More Congestion On Interstate-10

[livincinco]

Please tell me that if I-10 and beltway 8 is the center of Houston, why the 4 major sports franchises choose to play in the loop, and 3 in downtown? These are probably the 150 most well known employees in the city.

Once again, you're creating a straw man argument that has nothing to do with what I said, but to answer your question, those franchises choose to play in the loop because the city paid for a significant portion of the construction costs for stadiums that were located in the downtown area. Just part of the continued government conspiracy to encourage urbanization.

[livincinco]

agreed. 

though i think the way Chicagos city and job base have developed has been "materially impacted" by rail. they dont have commercial districts 30 miles out in the suburbs like Houston does. all of their towers and corporations are centrally located, and that area has developed a large residential presence as well. 

i agree commuter rail wont work nearly as well in decentralized regions, but thats why we have multiple modes of transit to reach all of the urban districts and destinations, like light rail, and soon to be BRT, and maybe one day streetcars again.

i think we can most all agree that at least one, maybe more west side corridors eventually need rail, wether it be Westpark, i10, and/or 290. they all have the potential for rail lines to stop at both uptown (or the uptown BRT/LRT at least) and downtown, and the westpark line could even stop at greenway plaza, serving 3 of the largest districts in Houston.

why dont you think it will work any better here than in Dallas? wasnt much of their rail plan built on speculation of where people/things would hopefully develop? Houston seems to develop where the people are more so than where they hope they will eventually be, which is part of why we have a much higher ridership per mile than Dallas.

i agree Houstons light rail kind of sucks and i wish we could of developed it along grade separate corridors like Dallas was able to do with all of their left over rail ROW, but it is what it is, and it serves a decent job of moving large numbers of people around while maintaining a fairly strict schedule, unlike busses. hopefully we will eventually get some grade separate rail in Houston, wether it be commuter or heavy. otherwise with the layout of everything in our city, and the number of people projected to be moving here over the next few decades, were liable to choke on our own traffic.

 

That takes us back to the original study that was referenced showing that only 22% of Chicago's jobs are accessible with 90 min travel on public transit.  I happen to agree with you that Chicago is considerably more centralized than Houston, but this also makes me believe that Chicago is probably not nearly as centralized as we believe it to be, but it also concerns me with how much worse access would be in Houston even after development of a considerable transit network. 

 

Dallas is also a very interesting example because their plan was built on speculation as to where people would develop and that brings up an interesting question.  Highways are often accused of creating sprawl, yet the improved transit of rail in Dallas didn't create that same effect.  So, it seems like in Dallas, when given the choice between developing along government funded rail and developing along government funded highways, the vast majority chose to develop along highways.  It seems to me that has been pretty consistent, the majority of people only choose transit when costs are significantly lower and/or transit times are significantly better.

 

This all kind of takes us back to the original point here.  People can complain all they want about the widening of I-10 instead of rail, but it was never an either/or.  There's no evidence that rail would have forced jobs/people back into the urban core like certain individuals would like to believe.  It's much more likely that it would have just caused the region to lose the economic growth that has occurred in west part of the area to other comparable metros that were willing to invest appropriately in infrastructure.

 

[Slick Vik]

That takes us back to the original study that was referenced showing that only 22% of Chicago's jobs are accessible with 90 min travel on public transit.  I happen to agree with you that Chicago is considerably more centralized than Houston, but this also makes me believe that Chicago is probably not nearly as centralized as we believe it to be, but it also concerns me with how much worse access would be in Houston even after development of a considerable transit network. 

 

Dallas is also a very interesting example because their plan was built on speculation as to where people would develop and that brings up an interesting question.  Highways are often accused of creating sprawl, yet the improved transit of rail in Dallas didn't create that same effect.  So, it seems like in Dallas, when given the choice between developing along government funded rail and developing along government funded highways, the vast majority chose to develop along highways.  It seems to me that has been pretty consistent, the majority of people only choose transit when costs are significantly lower and/or transit times are significantly better.

 

This all kind of takes us back to the original point here.  People can complain all they want about the widening of I-10 instead of rail, but it was never an either/or.  There's no evidence that rail would have forced jobs/people back into the urban core like certain individuals would like to believe.  It's much more likely that it would have just caused the region to lose the economic growth that has occurred in west part of the area to other comparable metros that were willing to invest appropriately in infrastructure.

 

 

You're incorrect on DART investment cuatro. DART has generated $7.4 billion in economic activity actually.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20140128-a-rail-difference-dart-stations-driving-nearly-4b-in-nearby-development-studies-find.ece

 

Also despite the fact you bring up your misleading statistic in Chicago, you also never responded to the fact that ridership if you combine commuter and CTA heavy rail is over one million per day. Of course I'm sure you would rather have all those people driving and causing further congestion and environmental harm.

[Slick Vik]

I did an informal survey at work a while back of suburb dwellers. Not one of them expressed any interest whatsoever in moving to town. None. They love their lives in the suburbs.

 

Developers make lots of money in the suburbs because of volume. You can't hope to build 1500 homes insde th eLoop, ther'es not enough open land to do that. That's why many of the single family builders that operate inside the Loop are small.

 

 

I did a similar survey of older people in the suburbs and many had regrets that they missed out on a lot in their lives by not being in town.

[livincinco]

You're incorrect on DART investment cuatro. DART has generated $7.4 billion in economic activity actually.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20140128-a-rail-difference-dart-stations-driving-nearly-4b-in-nearby-development-studies-find.ece

 

Also despite the fact you bring up your misleading statistic in Chicago, you also never responded to the fact that ridership if you combine commuter and CTA heavy rail is over one million per day. Of course I'm sure you would rather have all those people driving and causing further congestion and environmental harm.

 

I have not studied the methodology of this study, but it is relevant to point out that this is a study that was commissioned by DART, so it might present a slightly more rosy picture than a non-partial study might have.  It is rather interesting that the amount of economic activity that the study found is almost exactly the same as the total debt service that is owed ($7.392 billion) against construction of the network.  A conspiracy theorist might even suspect that the number was manipulated to that effect, however I find conspiracy theories to be the refuge of those incapable of logical thought, so I am not making that allegation.

 

Regarding CTA ridership numbers, you have so completely missed the point that I'm not even going to bother to respond to you.

 

EDIT - one note on the Dallas economic study - it appears that the study did not include any consideration of economic development subsidies in comparing development that occurred in the study areas.  That seems like a pretty significant omission, especially given that one of the stated goals of the Dallas office of economic development is to "promote housing, office, and retail development around DART light rail stations".

[IronTiger]

Chicago is not particularly ultra centralized. It has scads of suburbs and the metro area spreads over three states. There's a reason it's called "Chicagoland".

[IronTiger]

I did a similar survey of older people in the suburbs and many had regrets that they missed out on a lot in their lives by not being in town.

I tried to make a comment earlier today, but I find it hard to believe that "the Outer Loop is considered an excursion" Slick went into the suburbs, talked to older people, and it just so happens that everyone loves the downtown areas...just like him.

[IronTiger]

On Interstate 10, rail was seriously considered and even designed to accommodate rail later. 

 

Here are some facts gleaned from looking up "Interstate 10" and "rail" on Houston Chronicle archives:

 

- When TxDOT bought the Katy ROW in 1992 (which UP had permission to use for the next five years, at which point it was abandoned and torn up), there never was an official plan to use that for commuter rail and the other option was what ended up happening--just using it for extra lanes. (State buys Katy rail right of way for $78 million, Houston Chronicle - Wednesday, DECEMBER 30, 1992)

- By 1999, plans for the Katy Freeway expansion were solidifying and complaints were rolling in to the Chron letters section on why no commuter rail on the Katy ROW. The answer was that "[METRO] already runs buses into downtown Houston on the HOV from huge parking areas in west Harris County. A train would do the same thing - only cost more to build, go slower, run less often, and not bring downtown workers as close to their offices as the buses." The same article states that the HOT lanes in the center would use congestion pricing, which to my knowledge did NOT end up happening. (forgot the article name, sorry)

- The idea for toll roads in the middle of the highway, pitched in 2001, was able to speed construction from 10 years to 6. It's not stated explicitly, but the article has Culberson bragging about the freeway, so he may have been behind that. Does cutting construction of Katy Freeway by four years still make Culberson a bad guy? (Funds for Katy toll road OK'd - As expansion nears reality, opponents vow to continue fight, Houston Chronicle - Friday, January 31, 2003)

[livincinco]

On Interstate 10, rail was seriously considered and even designed to accommodate rail later. 

 

Here are some facts gleaned from looking up "Interstate 10" and "rail" on Houston Chronicle archives:

 

- When TxDOT bought the Katy ROW in 1992 (which UP had permission to use for the next five years, at which point it was abandoned and torn up), there never was an official plan to use that for commuter rail and the other option was what ended up happening--just using it for extra lanes. (State buys Katy rail right of way for $78 million, Houston Chronicle - Wednesday, DECEMBER 30, 1992)

- By 1999, plans for the Katy Freeway expansion were solidifying and complaints were rolling in to the Chron letters section on why no commuter rail on the Katy ROW. The answer was that "[METRO] already runs buses into downtown Houston on the HOV from huge parking areas in west Harris County. A train would do the same thing - only cost more to build, go slower, run less often, and not bring downtown workers as close to their offices as the buses." The same article states that the HOT lanes in the center would use congestion pricing, which to my knowledge did NOT end up happening. (forgot the article name, sorry)

- The idea for toll roads in the middle of the highway, pitched in 2001, was able to speed construction from 10 years to 6. It's not stated explicitly, but the article has Culberson bragging about the freeway, so he may have been behind that. Does cutting construction of Katy Freeway by four years still make Culberson a bad guy? (Funds for Katy toll road OK'd - As expansion nears reality, opponents vow to continue fight, Houston Chronicle - Friday, January 31, 2003)

 

John Culberson is evil and everyone in his district hates him and wants him out of office.  That is clearly obvious based on the fact that he has won re-election six times and the closest of any of those elections was a 14% difference.

 

He has made massive amounts of money from his investments tied to land surrounding freeways.  This is clearly evident based on the fact that he is ranked as the 363rd wealthiest member of the House of Representatives (net worth of approx. $750,000 in comparison to the average net worth of Republican representatives of $7.6 million).

 

[IronTiger]

At least I think it was considered for commuter rail, until I went archive binging. The people that were demanding that the Katy line be converted to commuter rail obviously must have forgot that trains blocked intersections and backed up traffic to the highway.

[Slick Vik]

At least I think it was considered for commuter rail, until I went archive binging. The people that were demanding that the Katy line be converted to commuter rail obviously must have forgot that trains blocked intersections and backed up traffic to the highway.

I believe rail was removed at the last second.

[Slick Vik]

John Culberson is evil and everyone in his district hates him and wants him out of office. That is clearly obvious based on the fact that he has won re-election six times and the closest of any of those elections was a 14% difference.

He has made massive amounts of money from his investments tied to land surrounding freeways. This is clearly evident based on the fact that he is ranked as the 363rd wealthiest member of the House of Representatives (net worth of approx. $750,000 in comparison to the average net worth of Republican representatives of $7.6 million).

There are a lot of people outside of his district that hate him and want him outside of office. As far as your last paragraph you're talking about bob Lanier.

[Slick Vik]

That takes us back to the original study that was referenced showing that only 22% of Chicago's jobs are accessible with 90 min travel on public transit. I happen to agree with you that Chicago is considerably more centralized than Houston, but this also makes me believe that Chicago is probably not nearly as centralized as we believe it to be, but it also concerns me with how much worse access would be in Houston even after development of a considerable transit network.

Dallas is also a very interesting example because their plan was built on speculation as to where people would develop and that brings up an interesting question. Highways are often accused of creating sprawl, yet the improved transit of rail in Dallas didn't create that same effect. So, it seems like in Dallas, when given the choice between developing along government funded rail and developing along government funded highways, the vast majority chose to develop along highways. It seems to me that has been pretty consistent, the majority of people only choose transit when costs are significantly lower and/or transit times are significantly better.

This all kind of takes us back to the original point here. People can complain all they want about the widening of I-10 instead of rail, but it was never an either/or. There's no evidence that rail would have forced jobs/people back into the urban core like certain individuals would like to believe. It's much more likely that it would have just caused the region to lose the economic growth that has occurred in west part of the area to other comparable metros that were willing to invest appropriately in infrastructure.

Great artificial skewing of statistics. Of that 22% how much rides mass transit? I'm thinking it's far higher than 22%.

[IronTiger]

I believe rail was removed at the last second.

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

[IronTiger]

As far as your last paragraph you're talking about bob Lanier.

Oh, yeah, Lanier too. He's part of the group that doesn't support funds going to rail, and thus, obviously and clearly aligned with Satan.

[livincinco]

There are a lot of people outside of his district that hate him and want him outside of office. As far as your last paragraph you're talking about bob Lanier.

You do understand the responsibilities of a Congressman and how the House of Representatives works, right? His job is to represent his constituents, not people outside his district.

Glad to hear that you agree with me that there is no basis for any accusation of corruption against Culberson.

[livincinco]

Great artificial skewing of statistics. Of that 22% how much rides mass transit? I'm thinking it's far higher than 22%.

Well you certainly are the expert at skewing statistics, so it's hard to argue with you on that, but you might try actually reading the reports that are linked earlier in this thread before you make those accusations.

Here's a quick hint for you - the discussion is about access, not ridership. They aren't the same thing.

[Slick Vik]

Oh, yeah, Lanier too. He's part of the group that doesn't support funds going to rail, and thus, obviously and clearly aligned with Satan.

Lanier was a highway commissioner. Connect the dots.

You do understand the responsibilities of a Congressman and how the House of Representatives works, right? His job is to represent his constituents, not people outside his district.

Glad to hear that you agree with me that there is no basis for any accusation of corruption against Culberson.

He's ruining plans that will affect the city in a positive way. I would be shocked if he wasn't corrupt.

[Slick Vik]

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

Oh really?

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Draft-pact-omits-Metro-rail-from-Katy-Freeway-plan-1817294.php

[IronTiger]

Oh really?

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Draft-pact-omits-Metro-rail-from-Katy-Freeway-plan-1817294.php

There was never a true plan to add rail down Katy Freeway, that was wishful thinking by opponents. The compromise was to add lanes with infrastructure that could support rail, but that's just that--rail support. Over here in the "far northwest exurbs", the "West Loop" (Harvey Mitchell Parkway) was designed with extra ROW so that the railroad could be rerouted down it.

tl;dr, "lanes designed to accommodate rail that ended up just being regular lanes" is a big difference between "they had railroad in the plans until they dropped it at last minute".

[IronTiger]

Lanier was a highway commissioner. Connect the dots.

You know I was being facetious when I said that they were aligned with Satan, right? Clearly you must have missed the memo.

He's ruining plans that will affect the city in a positive way. I would be shocked if he wasn't corrupt.

Just because you don't like a politician's plans doesn't make them automatically corrupt.

[livincinco]

You know I was being facetious when I said that they were aligned with Satan, right? Clearly you must have missed the memo.

Just because you don't like a politician's plans doesn't make them automatically corrupt.

You clearly just don't understand politics. The basic rule of politics is that if I support a project then everyone involved is beyond reproach, nobody makes a profit, and all benefits are funneled to widows and orphans. If I don't support a project, then everyone involved is evil! corrupt, and there is a massive government conspiracy supporting it. That's just a proven fact that you need to understand.

[por favor gracias]

That takes us back to the original study that was referenced showing that only 22% of Chicago's jobs are accessible with 90 min travel on public transit.  I happen to agree with you that Chicago is considerably more centralized than Houston, but this also makes me believe that Chicago is probably not nearly as centralized as we believe it to be, but it also concerns me with how much worse access would be in Houston even after development of a considerable transit network. 

 

Dallas is also a very interesting example because their plan was built on speculation as to where people would develop and that brings up an interesting question.  Highways are often accused of creating sprawl, yet the improved transit of rail in Dallas didn't create that same effect.  So, it seems like in Dallas, when given the choice between developing along government funded rail and developing along government funded highways, the vast majority chose to develop along highways.  It seems to me that has been pretty consistent, the majority of people only choose transit when costs are significantly lower and/or transit times are significantly better.

 

This all kind of takes us back to the original point here.  People can complain all they want about the widening of I-10 instead of rail, but it was never an either/or.  There's no evidence that rail would have forced jobs/people back into the urban core like certain individuals would like to believe.  It's much more likely that it would have just caused the region to lose the economic growth that has occurred in west part of the area to other comparable metros that were willing to invest appropriately in infrastructure.

 

 

It doesn't matter what kind of transportation gets built, development will eventually follow if it's well built and/or placed. Look at what's happening on Main Street. It took a while, but it's happening in a big way. And that's just a low-speed rail line that was poorly built, costed way too much and is situated with very little interaction with other sources of alternative transportation. Do you agree that if we had railways rather than highways, we would still have development down the major corridors?

 

I don't know anyone who has suggested that rail would "force jobs/people back into the urban core." I can only speak for myself, but I think most people who want mid to high speed trains/subways largely want more efficient/safer/cleaner/cheaper/less stressful ways of getting from point A to point B...or at least an alternative to roads and automobiles. There's no way we can sustain this growth without addressing this issue and doing so wisely.

[por favor gracias]

On Interstate 10, rail was seriously considered and even designed to accommodate rail later. 

 

Here are some facts gleaned from looking up "Interstate 10" and "rail" on Houston Chronicle archives:

 

- When TxDOT bought the Katy ROW in 1992 (which UP had permission to use for the next five years, at which point it was abandoned and torn up), there never was an official plan to use that for commuter rail and the other option was what ended up happening--just using it for extra lanes. (State buys Katy rail right of way for $78 million, Houston Chronicle - Wednesday, DECEMBER 30, 1992)

- By 1999, plans for the Katy Freeway expansion were solidifying and complaints were rolling in to the Chron letters section on why no commuter rail on the Katy ROW. The answer was that "[METRO] already runs buses into downtown Houston on the HOV from huge parking areas in west Harris County. A train would do the same thing - only cost more to build, go slower, run less often, and not bring downtown workers as close to their offices as the buses." The same article states that the HOT lanes in the center would use congestion pricing, which to my knowledge did NOT end up happening. (forgot the article name, sorry)

- The idea for toll roads in the middle of the highway, pitched in 2001, was able to speed construction from 10 years to 6. It's not stated explicitly, but the article has Culberson bragging about the freeway, so he may have been behind that. Does cutting construction of Katy Freeway by four years still make Culberson a bad guy? (Funds for Katy toll road OK'd - As expansion nears reality, opponents vow to continue fight, Houston Chronicle - Friday, January 31, 2003)

 

Trains and/or subways don't have to cost more to build than roads and buses...and they would certainly cost less over time. And speaking of "cost," this is exactly what we should be spending our money on IMO. We waste so much money elsewhere...we shouldn't even be having this discussion. It's quite embarrassing at this point, actually.

 

Anyways, trains/subways can easily be faster than buses, and if we chose to run them less often than buses...that would likely be because they can carry a lot more people than buses. We could also design them to drop people off right inside our buildings. No need for parking garages for sure...or cities that expand 30 to 50 miles in every direction either, for that matter.

 

Funny how "all the sudden," the moment the toll roads came into play...construction went from 10 years to 6. If that doesn't tell you this isn't about politics (money), I don't know what else to say. You can "laugh" the "conspiracy" rhetoric (which is you guys' words in the first place) all you want on the way to your next traffic jam...which will probably be tomorrow...but you'll never convince me that additional work takes 4 years "less time to build." Why was it 10 years in the first place?

[por favor gracias]

John Culberson is evil and everyone in his district hates him and wants him out of office.  That is clearly obvious based on the fact that he has won re-election six times and the closest of any of those elections was a 14% difference.

 

He has made massive amounts of money from his investments tied to land surrounding freeways.  This is clearly evident based on the fact that he is ranked as the 363rd wealthiest member of the House of Representatives (net worth of approx. $750,000 in comparison to the average net worth of Republican representatives of $7.6 million).

 

 

Re-election has little to do with what people really want. Our Congress has had an approval rating between 8% and 18% for years now, yet the incumbents have been re-elected over 90% of the time. Just because Culberson "only" has a quarter-mil net worth, that doesn't mean he was or wasn't bribed (or "accepted contributions") for some of it. Of course, that wouldn't make him unique as an American congressman. Considering how much wealth corporate America has, our politicians are quite often bought and sold for next to nothing.

[IronTiger]

It doesn't matter what kind of transportation gets built, development will eventually follow if it's well built and/or placed. Look at what's happening on Main Street. It took a while, but it's happening in a big way. And that's just a low-speed rail line that was poorly built, costed way too much and is situated with very little interaction with other sources of alternative transportation. Do you agree that if we had railways rather than highways, we would still have development down the major corridors?

I don't know anyone who has suggested that rail would "force jobs/people back into the urban core." I can only speak for myself, but I think most people who want mid to high speed trains/subways largely want more efficient/safer/cleaner/cheaper/less stressful ways of getting from point A to point B...or at least an alternative to roads and automobiles. There's no way we can sustain this growth without addressing this issue and doing so wisely.

You're right, sometimes development happens along corridors, sometimes it doesn't. As for DART, I can't see some of those heavily industrial railroad corridors it parallels redeveloping anytime soon. I think the talk there was more in reaction to the "rail is good/freeways are the enemy" rhetoric that's been going on.

Funny how "all the sudden," the moment the toll roads came into play...construction went from 10 years to 6. If that doesn't tell you this isn't about politics (money), I don't know what else to say. You can "laugh" the "conspiracy" rhetoric (which is you guys' words in the first place) all you want on the way to your next traffic jam...which will probably be tomorrow...but you'll never convince me that additional work takes 4 years "less time to build." Why was it 10 years in the first place?

Construction dates are rather amorphous (I think it ended up taking 3 years of real construction), and it may have been funding (states aren't made of money). It's possible that more money got redirected to it because it was a toll road. Frankly, I didn't bother to sift through the dozens and dozens of articles on the Katy Freeway expansion, as it was first discussed back in the early 1990s.

The only thing that they really didn't do was do congestion pricing (that was definitely part of the original plan), and I would love to see that implemented for the HOT lanes.

[livincinco]

Re-election has little to do with what people really want. Our Congress has had an approval rating between 8% and 18% for years now, yet the incumbents have been re-elected over 90% of the time. Just because Culberson "only" has a quarter-mil net worth, that doesn't mean he was or wasn't bribed (or "accepted contributions") for some of it. Of course, that wouldn't make him unique as an American congressman. Considering how much wealth corporate America has, our politicians are quite often bought and sold for next to nothing.

That's an incorrect comparison. Approval ratings of Congress are approval of Congress as an aggregate, not of individual Congressmen. There are a number of reasons that incumbents get re-elected, however this is clearly not the polarizing issue in that district that you would like to believe that it is or someone would have been able to defeat him on that issue.

I'd be happy to pull the net worth of congressmen that have supported light rail and we can discuss equally unsubstantiated rumors of the "contributions" that they're receiving from the companies that were awarded extremely lucrative rail contracts. Corruption potentially exists anywhere large amounts of money change hands, even in things that you personally like.

[por favor gracias]

You're right, sometimes development happens along corridors, sometimes it doesn't. As for DART, I can't see some of those heavily industrial railroad corridors it parallels redeveloping anytime soon. I think the talk there was more in reaction to the "rail is good/freeways are the enemy" rhetoric that's been going on.

Construction dates are rather amorphous (I think it ended up taking 3 years of real construction), and it may have been funding (states aren't made of money). It's possible that more money got redirected to it because it was a toll road. Frankly, I didn't bother to sift through the dozens and dozens of articles on the Katy Freeway expansion, as it was first discussed back in the early 1990s.

The only thing that they really didn't do was do congestion pricing (that was definitely part of the original plan), and I would love to see that implemented for the HOT lanes.

 

I don't blame you...the scope of that project changed so much since then. I think it took about 6 years...it started in 2003 and finished in 2009. I remember the feds funding something like 80% of it. It's funny how it took less time to do the Katy Freeway than a 3 mile stretch of San Felipe (and of course saving the worst parts for last).

 

One thing I don't understand is the notion that money is saved by taking more time to perform jobs like these (road or rail). I mean, I understand the politics of it...but I don't understand how we condition ourselves to believe/accept that it's better to do it that way and/or put up with it. Either way, the same amount of work has to be done. If the Katy Freeway had taken 10 years instead of 6, we would have been the ones (like we always are) paying for that with both our gas and our time. It's extremely counterproductive to say the least.

[por favor gracias]

That's an incorrect comparison. Approval ratings of Congress are approval of Congress as an aggregate, not of individual Congressmen. There are a number of reasons that incumbents get re-elected, however this is clearly not the polarizing issue in that district that you would like to believe that it is or someone would have been able to defeat him on that issue.

I'd be happy to pull the net worth of congressmen that have supported light rail and we can discuss equally unsubstantiated rumors of the "contributions" that they're receiving from the companies that were awarded extremely lucrative rail contracts. Corruption potentially exists anywhere large amounts of money change hands, even in things that you personally like.

 

That's a good point, and you're probably right in this case with Culberson. That said, I would say that uniformed voters/voters who prioritize personal preferences and gerrymandering have been the biggest reasons why so many incumbents get re-elected. It's a shame that some people value "their neighborhood" more than the aggregate.

 

I agree that corruption doesn't discriminate, but I'd be willing to take the Pepsi challenge that the oil/gas/auto/insurance/etc. industries have multitudes of more pull both locally and nationally than the "rail/subway" lobby. That's certainly not close to "equal." I really don't know how you can make a statement like that and be as dismissive of "conspiracies"as you've been.

[livincinco]

That's a good point, and you're probably right in this case with Culberson. That said, I would say that uniformed voters/voters who prioritize personal preferences and gerrymandering have been the biggest reasons why so many incumbents get re-elected. It's a shame that some people value "their neighborhood" more than the aggregate.

 

I agree that corruption doesn't discriminate, but I'd be willing to take the Pepsi challenge that the oil/gas/auto/insurance/etc. industries have multitudes of more pull both locally and nationally than the "rail/subway" lobby. That's certainly not close to "equal." I really don't know how you can make a statement like that and be as dismissive of "conspiracies"as you've been.

 

I hear you, but that's the way our democracy functions.  Small groups have a lot of power to impact stuff that affects them locally regardless of whether the majority of the larger area wants it.  What happened with the Richmond line is no different than the movement to stop the Ashby highrise.  It's a well organized neighborhood that was able to make their voice heard.

 

Regarding corruption, the reason that I'm so dismissive of conspiracies is that corruption and conspiracies are two completely different things.  Conspiracies are generally situations where a logical explanation exists and a convoluted explanation is created to explain why the logical explanation can't possibly be right, generally because the logical explanation doesn't match the beliefs of the party inventing the conspiracy.  In those cases, I tend to believe that Ockham's razor still holds true.

 

The "streetcar" conspiracy is a perfect example of this (NOTE: This is not an invitation to further derail this thread.  We have talked this to death and there are plenty of threads to discuss it further).  There is a logical explanation of what happened that is supported by the business and historical record of the time.  That doesn't support the belief system that certain elements would like to promote, so a conspiracy is created to explain why the logical explanation is wrong.