Agreed. IMO, the Main Street line should have been above ground, but if it had been proposed that way, it never would have passed due to increased costs.
Don't misinterpret my statement, though. All I'm saying is that it was painful to put the rail on Main street and that such pains are not exaggerated.
I am for any project that does the following: 1) Reduces traffic congestion 2) Reduces traffic congestion at a reasonable cost 3) Helps to increase property values inside the loop 4) Helps to increase the population density of the city inside the loop 5) Promotes smart, efficient development of real estate The first Metro line did not accomplish any of these goals. It simply replaced a bus line at a ridiculously high cost. You could attempt to make the case that in the future, real estate along the Metro line will be developed as a result of the new line. Has this happened? No, and certainly not to the extent that rail proponents promised. Why not? If your goal is to add to the aesthetic appeal of the city, why not build parks, create pedestrian friendly zones, provides development incentives for mixed use facilities, spruce up blighted areas, etc? Houston's biggest obstacle in terms of creating density is the fact that downtown is bounded by elevated highways. This effectively creates an island out of downtown. No one wants to locate underneath a bridge or near one. It doesn't provide a smooth transition to downtown from the connecting areas. Dallas was smart in that they sank Woodall Rogers. Their uptown connects to their museum district in downtown very well. They have incredible, world class developments sprouting up at that connection site (Ritz Carlton, The Crescent, condo towers, etc). The Buffalo Bayou project is a nice project that I support. http://www.buffalobayou.org/
To answer the thread's question, I would choose Richmond over Westpark. There's not many destinations on Westpark and frankly, because Metro owns a piece of land on it, they could be pursuing that path for self interested reasons.
T_J, this isn't a thread debating if we should have light rail. That measure already passed the voters. This thread is about whether it should go down Richmond Ave. EDIT: Just read your subsequant post. Thx.
It all depends. Midtown is located smack-dab right next to the Pierce Elevated. But due to a broad development project it is now thriving. It all depends on the developers. When they see a spot of land they want to develop for residential purposes in Downtown, (and they will), you will see why the Rail might have made sense, after all.
Well, the WERE exaggerated because the pains described were not attributed ONLY to light rail. ALL downtown streets were being rebuilt but opponents always gloss this part over. Rebuilding a single street is not nearly as disruptive as all of downtown. I don't see business lining up oposing the Kirby St. rebuild thats occuring right now! When Kirby gets rebuilt, it'll be status quo. When Richmond gets rebuilt, it'll have new ammenities that will attract customers to those businesses. Yes, I acknowledge it'll be harder than normal but road construction happens all the time. Should we just stop all road construction cause the corner laundry mat might suffer?
It depends what your goals are. If your goals are to attract apartment complexes, low-to-middle end restaurants, and bars, then fine, being near an elevated stretch of interstate highway isn't a deal killer. However, if your goal is to create a world class area with high end developments, parks, and beautiful areas, then being next to the Pierce elevated is a huge problem. Midtown Houston, as compared to Uptown Dallas, is probably 10 years behind in terms of development, and may never reach the level that Uptown Dallas has achieved. Do you think the Ritz Carlton would build a condo tower next to the Pierce Elevated? No. Uptown Dallas has achieved these levels because of the seemless connection to downtown. This is because Woodall Rogers is beneath street level. That's my point here. Houston's biggest development problem is the boundaries around downtown created by elevated stretches of highway.
No. We shouldn't. (and I'm not saying we should). Yes, there were pains for all businesses downtown during the construction time. But the people on Main had it worse than others. Yes, the city survived, and many businesses survived.
Actually, more than 10 years behind. DART broke ground in 1990 and Uptown Dallas is now an incredible area. Yes, there hasn't been a flurry of development YET but just like your idol GWB says, "we have to stay the course." If you want to develop an area, just like in Iraq, it takes some time. It doesn't happen over night. But there continues to be signs of improvement and we definately aren't seeing a slide backwards. So before you declare Houston a failure, at least give it 10 years or so.
LOL you've never been to Dallas, have you? Uptown's development is NOT centered around the rail line there. hilarious.
First of all, DART has virtually nothing to do with Uptown's development. The prime areas of Uptown aren't even close to a DART station. Second, DART is commuter rail. Metro is proposing urban lines that are not intended to be commuter-focused lines. Totally different situations there.
I was just responding to what your bubby TJ said. Direct your insults to him please. But yes, I have a friend there that I stayed with during Rita. And it does have a streetcar that connects to DART. The southern end of Uptown is where the DART station is. But that's irrelevant. Uptown Dallas was part of a broader revitalization effort, much like downtown or midtown. The comment was the midtown is a failure and I'm saying you have to give it time.
Trying to beautify Houston or make it commuter friendly is hopeless. It is a poorly planned city that has no identity, and a total lack of pedestrian areas. Not to mention, a huge chunk of it's population lives > 20 miles away from the city center. One of the fundamental tenets of mass transportation is that it should link major thoroughfares such as the airport, business districts, and entertainment areas. Because Houston is so spread out it would take hundreds of millions of dollars just to link up the city with rail. Will rail really alleviate traffic problems on I-10W, I-45 North, or 59 South? With all the commuters to Sugar Land, Katy, Kingwood, Spring, Clear Lake, etc. I would think that costs would be in the billions.
Yeah. New York and London were greatly planned cities. If you want to improve commuting, in any city, it can be done.
Not entirely true. The Rice Village, the Medical Center and Downtown are all friendly pedestrian areas, although downtown is friendly by means of the underground tunnels.
Light rail isn't designed to "alleviate" traffic problems in the classical sense. It is designed to give people options who no longer want to live in Sugar Land, Katy, etc etc. Due to Houston's growth, we can never build lightrail, freeways, fast enough to keep up. Commuter rail needs to be addressed for suburbs but that isn't Metro's responsibility. If the suburbs want rail, they need to take that up with their local municipalities. Metro is taking care if its constituants ...the residents of Houston.
A freaking train down the middle of the street in 2005. World class thinking! Monorails could be built like tinker toys with very little interuption to streets and utilities. It's still the same damn train but you don't have to tear up the existing streets and you won't be able to turn in front of it in your car. Still want it cheaper and less obtrusive? You could run it right over the trees on Richmond with stops at The Gallaria, Greenway, St Thomas/Montrose, Mid town and Downtown.
