Latest Outrage from the Rail Opposition

[H-Town Man]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Rail-divisions-loom-over-Uptown-bus-project-5700489.php?cmpid=twitter-premium&t=80b48ec91a

 

Anyone who thought that the 2003 referendum would somehow be decisive for issues like this was naive at best. I admit I was naive at the time - I thought, "If this thing passes, we win and rail gets built."

 

What is now apparent if it wasn't before is that building rail is an unending war of attrition, a land war in Asia, in which every inch must be fought for again and again against resistance, obstinacy, and stupidity. It's not just about overcoming someone like Culberson, someone who singlemindedly trumps the will of the city with his own. The problem extends to every petty official, top to bottom, at the federal, state, city, and local management district levels. All are either for or against this thing, and anyone who is against it is going to do whatever they can to get in its way. It is an endless fight that must be fought on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, in the swamps and bayous and frontage roads and tollways and right turn lanes.

 

How do you deal with a quote like this?

 

If construction starts early next year as planned, Breeding said, buses would start rolling in 2017.

 

That quick turnaround to results is one reason why he said officials want to sidestep talk of rail, for or against, if they can.

 

"It is not about 30 years from now, it is about getting people to work today," he said.

 

This is the president of the Uptown Management District saying that it's not important what happens down the road, let's just build a huge structure as quickly as possible. In what alternate reality does that make sense? It doesn't make sense, and you can't overcome this kind of thinking with sense. You can only overcome it with power, by employing more political power than the person you're dealing with has. Hopefully we can harness that kind of power in a strong leader or leaders, otherwise any referendum we win will only be a cute curiosity for the history books.

 

 

 

[sdotwill84]

Well said. 

 

I too become increasingly frustrated every time I read another article of yet another politician and/or local leader opposing rail and placing restrictions on where/when/how it can be built in this great city. This obviously directly opposes the views of the voters back in 2003, and the past 20 years rail has been voted for in this city. I don't understand. Why must it be this difficult? Why must we watch other cities continue to grow their rail presence? Why must the city, officials, an Metro itself, act so backwards and incompetent in their long term vision for the city? 

 

How soon they forget Houston is becoming increasingly dense as the days/weeks/months/ and years go by.

 

After the two current rail lines are finished at the "end of this year"...whats next for Metro in regards to rail? I know the bus line is being "re-imagined" but is that it for the near future? We go through a few dead years of political back and forth?

[Firebird65]

What is now apparent if it wasn't before is that building rail is an unending war of attrition, a land war in Asia, in which every inch must be fought for again and again against resistance, obstinacy, and stupidity.

 

Oh yeah, that's a great argument for rail - that you're so smart and everyone else is stupid. LOL! I'm convinced. ROTF!

 

[IronTiger]

"Rail vs. Rednecks"? See, people like you are why we have these arguments.

The anti-rail contingent has a "You want to take people to the 19th century" view while the pro-rail contingent has this equally wrong "Anyone who doesn't support rail is a backwoods Luddite" type reasoning.

Have you noticed that?

[Firebird65]

"Rail vs. Rednecks"? See, people like you are why we have these arguments.

The anti-rail contingent has a "You want to take people to the 19th century" view while the pro-rail contingent has this equally wrong "Anyone who doesn't support rail is a backwoods Luddite" type reasoning.

Have you noticed that?

 

Well, to be perfectly honest, rail is a 19th century mode of transportation. I don't say that as any kind of insult, just as a fact.

 

I lean anti-rail, not because I am against rail so much as I am against the just awful arguments made in favor of it such as the one made by the originator of this thread. If your argument for rail is that to oppose it is to be stupid, that's a loser of an argument every time. That's a pretty prevalent tactic among pro-rail people on here and in the real world. Followed closely by the old standby "Dallas (or insert other city here) has rail so we gotta have it too!" Well... so?

 

I'm willing to listen to arguments for rail and against rail with a fair and open mind, but if those two examples are the best the pro rail side can come up with, then I guess I'm against it.

[H-Town Man]

Well, to be perfectly honest, rail is a 19th century mode of transportation. I don't say that as any kind of insult, just as a fact.

 

I lean anti-rail, not because I am against rail so much as I am against the just awful arguments made in favor of it such as the one made by the originator of this thread. If your argument for rail is that to oppose it is to be stupid, that's a loser of an argument every time. That's a pretty prevalent tactic among pro-rail people on here and in the real world. Followed closely by the old standby "Dallas (or insert other city here) has rail so we gotta have it too!" Well... so?

 

I'm willing to listen to arguments for rail and against rail with a fair and open mind, but if those two examples are the best the pro rail side can come up with, then I guess I'm against it.

 

That's not my argument for rail, nor did I ever use that as an argument for rail. My initial post did not purport to give an argument for rail, but rather an assessment of what the battle will be like. Read more carefully.

 

If by "19th century mode of transportation" you mean it was invented in the 19th century, this includes the automobile as well.

[IronTiger]

Well, to be perfectly honest, rail is a 19th century mode of transportation. I don't say that as any kind of insult, just as a fact.

 

I lean anti-rail, not because I am against rail so much as I am against the just awful arguments made in favor of it such as the one made by the originator of this thread. If your argument for rail is that to oppose it is to be stupid, that's a loser of an argument every time. That's a pretty prevalent tactic among pro-rail people on here and in the real world. Followed closely by the old standby "Dallas (or insert other city here) has rail so we gotta have it too!" Well... so?

 

I'm willing to listen to arguments for rail and against rail with a fair and open mind, but if those two examples are the best the pro rail side can come up with, then I guess I'm against it.

Density is the best thing that makes rail effective, which is why it's effective in India and the Northeast.

Unfortunately, another fact is that METRO grossly underestimated how much the additional lines would cost, and ran out of money authorized in the 2003 referendum. This was stated and discussed in another thread, and thus, is one reason why others are reluctant to give them additional funding, especially how the built lines really affect traffic, congestion, and mobility is questionable.

[IronTiger]

That's not my argument for rail, nor did I ever use that as an argument for rail. My initial post did not purport to give an argument for rail, but rather an assessment of what the battle will be like. Read more carefully.

OK, maybe your argument isn't "We need to be like Dallas" but you have yourself an incendiary topic title (and the paragraph you wrote) that purports that if you aren't fully 100% backing rail, you are clearly an idiot and the "bad guy" in the rail battle.

That's what I interpreted as.

[Firebird65]

OK, maybe your argument isn't "We need to be like Dallas" but you have yourself an incendiary topic title (and the paragraph you wrote) that purports that if you aren't fully 100% backing rail, you are clearly an idiot and the "bad guy" in the rail battle.

That's what I interpreted as.

 

No interpreting is needed. It's clearly what he said.

[Luminare]

*double post*

[Luminare]

Ya a continuation of that oh so great DART thread -.- Sensational!

 

Maybe I should just throw this in here.

 

What is liberal today is conservative tomorrow (I'm speaking of course about the eternal struggle of the idea of liberal and conservative not specifically american ideals of liberal or conservative or even libertarianism which is sometimes termed as a 'classic liberal').

 

conservative- horse and buggy     liberal- trains

 

then it becomes

 

conservative- trains     liberal- cars and airplanes

 

then

 

conservative- cars and airplanes      liberal- trains, walkability, bicycles, multiplicity in transportation

 

You can obviously see what will happen next, guys. Not to mention it's reinforced through generations. Who are the people that are in power now? People in their late 40's to early 60's. What did they grow up with in America? The ever increasing dominance of car travel and airplane travel which made the train at that time obsolete because it was slower (among many reasons for the time). They are most comfortable with this type of condition where the world is dominated by cars and air travel.....its literally what they fundementally understand and most people honestly can't see a vision that is past this one! So instead of this continuous circle-jerk and endless threads arguing the same pervasive problems maybe it would be more productive to discuss the evolution into the next paradigm of transportation and how we as the next generation can take control and move forward. This constant shouting at one another only divides and polarizes each base. It's like watching News on TV. I refuse to watch FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc... because it's people constantly shouting which only entrenches people and reinforces the divide. I simply refuse to let threads like this continue the devolution of an important issue. If you don't like Mass Transit fine. Doesn't mean you have to jam that down everyones throats. If you love Mass Transit fine. You don't have to treat the other as barbarians. Just be civil for crying out loud.

 

I always start with this when it someone with an entrenched view or an idea which isn't as efficient as it once was and refuses to change.....what would they do to fix it? If they can't give an answer...then thats a problem and you start there.

[H-Town Man]

OK, maybe your argument isn't "We need to be like Dallas" but you have yourself an incendiary topic title (and the paragraph you wrote) that purports that if you aren't fully 100% backing rail, you are clearly an idiot and the "bad guy" in the rail battle.

That's what I interpreted as.

 

 

No interpreting is needed. It's clearly what he said.

 

Actually you are interpreting, because I didn't say that anyone who opposes rail was an idiot. I said that there will be stupidity that must be fought against, but that doesn't mean that everyone against rail is stupid. It just means that, you know, there's a lot of stupidity over there. An example of this is the quote in my initial post.

 

Yes, the topic title was incendiary. We've voted for this thing, and the will of the voters has been overturned by one man. Now we're at the point where we're not even making accommodation for if Metro gets the money to build out the plan at some point in the future. It's time to get incendiary.

 

[H-Town Man]

Unfortunately, another fact is that METRO grossly underestimated how much the additional lines would cost, and ran out of money authorized in the 2003 referendum. This was stated and discussed in another thread, and thus, is one reason why others are reluctant to give them additional funding, especially how the built lines really affect traffic, congestion, and mobility is questionable.

 

The only person who is "reluctant" to give Metro additional funding is Culberson, and this is not based on any use of money, but rather on his personal, deep-seated antipathy towards rail. Let's be honest here.

[Luminare]

-.- ....

[IronTiger]

Ah, the old "Culberson overturns will of the people" rumor rears its head again.

The 2003 referendum was extensive but ambitious.

It did promise the new lines plus $640 million in bonds to finance them, but also a range of other goals like vastly expanded bus service. But while that is all fine and good, METRO way undershot construction costs (a reason why I doubt METRO's numbers). $467 million of that bond was spent on the North Line extension, the remainder for the Southeast Line to U of H.

So where does Culberson come in? He says that METRO spent $1 billion from 2003 to 2012 with little to show for it. "Yeah, because of Afton Oaks!" you say, but also that East End overpass and even a spat with U of H. But even with that, that's a large number. So is he right? Well, most of us would say no, but he does have a point...and he certainly doesn't actually break the 2003 referendum. So, what do we do? You either wait it out (years) or gut METRO like a fish and replace it with new people.

Or the tl;dr version:

Just to clarify. The bond measure authorized $640 million to build the four lines. The $640 million was not sufficient to build them, thus they ran out of funds and could not complete.

You do realize that the University Line can still technically be built with local funds, right?

[H-Town Man]

It did promise the new lines plus $640 million in bonds to finance them, but also a range of other goals like vastly expanded bus service. But while that is all fine and good, METRO way undershot construction costs (a reason why I doubt METRO's numbers). $467 million of that bond was spent on the North Line extension, the remainder for the Southeast Line to U of H.

So where does Culberson come in? He says that METRO spent $1 billion from 2003 to 2012 with little to show for it. "Yeah, because of Afton Oaks!" you say, but also that East End overpass and even a spat with U of H. But even with that, that's a large number. So is he right? Well, most of us would say no, but he does have a point...and he certainly doesn't actually break the 2003 referendum. So, what do we do? You either wait it out (years) or gut METRO like a fish and replace it with new people.

 

It projected 4 lines could be built and, after costs went up, it built 2 of those lines. This is fairly similar to the cost overrun that happened on the Katy Freeway project, which doubled in cost before it was complete. Kind of the nature of massive public works projects, but let's not pretend it applies only to rail or Metro.

 

And yes, Culberson has overturned the will of the people, even after promising at the time of the referendum that if it passed, he would go to bat for Metro in Congress. The fact that you dispute this gives you no credibility in my eyes.

 

[Slick Vik]

Refusing to even engineer the system in such a way that rail could be built one way is absurd

[Montrose1100]

Maybe this could be a lesson for Uptown, instead of using the median for rail, they could build it underground to not disrupt traffic. I don't blame anyone for not wanting METRO to build rail, they haven't done a proper planning for the city. Sure the light rail is a quick fix for the next 2-3 decades, but what if Houston continues to become more and more dense. We will be stuck with a trolley taking up valuable street space. 

 

We do will need rail or another option that keeps cars and buses off of the freeways and roads. You can call the anti-rail shortsighted but look at what the pro-rail side has produced, an at-grade light rail that took over a popular bus line.

 

Now, if proposing some serious transportation options with real leadership comes to fruition, there will always be opposition.

[H-Town Man]

Maybe this could be a lesson for Uptown, instead of using the median for rail, they could build it underground to not disrupt traffic. I don't blame anyone for not wanting METRO to build rail, they haven't done a proper planning for the city. Sure the light rail is a quick fix for the next 2-3 decades, but what if Houston continues to become more and more dense. We will be stuck with a trolley taking up valuable street space. 

 

We do will need rail or another option that keeps cars and buses off of the freeways and roads. You can call the anti-rail shortsighted but look at what the pro-rail side has produced, an at-grade light rail that took over a popular bus line.

 

Now, if proposing some serious transportation options with real leadership comes to fruition, there will always be opposition.

 

I don't blame the 48% who didn't want Metro to build rail. I simply couldn't care less about them. They lost.

 

And let's not forget, the 2003 referendum didn't come with an expiration date. It didn't have any caveats such that it would be invalidated if the estimated 22 year buildout process didn't go as anticipated. It was an authorization to build with no costs set in stone, and build we shall.

 

[jgriff]

I'm not super pro-rail or super anti-rail. I do wonder though... What is it about rail that gets people so excited? Is there something missing in your life that rail will satisfy? Even in a best case scenario where you can ride everywhere you need to go on a train, is you're life going to be radically changed? Do you feel the need to mix with people on some kind of public transit to make friends or find a significant other? Have cars or buses done something to you that causes you to hate them? Are you wasting your life away sitting on freeways? Why the rabid anger towards people who don't want it? 

[H-Town Man]

I'm not super pro-rail or super anti-rail. I do wonder though... What is it about rail that gets people so excited? Is there something missing in your life that rail will satisfy? Even in a best case scenario where you can ride everywhere you need to go on a train, is you're life going to be radically changed? Do you feel the need to mix with people on some kind of public transit to make friends or find a significant other? Have cars or buses done something to you that causes you to hate them? Are you wasting your life away sitting on freeways? Why the rabid anger towards people who don't want it? 

 

Good questions. I like rail because of the option that it gives. It lets me get around the city without dealing with a car, putting up with the lurching and bumpiness of a bus, or paying the high cost of a taxi. It's just a very pleasant way to move about. And I do like the other people you see on a train; you have more human interaction in your day and the people are for some reason generally in a better mood than on a bus.

 

The anger comes from watching rail in Houston get thwarted over and over despite the popular support for it.

[Purdueenginerd]

I'm not going to get into the debate regarding rail (i happen to be pro-rail)...

 

But designing a BRT, so that it can not be upgraded to Light Rail (one that already exists in this city), has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard. Sharper 90º degree turns? Are these politicians that fearful of efficient design that theyre going to mandate a sharper 90º turn? What next - 10 percent grades every once and a while to throw off those pesky trains??

 

Thats pretty ridiculous. 

[brian0123]

Anyone against rail should swing by the TMC one work morning. Look at the mass amounts of people it brings in to a dense area with limited parking, and then think about the population projections for our city 20 years out. Rail is expensive, but the costs to build it 20 years from now (with land even more scarce) will be astronomical. The rail isn't a toy for the TMC, but a necessity for it's continued growth. It will be needed for Houston's future growth as well once other employment centers get as dense.

[jgriff]

Anyone against rail should swing by the TMC one work morning. Look at the mass amounts of people it brings in to a dense area with limited parking, and then think about the population projections for our city 20 years out. Rail is expensive, but the costs to build it 20 years from now (with land even more scarce) will be astronomical. The rail isn't a toy for the TMC, but a necessity for it's continued growth. It will be needed for Houston's future growth as well once other employment centers get as dense.

 

So, if you don't have rail it will be a  lot more difficult to have density. Is that a bad thing? Some may think so but other may not. 

[Slick Vik]

This is similar to über vs. taxi and food trucks vs. restaurants. The old guard doesn't want to give in. But it just makes our city look silly. And as much as IT wants to think it's wishful thinking I personally have been to cities all over the world with excellent rail transit. It makes life so much easier.

So, if you don't have rail it will be a lot more difficult to have density. Is that a bad thing? Some may think so but other may not.

Density is coming anyway. But makes the density easier to deal with.

[jgriff]

This is similar to über vs. taxi and food trucks vs. restaurants. The old guard doesn't want to give in. But it just makes our city look silly. And as much as IT wants to think it's wishful thinking I personally have been to cities all over the world with excellent rail transit. It makes life so much easier.

Density is coming anyway. But makes the density easier to deal with.

 

Density is a forgone conclusion. Cities can and do lose population. Without transportation infrastructure this city will not get as dense as it could. For some people that is a feature not a bug. Calling someone a stupid redneck is not engaging in a constructive argument for one side or the other. People can have a different opinion without being stupid. When someone engages in name calling it's a good sign that they do not have the facts to make a good argument. They are arguing out of emotion.

 

Example: " It's just a very pleasant way to move about". That's not about empirical facts. It's more like "I want my rail because it makes me feel good. If you don't give it to me you're stupid."

[IronTiger]

It projected 4 lines could be built and, after costs went up, it built 2 of those lines. This is fairly similar to the cost overrun that happened on the Katy Freeway project, which doubled in cost before it was complete. Kind of the nature of massive public works projects, but let's not pretend it applies only to rail or Metro.

A lot of cost overruns happen. Katy Freeway's widening ended up being $2.67 billion in 2008 (including ROW acquisition). Originally it was estimated in 1986 to be 1.1 billion to 1.3 billion, but accounting for inflation to 2008, that's 2.1 billion to 2.4 billion. While there were cost overruns, it's not as bad you try to make it out to be. That's not to mention that TxDOT is an agency funded an entirely different way.

And yes, Culberson has overturned the will of the people, even after promising at the time of the referendum that if it passed, he would go to bat for Metro in Congress. The fact that you dispute this gives you no credibility in my eyes.

That's not what you were arguing, though. You were arguing that Culberson was "overriding the will of the people" by not allowing federal funding on the Richmond portion. Culberson was always against the rail project in 2003, believing it not to reduce congestion or improve mobility outside the Loop (which is mostly true). He also did say that if it was passed, he would help Congress match the $640 in federal funds, too. [Metro board changes referendum 's wording, Houston Chronicle - Tuesday, September 23, 2003]

But wow, a politician not doing something he said he would do in office? Call a congressional hearing, this is unheard of!

Seriously, I'm not defending Culberson, I'm just clarifying what he did and didn't do. What, are you going to hate me now because I said Culberson wasn't the Devil?

And let's not forget, the 2003 referendum didn't come with an expiration date. It didn't have any caveats such that it would be invalidated if the estimated 22 year buildout process didn't go as anticipated. It was an authorization to build with no costs set in stone, and build we shall.

The 2003 referendum was described as Carol Lewis of METRO (in that article linked) as a "plan, not a commitment". Those lines will probably be built someday. Remember, the Beltway went from a plan to a fully built tollway ring in 60 years.

Look--I understand you want the rail built out. But surely there's a better way to try to do something about it instead of ranting on an Internet forum and making childish insults? Does this help the rail get done faster?

[Firebird65]

I'm not super pro-rail or super anti-rail. I do wonder though... What is it about rail that gets people so excited? Is there something missing in your life that rail will satisfy? Even in a best case scenario where you can ride everywhere you need to go on a train, is you're life going to be radically changed? Do you feel the need to mix with people on some kind of public transit to make friends or find a significant other? Have cars or buses done something to you that causes you to hate them? Are you wasting your life away sitting on freeways? Why the rabid anger towards people who don't want it? 

 

Best.Post.Ever.On.This.Topic.

 

[Nate99]

Density is a forgone conclusion. Cities can and do lose population. Without transportation infrastructure this city will not get as dense as it could. For some people that is a feature not a bug. Calling someone a stupid redneck is not engaging in a constructive argument for one side or the other. People can have a different opinion without being stupid. When someone engages in name calling it's a good sign that they do not have the facts to make a good argument. They are arguing out of emotion.

 

Example: " It's just a very pleasant way to move about". That's not about empirical facts. It's more like "I want my rail because it makes me feel good. If you don't give it to me you're stupid."

 

It should be rationally discussed, but like so many things related to urban density, it takes on a moralism angle that does a disservice to the utility that a rational plan might bring. Name calling ensues, as it so often does when one is convinced of his moral righteousness.

 

I'm neutral on rail as a concept, would need to see specifics of any particular plan, especially including cost, and do not trust METRO at all.

[Luminare]

is there a way to block whole threads >.> that would be nice.