CULBER-GONE!

[H-Town Man]

10 hours ago, august948 said:

 

From the article:

 

So it looks like Metro isn't planning rail on Richmond anyway.

 

Yet. They have surely not met and discussed plans since Fletcher's upset victory. It may be though that it starts out as a BRT line before becoming rail, due to cost.

 

[Luminare]

7 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Yet. They have surely not met and discussed plans since Fletcher's upset victory. It may be though that it starts out as a BRT line before becoming rail, due to cost.

 

 

I think history has made METRO hopefully optimistic and prepare for the worst yet hope for the best. Lets remember that interview was done before she won. When people want things done in this town, things move incredibly quickly. Things are going to change pretty rapidly if this was a major issue she was campaigning on. I expect METRO to hang back until they meet with here and see what her ambitions are and then see what kind of pull she can get from Congress. Again these things take time, but will move very quickly once the dust settles.

[H-Town Man]

30 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

I think history has made METRO hopefully optimistic and prepare for the worst yet hope for the best. Lets remember that interview was done before she won. When people want things done in this town, things move incredibly quickly. Things are going to change pretty rapidly if this was a major issue she was campaigning on. I expect METRO to hang back until they meet with here and see what her ambitions are and then see what kind of pull she can get from Congress. Again these things take time, but will move very quickly once the dust settles.

 

Good comment. The one continuing problem though is the mystifyingly high cost of light rail. Unless they have a pretty good rainy day fund, I could see them having to do a bond election to jumpstart anything.

 

[Slick Vik]

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Good comment. The one continuing problem though is the mystifyingly high cost of light rail. Unless they have a pretty good rainy day fund, I could see them having to do a bond election to jumpstart anything.

 

 

The high cost is labor. Rail is built cheaper in other countries. 

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Good comment. The one continuing problem though is the mystifyingly high cost of light rail. Unless they have a pretty good rainy day fund, I could see them having to do a bond election to jumpstart anything.

 

 

Honestly, with the biggest growth in the past 10 years have been people moving in from the East coast, West coast, and internationals. All from cities with better rail infrastructure. The demographics are such that the people living within Houston city limits will be asking for more rail. It might actually be a better idea to send Metro back to the drawing board. Really stuff a plan with as much rail as they would like possible and then put out an updated referendum in 2020. If the citizens were willing to vote for billions in flood infrastructure, are ok with getting Feds to pay for an ike dike, and ... hell... even voted for a terrible proposition to raise fire fighter wages, then that means people want the government to spend money and make serious upgrades to everything. I don't think we understand just how much Houston is on the brink to becoming a real player in terms of global cities. All it needs is just a little push.

[dbigtex56]

On 11/7/2018 at 11:07 AM, Luminare said:

Montrose should be districted with Shiela Jackson Lee's district.

Until 2013, portions of it were.
Imagine my shock and dismay when suddenly my neighborhood was cut from District 18 (Sheila Jackson Lee) and added to District 7 (John Culberson) in a shameless act of gerrymandering. 
I lived in the Montrose for nearly 35 years. I believe that the election of Kathy Whitmire in '81 scared the living crap out of Republicans, who suddenly realized that this little neighborhood had a great big voice. Since then it's purposely been chopped into mincemeat at the city, county, state, and federal level. 

[august948]

18 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Good comment. The one continuing problem though is the mystifyingly high cost of light rail. Unless they have a pretty good rainy day fund, I could see them having to do a bond election to jumpstart anything.

 

 

I remember reading somewhere that a bond proposal is in the works for next year.

[j_cuevas713]

4 hours ago, august948 said:

 

I remember reading somewhere that a bond proposal is in the works for next year.

Do yall feel the people of this city would support such a bond with ease or will there be major push back much how the RedLine started?

[H-Town Man]

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Do yall feel the people of this city would support such a bond with ease or will there be major push back much how the RedLine started?

 

As long as it does not require a tax increase, it will pass.

 

[Rehan]

15 hours ago, dbigtex56 said:

Until 2013, portions of it were.
Imagine my shock and dismay when suddenly my neighborhood was cut from District 18 (Sheila Jackson Lee) and added to District 7 (John Culberson) in a shameless act of gerrymandering. 
I lived in the Montrose for nearly 35 years. I believe that the election of Kathy Whitmire in '81 scared the living crap out of Republicans, who suddenly realized that this little neighborhood had a great big voice. Since then it's purposely been chopped into mincemeat at the city, county, state, and federal level. 

Hoping that the next round of redistricting is not as ridiculous as the last. I took some creative liberties with a few voting districts to make smoother lines, but here is my CD-7 submission:

[Triton]

I consider myself a moderate and I actually shared some of Culberson's enthusiasm for the space industry here in Houston. That being said, I think it's probably for the better that he was replaced, especially when it comes to mass transit that's desperately needed in this city.

 

I would challenge others here though on the University Line. If this project requires federal funds, then I would say let's make this a dedicated light rail system or hell, let's even talk about using the Boring Company to build a system underground. It's doable even with the type of ground we have here but the pushback has always been about cost... perhaps the Boring Company can bring that cost considerably down. I think the problem with the current light rail system is that it is SLOW. If you travel to any other city such as DC or Denver*, you literally fly past the traffic sitting on the highways while you wisp from one station to the next. Here, the light rail system has to slow down and wait for the "white light" signal to go forward at many intersections, it causes cars to sit longer at the lights waiting for the trains to pass through, and metro police rarely check to see if a person has a ticket to be on board, so you have tons of homeless people sleeping on the train.

 

I think mass transit's goals for this city should be the following:

Be faster than the congestion on the roads

Be safer so that more people feel comfortable getting on board (enforce ticket checks... increased revenue for Metro)

Be dedicated so that it doesn't affect the local traffic

 

 

*commuter rail

[Luminare]

2 hours ago, Triton said:

I consider myself a moderate and I actually shared some of Culberson's enthusiasm for the space industry here in Houston. That being said, I think it's probably for the better that he was replaced, especially when it comes to mass transit that's desperately needed in this city.

 

I would challenge others here though on the University Line. If this project requires federal funds, then I would say let's make this a dedicated light rail system or hell, let's even talk about using the Boring Company to build a system underground. It's doable even with the type of ground we have here but the pushback has always been about cost... perhaps the Boring Company can bring that cost considerably down. I think the problem with the current light rail system is that it is SLOW. If you travel to any other city such as DC or Denver*, you literally fly past the traffic sitting on the highways while you wisp from one station to the next. Here, the light rail system has to slow down and wait for the "white light" signal to go forward at many intersections, it causes cars to sit longer at the lights waiting for the trains to pass through, and metro police rarely check to see if a person has a ticket to be on board, so you have tons of homeless people sleeping on the train.

 

I think mass transit's goals for this city should be the following:

Be faster than the congestion on the roads

Be safer so that more people feel comfortable getting on board (enforce ticket checks... increased revenue for Metro)

Be dedicated so that it doesn't affect the local traffic

 

 

*commuter rail

 

Thats the thing. I actually favored Culberson on a number of issues. He just wasn't very pragmatic. If anything is going to be done to improve, either the situation in Congress, or improvements to the city, then we need people that are going to be more pragmatic, flexible, and will to make a deal.

 

Even if we did lure a company like the Boring Company to do something of which you are supposing I would still do light rail. The best transit system is one that hits all levels.

 

Light rail - extremely local, most stops

Subway - gets you to key destinations within the city, general stops

Commuter Rail - same as subway, but then branches out to suburbs, good at getting people from destination to work and destination to where one lives

Regional Rail - good to get you from city centers to small towns or outside communities and eventually to other cities at slower speeds then

High Speed - city to city

 

They are all needed because they work at different levels. You are dead on about your assessment though and I do lean with you in your thoughts about Culberson.

[Luminare]

3 hours ago, Rehan said:

Hoping that the next round of redistricting is not as ridiculous as the last. I took some creative liberties with a few voting districts to make smoother lines, but here is my CD-7 submission:

 

This is pretty great. One change. I would make Shepard the boundary between the districts.

[Rehan]

7 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

This is pretty great. One change. I would make Shepard the boundary between the districts.

Would not argue with that at all.

 

Of course it is all theoretical at this point until after the census and reapportionment. The blue area to the west was the newly created CD-39 in my model. It consists of all of western Harris County bounded by FM 2978, a tiny stretch of 249, Jones Rd, 1960/Hwy 6, and Westheimer. I had to shift CD-7 further east to make up for the population it ceded in the west.

[felt38]

I won't miss Culberson with his anti-rail agenda. but am disappointed about some of the anti-NASA rhetoric toward him from Lizzie Fletcher.  Culberson was a strong supporter of Johnson Space Center and NASA, and the replacement of him with an apparent anti-space congressperson is disappointing.  I realize most here have Metrorail expansion farther up there priorities list, which is understandable, but I'll be watching how she votes on these issues.    NASA, too, is in part a form of infrastructure and we shouldn't let it be abandoned. 

[BigFootsSocks]

Felt I’m not gonna lie I’m kind of in the same position. He was a HUGE proponent of a Europa lander, not just a probe, and I hope his replacement can push the same project as strong as he did. 

 

Public transit projects can be huge for our city in his absence too. 

[texas911]

So people that are moving to Houston come from cities that have rail. What do they all have in common, its outrageously expensive to live in those cities! Thanks, but no thanks. You want to live in a city with rail, go move there! Options people, options.

[KinkaidAlum]

Again, I've never voted straight party ticket until this year but I'd like to point out that it was the GOP who pushed the "straight slate" thing for decades here but now that it can hurt them, it's gone. Funny how that works.

[lithiumaneurysm]

1 hour ago, texas911 said:

So people that are moving to Houston come from cities that have rail. What do they all have in common, its outrageously expensive to live in those cities! Thanks, but no thanks. You want to live in a city with rail, go move there! Options people, options.

 

Rail isn't some luxury item that cities buy as a present for their residents. It is (or should be) part of a toolbox of urban transportation solutions, to be used on highly trafficked corridors where cars aren't getting the job done.

 

Here's the throughput of a single 10-foot lane based on transportation mode: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Design-to-Move-People_all-e1461361807936.jpg. Because cars require so much space to operate and often only carry one person, they have a very low throughput. Bus and rail lines are extremely effective when the terminus of the line is a compact, highly popular destination. That's why our Park and Ride system is so much more efficient than driving for commuters heading downtown. It's able to transport many times the number of people without becoming congested on highly-trafficked corridors (the freeways) to a compact, walkable destination (the CBD). The low throughput of our freeway system exhibits itself every day during rush hour(s), when roadways which only have the capacity to move a few thousand people in an hour without congestion are suddenly packed with tens of thousands.

 

There is no evidence that building rail makes cities more expensive. Los Angeles has become expensive despite being the eternal stereotype of a car city. What does make cities expensive is unmet demand, both for housing and transportation. If Houston wants to avoid the costliness and congestion of L.A., we need to keep building as much housing as possible, and we need to keep an open mind to implementing higher-capacity modes of transportation, like BRT and rail, where they have been proven to work elsewhere.

[mkultra25]

1 hour ago, KinkaidAlum said:

Again, I've never voted straight party ticket until this year but I'd like to point out that it was the GOP who pushed the "straight slate" thing for decades here but now that it can hurt them, it's gone. Funny how that works.

 

Those who were here in the 80s will no doubt associate "Straight Slate" with a very specific meaning that went well beyond simple straight-ticket voting. 

 

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

Again, I've never voted straight party ticket until this year but I'd like to point out that it was the GOP who pushed the "straight slate" thing for decades here but now that it can hurt them, it's gone. Funny how that works.

 

Of course, the "straight slate" thing had nothing to do with straight party voting (and was hardly a thing for decades).

[bobruss]

Back to  lithiumaneurysm great points. He's right, and its time, especially with this historic change.  We have a chance for  a new start,  with an open mind,  minus the vitriol.

There are several serious game changing opportunities, that we must act on, if Houston is to remain a viable world city,

Traffic is the most important, with flooding and housing not far behind.

 

 

[Naviguessor]

Slaters gonna hate.  Immigrants are currently the new boogieman for conservatives.  But, Homosexuals will be returned to the top of the list, sometime soon.  Not hard to predict.     

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, mkultra25 said:

 

Those who were here in the 80s will no doubt associate "Straight Slate" with a very specific meaning that went well beyond simple straight-ticket voting. 

 

Such backwards thinking smh

[Triton]

I see this thread spiraling out of control. Let's at least try to keep it on transportation and the potential changes we see coming due to the change in power.

[102IAHexpress]

19th century transportation technology v. 21st century space technology. Which would you rather your city be associated with? Houston will never become a world class city if it keeps shooting itself in the foot. Culberson was right about Metro and more importantly he is right about NASA. Science and space exploration are the future. After the party of science led by Obama gutted US human space exploration Trump has been bringing it back and that will only benefit Houston. Losing Culberson; Houston has lost it's best NASA ally and it's best hope to remain relevant in the future. Sad. 

[lithiumaneurysm]

8 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

19th century transportation technology

 

This is such an old and lame meme. Really, I can buy the more rational arguments that rail is too expensive, not appropriate for most places in Houston, etc. but just calling it old is so out of touch with reality it renders the rest of your comment irrelevant. If rail is a 19th century technology, then someone explain why the most technologically advanced nations (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Western Europe) all have such extensive and wildly successful high-speed rail systems. East Asian countries in particular have been at the forefront of all the high-tech breakthroughs of the last 50 years and they've been building more rail, not less. China is literally exporting high-speed rail systems to tens of millions of people in Southeast Asia and Africa as part of their grand geopolitical strategy.

 

Seriously. Imagine being more concerned with ideology than practical solutions for problems that have been solved time and time again in other cities around the world. Houston may not have a population density or layout appropriate for an extensive rail system, but at least be honest with yourself that it's a relevant and widely adopted technology that is essential to the functioning of the world's most modern cities.

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, lithiumaneurysm said:

 

This is such an old and lame meme. Really, I can buy the more rational arguments that rail is too expensive, not appropriate for most places in Houston, etc. but just calling it old is so out of touch with reality it renders the rest of your comment irrelevant. If rail is a 19th century technology, then someone explain why the most technologically advanced nations (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Western Europe) all have such extensive and wildly successful high-speed rail systems. East Asian countries in particular have been at the forefront of all the high-tech breakthroughs of the last 50 years and they've been building more rail, not less. China is literally exporting high-speed rail systems to tens of millions of people in Southeast Asia and Africa as part of their grand geopolitical strategy.

 

Seriously. Imagine being more concerned with ideology than practical solutions for problems that have been solved time and time again in other cities around the world. Houston may not have a population density or layout appropriate for an extensive rail system, but at least be honest with yourself that it's a relevant and widely adopted technology that is essential to the functioning of the world's most modern cities.

 

Agreed, but its obvious that this dude is trolling.

 

9 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

19th century transportation technology v. 21st century space technology. Which would you rather your city be associated with? Houston will never become a world class city if it keeps shooting itself in the foot. Culberson was right about Metro and more importantly he is right about NASA. Science and space exploration are the future. After the party of science led by Obama gutted US human space exploration Trump has been bringing it back and that will only benefit Houston. Losing Culberson; Houston has lost it's best NASA ally and it's best hope to remain relevant in the future. Sad. 

 

None of this is an actual argument. Cars are 1920's tech and earlier. Boats have been around since the beginning of civilization. Lunacy and Strawman arguments have been around just as long, and for someone who is complaining about us using outdated things I would suggest you update that noodle of yours. Why are you wasting your time and everyone elses?

[cspwal]

Also, an electric light rail train with large, open gangways is vastly different than a steam locomotive pulling 2 passenger cars and a caboose behind it

[CaptainJilliams]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

 

Agreed, but its obvious that this dude is trolling.

 

 

None of this is an actual argument. Cars are 1920's tech and earlier. Boats have been around since the beginning of civilization. Lunacy and Strawman arguments have been around just as long, and for someone who is complaining about us using outdated things I would suggest you update that noodle of yours. Why are you wasting your time and everyone elses?

 

Yes, there is no argument to be found. But I do share the same sentiment in hoping Houston can stay relevant in terms of space transportation and technology, whether it comes in the form of NASA or private enterprise. I might not have agreed with all of Culberson's policies, but I appreciated that he was a strong voice for NASA in the greater Houston area.