METRORail University Line

[jtr]

Nor do I see how approval ends the argument over whether light rail is worth the cost.

When it comes to certain things, cost should not make a difference in terms of whether or not it should be done. For example, we do not weigh the cost of having library's, parks, schools, etc. Some things are good in and of themselves. And so it is with rail transit. In a city as large as ours and with our projected gowth, we need to have options other than roads and buses.

[lockmat]

When it comes to certain things, cost should not make a difference in terms of whether or not it should be done. For example, we do not weigh the cost of having library's, parks, schools, etc. Some things are good in and of themselves. And so it is with rail transit. In a city as large as ours and with our projected gowth, we need to have options other than roads and buses.

On the surface, that sounds like it's a good point; one that I haven't heard before. I'm sure someone on here will still refute it, that's just how things work here, regardless. But as of now, I like it.

[musicman]

For example, we do not weigh the cost of having library's, parks, schools, etc.

LOL that is the funniest thing i've heard!! If it were only that easy, we all have libraries and parks in our neighborhoods. We would all have great schools in our neighborhoods. Go to Clear Lake sometime and look for a city of Houston library. You won't find one.

[lockmat]

LOL that is the funniest thing i've heard!! If it were only that easy, we all have libraries and parks in our neighborhoods. We would all have great schools in our neighborhoods. Go to Clear Lake sometime and look for a city of Houston library. You won't find one.

Actually, you do:

http://www.hcpl.lib.tx.us/branchinfo/fm/fminfo.htm

"It's a joint project of HCPL & the City of Houston"

[musicman]

Actually, you do:

http://www.hcpl.lib.tx.us/branchinfo/fm/fminfo.htm

"It's a joint project of HCPL & the City of Houston"

Try and use the City library card.....it won't work. The county runs it. the city annexed them in 1977 and received no service even though they've been paying taxes since then. The city did donate soem money for books however they didn't have enough to build a branch.

[TheNiche]

When it comes to certain things, cost should not make a difference in terms of whether or not it should be done. For example, we do not weigh the cost of having library's, parks, schools, etc. Some things are good in and of themselves. And so it is with rail transit. In a city as large as ours and with our projected gowth, we need to have options other than roads and buses.

This is among the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen posted on HAIF.

The costs of transportation infrastructure, libraries, parks, and schools are very real and measurable, just as are the benefits that they provide. There is an optimal level of service, and just as it is possible to underfund, it is also possible to fund these goods excessively. It is the old guns-or-butter question. Limited economic resources with which to implement these items among many other projects deserving of those resources.

And as I've pointed out in previous threads, transportation infrastructre has absolutely nothing to do with providing options. Transportation options are a means to an ends, not ends in themselves.

[AftonAg]

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.

I guess my objection to you referring to AO residents as "political pawns" stems from the fact that it was only after METRO announced that the route would not run through the neighborhood. Not once that I can recall, in all of your posts prior to the announcement did you make that observation, or mention how astute METRO was at playing political games. Shortly after that announcement I chided all the "railies" on this forum for underestimating the Anti Rail on Richmond Coalition and BAM! You have a sudden revelation that METRO used AO as pawns in some much bigger scheme. I hope you can understand how from my perspective it sounds like a great big case of sour grapes on your part.

[AftonAg]

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.

Note - same mistake - different poster - the Anti rail on Richmond coalition is much more than just Afton Oaks, and just because the current planned route avoids our neighborhood doesn't mean that AO is happy. You see we committed to our coalition, and the folks on lower Richmond that still don't want rail still need support from AO - we will be there for them, just like they have been there for us. We won't cut and run.

[TheNiche]

I guess my objection to you referring to AO residents as "political pawns" stems from the fact that it was only after METRO announced that the route would not run through the neighborhood. Not once that I can recall, in all of your posts prior to the announcement did you make that observation, or mention how astute METRO was at playing political games. Shortly after that announcement I chided all the "railies" on this forum for underestimating the Anti Rail on Richmond Coalition and BAM! You have a sudden revelation that METRO used AO as pawns in some much bigger scheme. I hope you can understand how from my perspective it sounds like a great big case of sour grapes on your part.

The idea hadn't occured to me until about that time. Can't formulate a hypothesis without observation, you know.

By the way, I was never entirely convinced that Richmond through Afton Oaks made any sense to begin with. The residents of Afton Oaks wouldn't have contributed greatly to ridership. The only important aspect of going through AO would be to tap the residents living west of 610, and that's something that needs to happen with an Uptown route that needs to get built, but apparently won't be for a while.

So I lack sour grapes with respect to AO. I'm absolutely offended by your demeanor, but just don't care one way or the other about your fate. You are nothing to me, or, I suspect, just anybody who doesn't live in AO. I just want congestion relief. My only sour grapes are with METRO, which looks to be screwing us over while we're distracted with an overly-publicized non-issue.

[Houston19514]

Try and use the City library card.....it won't work. The county runs it. the city annexed them in 1977 and received no service even though they've been paying taxes since then. The city did donate soem money for books however they didn't have enough to build a branch.

The Houston Public Library Power Card will be accepted at the Clear Lake City-County Freeman Branch Library:

# If you have a Houston Library Powercard but have never before registered with Harris County Public Library, please complete the brief registration form so that your Powercard account can be created in the County circulation computer system.

Seems easy enough...

The city did a lot more than "donate some money for books". The City paid $5.9 million to build the library.

[jtr]

And as I've pointed out in previous threads, transportation infrastructre has absolutely nothing to do with providing options. Transportation options are a means to an ends, not ends in themselves.

Transportation infrastructure does have something to do with options. The reason why cities like New York, Chicago, London, D.C., etc, work is because their citizens have more transportation options. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the notion that transportation options are a means to an end. It is always better to have several good means to an end rather than one or two. (Roads and Buses)

[TheNiche]

Transportation infrastructure does have something to do with options. The reason why cities like New York, Chicago, London, D.C., etc, work is because their citizens have more transportation options. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the notion that transportation options are a means to an end. It is always better to have several good means to an end rather than one or two. (Roads and Buses)

It isn't a matter of having multiple options available. It is a matter of cost-effective options. A town of 5,000 residents doesn't need a bus system. It would do very little at all to increase mobility but would cost money. Similarly, a metro area of Houston's characteristics doesn't need a light rail system...at least not at present. It just costs too much per passenger mile and fails to provide congestion relief (assuming that it doesn't create congestion as implemented on Main Street).

The Gulf Coast Instititute, in it's most recent publication of Tomorrow, opined about the potentials of subterranean maglev and this pie-in-the-sky dream of 'personal rapid transit', single-occupant computer-guided pods on fixed guideways that basically equate to cars suspended from beams. Neither of these options will likely ever be implemented in Houston (or NYC, Chicago, London, D.C., etc.), and the mere fact that they are options doesn't mean that they should be built.

[WesternGulf]

Similarly, a metro area of Houston's characteristics doesn't need a light rail system...at least not at present.

A metro of 5.3 million people does not need a light rail system at present? We should have started a long time ago. If you want to admit it or not, it is probably why we are having this problem now.

[JSB]

Transportation infrastructure does have something to do with options. The reason why cities like New York, Chicago, London, D.C., etc, work is because their citizens have more transportation options. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the notion that transportation options are a means to an end. It is always better to have several good means to an end rather than one or two. (Roads and Buses)

I don't think the transportation infrastructure in D.C. is nearly as convenient as in Houston despite Washington having more options. I think it's false to assume that more options is necessarily superior.

A metro of 5.3 million people does not need a light rail system at present? We should have started a long time ago. If you want to admit it or not, it is probably why we are having this problem now.

What problem? How are you going to impose rail on a city where residences and businesses are generally built at driving rather than walking scale? I've not seen anybody provide an adequate answer to this question.

[jtr]

It isn't a matter of having multiple options available. It is a matter of cost-effective options. A town of 5,000 residents doesn't need a bus system. It would do very little at all to increase mobility but would cost money. Similarly, a metro area of Houston's characteristics doesn't need a light rail system...at least not at present. It just costs too much per passenger mile and fails to provide congestion relief (assuming that it doesn't create congestion as implemented on Main Street).

The Gulf Coast Instititute, in it's most recent publication of Tomorrow, opined about the potentials of subterranean maglev and this pie-in-the-sky dream of 'personal rapid transit', single-occupant computer-guided pods on fixed guideways that basically equate to cars suspended from beams. Neither of these options will likely ever be implemented in Houston (or NYC, Chicago, London, D.C., etc.), and the mere fact that they are options doesn't mean that they should be built.

Houston is the perfect type and size city for light rail. It would be a mistake to build heavy rail in a city like Houston because of the layout. A comprehensive transit system that combines buses and rail works best for our type of city. Also, our one line does not significantly reduce traffic, but it is a starter line. Once the system has a few more lines built, the reduction in traffic will be more apparent. When the richmond line is finished, I know that I will be moving to a place on that line, and that will be one less car on the freeway. I have several friends who work with me who will be doing the same thing. As we expand the system, I can see this trend happening more often. It is worth the cost to provide reasonable options. I know you don't think rail is reasonable, but most people do think it is reasonable in a city of our size and future size.

[TheNiche]

A metro of 5.3 million people does not need a light rail system at present? We should have started a long time ago. If you want to admit it or not, it is probably why we are having this problem now.

We had an extensive system when it was a technological necessity. Then it became technologically obsolete, replaced by busses, which had a lower operating cost per passenger mile and lower capital costs for expansion. So we removed it in the 1940's. Solved our problems.

[JSB]

Houston is the perfect type and size city for light rail. It would be a mistake to build heavy rail in a city like Houston because of the layout. A comprehensive transit system that combines buses and rail works best for our type of city. Also, our one line does not significantly reduce traffic, but it is a starter line. Once the system has a few more lines built, the reduction in traffic will be more apparent. When the richmond line is finished, I know that I will be moving to a place on that line, and that will be one less car on the freeway. I have several friends who work with me who will be doing the same thing. As we expand the system, I can see this trend happening more often. It is worth the cost to provide reasonable options. I know you don't think rail is reasonable, but most people do think it is reasonable in a city of our size and future size.

How are you going to deal with the fact that even if rail takes you to a part of town where you want to go, the residences and businesses are very spread out once you get there?

[TheNiche]

Houston is the perfect type and size city for light rail. It would be a mistake to build heavy rail in a city like Houston because of the layout. A comprehensive transit system that combines buses and rail works best for our type of city.

An argument without a premise is no argument at all. Please elaborate.

Also, our one line does not significantly reduce traffic, but it is a starter line. Once the system has a few more lines built, the reduction in traffic will be more apparent. When the richmond line is finished, I know that I will be moving to a place on that line, and that will be one less car on the freeway. I have several friends who work with me who will be doing the same thing. As we expand the system, I can see this trend happening more often. It is worth the cost to provide reasonable options.

I have a problem with the notion of a starter line for precisely that reason. It isn't effective. I also have a problem with the way that the starter line was built or that it seems to be providing the pattern for future lines. If implemented properly, light rail could be beneficial for users and non-users alike. However, I do not trust METRO to do it correctly, and have a strong suspicion that it will be slightly beneficial for users and a hassle for non-users, but that long-term average operating costs will offset any benefit to users. I stand firm in the belief that the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment will produce a marginal benefit sufficient to justify the cost...at least not if the final product looks like the Red Line.

I know you don't think rail is reasonable, but most people do think it is reasonable in a city of our size and future size.

Oh, I agree. It will be. Just not today.

[west20th]

We had an extensive system when it was a technological necessity. Then it became technologically obsolete, replaced by busses, which had a lower operating cost per passenger mile and lower capital costs for expansion. So we removed it in the 1940's. Solved our problems.

Were rail/streetcars removed because they were technologically obsolete? I was under the impression that most street car systems were bought by GM/Standard Oil/Firestone interests and removed for business reasons. Have bus systems ever come close to having the ridership that rail does/did?

I know Wiki isn't necessarily gospel but here is a good entry on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motor...tcar_conspiracy

[musicman]

The Houston Public Library Power Card will be accepted at the Clear Lake City-County Freeman Branch Library:

# If you have a Houston Library Powercard but have never before registered with Harris County Public Library, please complete the brief registration form so that your Powercard account can be created in the County circulation computer system.

The first time i went there they didn't accept city of houston cards. I forwarded the info the councilmember who was surprised. The result was that the city and county computer systems were incompatible and therefore the city card was not able to be used. Councilmember Wiseman asked me to return and i did but was still asked to sign up for a county card. Maybe things have been updated now but i know last year i still couldn't use it.

[TheNiche]

Were rail/streetcars removed because they were technologically obsolete? I was under the impression that most street car systems were bought by GM/Standard Oil/Firestone interests and removed for business reasons. Have bus systems ever come close to having the ridership that rail does/did?

I know Wiki isn't necessarily gospel but here is a good entry on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motor...tcar_conspiracy

This website provides a fair history of the Houston Electric Co. streetcar system. It does not mention a change in ownership in the latter part of the Electric's operational history, but does mention that jitneys, introduced in 1914, were the first effective competition, and that after they were outlawed in the City of Houston in 1924, bus lines became viable. Streetcar service peaked in 1927, then began to decline until the last routes were removed in 1940.

http://members.iglou.com/baron/history.htm

[IHB2]

the same people circularly arguing the same points over and over again. Is there anything new to offer?. . .Anyone?

sure.

if METRO opts for the elevated Cummins-Westpark/continuing elevated across the UP tracks, a litigation is likely based on environmental, not ballot issues. probably fed not state court.

[musicman]

sure.

if METRO opts for the elevated Cummins-Westpark/continuing elevated across the UP tracks, a litigation is likely based on environmental, not ballot issues. probably fed not state court.

please expound.

[IHB2]

please expound.

METRO Wolff says the board prefers the option mentioned above. it is the only 1 of the 2 remaining options (I'm not including Culberson's I'm covering my ass route as a serious option) that is currently designed to be elevated within a few feet of the property lines of single family home neighborhoods - Sunset Terrace/College Court/West U.

Aside from the same noise issues currently being fought by the homeowners next to the new 610 flyovers, there will be other environmental impacts and all of these impacts will extend further into the neighborhoods than would be the case w/at-grade rail, which will generate more opposition.

maybe litigation won't be necessary. if enough delay can be predicted from having to deal with the EPA and the process for EIS METRO may choose a route that makes more sense.

[H-Town Man]

Culberson penned a brilliant editorial in the Houston Chronicle today. The Richmond/Westpark issue has never been explained more clearly or logically:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4504928.html

Tears came to my eyes when he evoked the memory of the late Gerald Ford. We should all feel humbled to have such a courageous, intelligent politician working for us.

[Furious Jam]

Culberson penned a brilliant editorial in the Houston Chronicle today. The Richmond/Westpark issue has never been explained more clearly or logically:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4504928.html

Tears came to my eyes when he evoked the memory of the late Gerald Ford. We should all feel humbled to have such a courageous, intelligent politician working for us.

Please, just by reading this, you can see what a soulless liar the man is. First he says that rail on Richmond differs from the Katy Freeway expansion he championed because the Katy Freeway was already there, whereas Richmond was never intended as a rail corridor. Then he praises himself for securing funding for Metro's north and southeast rail lines, which of course will run on public streets that were also never intended to serve as rail corridors. The fact is that the Katy Freeway, Richmond, and the other streets targeted for rail are all the same in that they are reserved for transit and, as our population grows, they need to be expanded and/or modified to handle the load in the best interests of the majority of people. What makes Richmond different is that a few of Culberson's deep pocket contributors live along it. But he can't say that in the Chronicle, can he?

Also, his "97 percent of people who have contacted me oppose rail" assertion remains despicably disingenuous. As a politician, Culberson knows what a scientific poll is and what is BS, and this is obviously BS. Like pro-rail people would gain anything from writing a letter to his office anyway.

[Ethanra]

I my opinion I think we need to realize the only way we will get rail is it being placed on Westpark. I literaly threw-up in my mouth reading that article. To be honest, even though my family is about republican as republican can get we can even see this guy is full of it. We have never liked this liar and manipilator. It aggrevates me to no end about our mass transit situation and that we have to be in the situation we are in because of men who use double standards like Culberson.

If we do get the rail along westpark is their going to be any kind of connection or walkway to areas like Greenway Plaza?

[ricco67]

I think one of the more Eloquent of us <cough>Redscare</cough> needs to write an editorial to counter Culberson's letter.

All in Favor say, "aye." No pressure, by the way.

[Double L]

I respect Culberson's opinion because, as was said in the article, he has secured funding for METRO in the past. I think he's just following the opinions of his constituents and I think the central issue that most of those constituents have a problem with is the design and engineering of the system.

I think that if we could better manage the design of this system it would win a lot more support from the community and I think one of the better ways to do that is to go to Congress and get money for an elevated system.

[ricco67]

I respect Culberson's opinion because, as was said in the article, he has secured funding for METRO in the past. I think he's just following the opinions of his constituents and I think the central issue that most of those constituents have a problem with is the design and engineering of the system.

I think that if we could better manage the design of this system it would win a lot more support from the community and I think one of the better ways to do that is to go to Congress and get money for an elevated system.

An elevated system has been tried previously and it was also shot down (in that case, rightfully so) by the people along richmond.