Ted Poe vs. John Culberson

[nativehoustonion]

Go to Houston Tomorrow and see the video of Mr. Poe said Houston need funds for the University Line. Someone finally is speaking up for us. I was so surprised Mr. Culberson was also there and said they will meet also with Ms. Lee, and Mr. Green to make sure we get the Federal funding. Because another city will get them unless we get our crap together.

[Slick Vik]

Go to Houston Tomorrow and see the video of Mr. Poe said Houston need funds for the University Line. Someone finally is speaking up for us. I was so surprised Mr. Culberson was also there and said they will meet also with Ms. Lee, and Mr. Green to make sure we get the Federal funding. Because another city will get them unless we get our crap together.

That's the main point everyone is ignoring of we don't take the money someone else will get it. Taxes are paying for federal funds regardless.

[Ross]

That's the main point everyone is ignoring of we don't take the money someone else will get it. Taxes are paying for federal funds regardless.

 

Why is the Federal government passing around a bunch of cash when  deficits are running in the hundreds of billions? Would it not be better to quit passing out money we don't have?

[Slick Vik]

Why is the Federal government passing around a bunch of cash when deficits are running in the hundreds of billions? Would it not be better to quit passing out money we don't have?

Well I think for one it shouldn't have started a useless war in Afghanistan.

[kbates2]

And derailed.

[livincinco]

This is why we can't have nice things. 

[mfastx]

Well this is good news to those of us hopeful that federal funding wouldn't be blocked for rail. 

 

Culberson needs to understand that the Richmond alignment was always a possibility when voters approved the line.

[Ross]

Well I think for one it shouldn't have started a useless war in Afghanistan.

Iraq was useless. Afghanistan was needed, but has gone on for too long. Not having those wars might have helped reduce the deficits, but I still can't see any reason for the Federal government to pass out money to build a local rail line. Especially when it's all borrowed money.

[Trae]

Why is the Federal government passing around a bunch of cash when  deficits are running in the hundreds of billions? Would it not be better to quit passing out money we don't have?

 

There are things the feds should be paying for and giving out money for infrastructure improvements in the country is one of them. I say better here than for roads in iraq or funds for the egyptian military, or tax breaks for big oil and other corporate welfare , etc.

[mfastx]

Iraq was useless. Afghanistan was needed, but has gone on for too long. Not having those wars might have helped reduce the deficits, but I still can't see any reason for the Federal government to pass out money to build a local rail line. Especially when it's all borrowed money.

 

Most economists agree that domestic infrastructure spending has good effects on the local economy.  In this case, the half a billion or so federal funds that would go towards the line is a drop in the bucket of the national budget. 

 

Like it or not, there's always going to be a certain amount of money earmarked for local transportation projects.  It'd be great if Houston received the benefit of those funds. 

[ig2ba]

There are things the feds should be paying for and giving out money for infrastructure improvements in the country is one of them. I say better here than for roads in iraq or funds for the egyptian military, or tax breaks for big oil and other corporate welfare , etc.

 

The federal government has a role in funding infrastructure, and I agree that it should be that way. This is especially true for multi-state rail systems or interstate highways.

 

I'm not convinced that a light rail system in a random city or a commuter rail line or a widening of 288 (a non-interstate highway) need to be funded by the feds. The benefits are almost entirely local, and therefore, nearly all of the funding should be local.

[ig2ba]

Eh, not really. That thing is still packed both ways during rush hour. And during non-peak times, there are so many people scared of all the lines and just not paying attention that they pick a random lane and drive in it slow, causing backups. I mean yeah, it definitely isn't always congested like before though.

 

15 minutes/day*100000 people*250 work days per year*$30/hour = $188 mil/year in time savings, not counting the people that use the HOT lanes.

 

If anyone can show me a proposed rail line that would save any commuter 15 minutes/day compared to their current commute, or even a reasonable fantasy line (heh, this is what HAIF is for - off the wall ideas), I'd love to hear it. I simply don't think it's possible.

 

Freeway projects tend to be the only projects reduce commute times or drastically increase the number of users. Transit projects have many benefits, but this is usually not one of them.

[ricco67]

I'm not convinced that a light rail system in a random city or a commuter rail line or a widening of 288 (a non-interstate highway) need to be funded by the feds. The benefits are almost entirely local, and therefore, nearly all of the funding should be local.

 

So you're saying that all the taxes that are taken from local tax payers, should not be used on anything doesn't benefit the nation in some form?

 

So should we regress into forming our own city-states?

 

15 minutes/day*100000 people*250 work days per year*$30/hour = $188 mil/year in time savings, not counting the people that use the HOT lanes.

 

If anyone can show me a proposed rail line that would save any commuter 15 minutes/day compared to their current commute, or even a reasonable fantasy line (heh, this is what HAIF is for - off the wall ideas), I'd love to hear it. I simply don't think it's possible.

 

Freeway projects tend to be the only projects reduce commute times or drastically increase the number of users. Transit projects have many benefits, but this is usually not one of them.

 

The construction/expansion of freeways is hardly done without some form of of disruption in traffic and businesses in the area.    If you're a small business located along these major projects, the disruption in business can be catastrophic.  

For all the whining that people do about Light Rail construction on the local level, it has no where near the chaos a freeway project does but with more local benefits.

[Ross]

 tax breaks for big oil and other corporate welfare , etc.

 

You are utterly clueless on this topic.

[ig2ba]

So you're saying that all the taxes that are taken from local tax payers, should not be used on anything doesn't benefit the nation in some form?

 

So should we regress into forming our own city-states?

 

Yeah, that's obviously the logical conclusion to draw from what I said. If a person believes in more local control over local-only projects, but still supports federal funding of the Interstate system and long-range high speed rail, they must obviously be in favor of living in city-states, or as RedScare likes to say, Somalia. Way not to jump any conclusions or resort to hyperbole!

 

 

The construction/expansion of freeways is hardly done without some form of of disruption in traffic and businesses in the area.    If you're a small business located along these major projects, the disruption in business can be catastrophic.  

For all the whining that people do about Light Rail construction on the local level, it has no where near the chaos a freeway project does but with more local benefits.

 

I didn't mention impacts to residences and businesses during construction, and I don't think that any major construction on a transportation project in the Houston area (aside from maybe the greenfield Fort Bend Parkway) could be done without significant disruption. I don't mind discussing as a separate topic, but I don't see the connection in this case.

 

I'm just wondering about any rail line that would save that much time once in full operation.

[livincinco]

The federal government has a role in funding infrastructure, and I agree that it should be that way. This is especially true for multi-state rail systems or interstate highways.

 

I'm not convinced that a light rail system in a random city or a commuter rail line or a widening of 288 (a non-interstate highway) need to be funded by the feds. The benefits are almost entirely local, and therefore, nearly all of the funding should be local.

 

I tend to agree with you.  The federal government should really fund infrastructure efforts that impact multiple states, not infrastructure that's related to an individual city.

 

To be fair, I think that it's equally a stretch for the federal government to have funded the 610 loop as it is for them to fund light rail.

[ig2ba]

I tend to agree with you.  The federal government should really fund infrastructure efforts that impact multiple states, not infrastructure that's related to an individual city.

 

To be fair, I think that it's equally a stretch for the federal government to have funded the 610 loop as it is for them to fund light rail.

 

OTOH, 610 is the primary route used by many trucks (shipping Hazardous Materials past downtown is not allowed), on the east side at least, it's the primary connection to the port which has a multi-state impact. But yeah, it's a less of an obvious candidate for federal funding than I-10.

 

I'm thinking more of light rail and also spur routes which don't connect multiple states like 288, the proposed Spur 5/TX 35 freeway, TX 249, etc.

 

I think that if a city wants to build 30 freeways and their citizens want it, and they don't make species go extinct during the process, the onus should be on them to fund it. The feds shouldn't be able to veto that. The same is true for a city which wants 30 rail lines.

[nativehoustonion]

METRO paid businesses that lost customer while they were building the LRT lines.  Of course I'm sure it was an enough.  I drove down the North rail line and they building mid rises and I also saw some strip centers.  I was very upset that Doneraki's was closed.  I was told it was because they had $150,000 light bill.  It was not because of the rail line.  Once they start running everyone will have a different perspective on how we need more rail, and commuter rail to the burbs.  When the 3 lines are running all the buses will serve other areas.  Watch out 290 TXDOT will not pay for nothing!  They that domain to make you move, just like the Katy Freeway.      

[Trae]

15 minutes/day*100000 people*250 work days per year*$30/hour = $188 mil/year in time savings, not counting the people that use the HOT lanes.

 

If anyone can show me a proposed rail line that would save any commuter 15 minutes/day compared to their current commute, or even a reasonable fantasy line (heh, this is what HAIF is for - off the wall ideas), I'd love to hear it. I simply don't think it's possible.

 

Freeway projects tend to be the only projects reduce commute times or drastically increase the number of users. Transit projects have many benefits, but this is usually not one of them.

 

You may not always save time on the commute, but you can save wear and tear on your car, gas, be less stressed, etc. Its not all about saving time. light rail trains are not optimal for long commutes tho. heavy rail trains are, but we missed that one. Lets  say there are ten stops between Katy and Downtown and the trains travel at top speeds of 65mph. You may still make it into Downtown quicker than someone driving in from the same location during rush hour. Trains stay at stations for one to two minutes. It can take 60-90 minutes to drive in from the GP to Dowtowb during rush hour. Off peak is a different story.

 

You are utterly clueless on this topic.

 

Proof?

[Ross]

Oil companies don't get any real tax breaks that aren't available to other businesses. Every complaint I've ever seen on the topic is not based in reality, and is driven by irrational hatred for successful businesses.

[ig2ba]

You may not always save time on the commute, but you can save wear and tear on your car, gas, be less stressed, etc. Its not all about saving time.

Oh, absolutely. It's usually about saving time for me on my commute, but not always. Car might be in the shop. Might want to focus before a big morning meeting. And the time spent is usually more predictable. Or you might want to have a beer or 2 or 3 or 6 after work, and not have to worry about commuting home by car.

 

 

light rail trains are not optimal for long commutes tho. heavy rail trains are, but we missed that one. Lets  say there are ten stops between Katy and Downtown and the trains travel at top speeds of 65mph. You may still make it into Downtown quicker than someone driving in from the same location during rush hour. Trains stay at stations for one to two minutes. It can take 60-90 minutes to drive in from the GP to Dowtowb during rush hour. Off peak is a different story.

 

I don't think it would. Let's say that a person lives at Grand Parkway in Cinco Ranch. It'll take 40 minutes each way to go from your driveway to get to an office on Smith Street plus 2-3 minutes coming from the parking garage. (Apparently it takes 28 minutes from B Cypress to downtown, so I'm conservatively estimating another 12 minutes to go the last 8 miles.)  Total: 43 minutes.

 

What would it take for the same trip by rail? Well, you'd have to drive 5 minutes to get to the first train station, park, and walk to the platform and then wait for let's say 1 minute. Once downtown, you'd have to either transfer to light rail or a bus or walk to your office. I think the best case scenario would be 10 minutes or so. (from the Post Office (which was proposed to a major rail station at one point) and walking briskly 10 blocks). So that leaves 27 minutes in between to travel about 27 miles. Each stop would be at least 30 seconds. Let's say 30 seconds. So that leaves 21 minutes in between. So you'd have to AVERAGE 77 miles per hour between the 10 stops (21/60)*27. Taking into account acceleration and deceleration, you'd need to exceed 100 mph. I don't think that's realistic. And that's just to meet the speed of commuting by car.

 

If you think my assumptions are wrong, let me know.

[Spacecityroller]

Ted Poe said that the money is allocated for transportation.  I have no doubt that this money will be spent for some transportation project. It won't be saved, used to pay down the debt, or just cut. So the question is do we take the money that they have allocated for this project, or do we not and it be sent to a transportation project in another city/state.

[bobruss]

One has to remember we're building this for the future. A time when several more million people will live in a city that will be hard for many to comprehend. Some actions might not seem logical right now but will be the backbone for our future growth and development. It's vital to develop every form of mass transit now in order to be able to handle the density inside the loop that will come. It would be a shame for a city with so much going for it fail to take advantage of these funds and let them go somewhere else. While we have this new support in Ted Poe we need to rally support.

I've watched Houston grow for over fifty five years and I've seen the first freeways built and the question of funding those early projects weighed heavily on local voters. Well they seemed to take hold and look what happened. We now have a very large multi- nodal metropolis. Most of that came through that freeway system.

Now we need to focus on mass transit inside the loop.

[Naviguessor]

That's right, bobruss. We here a lot of opponents or people who are on the fence talk about how a rail system would not serve many or even most of the population of houston....as it is today. I rather agree. However. If there were a rail system in place, population growth would develop around the stations. Smaller town centers, with services, walkable street grids, services and density. These would likely be great little centers and become micro destinations themselves. Imagine if there were a train station in the woodlands, ft bend town center, league city, Katy...Genetation park etc... These type developments would spring up and concentrate future population growth. That is a forward vision, with heavier rail that feeds a more streetwise/LRT(or BRT) system in the core. But the core must be developed! So...lets develope it a prepare to become the city which we are anticipating to become. I'd even vote to increase the sales tax to do it.

[Slick Vik]

One has to remember we're building this for the future. A time when several more million people will live in a city that will be hard for many to comprehend. Some actions might not seem logical right now but will be the backbone for our future growth and development. It's vital to develop every form of mass transit now in order to be able to handle the density inside the loop that will come. It would be a shame for a city with so much going for it fail to take advantage of these funds and let them go somewhere else. While we have this new support in Ted Poe we need to rally support.

I've watched Houston grow for over fifty five years and I've seen the first freeways built and the question of funding those early projects weighed heavily on local voters. Well they seemed to take hold and look what happened. We now have a very large multi- nodal metropolis. Most of that came through that freeway system.

Now we need to focus on mass transit inside the loop.

 

It's really unfortunate that the voters voted down the extensive system that was on the referendum in 1983. Life would have been so much different here.

 

Also I think a lot of the people here rallying against rail would have been against building freeways as well.

[ig2ba]

It's really unfortunate that the voters voted down the extensive system that was on the referendum in 1983. Life would have been so much different here.

 

Also I think a lot of the people here rallying against rail would have been against building freeways as well.

 

Constuction costs would have been proportionally much lower then. That's for sure.

 

But try not to forget the over-investment and misplaced investments during that oil boom. If the City of Houston had been left holding the bag in 1986, it's quite possible that we would have a half-constructed subway system that eventually would have been abandoned. And on top of that, Houston would have been broke.

 

That's why it's so important to look at cost/benefits of any project - public or private.

[west20th]

..

 

...

[bobruss]

Look, I know that a lot of people especially those that live in the suburbs and are faced with hour long commutes don't understand or want to hear about the mass transit plans for the inner city and I don't expect everyone to hop on board a train once they're running.

The rail lines that are open, opening and planned, will form a system that will give a relief to some who want to ride and whether those naysayers will ever step foot in one doesn't matter because those that do will take cars off of the streets, which are becoming overburdened. And that's  before this new crop of multi mixed use developments being built all over the inner city are even finished.

I shudder to think of the traffic jams along Richmond, West Grey, Dallas, and in the Galleria.

I know it took a while for development to start building along Main, but look at it now. Developers have to be educated just like everyone else and I think we are seeing some of that happening now.

I promise you that in  a shorter time than most think once all of the lines are finished including and most importantly the University line  this mass transit system will become the new frontier for Houston development.

To finish with one of my favorite lines

"Rome wasn't built in a day", but if we don't plan for the future it can sure take a lot longer.

 

Example: Go over to that wonderful heaven on earth Austin, Texas, if you want to see gridlock. Just because they were determined to keep out growth and to not develop their infrastructure in the 80's when they should have.

Their traffic is much worse than ours.

 

 

[nativehoustonion]

You are so correct. We need a solid transportation plan or it will hurt our economy. Remember Katy, The Woodland, Sugarland, Missouri City, Pearland. Pasadena and so on. They do not belong to METRO. So they need to vote for METRO and pay their 1 cent tax like we do. Or form their own transportation authority. That is why we are so behind. And of course the Grand Parkway is moving full ahead. More sprawl.

[livincinco]

Those are very righteous and idealistic statements, but they don't reflect the reality of Houston.  Houston isn't segmented quite as cleanly as you would like it to be.  The city of Houston consists of approx 2.2 million people and only 450k of them live inside the loop.  That's excluding the approx 4 million people that live outside of Houston that understandably are not in METROs scope.  

 

METRO is still responsible for providing service to those individuals and responsible transit planning needs to allow for that.  Conversation on this forum is generally focused around the "enlightened" souls that live inside the loop and the lost souls that live in the suburbs while ignoring the segment between the loop and the beltway.  

 

The discussion needs to include how METRO services those areas as well because its not acceptable for METRO to entirely focus their budget on the inner loop.