Jump to content

METRORail Construction Resumes


scarface

Recommended Posts

TheNiche - Another thing, why did you take one quote of my post out of context and attack it like that? Are you joking around, or what? Because if you actually read my whole post it's quite obvious that I would not have the kind of feelings about highways that you are accusing me of having. I don't get it, did you actually read my whole post? Or did you just glance at it and saw that quote? Can't we have a reasonable discussion while acknowledging and responding to each point of each other's posts? Because I notice that frequently you completely disregard the majority of a user's post and take a quote out of context.

Even though I disagree with IHB2, at least he responded to all of my points, instead of responding to once sentence.

I used to forumlate lengthy anal-retentive and totally exhaustive responses such as would be suitable for any academic journal. But after about the dozenth time or so, that got boring. My personal entertainment trumps your enlightenment. Nothing personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Because light rail costs too much relative to the benefits that can be achieved. You can use the same funds to increase the service quality or quantity of bus transit to achieve superior effects. That's why I'm anti-light-rail.

There are a handful of exceptions where heavy rail is concerned; none of them exist within Houston. New York City and Chicago are pretty much it, and to the extent that such systems exist in those cities, they also demonstrate the proper implementation, which is with extensive grade separation.

How exactly do you measure that, though? What is your opinion on highway funding? Is extra room for 40,000 cars worth $2.8 billion? In Houston's core, we already have a LOT of bus service. What superior effects would be achieved? Light rail has a higher capactiy than buses, has a higher speed, and we are able to build denser along the light rail corridors. You can't expect the inner loop to remain the same as is 50, or 100 years from now? It is going to get denser, and there will not be room to expand streets like Westheimer and Shepard. I think those light rail corridors will come in handy, and I believe that overall transit ridership will improve in Houston because of these lines. OK, I understand that you think we can use funds for more buses to achieve superior effects, but I can't just take your word for it, I need examples of other cities that have done this. Buses ride in the same traffic as cars, and the roads are only going to have more traffic. You dont think Washington DC, Boston, and LA don't utilize their heavy rail? Do you think that DC's 800,000+ commuters that ride heavy rail could ride buses and get to work just as fast, no problem? There are many cities that utilize heavy rail well, and with each heavy rail system, if you take it away, there will be much more traffic and commute times will go up. The only cities that don't really utilize heavy rail well are Cleveland and Miami.

Well, yeah. The Red Line was low-hanging fruit. If every city built only 7.5 miles of light rail (and molded its bus routes in an hourglass shape around either end of the line), you'd see a lot of similar results. Probably much better!

You could also make that same argument about every rail line in the country. All core rail lines have bus systems that tie into the rail, so the transit time along the rail corridor is improved, while there's bus service to the less populated regions that connect to the rail.

I tried out METRO's light rail a couple times. I figured out that I could travel to my destination at twice the speed in my car and that at-grade light rail was still subject to traffic lights, congestion, and inexplicable stops. Basically, it was a glorified bus. It wasn't worth the ticket that I opted not to pay for.

I use the light rail whenever I go downtown and would gladly take the extra 15 or so minutes it takes in exchange for the cost of gas/parking. Last time I rode it, it only stopped at traffic lights in the TMC (where I think it should have been underground anyway, but thanks to people like DeLay we couldn't afford it). I don't recall having stopped at any lights downtown. It is also extremely convenient, well worth my 1 cent sales tax. No it is not subject to congestion, don't know where you got that from. Now if you rode a bus that same route, would you think it's better? I really hope you don't think buses provide a better quality service than light rail. Statistics/ridership say otherwise. I am also sad to hear that you did not buy a ticket/tap your Q. I support public transit in Houston, and am willing to pay for it.

Vacuum-sealed maglev would replace Park & Ride and provides 25-minute commuter service to Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Galveston. Grade-separated BRT corridors paid for by expensive tolls for private automobiles would serve the urban core, providing high-speed intracity transit that maximally utilizes precious right-of-way. High-frequency shuttles would circulate in edge cities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not shy about spending money. I think that more should be spent on both highways and mass transit, nationwide. I just want it to be worthwhile. Light rail as we have built it is not at all. It is an abysmal 19-mile-per-hour excuse for "rapid" transit.

I love the idea of vacuum-sealed maglev between major cities in Texas. But the problem is with the BRT corridors within the urban core is capacity. The capacity of BRT is just not high enough to serve a major metropolis for the next 100+ years. Houston will getting much bigger (I hope) and we will need to provide high capacity alternative transit options.

Here's why I think light rail is worthwhile. I know you will disagree, but just hear me out. Generally, Houstonians are against public transit, most of us drive our cars. But when we build these five lines, people will start to see the benefits of transit. Look at LA, they were against transit also, but now, everyone wants it in their neighborhood. Same thing in Boston, citizens are outraged when light rail gets re-routed a couple of blocks away from their neighborhood. After Houstonians recognize that public transit is good, then we will be able to convert those lines (40-50 years down the road) to higher quality lines (heavy rail). For example, the Red Line would be moved underground/elevated with heavy rail technology, providing higher speeds, and higher capacity.

Having a great transit system doesn't happen all at once, you have to take baby steps. LRT is just one step towards a great transit system. Eventually, I see these proposed lines being converted to heavy rail, with other bus corridors being converted to light rail, with other BRT corridors, and commuter rail. Now this probably won't happen until after I'm long gone, but we have to start somewhere.

Still can't get over the fact that you think heavy rail is only utilized well in Chicago and New York. Have you even been to DC? If they take those subway lines away, they're screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Mfastx, no doubt all of these delays and accusations stem from an anti-rail bias. But the bottom line is HOUSTON WILL GET LIGHT RAIL EXTENSIONS! It may take an extra year for the North/Southeast/East End lines to come online and even longer for the University/Uptown lines, BUT THEY WILL GET BUILT!

Expect a few more fights from rail opponents because they die hard. Even after Houstonians voted to approve light rail, opponents have fought tooth & nail to stop construction every step of the way, so I wouldn't expect anything less from them now. So cheer up, come 2015 the trains will be rolling from UofH, to the East End, & out to Northline. The Anti-Rail folks are just SORE LOSERS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Anti-Rail folks are just SORE LOSERS!

Soreness is common among taxpayers that get anally raped by trains. Doesn't matter how much lube you're using. The stray electric current is none too pleasant, either; it is not conducive to muscular relaxation of the penetrated zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soreness is common among taxpayers that get anally raped by trains. Doesn't matter how much lube you're using. The stray electric current is none too pleasant, either; it is not conducive to muscular relaxation of the penetrated zone.

Yea what ever happened to that stray current issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like dispelling your misinformation. Use the search function if you desire my already-made responses. I doubt you will, though. No one ever does.

I think it would be preferable to make an "FAQ" blog post. Instead of making people go on easter egg hunts for your responses (gosh, where to start?), make it convenient for them to see your responses to frequently-asked questions, then they can work from there. So every time someone asks you about something, link to your FAQ.

I understand that in these rail the same points can be made over and over again. I think an "FAQ" blog post is the best solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like dispelling your misinformation. Use the search function if you desire my already-made responses. I doubt you will, though. No one ever does.

Misinformation? Just look at other cities, ask youself if Houston will stay the same forever or not, and look at what other cities have done to combat the high traffic of densely popoulated areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously we just need to build a superhighway directly from your home to your place of work. Your personal convenience is the metric upon which all government spending should be based.

I can tell you for a fact that this is the sentiment of a fair number of anit-light rail folks. Maybe not you, but if you did a poll on why people are against rail, the vast majority would check the box:

I won't use it, so why should I pay for it.

The fact is, that it could be the best system in the world, but if people don't foresee themselves using it, they don't care about cost benefit analysis, they don't care about where the cars will come from, they just don't care. All they look at is:

A. does it cost me money

B. will it benefit me at all

if the answer to A is yes, and the answer to B is no, their eyes will glaze over when you start talking numbers to them. It is sad that people just don't care enough, but it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misinformation?

Yes, misinformation. For instance: The capacity of a 30-ish mile highway cannot be described by a single cross-sectional analysis of capacity as though it were a closed system connecting point A to point B. That's beyond disingenuous. It is misleading.

Just look at other cities, ask youself if Houston will stay the same forever or not, and look at what other cities have done to combat the high traffic of densely popoulated areas.

Houston will not stay the same. As it grows, it will need to add to every category of its infrastructure. But you'll notice that we aren't building the Allen's Creek Reservoir now because we don't need a source of surface water yet. Construction is only tentatively planned to begin in 2018. And although environmental activists might prefer desalinization plants to Allen's Creek, and even though we might need them by 2050 or 2060, we aren't building them. They aren't cost effective or necessary at present, and having them sooner than they are necessary would constitute a waste of society's resources.

I use our regional water supply as an analogy because water is a dry subject; aesthetes don't get all worked up over sexy water supplies. The debate can be described in similar terms to any kind of infrastructure, and reasonable people can come to reasonable decisions quite easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you for a fact that this is the sentiment of a fair number of anit-light rail folks. Maybe not you, but if you did a poll on why people are against rail, the vast majority would check the box:

I won't use it, so why should I pay for it.

The fact is, that it could be the best system in the world, but if people don't foresee themselves using it, they don't care about cost benefit analysis, they don't care about where the cars will come from, they just don't care. All they look at is:

A. does it cost me money

B. will it benefit me at all

if the answer to A is yes, and the answer to B is no, their eyes will glaze over when you start talking numbers to them. It is sad that people just don't care enough, but it is true.

There are two justifications for transit: 1) to provide mobility to people who have no other alternative, and 2) to free up capacity on roads so as to reduce congestion. I think that most voters can get behind that, if only so that Consuela can arrive to clean their home each week and so that they spend less time caught up in highway traffic.

But... METRO is and will always be revenue-constrained (i.e. they cannot simply raise taxes), they have to make hard trade-offs. They can have a little bit of light rail or a fair bit of BRT or a lot of regular bus service. Buses can serve low-density neighborhoods more effectively. And METRO's service area is so gigantic and is in such a constant state of change as imperils the long term relevance of capital-intensive fixed-guideway transit. But not for the stimulus funds, light rail would be a suboptimal allocation of resources. Just look at other cities!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, misinformation. For instance: The capacity of a 30-ish mile highway cannot be described by a single cross-sectional analysis of capacity as though it were a closed system connecting point A to point B. That's beyond disingenuous. It is misleading.

Well that's just a matter of opinion. I just gave you the facts. To me, that just makes it worse, because we will have to upgrade our freeways over and over again. There will be infinate amounts of instances where billions will be invested in freeweays around Houston.

Do you think TxDOT should be transparent, because they sure as hell aren't. Do you hold TxDOT to the same standards as METRO?

Houston will not stay the same. As it grows, it will need to add to every category of its infrastructure. But you'll notice that we aren't building the Allen's Creek Reservoir now because we don't need a source of surface water yet. Construction is only tentatively planned to begin in 2018. And although environmental activists might prefer desalinization plants to Allen's Creek, and even though we might need them by 2050 or 2060, we aren't building them. They aren't cost effective or necessary at present, and having them sooner than they are necessary would constitute a waste of society's resources.

I use our regional water supply as an analogy because water is a dry subject; aesthetes don't get all worked up over sexy water supplies. The debate can be described in similar terms to any kind of infrastructure, and reasonable people can come to reasonable decisions quite easily.

Whatever you say, man. So we should just go with the status quo until our streets are clogged? Why not build it now when it's less expensive? Since your are anti-rail, you think in 50-100 years we will be able to have a BRT system that carries a large percentage of commuters? That doesn't make since. For intercity travel, your plan includes the absolute best technology, but for intracity travel, you would like to see a BRT system?

You still have yet to name one large city or region that has implemented a bus only transit sytem that carries a large percentage of commuters. You talk about how light rail is just a glorified bus, but its much better than buses. It's easier to navigate, more reliable, faster, carries much more people, can run at grade or grade seperated. In that last sentence, with the exception of "it's easier to navigate," all of the things that I have said are facts.

You talk of how you tried light rail out once or twice, but have you ridden a similar, parallel bus route? Route # 1 comes to mind. Try that route out, and compare/contrast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two justifications for transit: 1) to provide mobility to people who have no other alternative, and 2) to free up capacity on roads so as to reduce congestion. I think that most voters can get behind that, if only so that Consuela can arrive to clean their home each week and so that they spend less time caught up in highway traffic.

But... METRO is and will always be revenue-constrained (i.e. they cannot simply raise taxes), they have to make hard trade-offs. They can have a little bit of light rail or a fair bit of BRT or a lot of regular bus service. Buses can serve low-density neighborhoods more effectively. And METRO's service area is so gigantic and is in such a constant state of change as imperils the long term relevance of capital-intensive fixed-guideway transit. But not for the stimulus funds, light rail would be a suboptimal allocation of resources. Just look at other cities!

I don't disagree.

Outside of this forum when I talk to people about local politics, light rail generally comes up. If they say they are against it, and I ask why. More than half give the reasons I stated.

I'm not saying that isn't fine too, it is what it is. I hate broccoli, I don't like it because it's green and has a weird texture. I don't know where I was going with that, but it's not really doing anything for me so I'm going to stop.

But generally, I wish people on the whole would be more involved, if they were more involved, we likely wouldn't have the problems we are in right now, with holes in our streets and nothing happening. You know? If people spent time learning about this stuff (I can't say I'm an expert, but I try to learn a bit) they'd understand the benefits of certain systems over others, they'd be more active in the projects, and we'd overall have better projects that more people could stand behind, and we'd likely have a rail system that works good for the majority of people.

As it is though, the reality is that METRO is always going to suck, buses are always going to suck, I spend more time sitting behind buses: taking up 2 lanes; executing illegal turns; getting into the far left lane on the freeway then going 55mph (after you pass them they speed up and tailgate you); and doing normal stops (in order of my time wasted on their behalf) than I do waiting for light rail on main.

At least with light rail, they have to stay in their own lane (unless a bus that isn't paying attention runs a red and knocks it off the track).

edited for semicolons, not enough of those being used in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two justifications for transit: 1) to provide mobility to people who have no other alternative, and 2) to free up capacity on roads so as to reduce congestion.

How about to give commuters an cheaper alternative to get to work? I have a car, but would gladly talke reliable public transit to work every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two justifications for transit: 1) to provide mobility to people who have no other alternative, and 2) to free up capacity on roads so as to reduce congestion.

Life's not that simple. Some people just don't like to drive. Some people find transit to be cheaper than driving. Some people find transit more convenient than driving. Some people just like trains. In many situations, transit is faster than driving.

How about "There is just one justification for transit: People want it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the point made about rail being better suited to link more dense areas. It doesn't work if the rail station is a mile from where you live and drops you off a mile from where you work. If people have to take a train and a bus I bet the likelihood of going transit gets cut in half or less (made up statistic). I would love to even take a bus to work, but it just doesn't go near there. It shouldn't, there isn't a damn thing near where I work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's just a matter of opinion. I just gave you the facts. To me, that just makes it worse, because we will have to upgrade our freeways over and over again. There will be infinate amounts of instances where billions will be invested in freeweays around Houston.

You provided grossly misleading information previously and continue to do so. For reasons that should be obvious, there are in fact NOT "infinate amounts of instances where billions will be invested in freeweays".

Do you think TxDOT should be transparent, because they sure as hell aren't. Do you hold TxDOT to the same standards as METRO?

TXDoT and METRO are each poorly-run organizations. I'm not about to argue that one, and I am deeply concerned that neither gubernatorial candidate has a good track record of demanding accountability from transportation agencies. Not sure what your point is, though.

Whatever you say, man. So we should just go with the status quo until our streets are clogged?

Not at all. METRO should go with the status quo until an alternative technology is determined to achieve a superior benefit/cost ratio and promote a sustainable financial standing.

Why not build it now when it's less expensive? Since your are anti-rail, you think in 50-100 years we will be able to have a BRT system that carries a large percentage of commuters? That doesn't make since. For intercity travel, your plan includes the absolute best technology, but for intracity travel, you would like to see a BRT system?

You still have yet to name one large city or region that has implemented a bus only transit sytem that carries a large percentage of commuters. You talk about how light rail is just a glorified bus, but its much better than buses. It's easier to navigate, more reliable, faster, carries much more people, can run at grade or grade seperated. In that last sentence, with the exception of "it's easier to navigate," all of the things that I have said are facts.

You talk of how you tried light rail out once or twice, but have you ridden a similar, parallel bus route? Route # 1 comes to mind. Try that route out, and compare/contrast.

Your claim that future construction will be more expensive is only supported by an expectation of inflation; however inflation as it is typically measured also effects METRO's revenue projections, resulting in a wash. If you are expecting significant commodity inflation, in particular, it is worth noting that METRO has the ability to engage in hedging strategies.

For intercity travel, your plan includes the absolute best technology, but for intracity travel, you would like to see a BRT system?

Yes. I believe that these are each the absolute best technologies to fulfill their respective functions in an integrative manner. I recognize that a system of the sort that I describe would be costly, however I am convinced that the ratio of benefits to costs would be significant.

I do not believe that this is the path that METRO should pursue because it is beyond their purview or their financial capacity. However...you asked what I would do. This is what I would do.

You still have yet to name one large city or region that has implemented a bus only transit sytem that carries a large percentage of commuters. You talk about how light rail is just a glorified bus, but its much better than buses. It's easier to navigate, more reliable, faster, carries much more people, can run at grade or grade seperated. In that last sentence, with the exception of "it's easier to navigate," all of the things that I have said are facts.

To be honest, I do not understand the request. Your approach being so subjective, I'm really not sure that any attempt at reasonable comparison will be well-received.

How about you make comparisons of various transit agencies, including budget per capita, fleet statistics, and census data on average commute times. Or you could look up the thread where I already did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But generally, I wish people on the whole would be more involved, if they were more involved, we likely wouldn't have the problems we are in right now, with holes in our streets and nothing happening. You know? If people spent time learning about this stuff (I can't say I'm an expert, but I try to learn a bit) they'd understand the benefits of certain systems over others, they'd be more active in the projects, and we'd overall have better projects that more people could stand behind, and we'd likely have a rail system that works good for the majority of people.

I wish people would learn more about public finance. Budget constraints drive these decisions more than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TXDoT and METRO are each poorly-run organizations. I'm not about to argue that one, and I am deeply concerned that neither gubernatorial candidate has a good track record of demanding accountability from transportation agencies. Not sure what your point is, though.

I'm not gonna put words in his mouth, but I bet he was saying that very few people hold the two organizations to the same standards. whatever the reasons.

I suspect because people drive and like to drive unfettered by the bonds of traffic, so any organization that is willing to make freeways 3 football fields wide in order to accommodate them can't do any wrong, but since they'd never ever ride public transportation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You provided grossly misleading information previously and continue to do so. For reasons that should be obvious, there are in fact NOT "infinate amounts of instances where billions will be invested in freeweays".

When I said "infinate" I didn't really mean that literally, I meant that there's been many cases. Sorry you could not understand the context in which I am using those words. I have to ask you though: do you think rail opponents use misleading statistics? Like when someone said that you could buy every new transit rider a car with the money that built the Red Line. That's misleading, isn't it? Because it's a fact, but so are the things I have said.

TXDoT and METRO are each poorly-run organizations. I'm not about to argue that one, and I am deeply concerned that neither gubernatorial candidate has a good track record of demanding accountability from transportation agencies. Not sure what your point is, though.

My point is that no one seems to talk about/realize this. Many people on here slam METRO for everything, but TxDOT generally gets a free pass. Maybe it's because we drive on their freeways all the time, I don't know.

Not at all. METRO should go with the status quo until an alternative technology is determined to achieve a superior benefit/cost ratio and promote a sustainable financial standing.

The problem is, that the status quo would not increase transit ridership. The reason I believe that we should increase transit ridership is so we don't have to keep widening freeways every ten years. I don't believe that rail should have to have "sustainable financial standing." NO method of transportation in this country has "sustainable financial standing." Except for toll roads, and our one high speed rail line in the NEC.

Your claim that future construction will be more expensive is only supported by an expectation of inflation; however inflation as it is typically measured also effects METRO's revenue projections, resulting in a wash. If you are expecting significant commodity inflation, in particular, it is worth noting that METRO has the ability to engage in hedging strategies.

Yes, but future construction will most likely be payed for by federal funds, not METRO's revenue. BTW, METRO's current revenue has only managed a basic light rail line. What makes you think they could have more reveune, without improving their transit technology?

Yes. I believe that these are each the absolute best technologies to fulfill their respective functions in an integrative manner. I recognize that a system of the sort that I describe would be costly, however I am convinced that the ratio of benefits to costs would be significant.

Well that pretty much sums up the disagreement between us. You believe that you can have a succussful transit system without rail, I don't. The reason I don't believe that a transit system can be all buses is because I have yet to see a transit system that carries a respectable amount of riders daily not have a rail system.

To be honest, I do not understand the request. Your approach being so subjective, I'm really not sure that any attempt at reasonable comparison will be well-received.

Well, I do not understand how you cannot understand. I just asked you to provide an example of another city or region that has implemented BRT as the core of their transit system, and implemented it successfully.

What I am getting from your posts is that the most important thing about transit is money. How efficient is it, etc. Well I do not think that's how transit should be measured. The reason I am getting all of those highway statistics is to show that highways aren't fiscally efficient either. If we only built efficient transit, there wouldn't be any transit. That's what I'm getting at, and it's also the reason why I asked you if you hold both TxDOT and METRO to the same standards, becasue both don't make money, and both require federal subsidies.

How about you make comparisons of various transit agencies, including budget per capita, fleet statistics, and census data on average commute times. Or you could look up the thread where I already did that.

I do not believe the things you named should be the standard by which to compare transit agencies. I believe that you should compare transit agencies by ridership, but also taking into account their service area. For example, MARTA has a lower ridership than METRO by about 150,000, but it's service area is less than half the size of METRO's. When you factor in the service area, MARTA outpreforms METRO, in terms of ridership per square mile of service area. That's what I was talking about when we were dueling on Swamplot, but I think you thought I was talking about population density.

My main point is that I believe since highways and airports don't need to "make money," then why should transit agencies? When building/operating a transit agency, I believe that things like budget per capita should be the last thing on people's minds. You said yourself that you aren't afraid to spend money. Our transportation budget is about 2% of the federal budget, it's not like we don't have the money. There's a reason why buses are so cheap. The quality of service they provide is inferior, and I have personal experience on this, in Houston and in other cities. You cannot tell me that buses can cary as many riders as light rail, you cannot tell me that buses are as reliable as light rail, and you cannot tell me that buses are as fast as light rail. Why? Because I have been there, done that.

Transit shouldn't be about how to provide the cheapest service. Houston has already tried that logic, and as a result, we have very low transit ridership. Transit should be about providing the best quality service, no matter how much it cost. Now that doesn't mean I think we should build heavy rail in places like Odessa, TX. What I mean by that is if a large city has congeston problems, and low transit ridership, then we need to upgrade our transit technology. If we were worried so much about money, then I could say that the Katy Freeway didn't need to be expanded, it would have been cheaper to just go with the status quo. But now the quality of the Katy Freeway is 100 times, better. Why? Because we invested so much money into it, without thinking about whether it would make money or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a headache, so I don't feel like getting into a big argument right now. But the only thing I will say is this...

We all know that transit systems are not built to "make money", otherwise they would be fully privatized and have absolutely nothing to do with the government. Houston's transit situation is even worse off, as we live in an area of the country where so many people have a car (and feel it a necessity to own one) and have a very strong stigma against transit.

So the point is this... if we're going to invest in the city's transit, it needs to be funded by the government. METRO needs to adhere to the government's rules. This is not the fault of the voters, it's not the fault of CAF, and it's not the fault of the new METRO administration. The blame for this mess lies squarely with FRANK WILSON & CO. He f*cked us over big time. But there's nothing we can do about that now, except figure out a way to get these lines built with more government support and less burden on the tax payers.

I think we should go ahead and raise rates too... at least for the few of us that can afford it. Even at $1.50/ride, METRO would still be a good deal compared with other transit agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a headache, so I don't feel like getting into a big argument right now. But the only thing I will say is this...

We all know that transit systems are not built to "make money", otherwise they would be fully privatized and have absolutely nothing to do with the government. Houston's transit situation is even worse off, as we live in an area of the country where so many people have a car (and feel it a necessity to own one) and have a very strong stigma against transit.

So the point is this... if we're going to invest in the city's transit, it needs to be funded by the government. METRO needs to adhere to the government's rules. This is not the fault of the voters, it's not the fault of CAF, and it's not the fault of the new METRO administration. The blame for this mess lies squarely with FRANK WILSON & CO. He f*cked us over big time. But there's nothing we can do about that now, except figure out a way to get these lines built with more government support and less burden on the tax payers.

I think we should go ahead and raise rates too... at least for the few of us that can afford it. Even at $1.50/ride, METRO would still be a good deal compared with other transit agencies.

I generally agree with your post. No argument necessary. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I said "infinate" I didn't really mean that literally, I meant that there's been many cases. Sorry you could not understand the context in which I am using those words. I have to ask you though: do you think rail opponents use misleading statistics? Like when someone said that you could buy every new transit rider a car with the money that built the Red Line. That's misleading, isn't it? Because it's a fact, but so are the things I have said.

Some individuals from every side to every politicized argument deploy misleading information, however that implies that those who deploy it think that their audience is too dumb to figure out what they're doing. Whether the root of that preconception is grounded in a firm belief that only smart people think like you think (which is about as dumb as two sports teams praying to a common god for victory) or whether it's merely an opportunistic tactic...I don't care. You aren't showing respect for your audience. I will not tolerate it.

And if you, yourself, don't understand how your '40k cars per day' claim is misleading, then...frankly...I'm done talking to you. There would be no purpose.

Because it's a fact, but so are the things I have said.

To this point, I've given you a pass on your data and have instead focused on your misleading argumentation. But since you're standing your ground and regurgitating crap talking poitns, let's make this an issue. Cite your source. Then tell me how this statistic is relevant to the math underlying a comparative cost-benefit analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the fault of the voters, it's not the fault of CAF, and it's not the fault of the new METRO administration. The blame for this mess lies squarely with FRANK WILSON & CO. He f*cked us over big time.

It goes deeper than Frank Wilson. As far back as Shirley DeLibero, METRO was screwing up in huge ways. They purchased rail cars inadequate to the task, they built a system with stray current problems, they improperly engineered the TMC Transit Center in such a way as to severely impair future redevelopment opportunities. And one might argue that their politics were cunning, albeit divisive and manipulative, pushing the legal and ethical boundaries where expenditures on political activism was concerned. Years before Frank Wilson, METRO had Exec. VPs that were claiming with confidence that commuter rail to Fort Bend County was only a year or two away and that real estate investors could bank on it. No, METRO's organizational culture transcends any temporary figurehead. Any attempt at cleaning house will have to be a much more involved process than is currently being attempted.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of crap happened under Wilson, and Wilson should be held accountable. But I think that Wilson was tolerated for too long; I think that Wilson arrived at METRO with baggage and that better due diligence should've been done on him before he was appointed by the Board. A majority of the Board is appointed by Houston's mayor. That mayor was Bill White. But even still...I'm not even squarely laying blame on Bill White. The problem is that METRO is run by an appointee of appointees that reflect the values and competencies of one person that was elected by the people for reasons not central to his stance on public transportation but that has effective (albeit not micro-managerial) control over an agency that serves a geographic area much larger than his jurisdiction. There's too little and too indirect accountability of METRO to its constituents. That's the root of the problem, but it can only be fixed by the State legislature!

You get the idea, right? There are a lot of people who share in the blame. That's what needs to be made an issue of, more than anything. Having powerful appointees of appointees of a strong mayor wielding influence beyond that person's constituency is just asking for screwy goings-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some individuals from every side to every politicized argument deploy misleading information, however that implies that those who deploy it think that their audience is too dumb to figure out what they're doing. Whether the root of that preconception is grounded in a firm belief that only smart people think like you think (which is about as dumb as two sports teams praying to a common god for victory) or whether it's merely an opportunistic tactic...I don't care. You aren't showing respect for your audience. I will not tolerate it.

And if you, yourself, don't understand how your '40k cars per day' claim is misleading, then...frankly...I'm done talking to you. There would be no purpose.

It's not that hard to look up. Before construction started in 2002, the Katy Freeway had an AADT of about 239,000 cars/day. After the the expansion, the AADT of the same stretch of highway was 276,000 cars/day. So there you go, that's a difference of 37,000 cars, at the cost of 2.8 billion. That's close enough to 40,000. Keep in mind that I am 100% for the expansion of freeways when they get congested. But I also think that we should build a rail system, so won't need to expand our freeways at such great cost so much. Look, I am not denying the fact that those are misleading facts. Of couse they're misleading statastics, the only reason I'm mentioning them is because I've had too many discussions where misleading information is brought up against rail, so I'm just reminding those people that there's radical statistics from another point of view. Look, I am sorry if I offended you by presenting a misleading statistic, but now you know how I feel when people bring up anti-rail misleading statistics, it's just a sense of frustration within that says THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT! :angry2: I can't tell you how many times I've had the same feeling that you apparently have now.

BTW, did you read the rest of my last post? I put a lot of thought into that post and I feel as though it's been completely disragarded... I.. will.. not.. tolerate it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It goes deeper than Frank Wilson. As far back as Shirley DeLibero, METRO was screwing up in huge ways. They purchased rail cars inadequate to the task, they built a system with stray current problems, they improperly engineered the TMC Transit Center in such a way as to severely impair future redevelopment opportunities. And one might argue that their politics were cunning, albeit divisive and manipulative, pushing the legal and ethical boundaries where expenditures on political activism was concerned. Years before Frank Wilson, METRO had Exec. VPs that were claiming with confidence that commuter rail to Fort Bend County was only a year or two away and that real estate investors could bank on it. No, METRO's organizational culture transcends any temporary figurehead. Any attempt at cleaning house will have to be a much more involved process than is currently being attempted.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of crap happened under Wilson, and Wilson should be held accountable. But I think that Wilson was tolerated for too long; I think that Wilson arrived at METRO with baggage and that better due diligence should've been done on him before he was appointed by the Board. A majority of the Board is appointed by Houston's mayor. That mayor was Bill White. But even still...I'm not even squarely laying blame on Bill White. The problem is that METRO is run by an appointee of appointees that reflect the values and competencies of one person that was elected by the people for reasons not central to his stance on public transportation but that has effective (albeit not micro-managerial) control over an agency that serves a geographic area much larger than his jurisdiction. There's too little and too indirect accountability of METRO to its constituents. That's the root of the problem, but it can only be fixed by the State legislature!

You get the idea, right? There are a lot of people who share in the blame. That's what needs to be made an issue of, more than anything. Having powerful appointees of appointees of a strong mayor wielding influence beyond that person's constituency is just asking for screwy goings-on.

I agree with this post, BTW. So at least we agree on something. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that hard to look up. Before construction started in 2002, the Katy Freeway had an AADT of about 239,000 cars/day. After the the expansion, the AADT of the same stretch of highway was 276,000 cars/day. So there you go, that's a difference of 37,000 cars, at the cost of 2.8 billion. That's close enough to 40,000. Keep in mind that I am 100% for the expansion of freeways when they get congested. But I also think that we should build a rail system, so won't need to expand our freeways at such great cost so much. Look, I am not denying the fact that those are misleading facts. Of couse they're misleading statastics, the only reason I'm mentioning them is because I've had too many discussions where misleading information is brought up against rail, so I'm just reminding those people that there's radical statistics from another point of view. Look, I am sorry if I offended you by presenting a misleading statistic, but now you know how I feel when people bring up anti-rail misleading statistics, it's just a sense of frustration within that says THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT! :angry2: I can't tell you how many times I've had the same feeling that you apparently have now.

BTW, did you read the rest of my last post? I put a lot of thought into that post and I feel as though it's been completely disragarded... I.. will.. not.. tolerate it. :D

It seems rather unlikely that I have proffered radical or misleading statistics against the case for light rail provided that I had not previously provided any statistics. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. ...or perhaps you're flame baiting. ...or authoring an interactive farce.

I do not care to participate in this time sink. You may reference my previous posts in ump-teen different threads if you're genuinely interested in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems rather unlikely that I have proffered radical or misleading statistics against the case for light rail provided that I had not previously provided any statistics. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. ...or perhaps you're flame baiting. ...or authoring an interactive farce.

I do not care to participate in this time sink. You may reference my previous posts in ump-teen different threads if you're genuinely interested in my opinion.

I never said you presented misleading statistics, but other people on here have. My first post in this thread with the "misleading statistic" was not directed at you. In real life, I have had conversations with many people that presented misleading statistics, and that is what I was refering to. There have also been people like that on this forum (I'm not going to call any names) that have provided quite relevant misleading statistics. To be honest, I think if we met face to face, we would probably agree on a lot of issues. But with the limitations of an online forum, things can be interpreted out of context, and misunderstood.

Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...