METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion

[TheNiche]

Totally false. You're a good spin doctor though.

Pardon?

[kylejack]

The I-10 expansion was incredibly well-handled. I drove on it as a commuter both before and during construction and was amazed that traffic flow seemed to actually improve as a result of construction as compared to what it had been previously.

As someone who lived at I-10 and Kirkwood and drove it almost daily for the duration, I disagree. I'm not saying the construction wasn't handled well, rather, that it was way too late, when I-10 was already horribly gridlocked on daily basis, even at non-rush hour times. Infrastructure projects are less disruptive when they come before the time of dire need.

[kylejack]

3. We cannot afford more light rail now. Even METRO's backers that are wanting their GM payments back have indicated that they are not in a position to fund the University or Uptown line immediately. And from the sound of it, they probably won't even be asking for the entire GM payment back. State law prevents METRO from tapping funds over and beyond their one-cent sales tax. True, state law could be changed willy nilly if there were broader support for it. There does not appear to be that support, however, and so our hands are tied.

Metro could not afford the lines currently under construction either, until a federal grant came through. I don't think anyone expects University to be built without a grant, so when we get a grant big enough for it, we'll be ready to proceed.

[TheNiche]

As someone who lived at I-10 and Kirkwood and drove it almost daily for the duration, I disagree. I'm not saying the construction wasn't handled well, rather, that it was way too late, when I-10 was already horribly gridlocked on daily basis, even at non-rush hour times. Infrastructure projects are less disruptive when they come before the time of dire need.

As it happens, that's the same intersection where I worked. There were a few periods of time, here or there, where I'd have to detour to the next intersection. But it was rarely too difficult a commute. Maybe it was worse for someone that wasn't reverse-commuting.

My point isn't that infrastructure projects aren't disruptive. They are. It's just that all streets have to get rebuilt at one point or another (with or without light rail included). And we're talking about impacts to streets where an alternative is a quarter-mile up the road, not freeways where the next best freeway alternative is five miles distant. As much as has been made of the disruptions to business by anti-light-rail people--and those disruptions are real--they just don't mean very much in the grand scheme of things. They're part of city life.

Metro could not afford the lines currently under construction either, until a federal grant came through. I don't think anyone expects University to be built without a grant, so when we get a grant big enough for it, we'll be ready to proceed.

I'm just going by what the METRO execs have said about what they think that they can do if they get their GM payments added back to their funds. If what they say is dubious, it's probably over-optimistically dubious. That's the nature of people who are pitching big ieas.

And after all, if the funding is not actually an issue, then why are we talking about returning GM payments to METRO in the context of light rail expansion? It is all just some sort of political charade? And if it is being contrived into a farce for some political purpose, then why should we trust METRO in the first place?

[TheNiche]

.

[mfastx]

I'm just going by what the METRO execs have said about what they think that they can do if they get their GM payments added back to their funds. If what they say is dubious, it's probably over-optimistically dubious. That's the nature of people who are pitching big ieas.

I actually think that Grenias is intentionally being pessimistic in saying that construction might not start until 2030 in order to raise awareness and "shock" people. Maybe he thinks that more people will vote to return GM payments to METRO if they hear something like that? Just speculating that's all.

And after all, if the funding is not actually an issue, then why are we talking about returning GM payments to METRO in the context of light rail expansion? It is all just some sort of political charade? And if it is being contrived into a farce for some political purpose, then why should we trust METRO in the first place?

Well, I think that even if they get federal funding to cover at least half the cost, they'll still have to conjure up local funds to match. And on top of that run the bus system.

I think that rail or not, METRO would like to stop those GM payments. They believe they can put out a better product with more funds.

[TheNiche]

I actually think that Grenias is intentionally being pessimistic in saying that construction might not start until 2030 in order to raise awareness and "shock" people. Maybe he thinks that more people will vote to return GM payments to METRO if they hear something like that? Just speculating that's all.

Yes, that the METRO execs are being dishonest with us is what I meant to imply as a distinct possibility. I expect elected politicians to be dishonest with me in order to garner a vote and push an agenda. But if it's coming from appointed officials or government employees, then that is precisely why I'm against giving their organization more money without an intensive reform.

[kdog08]

You are grossly misinformed.

1. With public concern over peak oil apparently abated and with structurally low natural gas prices possibly providing an economical alternative to gasoline in the long term, the affordability aspect of mass transit as experienced by consumers is threatened.

What does peak oil have to do anything? Oil will continue to get more expensive over time as it costs more money to extract it. Same with natural gas over time. Nat Gas is definitely interesting right now, but these low prices aren't going to last forever. Furthermore, cheap energy leading to more car usage leading to more congestion will certainly lead transit being more affordability. Time is money my man.

(Never mind that transit is actually more expensive than private automotive transport and that the only economic justification for transit is to make make private automotive transport more efficient by taking some drivers off the road.)

Well of course it is cheaper; we've had decades of lopsided funding and regulations that favored roads and highways over everything else. We already have a highway and road system in place and adding on to it just makes the whole greater than it's parts...

What's wrong with taking drivers off the road? Those who would drive regardless might like the notion of other people taking a different option to free up lane space.

Meanwhile, as much growth is occurring inside the loop, there does not appear to be unavoidable gridlock in most places. It's still easier to get around by car.

Transit is primarily used during rush hour and commuters make up a significant chunk of ridership.

People are not clamoring to get to transit.

Depends on what survey you read.

And moreover, Houston can't grow quickly enough to achieve NYC, Chicago, or LA densities just overnight. So yeah, we don't need it yet.

Infrastructure doesn't happen overnight, we've been adding ~million people a decade for the last two and on pace to continue to do so.

Also, you're putting too much emphasis on residential density or simply forgetting employment density also drives transit usage. I've already mentioned the employment centers tht would be connected to the light rail, bus system, and P&R.

2. All goods and services (including labor) are more expensive in the long term. It's called inflation. However, as sales taxes are based on a percentage of expenditures and expenditures will have to increase, that means that METRO's revenues will also increase as a function of inflation (in addition to local economic growth). Therefore, in developing a cost-benefit analysis, we have two options. We can either project for inflation of both the sources and uses of capital or we can ignore it completely; it actually does not matter at all in the scope of such a long-term project so long as it is accounted for consistently.

And what about land prices? What about cost of materials? It would have been cheaper to build the light rail under these economic conditions when prices are down. Of course there are no guarantees, but it's been my experience in life that preemptive and preventative measure are generally easier than the alternatives.

3. We cannot afford more light rail now. Even METRO's backers that are wanting their GM payments back have indicated that they are not in a position to fund the University or Uptown line immediately. And from the sound of it, they probably won't even be asking for the entire GM payment back. State law prevents METRO from tapping funds over and beyond their one-cent sales tax. True, state law could be changed willy nilly if there were broader support for it. There does not appear to be that support, however, and so our hands are tied.

And ironically we can't afford more highways and adequately maintaining our road infrastructure. Yet we keep adding more people and adding more economic growth. It's not a matter of "can't", it's "won't". Low cost of living and low taxes have consequences, there is no such thing as a free lunch. We have to decide if we want to afford it, that is if we want to raise our cost of living. Are we going to compromise or we going to let the status quo rule.

In conclusion, we could afford better roads and transit if we wanted to.

When Houston has LA-style issues, then Houston should implement LA-style solutions. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Houston needs light rail like Brenham needs a subway.

Perhaps you should visit LA. and ask yourself if you want to wait.

[TheNiche]

What does peak oil have to do anything? Oil will continue to get more expensive over time as it costs more money to extract it. Same with natural gas over time. Nat Gas is definitely interesting right now, but these low prices aren't going to last forever. Furthermore, cheap energy leading to more car usage leading to more congestion will certainly lead transit being more affordability. Time is money my man.

In the life cycle of a good or service, supply initially creates demand. And then demand creates supply...pretty much at any cost. Consequently, I expect that energy shortages will result in research into new energy extraction methods and alternative energy sources, as well as that geopolitical constraints will likely find effective (if perhaps bloody) solutions for themselves. Where transportation is concerned, I expect more cars, more congestion, and more solutions for congestion. Those solutions will involve a mix of infrastructures, including transit, however it is less difficult to imagine a circumstance whereby employers move to the suburbs and families move to the city, where most householders simply drive a shorter distance to work rather than take transit...than a circumstance whereby mass transit fundamentally changes the paradigm of Houston, Texas.

Well of course it is cheaper; we've had decades of lopsided funding and regulations that favored roads and highways over everything else. We already have a highway and road system in place and adding on to it just makes the whole greater than it's parts...

What's wrong with taking drivers off the road? Those who would drive regardless might like the notion of other people taking a different option to free up lane space.

Tory provided data that estimated the private and public costs of private automobile use, and it seemed to point to private automobile use being generally less expensive than transit. There is nothing wrong with taking people off of a particular road insofar as it costs less to do so than it would cost to expand that road or add another parallel road for relief. Of course, those calculations will vary from project to project and also based on how many people are intended to be displaced from the existing road.

Transit is primarily used during rush hour and commuters make up a significant chunk of ridership.

This is true, however that's actually a problem for light rail. If you look at the surveys of downtown employees and how they get to work, very few that live within a five-mile radius rely on transit. The transit users are commuters that do not tend to live inside the loop. I can say with confidence that it is easy to get around inside the loop during rush hour if you know your alternative routes. It's just not a problem. If there were a train that ran directly from my residence to my place of employment, I'd still drive because it is faster and because my time is valuable; never even mind that the sum of the private and public costs also should favor that I drive.

So circumstances like these would seem to favor P&R-like forms of transit or transit that is geared to households that can't afford to drive. That's where the demand is.

Depends on what survey you read.

True, the surveys worded in such a way as that either cost is not an issue or that people are encouraged to envision a way of life for everyone other than themselves do tend to favor transit spending.

I prefer to go by revealed preference. People vote with their feet more reliably than with their lips.

Infrastructure doesn't happen overnight, we've been adding ~million people a decade for the last two and on pace to continue to do so.

Also, you're putting too much emphasis on residential density or simply forgetting employment density also drives transit usage. I've already mentioned the employment centers tht would be connected to the light rail, bus system, and P&R.

If you're hanging your hat on employment density, then you should be favoring investment in highways, flyovers, grade separations, and toll roads. There's so ridiculously much office and industrial space getting built in the suburbs, at the fringe of METRO's service area and beyond it, not connected or even effectively connectable to transit, and totally ignored by METRO, that it makes light rail built on that premise into something of a farce.

The tough question is what we're going to do about our polycentric city wherein those centers can be so amorphous and/or inaccessible to the dominant transit agency.

And what about land prices? What about cost of materials? It would have been cheaper to build the light rail under these economic conditions when prices are down. Of course there are no guarantees, but it's been my experience in life that preemptive and preventative measure are generally easier than the alternatives.

I'm absolutely in favor of identifying and protecting urban corridors where setbacks are enforced absolutely and without exception. Keep those corridors ready for the taking. However, if we do not need them yet then they should not be taken. Rising land prices correspond to an increase in property tax revenues! Keep them on the tax rolls! Do you want even want more infrastructure or do you want our local governments in a position where they can only possibly struggle to make good on employee pensions and the bare necessities!? God damn, what kind of an infrastructurist are you!?

As for commodities prices, the best predictor for where inflation-adjusted prices will be a year from now is where they are today. That's how efficient markets work. If you think that you know better than the guys at NYMEX, then you and Exxon should be hording tangible inventories of whatever you think will increase over and above the inflation rate.

And ironically we can't afford more highways and adequately maintaining our road infrastructure. Yet we keep adding more people and adding more economic growth. It's not a matter of "can't", it's "won't". Low cost of living and low taxes have consequences, there is no such thing as a free lunch. We have to decide if we want to afford it, that is if we want to raise our cost of living. Are we going to compromise or we going to let the status quo rule.

In conclusion, we could afford better roads and transit if we wanted to.

The status quo has served Texas cities pretty well, I'd say. There are some exceptions. The easiest fix is that the gas tax needs to be expressed in percent terms or otherwise needs to be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index. Regional transit districts regulated under state law but administered locally should be set up to master plan regional transportation networks including every kind of transportation infrastructure, including highways, major thoroughfares, secondary thoroughfares, mass transit, toll road authorities, freight rail, airports, and seaports...soup to nuts, but with numerous checks and balances to ensure that nobody can get too overzealous. TXDoT's involvement should be reduced to the maintenance of rural infrastructure. Special districts (such as the Midtown Management District, but there are many dozens like it) should become more transparent and accountable to their constituents, and then (thereafter) there should be more of them in order to fund neighborhood-specific transportation initiatives (and other initiatives) according to a tax rate that is acceptable within that neighborhood according to the people...within the context and framework of the regional agency.

Its not that we shouldn't want better infrastructure, it's that we need better government. I am confident that if we fix the way that we administer government so as that public confidence in government can be enhanced, then the public will be less weary of signing over more of their hard-earned money.

Perhaps you should visit LA. and ask yourself if you want to wait.

Perhaps you should look at a map.

The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside CSA has nearly 18 million people wedged between a coast and within mountain valleys. Houston's CSA has a bit over 6 million, all spread out to such an extent that if you drove as far away from downtown Houston as Spring, you'd find yourself in an arid and desolate desert if you did the same thing in the same direction from downtown Los Angeles.

These are not the same species of animal. It'll be a very long time until they're even remotely comparable.

[TheNiche]

So here's some interesting news. The citizens of Atlanta have overwhelmingly rejected (63% against) a proposed one-cent sales tax that would've funded additional roads and transit. The opposition was a triad of the Tea Party, the NAACP, and a smattering of environmentalists in all 10 of metropolitan Atlanta's counties. Their $15,000 campaign beat out an $8 million campaign backed by establishment politicians from both major parties as well as numerous corporations and consultancies.

From the sound of things, the citizens have lost faith that public officials will use money wisely. Sound familiar?

[mfastx]

I looked closer into that proposal yesterday. A lot of people (including the Tea Party and the NAACP) opposed it simply because the route or transit line they wanted built wasn't in the referendum. It wasn't because they didn't want transit in general. Some of the routes were suspect, and large communities were included in the referendum that either aren't served by transit now, or wouldn't be served by transit in the proposal. So I'm not really surprised to see it fail.

But it goes to show how much we hate taxes in this country, lol. I mean c'mon, a 1% increase? For better roads and transit? Sounds like a deal to me.

[kylejack]

Well, at least Atlanta already has a light rail network.

[mfastx]

Well, at least Atlanta already has a light rail network.

Actually they have heavy rail, not light rail. But yeah, while it's only a couple of lines, they are still much better off than we are in terms of transit. I believe they have almost 500,000 boardings a day on their rail and bus lines. Pretty impressive for a post WWII city.

[rsb320]

Plus, their trains go to the airport and are grade separated.

[TheNiche]

I looked closer into that proposal yesterday. A lot of people (including the Tea Party and the NAACP) opposed it simply because the route or transit line they wanted built wasn't in the referendum. It wasn't because they didn't want transit in general. Some of the routes were suspect, and large communities were included in the referendum that either aren't served by transit now, or wouldn't be served by transit in the proposal. So I'm not really surprised to see it fail.

But it goes to show how much we hate taxes in this country, lol. I mean c'mon, a 1% increase? For better roads and transit? Sounds like a deal to me.

Dude, it failed in every demographic segment in every single county. It wasn't even close. And that's in a city that is ridiculously choked in traffic due to the layout of its roads, btw. Bottlenecks everywhere, with elevated transit usage as an indicator of how difficult it is to get around (and admittedly lots of black people, who lets face it are just disproportionately inclined to use transit). If there's a place that needs to spend more money across the board on transportation, Atlanta is that place.

[mfastx]

Dude, it failed in every demographic segment in every single county. It wasn't even close. And that's in a city that is ridiculously choked in traffic due to the layout of its roads, btw. Bottlenecks everywhere, with elevated transit usage as an indicator of how difficult it is to get around (and admittedly lots of black people, who lets face it are just disproportionately inclined to use transit). If there's a place that needs to spend more money across the board on transportation, Atlanta is that place.

I know it failed dude

Unfortunately for Atlanta most people that are casually in favor of transit (I'd say most riders of MARTA fall in this category) didn't go out and vote. Most votes came from 'burbs who just didn't want a tax increase, since they all drive in their cars anyway.

And I wouldn't just write off their higher transit ridership simply due to a poor layout of roads. They do have the heavy rail which is top notch.

In order for that referendum to pass, they should have

1) left the proposed routes open to future change

2) focus on a smaller service area. Involving suburbs was a mistake. They will never vote for more transit dollars.

[kylejack]

My question would be: how much of the cost is construction and how much is ongoing operation costs? If it leans more toward construction costs to straighten out the road issues, shouldn't an expiration date be set for the one cent increase?

[kdog08]

So here's some interesting news. The citizens of Atlanta have overwhelmingly rejected (63% against) a proposed one-cent sales tax that would've funded additional roads and transit. The opposition was a triad of the Tea Party, the NAACP, and a smattering of environmentalists in all 10 of metropolitan Atlanta's counties. Their $15,000 campaign beat out an $8 million campaign backed by establishment politicians from both major parties as well as numerous corporations and consultancies.

From the sound of things, the citizens have lost faith that public officials will use money wisely. Sound familiar?

And we'll show them by not providing ourselves with the expansions and maintenance necessary to keep up with growth!!!!

[IHB2]

And we'll show them by not providing ourselves with the expansions and maintenance necessary to keep up with growth!!!!

it's like raising children. when they're doing the wrong thing over and over, 1st you've got to stop them from doing it, then the retraining can begin. with elected/appointed officials you stop them and they are either replaced or learn to do the right thing (we've already seen a bit of this with METRO when Annise Parker cleaned house, but she just didn't get rid of enough of the exec bureaucrats that survived her Frank Wilson purge).

[TheNiche]

I know it failed dude

Unfortunately for Atlanta most people that are casually in favor of transit (I'd say most riders of MARTA fall in this category) didn't go out and vote. Most votes came from 'burbs who just didn't want a tax increase, since they all drive in their cars anyway.

And I wouldn't just write off their higher transit ridership simply due to a poor layout of roads. They do have the heavy rail which is top notch.

In order for that referendum to pass, they should have

1) left the proposed routes open to future change

2) focus on a smaller service area. Involving suburbs was a mistake. They will never vote for more transit dollars.

I would think that someone that drives a car over vast distances of congested highway should have a disproportionately high interest in funding effective expansion of both roads and transit if they believed that it could be effective. This was not merely a transit referendum.

I gave it a bit of thought, but honestly I can't figure out how such a large referendum could be sliced and diced in order to ferret out the projects that people didn't like from the ones that they do. I tend to agree that the proposed routes should be left open-ended and subject to the politics of representative government...but that goes against the message of the opposition, that they don't trust their government. Maybe they should empower toll road authorities. Or maybe they just need local and state government to reform itself.

[kdog08]

it's like raising children. when they're doing the wrong thing over and over, 1st you've got to stop them from doing it, then the retraining can begin. with elected/appointed officials you stop them and they are either replaced or learn to do the right thing (we've already seen a bit of this with METRO when Annise Parker cleaned house, but she just didn't get rid of enough of the exec bureaucrats that survived her Frank Wilson purge).

And in the meanwhile your city will add more residents and need more expansions and maintenance. I agree in principle with you but it it just seems they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. In our case, we need really to figure out what we are going to do and how to fund it.

[kdog08]

In the life cycle of a good or service, supply initially creates demand. And then demand creates supply...pretty much at any cost. Consequently, I expect that energy shortages will result in research into new energy extraction methods and alternative energy sources, as well as that geopolitical constraints will likely find effective (if perhaps bloody) solutions for themselves. Where transportation is concerned, I expect more cars, more congestion, and more solutions for congestion. Those solutions will involve a mix of infrastructures, including transit, however it is less difficult to imagine a circumstance whereby employers move to the suburbs and families move to the city, where most householders simply drive a shorter distance to work rather than take transit...than a circumstance whereby mass transit fundamentally changes the paradigm of Houston, Texas.

And why is it a good idea to keep sprawling outwards like you expect? Seems like a pretty crappy use of resources and land, but whatever. Not that I have notion that what you say won't happen to some varying degree.

Also why does there need or why you bringing up how transit won't fundamentally change the paradigm of Houston? Is anyone suggesting that or do you see things as black and white? Either transit is a grand slam or fails?

Tory provided data that estimated the private and public costs of private automobile use, and it seemed to point to private automobile use being generally less expensive than transit. There is nothing wrong with taking people off of a particular road insofar as it costs less to do so than it would cost to expand that road or add another parallel road for relief. Of course, those calculations will vary from project to project and also based on how many people are intended to be displaced from the existing road.

Again, of course it's cheaper now, here in Houston, TX. But does Tory's analysis cover things like pollution and sprawl when looking at private automobile use. How much are we spending and will spend on just flood control and damage because of our growth philosophy requires a lot of roads and highways to connect our overall low density. Pollution is subsidized mostly. What do roads really cost us?

This is true, however that's actually a problem for light rail. If you look at the surveys of downtown employees and how they get to work, very few that live within a five-mile radius rely on transit. The transit users are commuters that do not tend to live inside the loop.

It's not a problem for light rail because light rail is just one mode of transit within a system. That's why in Houston's case you would have bus and P&R connecting to light rail to form some semblance of a system. They are quite common in other cities...but I can see when you view light rail in a vacuum how you could not understand.

I can say with confidence that it is easy to get around inside the loop during rush hour if you know your alternative routes. It's just not a problem. If there were a train that ran directly from my residence to my place of employment, I'd still drive because it is faster and because my time is valuable; never even mind that the sum of the private and public costs also should favor that I drive.

Well certainly but it depends on your destination. I doubt a person from Katy, Sugar Land, West Houston, Pear Land, etc. will have many alternatives besides getting on a freeway/tollway and taking a different exit. Not to mention that parking in the loop is a bit more scare and/or expensive then the suburbs adding additional incentive. Lastly, because it's not favorable for you don't assume it's not favorable for someone else, don't be self centered.

So circumstances like these would seem to favor P&R-like forms of transit or transit that is geared to households that can't afford to drive. That's where the demand is.

No they favor a system of P&R and light rail serving commuters. P&R would bring the commuters into the Med Center, Downtown, Greenway, and Uptown and the light rail would serve as the "last mile". Pretty much how systems function throughout the world.

If you're hanging your hat on employment density, then you should be favoring investment in highways, flyovers, grade separations, and toll roads.

I am. I also favor transit that involves bus and rail.

There's so ridiculously much office and industrial space getting built in the suburbs, at the fringe of METRO's service area and beyond it, not connected or even effectively connectable to transit, and totally ignored by METRO, that it makes light rail built on that premise into something of a farce.

Well yes, but it isn't very dense, walkable, has poor street grid for transit, and you have to drive everywhere for errands/lunch. Not to mention these places generally have weak or nonexistent management districts to guide much cohesiveness. These places shouldn't be focused on too heavily when the opposite type of employment density in our 3 major employment centers inside the core. I'm not saying they don't deserve P&R now or in the near future (I encourage it), but it seems like a farce to compare them.

The tough question is what we're going to do about our polycentric city wherein those centers can be so amorphous and/or inaccessible to the dominant transit agency.

How do you figure when we a have a proposed line that will connect the largest, densest, and most cohesive of centers along with all of pro arenas, musesums/cultural centers/fine arts, and a few of our major parks? Have you looked what's accessible just within a few blocks of rail? This isn't the current fad of connecting an employment center to a museum district or arena with light rail, this is some serious shit if we can get some funding.

I'm absolutely in favor of identifying and protecting urban corridors where setbacks are enforced absolutely and without exception. Keep those corridors ready for the taking. However, if we do not need them yet then they should not be taken. Rising land prices correspond to an increase in property tax revenues! Keep them on the tax rolls! Do you want even want more infrastructure or do you want our local governments in a position where they can only possibly struggle to make good on employee pensions and the bare necessities!? God damn, what kind of an infrastructurist are you!?

I don't think it's as black and white as say.

As for commodities prices, the best predictor for where inflation-adjusted prices will be a year from now is where they are today. That's how efficient markets work. If you think that you know better than the guys at NYMEX, then you and Exxon should be hording tangible inventories of whatever you think will increase over and above the inflation rate.

So it's worse to build infrastructure during a recession if you can get the funding?

The status quo has served Texas cities pretty well, I'd say.

And so does that mean it will serve us well in the future? I guess if the future was the same as the present...

There are some exceptions. The easiest fix is that the gas tax needs to be expressed in percent terms or otherwise needs to be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index. Regional transit districts regulated under state law but administered locally should be set up to master plan regional transportation networks including every kind of transportation infrastructure, including highways, major thoroughfares, secondary thoroughfares, mass transit, toll road authorities, freight rail, airports, and seaports...soup to nuts, but with numerous checks and balances to ensure that nobody can get too overzealous. TXDoT's involvement should be reduced to the maintenance of rural infrastructure. Special districts (such as the Midtown Management District, but there are many dozens like it) should become more transparent and accountable to their constituents, and then (thereafter) there should be more of them in order to fund neighborhood-specific transportation initiatives (and other initiatives) according to a tax rate that is acceptable within that neighborhood according to the people...within the context and framework of the regional agency.

Finally some I can instead of can'ts.

Its not that we shouldn't want better infrastructure, it's that we need better government. I am confident that if we fix the way that we administer government so as that public confidence in government can be enhanced, then the public will be less weary of signing over more of their hard-earned money.

I agree we need better government. The problem is that the issues won't go away or be put on pause while we become less weary.

Perhaps you should look at a map.

The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside CSA has nearly 18 million people wedged between a coast and within mountain valleys. Houston's CSA has a bit over 6 million, all spread out to such an extent that if you drove as far away from downtown Houston as Spring, you'd find yourself in an arid and desolate desert if you did the same thing in the same direction from downtown Los Angeles.

These are not the same species of animal. It'll be a very long time until they're even remotely comparable.

I am very familiar with LA's geography. In the context of my reply I was using it as an example of what happens when you put things off or don't address them adequately. Houston is certainly far away from LA's size but it does have quite a bit in common when it comes to form and feel. LA's inner core (albeit more dense and famous) is Houston's multipolar inner core older cousin.

[TheNiche]

One of the dangers of over-parsing from a variety of posts on a message board is that one loses grasp of the context within which comments were made.

Try again.

[mfastx]

One of the dangers of over-parsing from a variety of posts on a message board is that one loses grasp of the context within which comments were made.

Try again.

LOL Niche, I'm pretty sure that if you scroll down after you hit reply you can see the previous posts in the thread. At least that's what I do when you do that bolded text inside my quote BS

[IHB2]

Received this from the Citizens Transportation Coalition, Christof Spieler's organization (before he took the board position):

"The METRO board is selecting a ballot measure to put before the voters in November. The option they advance will determine the legacy of this METRO board.

The METRO board will meet this Friday, August 3, 2012, at 9:00 am to evaluate six ballot proposals and decide which one to put forward for the November 6, 2012 referendum. The measure they choose will determine their legacy to the Houston region. The wrong ballot measure will mean a legacy of stagnation for transit and economic harm to the region; the right ballot measure will be a bold and decisive step forward that allows transit to continue to grow.

CTC members have evaluated the six proposals and we believe that METRO board member Christof Spieler's proposal will do the most to enable expansion of high-quality transit and ensure the future economic prosperity of Houston and the region. We urge you to support it today.

If you agree that expanding Houston's transit system is essential, please act now to contact the METRO board, Houston Mayor Annise Parker, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, and leaders of the 14 small cities. We have included an easy-to-use link below.

Thanks for all you do"

[kdog08]

One of the dangers of over-parsing from a variety of posts on a message board is that one loses grasp of the context within which comments were made.

Try again.

Nah locate your pair and reply or don't locate your pair. Not going to hurt my feeling if you don't want to or can't.

[kylejack]

The Niche, why do you reply in bold inside the quote block of the user you're quoting? It's really odd. Just use a [ / quote ] tag to close it off.

[TheNiche]

LOL Niche, I'm pretty sure that if you scroll down after you hit reply you can see the previous posts in the thread. At least that's what I do when you do that bolded text inside my quote BS

Actually, no I can't. I have to open up a separate browser tab and bounce back and forth, delineating each of his responses from the next, figuring out what I had said that he was responding to, and then figure out what I was responding to in the first place (in a third browser tab). Just going through the first part of his responses, I know that they're a bit off from what was intended. So that pissed me off.

The conversation went too fast for him to completely keep up. It's probably not his fault. I've been out sick and you're just some kind of zombie machine of transit apologism or something, so there's been an unusual quantity of back-and-forth content generated. He fell behind and I haven't got the patience to go back for him. If my impatience (also signaled by bolded replies to over-parsed posts) is a character flaw, so be it. At least I'm honest about it, right?

[TheNiche]

"The METRO board is selecting a ballot measure to put before the voters in November. The option they advance will determine the legacy of this METRO board.

The METRO board will meet this Friday, August 3, 2012, at 9:00 am to evaluate six ballot proposals and decide which one to put forward for the November 6, 2012 referendum. The measure they choose will determine their legacy to the Houston region. The wrong ballot measure will mean a legacy of stagnation for transit and economic harm to the region; the right ballot measure will be a bold and decisive step forward that allows transit to continue to grow.

CTC members have evaluated the six proposals and we believe that METRO board member Christof Spieler's proposal will do the most to enable expansion of high-quality transit and ensure the future economic prosperity of Houston and the region. We urge you to support it today.

If you agree that expanding Houston's transit system is essential, please act now to contact the METRO board, Houston Mayor Annise Parker, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, and leaders of the 14 small cities. We have included an easy-to-use link below.

Thanks for all you do"

Wow, that's a hefty bit of propaganda.

"Now hear ye! Do this. It is good. If you do not do precisely this, we shall forever be doomed. Tell your friends."

[LTAWACS]

Who gives a flip about their legacy!?!?!?