METRORail University Line

[nmainguy]

What you said was "There is no such thing as car dependency."

You then mentioned Park and Ride and HOV lanes - transportation geared to commuters, and both of which are dependent on cars. I maintain that it would require radical measures to allow most suburban developments to be livable without automobiles. Until such time, car dependency is a reality for many people, which is (IMHO) very unfortunate.

I'm afraid only in nichyworld "is no such thing as car dependency."

________________________________________________________________

Culberson's sway over Metro plans may be diluted

A Lampson appointment to key House panel could affect rail project

U.S. Rep. John Culberson easily won re-election, but his party lost the House, which means the Houston Republican could lose some of the committee influence that has made him a force to be reckoned with in Metro's transit plans.

But local House Democrats said it is virtually certain Culberson will keep his seat on a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that authorizes transit funds and will continue to have a strong say on projects in his district.

His influence could be diluted if Democrats succeed in placing newly elected Democrat Nick Lampson on the same subcommittee, where Culberson is now the sole Texan among 15 members.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4322060.html

[west20th]

False. What matters to Culberson is that he is a representative to the House. Being in the majority was just a cherry on top, nothing more or less.

Since the majority sets the agenda and assigns committee seats it is a big matter. Much more than a "cherry on top".

[tamtagon]

Maybe if Sen. Hutchinson hears enough outrage from Houston area voters that Culberson impedes rail expansion, she will "talk" to him about the importance of letting METRO experts handle this one. When the request is made for Federal dollars toward rail expansion, the last thing METRO needs is a political muckety-muck antagonizing the process.

[CDeb]

A Lampson appointment to key House panel could affect rail project

Correct.

Another local on the committee is the only thing that would affect Culberson's influence on the project.

Like I said before, the other committee members are not going to force something in his district that he is against. They'll happily take their pork funds in their own districts.

[KinkaidAlum]

Well, then it is time for us to start a letter writing campaign. I am game.

I donate to lots of Dems through Emily's List and it might be time to call in some favors!

[IHB2]

Correct.

Another local on the committee is the only thing that would affect Culberson's influence on the project.

Like I said before, the other committee members are not going to force something in his district that he is against. They'll happily take their pork funds in their own districts.

"virtually certain" isn't a lock. why wouldn't pro-rail Dems be trying to make that change happen? there is nothing to lose for Mayor White or the Dem Party in moving Culberson off the subcommittee. sure, it would enrage Culberson's base, but the Dems will never get a vote from them anyway.

if he stays or moves he might ditch his opposition to any LRT on Richmond in exchange for something on border security.

lots of possibilities between now and March - and none of them have anything to do maximizing taxpayer $$ by with building rail to places people actually want to go.

[TheNiche]

What you said was "There is no such thing as car dependency."

You then mentioned Park and Ride and HOV lanes - transportation geared to commuters, and both of which are dependent on cars. I maintain that it would require radical measures to allow most suburban developments to be livable without automobiles. Until such time, car dependency is a reality for many people, which is (IMHO) very unfortunate.

OK. Let me go back and be perfectly clear. The original poster to whom I was responding made these statements:

Plus, in my opinion, any kind of transportation to the suburbs is idiotic on its face anyway.

1)People in the suburbs are car dependent, simply because suburbs are car dependent.

There are no such things as car-dependent people because people have the option and ability to locate in many different places, including those with and without public transportation. The economic barriers are minimal or nonexistant. To the extent that there are car-dependent places, it is only for a lack of better options...that is to say, if the people that lived there wanted mass transit, they could arrange for it to be implemented; change is possible and even suburban areas are not necessarily branded as transit wastelands. In fact, METRO serves areas within the City of Houston that are less dense than even far-flung suburbs--the only difference is that there are people in those low-density areas (who are disproportionately poor) that have a very high demand for transportation.

My comments regarding the successful P&R/HOV system were to rebut that "any kind of [mass] transportation to the suburbs is idiotic". Clearly it is not, and in fact, can be very successful. An even better example would've been school busses, which are ubiquitously-available, even in rural areas.

Oh, btw, nobody was discussing policies that would "allow most suburban developments to be livable without automobiles." An automobile-free world (in either a suburban OR urban context) isn't even conceivable at present.

Since the majority sets the agenda and assigns committee seats it is a big matter. Much more than a "cherry on top".

I said, "What matters to Culberson..."

[nmainguy]

Culberson will now he will be in the minority. Anne Northup, R-KY and John Sweeney, R-NY were defeated, so that counts for 2 of the seats lost on the committee. At least one more-possibly two will be kicked off the minority side while at least five democrats will need to be added to the majority side. I see a spot for Lampson there. As west correctly called it:

Since the majority sets the agenda and assigns committee seats it is a big matter.

The current member list:

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?...bcommitteeId=15

[VelvetJ]

Well, then it is time for us to start a letter writing campaign. I am game.

I donate to lots of Dems through Emily's List and it might be time to call in some favors!

Count me in.

[nmainguy]

Well, then it is time for us to start a letter writing campaign. I am game.

I donate to lots of Dems through Emily's List and it might be time to call in some favors!

Nov. 9, 2006, 1:30AM

Lampson seeks seat on powerful Appropriations

He says he's eager to return to Congress, this time as member of majority party

U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, will be on the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which makes committee assignments.

Green said he will recommend Lampson for a spot on Appropriations, which now has only one Texas Democrat, Chet Edwards of Waco, and four Texas Republicans, including John Culberson of Houston.

The full article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4321816.html

Green's contact info: http://www.house.gov/green/contact/

Pelosi's contact info: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

[dbigtex56]

OK. Let me go back and be perfectly clear. The original poster to whom I was responding made these statements:

"1)People in the suburbs are car dependent, simply because suburbs are car dependent."

There are no such things as car-dependent people because people have the option and ability to locate in many different places, including those with and without public transportation.

The post dealt with people who already live in the suburbs. The option and ability to locate elsewhere is irrelevant to the point being made.

only for a lack of better options...that is to say, if the people that lived there wanted mass transit, they could arrange for it to be implemented; change is possible and even suburban areas are not necessarily branded as transit wastelands. In fact, METRO serves areas within the City of Houston that are less dense than even far-flung suburbs--the only difference is that there are people in those low-density areas (who are disproportionately poor) that have a very high demand for transportation.

But we're not talking about what the people hypothetically might want at some future date. The post correctly addresses the current status of suburbs being car dependent.

Oh, btw, nobody was discussing policies that would "allow most suburban developments to be livable without automobiles." An automobile-free world (in either a suburban OR urban context) isn't even conceivable at present.

That's precisely what was being discussed. By your own admission an automobile-free world is inconceivable. Therefore, Yes, there is such a thing as car dependency.

I certainly hope this clarifies matters for you.

[TheNiche]

That people make decisions for themselves conciously and rationally is entirely relevent. They aren't car-dependent if they have the option not to be...and they do. Period.

[tierwestah]

I personally think Culberson will back off of trying to derail METROrail now. Now this is just an educated guess, I think he was only really doing it in the first place to maintain his seat in Congress. He knew he would get support from the AOers. Now that he has his seat, it would be waisted effort to continue to thwart the plans.

[TOMIKA!]

I personally think Culberson will back off of trying to derail METROrail now. Now this is just an educated guess, I think he was only really doing it in the first place to maintain his seat in Congress. He knew he would get support from the AOers. Now that he has his seat, it would be waisted effort to continue to thwart the plans.

I do think Culberson was just pandering to his constituency. Especially because he so eagerly supported eminent domain along the Katy Freeway in years past. To his credit, Culberson responded in lengthy and thorough form to the two letters I wrote him concerning the University Line. And my guess is that Metro has been throwing him a bone lately in order to appease him while they gain strength offered by transit ridership data hopefully substantiated by the current alignment studies. There's just no way federal transit $$

[dbigtex56]

That people make decisions for themselves conciously and rationally is entirely relevent. They aren't car-dependent if they have the option not to be...and they do. Period.

Ah! You're saying they have the option of breaking their dependency; yet, still it's a dependency. It exists. There is such a thing. Exclamation point.

[CE_ugh]

It looks like if Lampson lands on the appropriations committee, rail to Sugar Land and League City will be a done deal.

[TheNiche]

Ah! You're saying they have the option of breaking their dependency; yet, still it's a dependency. It exists. There is such a thing. Exclamation point.

It isn't a dependency because the option exists. Triple exclamation point.

[dbigtex56]

It isn't a dependency because the option exists. Triple exclamation point.

And if the option is not exercised, it remains a dependency.

A heroin addict has a drug dependency, even though it through his own choice that he started using, and has the option of quitting. If one is dependent on something, it's a dependency.

Your point seems to be that people ought not to have dependencies, because they have options. But they do have dependencies, regardless of whether you approve or not. And some people are dependent on their cars.

de

[TheNiche]

And if the option is not exercised, it remains a dependency.

A heroin addict has a drug dependency, even though it through his own choice that he started using, and has the option of quitting. If one is dependent on something, it's a dependency.

Your point seems to be that people ought not to have dependencies, because they have options. But they do have dependencies, regardless of whether you approve or not. And some people are dependent on their cars.

de

[dbigtex56]

But people aren't dependent on cars. They can choose not to drive and to move into the city (or to another city) and use transit if they are so inclined.

They're not so inclined. They remain dependent on cars.

[JJxvi]

But people aren't dependent on cars. They can choose not to drive and to move into the city (or to another city) and use transit if they are so inclined. Nothing holds them back. There are no economic barriers. There is no process of physiological withdrawl. All that matters is what they want.

The original post was in response to the assertion that commuter rail to the suburbs needs to be built first.

I fail to see how your universe of non-car dependence and choices of where to live affects your view of my opinion that rail should begin by being centrally located in the city as opposed to building lines from the suburbs into town. If you build rail from the inside-out, the people in the suburbs still have the option of choosing where to live, and once the rail infrastructure and ridership begins to show demand in further flung areas, then those areas are connected up and there will already be a supporting infrastructure within the city between the commercial districts that will allow suburban rail riders to get where the need to go once inside the city limits. It makes much more sense than bulding outside-in just because there is demand for suburb-city transportation and having a lengthy and expensive rail system bringing a small number of people into town with no hope of higher ridership because 1)the people in the burbs already have cars because they need them to get places they need to go close to hom in the suburbs and 2)because of a lack of connections and mass transit within the city, the highway system is much more efficient at getting them to the exact place they want to go. Building commuter rail before inner city light rail doesnt make sense.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I get The Niche's point on the one hand, and I agree with him in a theoretical sense. A citizen, generally speaking, has his/her choice to live where transit options are greatest versus where transit options are the least available. You basically make a value judgement. However, there's a glitch in this theory in that job location can confound this. If, for example, you work for a firm located on, say, HWY 6, then living at the intersection of TC Jester and, say, W. 18th Street (not calling out anyone in particular ) wouldn't provide you much in the way of transit options. You're basically driving or spending a hell of a lot of dough on taxis. What's more, even if you make the choice to live nearer your job on Hwy 6, you're limited or SOL concerning public transit or non-automobile transit options.

But again, in general, I understand Niche's point. All factors being equal or neutral, you do have the option of living where transit diversification is greatest versus where transit diversification is minimal or non-existent.

[JJxvi]

What is this discussion about again?

[nmainguy]

What is this discussion about again?

Niche's Fantasy Land of "There is no such thing as car dependency."

Moving the discussion back to reality, it's about getting the obstructionists out of the way and getting this E-W line built ASAP.

[TheNiche]

They're not so inclined. They remain dependent on cars.

Yeah, well I'm not so inclined as to stop eating Thai food. I guess that makes me dependent upon it.

The original post was in response to the assertion that commuter rail to the suburbs needs to be built first.

To be clear, I agree that a successful mass transit system should be built either from the inside out (or preferably almost all at once) or not at all. But you'd made some comments that I didn't agree with, and so that's where I took issue.

[sevfiv]

They're not so inclined. They remain dependent on cars.

exactly - they choose to be, therefore they are

no need to get verbose about it

[TheNiche]

exactly - they choose to be, therefore they are

no need to get verbose about it

They have a choice, therefore they aren't.

[Montrose1100]

de

[WesternGulf]

They can choose not to drive and to move into the city (or to another city) and use transit if they are so inclined. Nothing holds them back. There are no economic barriers. There is no process of physiological withdrawl. All that matters is what they want.

You make it sound so easy. So are you saying the built environment does not play a role in car dependency? I am sure there are plenty of people in Midtown that would love to have a car free lifestyle but the built environment plays a huge role. You are going outside human nature and being quite unrealistic if you believe people are going to walk when the environment is not ped- friendly. I mean what are your thoughts of someone if you see them walking in Uptown vs the historic district of Downtown? You would probably think they were car jacked if they were walking in the former.

[TheNiche]

You make it sound so easy. So are you saying the built environment does not play a role in car dependency? I am sure there are plenty of people in Midtown that would love to have a car free lifestyle but the built environment plays a huge role. You are going outside human nature and being quite unrealistic if you believe people are going to walk when the environment is not ped- friendly. I mean what are your thoughts of someone if you see them walking in Uptown vs the historic district of Downtown? You would probably think they were car jacked if they were walking in the former.

When a sufficient number of people prefer to walk, developers will provide pedestrian-friendly places in which they may do so. So again, choice is king.

Having said that, I don't view Midtown or Downtown as places that would be very pedestrian-friendly, even if there were many reasons for pedestrian activity. Too many intersections, too many panhandling bums, and too much dangerous through-traffic...all this for too much $$$. With all the mixed-use and residential projects planned and under way, I'd see Uptown as a much more likely candidate for a pedestrian-oriented environment. There's either that, or the many smaller mixed-use lifestyle centers that are popping up in the suburbs: Woodlands Town Center, Sugar Land Town Square, and others in Pearland, Friendswood, Webster, and Kingwood.