IronTiger

Didn't his studio move in the last 3 years? Seems it's not in the place where it was. Besides, if they are continuing with the project, it means that it's not like they're saying "goodbye" to them forever, they'll just be in Pearland. It's not like the old Prince's sign in the Heights which moved several STATES over.

I doubt that the University Line would "screw over" "hundreds of thousands" of people over. Do neighborhoods that resisted freeways "screw over" thousands of potential commuters? Maybe. We're not here to discuss that. So you think that "we spent all this money, we should go for the rail anyway"? Congratulations, you've just done the sunk cost fallacy. It really is a shame since I went in with the generally-agreeable "We need a world class transit system on the east-west corridor, but the University Line is broken and needs some serious thinking." Rather then getting some creative thinking, most of what I've got is "NOOOOAOOOOW! The University Line MUST be done as before the ANTI-RAIL DEVIL CULBERSON ruined it! Putting the rail on Westpark is the STUPIDEST IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD because the RIDERSHIP NUMBERS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. AFTON OAKS RESIDENTS ARE EVIL FOR NOT WANTING RAIL. BLAH BLAH BLAH." What was I thinking? What did I expect?

The High Line's main feature--a 1930s era viaduct--was built a long time ago. Once again, we're making the "Afton Oaks will live, they're just whiny NIMBYs" and the unfounded racism accusations. It was also the "whiny NIMBYs" in the East End that demanded even the rail underpass, as opposed to the overpass, right? Oh wait, they don't count. Once again, we're back to the "I'm a smug urban traveler and you're just a yokel" rhetoric. As it turns out, as recently as 2006 (and yes, for what it's worth, I went to NYC in 2007), there was indelible "acid graffiti", and New York spent a huge amount of money to clean up their cars. Once again, we're back to the "Afton Oaks ruined the University Line, I hope those bastards get what they deserve" rhetoric. All of you are reverting to the same posts that you've used for months and are missing the point. I think that a good future-oriented east-west line is needed. Traffic is continuing to increase on the Inner Loop roads, and replacing those with street-running light rail is not the best option especially for the future and we must use alternatives. We must either a) bury the University Line under Richmond run it on the Westpark ROW south of 59 for the entirety of the route c) demolish buildings along Richmond and run the rail parallel to it

I know that Klyde Warren Park was underwritten by wealthy donors, with the park itself named after the young son of a Dallas area billionaire who obviously contributed much to the project. Memorial Park was bought by the city in the early 1920s, Hermann Park was similarly donated. Trust me, if some local billionaire donated $$$ to fund a major transit project, say, burying the light rail under Richmond, there wouldn't be a lot of quibbling. If it were entirely up to Houston's tax dollars to fund Discovery Green (notice that the amenities are named after donors), it probably would not have happened, and would probably be just greenspace and not the place it is today.

While not destroying lives, there is destroying a lifestyle. Remember that you've lamented about highways destroying or potentially destroying neighborhoods. If that was genuine regret of the failures of the past or just crocodile tears to advance your anti-freeway agenda, we'll never know. Either way, rail through Afton Oaks will seriously disrupt the neighborhood and those that live there. Rail cannot be built for the whole population. One of my reasons for spacing out stations is that like in other cities (New York, for one), there's not subways everywhere and it could be blocks until there is one. That's why there's buses and taxis. The idea of New York City having a "world class transit system" is reality (well, if they keep subway cars from being nasty, graffiti'd messes), but even it doesn't have "rail everywhere". Want rail for the whole population? Well...

A few more things: - I'd like to see a feasibility study if Houston's soil could support a bored tunnel system. - If you think that the Westpark ROW is a bad idea for the houses it backs, and you were all "screw Afton Oaks", you are a hypocrite and a liar if you think otherwise. - If you think that the Westpark ROW is a bad idea because you think it won't get as much ridership as a Richmond line is, it wouldn't be the huge impact you may think it is. It's hard to believe that Culberson is evil because he blocked a line but a line a few blocks south is a terrible idea that won't get enough ridership. - Light rail damages access, just as any road construction project does (even median additions). I worked at Village Foods in Bryan--the next to last AppleTree, which was bought by its own landlord from the dwindling chain in 2008 (of course it was dwindling by that point--but remember, AppleTree lasted longer as an independent chain than it did when it was a major one) and construction permanently damaged the shoppers at the store (they even sealed off the main entrance in the process). I've seen reports of businesses closing along the light rail (East End Sonic). Suppose that instead of slowly killing businesses with limited access, why not buy a bunch outright and run light rail parallel to Richmond, with the road snaking around buildings that cannot be moved? After all, I'm sure the city would love to see 1901 Richmond gone...

Another explanation: part of what got my interested in light rail is DART, and I got really turned off from light rail (and other rail based mass transit) amidst nonsense anti-freeway rhetoric and the way that light rail is built in Houston (street running). So I finally rode DART again, and while I can't say it's the perfect solution, I think that it's a forward-thinking idea and definitely makes going downtown from the suburbs a lot easier. Is it for everyone? Will it make freeway traffic disappear? Probably not. It was even reasonably full, and a Friday afternoon (well before rush hour), the train was packed with kids and parents heading back from the zoo, which was on the light rail line. It was serious. I hold no delusions about the Katy Freeway being magically un-congested (it could make an impact, but not really enough to be "uncongested"), but the Westpark line is a great corridor for light rail out to that area. Houston is handicapped in that there are very few abandoned rail right of ways that have not been eaten up for highway expansion or used for a bike path. If they had built a tunnel for the Katy Freeway where light rail would go, that would probably be pretty cool. The unfortunate thing is that rail based transit still cost far more in operating losses, but that's a price you pay for progress. The gas tax does need to be raised too. I don't agree that putting light rail on Westpark ROW is "pointless", though I can see some issues with unhappy neighbors. With ANY form of mass transit, even BRT, they're still subjected to lights and other things (even if the mass transit gets green and lights will go red for it, it will destroy traffic patterns and reverting back to the simple "timed lights" that cities have made steps to eliminate. I had to once wait for a light with three (not two) cycles, which meant it would turn red at night when no one was there. It sucked. And yes, Slick, I have ridden the Houston light rail. It is a smooth ride, but part of that versus buses (which I have not ridden) is the smoothness of the rail. If the roads were better maintained, perhaps through slightly higher taxes, and if there were modern buses (Texas A&M replaced their "school bus" style buses with modern buses, and it's great), then part of the thing about light rail is eliminated. It's not very forward-thinking to have a slow train that has too many stops and does street running (freight trains, in particular, have gone through great lengths to ELIMINATE that--why are we doing that now?) nor does it make for a good 21st century choice, especially decades in the future.

Still nothing. It doesn't have anything to do with the Pierce, you are correct, but it's interesting to give you give arguments and ideas that you were opposed to in the past. Didn't say that buses create TODs, but that it's a buzzword. Had the Fairmont Museum District building been built with Richmond having rail, you would be crowing about how light rail had "revitalized" the area and how it's a "transit oriented development" and all, ignoring the fact that Montrose is gentrifying WITHOUT light rail. It's also interesting how you stated that "they would need to have buses running every 2 minutes" to meet demand or something along those lines. Are the buses crammed full as it is, or would light rail magically induce demand as you claim highways are? If we want to be looking toward the future, ripping lanes out of major roads and limiting access for a light rail that behaves like a bus is not the right way to do things. Furthermore, if rail is rerouted to the south directly paralleling 59 in the old right of way completely, or being buried underneath Richmond for just maybe a few miles, it gives the rail more potential, and you could extend it (in theory) to the west. Note that even the parking lots/transit centers exist for such a change. In the meantime, even if Richmond got a rebuild and the buses replaced with some modern vehicles, it would probably functionally fill the idea of the University Line as a fancy bus route, but that will have to wait until Metro gets an injection of competence.

I think you're right. One stop at Montrose and Chelsea, which would be a few blocks away from St. Thomas and Montrose proper, West University Place (elevated over Kirby), Greenway Plaza (at Edloe), and then to the west. That hits most of the major destinations on the north side, and utilizing the line, we could extend it all the way out to Greater Katy. See if that affects the Katy Freeway at all.

Which studies performed by who? METRO needs a lot of work, and also, waiting more than 2 minutes for a bus isn't going to kill you, especially if it's sheltered. It's interesting that you can switch positions at the drop of a hat when it favors you, especially in your plans to tear down the Pierce Elevated. It's not just about the cars, I want a good light rail, which you seem to be missing. A light rail that has too many stops and stops at nearly every intersection isn't exactly optimal and makes it more like a bus. I honestly think "transit oriented development" is just a developer buzzword that means "adjacent to mass transit" which could even mean bus, technically.

It's quite easy--supposing that the roads weren't full of potholes and that buses were more modern--what difference would a bus going down Richmond and stopping every intersection, versus tearing up the street for a light rail that takes up a lane of traffic, eliminates cross streets and a lane of traffic, requires its own specialized stations, takes months to build, and barely any faster than the bus since it stops virtually every block for stations/stoplights? I do think that there needs to be at least one stop before Greenway Plaza, such as at St. Thomas/Montrose. That's why the Westpark line in the narrow section (remember, 59 peels away from the tracks, making such a thing easier) isn't ideal (they could at least add a bike lane to that section). If the line went under Richmond, it would still affect businesses, but only temporarily. If Richmond was rebuilt with new concrete (no light rail), it would also take a long time. It's worth noting though that the Dallas light rail's tunnels were while almost certainly cut and cover, built underneath a railroad ROW. If we took a third option and tore out Chelsea Street Marketplace (or whatever those buildings are Chelsea and Montrose) for a station that would link to Montrose and the St. Thomas Marketplace just a few blocks north, dug in that ROW and finally ascended to earth around Hazard Street--it would probably be a mile of underground light rail. Of course, that would also cut out Greenway Plaza, but a walkway over 59 could alleviate that. It would probably make more sense for the Main Street Line, at least downtown, to be underground, but the tunnel system is a barrier to that. The root problem of the issue is that there's practically no ROW to work with. If the abandoned ROW that gets close to 59 had more easement, then we would not have an issue. It really would benefit everyone if the line ran under Richmond: FOR BUSINESSES The road will still be reduced to one lane with minimal turns, but it's only temporary, not permanent. Richmond gets a rebuild after the process is done. Four lanes, turn lane, median, concrete, something you won't get with that toy train. FOR COMMUTERS The light rail you get will be modern, fast, and efficient, without all those noxious stops. Getting from Hillcroft to Wheeler will be an absolute breeze as the rail goes across, over, and under. FOR THOSE ANTI-CULBERSON FOLKS The light rail you get will circumvent Culberson: while not ON Richmond, you go UNDER Richmond. And you can maneuver for federal funding because of that!

And one more: I am not saying that what Culberson did was ethical (he is a politician, after all), and I really don't know if the neighborhoods and businesses really did support it or perhaps that was just speaking loudly ("business associations" is especially questionable, since what an association decides is not necessarily what the bodies want--unions are a great example of that). For your demands of "The rail line MUST go in the busiest corridors because that's where the PEOPLE ARE!!", the Gulfton line is still half a mile away from most of the apartment complexes. There's nothing wrong with that, but arguing that this is acceptable while putting the line on Westpark ROW and not Richmond is a travesty that cuts thousands out of ridership is not. More hyperbole about how it's "critical" it must be done that way. Would people really commute from TSU to Greenway Plaza? Probably not. But I'm not arguing if the line should be built or not, I just think that running it on Richmond is a bad idea. A bad idea versus a worse idea doesn't make the less bad one a good idea. Again, not saying that Culberson isn't ethical, but it's typical politician behavior. I would love to see a commuter rail line go down from Northwest Transit Center downtown, to be honest. I didn't say that Westpark would have more ridership that Richmond, moving it a few hundred meters wouldn't put a huge dent in ridership, and I thought that the rail would be best if it ran UNDER Richmond. The question really comes down to this: do you want a world class transit system or do you want the world's most expensive bus?

No, I really don't. While two rails could fit, stations are a bit wider, and that's the problem. The way I see it, if they built a full underground, they could shift lanes over when necessary without destroying anything on either side, and after the tunnels were built, just put the roads back over it and it's business as normal except a new road on top. With that, the lanes would still be lost, and it would make things more complicated if they want to add left turn lanes. The length that would need to be depressed would still block other intersections and make station placement more problematic. Net gain: 0. Westheimer would be an even worse idea than Richmond since not only it's still a major road, but the right of way is very low, meaning that even if you were try to dig up Westheimer for a line, it would basically completely close down the road. The businesses of Westheimer would not stand for that at all, and I'm sure that Montrosians (is that the right word? "Montrosians"?) would rally against it. With Richmond, you at least get that median to work with. Given the land value of those houses, underground for a few miles should be at least semi "worth it". I'm not sure where the cost of LRT comes from: the stations undoubtedly contribute to a bunch of the cost (a reason why those extra stops should be eliminated), and the cars come imported for overseas (a reason why LRT is cheaper in Europe which no one has mentioned). The "pre-existing ROW" also involves basically rebuilding the entire road from scratch and dismantling lines underneath and changing stoplights as well. A true pre-existing ROW, like the Westpark line, would not deal with such things. There are HAIFers that do agree with that image (more than one), but here are the quotes in question. • "I'm very proud to have been able to protect Richmond and Post Oak from being destroyed as Fannin and Main Street were destroyed," That's probably hyperbole there, but Main Street is a joke now with narrow lanes, even a disconnected segment there near the old Foley's, and points north with a six lane road being turned into a two way road with limited places to turn. Meanwhile, the light rail isn't all that zippy either, which still has to stop at stoplights. There's a YouTube video of the new Red Line extension, and even with it sped up several times, it still feels pretty slow sometimes. • "It's a permanent federal statutory law. So it's a felony if any governmental entities attempt to spend any federal money to push rail on those routes," This is another quote in question. Notice that's federal funding--there are lots of issues in America that people will support just not with federal funding. If the state was willing to cough up some dough possibly by raising a bit of taxes (and really, they should), then that would be a different issue and rail gets the green light. Besides, the way he could have phrased it wouldn't rule out under Richmond, now, would it? It wouldn't even cover "parallel to" Richmond. • "West Park would be perfect. They have the right of way." This is a point he made and it's true--it wouldn't ruin streets and it does provide a workable plan. It also disproves the "anti-rail" belief. Notice that he never said anything (at least to my knowledge) as "I'll never let rail run in my district" or to that effect. It may be a warped version of "I'll never let rail run through Afton Oaks", but that's not the same thing.

"Getting more ridership" is a bit of a smokescreen, since either way down 59 would bring in people (the "Richmond is where the people are" argument is stupid, because if that were true, we'd be cutting swathes though residential neighborhoods). If that power right of way was about 10 meters wider between the edge of 59 and the houses on that side of the freeway (tearing down every house on Vassar and Autrey clearly isn't the best way to do things. The way things are shaping up is basically an extremely expensive bus line east of Greenway Plaza, which I think is not the way to do things. METRO needs a lot of help. While it's not falling apart at the seams like Portland's transit authority (though arguably you could say that they at least built a competent network beforehand) No, the public voted. But a vote isn't set in stone--citizens can vote for a public official and get a recall election, cancel an old law, judges can throw out laws, etc. That's the current system, I'm afraid. Or are you in favor of a "the voters made their bed, now they lie in it" situation? Again, with trying to build below grade underpasses for rail would require so much construction and displacement it would be just as expensive or even cheaper to build underground entirely. The current plan frankly sucks. You want to cannibalize a street (yes, Richmond would get "repaired"--but that's like saying to get a kidney transplant, you have to cut off two of your limbs), put in far more stops than necessary (and stations are expensive), and get a slow train that probably moves slower than a car on 59 in rush hour (on average). Again, hardly a "world class" transit system. The underground system would satisfy both needs by giving Houstonians a modern light rail system and serve the original route as planned. The image of Culberson as some sort of anti-rail supervillain is an exaggeration, and blocking the University Line was, despite the ways and motives of doing it, was a decent idea, because again--the line is terrible as is, made only less terrible by moving the rail away from Afton Oaks. What I'd like to know is it cheaper to knock down every house on Vassar and Autrey, or to dig up Richmond to add a submerged line and rebuilding Richmond that way? Of course, it is budget problems that are limiting METRO, which was probably exacerbated by incompetence. What was the actual quote? This is another example of hearsay that promotes the "anti-rail supervillain" idea.

I am very much aware of the rule here about Dallas/Houston debating, and in the past, feelings were hurt, threads were locked, posters banned. That is obviously not the way to go about things. Rather, I want to find a semi-neutral space to debate further. City-Data is a total mess but I'd still like to have some discussion on the issue...

It should be noted that Holcombe and Fannin's bypass was built back in the 1960s and was only retrofitted for Metro's use. A similar attempt today would require lots of demolition, which at that rate they should just give up and tear out the southern (or northern, depending on who complains the loudest) for a parallel METRORail track.

I think that the University Line as it is planned now is slow, ruins a road, and has way too many stops. If it's "already voted for" and with the delays, it needs to be scrapped entirely and replaced with a modified plan.

Would it even be possible that since they seem to run it in a narrow ROW anyway west of 610, would it work to run it in the right of way just south of 610 where power lines currently go? It would be a few blocks away from the proposed stations along Richmond, but it might even go faster than the old one, and cheaper to build.

In my modified plan, the block between Richmond, Portsmouth, Cummins, and Timmons would be demolished for the light rail to swing right and down. Cummins then would be closed south of Richmond (but it's not like it's creating two segments of roads) with only the southern part open to get into that strip center (the old northbound would be turned into a driveway). What ROW of Cummins isn't used for the light rail would be used as a pedestrian mall. After the Cummins stop, it crosses over Norfolk (Norfolk gets gates!) and over 59, demolishing part of the strip center, crossing Westpark at grade, over Westlayan at grade, over the railroad on a bridge, and then you know the rest (mostly). Meanwhile, Richmond is completely rebuilt on the surface, benefitting the buses greatly (as well as cars)

A true "burrowing" subway I don't think would work, a cut-and-cover would probably be the preferred option. To be honest, I went to Dallas this week--just got back today, and while I'm not going to complain about Houston's being not as extensive, the routes that they do have seem well done and have a reasonable amount of people during the weekday (non-peak hours). Not having street running, and even having an area where the light rail ran in a tunnel (still with a wire above, not third rail) would do a world of difference, but I just can't see where you CAN do that in Houston besides abandoned ROWs, which there aren't a lot of.

There's a lot of talk about the University Line and how it's being blocked by Culberson and all that. But it got me thinking about it, and let's face it, even with avoiding Afton Oaks and taking the more sane route, the University Line is pretty flawed in many aspects. Richmond Avenue is still a major thoroughfare, but east of Afton Oaks, it's only so wide. The medians are large enough to fit a rail line, and in the end, at least up to the Cummins stop, you'll have a wheezy line that screws up traffic patterns, blocks roads, and stops at not only at the 5 stops within three miles but also at stoplights. Some of them may be combined and timed properly with the stops, but it will be slow. Once it crosses 59, it could finally speed up and reach Hillcroft and beyond. Thing is, despite what Culberson did and the complaints of Afton Oaks, anyone talking about a "world class transit system" shouldn't be talking about street running light rail that extends outside the CBD in the same thought. I think that if the light rail was sunken below street level, it would also solve the street running issue: but are subways even workable given the topography of Houston? Is there any other real option, or are we stuck with what we've got?

I visited Klyde Warren Park, it was great. However, I doubt that it's particularly practical to remove I-345, and either way, I think that by the time they finish the study it will be too late (repaired or already well on that way). The reason why Klyde Warren Park worked out particularly well was twofold: 1) The highway was sunken, eliminating the extremely high price of actually digging out and sinking the road. What would be a major operation: digging out the highway, redirecting traffic, et cetera, et cetera, was already done decades before. Of course, the park wasn't exactly cheap but wasn't prohibitively expensive. 2) Traffic was not impeded for the most part (there may have been lane closures). If the idea had been to backfill or otherwise demolish the freeway (like what they want to do to 345), then there would be some difficulty since it's still a major thoroughfare and lots of cars use it. P.S.: I used your Dallas tunnel map, it was great! While I still prefer Houston's tunnel system hands down, it helped me navigate to the Chick-fil-A in the Renaissance Tower food court.

Has Jones High School moved once before? It seems that Carnegie Vanguard was once on the Jones HS campus, but at a different (now demo'd) location, at Scott and Airport.

Due to some spotty Internet, I can't make a longer response nor dig into news archives, but an expansion was planned in the very early 1990s, and as part of that, TXDOT, not Metro, bought the line and allowed trains to continue to run on it until 1997, whereupon the line was dismantled.

Since I never lived in Houston and in the era before Katy Freeway, I did research on that, and what I concluded was that the commuter rail idea was merely tossed around (and talked about) both before and after the original railroad was scrapped. At some point, when it became clear that adding commuter rail was a losing proposition, they eventually agreed to make the middle lanes sustainable for railroads later on, and that METRO gave money for this possibility. Whether METRO was foolish or conned, that's another issue, but no, rail was never officially part of the Katy Freeway plans.