minimal compared to gains on greenfield sites. Moreover, consider that much of the area immediately around 1960 has been built out with suburban development, which limits future population growth which would justify more retail/office employment growth along 1960.

I agree, it won't have the density, but there is plenty of employment on the edges and plenty of stores for both the low and high income brackets. I think it would be a good candidate for a high capcity rail/BRT system that would eventually hook up with the lines when they (eventually) hit that region. If they manage to build a line on 290 or 249, it would then work as a "feeder" to give people in that are without cars to look for employment further in.

[houstonmacbro]

Just because it's a 'burb doesn't mean it is not heavily trafficked. Not sure what the figures are, but I would imagine 1960 is one of the most trafficked streets in the city.

And yes, much of 1960 is IN Houston city limits.

[VicMan]

Just because it's a 'burb doesn't mean it is not heavily trafficked. Not sure what the figures are, but I would imagine 1960 is one of the most trafficked streets in the city.

And yes, much of 1960 is IN Houston city limits.

Let's see what this map says: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nbhd_svc...ap_w_links.html

If FM 1960 is far from Beltway 8 it is almost completely outside of the Houston city limits

[TheNiche]

Let's see what this map says: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nbhd_svc...ap_w_links.html

If FM 1960 is far from Beltway 8 it is almost completely outside of the Houston city limits

Yours is a very imprecise map.

Try this one (4.1MB). It shows city limits, limited purpose annexations (where they tax commercial zones like 1960 but don't provide services), the ETJ, and all existing and proposed major thoroughfares.

[houstonmacbro]

Let's see what this map says: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nbhd_svc...ap_w_links.html

If FM 1960 is far from Beltway 8 it is almost completely outside of the Houston city limits

Yeah, I guess having a Houston address means you live in ... let's say ... Dallas.

Yours is a very imprecise map.

Try this one (4.1MB). It shows city limits, limited purpose annexations (where they tax commercial zones like 1960 but don't provide services), the ETJ, and all existing and proposed major thoroughfares.

Thanks for sharing that map!

[CDeb]

Yeah, I guess having a Houston address means you live in ... let's say ... Dallas.

Just because you have a (fill in the blank) address doesn't mean you actually reside in (fill in the blank)'s city limits.

[VicMan]

Yours is a very imprecise map.

Try this one (4.1MB). It shows city limits, limited purpose annexations (where they tax commercial zones like 1960 but don't provide services), the ETJ, and all existing and proposed major thoroughfares.

Thanks for the map, TheNiche

Is Summerwood really a limited purpose annexation? This map shows the same subdivision as also a part of the Lake Houston Super Neighborhood: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/suprnbhd..._Maps/sn_44.pdf

[TheNiche]

Thanks for the map, TheNiche

Is Summerwood really a limited purpose annexation? This map shows the same subdivision as also a part of the Lake Houston Super Neighborhood: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/suprnbhd..._Maps/sn_44.pdf

Summerwood is part of what is called an 'In-City MUD', where the City doesn't want to pay for the installation or maintenance of new infrastructure but still gets to tax it.

[VicMan]

Summerwood is part of what is called an 'In-City MUD', where the City doesn't want to pay for the installation or maintenance of new infrastructure but still gets to tax it.

Are there any plans to turn Summerwood into a full-fledged part of Houston?

I know the city just opened a fire station there: http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/firestations/station105.html

[TheNiche]

Are there any plans to turn Summerwood into a full-fledged part of Houston?

I know the city just opened a fire station there: http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/firestations/station105.html

In-City MUDs are pretty recent concepts, so I don't know what happens once they pay off their debt obligations. I'd assume that the City will never take over their infrastructure and that the residents of those areas will have to continue to pay taxes for ongoing maintenance or capital improvements.