shasta Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Congress discussing transit in Houston today: http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6239/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17723 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Thank you. I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 All I can find is "To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land to operate a visitor center for Joshua Tree National Park, and for other purposes." for the bill it refers to. I think seeing the actual bill wording would be necessary before jumping to any conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I want rail, but I want the type of rail they have in DC instead of light rail. Much faster/better. Still support light rail in Houston if the only alternative is local bus service. Sent the email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Houston-congressmen-again-battle-over-Richmond-5540338.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 "west of Richmond..." I love the Comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If we want rail, we should pay for it. Why does the federal government need to be involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If we want rail, we should pay for it. Why does the federal government need to be involved? The way METRO is currently funded, it's nearly impossible to make significant public investments without drastically cutting current service. It's the same reason why we use federal dollars to maintain airports and highways locally. If we don't take the money it will go elsewhere anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If we want rail, we should pay for it. Why does the federal government need to be involved? Why on earth not? We pay taxes, and they distribute funds. We should try to get every penny of federal funding we can. It's not like other cities make a point of avoiding the trough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerloop Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If we want rail, we should pay for it. Why does the federal government need to be involved? Because federal money is our money. They take it from us every two weeks and then somehow believe it becomes their money. And we have to go to Washington bowing and scaping to get it back. Of course minus the cost of their administrative overhead that reduces the amout of capital left over to apply toward the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 That's why it always ticks me off when people say a project like eliminating or tunneling the Pierce Elevated is too expensive. Get the feds to pick up the tab! I didn't see Boston being all shy about getting federal funding for the Big Dig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Why on earth not? We pay taxes, and they distribute funds. We should try to get every penny of federal funding we can. It's not like other cities make a point of avoiding the trough. I'm quite sure that I'm in the minority here, but I don't agree with that sentiment. That's exactly what has led to the massive expansion of pork barrel spending across the country and the general inefficiency of the federal government. I agree with you that there's a large number of cities and counties across the country that have taken advantage of this, but that doesn't make it right. The Big Dig (that you referenced in your other post) is a perfect example. It was a massively bloated, hugely inefficient project, I would be embarrassed if Houston was responsible for that kind of a project regardless of who it was funded by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I'm quite sure that I'm in the minority here, but I don't agree with that sentiment. That's exactly what has led to the massive expansion of pork barrel spending across the country and the general inefficiency of the federal government. I agree with you that there's a large number of cities and counties across the country that have taken advantage of this, but that doesn't make it right. The Big Dig (that you referenced in your other post) is a perfect example. It was a massively bloated, hugely inefficient project, I would be embarrassed if Houston was responsible for that kind of a project regardless of who it was funded by. I absolutely agree with this. Federal gov. should not be involved in local affairs period. That isn't their job. The country is too large to do so and sets terrible precedents where everyone is sticking their hands in the cookie jar. We pay them taxes to run "federal" entities and do infrastructure projects that affect multiple states. Now, if we wanted rail from say Texas to Louisiana then by all means yell at the Fed's to help fund it, but not for light rail in the middle of Houston. While I'm pulled by the fact that I love light rail and we should have more, fundamentally this is not how it should be done. If the government crafted a bill where everyone in the country got money like this for their cities then hell yes take it, but this isn't the way. All of this highlights how powerful the federal government is over the states and how there is no balance between the two powers as how the system is suppose to run. Not to mention that with every federal dollar there is always a string attached to it and every federal project always takes forever. Maybe if the states could get more funding from their own citizens then they could take control. I think Texas knows what's better for us and not the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If we could somehow hit a giant reset button I might be tempted to agree with you, cinco and Luminaire. Until that giant reset button appears, however, following the Culberson plan is what my mother would refer to as "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I wasn't trying to make any big philosophical or political point about the federal government and the balance of powers and the constitution bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. I gladly leave all of that to those better qualified and more interested than I. I just happen to agree with Willie Sutton's idea about going where the money is. And for big infrastructure projects, the money's in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Mr. Sutton was a wise man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I'm a bit split: there needs to be a Richmond-based line, but Culberson's attempt to stop is ridiculous and a little unfair. Then again, I'm not a fan of the Houston METRO, which works like either like a really slow version of a good rail system or a really expensive version of a BRT. Perhaps, we should go all in to make it underground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Is there anything we as voters can do to clean up Metro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I've thought about this before. Essentially we should try to get the city government to create a new Quasi-Private Government Corporation. They would have a new identity and everything. We start fresh and they wouldn't be held down by the fact that METRO is a full government operation. With this new Corporation as the new Rail Company more doors are possible in terms of investment. They could get both Government funding in the form of grants, but best of all is that Houston companies and citizens can invest in the company like a normal corporation. Spending money on bonds to help raise quick capital to build new infrastructure. I'm kinda looking into a model like the DB (Deutsche Bahn). Of course they were a full government entity from the start, but are now essentially a private enterprise but they have backing and support from the government. That is what I see is the best way around it. You get the government backing which gives you more control over land especially if you need to use Eminent Domain and you get the Private sector aspect of it. A company can now raise quick money and also be able to choose professional firms to help with master planning, urban planning, system design, and station design (since we all know that the City Government and METRO are completely inept when it comes to planning, and making a decision on design.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Why on earth not? We pay taxes, and they distribute funds. We should try to get every penny of federal funding we can. It's not like other cities make a point of avoiding the trough. I know that the federal trough flows aplenty for local transit projects, but the more that gets doled out to anyone, the more we (as Texans) pay. Fed spending is so opaque, I wouldn't presume that the trough is of finite size anyway, in the end, this would just another burden (with whatever pork trades had to be agreed to for the votes) piled on the heap that we will end up footing more than our share of in any case. So for our billion(s) dollar rail project, we would fund a few bio-domes in Iowa along with the concurrent administrative bloat. If you want out congressmen to play the pork game better than the other guy to fund such things, I can't really get behind that, to the extent that is a winnable game at all. I think Houston could manage it if any city could, if we truly wanted to, without playing Mother May I through Congress and the DOT, the waste would just be more difficult to hide. The Houston area's GDP is larger than Austria's. Put some teeth in to the development contract and maybe it would be more manageable in a situation like Luminaire outlined that avoids the DC sausage factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Houston was largely unplanned and rail should try to work around that, not make it worse. Cutting up major roads (which is partially the whole fiasco got started) is NOT a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Also remember that Federal money requires compliance with FTA rules such as the "buy American" rules that caused METRO issues previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I absolutely agree with this. Federal gov. should not be involved in local affairs period. That isn't their job. The country is too large to do so and sets terrible precedents where everyone is sticking their hands in the cookie jar. We pay them taxes to run "federal" entities and do infrastructure projects that affect multiple states. Now, if we wanted rail from say Texas to Louisiana then by all means yell at the Fed's to help fund it, but not for light rail in the middle of Houston. While I'm pulled by the fact that I love light rail and we should have more, fundamentally this is not how it should be done. If the government crafted a bill where everyone in the country got money like this for their cities then hell yes take it, but this isn't the way.All of this highlights how powerful the federal government is over the states and how there is no balance between the two powers as how the system is suppose to run. Not to mention that with every federal dollar there is always a string attached to it and every federal project always takes forever. Maybe if the states could get more funding from their own citizens then they could take control. I think Texas knows what's better for us and not the federal government.No federal funds for freeways either then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No federal funds for freeways either then Ah, and the ugly "freeways vs. rail" argument rears its head. A key difference is that the highways actually connect to each other and form a truly national "grid" while individual rail projects don't even do that and are mostly pork. Interstate 10, for instance, connects California to Louisiana, and of course goes through Houston with dozens and dozens of other cities. A national HSR system (or at least something with potential for connection, providing common gauge etc.) IS rail based, and WOULD be valid for discussion for federal money discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Ah, and the ugly "freeways vs. rail" argument rears its head. A key difference is that the highways actually connect to each other and form a truly national "grid" while individual rail projects don't even do that and are mostly pork. Interstate 10, for instance, connects California to Louisiana, and of course goes through Houston with dozens and dozens of other cities.A national HSR system (or at least something with potential for connection, providing common gauge etc.) IS rail based, and WOULD be valid for discussion for federal money discussions. I'd say that there are plenty of federal funds going towards highways that only impact the region locally. Loop 610 for instance is federally funded but is completely local. Many local toll roads also get federal funds. Anyway, the "federal funds shouldn't go towards local rail transit" argument is just simply unrealistic to begin with. It happens and it's been happening for decades. The only thing to debate at this point is what cities should get the funds to upgrade their transportation systems, and I don't know why anyone that supports the city of Houston wouldn't want money invested in their region. As for the Richmond Ave. corridor, it's a shame that Congressman Culberson can make these decisions anyway, as he lacks basic knowledge about public transportation, and it is evident in his public statements on light rail. What we need to solve this issue is a strong mayor who makes it a priority to construct a high capacity, high ridership east-west corridor. We can find a way to get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Ah, and the ugly "freeways vs. rail" argument rears its head. A key difference is that the highways actually connect to each other and form a truly national "grid" while individual rail projects don't even do that and are mostly pork. Interstate 10, for instance, connects California to Louisiana, and of course goes through Houston with dozens and dozens of other cities.A national HSR system (or at least something with potential for connection, providing common gauge etc.) IS rail based, and WOULD be valid for discussion for federal money discussions.10 between Katy and downtown has nothing to do with California and Florida. Just be consistent with your argument about funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No federal funds for freeways either then This is the most idiotic statement ever. You do know that those hwy's you travel are FEDERAL highways. Meaning that they are hwy's which facilitate interstate commerce meaning it's completely ok for states to get funding to repair them. Like I said if were to build a High speed rail from say Houston to New Orleans then I would be all for it because it's constitutionally sound and is the correct use of Congress. One's that are State hwy's like 59 or 288 are suppose to be funded by the state of Texas. Go read a book before you try to slid in such a foolish and nonsensical reply... edit: had to reply what you said about I10 as well. You do know that I10 is the most traveled Highway in the United States right? It's also the busiest highway in terms of commercial goods traveled by semi. Your ignorance is truly shocking lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I love the Federal Government. For however inefficient it may be, it is certainly better than what churns out of Austin these days. Only in Houston do we elect idiots who TURN DOWN money to prove some idiotic point. Passing on money just means it goes somewhere else. It's not like the Fairy Ayn is going to put "your" tax money under your pillow tonight because we decided to not spend it on METRO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarface Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Good point KK. With that being said, I hope Ted Poe can pull some strings and mop the floor with this joke of congressmen Culberson. When is his time up anyway? He needs to go and get out of the way. It's frustrating to see Houston always being the city that keeps getting held back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Does anyone know the House of Representatives vote on the transportation bill? I kept reading articles about Culberson and the Richmond rail section but I haven't been able to find a conclusion today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.