METRORail University Line

[westguy]

There're NIMBYs on Memorial, NIMBYs on Richmond, & NIMBYs on Bellaire. Nothing will ever get done in this city. Light rail is far less offensive than a new tollway or freeway. I wonder how the neighborhood next to that YMCA reacted when a whole block of houses was knocked down for the Katy Freeway expansion.

[IHB2]

"If Metro builds it on Westpark they will come." That is where it belongs if elections still count in this city.

a couple of observations:

From Kirby to the UP track, "Westpark" is already built out and it's not high density, nor is it likely to transform to high density. The strip centers between Kirby and Wesleyan are filled with businesses and the ROW runs behind them, and the owners of these centers and their business tenants are not likely to turn around toward the rail line since fwy feeder access sends thousands of vehicle-driving customers by them every day and the rail will not have enough stops along this route to deliver a fraction of that. They will lose some back of the building parking to the rail, but they will still retain enough space for deliveries to continue at the back of the centers.

There are a few 4-10 story office bldgs and an apartment complex between Wesleyan and 610 on the 59 feeder, but a lot of acreage is taken by a COH pumping facility and low-density bldgs like Fox TV and the Chronicle. Hard to see significant high-density development taking place in this area, although it has a bit more potential than points east.

Between Kirby and Newcastle there is not enough acreage anywhere between 59 and Westpark to build highrise residential/commercial bldgs on the north side of Westpark, and the south side of the ROW has zero development potential b/c of existing high $$ low density neighborhoods, low density commercial development, West U owned land, and Centerpoint power stations, until you get west of Newcastle.

These conditions are why the HGAC jobs/residents growth projections comparing Westpark and Richmond between Kirby and 610 predict Westpark falling further and further behind Richmond in both categories over the next 20+ yrs.

[Pumapayam]

If electrical power went out for weeks the CITY would be crippled, if we didn't have a water and sewer system for a few days the CITY would be crippled. Putting rail someplace besides Richmond would not cripple the city.

Although, I understand the reason you choose the analogy, comparing traffic to public utilities is not the best example. We all need power and water to function as a city, we have been with cars for years and can live with them if we had too. You tend to go overboard with your preaching and this one takes the cake. Traffic is an issue during rush hour times. Maybe saying a road detour/closure would be a better example, anyways. . .

Clean up the second to above post if you could, you repeated yourself.

[aftowl]

These conditions are why the HGAC jobs/residents growth projections comparing Westpark and Richmond between Kirby and 610 predict Westpark falling further and further behind Richmond in both categories over the next 20+ yrs.

Thank you IHB2 for a detailed and factual description of what is and is not on Westpark and it's future vs. Richmond's.

And speaking of Richmond, there is a distinct possibility that for once taxpayers could get a three-for-one if the Universities Line, the reconstruction of Richmond and the TxDot bridge were constructed simultaneously. It may be too much to wish for but it is certainly a positive selling point.

Remaining positive and pro-active is my main concern while we continue to lobby for the Universities Line on Richmond. I know dogfights are more entertaining to watch but the end result at best is just a couple of bloody dogs.

Just a couple of comments regarding what I've read here this morning:

I am all for lines on Bellaire and Washington as some have mentioned. However, certain lines were put on the ballot and voted FOR. I believe METRO will be concentrating on realizing those lines in the immediate future.

Petitions (sigh-one last time)...the only petition I have seen is this one: http://www.mobilitycoalition.org/sign.html

As I have said, there may be another poll/petition/survey being circulated but it hasn't reached my doorstep here on Mid, my best friend

[Pumapayam]

I found a photo of AftonAg!

[TheNiche]

a couple of observations:

Your observations are quite valid, but do you have a reason against the idea of a 'thru' LRT route that utilized Westpark as a high-speed bypass without a stop that would more effectively connect the Greenway Plaza and Galleria areas? That is, of course, assuming that the high-speed bypass provided for time savings in excess of utilizing the straight-line path that is Richmond.

[tierwestah]

Quite the contrary. I read every post. Apparently you don't - the post that I responded too stated that not having rail on Richmond would "cripple the city" - that's quite different isn't it? If electrical power went out for weeks the CITY would be crippled, if we didn't have a water and sewer system for a few days the CITY would be crippled. Putting rail someplace besides Richmond would not cripple the city.

I am not blind to the numbers of people that live, work, and play in the vicinity of Richmond. Apparently you think that if the line was placed on Richmond it would run at capacity from day one - not likely. "If Metro builds it on Westpark they will come." That is where it belongs if elections still count in this city.

it IS crippling this city when the opportunity comes for the city to benefit as a whole and some angry AO residents who are scared of change come and thwart the plans. I'm not mad at you aftowl, you cool with me!

But to suggest the line be put on Westpark is nothing but a lazy way of thinking for an alternative. You can come up with all the analogies you want about power outages and sort crippling this city. But i'm looking at the facts on the table. You, as a rail opposer haven't given any viable alternative to where to put the line, except for the Westpark route. And i think you're just jumping on the bandwagon on that one. It is clear to me that you and your anti-rail AO buddies are just opposing rail just for the hell of it. Culberson is doing it so he can protect his seat.

Riding down Richmond, i see alot of ridiculous protest signs saying :"RAIL spelled backwards is LIAR", "No Rail on Richmond", "Save Our Trees". That all is a crock of $hit! I think that petition or poll that you speak of was more than likely masterminded or worded to people to automatically vote no for Richmond. Polls and petitions can create a lot of bias simply by the way they're worded.

The idea of Bellaire is the only decent alternative that i've seen presented on this thread.

[Furious Jam]

Your observations are quite valid, but do you have a reason against the idea of a 'thru' LRT route that utilized Westpark as a high-speed bypass without a stop that would more effectively connect the Greenway Plaza and Galleria areas? That is, of course, assuming that the high-speed bypass provided for time savings in excess of utilizing the straight-line path that is Richmond.

One of the many, many problems with Westpark is that it's on the other side of 59 from Greenway Plaza and the Galleria. I'm interested in your arguments for using the 59 ROW to bypass Richmond, but only so long as all passengers are deposited north of the freeway. Very few people will cross under 59 on foot, mostly due to the stench of bum urine. For all intents and purposes, Westpark is no closer to Greenway Plaza and the Galleria than the moon.

In my opinion, the only thing Westpark is good for is commuter rail, and we already have vast freeways (with HOV lanes) to serve people outside the Loop. Anyway, what's the point of commuter rail if commuters on foot can't transfer to decent mass transit in the interior? Commuter rail is the last piece to add, not the second.

[Furious Jam]

it IS crippling this city when the opportunity comes for the city to benefit as a whole and some angry AO residents who are scared of change come and thwart the plans.

It's more correct to say that the opposition to rail on Richmond is stifling our city's future. They are against change.

Of course, I'm not saying that change is always painless, because the opposite usually holds true. I acknowledge that businesses along Richmond could be hurt by the rail in a variety of ways, and that a few of them might even suffer severe or permanent damage. And if a person places the absolute well-being of those businesses ahead of progressive change in this city, then I have to respect that person's point-of-view, though I may disagree with it.

That being said, the forces that are driving the opposition aren't really concerned with the Richmond businesses. If John Culberson cared that much about businesses, then why did he allow the Katy Freeway expansion and the 610/59 interchange expansion, both of which crushed many businesses in the name of transit? The neighborhoods driving the opposition, like AO, are those who would have the least to lose from rail on Richmond. They wouldn't blink if rail on Westpark took out a thousand businesses, just so long as it's not in their backyard. It's this disingenuous and shameless "defending" of the businesses on Richmond which truly aggravates. They have no legitimate point-of-view.

But is anyone here really surprised that Republicans have no interest in progressive policies? Especially something as egalitarian as mass transit? To a man, they have always fought rail in this city. You won't see John Culberson endorse any meaningful rail plan unless that train is bringing Jesus or tax cuts to town.

You love Jesus, don't you AftonAg? And you looove tax cuts too, huh? Thank God for John Culberson, and for W too! Mission Accomplished!

Edited August 16, 2006 by Furious Jam

[TheNiche]

One of the many, many problems with Westpark is that it's on the other side of 59 from Greenway Plaza and the Galleria. I'm interested in your arguments for using the 59 ROW to bypass Richmond, but only so long as all passengers are deposited north of the freeway. Very few people will cross under 59 on foot, mostly due to the stench of bum urine. For all intents and purposes, Westpark is no closer to Greenway Plaza and the Galleria than the moon.

In my opinion, the only thing Westpark is good for is commuter rail, and we already have vast freeways (with HOV lanes) to serve people outside the Loop. Anyway, what's the point of commuter rail if commuters on foot can't transfer to decent mass transit in the interior? Commuter rail is the last piece to add, not the second.

I'm with you about the need for the Greenway Plaza stop to be on the north side of US 59, but I don't see Westpark as having only the potential for commuter rail. Although I too see it as a secondary priority to serving the Galleria area, Gulfton (outside the loop) is without a doubt Houston's densest neighborhood. I'd like to see LRT eventually continue down Westpark, either extending west to the Hillcroft TC or going down Chimney Rock to Bellaire, and then going west through Chinatown.

[TheNiche]

That being said, the forces that are driving the opposition aren't really concerned with the Richmond businesses. If John Culberson cared that much about businesses, then why did he allow the Katy Freeway expansion and the 610/59 interchange expansion, both of which crushed many businesses in the name of transit? The neighborhoods driving the opposition, like AO, are those who would have the least to lose from rail on Richmond. They wouldn't blink if rail on Westpark took out a thousand businesses, just so long as it's not in their backyard. It's this disingenuous and shameless "defending" of the businesses on Richmond which truly aggravates. They have no legitimate point-of-view.

To compare rail alignments with freeway expansions makes for a weak analogy. There really wasn't any viable alternative to expanding the Katy Freeway, and most people can follow the logic of TXDoT in targeting primarily the north side of the freeway for ROW acquisition. I mean, can you envision a case where TXDoT went out into the communities and proposed several alternative alignments for new freeways that would suppliment the Katy? They'd have been laughed at for doing so because there simply weren't any.

Same thing with the interchange at 610/59. The placement was pretty well fixed by the previous interchange and the project was sorely needed. So it went forward.

But with LRT, its a new route built from scratch that could conceivably be configured in dozens of various ways along existing Rights of Way. The nature of the argument and the opposition is fundamentally different and more politically complex. It becomes a matter of which NIMBYists from opposing neighborhoods can yell the loudest?

[Furious Jam]

To compare rail alignments with freeway expansions makes for a weak analogy. There really wasn't any viable alternative to expanding the Katy Freeway, and most people can follow the logic of TXDoT in targeting primarily the north side of the freeway for ROW acquisition. I mean, can you envision a case where TXDoT went out into the communities and proposed several alternative alignments for new freeways that would suppliment the Katy? They'd have been laughed at for doing so because there simply weren't any.

Same thing with the interchange at 610/59. The placement was pretty well fixed by the previous interchange and the project was sorely needed. So it went forward.

But with LRT, its a new route built from scratch that could conceivably be configured in dozens of various ways along existing Rights of Way. The nature of the argument and the opposition is fundamentally different and more politically complex. It becomes a matter of which NIMBYists from opposing neighborhoods can yell the loudest?

If you want to talk about poor analogies, I can spin that right back at you. The Katy Freeway expansion cut a huge swath of destruction. Will rail on Richmond do that? Or will only a few businesses be permanently affected directly by the construction?

And you say there was no other place for the Katy Freeway to go, but has anyone come up with an alternative route for the rail that is (1) technically feasible, (2) would be anywhere near as effective as rail on Richmond, and (3) would have a significantly lesser impact on the businesses and neighborhoods along its route than rail on Richmond would have on its vicinity? People on this board have put a lot of thought into it, as I'm sure Metro has, and no legitimate answers have been produced as of yet. As such, you could easily argue that a university line has no other place to go. Surely you don't think that Richmond was chosen at random, do you?

Anyway, does it really matter that I-10 or 610/59 were already there? Haven't brand new freeways been plowed through subdivisions in the past when progress demanded it? You say I make a poor analogy, but I still say that the only difference is that this rail line is coming within spitting distance of a pocket of rich folk - otherwise, you wouldn't hear a peep about it. And isn't that just typical?

[C2H]

i know you guys are going to hate me for saying this, but let's just run a subway through that portion of aftonoaks and call it a day. Like stated earlier by someone, Culberson wants to block rail on richmond, why not secure funds to create Subway there?

[aftowl]

Furious Jam

I feel the need to reiterate that SOME in Afton Oaks are driving the opposition-defiantly not all. Most of us here know we have little to lose and much to gain from rail on Richmond. If people think most of us are trembling at the thought of our neighborhood being destroyed, I invite them to take a drive down any street and start counting new construction. I

[MiDTOWNeR]

Furious Jam

I feel the need to reiterate that SOME in Afton Oaks are driving the opposition-defiantly not all. Most of us here know we have little to lose and much to gain from rail on Richmond. If people think most of us are trembling at the thought of our neighborhood being destroyed, I invite them to take a drive down any street and start counting new construction. I

[TheNiche]

If you want to talk about poor analogies, I can spin that right back at you. The Katy Freeway expansion cut a huge swath of destruction. Will rail on Richmond do that? Or will only a few businesses be permanently affected directly by the construction?

And you say there was no other place for the Katy Freeway to go, but has anyone come up with an alternative route for the rail that is (1) technically feasible, (2) would be anywhere near as effective as rail on Richmond, and (3) would have a significantly lesser impact on the businesses and neighborhoods along its route than rail on Richmond would have on its vicinity? People on this board have put a lot of thought into it, as I'm sure Metro has, and no legitimate answers have been produced as of yet. As such, you could easily argue that a university line has no other place to go. Surely you don't think that Richmond was chosen at random, do you?

Anyway, does it really matter that I-10 or 610/59 were already there? Haven't brand new freeways been plowed through subdivisions in the past when progress demanded it? You say I make a poor analogy, but I still say that the only difference is that this rail line is coming within spitting distance of a pocket of rich folk - otherwise, you wouldn't hear a peep about it. And isn't that just typical?

I'm not quite sure how you're "spinning that right back at me". The Katy Freeway impacted businesses, as will the LRT if it is run along Richmond. The coefficients are vastly different, but the relationship is the same. But that isn't even what I was arguing. My only point was that the circumstances of the two transportation investments are different because even though the necessity of either is not in question, one's alignment is fixed and the other's alignment is up in the air. That's the only reason that this has become a hot-button issue.

Indeeed, brand new freeways have been cut through existing neighborhoods; 288 required that a particularly wide freeway be cut through Riverside Terrace, a very wealthy area. But that was a different era. It'll never happen like that again.

I think that a few of our ideas have fulfilled the three criteria that you've set forth, but I'm not sure that anybody can lay claim to "legitimacy"...including the officials.

[TheNiche]

I'm with you about the need for the Greenway Plaza stop to be on the north side of US 59, but I don't see Westpark as having only the potential for commuter rail. Although I too see it as a secondary priority to serving the Galleria area, Gulfton (outside the loop) is without a doubt Houston's densest neighborhood. I'd like to see LRT eventually continue down Westpark, either extending west to the Hillcroft TC or going down Chimney Rock to Bellaire, and then going west through Chinatown.

By the way, this website shows a number of maps that you can open. Look at the map depicting population density throughout our region. Note the incredibly dense areas that are outside of the loop around Gulfton, Fondren, Bissonnet, Bellaire, Beechnut, and Beltway 8. These are areas where obtaining funding from the FTA would be very easy and where political opposition would be minimal. So here's my proposal to take advantage of these conditions as well as political practicalities.

Implement a Greenway Plaza Station along the north side of the Southwest Freeways ROW, bridge the line over to Westpark, and bring it onto Post Oak from Westpark (I found out a few minutes ago that the Post Oak/Westpark tunnel has already been engineered to effectively accomodate LRT with minimal disruption), continuing north to the Northwest TC. In the next phase, run a spur from the Westpark/Post Oak intersection to Chimney Rock, turn south, and run it to Bellaire Blvd. By doing this, the LRT won't cross into the City of Bellaire's limits anywhere along the line, so the wealthy folks won't be able to complain effectively. Then run the line out Bellaire Blvd. all the way to at least Synott Rd. Even without reconfiguring bus routes, the LRT should generate plenty of traffic. More than enough to get FTA funding.

Edited August 17, 2006 by TheNiche

[ricco67]

Niche, I have to give that to you. Excellent post!

BTW: 404 on the link, dude.

[IHB2]

Your observations are quite valid, but do you have a reason against the idea of a 'thru' LRT route that utilized Westpark as a high-speed bypass without a stop that would more effectively connect the Greenway Plaza and Galleria areas? That is, of course, assuming that the high-speed bypass provided for time savings in excess of utilizing the straight-line path that is Richmond.

my 1st post on this forum, #506 on p.11, detailed as well as I can why rail on Westpark anywhere between Shepherd and 610 is a bad idea. In a nutshell I believe the "mission" of this area is to handle vehicle traffic coming off of 610, 59, and the Westpark Tollway (which is in its infancy as far as volume goes and it already puts 2-3000 vehicles/hr at the 610 feeder/Westpark and Wesleyan/Westpark intersections at peak AM/PM hrs), that both Westpark and the ROW are too close to 59 in this area to incorporate a slow 20 trains/hr circulator line at-grade, that if you "El" the whole line you lose the only advantage a Westpark alignment had - cost/mile and introduce unacceptable visual and noise impacts in the residential neighborhoods from Vassar south and from Edloe to the UP tracks.

the whole idea of building a slow circulator line with a "high-speed" segment that doesn't stop even though passing neighborhoods, businesses, and apartments seems the opposite of what taxpayers would want for all the tax $$ being spent. placing the last station in GPlaza then no stations until at least 610/Post Oak would mean no one in any of the residential areas south of Westpark-east of 610 could utilize the train without driving to GPlaza or the Galleria and parking, which is a "lose-lose" outcome:

you're suggestion runs the rail where there are fewer actual and potential riders than other routes and then denies access to the train to whatever ridership the area might have had.

[TheNiche]

...you're suggestion runs the rail where there are fewer actual and potential riders than other routes and then denies access to the train to whatever ridership the area might have had.

A lot of people seem to think of mass transit as a corridor. But it is not so much a corridor as it is a set of nodes. That is all. And just because the physical string that connects those nodes happens to go through an area doesn't mean that a new node must be created.

If a stop requires holding a few dozen people up for a minute at a time in order to provide service to an area where only a few people board/disembark, then that is a stop that need not exist. If the stop is there, not only is there a net loss of time-savings, but some people may also decide to drive rather than utilize the LRT because driving is faster and more convenient. When they're out driving, they are adding to congestion, which poses another marginal cost to society.

Velocity matters because people value their time. Very simple.

[IHB2]

Implement a Greenway Plaza Station along the north side of the Southwest Freeways ROW, bridge the line over to Westpark, and bring it onto Post Oak from Westpark (I found out a few minutes ago that the Post Oak/Westpark tunnel has already been engineered to effectively accomodate LRT with minimal disruption)

the Wpark ROW is on the south side of Wpark, the LRT lane in the tunnel is on the north side. LRT must run at-grade under 610. therefore LRT must cross Wpark at-grade to proceed north on Post Oak.

the eastbound Wpark Tollway exit ramp ends only 2/10 mile from the Wpark/610 feeder stoplight where the tunnel is. LRT can't make 90 degree turns so there will have to be a wide swing somehow accomplished beginning somewhere under the 610 overpass (if you look at the tunnel LRT lane it looks like it was designed to take an eastbound line on the Westpark ROW from west of the tunnel running in a smooth curve north to Post Oak and no similar path for a westbound line on Wpark to make that turn - makes you wonder if METRO asked for that on purpose years ago as a way to connect the Uptown Line and the U Line from Richmond to the Hillcroft TC).

because of the proximity of the high speed tollway traffic and length of the turn I would bet the crossing will need both lights and crossing arms. then add 20 trains per hour and the fun begins.

taking LRT across Wpark at the tunnel under 59 is the worst possible option for Tollway users and local Wpark traffic.

[bachanon]

From the article...

This is exactly what METRO should do. Skip Richmond altogether. Move on to other lines, such as the Washington corridor, where rail is welcomed. This line could meet up with the Uptown line at the Northwest Transit Center, still providing Downtown/Galleria connections. METRO will be adding onto the system for decades. The time will come when the obstructionists on Richmond will be replaced with those who want rail. METRO can revisit the issue then.

Richmond will always have that ROW. If and when the City ever rebuilds Richmond, they can leave enough median space to accomodate rail in the future. It is only a matter of time before the old foagies are replaced with those that prefer transit options.

If the museums and St. Thomas are a priority, run a spur to there and stop. Houston needs rail all over town. Let's not waste time on a few hundred people who cannot see the obvious.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!1

[TheNiche]

because of the proximity of the high speed tollway traffic and length of the turn I would bet the crossing will need both lights and crossing arms. then add 20 trains per hour and the fun begins.

Somehow I always knew that not extending the Westpark Tollway's mainlanes inside the loop would come back and bite us in the ass.

[Furious Jam]

Furious Jam

I feel the need to reiterate that SOME in Afton Oaks are driving the opposition-defiantly not all. Most of us here know we have little to lose and much to gain from rail on Richmond. If people think most of us are trembling at the thought of our neighborhood being destroyed, I invite them to take a drive down any street and start counting new construction. I

[CE_ugh]

Somehow I always knew that not extending the Westpark Tollway's mainlanes inside the loop would come back and bite us in the ass.

This isnt the thread for this but I can say to you that as poorly designed as the Westpark Tlwy. is; it would have made a difference in where it ended.

[ricco67]

You may have something to go on there.

Something along those lines happend in one neighborhood in which there was an ongoing battle within a neighborhood in which one group wanted sidewalks installed so that kids wouldn't have to walk in the streets to/from the various bus stops. Something which I think is not unreasonable.

The other group didn't want them installed because that would encourage "foot traffic" and would worry that that would provide an easy path (or some such nonsense) for a criminal element.

Never quite understood that last point, but it came to such a head that it made the news when apparently a reporter somehow found out about it and made it a REALLY big deal there.

I never did find out the result, so I'm somewhat curious.

[Furious Jam]

You may have something to go on there.

Something along those lines happend in one neighborhood in which there was an ongoing battle within a neighborhood in which one group wanted sidewalks installed so that kids wouldn't have to walk in the streets to/from the various bus stops. Something which I think is not unreasonable.

The other group didn't want them installed because that would encourage "foot traffic" and would worry that that would provide an easy path (or some such nonsense) for a criminal element.

Never quite understood that last point, but it came to such a head that it made the news when apparently a reporter somehow found out about it and made it a REALLY big deal there.

I never did find out the result, so I'm somewhat curious.

Believe it or not, there is a large contingent in Bellaire that is against sidewalks. A lot of these residents want the convenience of living in an urban environment, but they also want the security of a gated, "master-planned" community. They all want to be islands unto themselves... until they need the city to do something for them - then they're "taxpayers".

[aftowl]

I do not literally mean every AO resident. I apologize if you thought otherwise.

In my dealings with affluent subdivisions like AO, I've found that many residents often oppose any kind of mass transit in their area, including bus routes, because they feel that it brings them into contact with an undesirable element.I fear that some of your neighbors oppose rail not because they care about its impact on businesses or on left turns, but because they are elitists and perhaps closet racists.

No apology nessessary.

The "undesirable element" has been brought up a number of times. The fact no station is planned for Afton Oaks seems to have no effect on those that continue to cling to that myth.

Some of my neighbors oppose rail because they sincerely believe no one will ride it. Others oppose because they don't like change-many of these are permanently incensed about all the new home construction as well.

Others hate government (until they need it) and see the boogie man behind every tree dressed as a Democrat out to destroy their very fortunate life-styles.

It is very difficult to have a dialogue with people who are so stubborn they can't be moved regardless of the facts.

Again, I am ready to move forward and build what I voted for on Richmond.

[dp2]

(In regards to West U. passing a resolution against rail anywhere south of 59 between Kirby and 610:)

OMG. Link please! This is the best news ever!

Not at all, it is the same bratty NIMBY provincialism that Afton Oaks is pursuing. The best location west of the UP RR tracks to 610 is the abandoned SP ROW next to Westpark, and a portion of that ROW between the UP tracks and Weslayan may be needed to hit the core of the Greenway Plaza area, too.

[dp2]

Unfortunately your analysis doesn't square with facts and what is actually there. Let's begin:

a couple of observations:

From Kirby to the UP track, "Westpark" is already built out and it's not high density, nor is it likely to transform to high density. The strip centers between Kirby and Wesleyan are filled with businesses and the ROW runs behind them, and the owners of these centers and their business tenants are not likely to turn around toward the rail line since fwy feeder access sends thousands of vehicle-driving customers by them every day and the rail will not have enough stops along this route to deliver a fraction of that. They will lose some back of the building parking to the rail, but they will still retain enough space for deliveries to continue at the back of the centers.

There are a few 4-10 story office bldgs and an apartment complex between Wesleyan and 610 on the 59 feeder, but a lot of acreage is taken by a COH pumping facility and low-density bldgs like Fox TV and the Chronicle. Hard to see significant high-density development taking place in this area, although it has a bit more potential than points east.

A 300' long station at the SW corner of Westpark/Newcastle is within 1/4 mile of all 3 multi-family complexes (along Pin Oak) and all 3 midrise office bldgs to the south of Westpark. The adjacent nursery at the corner of Westpark and 610 is a prime location for office redevelopment. Immediately south of the station site is a primarily empty utility lot that could fit another large apartment complex (or better) if the relatively few utility items were shifted over towards their land along the RR tracks. There is also the potential to develop the empty L-shaped portion of the utility land south of the big facility and on the east side of Mulberry, again within walking distance (1/4 mile) and enough land for an apartment complex. On the north side of Westpark, all the multifamily, the Chronicle, and 2 of the 3 major office bldgs are within 1/4 mile, and part of the Chronicle property fronting 610 could possibly be redeveloped (let's see them put their money where their editorials are regarding density, redevelopment, and "corporate responsibility to the community." Ha!) Land swaps with utilities and businesses in order to create TOD's is not uncommon. Plus the potential for exisitng multifamily complexes to redevelop into denser 5-6 story blocks, too. The Richmond alignment through AO would skip all that in this segment.

Between Kirby and Newcastle there is not enough acreage anywhere between 59 and Westpark to build highrise residential/commercial bldgs on the north side of Westpark, and the south side of the ROW has zero development potential b/c of existing high $$ low density neighborhoods, low density commercial development, West U owned land, and Centerpoint power stations, until you get west of Newcastle.

These conditions are why the HGAC jobs/residents growth projections comparing Westpark and Richmond between Kirby and 610 predict Westpark falling further and further behind Richmond in both categories over the next 20+ yrs.

Actually there is some potential for the low-rise around 59/Weslayan to redevelop as mid or high-rise office, especially with the high-profile Fwy visibility. Yes, running south of Westpark here has limited potential because you lose the larger number of destinations north of the freeway, which is why a station crossing 59 here with its ends extending beyond the fwy edges and with pedestrian outlets that bridge the intersections to reach all 4 corners maximizes ridership. It puts within 1/4 mile the hospital and almost all the employment along both sides of the fwy between the RR tracks and Edloe, as well as those around the Weslayan/Richmond intersection. A station there might be enough catalyst for the car dealer to move and redevelop the site.

Of course a station at Greenway Plaza on the north side of the fwy and east of Edloe would hit what is easily the biggest employment hub, and serve with climate-controlled connections much better than the crappy and drawn out mid-street Richmond station proposal. It is one things for a mass of pedestrians to try and cross the single lanes of Main Street, quite another to cross the busy 3 lanes each way of Richmond. No need for redevelopment here, this is already one of the region's 10 largest employment centers. A pedestrian walkway across the freeway here isn't perfect, but it still would bring in some ridership from the multifamily complex south of Westpark that is within a 1/4 mile.

There is actually a lot of sites with redevelopment potential south of 59 between Edloe and Kirby. Apartments can be replaced with 5-6 story ones, light-industrial, strip centers, and low-rise office are all typical properties that are redeveloped. Connect to it with a station crossing 59 at an angle at Kirby (to serve all 4 corners) and a climate-controlled ped walkway from the east side of the Greenway Plaza station (that also connect the south side to GP itself) and you are guaranteed to see a good portion of that area north of Bissonett flip to TOD. You lose all of that by staying on Richmond, while a line straddling the north side of 59's frontage road can hit that and catch some of Richmond. Just as much redevelopment potential here (if implemented as I outline here, and a couple of days ago) as with the original proposal. But yes, staying on the south side on the abandoned SP ROW parallel to Westpark would be substantially inferior and lose a good bit of ridership in GP and along Richmond (too far to walk, even if climate-controlled.)

my 1st post on this forum, #506 on p.11, detailed as well as I can why rail on Westpark anywhere between Shepherd and 610 is a bad idea. In a nutshell I believe the "mission" of this area is to handle vehicle traffic coming off of 610, 59, and the Westpark Tollway (which is in its infancy as far as volume goes and it already puts 2-3000 vehicles/hr at the 610 feeder/Westpark and Wesleyan/Westpark intersections at peak AM/PM hrs), that both Westpark and the ROW are too close to 59 in this area to incorporate a slow 20 trains/hr circulator line at-grade, that if you "El" the whole line you lose the only advantage a Westpark alignment had - cost/mile and introduce unacceptable visual and noise impacts in the residential neighborhoods from Vassar south and from Edloe to the UP tracks.

the whole idea of building a slow circulator line with a "high-speed" segment that doesn't stop even though passing neighborhoods, businesses, and apartments seems the opposite of what taxpayers would want for all the tax $$ being spent. placing the last station in GPlaza then no stations until at least 610/Post Oak would mean no one in any of the residential areas south of Westpark-east of 610 could utilize the train without driving to GPlaza or the Galleria and parking, which is a "lose-lose" outcome:

you're suggestion runs the rail where there are fewer actual and potential riders than other routes and then denies access to the train to whatever ridership the area might have had.

More exaggeration. First off, the turning radius for Metro's LRT's are 82'. If they chose to use NJT's diesel LRT's like Austin has that may increase to approx. 130-140'. The Metro ROW (abandoned SP railroad) is 50' wide (not counting another 50' to the fwy support wall where I believe a U-turn lane has been installed), the street is 70+', plus there is another 50' north of there before getting to the U-turn lane. That is based on 2004 aerial photos, but regardless of configuration it is clear that a rail turn there is not a problem engineering-wise, especially if it already designed for LRT, as someone earlier claimed.

While I would prefer grade separation, adding 20 trains an hour there isn't anywhere near the devastating impact you suggest. It is less time and frequency of interference per hour than adding a single additional turn cycle to an intersection. How often do those lights cycle? More than every 3 minutes. And if it is as you characterize it "low-speed" then there isn't any need for crossing gates, just the usual light adjustments used on the Main Street line's intersections, and the all-red time can be shorter than a crossing with gates would require. Some impact and added congestion, but relatively minor.

A couple of more red herrings yet unaddressed, but I'm going to bed.