TheNiche

The number of seats on wheels irrespective of ridership, distance, velocity, frequency, or systemic impacts, eh? That is a simple definition. But very well then. How much capacity would've been brought to muster had we invested the capital and operating costs of LRT in local buses, BRT, or vanpooling? Can you give me a straightforward answer? No. And that's why I'm winning the argument. I am a proponent of analysis, of asking questions as a matter of strategic public policy wherein the optimal outcome might be vanpools instead of light rail, or light rail instead of water taxis, but wherein the project is presented as a system rather than as a route, and wherein proposed uses of funds are understood in the context of financing sources that are lawful and realistic. (This is a stance that is consistent with the topic of this thread.) You are an apologist for your technology, and therefore you oppose me. You do this by using a multitude of red herrings to steer threads off-topic and into a dark place. If one of your red herrings doesn't stick, then no worries...there are a half dozen more that surely will appeal to someone. And so the conversation devolves into the most simplistic of drivel...and lots of it. You're an LRT troll. Troll, begone!

You may be correct. But if we're going to implement his idea of efficiency, then someone needs to tell College Station to prep Easterwood Airport for the new Airbus A380. They're larger, thus more efficient. And since they're more efficient, regional and commuter airlines are bound to start using them. Right? And just imagine, flights to B/CS with 853 people at a time! Think of all the tourism spend. It's an economic development proposition, surely worthy of a bond issue. Right?

What are bell connectors?

You state that light rail is superior. In most instances, I disagree. Specifically: * Light rail does not carry more riders. The majority of boardings onto METRO vehicles are for bus routes. A huge number of boardings onto the light rail are from bus routes that were truncated (as MetroMogul pointed out) or that are associated with TMC shuttles. If money spent on light rail were instead spend on increasing the number of bus routes, their frequency, or the qualitative aspects of the vehicles themselves, then bus ridership would've been improved, too. You have no basis from which to suggest that the money that had been spent on light rail was spent in the best possible way. (If you were addressing the higher capacity of light rail, then I would remind you that many routes will never--or perhaps only sporadically, if we are to be optimistic--utilize the full capacity. Excess capacity is waste.) * Light rail is not more reliable. I had this happen to me on a Saturday in April. I took an eight-mile stroll through Montrose, 4th Ward, and Downtown from my apartment. Exhausted, I tried to go home on the light rail. The line was shut down. METRO was running buses instead. (They were just as fast.) The problem is, it is rare when a light rail car breaks down on the line. However, it is not rare that there is somewhere on the line that requires a total shutdown for a period of time; when that happens, there is no accounting for reliability in the same manner that METRO accounts for a break-down. What's more is that every advantage that is afforded light rail (such as signal prioritization) can be afforded BRT...at lower cost. And if there's a breakdown on a BRT guideway, then a bus with tires can actually pull off to the side and the next bus can keep running. And if there's construction, then the buses can vary from the guideway and detour around it seemlessly. No need for a shutdown or for pulling from the rest of the fleet to fill a void. So even if light rail is by some measures more reliable than local bus service, it still has no particular advantage over BRT. * Light rail probably does attract more riders than local buses and arguably more than BRT. That is plausible. Quantify it, though. If the cost of light rail were spent on more buses or fancier buses, would that bridge the gap? Quantify that, too. * You've said that light rail is more efficient, but you have not defined efficiency. I would define it by a ratio of benefits to costs as compared to the same ratio that can be developed by analyzing how the same amount of money might have been applied to alternative investments on a system-wide basis, both now and in the future using a DCF approach with a low discount rate. How do you approach efficiency? With a LRT vehicle manufacturer's brochure, perchance?

The bus and shuttle routes that preceded it were also in demand. But hey, demand for transportation along routes between downtown and the TMC is a given. It's par for the course. It's obvious. There's also demand for transportation within Tomball; not much, but it qualifies just the same as does the Red Line. Even if it's not realized in a particular locale, there is still demand. The thing is, demand for transportation does not imply a mandate for the construction of light rail (either to the exclusion of other technologies or for the sake of providing additional options). Whatever your bogus argument may be, "demand," does not cut it. Nor does, "raise taxes." The only justification for ANY modal technology to be chosen over another is a comparative analysis of costs relative to benefits achieved. Light rail will fail some of these analyses. It is not divine. If it will fail some of the time, then it is worth analyzing all of the time. The problem is, I see about as much intellectually honest analysis of light rail on this forum as I'd expect from Seimens' lobbyist in Washington.

I don't see very much substance. Under the best of circumstances, I think that it's just well-disguised corporate welfare.

I've seen cyclists do that too, but apparently just for the fun or convenience of it. And they usually don't even have flashing lights. They're very disrespectful. Whether government wants it or not should definitely not slow down for them, either.

I blame every deserving party. If a prostitute gets raped, you'd better believe I'm going to bring up her career as a risk factor. And if an asshat gets out-asshatted, well that's just the nature of things. When you play with fire, you're going to get burned. There is no completely blameless party and nothing that comes out of this story is likely to make our country less oppressive.

Further translation from between the lines: cops and bureaucrats don't have to care. Or at least, enough of them don't care, and so the pragmatic solution is to not be an asshat. Those who ask for trouble are prone to find it. And then what? You take risks and exert energy and time to bust asshat cops for the sake of catharsis...and then what? There will still be asshat cops around, and they might even know you and resent you. There are more enjoyable endeavors in life than antagonizing the police. Like beer. And you probably shouldn't be doing both of those things (beer and the antagonization of cops) at once, anyway. They are mutually exclusive activities, but only one has consistently enjoyable consequences.

If you're going to be an asshat to cops when they try to do their job, then don't be surprised if they are asshats back at you. That is the lesson in this.

METRO and every other local entity should always be pursuing outside funding, whether its from the state, the FTA, or pretty much anywhere. Does anybody know what the mechanism would be for one of the other member cities, say West U, Bellaire, Taylor Lake Village, or El Lago, to pull out of METRO? At the federal level, expenditures are elevated. It's just that they've been financed with debt and by issuing new money. But the thing is...when an investor buys federal debt, they aren't buying mortgages or corporate paper. The issuance of additional debt is a tax directly against the supply of loanable funds, or the investment part of the GDP equation. Likewise, when the government prints new money, the effect is inflation and the depreciation of currency relative to other currencies, making all goods and especially imports more expensive. Expenditure in any given year is an indirect tax upon the economy; it is still a tax. Also, I posted an analysis of state revenues last year which indicated that the tax burden has gradually increased since 2000 (when Rick Perry took office as governor). My data was adjusted for inflation and population growth, as well. Around that same time, I had also posted data comparing educational achievement and education spending, broken down by race. It turned out that Texas performs quite well once you isolate groups of students based on ethnicity. (For instance, even though Iowa spends more money per student, their test scores are lower than Texas' for white, black, and hispanic students...but Texas has more black and hispanic students, and so on the face of it, it only seems like we're not doing as well. Adjusting for these factors, we were solidly middle-of-the-pack in terms of student performance and we were were at or near the top in terms of bang for the educational buck. That doesn't necessarily mean that Texas shouldn't be spending more money on education, but it does imply that being judicious in our expenditures is also wise. For instance, where transit is concerned, I might point out that a water taxi along Buffalo Bayou would be cool and enhance the quality of life, but it would also just be stupid. That money could be put to better use elsewhere, whether by providing more bus routes or by providing for better technology in schools.

It would appear that pronouns are a problem for Wal-Mart haters.

What about them? They're built and maintained by a state entity, TXDoT, funded by a gasoline tax that does not adjust for inflation such that they have scant funds with which to do anything except maintain the highways that we've got. Just like METRO, the pace of new agency-funded expansion has decelerated to a relative creep. However, unlike METRO, TXDoT cannot issue bonds. It is constrained in that way. The only difference is that farebox recovery for a highway can often be above or near 100% of operating and capital costs, allowing local toll road agencies to pick up the slack, keep building, and charge the cost to the actual user. That would not be possible with most forms of transit, although some longer-range bus operators have run commuter routes out of Conroe and Brazoria County, IIRC. But then, such for-profit transit agencies wouldn't be feasible without TXDoT's old freeways and without competition in those geographic areas from a subsidized agency. (Perhaps this should serve as a reminder that a flat ribbon of concrete actually does more than just to provide a guideway for single-occupant automobiles and that mobility is the goal; the mode of technology that enables mobility should be irrelevant. Damn the coolness factor.)

largeTEXAS, that was very random. FWIW, I suggest Craigslist. Mattresses depreciate very rapidly with use. I bought mine from random French chick. It was a little awkward sniffing at her mattress to check for freshness issues the way a dog sniffs a crotch just for fun (with her and her brother in the room, watching), but the price was just ridiculously good.

That is one ridiculously slow-moving storm system. A lot could happen between now and Friday.

If a majority of people want to give METRO more funding, then they should weigh their priorities and perhaps vote for the mayoral candidate that will promote that policy...or that they believe will make appropriate sacrifices to one budget item or another, when that action becomes necessary. We live in a representative democracy, and that is a good thing. Voters do not understand public finance. Tradeoffs are a necessity of good governance. There's far more to life than the sheer quantity of transit riders.

What if China turned out to be a Ponzi scheme? Engineers and architects make poor economists. Your company's corporate finance professionals are also poor economists. Even the outside economic consultants that they are hiring aren't especially good economists. Kool-Aide comes in many flavors and readily masks the steamy aroma of BS.

I don't like referendums in general. If the mayors effectively control METRO and they unanimously want GM payments, then they should get GM payments. However, I also don't like the METRO charter or its organization pursuant to state law. I don't think that we should allocate METRO any additional money because they're too likely to blow it, too disconnected from the electorate. There are scant consequences for failure.

How can the Ashby site be 'in the middle of two neighborhoods' at the same time? I don't think geometry works that way. Nope. It's on a boundary between multiple neighborhoods, on unrestricted land with a non-conforming use along a major thoroughfare that has numerous other parcels with non-conforming uses.

If you were a partner in a corporation and you and all of the other partners were in agreement that the corporation would make an annual distribution back to the owners of 25% of that corporation's revenue, and that corporation had cleared multiple audits for solvency and financial stability under the assumption that such a distribution scheme would continue for perpetuity, then the partners would probably go ahead and do exactly what they want to do. It's their company. It's theirs to bleed dry, not a METRO executive's with which to build an empire and his resume. Now consider if the partners were actually trustees elected by shareholders, and those trustees appointed board members to elect executives to manage the organization. All of the trustees, directly elected, still believe that there should be a 25% distribution to owners. Should that change the owner/manager dynamic, though? I'm not saying that METRO is a model of efficient governance. On the contrary, I think that it is far too insulated from the ire of constituents and is also impacted by mayors' understanding not to ever raise their percentage tax rates. I'd suggest that METRO's board members or a strong CEO should be elected directly by the people. But...until that pipe dream comes to fruition, and we both know it won't because it would mean the downfall of built-up municipal feifdoms...this is our reality.

Red made a conditional statement, which is preceded by the word if. If your fight is crying about tree size, then he's probably right but that statement may not apply to you. If you plan to make the Wal-Mart explode (a la King of the Hill, Season 2, Episode 23), then perhaps the fight is not over -- but all bets regarding tree size would be off, that's for sure. Of course, we don't know what your fight is. You have made no credible or recent statements regarding your fight or an intent to fight. It's entirely possible that Red made a statement that wasn't directed at you.

Austin has never been weird, only self-important. There's a difference.

Woolie, everywhere has a set of problems, but Kinkaid is right. Honolulu is especially problematic. To be well-educated or a professional in Houston, you more or less have to get past any sort of social hang-ups. We've done it especially well, as cities go. And the people from different cultures that moved here tend to be similarly open-minded, reinforcing a belief that what lies beyond should be pretty much like what you've seen and experienced here. But there's sample bias present. Your co-workers are atypical. They emigrated! It takes balls and some intellectual curiosity to will oneself to do that. You're talking about placing yourself into a bi-cultural area with a stupendously messed up social heirarchy. There will be people there that go out of their way to make you feel unwelcome, but far more that are simply passive-aggressive, not doing anything to make you feel welcome (which is different from the former, more pervasive). And in addition to the issues that Kinkaid brought up, there's not much of a sense of ambition or a will to improve oneself among the natives. The ambitious natives emigrate. If you'd like to live in Honolulu, then you may as well go live in Brownsville; a lot of the same sociological patterns are at play there, too. It's also far more affordable, closer, and the beach is close enough. (Please note, my perspective on the matter is that I lived with a Samoan emigre for a couple years, and he and I had talked about this. He hated Hawaii for pretty much all the same reasons that Kinkaid stated, citing lots of examples from within his own family.)

Mine too. ...both Facebook and for the bonus points, actually. There was no way that she would've been blind to the joke, and I respect any politician that is willing to troll the majority of their own constituency. That was awesome.

Did y'all notice how she and her partner were simultaneously riding a giant motorized banana in the art car parade? This was done in public! That should've merited some Daily Show action, right there. I even went so far as to look for a way to submit the photo to Jon Stewart, but couldn't find a way to do so.