Off To A Running Start

[Houston19514]

The other main reason is that they have cut out two major lanes of traffic along Fannin for the train.  The train that, as debmartin pointed out, stops traffic every six minutes.

You and Debmartin make it sound as if all traffic stops every time a train comes through. I don't see the trains coming through every six minutes having that much of a disruptive impact on traffic. It's not as though traffic flowed nonstop in all directions all the time before the trains existed. And you seem to be ignoring the impact of the removal of many buses from the streets in the Medical Center.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[Parrothead]

It's "dear husband" sometimes it can be something else if he's not being his usual charming self.

For the record, I voted against light rail. I never wanted it and thought it was a huge waste of money. A different kind of rail would have served this city much better, IMHO.

[KinkaidAlum]

Parrothead-

Your original post and subsequent response charged the mayor with criminal activity. That's quite serious. I'd like for you to provide a source for those charges.

Quite frankly, many times when people feel attacked, they should realize it's just a counter attack.

While you may have found your original post non-offensive and factual, I found it offensive and slanderous. If you are going to go onto a very public forum and charge people with a crime and call their actions communistic, you better have the material to back it up.

[ssullivan]

As for the light rail--what a joke.  My husband works in the medical center and has seen absolutely NO improvement in traffic--if anything, it's WORSE!  Houston has more track than most major cities--did anyone think to lease some commuter trains and test it out on the major corridors?

I'm getting tired of people saying the light rail line as it stands now is not usable. If it's of zero value, then why are there over 30,000 people every weekday using it? Why is Metro adding additional cars to rush hour trains to relieve overcrowding?

Okay, maybe it doesn't run to the Town and Country area where you live. But it's awfully narrow minded for people who don't live near the rail line to assume that it is of no benefit to the city at large. The fact is that rail in Houston had to start someplace, and a central line is a key backbone to a future rail network that stretches across the Houston area. Every single rail system in this country has started with one or more central lines that then were expanded into suburban areas.

As for leasing a few commuter trains and doing a test run on freight train tracks, that's a lot easier said than done. As it is the freight train operators have had problems for several years with their scheduling and backlogs of trains in the Houston area. Trying to work in commuter service on those tracks would only exacerbate that problem. And you can't just plop down a locomotive and a few passenger cars and say you have a commuter rail line. Parking lots and boarding platforms would have to be constructed. And how do you propose people would get to major employment centers such as downtown or the Texas Medical Center on these commuter trains? There are no freight tracks running into downtown or the Medical Center. They would still have to transfer to a bus. The fact is that such an "experiment" would take millions of dollars and several years to start up.

The fact is that light rail is the best technology for getting an efficient system up and running that can move tens of thousands of people every day quickly for a reasonable amount of money. Granted at grade light rail is not perfect - we've seen that in the last year. However it's not Metro's fault that people do idiotic things like try to make a U-turn on Fannin in the Medical Center across concrete bumpers and two sets of tracks in rush hour traffic. Even without the rail line such a manuever is just asking for a serious traffic accident that results in major injury or death. And I don't buy into the idea that MetroRail has increased traffic in the Medical Center. As KinkaidAlum pointed out, the Medical Center is rapidly growing. New facilities are constantly being built there, and it is one of the few employment districts in this city that has seen a booming growth in employment numbers for the last few years. Granted some lanes were removed from Fannin, but a lot of what was removed were left turn lanes, not through traffic lanes. Also, thousands of Metro bus runs were removed from Fannin. The train does stop traffic, but some of that is due to the fact that drivers around here can't seem to read simple traffic signs and understand the fact that a light rail vehicle many times the size of their car always gets the right of way. Had people not been crashing into the trains the lights on Fannin in the Medical Center and Midtown would still allow cars to drive parallel to the train as it goes through an intersection. But our residents proved they don't have the ability to follow basic traffic laws and not hit the train so the lights were reprogrammed to stop traffic moving parallel to the train as it goes through an intersection.

I won't say that the current light rail line is perfect. However I think it's far more useful and making a much larger positive impact on the city than what its critics think it is. I use it regularly because I can get downtown on Metro just as quickly, if not faster, than I can drive and park. It's cheaper - I save money on gas and parking - and I'm not polluting the environment by driving my car. I also get a little more exercise walking between the light rail stops and my final destination. You may think it an overpriced theme park ride left over from a Superbowl (a Superbowl by the way that was planned years after Metro started planning the light rail line - and a Superbowl that was announced after construction on the light rail line was already underway) but for me and tens of thousands of other citizens of this city, it's a viable, efficient, and valuable means for getting where we need to go.

[Parrothead]

KinkaidAlum--you MUST be a liberal. You never answered my question or responded to my post and now you have turned this all on me. How fitting!

Where did I ever attack you that you even should have THOUGHT about a "counter-attack"? That is the most asinine (yeah....it's one "S") thing I have ever heard! Try civility once in a while in your posts. It would be a refreshing change for you.

Color me McCarthy but I think BILL WHITE IS A BIG FAT COMMIE! I can say that in this country, right? It's MY OPINION! I'm not "charging" him with anything. Give me a break.

Sullivan--I really don't give a rat's behind if light rail is out here at T & C. Please read my post again. I voted against it, period. And my bet is the numbers have been a bit fluffed. (Just for you KinkaidAlum-- that's another opinion. I'm afraid I don't have anything to back that up. It's based on my views of our city government)

Have a great day everyone! I'm off to enjoy a rainy Sunday in bed with coffee and cinnamon rolls!

[KinkaidAlum]

Parrothead-

It is your given right to call people a Commie. God Bless America! However, it is also my right to call you out on a public forum for calling someone I know and respect as a Commie who is also according to you involved in criminal activity. Calling someone out without the facts to back it up is just plain weak. I will once again ask you to provide some basis of fact to support your arguments. If you cannot do so, then you are nothing more than a slanderer who should then consider sticking with talk radio.

As for me being a liberal, DUH. I would like to thank you for the compliment though since liberal can mean...

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of political reform.

3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression.

4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

5. free from PREJUDICE or BIGOTRY; tolerant.

6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas and values.

7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.

8. given freely or abundantly; generous.

9. not strict or rigorous; free.

10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

11. of, pertaining to, or befitting a free man.

Looking at these qualities makes me realize that Jesus was a liberal too.

[713 To 214]

Parrothead-. . .I will once again ask you to provide some basis of fact to support your arguments. If you cannot do so, then you are nothing more than a slanderer who should then consider sticking with talk radio.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^Please see below.

Cameras at intersections, smoking bans, the tow policy, and now talk of radar enforcing cameras all reek of Big Brother, but Houston deserves everything it gets because, after all, the city elected this man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Both of you all should simmer down a little bit. There is some truth in what each of you are saying. You jus't can't see the other person's point because you're so wedded to your own opinions, that you dismiss the other person's out-of-hand.

[Parrothead]

Thank you, 713, for clarifying my point and taking the time to respond.

To be honest, I haven't been able to see KinkaidAlum's point of view on anything here because of the "guns-ablazin'"-type attitude. However, I've chosen to ignore his posts since this morning. No need dealing with silly arguments all day.

Onward and upward!

[pineda]

I live in Spring so of course, my opinion counts for nothing when it comes to Mayor Bill White!

But, I saw him a couple of weeks ago when the Texas Transportation Commission of the Texas Department of Transportation was holding their monthly meeting in Houston for a change, and I gotta tell you guys, I LOVE MAYOR WHITE!

He started off addressing the commissioners nice and calm with a list of accomplishments in his term so far as mayor as it pertained to transportation issues. Then Ric Williamson (the chairman of the TTC, one cagey codger) thought White was done and started to give him the old "Well, thanks for stopping by to see us up on this platform high above you peons..." and then White said that he wasn't done quite yet, and then he slammed those good old boys so hard their jaws dropped. Johnny Johnson's big bald head turned bright red. Someone next to me said that they thought how nice it would be if Mayor White could annex Spring and get it out from under the cold grip of Judge Eckels and Commissioner Jerry Eversole to use as their personal raping and pillaging money-pit zone.

When the TTC prints the transcripts, I'll post them for y'all to see, but seriously, his whole speech about how we do have a lot of problems in the Houston, Texas area and surrounding areas, but that the days of doing business behind closed-doors and informing the public only after crucial decisions have been made are over and he wants the people who will be affected by some of these decisions to be brought to the table and let them discuss the issue together. I don't think I shall ever see Ric Williamson look so much like the Grinch ever again. Mayor White is like day and night after "Outa-Town Brown" and I wish him well!

[kzseattle]

Cameras at intersections, smoking bans, the tow policy, and now talk of radar enforcing cameras all reek of Big Brother, but Houston deserves everything it gets because, after all, the city elected this man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that in some cases, one has to act as a "Big Brother". For example, would you really trust Houstonians to stop trashing their city voluntary? I highly doubt it! Now if the city comes up with a law that says that littering is unlawful and the violators would be penalized, would that be equivalent to infringing upon our freedoms? The freedom to throw our trash anywhere we want? Freedom has its limits, beyond which results chaos. What would happen if we didn

[Lowbrow]

Communists, Green Party, whatever... as long as we shake off this two party system.

How about the socialists.. or the reformed democratic party? I'd like to see that.

[MidtownCoog]

as long as we shake off this two party system.

Talk about watered down politics. If you think two parties have a hard time agreeing on something, just try to get three or four to do so.

But back to White, this dude has way too much going on. So far, a bunch of 1/2 projects, but I can't name one that is compelte.

[ssullivan]

White has been in office one year. He inherited a total mess in City Hall when he took office. Given the circumstances a lot has been accomplished in the last year. Give him some time.

Besides every leader of a major governmental unit has a lot going on at the same time. It's not like the President concentrates on only one thing until it's done and then starts something new. If White wasn't working on multiple projects at the same time a lot less would be accomplished overall.

Changing the subject - on the big brother comment concerning traffic signals. I totally agree with what kz said and I am all for cameras to catch red light runners. Last week I sat through two cycles of traffic lights at I-10 and Heights Blvd. I was headed north on Heights and both times when the light for northbound Heights turned green at least 5 cars turning left onto the inbound Katy frontage road from Heights southbound ran their red light, holding up traffic on my side. Just yesterday in front of my home at Kirby and North Braeswood I was almost plowed into by a red light runner on Kirby who continued through his red light at least 10 seconds after it had turned red. The only days that go by that I don't witness multiple red light runners in this city are days I either don't really go out or days I'm out of town. And the funny thing is, I've driven in a lot of the major cities in this country and I don't see this problem there. I don't even see it as much in Dallas! If Houston has to put up cameras to stop these people so be it. Nobody says anyone has the right to break the law and endanger others without risk of being caught. And right now I type this while my car is in the body shop - why? Because of someone who was not paying attention to a red traffic light almost two weeks ago.

[pineda]

TxDOT in Houston January 27, 2005 transcript

Mayor White and Judge Eckels' comments for all to see!

Also, for anyone out there interested in the Grand Parkway, there were several comments/statements made and addressed by the TTC that day, as well as some interesting comments about the Trans-Texas Corridor.

[pineda]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mayor: Fight for civil rights

Day proclaimed UH Black Law Students' Association Day

By Matt Cooper, Senior Staff Writer, UH Daily Cougar

Houston Mayor Bill White spoke Thursday at the UH Law Center, telling students that experience in law and business are valuable tools for changing society.

The Black Law Students' Association arranged White's appearance as part of Black History Month. BLSA President Deonne Cunningham said it was White's first visit to the Law Center since he took office.

Law Center Dean Nancy Rapoport introduced White, calling herself a fan of his and praising his use of business, legal and negotiation skills to improve Houston.

White spent most of his 45-minute speech discussing his own experience in politics and business. He urged law students to view their job as problem solvers and not moneymakers.

"People who get into law to get rich should be prepared for disappointment," White said.

The beginning of his speech was primarily about his experience in the business world and how it helped him to accomplish more as a lawyer. He told the audience that as law students, they should be business-literate if they expect to change society.

"What is the client trying to do?" White asked. "Well generally, in a competitive, free-market system, they're trying to make money."

White said he used to think lawyers were just instruments for people to accomplish what they wanted, but he realized lawyers could accomplish more as advocates.

Toward the end of his speech, White touched on using those skills to advocate equal human rights. He cited Houston's evolving civil rights policies as an example of advocacy and business sense.

"Can you believe the talent that was left on the table so someone could think they were better than someone else?" White asked.

He said students also play an important role in advocating social change, urging students to "throw off the shackles" and take leadership roles.

"We're all young and idealistic, and we all want to go out and change the world," Erin Jackson, a law student, said. "To come and talk about how lawyers are such a factor in how change occurs was especially applicable to an audience like this."

After his speech, White issued a proclamation declaring Feb. 17 as UH Black Law Students' Association Day.

UH System Board of Regents member Lyden Rose said Black History month wasn't celebrated when he went to law school at UH.

"To have someone like Mayor White take off of his very busy schedule and share his insight on the city, and where we are today, is very thoughtful of him," Rose said.

[debmartin]

Houston Chronicle

Feb. 19, 2005, 8:11PM

Not at my table

Why a restaurateur banned smoking and why Houston should, too

By ELOUISE ADAMS JONES

Not long after I re-opened Ouisie's Table in 1995, a reporter arrived to interview me. With the reincarnation of the original restaurant on Sunset Boulevard came the obvious questions: What would be different and what would be the same in this new and much larger space?

The reporter and I spoke about the restaurant's history, about food, about wine, service and location. As our time was drawing to a close, the reporter brought up my decision to keep the restaurant a smoke-free environment. She asked me if I didn't think the rule would backfire on me, causing me to lose customers or not be able to attract them in the first place. Wouldn't a smoke-free policy hamper any attempt on my part to build a strong customer base?

I thought the choice of "backfire" was an interesting one.

Now, 10 years later, Houston City Council is debating the merits of having all the city's restaurants be smoke-free. The irony of that reporter's question comes home.

My reply in 1995 was an emphatic No. In fact, I noted, the reaction had been support and appreciation for providing a smoke-free environment. I added that I felt there would be a bunch of folks who would be very grateful, and that as time went by, nonsmoking environments would be sought after.

I did not feel that the reporter was convinced. After our interview, I watched the door close and realized this person was a smoker.

I did have naysayers. I had a few who told me it wouldn't work, much like the reporter, and I had a few who tested us all by lighting up. They were asked to put it out or go outside. Most smokers were OK with it

[Lowbrow]

Hmm, I applaude her. I am very sensitive to the smell of smoke whether cigar or cigarette. When traveling in europe, this is my major gripe. To me its not a health issue, its just a quality of life issue. I hate the smell.

deb- your comments kind of confuse me. does she state there is a smoker ready party room? i re-read it three times and missed that each time. also smelling the cigar over the cigarette... are the two events connected some how?

[debmartin]

"deb- your comments kind of confuse me. does she state there is a smoker ready party room? i re-read it three times and missed that each time. also smelling the cigar over the cigarette... are the two events connected some how?"

(quote, lowbrow)

lowbrow - my comments probably confused you because they were dripping with sarcasm, sorry. when i said she "had me" until the end i meant that i thought a smoke-free dining facility was great. the comment about the cigar smoker "sneaking" a cigarette threw me for a loop because as far as smell is concerned i find cigars even more offensive than cigarettes. i also re-read it a few times and it appears she maintains a smoke free place that allows "private party" diners to smoke cigars, which means the place is not smoke free. all that carrying on about smoke smelling bad and harming the employees loses credibility from that point on, and the article left me shaking my head.

deb

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[Parrothead]

Deb, I agree. I am baffled by her hypocrisy. Either you allow all, or you allow none. I too find that cigars smell patently more offensive than a cigarette, but the trouble is cigars are trendy and many more of her clientele smoke fine, expensive cigars rather than a $5 pack of Dunhills. If they were not, I am quite sure Miss Ouisie would be screeching to ban them as well. Either way I feel her credibility is shot with her last thoughts.

[Lowbrow]

I think I'm reading a different article than you guys. Where is the hypocracy? Where is she saying she would allow a cigar smoker on premises? I'm probably setting myself up for a fall here but I've now read this article way too many times looking for what you guys are talking about.

Forgive me if I'm just missing it.

[Houston19514]

Lowbrow, you are right. Anybody finding hypocrisy in that article has not read it very well.

She said "We still occasionally encounter a cigar smoker in a private party trying to sneak a smoke" Nothing was said about any cigar smoker trying to sneak a cigarette. And if a cigar smoker is having to "sneak a smoke" one would think it would be pretty obvious that the establishment does not in fact allow "a private party room full of cigar smoke".

[Lowbrow]

Nodnod. Alright, just wanted to make sure I wasnt losing my marbles. Danke.

[Parrothead]

To me, it sounded like she was saying that in private parties she has allowed cigar smoking and the occassional cigar smoker will try to sneak a cigarette. If that is not what she is saying, then you are absolutely right, there is no hypocrisy.

[YakuzaIce]

It does not seem to say that they allow smoking at parties or smoking at all, cigarette or cigar.

"We still occasionally encounter a cigar smoker in a private party trying to sneak a smoke;"

It does not say they allow smoking, or that he is smoking a cigarette. She is only complaining how some people try to circumvent her rules.

"I was sitting in my office and smelled cigarette smoke. I started looking for the culprit; everyone in the building smelled it and all of us were wandering around with their noses in the air trying to locate the source.

It turned out to be the air conditioning repairman working in the attic. He just decided to light up. Never mind that we are smoke-free or that it is dangerous to be smoking in the drafty attic of a wood frame building. "

The two incidents were seperate events. She does not say she is in a party full of cigar smoke. She was only in her office smelled smoke, looked for the guy, then added to it saying the risk of smoking where he was smoking.

[debmartin]

She said "We still occasionally encounter a cigar smoker in a private party trying to sneak a smoke" Nothing was said about any cigar smoker trying to sneak a cigarette. And if a cigar smoker is having to "sneak a smoke" one would think it would be pretty obvious that the establishment does not in fact allow "a private party room full of cigar smoke". (quote, houston 19514)

how would she know the person "sneaking" the cigarette was a cigar smoker? i guess she could have inquired, but it's more logical that he was taking advantage of smoking the cig in the private party room where cigar smoke is allowed. why not a cigarette smoker sneaking a smoke? no, to me the way it was worded implied she was expecting cigar smoke in the private party room and a patron took advantage and smoked a cigarette. i'll give her a call and get this cleared up. heaven forbid an accusation of hypocrisy.

debmartin

[kzseattle]

She said "We still occasionally encounter a cigar smoker in a private party trying to sneak a smoke" Nothing was said about any cigar smoker trying to sneak a cigarette. And if a cigar smoker is having to "sneak a smoke" one would think it would be pretty obvious that the establishment does not in fact allow "a private party room full of cigar smoke".  (quote, houston 19514)

how would she know the person "sneaking" the cigarette was a cigar smoker?  i guess she could have inquired, but it's more logical that he was taking advantage of smoking the cig in the private party room where cigar smoke is allowed.  why not a cigarette smoker sneaking a smoke?  no, to me the way it was worded implied she was expecting cigar smoke in the private party room and a patron took advantage and smoked a cigarette.  i'll give her a call and get this cleared up.  heaven forbid an accusation of hypocrisy.

debmartin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah! I see what you are saying. If anyone is at fault here, it is the writer. Multiple meanings can be inferred from that sentence. Reading the sentence, "We still occasionally encounter a cigar smoker in a private party trying to sneak a smoke", a casual reader would simply infer that a person who smokes cigar was trying to smoke one at a party. One would assume that the writer already knows that the person smokes cigar. However, another analysis would reveal the other meaning, that is, the writer is ok with cigar smoking but is complaining about a cigar smoker trying to smoke a cigarette instead.

Oh well, we are really splitting hair.

[debmartin]

"Ah! I see what you are saying. If anyone is at fault here, it is the writer. Multiple meanings can be inferred from that sentence. Reading the sentence, "We still occasionally encounter a cigar smoker in a private party trying to sneak a smoke", a casual reader would simply infer that a person who smokes cigar was trying to smoke one at a party. One would assume that the writer already knows that the person smokes cigar. However, another analysis would reveal the other meaning, that is, the writer is ok with cigar smoking but is complaining about a cigar smoker trying to smoke a cigarette instead."

Oh well, we are really splitting hair. (quote, kzseattle)

i was beginning to get worried, usually i am able to make my point perfectly clear, although recently my posts seem to attract a great deal of confusion. i agree the writer did a not so great job of organizing the facts, but then again i get this a lot with the chronicle. recently a reporter ran a story about cps defending their investigating priorities, and quoted a cps worker saying it was a waste of time to investigate a 17yr old who was slapped by her dad for staying out. i emailed her and reminded her that perhaps the teen stayed out because the dad was free with the slapping, and that many teens often take to the streets to escape abusive situations ignored by cps. i rec'd a reply that if the child had been 1 or 5 slapping would be abuse, but 17 was not. i emailed her back to remind her that each incident must be investigated on a case by case basis, and in high school wrestling teams separate participants in weight classes - that a 200lb student would not be allowed to take on a 100lb student. i also offered my opinion that a heavyweight striking a featherweight would not be a fair match, especially in anger, and that any discpline carried out in a rage held the potential for abuse due to lack of impulse control. i challenged her to stop performing as a puppet for cps and write something based upon common sense, or at least try and see the issue from both sides - she replied i should stop looking for abuse where none was to be found, so i guess it would be pointless to tell her about my experiences as a volunteer at covenent house. good old chron, luckily for them we are a one paper town. thanks for the "fair and balanced" reply and you're correct, splitting hairs does not an interesting conversation make.

deb