Furious Jam
-
Posts
93 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Furious Jam
-
Vines
Furious Jam replied to Furious Jam's topic in Houston Construction, Home Repair, and Improvement
Thanks for the advice, but this is not a DIY kind of problem. This vine problem existed when we bought the house last year. They've grown really thick from multiple roots on every side of the house, going up to the second story and to the roof. I've already spent many weekends cutting, pulling, and poisoning, but I can't reach the vines up near (or on) the roof (I have no roof access). But even if I could attack them on the roof, they've grown all around my back wall, which backs into my neighbors' yards (I have a townhouse) - I don't want leave bags of brush killer on someone else's property. For these reasons, I'm looking for a pro with manpower - someone who can take the vines out quickly and expertly. -
Can anyone recommend a gardener capable of killing and removing the vines from my house? They've grown up into some high places, so some ladder work would be involved.
-
Your all-or-nothing approach is the reason your arguments are oversimplified and thus faulty. You think the rail should never cross any intersection at grade, but if it has to, then it doesn't matter which intersection or intersections it crosses, nor does it matter how it crosses them. To you, the train turning onto a 3 block back street is no different than, say, proposing a rail yard at an intersection next to the Galleria - same difference. Oh but wait, those are two completely different things! Like it or not, there is a difference between the intersection of an artery and a side street and the intersection of two arteries. So yes, the choice of intersections where a turn is made does make a huge difference in the overall utility of a rail line. Not only are you wrong about my argument, you're wrong about your own. The Main Street line runs at grade and it has zero effect on traffic in downtown and midtown. I travel through midtown several times a week and through downtown at least once a week, and I've never witnessed traffic being backed up due to the rail. I would assume that the rest of the line is similar, though I don't often travel to the Medical Center or Reliant Stadium. Do people hit the train? Sure they do. They also hit each other, hit trees, and drive the wrong way on the freeway sometimes, so don't tell me that an at grade rail is necessarily dangerous or otherwise traffic inducing. You want to know what causes traffic jams in this city? The constant #$%*ing road construction to make way for an ever growing number of cars. The only way to reverse that trend is to make this a mass transit friendly city, and rail on Richmond would be a huge step in that direction. Putting a train down in a freeway? Much, much less so.
-
Come on! Are you being this simplistic just for the sake of fostering argument? There is obviously a colossal difference between a train turning from Richmond onto Montrose versus a train turning from Richmond onto Cummins. Montrose is a major artery that is already heavy with traffic. Cummins is a small back street in a strictly commercial area with little traffic at all. I eat lunch at the shops behind Edwards about twice a week and I use Cummins to get back to the feeder every time, so I can tell you that even during the lunch rush, there is zero traffic on Cummins - it's more of a driveway for the Greenway Plaza area than anything else. That's exactly why Cummins is Metro's favorite option - the lack of impact from making a turn there. Again, you keep comparing apples and oranges if you see no difference between a turn onto Montrose and a turn on to Cummins. Are you so dense that you can't accept that not all streets are exactly the same? I don't mean to flame, but really. It sounds like to me that you want rail, regardless of its impact on any particular neighborhood and regardless of its overall utility. But, as with anything, you have to weigh the pros and cons. Even though the Cummins option will affect traffic in a number of neighborhoods, it won't gridlock any of them as the 59 option would - that's a huge pro for Cummins and a large con for 59. And of course, the Cummins option will have much higher ridership than 59 and plus be cheaper to build - that's another huge pro for Cummins and a large con for 59. At some point, a route has so many cons and so few pros that it becomes a bad idea and so is worthy of opposition - that's 59 in a nutshell. I am not going to support rail just to have rail somewhere, regardless of the pros and cons. If you can't come up with something that makes sense, then you just shouldn't do it.
-
I don't know why you can't accept that there's a difference between a train running through an intersection on one street and a train turning in an intersection from one street to another. Unlike AO, I have no problem with a train running through my local intersection or any intersection. But turning through an intersection would produce more traffic headaches than it would be worth, regardless of whose neighborhood gets hit - I wouldn't wish that on AO or anyone. So again, no, I'm not favoring my neighborhood over a sensible citywide rail network. I'm arguing against a ridiculous rail plan that shouldn't be imposed on anyone, including my neighborhood. Your statement, "if you like rail, then you should be willing to accept the resulting consequences" is laughably simplistic. Sorry, but there's big difference between a straight line that impacts traffic evenly along it and reaches the most people and points-of-interest, and a line that gridlocks a single neighborhood and actually avoids people and points-of-interest at a higher cost. Sorry, but I can't subscribe to your "all rail is good" theory. A bad rail plan is a bad rail plan, whether it harms my neighborhood or any other.
-
Again, no. I live closer to Richmond than Montrose and I cross Richmond every day of my life, whereas I probably cross Montrose every other day. So there's no doubt that having rail on Richmond would affect me from a traffic standpoint, just as it would've affected AO under the initial plan. But unlike AO, I am not opposed to rail on Richmond, for a variety of reasons. However, forcing the rail make a sharp turn onto Montrose would create far greater traffic problems in my area than was ever threatened before, in AO or otherwise. Whatever traffic problems the rail might cause on Richmond would be duplicated on Montrose, and then the two problems would meet head-on at that intersection. Really, is there any other at-grade public rail in the world that makes such a turn in the intersection of two major streets? And even then, as I said before, AO never faced a rail line elevated over their backyards. So, with all due respect, you're comparing apples and oranges. My complaints aren't the same as AO's just because we're both concerned about traffic., even if that were my only concern. That would be akin to saying that that a 747 and a crop duster are the same thing because they are both "planes".
-
Um, no. If the original Richmond proposal that AO complained about had the train turning left on Weslayan, then flying over their backyards, before finally #$%*ing up 59 with even more construction, then I'd be on even footing with them. But even considering the Culberson route's impact on Montrose, I'd still be open to it if it was designed by professional urban and transit planners as a route that would serve the greatest number of people in the most efficient way. But in reality, it's just something that Culberson pulled out of his @$$.
-
I'd rather not build at all than accept Culberson's route. Having the train make a 90 degree turn at Montrose would impact traffic in my area far more than just running it straight down Richmond. Also, it would have to cut through and be elevated above a strictly residential area, resulting in a far greater impact to people's homes than the Cummins route. Additionally, I can't see how it would be built in a manner that wouldn't drastically affect the homeowners along the north of the 59 trench. Finally, more construction on 59 is just unacceptable. In the end, it's just a gerrymandered route that has been created without any rational basis. It is definitely not better than nothing, and I would oppose it - as would nearly everyone in my part of town. Culberson cannot argue that we didn't vote for Richmond, then force on us a proposal than no one has ever voted on either. Can't have your cake and eat it too. No to 59.
-
The one thing I got out of the meeting is that Culberson has invested too much in this to ever back down. I may have asked this before, but are there any scenarios where we can get federal funding for the other routes, but build on Richmond with our own money (like we did on Main)? Also, Culberson kept repeating the mantra that "this is what you voted for". Why not just have another election just on the Richmond issue to make it clear? Didn't we have two elections on Toyota Center?
-
Remember, congressmen are all too willing to hand out pork, ala Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere". It doesn't surprise me that Culberson is willing to support Rail to Nowhere. It does, however, shock the conscience that a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative would openly champion a wasteful rail option with a straight face. I too was at the meeting, and it's impossible to listen to Culberson for even a minute without having your BS detector go off. He wasn't interested in having a meaningful discussion on the issue. He even categorized the issue as moot from the beginning. And when he did speak, it was nothing but constant contradictions: "I'm a fiscal conservative", then "my option isn't much more expensive and the ridership will be nearly the same". "I'm for control at the local level", then "I'm going to protect you from Metro". "The voters approved Westpark only and we have to abide by that", then "my slight modification runs it inside the freeway". He kept pointing at a map that he claimed was part of the ballot (it wasn't) and said that we all had to abide by that map, but then promised to block Metro from using the public easement illustrated on the map and again championed his 59 option, which has never on any map prior to the election. Oh, did I mention that he called out the Chronicle as unfair? And repeatedly promised to always bring us the truth? Gee, whom should we trust? The 4th Estate or a local politician who is best buddies with Tom Delay? I think John Culberson represents everything that's wrong with politics. I'm not saying that he's corrupt, but he is a shameless liar who only has his own best interests at heart.
-
Rail on Richmond supporters take note: John Culberson will be having a town hall meeting on Thursday, February 22 at 6 p.m. on Rice University campus - McNair Hall, Shell Auditorium, entrance #20. RichmondRail.org is encouraging supporters to show up early, decked out in pro-rail gear (signs won't be allowed). I'll be there and I hope to see a big pro-rail turnout.
-
No offense, but that's just nutty. If I posted a list of 500 accredited climatologists who believe that global warming is occurring, and someone else responded by posting a list of 50 anonymous crackpots who think that global warming is a myth, you're telling me that those lists would add nothing to that argument? Obviously, the opinions/support of some people carry more weight than the opinions/support of others, depending on the issue. Here, you have a list of neighborhood associations and other organizations representing the interests of thousands of people and businesses in the affected area. And you say that list carries no more weight than a short list of anonymous opponents? Again, nuts. You use the term "objective", as if every argument can be conclusively settled by some quantifiable measurement. The reality is, very few arguments can be settled in such a fashion - if it were that easy, there probably wouldn't be an argument to begin with. In fact, there is virtually nothing objective about this issue. I'm amazed you can't see that after 34 pages of this. The people who oppose rail on Richmond do so for personal reasons only. They don't care whether rail on Richmond would be objectively best for Houston - all they care about is that it's not for them.
-
Well I obviously have my own opinion, or else I wouldn't be posting here. But both the quality and the quantity of supporters on an issue can be relevant. If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?
-
Gee, one site touts a long list of businesses and organizations that publicly support rail on Richmond. The other is a smattering of cranks. I'm not sure which one I can identify with.
-
Yes, this is obvious to all and conveniently ignored by rail opponents. To reach Main, the line would obviously have to run on Richmond at least in some part. The fact that all of the current Metro proposals do indeed utilize Westpark would seem to logically settle this issue - the ballot suggests that Westpark will be used for some of the line, but not all, so Metro will indeed use Westpark for some of the line, but not all. So what's the problem? Rail opponents are no more interested in logic than they are in compromise. The problem is that there is no reasoning with unreasonable people.
-
We know that rail on Richmond has many notable proponents. I think that these politicians, business people, and neighborhood associations need to come together and draft some kind of formal request to Culberson for him to get out of the way - something that can be simultaneously published in the Chronicle. Mayor White should lead this effort - he has enough political capital to make it happen. Right now, no one is applying public pressure to this jerk - that needs to change. Culberson has spun all of this as him defending the interests of people along Richmond (which is, at best, a half-truth, to say nothing of his real motivation for doing so). The only way to counter that spin is to publicly expose him as defying the interests of the rest of the city.
-
Let's say we do finance a line on Richmond, like Main. Would Culberson respond by blocking funding for the other lines? If not, I say go for it. We can finance it by increasing fares by 25 cents. We can call it the "Culberson Transit Tax on the Poor" - he'd love that. How about threatening him to run it straight through Afton Oaks on our own dime? He'd love that too. Given that he seems unwilling to compromise, I think you need to look at tactics like these to force his hand.
-
Can someone please explain to me why we can't just run a subway down Richmond? Sure, it would cost double, but let Culberson worry about that. Is it not technically feasible? If we can put a man on the moon... Also, is it possible to build just the Richmond portion of the line without federal funding?
-
My bad. Just angry.
-
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.
-
Cummins is close enough to Greenway Plaza and such. If y'all want to use rail, you should be prepared to walk a block or two. Does anyone here think that a Cummins station won't serve Greenway and the new Taj Mahal development? I too am disappointed that the line won't go straight to the Galleria, but as others have mentioned, perhaps that was never part of the plan. So long as the Hilcroft TC eventually connects to a Galleria line, I don't have a problem with it. If you don't want to make transfers, then too bad - transfers were always part of my routine in NYC. With all of the opposition, any rail from Main to Greenway Plaza is a victory in my mind. Provided that's what we end up with now. To me, this is a compromise that Culberson can accept - he gets to protect the deep pocket in Afton Oaks. As for the Brass Maiden and others, I doubt Culberson ever really cared. This entire fight has been fueled by AO wanting to make left turns on Richmond at their leisure.
-
As The Niche points out, there is no prior case of rail "splitting" a residential neighborhood similar to Afton Oaks in Houston. However, 610 did split Bellaire in half, and it seemed to do quite well despite it. The fact is that 610 has added to the value of Bellaire, just as rail would eventually add to the value of AO. I won't address your other points as to the potential for the rail to generate additional traffic, since you admitted that you'd also be against rail elevated above the traffic.
-
I thought in your original post you were concerned about traffic resulting, which would (presumably) lead to people cutting through AO at (presumably) high speed. I don't think you ever made it clear whether you thought traffic would result from the rail's construction, the rail's operation, or both. Regardless, those are pretty flimsy arguments. As far as construction goes, that's a fact of life in Houston. We all get stuck in traffic everyday, and it's usually due to some kind of construction. But that's the price you pay to live in the big city - we have to constantly upgrade our transit as we grow. I'm not sure why you think your neighborhood should be especially immune though. The rail is just another street improvement - it's not as if Metro is proposing to create a road out of thin air, running through your property (although that has been done in the past for the freeways). For example, the streets of downtown were ripped up for years, but only one of those streets had rail placed on it. You can't seriously be against road construction in Houston, can you? As many people on this forum have pointed out, Richmond will be improved at some point. And if you think that traffic will be worse post-construction, I'm not sure what you base that conclusion on. I go through downtown and midtown several times a month, and I don't experience any delays related to the rail. And certainly no one is zooming around on the other streets and mowing down pedestrians while attempting to avoid the rail. If anything, traffic has probably improved downtown because the rail has removed a few bus lines. Besides, I suspect you would still be against rail on Richmond even if Metro offered to elevate the line above the streets, and even if Metro provided speed humps for your neighborhood. I think the truth is that you're against the rail because (1) its construction will be a pain in the @$$ for you and (2) you'll ultimately receive no benefit from that hassle because you (and people like you) have no use for mass transit. This is why adding on to the Katy Freeway is a-okay, despite the massive traffic and massive condemnation, while adding rail on to Richmond, a much smaller and less intrusive project, is the devil's work - rich people use freeways, they don't use public transit.
-
I'd like to nail down something here. AftonAg, just what is your exact beef with rail on Richmond? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that no business would be affected in any substantial, lasting way by rail on Richmond - just to narrow the focus down to residential interests. And let's also say, again for the sake arugment, that we had a whole new election, only this time the ballot clearly stated "Richmond". Why would you vote against it? What personal interest would you be protecting? Is it simply that the construction process would be a hassle for you? Or that you believe the rail would significantly limit your ability to drive to and from your home? Or is there something else. What are your concerns?
-
I think his general gist is that there's room for development on Westpark. And maybe that's true, but it's obviously better to build a rail line where development is already there. I think we can see from the Red Line (and also Minute Maid Park) that private development doesn't necessarily always follow public infrastructure investment - at least not always to the degree anticipated.