METRORail University Line

[urban909]

There is a symposium/workshop on May 19th regarding Houston's transit future. Might be an interesting event.

http://www.houstonto...transit-future/

[TheNiche]

I will let you win that one, only because I am to lazy to look. But I asure you that there are more and more to come.

Do you think that TOD in the Dallas area will ever comprise more than a sliver of a fraction of a percent of their housing stock?

[Houston19514]

Do you think that TOD in the Dallas area will ever comprise more than a sliver of a fraction of a percent of their housing stock?

Of course Citykid thinks it will. Reality, of course, is another matter. ;-)

And, when TOD means suburban-style apartment complexes (in the suburbs), that are TOD only because they are within a block of a rail stop (and may include some park & ride parking) ... who really cares?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Houston19514

[IHB2]

There is a symposium/workshop on May 19th regarding Houston's transit future. Might be an interesting event.

http://www.houstonto...transit-future/

high potential for an echo chamber event. the lineup looks like a bizarro-world Fox News discussion panel w/Crossley as bizarro-world Sean Hannity - a full decade into "Solutions," this fair and balanced panel is unlikely to address the causes of METRO's failure to implement the 2003 plan on budget and on schedule while simultaneously depleting METRO's operating cash, other than to blame the blowhards DeLay and Culberson and the lost 25% of the transit tax.

[citykid09]

Interesting video from the former Mayor of Houston Kathy Whitmire on why Houston has built the wrong rail system and Honolulu has built the better rail system.

[woolie]

I wrote this response to this, but just realized it was citykid who posted the video, and that the video is more than 2 years old. So, now I'm wondering why I bothered. Anyway...

Well, I disagree. Elevated rail avoids some issues with at-grade rail, but is more expensive, requires much larger and more complicated stations that break sight lines, and are harder to get on and off. I've been on the Las Vegas system, and it's awful and very expensive to use. I haven't been on the Miami or Detroit systems, but I am under the impression being elevated didn't make them successful. Vancouver and Seattle are elevated, but those are much denser cities to begin with. And just as relevant, at-grade light rail and tram systems are popular and successful all over the world.

So, if elevated rail is not an automatic guarantee of success, is being at-grade really a major disadvantage? I think most issues with at-grade rail can be ameliorated by dedicated lanes and traffic signal coordination. I think accidents are a non-issue after an adjustment period -- it just happens to make good local news. Good traffic signal coordination gives OK average speeds -- the stops only 1/2 mile apart. At-grade systems have some limitations on maximum car length and frequency, but light rail can't compete with a heavy rail subway system in those aspects (at 10x the cost.) Personally that kind of density would be a good problem for Houston to have -- it means everything worked!

Finally, I think all arguments about traffic, congestion, taking cars off the road, etc., aren't worth making. They aren't real arguments grounded in reality, just something politicians think people might believe. Light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, and can easily increase traffic congestion (taking up ROW, elevated or not, and at-grade pre-empting stop lights.) I don't use these arguments at all. What I think matters is that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density. The infrastructure to service cars (roads, garages, driveways...) adds significant cost and takes up valuable space in your highest density areas. How much of DT Houston and the TMC are parking garages or parking lots? The more people use transit, the smaller this % can become. I say this all the time, but density is the reason for a city to exist -- the concentration of human capital, goods, services, ideas, etc. The city, at least the core, should be as dense as possible -- it represents billions of dollars of investment in high density buildings. And proper transit makes this goal much easier to achieve.

Edited May 10, 2012 by woolie

[IHB2]

and defining the "core" in Houston seems to me to be a huge part of the problem. I live inside the loop less than 4 miles from dead center downtown, always have, and the neighborhoods are suburban no matter how much densification proponents wish it weren't so.

so when you argue that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density, don't you also have to propose where, how ,and why that densification will replace the lower density status quo?

[Houston19514]

I wrote this response to this, but just realized it was citykid who posted the video, and that the video is more than 2 years old. So, now I'm wondering why I bothered. Anyway...

Well, I disagree. Elevated rail avoids some issues with at-grade rail, but is more expensive, requires much larger and more complicated stations that break sight lines, and are harder to get on and off. I've been on the Las Vegas system, and it's awful and very expensive to use. I haven't been on the Miami or Detroit systems, but I am under the impression being elevated didn't make them successful. Vancouver and Seattle are elevated, but those are much denser cities to begin with. And just as relevant, at-grade light rail and tram systems are popular and successful all over the world.

So, if elevated rail is not an automatic guarantee of success, is being at-grade really a major disadvantage? I think most issues with at-grade rail can be ameliorated by dedicated lanes and traffic signal coordination. I think accidents are a non-issue after an adjustment period -- it just happens to make good local news. Good traffic signal coordination gives OK average speeds -- the stops only 1/2 mile apart. At-grade systems have some limitations on maximum car length and frequency, but light rail can't compete with a heavy rail subway system in those aspects (at 10x the cost.) Personally that kind of density would be a good problem for Houston to have -- it means everything worked!

Finally, I think all arguments about traffic, congestion, taking cars off the road, etc., aren't worth making. They aren't real arguments grounded in reality, just something politicians think people might believe. Light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, and can easily increase traffic congestion (taking up ROW, elevated or not, and at-grade pre-empting stop lights.) I don't use these arguments at all. What I think matters is that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density. The infrastructure to service cars (roads, garages, driveways...) adds significant cost and takes up valuable space in your highest density areas. How much of DT Houston and the TMC are parking garages or parking lots? The more people use transit, the smaller this % can become. I say this all the time, but density is the reason for a city to exist -- the concentration of human capital, goods, services, ideas, etc. The city, at least the core, should be as dense as possible -- it represents billions of dollars of investment in high density buildings. And proper transit makes this goal much easier to achieve.

Great post. Agree with almost everything in it.

BUT, if light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, how will it ever be able to reduce the demand for parking garages/lots in downtown or TMC in any significant amount?

[Houston19514]

Interesting video from the former Mayor of Houston Kathy Whitmire on why Houston has built the wrong rail system and Honolulu has built the better rail system.

There is probably a reason Kathy Whitmire got 20% and finished in third place when she ran for reelection in 1991. ;-)

$5.2 BILLION for a 20-mile line.

Broke ground in February 2011. First segment scheduled to open in 2015. The full 20-mile line is not scheduled to be completed until 2019. It remains to be seen whether this project will in any sense be a better rail system than Houston's.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Houston19514

[ricco67]

Great post. Agree with almost everything in it.

BUT, if light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, how will it ever be able to reduce the demand for parking garages/lots in downtown or TMC in any significant amount?

I think that I a city such a ours, I don't think that moving people from their cars is a major goal, bit rather to offer an alternative to driving to areas that are heavily congested.

I have saved time going in from webster, parking downtown and taking the train to and from the med center and reliant.

[Houston19514]

I think that I a city such a ours, I don't think that moving people from their cars is a major goal, bit rather to offer an alternative to driving to areas that are heavily congested.

I have saved time going in from webster, parking downtown and taking the train to and from the med center and reliant.

Not sure that it's not a major goal... but it is certainly not the only goal; maybe not even the primary goal. I was not suggesting otherwise; merely pointing out that Woolie's argument failed because you really can't have it both ways. If rail is not going to significantly reduce cars on the road then it is also not going to significantly reduce the need for parking.

[woolie]

so when you argue that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density, don't you also have to propose where, how ,and why that densification will replace the lower density status quo?

Houston is very much a node and edge city. Some of these nodes are quite large, and some of the edges are already quite dense. This is where you start -- and indeed, we have started. The Red line was the best 1st line possible. The University line, when it is eventually built, will be the second element. Followed by the Uptown line. The East End and Southeast lines are nice to have, and might result in increased density down the road, but I don't really consider them integral to the system.

I've been drawing a map in my head recently of what I think Houston will look like in 2030 (at least, inner loop and uptown). In another thread we discussed that six stories is the new four stories. Soon, as the last empty and large parcels have been redeveloped, it will be ten stories. Prices will reach a point where alot of low-density single-story car-oriented commercial properties (aka strip malls) are the next frontier for redevelopment. It will still be a very long while before large blocks of single family neighborhoods are town down for larger buildings -- too expensive, too many owners to negotiate with. Unless your house is within a couple blocks of a planned LRT line, you won't see anything denser than townhomes for a while.

BUT, if light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, how will it ever be able to reduce the demand for parking garages/lots in downtown or TMC in any significant amount?

Roads take up a certain amount of space and can support so many cars. Garages cost alot to build, and take time to get in-and-out. The higher the density gets, the more expensive parking becomes. Transit lets you bring many more people into an area without increasing road and parking requirements. And when there is enough good residential space on the transit system, all the incentives start to align. For instance, I can take the train from my house to my office in the TMC about as quickly and less expensively (20 mins, $2.50) than driving my car and parking in the garage (20 mins, $12).

Transit doesn't get rid of cars and parking. There are parking garages in Manhattan, but they are astronomically expensive. But it drives people to use the resource more sparingly. Through demand destruction, people can use more of the high density areas for productive uses instead of roads and parking.

[TheNiche]

So, if elevated rail is not an automatic guarantee of success, is being at-grade really a major disadvantage? I think most issues with at-grade rail can be ameliorated by dedicated lanes and traffic signal coordination. I think accidents are a non-issue after an adjustment period -- it just happens to make good local news. Good traffic signal coordination gives OK average speeds -- the stops only 1/2 mile apart. At-grade systems have some limitations on maximum car length and frequency, but light rail can't compete with a heavy rail subway system in those aspects (at 10x the cost.) Personally that kind of density would be a good problem for Houston to have -- it means everything worked!

I've come to believe that the optimal solution with the best bang for the buck is a hybrid system with grade separations (elevated-only, no subway)...but only at major intersections and in Uptown.

For instance, the Red Line should've had separation from the South Loop feeder roads, where signal timing and especially a right-turn interruption creates a huge problem that will only get worse with time. (Or maybe it'd have been less expensive to build direct ramps from the South Loop to/from Fannin or Cambridge.) The idea of a grade separation within downtown or the TMC would probably be cost prohibitive due to tunnels, skywalks, and massive utilities systems competing for the same physical space; and besides, those areas have good parallel alternatives for traffic. If block length becomes a problem, then that's a good thing because it means that so many people are using the train. At that point, I don't mind combining a couple of adjoining blocks along the route at each Downtown station; the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

The Universities and Uptown lines will be more complex, though. I'd think that grade separations at Kirby, Shepherd are necessary and appropriate. Kirby and Shepherd are the first/last exits before 59 goes into the trench and lead to the last bridge over Buffalo Bayou before a three-mile gap in the street grid that extends all the way to the West Loop. Those thoroughfares are already congested and are only going to get worse as the inner loop gets denser; we don't want signal timing interruptions there for the next 40 years. And the Uptown Line...about half is already proposed to be grade-separated as it travels along the West Loop. The rest is on Post Oak Blvd. and Uptown in general is not on a viable street grid; there are no good alternate routes for traffic congestion that is already soul-crushingly bad at peak hours (even though Uptown isn't as dense as DT or the TMC). I tend to think that METRO should be more aggressive with Park-and-Ride service to Uptown in the short term and that in the long term...total grade separation is unavoidable. It will be expensive and it may not be as convenient or visually appealing, but that's the price we pay for the mistakes of yesteryear. We need to accept it on move on.

[Houston19514]

Roads take up a certain amount of space and can support so many cars. Garages cost alot to build, and take time to get in-and-out. The higher the density gets, the more expensive parking becomes. Transit lets you bring many more people into an area without increasing road and parking requirements. And when there is enough good residential space on the transit system, all the incentives start to align. For instance, I can take the train from my house to my office in the TMC about as quickly and less expensively (20 mins, $2.50) than driving my car and parking in the garage (20 mins, $12).

Transit doesn't get rid of cars and parking. There are parking garages in Manhattan, but they are astronomically expensive. But it drives people to use the resource more sparingly. Through demand destruction, people can use more of the high density areas for productive uses instead of roads and parking.

I think I now better understand what you are saying. Not that we will be able to get rid of the current parking, but that less additional parking will be required. Makes sense. Similarly, fewer additional cars will be on the roads.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Houston19514

[hbcu]

The Vegas rail sucks.....you have to walk a mile to get to it and it doesn't hit all areas

[woolie]

The Vegas rail sucks.....you have to walk a mile to get to it and it doesn't hit all areas

And costs $5 per *ride*.

[samagon]

at least with the Vegas rail you get to have an entire car to yourself. although when you think about that, plus how easy it is to get hookers, I'd say it's a good idea not to touch anything, and maybe go as far as burning your shoes after you ride.

[TheNiche]

at least with the Vegas rail you get to have an entire car to yourself. although when you think about that, plus how easy it is to get hookers, I'd say it's a good idea not to touch anything, and maybe go as far as burning your shoes after you ride.

Just how easy is it to get hookers in Vegas, samagon?

[samagon]

Just how easy is it to get hookers in Vegas, samagon?

lol, I assume it's very easy, last time I went I had people trying to trade hooker baseball cards with me on the strand pretty much morning, day and night.

I had looked at a few of them, but it didn't include anything other than their vital stats on the back of the card, I was assuming there would be the hooker equivalent of batting average, RBIs, HR, singles, doubles, triples, or for the pitcher's equivalent hooker, there'd be an ERA.

Anyway, I'd assume it would be as easy, probably even easier than renting a car, maybe even as easy as hailing a taxi, granted if you have to wait in line like you do at the airport for a taxi...

I'm thinking about this too much, aren't I?

[woolie]

n/m, I should avoid making jokes that could be embarrassing to me in the future

Edited May 11, 2012 by woolie

[Pumapayam]

How much wasted "tax payers" money spent fighting and discussing the Richmond Rail line since 2003.

Culberson inserts Metro rail-line limits into federal spending bill

Added to that, Houston Metro "cannot afford to build" the additional two lines, Culberson insisted.

[Slick Vik]

Culberson is an evil man.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Slick Vik

[mfastx]

Well, this is unfortunate. The University line is undoubtedly the most important proposed line, and will have the greatest positive impact on transportation in Houston.

Culberson is not only uninformed, he is also an idiot.

[woolie]

House does lots of silly things. Like, hold the AG in contempt because they're pissed at DOJ for blocking unconstitutional voter ID laws. Hopefully this won't make it past the Senate.

[LTAWACS]

Further proof that culberson like all other politicos are mere walking apes.

[woolie]

I have a new policy of 'liking' all Awacs comments.

[crunchtastic]

I have a new policy of 'liking' all Awacs comments.

You would have liked (some of) Texas Vines as well. Vines, wherefore art thou?

Awacs, dammit! Lt Dan or whoever you are, you need to come to the happy hours!

[RedScare]

You would have liked (some of) Texas Vines as well. Vines, wherefore art thou?

Awacs, dammit! Lt Dan or whoever you are, you need to come to the happy hours!

I bet we can get him to attend the planned epic happy hour.

[Highway6]

Does anyone remember the recurring SNL character from maybe a decade ago. Female, 40s, frumpy, fanny pack(?), complete disregard for social ettiquete. One episode has her at an all-u-can-eat buffet sticking her head under the salad guard and sneezing. Says "Uggghhhh" in a drawn-out shuddery voice a lot. No idea who played her.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Highway6

[Pleak]

Pat???

[Highway6]

Pat???

Nope.. not that old a character and no gender ambiguity.

I wanna place her existence in the 04-08 range... though i could be off since I don't regularly watch anymore.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Highway6

[barracuda]

That would be Lorraine from Mad TV.

[Highway6]

Thank you Barracuda.. exactly the character I was thinking of.

Point being... and this could spawn a very interesting thread on Haifer's visual perception of other Haifers..

But if awacs showed up at a happy hour and he/she wasn't exactly like Lorraine, I'd be sorely dissapointed.

Not trying to be mean, awacs....it's your shared catch phrase that does it.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Highway6

[LTAWACS]

Oh?

[LTAWACS]

Refreshed the thread... sorry. Nothing like that lady.

[IHB2]

$71 million wasted over 10 yrs a guesstimate. Greanias says METRO will provide real $#s AFTER the Nov referendum. classic METRO.

report filed Friday 9/7/12: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/in_focus&id=8802383

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- We're investigating millions of dollars in METRO's broken promises; money set aside for a major rail line that may now be wasted.

Over the last decade, METRO spent $71 million of your dollars to build a rail line. But the agency recently took that project off the table for at least another decade and no work has been done.

So where did all that money go?

Ten years ago, METRO promised to build a light rail line starting out on Hillcroft through Montrose, downtown, out past TSU, UH and stopping just east of 45.

Ten years later, nothing's been built on the University Line and nothing will be built until at least 2025 if METRO gets its way.

"It think this is a sad day for Houston," said David Robinson with the Neartown Houston Association.

Robinson lives along the route in Neartown. He patiently waited, even supported METRO's plan to wait. But now he feels duped.

"We don't understand how we were sold out," Robinson said.

"Why repair something you are going to tear up again? So currently, the streets have become really terrible," Former Houston City Councilwoman Sue Lovell said.

Lovell says the city held off on road repairs, waiting on light rail and now there's no money to fix the raods.

"Nobody's told us now what's going to happen on this corridor," she said.

"We're trying to close the gap," METRO Board Chairman Gilbert Garcia said.

METRO says they simply don't have the money to do this now and won't for more than a decade. But METRO's already spent $71 million on the project, even as recently as last year.

"We believe that every dollar of taxpayer money, whether it comes from the fare box, tax money or federal money, we need to spend it as wisely as possible," METRO CEO George Grenias said.

In fact, if METRO hadn't spent the money on studies and land and lawyers and meetings and newspaper ads, they could've taken $71 million bills and laid them down along the route, paving it from curb to curb and then some with your money.

"It's an enormous amount of money," Garcia said.

The agency spent $14 million studying on environmental studies that will soon be out of date. METRO spent another $2.5 million on land appraisals, and they're no good anymore. So that's $16.5 million gone. And METRO spent $54 million studying possible routes and picking the final one, only some of which may be useful in 10 years, but who knows.

"We're not going to get ahead of ourselves," Grenias said.

Not METRO. And they won't do the work to figure out how many of your dollars were really wasted until after a November METRO referendum.

"By why shouldn't voters have that information before they vote?" we asked Grenias.

"The voters, I think, have all the information that we have. We've told them everything we know," he said.

But it's not enough for the people who live along the rocky road that was going to be a rail line.

"Yeah ok, we're angry. I think that's a fair statement," Robinson said.

Tired of the bumps and tired of bad promises, some of METRO's strongest supporters have had enough.

"People feel betrayed," Lovell said.

METRO provided all the numbers for the money it's already spent, and points out that is proof they are approaching things differently these days - showing their hands warts and all.

METRO officials issued the following statement late Friday night:

"The METRO Board has not scrapped plans for the University Line. While work has slowed down METRO has not pulled this project out of its rail expansion program. The transit agency is being fiscally responsible, and as we have stated in the past, METRO will proceed with rail expansion as funds become available. Please keep in mind that we are currently constructing three new light rail lines that will be open to the public in 2014."

(Copyright ©2012 KTRK-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.) "

[j_cuevas713]

Damn can someone give Metro a break. Don't get me wrong, Metro should be accountable for everything that happened in he past, but to me this just sounds like ABC13 was trying to fill air time by reporting something we coulda have projected happening due to Metro's past financial failures. At the same time, politics has been a major reason Metro can simply get around to do what it envisions. They have chosen very smart routes compared to other cities, but it seems like every time Metro is ready to break ground another politician feels the need to "represent" their constituents just to "feel" as though they are doing the city a favor.

[IHB2]

Projecting METRO's incompetent management and waste of taxpayer dollars regarding the University Line has been ongoing for the last 6 or 7 years - in testimony at METRO public meetings, in testimony at METRO board meetings, in elected officials' town hall meetings, in the newspapers, and here on HAIF.

Given the fact that METRO now wants voters to make available more money for rail and other transit projects, 13's report seems to me to be a necessary reminder of just how mismanaged your tax dollars have been.

[mfastx]

Projecting METRO's incompetent management and waste of taxpayer dollars regarding the University Line has been ongoing for the last 6 or 7 years - in testimony at METRO public meetings, in testimony at METRO board meetings, in elected officials' town hall meetings, in the newspapers, and here on HAIF.

Given the fact that METRO now wants voters to make available more money for rail and other transit projects, 13's report seems to me to be a necessary reminder of just how mismanaged your tax dollars have been.

What?? The current METRO admin doesn't seem too concerned at all with building the University Line. At least not for the next decade or so.

[samagon]

Projecting METRO's incompetent management and waste of taxpayer dollars regarding the University Line has been ongoing for the last 6 or 7 years - in testimony at METRO public meetings, in testimony at METRO board meetings, in elected officials' town hall meetings, in the newspapers, and here on HAIF.

Given the fact that METRO now wants voters to make available more money for rail and other transit projects, 13's report seems to me to be a necessary reminder of just how mismanaged your tax dollars have been.

The ballot this November is a farce and everyone who has listened to what the Mayor has said knows this.

[IHB2]

What?? The current METRO admin doesn't seem too concerned at all with building the University Line. At least not for the next decade or so.

perhaps you should read the Friday night statement by METRO quoted above. "Concerned" appears to be an understatement of METRO's stance re building the University Line that METRO has deemed the "spine" of all other rail lines.

METRO is interested in capturing 100% of the sales tax penny, but that proved politically impossible, so now is willing to continue to send "up to" 25% of that penny for GMP and apparently fears a "NO" vote in November will get the state legislature involved in METRO's tax collection.

I posted this hoping someone would comment about Ch 13's apparent choice of sides in the rail debate and referendum. In contrast, the Chron not only still is cheerleading for the Univ and Uptown Lines, it so far has not printed a word about this Friday night METRO statement or the 13 report, but did run a pro-METRO referendum editorial in Saturday's paper - advising voters to vote YES in order to keep the issue away from the legislature.

[mfastx]

perhaps you should read the Friday night statement by METRO quoted above. "Concerned" appears to be an understatement of METRO's stance re building the University Line that METRO has deemed the "spine" of all other rail lines.

The University Line is obviously the most important line and should be built. METRO knows this. However if you are aware of what's been going on recently, you'll know that Garcia doesn't seem too concerned about it at all. Sure, METRO will release a statement that they want to build the line, but it isn't in their plans for at least the next decade, no matter what happens in November.

METRO is interested in capturing 100% of the sales tax penny, but that proved politically impossible, so now is willing to continue to send "up to" 25% of that penny for GMP and apparently fears a "NO" vote in November will get the state legislature involved in METRO's tax collection.

I posted this hoping someone would comment about Ch 13's apparent choice of sides in the rail debate and referendum. In contrast, the Chron not only still is cheerleading for the Univ and Uptown Lines, it so far has not printed a word about this Friday night METRO statement or the 13 report, but did run a pro-METRO referendum editorial in Saturday's paper - advising voters to vote YES in order to keep the issue away from the legislature.

It's absolutely ridiculous that a "no" vote would get state legistlature involved. Just shows how backwards Houston's leaders are. Whatever happend to "democracy?"

[IHB2]

It's absolutely ridiculous that a "no" vote would get state legistlature involved. Just shows how backwards Houston's leaders are. Whatever happend to "democracy?"

if you want to play in the HAIF METRO LRT is god/the devil threads, you are going to have to learn a bit about how things work politically.

the Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973 and Houston voters approved METRO and the one-cent sales tax in 1978.

the enabling legislation for METRO thus originated w/the state legislature and that gives the legislature an interest in and legislative authority over METRO.

have you noticed the political party makeup of the state legislature? do you think there is much support for public transit among an elected supermajority that makes Culberson look like a communist?

do you think there is any support for a public transit agency with a proven record of wasting tax dollars and illegal contracting with foreign corporations?

[TheNiche]

Whatever happend to "democracy?"

It's the highest grossing 'off-Broadway' play ever devised.

[Slick Vik]

do you think there is any support for a public transit agency with a proven record of wasting tax dollars and illegal contracting with foreign corporations?

I think the Buy America provision is ridiculous. If METRO was getting good quality cars at a cheaper price, what's the big deal?

[MetroMogul]

Sounds like most of that was done under Frank Wilson's watch surprise surprise. The only thing I fault the "New" Metro for is the continued light rail-centric policy while the bus system continues to be mediocre. But, I suppose that's better than the atrocious system we had under Wilson and cronies.

[IHB2]

I think the Buy America provision is ridiculous. If METRO was getting good quality cars at a cheaper price, what's the big deal?

b/c "S" is behind "M" in the alphabet, you will be seated behind msfastx in the Politics of Transit seminar. 1st session is titled "How Do I Get Reelected?"

that is also the title of all subsequent sessions.

[mfastx]

if you want to play in the HAIF METRO LRT is god/the devil threads, you are going to have to learn a bit about how things work politically.

the Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973 and Houston voters approved METRO and the one-cent sales tax in 1978.

the enabling legislation for METRO thus originated w/the state legislature and that gives the legislature an interest in and legislative authority over METRO.

have you noticed the political party makeup of the state legislature? do you think there is much support for public transit among an elected supermajority that makes Culberson look like a communist?

do you think there is any support for a public transit agency with a proven record of wasting tax dollars and illegal contracting with foreign corporations?

The state legislature should not get involved. Houstonians should decide where the money goes. METRO already has the right to tax citizens by 1 cent on the dollar. That's as far as the state legislature should go.

Edited September 11, 2012 by mfastx

[TheNiche]

The state legislature should not get involved. Houstonians should decide where the money goes. METRO already has the right to tax citizens by 1 cent on the dollar. That's as far as the state legislature should go.

The state legislature will absolutely positively not give a damn unless elected legislators from within the METRO service area bring up the issue. Then, on account of that METRO is a state-chartered entity involving so many distinct political jurisdictions of asymmetric importance, it is becomes legitimate fodder for the entire state to weigh in on.

[Ross]

It's absolutely ridiculous that a "no" vote would get state legistlature involved. Just shows how backwards Houston's leaders are. Whatever happend to "democracy?"

Democracy means the City of Houston doesn't get to use sales taxes paid by County residents to build a strictly Houston toy train system.