More Congestion On Interstate-10

[livincinco]

No irony. People have expectations and they will be met.

Got it. You don't understand the irony. Let me explain. Go look at the US Census Bureau domestic migration statistics. Most of the major cities in the US have been losing population during the last several years while Houston has continued to gain population. People are continually leaving the cities that you believe are so much more advanced than Houston and they are moving here.

There are reasons for this of course. Jobs and low cost of living for a major city being the biggest of them. The kind of things that the expansion of I10 helped provide.

[luciaphile]

It would be just fine if Houston's growth could be attributed to its welcoming willingness to expand I10, because it would suggest a measure of control over the process. (And in a larger sense, there is, of course.)
 

But a recent roundup of "what cities people are moving to" listed Austin (July 2011 metro area population: 1,728,247) at #3, with a net domestic migration of +30,669; while Houston (5,976,470) was #5, with +21,580 in the same period.
 

As anyone will attest, Austin has done almost nothing of any significance to improve its transportation infrastructure.

And still they come.
Austin has done so little in that way, in fact, as to nearly eliminate roadbuilding or other transit efforts as a possible factor in attracting people; almost certainly less of a factor, anyway, than the constant publication of such lists ...

 

Of course, this is mostly irrelevant, as Texas' population growth is overwhelmingly due to natural increase and international immigration, not people pulling up stakes and renting U-Hauls in other cities.

[IronTiger]

It's silly to me that people from New York would laugh at Houston's transit system. We're comparing the economic capital of the U.S. to a regional economic center mostly built in the last 50 years. It's as though people in London decided to laugh at Manchester's bus routes or Liverpool's street grid. I'll never understand the insecurity of New Yorkers.

That being said, a good portion of people living in Houston are people who grew up in cities up north and moved here in part because they never wanted to see another grimy subway stop. One can agree or disagree with their decision, but the migration of people from up north to Houston greatly outnumbers the reverse flow.

I copied and pasted the quote above because it's true.

One thing that I think you're missing is that Houston is an interesting city because although traffic can be rough during certain parts of the day, the spread out job centers and wide freeways make it feasible to drive to work instead of spending hours on commuter rail and transferring to another system later. This isn't to say that mass transit is worthless, it's just that it isn't as urgent as one would hope. And frankly, looking at Richmond through Afton Oaks, there's not a lot of right of way, east of 610, there's not a lot of stoplights where one can finally manage to turn and access other streets, traffic tends to get backed up at 610 and Richmond, and it's a beautiful street lined with trees. Why not route the light rail down the existing railroad ROW further? Dallas took great advantage of their abandoned ROW, why can't Houston?

[livincinco]

 

It would be just fine if Houston's growth could be attributed to its welcoming willingness to expand I10, because it would suggest a measure of control over the process. (And in a larger sense, there is, of course.)

 

But a recent roundup of "what cities people are moving to" listed Austin (July 2011 metro area population: 1,728,247) at #3, with a net domestic migration of +30,669; while Houston (5,976,470) was #5, with +21,580 in the same period.

 

As anyone will attest, Austin has done almost nothing of any significance to improve its transportation infrastructure.

And still they come.

Austin has done so little in that way, in fact, as to nearly eliminate roadbuilding or other transit efforts as a possible factor in attracting people; almost certainly less of a factor, anyway, than the constant publication of such lists ...

 

Of course, this is mostly irrelevant, as Texas' population growth is overwhelmingly due to natural increase and international immigration, not people pulling up stakes and renting U-Hauls in other cities.

 

 

I'm 100% percent in agreement with you.  Attribute my comment regarding I-10 to my continuing fruitless quest to keep this thread on something slightly resembling the topic.

 

You make an important point that I agree with completely.  There are several people that are continually making gloom and doom statements about how Houston will be unable to achieve major city status without a vast rail system, yet there is really no data to back that up.  Transportation is just one of many factors that people consider when looking at a city and it's clear that in both Austin and Houston, people are finding significant enough advantages to continue to relocate here.  In my opinion, those advantages are plentiful jobs and relatively cheap housing.  As a region, continued growth will tie to our ability to offer those advantages.

 

[IronTiger]

What I'm more annoyed about is that because Afton Oaks residents don't want light rail running down Richmond (which is understandable) and because Culberson is working with the wishes of his district (an admirable trait in politicians), that makes him Satan because he's blocking a line that METRO made and is apparently unwilling to move.

[Slick Vik]

What I'm more annoyed about is that because Afton Oaks residents don't want light rail running down Richmond (which is understandable) and because Culberson is working with the wishes of his district (an admirable trait in politicians), that makes him Satan because he's blocking a line that METRO made and is apparently unwilling to move.

It's the line that makes the most sense from a ridership.

He's not looking out for his constituents he's looking out for his wallet

[Slick Vik]

It would be just fine if Houston's growth could be attributed to its welcoming willingness to expand I10, because it would suggest a measure of control over the process. (And in a larger sense, there is, of course.)

But a recent roundup of "what cities people are moving to" listed Austin (July 2011 metro area population: 1,728,247) at #3, with a net domestic migration of +30,669; while Houston (5,976,470) was #5, with +21,580 in the same period.

As anyone will attest, Austin has done almost nothing of any significance to improve its transportation infrastructure.And still they come.

Austin has done so little in that way, in fact, as to nearly eliminate roadbuilding or other transit efforts as a possible factor in attracting people; almost certainly less of a factor, anyway, than the constant publication of such lists ...

Of course, this is mostly irrelevant, as Texas' population growth is overwhelmingly due to natural increase and international immigration, not people pulling up stakes and renting U-Hauls in other cities.

Austin is working on an urban and regional rail system and considering trenching 35 as well

[Slick Vik]

I copied and pasted the quote above because it's true.

One thing that I think you're missing is that Houston is an interesting city because although traffic can be rough during certain parts of the day, the spread out job centers and wide freeways make it feasible to drive to work instead of spending hours on commuter rail and transferring to another system later. This isn't to say that mass transit is worthless, it's just that it isn't as urgent as one would hope. And frankly, looking at Richmond through Afton Oaks, there's not a lot of right of way, east of 610, there's not a lot of stoplights where one can finally manage to turn and access other streets, traffic tends to get backed up at 610 and Richmond, and it's a beautiful street lined with trees. Why not route the light rail down the existing railroad ROW further? Dallas took great advantage of their abandoned ROW, why can't Houston?

Spread out job centers make it easy to drive? Have you heard of Los Angeles?

Abandoned ROW is a bad idea because it's not necessarily going where people will ride. Richmond to hillcroft from downtown would have very high ridership. If the people of afton oaks understood that this would actually increase their property values and make it easier to travel in multiple modes it would've been built by now. But they're scared of minorities riding through their neighborhood and the loss of a lane of traffic.

[mollusk]

The proposed METRO route was shifted out of Afton Oaks years ago, turning south and across the freeway at Cummins, yet Afton Oaks and Culberson continue to stamp their little feetsies and scream (IIRC, the Culberson quote is something along the lines of "not anywhere in [his] district").  I can understand NIMBY at some level, but NIYBYE (not in your back yard either) completely eludes me.

[IronTiger]

It's the line that makes the most sense from a ridership.

He's not looking out for his constituents he's looking out for his wallet

Deflective "he's corrupt" rhetoric.

Spread out job centers make it easy to drive? Have you heard of Los Angeles?

When was the last time CalTrans significantly widened a highway in LA? (I actually don't know, that's why I'm asking--if the answer is something like "not since the 1970s", that's the answer right there)

Abandoned ROW is a bad idea because it's not necessarily going where people will ride.

Well, considering that the "not necessarily going where people will ride" is a common argument against light rail as a whole, it's not the best thing to state now. What is it missing if it goes south of 59, besides annoying street running? Greenway Plaza? That can be accomplished by a skywalk (with moving sidewalks!) or some other platform that would go over 59. If you say that "no one will use that", then that's a problem with light rail there. And the ROW would go past apartments and a Kroger!

If the people of afton oaks understood that this would actually increase their property values and make it easier to travel in multiple modes it would've been built by now.

The "Increasing property values" also was used for freeways, but some areas along freeways are pretty grimy.

But they're scared of minorities riding through their neighborhood

Oh, so we're now down to playing the race card. Great work on debating!

[IronTiger]

The proposed METRO route was shifted out of Afton Oaks years ago, turning south and across the freeway at Cummins, yet Afton Oaks and Culberson continue to stamp their little feetsies and scream (IIRC, the Culberson quote is something along the lines of "not anywhere in [his] district"). I can understand NIMBY at some level, but NIYBYE (not in your back yard either) completely eludes me.

Well, I can kind of see that. I think it would be cool if Cummins even closed off entirely to vehicular traffic past Richmond to 59 (it dead ends at 59 anyway).

And besides, if the line was already shifted out of Richmond and Afton Oaks years ago, then yes, it would be ridiculous to see Culberson and Afton Oaks still screaming about it, but...why are HAIFers still screaming about it now?

[por favor gracias]

I copied and pasted the quote above because it's true.

One thing that I think you're missing is that Houston is an interesting city because although traffic can be rough during certain parts of the day, the spread out job centers and wide freeways make it feasible to drive to work instead of spending hours on commuter rail and transferring to another system later. This isn't to say that mass transit is worthless, it's just that it isn't as urgent as one would hope. And frankly, looking at Richmond through Afton Oaks, there's not a lot of right of way, east of 610, there's not a lot of stoplights where one can finally manage to turn and access other streets, traffic tends to get backed up at 610 and Richmond, and it's a beautiful street lined with trees. Why not route the light rail down the existing railroad ROW further? Dallas took great advantage of their abandoned ROW, why can't Houston?

 

Mass transit is by far the safest, most efficient and cheapest way to go, especially in the long run. I can't stress enough that the reason why roads and automobiles are so "convenient" (and we all know that's putting it VERY generously) is because of the way we have built our cities and how we have adjusted our lifestyles accordingly over time. You talk about how spread out we are...if our train/subway maps looked anything at all like our road maps and we built the rest of our infrastructure around them with more thoughtful planning than "this 5,000 acre plot of land a little further out looks like a good place to set up shop," we wouldn't be in this position. Then again, if we had "thoughtful planning," there may not have been more growth in the first place. The "urgency" you're talking about, though, has been created by the unsustainable way we've been doing things...and it's becoming more and more urgent every day.

 

I agree that we should have been using our current (and past) railroad ROW for commuter rail lines...although I don't consider their current layout sufficient enough for my taste in a number of ways.

[por favor gracias]

I think that Houston needs more rail-based transit, but I also think people here hate Culberson WAY more than they should. In other cities, there are anti-freeway politicians (yeah, I know freeways and rails are really different, but roll with me here). A lot of people may think that they and their neighborhoods are holding the city back and that it would be better off without them. However, they aren't necessarily evil for choosing this. This unhinged "Culberson is Satan" rhetoric going on is total nonsense and almost makes me want to support Culberson more, because who wants to be associated with nutcases?

 

I don't think anyone is calling him "Satan," but he's proven to be the most critical obstructionist on these issues. Of course, no one can "prove" his intentions...but I just looked up his election results and his campaign contributions since 2000. During every election cycle during the Katy Freeway project, he got a lower percentage of votes from his constituency than the cycle before...but the constant was several of his highest "bidders"...the National Association of Realtors, the National Auto Dealers Association, National Association of Home Builders, and then mostly oil/gas companies, construction companies (I remember Williams Brothers worked on parts of the Katy Freeway) and law firms. It was also interesting to see Continental Airlines and Taste of Texas Restaurant so high on some of those lists.

 

That first statistic leads me to believe that the Katy Freeway may not have been "what his constituents" wanted...but as is often the case with a lot of our political whereabouts, the loudest ones are the most catered to.

 

People talk about "conspiracies" very dismissively sometimes, but you don't need an official "conspiracy" when you have friends in high places with common interests. We can blame our "representation" or the system itself...the truth is that these decisions affect all of us, and the moment we stop arguing about who is at fault and start working together to change our system/politicians will a great moment in progress.

[por favor gracias]

I agree with you that urban freeways could have been better planned, but it's always easy to look at things that were built 60 years ago and criticize the way that they were constructed.  I doubt that many people at that time expected that the Houston of 500,000 people at the point that the Gulf Freeway opened was going to grow to a regional population of 6,000,000.

 

Imagine what Houston is going to look like 60 years from now...and 160 years from now.

[por favor gracias]

Got it. You don't understand the irony. Let me explain. Go look at the US Census Bureau domestic migration statistics. Most of the major cities in the US have been losing population during the last several years while Houston has continued to gain population. People are continually leaving the cities that you believe are so much more advanced than Houston and they are moving here.

There are reasons for this of course. Jobs and low cost of living for a major city being the biggest of them. The kind of things that the expansion of I10 helped provide.

 

We could very easily have as many jobs (probably more) from having a mass transit system than by widening freeways...and like I mentioned earlier, there are subway networks around the world that costed about the same amount of money or less (even half as much) per mile that the Katy Freeway costed us.

 

I don't think people are moving here because of our "superior" transportation system, either.

I'm 100% percent in agreement with you.  Attribute my comment regarding I-10 to my continuing fruitless quest to keep this thread on something slightly resembling the topic.

 

You make an important point that I agree with completely.  There are several people that are continually making gloom and doom statements about how Houston will be unable to achieve major city status without a vast rail system, yet there is really no data to back that up.  Transportation is just one of many factors that people consider when looking at a city and it's clear that in both Austin and Houston, people are finding significant enough advantages to continue to relocate here.  In my opinion, those advantages are plentiful jobs and relatively cheap housing.  As a region, continued growth will tie to our ability to offer those advantages.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I can't consider Houston a "world class" city unless/until we get a real mass transit system. I absolutely consider us a "major" city.

[por favor gracias]

Spread out job centers make it easy to drive? Have you heard of Los Angeles?

Abandoned ROW is a bad idea because it's not necessarily going where people will ride. Richmond to hillcroft from downtown would have very high ridership. If the people of afton oaks understood that this would actually increase their property values and make it easier to travel in multiple modes it would've been built by now. But they're scared of minorities riding through their neighborhood and the loss of a lane of traffic.

 

Agree, although I don't like the idea of taking away a lane of Richmond. I'd like for us to build a subway from U oh H down Richmond or (preferably) Elgin/Westheimer all the way out to at least Westchase with stops at U of H, Main St, Montrose, Kirby, GWP/Highland Village/ROD, the Galleria, Bering/Augusta, Hillcroft/Dunvale, Gessner and the BW8/Rogerdale area...perhaps with fewer stops if we would build moving walkways underground with good access to street level and thoughtful placement of retail at or near certain intersections (particularly at stations where we would transfer).

[IronTiger]

Mass transit is by far the safest, most efficient and cheapest way to go, especially in the long run. I can't stress enough that the reason why roads and automobiles are so "convenient" (and we all know that's putting it VERY generously) is because of the way we have built our cities and how we have adjusted our lifestyles accordingly over time.

Mass transit isn't always efficient (it depends on where it is, really), and given the way Houston has developed, it would be hard to restructure it from the ground up. Many European cities still maintain a layout similar to the Middle Ages, even after infrastructure was changed (such as after wars).

I don't think anyone is calling him "Satan,"

Slick has called Culberson "the devil" point blank. I wish I was exaggerating the anti-Culberson crowd, but I'm not.

[mollusk]

Well, I can kind of see that. I think it would be cool if Cummins even closed off entirely to vehicular traffic past Richmond to 59 (it dead ends at 59 anyway).

And besides, if the line was already shifted out of Richmond and Afton Oaks years ago, then yes, it would be ridiculous to see Culberson and Afton Oaks still screaming about it, but...why are HAIFers still screaming about it now?

 

Because they rely upon truthiness, as opposed to being members of the reality based community?  

 

From 2006:  http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Proposed-rail-routes-bypass-Afton-Oaks-1548433.php

[Slick Vik]

Deflective "he's corrupt" rhetoric.

When was the last time CalTrans significantly widened a highway in LA? (I actually don't know, that's why I'm asking--if the answer is something like "not since the 1970s", that's the answer right there)

Well, considering that the "not necessarily going where people will ride" is a common argument against light rail as a whole, it's not the best thing to state now. What is it missing if it goes south of 59, besides annoying street running? Greenway Plaza? That can be accomplished by a skywalk (with moving sidewalks!) or some other platform that would go over 59. If you say that "no one will use that", then that's a problem with light rail there. And the ROW would go past apartments and a Kroger!

The "Increasing property values" also was used for freeways, but some areas along freeways are pretty grimy.

Oh, so we're now down to playing the race card. Great work on debating!

 

1. It's not deflective, as others have said, look at the list of his campaign donors.

 

2. I don't know either, but if you go there (have you been), they have pretty wide freeways already and they are packed all day. It is literally a traffic armageddon. 

 

3. There isn't much on westpark south of 59. 

 

4. I don't recall this. If anything freeways destroyed a lot of vibrant neighborhoods, usually minority ones.

 

5. Well, it's true. A lot of people say bluntly they don't want mexicans and blacks riding through their neighborhoods.

[Slick Vik]

Well, I can kind of see that. I think it would be cool if Cummins even closed off entirely to vehicular traffic past Richmond to 59 (it dead ends at 59 anyway).

And besides, if the line was already shifted out of Richmond and Afton Oaks years ago, then yes, it would be ridiculous to see Culberson and Afton Oaks still screaming about it, but...why are HAIFers still screaming about it now?

 

That's exactly what's happening. It's not even going through afton oaks anymore yet Culberson is saying it can't go on Richmond anywhere in his district. 

[IronTiger]

1. It's not deflective, as others have said, look at the list of his campaign donors.

Oh no! Someone donated to a politician!

 

2. I don't know either, but if you go there (have you been), they have pretty wide freeways already and they are packed all day. It is literally a traffic armageddon.

Well, they also invested a lot in mass transit instead of freeways (something you see as a positive thing). Heck, on Interstate 10, they have rail going down it (in LA). Their highways also lack frontage roads, something Texas has plenty of.

Also, if their highways really haven't seen major upgrades in 30+ years, that's the reason why LA traffic is bad.

 

3. There isn't much on westpark south of 59.

Sure there is. Apartments, a Kroger--I mean, what's on Main north of downtown? (That's a rhetorical question--don't bother answering that)

 

4. I don't recall this. If anything freeways destroyed a lot of vibrant neighborhoods, usually minority ones.

Read a book from a library from the 1960s extolling the wonders of freeways. And it is true to an extent: where do the commercial entities (usually high land value) cluster? Along freeways.

And yeah, freeways did do a lot of damage to neighborhoods--cut off street connections, split it in two. It's no wonder why the freeway revolts happened. Whether the neighborhoods that fought back are heroes for defending their turf or villains for screwing over the rest of the city is up for debate, so I can see your thoughts on Afton Oaks and the railroad. And before you say "light rails are different than freeways because X", I agree with you--but the concepts are remarkably similar.

 

5. Well, it's true. A lot of people say bluntly they don't want mexicans and blacks riding through their neighborhoods.

Reeeeeeeeally. You got any quotes for that? A Houston Library Card (you should have one, it's free) will let you search through Houston Chronicle articles.

 

That's exactly what's happening. It's not even going through afton oaks anymore yet Culberson is saying it can't go on Richmond anywhere in his district.

You were screaming about Culberson earlier because he didn't want it to go through Afton Oaks.

[livincinco]

I think that this has now surpassed the Heights Walmart thread and has now become the most pointless discussion on HAIF.

[IronTiger]

I agree, this thread has accomplished nothing. And Interstate 10 still has traffic, Slick still worships light rail, and life goes on.

[Slick Vik]

Oh no! Someone donated to a politician!

Well, they also invested a lot in mass transit instead of freeways (something you see as a positive thing). Heck, on Interstate 10, they have rail going down it (in LA). Their highways also lack frontage roads, something Texas has plenty of.

Also, if their highways really haven't seen major upgrades in 30+ years, that's the reason why LA traffic is bad.

Sure there is. Apartments, a Kroger--I mean, what's on Main north of downtown? (That's a rhetorical question--don't bother answering that)

Read a book from a library from the 1960s extolling the wonders of freeways. And it is true to an extent: where do the commercial entities (usually high land value) cluster? Along freeways.

And yeah, freeways did do a lot of damage to neighborhoods--cut off street connections, split it in two. It's no wonder why the freeway revolts happened. Whether the neighborhoods that fought back are heroes for defending their turf or villains for screwing over the rest of the city is up for debate, so I can see your thoughts on Afton Oaks and the railroad. And before you say "light rails are different than freeways because X", I agree with you--but the concepts are remarkably similar.

Reeeeeeeeally. You got any quotes for that? A Houston Library Card (you should have one, it's free) will let you search through Houston Chronicle articles.

You were screaming about Culberson earlier because he didn't want it to go through Afton Oaks.

LA is very recently investing seriously in its rail system with expansions in Crenshaw, Santa Monica, and eventually to ucla and Beverly Hills. It took them a long time to figure it out but they realized a strictly automobile based system has limitations.

North of downtown on main is a residential area. I know you've never been there though.

I have plenty of quotes on that. Just talk to people that live in those areas.

The difference is light rail isn't trampling a neighborhood.

Also extolling the virtues of legal bribery is not a good look.

[livincinco]

I agree, this thread has accomplished nothing. And Interstate 10 still has traffic, Slick still worships light rail, and life goes on.

Slick is the biggest proponent of sprawl on this forum. He spreads the same comments over every available thread regardless of the topic.

[IronTiger]

LA is very recently investing seriously in its rail system with expansions in Crenshaw, Santa Monica, and eventually to ucla and Beverly Hills. It took them a long time to figure it out but they realized a strictly automobile based system has limitations.

LA did its first subway in 1990. My point was that their mass transit doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of money compared to expanding its undersized highways.

North of downtown on main is a residential area. I know you've never been there though.

Definitely missed the point, you were saying there "isn't much on westpark south of 59" as a reason for not putting light rail. I knew that North Main services a lot of homes--and even specifically stated it was a rhetorical question!

I have plenty of quotes on that. Just talk to people that live in those areas.

As I expected...you're extrapolating some vague data points at best. At worst, that statement is completely fabricated.

The difference is light rail isn't trampling a neighborhood.

The point was missed again. Reread it.

Also extolling the virtues of legal bribery is not a good look.

That's the problem with modern politics, I'm afraid. If you think it's just Culberson, or even Republicans, you're a fool--which is why a lot of people just throw up their hands and declare ALL politicians are corrupt.

[por favor gracias]

Mass transit isn't always efficient (it depends on where it is, really), and given the way Houston has developed, it would be hard to restructure it from the ground up. Many European cities still maintain a layout similar to the Middle Ages, even after infrastructure was changed (such as after wars).

Slick has called Culberson "the devil" point blank. I wish I was exaggerating the anti-Culberson crowd, but I'm not.

 

That's true...I'm just saying that it's "more efficient" to carry 50 or 100 or 1,000 people by train than by 50, 100 or 1,000 automobiles. You're right, though...it all really depends on where and how it's built. To build a truly efficient system in Houston would require miles and miles of trains. The way I see it, it's better/cheaper/easier to stop building outward and start connecting places around town now then later.

[Slick Vik]

LA did its first subway in 1990. My point was that their mass transit doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of money compared to expanding its undersized highways.

Definitely missed the point, you were saying there "isn't much on westpark south of 59" as a reason for not putting light rail. I knew that North Main services a lot of homes--and even specifically stated it was a rhetorical question!

As I expected...you're extrapolating some vague data points at best. At worst, that statement is completely fabricated.

The point was missed again. Reread it.

That's the problem with modern politics, I'm afraid. If you think it's just Culberson, or even Republicans, you're a fool--which is why a lot of people just throw up their hands and declare ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

They had no choice but to invest in mass transit because the traffic is terrible. They already have pretty wide highways. Have you been there? 

 

Continue to deny racism but it's definitely in the mind of NIMBY's. 

 

I didn't say it was just Culberson, but in this case it was Culberson and for you since he's not the only one than it's okay. I'm telling you it's not okay. 

[IronTiger]

They had no choice but to invest in mass transit because the traffic is terrible. They already have pretty wide highways. Have you been there?

No, but I can see how many lanes they have through Google Earth, and many counts do include frontage roads. Maybe I can do a full breakdown later.

Continue to deny racism but it's definitely in the mind of NIMBY's.

I'm "denying" it but its "definitely" there? Lol, give me a break. At best, you heard some things and extrapolated some things, and now you're using that as a lousy reason why there needs to be rail on Richmond.

I didn't say it was just Culberson, but in this case it was Culberson and for you since he's not the only one than it's okay. I'm telling you it's not okay.

I didn't say that I liked politicians either.

[Slick Vik]

No, but I can see how many lanes they have through Google Earth, and many counts do include frontage roads. Maybe I can do a full breakdown later.

I'm "denying" it but its "definitely" there? Lol, give me a break. At best, you heard some things and extrapolated some things, and now you're using that as a lousy reason why there needs to be rail on Richmond.

I didn't say that I liked politicians either.

there's either no room or money to expand the highways in California. They've reached the limit and thus they're investing in alternative modes of transportation.

Denying that there is still a level of racism is denial of reality. You've always denied it but maybe you've never had to deal with it? I'm not sure.