Montrose1100 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I was only asking... musicman. It's you who's trying to make this a city VS city thing. I was just curious how Dallas was able to pull off the cost of running a line underground and Houston has all these cost issues. Both cities are supposed to have the same access to the same resources.I'm not sure if this argument applies here, but I've seen countless posts explaining that while Dallas was building rail, Houston was (is) building freeway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I agree. Someone start a new Forum on this debate and let's get back on topic, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AftonAg Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 "I mean if Dallas could do it, what is the problem with Houston?" is confrontational. I have to ask how both cities have access to the same resources? That is just not true IMO.While both cities may have access to the same resouces, the SOIL conditions in the cities are dramatically different, as is the distance from the surface to the water table - a major concern when running any substantial tunneling efforts. Houston is also has a phenomenon known as subsidence (sp?) which means we are slowly sinking, complicating tunnelling operations even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AftonAg Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 What MM may have meant Tom Delay (there may have been others I'm not aware of) would approve federal funding for Dallas mass transit but not for Houston. Now it looks like Culberson is picking up the ball and standing in the way of federal funding for mass transit in Houston. That is, if he and a small vocal minority in Afton Oaks get their way.A small vocal minority - as I said before - the railies underestimated us and that is one reason we were successful. The Anti rail on Richmond Coalition is much larger, better organized, and better funded than the railies or METRO anticipated."Over? Nothing's over until we say it is. Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?" Brother Bluto - Animal House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2H Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 While both cities may have access to the same resouces, the SOIL conditions in the cities are dramatically different, as is the distance from the surface to the water table - a major concern when running any substantial tunneling efforts. Houston is also has a phenomenon known as subsidence (sp?) which means we are slowly sinking, complicating tunnelling operations even further.It has been confirmed in an article about a year ago that adding a subway in Houston is feasible. I'll find the article and post it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 It has been confirmed in an article about a year ago that adding a subway in Houston is feasible. I'll find the article and post it later.He didn't say it wasn't feasible just that it would take more resources to do it. Then you get into costs vs. benefits which is not favorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I went ahead and started a whole new thread so we can take these little discussions which are a bit off topic to here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I went ahead and started a whole new thread so we can take these little discussions which are a bit off topic to hereSince some are advocating underground portions on the richmond route, doesn't seem off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 True, but some of it can easily be applied to other routes therefore the new topic. http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=9447 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 True, but some of it can easily be applied to other routes therefore the new topic. http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=9447thank you moderator extraordinaire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AftonAg Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 It has been confirmed in an article about a year ago that adding a subway in Houston is feasible. I'll find the article and post it later.Feasible - adj, Capable of being done or carried out.I didn't say, imply or infer that it couldn't be done. (Read the quote at the bottom of my posts) It could certainly be done, it is just much more expensive to tunnel here than it is in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I didn't say, imply or infer that it couldn't be done. (Read the quote at the bottom of my posts) It could certainly be done, it is just much more expensive to tunnel here than it is in Dallas. Houston is more swampy whereas Dallas is more rocky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Houston is more swampy whereas Dallas is more rocky? Our water table is higher, the soil composed of a greater amount of kalonite (clay) which has a high coefficient of expansion, and we're on the Gulf Coast, which is more tectonically active. No earthquakes, but the ground is slowly flowing seaward. See below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 No earthquakes, but the ground is slowly flowing seaward. No kidding, so many hundreds/thousands of years from now, I may have beach front property? Sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSB Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 He didn't say it wasn't feasible just that it would take more resources to do it. Then you get into costs vs. benefits which is not favorable.Are the costs vs. benefits favorable even at the surface? I've not seen a persuasive argument to indicate that rail ridership will make much of a dent in vehicular traffic. Rail seems like an expensive toy for making people think they're in a different kind of city than Houston is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Are the costs vs. benefits favorable even at the surface? I've not seen a persuasive argument to indicate that rail ridership will make much of a dent in vehicular traffic. Rail seems like an expensive toy for making people think they're in a different kind of city than Houston is.The Main street line has record ridership for a line with no connecting lines. Ridership will only increase when the whole system is complete. All those people that are on the train are not in their car, I don't see how that can't put a dent in vehicular traffic. Anyway that argument is over. Rail has already been approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 The Main street line has record ridership for a line with no connecting lines. Ridership will only increase when the whole system is complete. All those people that are on the train are not in their car, I don't see how that can't put a dent in vehicular traffic. Anyway that argument is over. Rail has already been approved.As many times as we've been over this, being that we're on post #2390, I wouldn't think that your talking points merit further attention, as they've already been explained away in many previous posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 As many times as we've been over this, being that we're on post #2390, I wouldn't think that your talking points merit further attention, as they've already been explained away in many previous posts.Whatever. The argument that rail will not reduce vehicular traffic is moot anyway. It has already been approved. The question now is where it is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Whatever. The argument that rail will not reduce vehicular traffic is moot anyway. It has already been approved. The question now is where it is going.Well if you look at ballot language, you'd notice that the implementation of LRT is only permitted but not mandated. If it doesn't make sense, METRO can still decide not to use it. Hence all the BRT routes. And even if the use of LRT were hypothetically mandated by the referendum, that doesn't mean that all further debate should be shut down. What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. And frankly, if the referendum had been for light rail by itself, uncoupled from all the other items, I think that it is pretty clear that the slim margin of success in the polls would've been easily eliminated....so no, the argument is not moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Well if you look at ballot language, you'd notice that the implementation of LRT is only permitted but not mandated. If it doesn't make sense, METRO can still decide not to use it. Hence all the BRT routes. And even if the use of LRT were hypothetically mandated by the referendum, that doesn't mean that all further debate should be shut down. What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. And frankly, if the referendum had been for light rail by itself, uncoupled from all the other items, I think that it is pretty clear that the slim margin of success in the polls would've been easily eliminated....so no, the argument is not moot.Light Rail slapped down on Richmond out to the galleria rocks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtr Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Hello everyone. Since there are people making a big deal about the ballot language for the Richmond route, could metro declare that they will not put rail on richmond but instead put the BRT on Richmond? That way, they could say, "We are not putting rail on richmond." Would that work or not?Also, the ballot language for the first line always referred to it as the Main street line. That line is not on main street the whole way. Doesn't that set the precident to be able to adjust the route without having to stay on one particular street?And lastly, I hate the people in AO. When the rail line is finally finished, my friend and I will blow our horns whenever we have to drive through there. I'm going to lean on it at all hours of the day and night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 And lastly, I hate the people in AO. When the rail line is finally finished, my friend and I will blow our horns whenever we have to drive through there. I'm going to lean on it at all hours of the day and night.That sounds childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtr Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 It is, but it will make me feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Hello everyone. Since there are people making a big deal about the ballot language for the Richmond route, could metro declare that they will not put rail on richmond but instead put the BRT on Richmond? That way, they could say, "We are not putting rail on richmond." Would that work or not?Also, the ballot language for the first line always referred to it as the Main street line. That line is not on main street the whole way. Doesn't that set the precident to be able to adjust the route without having to stay on one particular street?METRO is under no obligation from the ballot language to put the route along Westpark, Richmond, or any other street. They can put the line along any of these streets, but have chosen not to use Richmond through Afton Oaks. AO people think that they won a victory; I think that they were political pawns in a larger game. In either case, if METRO has decided not to put LRT along Richmond through AO, they probably would also decide not to put BRT along Richmond through AO. ...but again, they aren't constrained or necessarily obligated by ballot language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AftonAg Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 It is, but it will make me feel better.and it's all about you isn't it?METRO is under no obligation from the ballot language to put the route along Westpark, Richmond, or any other street. They can put the line along any of these streets, but have chosen not to use Richmond through Afton Oaks. AO people think that they won a victory; I think that they were political pawns in a larger game. In either case, if METRO has decided not to put LRT along Richmond through AO, they probably would also decide not to put BRT along Richmond through AO. ...but again, they aren't constrained or necessarily obligated by ballot language.Here we go with the conspiracy theory again . . . . same BS differewnt day eh Niche? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Here we go with the conspiracy theory again . . . . same BS differewnt day eh Niche?I thought that I'd presented a balanced viewpoint. Why should my own opinion change based upon the day? It might change based upon reason and logic, but never upon the day."Conspiracy" has an extremely negative connotation, and in legal terms, requires that the intent of an agreement between multiple people or entities be to perform an illegal act. If I am correct and METRO is simply playing a political game, then they would be no different from other government agencies and politicial organizations. Culberson has done it much more overtly than METRO has. And neither would be breaking the law, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
713 To 214 Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 This thread reminds me of a dog perpetually chasing its tail. . .the same people circularly arguing the same points over and over again. Is there anything new to offer?. . .Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 Not really, that's why I really haven't made any new comments in here. it just keeps going around and around, and until march, this thread, for all practical purposes, should be dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSB Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 The Main street line has record ridership for a line with no connecting lines. Ridership will only increase when the whole system is complete. All those people that are on the train are not in their car, I don't see how that can't put a dent in vehicular traffic. Anyway that argument is over. Rail has already been approved.I do see how it doesn't put a dent in vehicular traffic if (1) the numbers of rail users, even if in record numbers, don't take more than a tiny percentage of private cars off the road or (2) most of those riders are people who would've taken the bus and thus not been in private cars anyway. In other words, just because lots of people ride the light rail does not mean that private vehicular traffic has decreased significantly, nor does it mean that the costs outweigh the benefits.Nor do I see how approval ends the argument over whether light rail is worth the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtr Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 and it's all about you isn't it?Why can't it be about me? The AO people think its all about them. The whole city has to suffer because a few people with money paid a congressmen to support them. I'm just following the AO model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.