Jump to content

METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion


Recommended Posts

Spieler used to be able to convey logical concepts with brevity. Whether you agreed or not with his conclusions, they were reasonably supported and lent perspective to various alternatives. Whether I agreed with him or not about any particular subject or just in general (and I often did), I could still respect that he was trying to be intellectually honest.

What I see here before me is unforgivable by comparison. The discussion lacks the same precision and elegant brevity. It is soft, murky, intellectually amorphous. It is political cheerleading, nothing more.

The Christof Spieler that I remember would never have written this drivel. Whomever it was that twisted his arm to get him to write it, shame on them.

Pot calling kettle black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Spieler's style and presentation of his information is different now then when he was at CTC and was writing for a very small community. Not very surprising that he is now making his audience is an entire metro area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading his old blogs and I don't recall a huge difference. It's a lengthy article because he now works for METRO and has more incentive to get his point accross. For the most part I think he's genuine. He has always been in favor of more funding for METRO and has always advocated it. I think he genuinly hopes to accomplish these goals because he really thinks it will benefit the city of Houston. That's not something you can say about a lot people in politics.

I do agree that the article was quite lengthy, but I think he made some good points and backed it up with numbers. While the purpose of the article is obviously to convince people to vote a certain way, I still thought it was a good read and very interesting to see the numbers behind transit in Houston.

He raised some interesting information, but did not explicitly recommend a particular solution. And his implication was disjointed, lacking the connective tissue of a well-reasoned argument...which is what he was known for!

I may as well tell you that there's a drought in the Midwest that is effecting the rapid depletion of the Ogallala aquifer, and that we have the option of building pipelines to the Canadian wilderness to obtain water from melting snowpack. That's one problem of a chronic nature (like traffic) and one infrastructural idea (like transit). They don't necessarily pair well, and in fact I have not even bothered to quantify the extent of the problem or the problem's implications; nor have I bothered to analyze the solution, its relative cost, its externalities, or its financing effects. And then, by not presenting or analyzing alternatives, it implies that I support the idea. So what I've done is that I have invented a problem and a plausible solution; I have given the meat and bones of a project; unconnected by ugly details, the cartilage, ligaments, and tendons, what I've said is worthless. It is an incomplete argument. It is a waste of time. It does not connect, it will not function.

But I know that you do not care. Transit apologists never care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the opposing view point: http://blog.chron.co...or-a-new-metro/

After reading that viewpoint, Mr. Sanders is uninformed on some things. In the very beginning, he points out that we should keep to the 2003 referendum on mobility payments. However by having this vote, that's exactly what we're doing. He also says that the public needs to assess the success of light rail.. well we have already assessed it and deemed it successful. He ignores that we already have a light rail line running. The GM payments were political, nothing more. They weren't created because they were "needed" as Sanders points out.

What other cities take transit money and use it for roads? Heaven forbid that cities have to pay for their own roads, smh. The one cent tax was created to go to transit. It was created to run a bus system and eventually a rail system. Not to build roads. Thats what other taxes are for.

But I know that you do not care. Transit apologists never care.

Actually, I am very interested in weather so I know all about the drought. However, bulding infrastructure for a drought is completely idiotic. Droughts are temporary and will go away in months. Wast of money. Houston, on the other hand, isn't going away, it is here to stay! So let's invest in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading that viewpoint, Mr. Sanders is uninformed on some things. In the very beginning, he points out that we should keep to the 2003 referendum on mobility payments. However by having this vote, that's exactly what we're doing. He also says that the public needs to assess the success of light rail.. well we have already assessed it and deemed it successful. He ignores that we already have a light rail line running. The GM payments were political, nothing more. They weren't created because they were "needed" as Sanders points out.

What other cities take transit money and use it for roads? Heaven forbid that cities have to pay for their own roads, smh. The one cent tax was created to go to transit. It was created to run a bus system and eventually a rail system. Not to build roads. Thats what other taxes are for.

Actually, I am very interested in weather so I know all about the drought. However, bulding infrastructure for a drought is completely idiotic. Droughts are temporary and will go away in months. Wast of money. Houston, on the other hand, isn't going away, it is here to stay! So let's invest in it.

Sanders is a paid off crony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanders is a paid off crony.

He's listed as the Exec Dir of Houstonians for Responsible Growth, which is the developer funded interest group that plans to make a fortune off the "walkable" TOD that pro-rail folks say will follow the construction of the 5 lines. HRG also plans to make a fortune off whatever develops if the last 2 lines are never built so as usual it's win-win for developers in Houston. "paid off crony" is not really an insult to these people.

It's interesting that you don't address any of his points b/c his essay makes a tighter argument than Spieler's even if you don't like his position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading that viewpoint, Mr. Sanders is uninformed on some things. In the very beginning, he points out that we should keep to the 2003 referendum on mobility payments. However by having this vote, that's exactly what we're doing. He also says that the public needs to assess the success of light rail.. well we have already assessed it and deemed it successful. He ignores that we already have a light rail line running. The GM payments were political, nothing more. They weren't created because they were "needed" as Sanders points out.

What other cities take transit money and use it for roads? Heaven forbid that cities have to pay for their own roads, smh. The one cent tax was created to go to transit. It was created to run a bus system and eventually a rail system. Not to build roads. Thats what other taxes are for.

I think you misunderstand the point he's making about why the 2003 referendum called for a vote in 2014 - 2 years after the promised completion of all 5 rail lines.

The idea of METRO member cities taking 2 yrs to assess performance of the entire system makes perfect sense to me as a taxpayer. Lots of riders going up and down Main St says nothing about the proposed and still unbuilt system. The system's performance has definitely not been assessed as you state.

"We are now being told that METRO needs more money to complete the goals that were outlined in the 2003 referendum. We believe Metro needs the discipline of the GMP and the chance for the public to access the performance of light rail after completion and operation of the current expansion. The primary reason the 2003 referendum was set to expire next year was due to METRO’s outlined promise in the METRO Solutions Plan to complete the components of the referendum by this time. By completing the goals of the 2003 referendum in 2012, the member entities and the taxpayers would have had adequate information on the true capital costs, operating costs, and ridership numbers to justify the investment in the transit plan. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened and won’t happen for another couple years."

The other point that jumps out is the astonishing under-estimation of the costs to the taxpayer to build the entire system (if it was not a completely inaccurate forecast - METRO is inept, it was a premeditated lie - METRO is corrupt)

"But the 2012 Business Plan did introduce a new level of transparency on how much more light rail expansion is going to cost than originally estimated in 2003. METRO looks to “boldly accelerate” spending on light rail to complete 3 of the 4 lines approved in 2003 for a little over $2.1 billion, or $1.4 billion more than estimated for same three lines in 2003. The North, Southeast and East lines are slated to be completed by the end of 2016, 8 years, 7 years, and 5 years late, respectively. (my emphasis)

Unfortunately, the bus service expansion promised in 2003 of increasing capacity by 50% will not be delivered under the 2012 Business plan. In fact, bus service and routes have significantly decreased from their 2003 levels to help make room for the accelerated commitment to light rail transit funding."

The only thing for sure is that both sides have deep enough pockets to assure that this debate will get really ugly before the November election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand the point he's making about why the 2003 referendum called for a vote in 2014 - 2 years after the promised completion of all 5 rail lines.

The idea of METRO member cities taking 2 yrs to assess performance of the entire system makes perfect sense to me as a taxpayer. Lots of riders going up and down Main St says nothing about the proposed and still unbuilt system. The system's performance has definitely not been assessed as you state.

That might be true, but we all know that no matter how well the light rail system does, the member cities will no matter what be against the discontinuation of the GM payments. The outlying cities are benefitting the most from this and since the light rail doesn't go into their cities, then one can be sure what view they will have towards giving more funding to METRO.

And I'd argue that our current Main Street Line is indeed a future indication of how light rail will perform. It certainly is an indication that other lines such as the University and Uptown lines well have great ridership, due to the fact that those lines, like the Main Street line, connect empolyment centers.

The other point that jumps out is the astonishing under-estimation of the costs to the taxpayer to build the entire system (if it was not a completely inaccurate forecast - METRO is inept, it was a premeditated lie - METRO is corrupt)

If you read Spieler's column, he gives an explination for this. He is basically blaming the economy for screwing with METRO's tax projections and funding.

The only thing for sure is that both sides have deep enough pockets to assure that this debate will get really ugly before the November election.

I'd say that the outlying cities will have deeper pockets.. politically, it's going to be tough to convince politicians to agree to giving more money to METRO.. but hopefully it will be up to the voters (and just the voters) to decide, and if it is, the referendum stands a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Memorial Villages collect very little sales tax due to the paucity of business locations and have every right to complain when their share of GMP is cut, since their residents pay sales tax in Houston. Rail will never help them, whereas much of the traffic on their streets is cut through by people going from one part of Houston to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Memorial Villages collect very little sales tax due to the paucity of business locations and have every right to complain when their share of GMP is cut, since their residents pay sales tax in Houston. Rail will never help them, whereas much of the traffic on their streets is cut through by people going from one part of Houston to another.

Members of Memorial Villages don't shop or dine at things in parts of the city that will be serviced by the rail? Because rail can take plenty of people to their jobs at restaurants or shops, which helps to keep labor costs down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been almost a decade since the referendum passed and there is literally nothing to show for it. All of the proposed light rail lines are behind schedule and Metro has decided the bus component of the referendum is not even worth implementing. Amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Memorial Villages collect very little sales tax due to the paucity of business locations and have every right to complain when their share of GMP is cut, since their residents pay sales tax in Houston. Rail will never help them, whereas much of the traffic on their streets is cut through by people going from one part of Houston to another.

Not really. They were set up this way conciously. They wanted to be little glorious enclaves of homes without any (or very small) areas set up for commercial or industrial. This would keep out the riff-raff and other undesirables. The down side of this is your tax base is pitiful.

So they latch onto any source of funding that they can and they will fight tooth and nail to keep it - because the only alternative is the property tax on their housing stock which no elected official wants to touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. They were set up this way conciously. They wanted to be little glorious enclaves of homes without any (or very small) areas set up for commercial or industrial. This would keep out the riff-raff and other undesirables. The down side of this is your tax base is pitiful.

So they latch onto any source of funding that they can and they will fight tooth and nail to keep it - because the only alternative is the property tax on their housing stock which no elected official wants to touch.

Yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. They were set up this way conciously. They wanted to be little glorious enclaves of homes without any (or very small) areas set up for commercial or industrial. This would keep out the riff-raff and other undesirables. The down side of this is your tax base is pitiful.

So they latch onto any source of funding that they can and they will fight tooth and nail to keep it - because the only alternative is the property tax on their housing stock which no elected official wants to touch.

Actually, the Memorial villages don't have any problem with their tax base. Their tax rates are among the lowest in our metropolitan area.

There are many possible explanations for why the general mobility funds are so unequal. I have to suspect that what has actually happened is that there's been horse trading of GM appropriations for board members' swing votes at various junctures...but that's just my suspicion, nothing more. Bottom line is you're grasping at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been almost a decade since the referendum passed and there is literally nothing to show for it. All of the proposed light rail lines are behind schedule and Metro has decided the bus component of the referendum is not even worth implementing. Amazing.

I know, it just shows how powerful political opposition can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no political opposition to expanding bus service in the interim.

The expanding of the bus system was meant to coincide with the rail system. It is a system-wide plan, and expanding the bus system with no rail system would be useless. Ridership wouldn't increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expanding of the bus system was meant to coincide with the rail system. It is a system-wide plan, and expanding the bus system with no rail system would be useless. Ridership wouldn't increase.

What about the signature express bus service promised for Gessner? That bus system improvement did not connect to any light rail route. I think you're just speculating in a manner that favors light rail apologism. Seems to be your MO around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expanding of the bus system was meant to coincide with the rail system. It is a system-wide plan, and expanding the bus system with no rail system would be useless. Ridership wouldn't increase.

that statement makes no sense. a promised 50% increase in bus service would not result in additional riders? what METRO statement, data, and/or logic brings you to that conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the signature express bus service promised for Gessner? That bus system improvement did not connect to any light rail route. I think you're just speculating in a manner that favors light rail apologism. Seems to be your MO around here.

I think that they are focusing all of their resources on getting the core rail system built first because 1) it's the most important part of the system and 2) if they waste all of their money on buses then they won't be able to build a rail system and will end up not improving the transit system at all.

And you accusing me of being a "light rail apologist" is just aboslutely ridiculous. Just stop. My "MO" is improving METRO. Stop being closed-minded.

That statement makes no sense. a promised 50% increase in bus service would not result in additional riders? what METRO statement, data, and/or logic brings you to that conclusion?

There's no demand for it. The vast majority of the buses are empty. Simply adding more wouldn't generate more ridership. What would generate more riderhsip is having a core higher-capacity system that the buses can feed into. Build the core first, then add more buses and improve the service (improve bus shelters, displays showing when the next bus will come, etc.).

According to METRO, bus service hasn't been implemented due to the fact that there's no demand for it. It would be a waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that they are focusing all of their resources on getting the core rail system built first because 1) it's the most important part of the system and 2) if they waste all of their money on buses then they won't be able to build a rail system and will end up not improving the transit system at all.

And you accusing me of being a "light rail apologist" is just aboslutely ridiculous. Just stop. My "MO" is improving METRO. Stop being closed-minded.

There's no demand for it. The vast majority of the buses are empty. Simply adding more wouldn't generate more ridership. What would generate more riderhsip is having a core higher-capacity system that the buses can feed into. Build the core first, then add more buses and improve the service (improve bus shelters, displays showing when the next bus will come, etc.).

According to METRO, bus service hasn't been implemented due to the fact that there's no demand for it. It would be a waste of money.

You are a light rail apologist and the close minded one. Where are your numbers to back up your statements? The vast majority of buses are empty you say? Prove it. Metro operates ONE rail line and SEVERAL DOZEN bus lines. By 2015 Metro will operate four rail lines and still several dozen bus lines. The bus system is the core. Focusing on rail has led to the deterioration of that core. Improving bus service and expanding bus service will only add more riders. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Or a light rail apologist, but they seem pretty interchangeable these days.

And Metro has said a lot of things. According to them, we're supposed to have five additional operating rail lines right now. We don't. Regurgitating Metro talking points, particularly ones from the odious Wilson/Wolff regime, will only hurt your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that they are focusing all of their resources on getting the core rail system built first because 1) it's the most important part of the system and 2) if they waste all of their money on buses then they won't be able to build a rail system and will end up not improving the transit system at all.

And you accusing me of being a "light rail apologist" is just aboslutely ridiculous. Just stop. My "MO" is improving METRO. Stop being closed-minded.

There's no demand for it. The vast majority of the buses are empty. Simply adding more wouldn't generate more ridership. What would generate more riderhsip is having a core higher-capacity system that the buses can feed into. Build the core first, then add more buses and improve the service (improve bus shelters, displays showing when the next bus will come, etc.).

According to METRO, bus service hasn't been implemented due to the fact that there's no demand for it. It would be a waste of money.

I am a big fan of light rail, and hope it expands, but this is one of the worst examples of rail apology that I have seen on this forum. The others are right. You are blinded by rail envy. Use a bit more reality in your arguments and others may actually take you seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a light rail apologist and the close minded one. Where are your numbers to back up your statements? The vast majority of buses are empty you say? Prove it.

If you actually read my posts, I've given plenty of numbers. Sure I'll prove it right now, although you probably won't read it. METRO buses are so empty that we, as taxpayers, pay $5 every time one persons boards a bus. What does that mean?

Metro operates ONE rail line and SEVERAL DOZEN bus lines. By 2015 Metro will operate four rail lines and still several dozen bus lines. The bus system is the core. Focusing on rail has led to the deterioration of that core. Improving bus service and expanding bus service will only add more riders. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Or a light rail apologist, but they seem pretty interchangeable these days.

You are an idiot. Do you know the concept of a core system. Take, for example, the city of Boston. They have about 5 or 6 rail lines. They have dozens of bus lines. Are you stupid enough to think that their bus system is their core? You are riduculous and need to educate yourself. This is absurd the stupidity of some posters on here is insane. The whole concept of a core system is a higher capacity and more efficient system. That's buses? Why am I even wasting my time. Anti-rail people like you who think buses are the only answer is the problem in this city. You are misinformed.

And Metro has said a lot of things. According to them, we're supposed to have five additional operating rail lines right now. We don't. Regurgitating Metro talking points, particularly ones from the odious Wilson/Wolff regime, will only hurt your argument.

And you really think that METRO doesn't want that? Do you think they don't want to impliment their plan successfully? Only a fool such as yourself would ensue that METRO is the "bad guy" here that's preventing transit in Houston from succeeding.

I am a big fan of light rail, and hope it expands, but this is one of the worst examples of rail apology that I have seen on this forum. The others are right. You are blinded by rail envy. Use a bit more reality in your arguments and others may actually take you seriously.

Well unfortunately, "the others" are uninformed idiots who blather on and on about how buses are more efficient (which is a lie) and about how buses are the only answer, and how rail is a waste of money, etc. And you, sir, are an idiot if you think I am a "rail apologist." I am in favor of all infrastructure projects in Houston because as a city Houston sucks in terms of infrastructure. By merely defending rail from proven idiots who don't know their facts makes me a rail apologist? LOL, alright buddy whatever helps you sleep at night. But go ahead and side with the crowd that supports Culberson politics.

I have done hours of research and know my shit. So while it may seem like I am a rail apologist, I am actually simply defending it from moronic posters who have no clue what they are blabbering about.

If you care to actually read my posts, you'll clearly see that I am in favor of not only freeway expansion, but improving our bus system which unfortunately sucks. I have plenty ideas on that subject as stated before. I am pro transit, which also means that I am pro-rail. Sue me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, screw it. Y'all can have the last word. It's amazing how a poster like myself can come in this thread with facts to back up his arguments and get called a troll and apologist. It's not like what I'm saying isn't true. No one has been able to disprove the fact that rail is simply better as a core system to build around. And yet I get called an "idiot" and a troll.

Oh well. No use in getting upset over. The majority of people in Houston are in favor of light rail, I guess they are all "trolls" and "apologists."

Perhaps I should be like some other posters on here and stop bringing facts to the boards. Maybe I should just use empty baseless rhetorical arguments with nothing to back up what I say.

I've done the reaserch, presented the facts, and disproven opponent's arguments. Not sure what else I can do, but I guess if my opponents' last resort is to call me an "apologist" and a "troll" and not post anything with substance, then I've done a pretty good job. ;)

Flame on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One, I advise you to educate yourself in the English language. You type like a poor immigrant laborer. That, combined with your pathetic and childish arguments, make your posts a chore to read. Two, you have the mind of a petulant eight year old child with mild mental retardation. All you want is your toy train and you throw fits and tantrums if others don't see things your way. I hope you wear a helmet so you won't hurt yourself during these fits. Three, once again, and I'm not surprised given your low comprehension level, you have failed to provide concrete numbers, facts, sources or any form of logic to back up your arguments. The only thing you show any competence in, and I use the term loosely, is throwing about poorly strung together ad hominem attacks.

Now, look here you little I'm not anti-rail at all. I do want a robust and extensive rail system. But not at the expense of crippling the bus system, which is what has happened, and is happening now. If you are truly pro transit, which you aren't, you'd be advocating for any improvement of transit in the Houston area. But you only advocate for rail expansion. Anything else is worthless in your opinion. The fact of the matter is, your opinion is worthless and not rooted in any facts or research (learn to spell before claiming intellectual superiority please).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd recommend people lay off the flaming in this topic.

no kidding. just reread all 8 bazillion posts on the Univ Line thread if you're feeling feisty.

we keep drifting from the topic of this thread - if METRO gets a .25% sales tax increase, can METRO guarantee that the increased tax revenue will be sufficient to complete the 2003 Solutions transit plan before METRO's estimated date (sometime in the 2030s) to complete it without the .25%, and are the citizens within the METRO service area prepared to accept a perpetual tax increase as a result of giving the .25% to METRO?

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...