Latest Outrage from the Rail Opposition

[mollusk]

is there a way to block whole threads >.> that would be nice.

 

Resist the urge to click on them.  There are some commenters I choose to not read; I'm sure that there are others who avoid reading my wisdom.  And so it goes.  

[Firebird65]

is there a way to block whole threads >.> that would be nice.

 

That would be nice, however I'm sure you are already aware that you are not required to either click on or reply to anything here.

 

BTW... BEFORE YOUR REPLY TO THIS POST... be aware that you have 499 posts. Make number 500 a good one. LOL!

 

And, just coincidentally, my next post will be my 500th as well. Hopefully both of us can come up with something worthy od such a milestone!

[H-Town Man]

Density is a forgone conclusion. Cities can and do lose population. Without transportation infrastructure this city will not get as dense as it could. For some people that is a feature not a bug. Calling someone a stupid redneck is not engaging in a constructive argument for one side or the other. People can have a different opinion without being stupid. When someone engages in name calling it's a good sign that they do not have the facts to make a good argument. They are arguing out of emotion.

 

Example: " It's just a very pleasant way to move about". That's not about empirical facts. It's more like "I want my rail because it makes me feel good. If you don't give it to me you're stupid."

 

Heh, way to cherry pick one sentence out of my explanation for why I like rail and act like it's the whole explanation.

 

And here I was thinking you really wanted to know why rail supporters like rail, when in fact you were just getting ready to make anti rail arguments.

 

I'm not super pro-rail or super anti-rail.

 

I don't know about "super," but you're obviously anti-rail enough to spend time arguing about it on the internet. Seems a little dishonest.

 

[H-Town Man]

It should be rationally discussed, but like so many things related to urban density, it takes on a moralism angle that does a disservice to the utility that a rational plan might bring. Name calling ensues, as it so often does when one is convinced of his moral righteousness.

 

I'm neutral on rail as a concept, would need to see specifics of any particular plan, especially including cost, and do not trust METRO at all.

 

Thwarting a referendum absolutely takes on a moral dimension. This is not just about being for or against rail, there is a basic moral issue here.

 

Also note that you wrote a post against moralism, the second word of which was "should." That's priceless.

 

 

[H-Town Man]

That's not what you were arguing, though. You were arguing that Culberson was "overriding the will of the people" by not allowing federal funding on the Richmond portion. Culberson was always against the rail project in 2003, believing it not to reduce congestion or improve mobility outside the Loop (which is mostly true). He also did say that if it was passed, he would help Congress match the $640 in federal funds, too. [Metro board changes referendum 's wording, Houston Chronicle - Tuesday, September 23, 2003]

But wow, a politician not doing something he said he would do in office? Call a congressional hearing, this is unheard of!

Seriously, I'm not defending Culberson, I'm just clarifying what he did and didn't do. What, are you going to hate me now because I said Culberson wasn't the Devil?

 

Okay, your last sentence is just bizarre. But to respond to your earlier sentences, if a politician withholds federal funding from something that normally (i.e. in pretty much every city) relies on federal funding to happen, then he is overriding the will of the people. If the people want a new interstate, for example, and you block federal funding for the interstate, you are overriding the will of the people.

 

And Culberson didn't just "say he would do something in office," he explicitly promised both before and after the referendum that if it passes, he would "go to bat for Metro." Instead, he explicitly blocked funding. That's a serious lie in my book, and by acting like it's not a big deal, you actually are defending it.

[Slick Vik]

Okay, your last sentence is just bizarre. But to respond to your earlier sentences, if a politician withholds federal funding from something that normally (i.e. in pretty much every city) relies on federal funding to happen, then he is overriding the will of the people. If the people want a new interstate, for example, and you block federal funding for the interstate, you are overriding the will of the people.

And Culberson didn't just "say he would do something in office," he explicitly promised both before and after the referendum that if it passes, he would "go to bat for Metro." Instead, he explicitly blocked funding. That's a serious lie in my book, and by acting like it's not a big deal, you actually are defending it.

This

[Purdueenginerd]

Saw a few comments on population density for houston. I took a bit of time to gather some information in a handy spreadsheet. 

Source:  http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

 

Houston, TX. I isolated populations affected by the light rail within the 610 loop + the Galleria/uptown area. This includes pretty much the entire west side, Eado, moody park area, 3rd ward, rice area... etc.

 

I might add the rest of the inner loop another day...

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yb0ikorR9cz-iIdfLkwNHbv8uWP4319VpG_5UgFA2XM/edit?usp=sharing

 

Population density of 5362 person/sq mi, in the subject areas puts us on equal footing in regards to population density as inner city houston, pre-1940 when trolleys were the predominant form of mass transit in the city. Re-Urbanization, in the last decade for Houston, especially on the west side where the majority of light rail lines are proposed, is well underway. 

 

/edit, looks like the built in spreadsheets dont work: Try the google docs link I made. 

[IronTiger]

Okay, your last sentence is just bizarre.

That was in response to the "Culberson is the devil" sentiment from Swamplot and other HAIF threads. It seems by pointing out even something he didn't do is somehow frowned upon.

 

But to respond to your earlier sentences, if a politician withholds federal funding from something that normally (i.e. in pretty much every city) relies on federal funding to happen, then he is overriding the will of the people. If the people want a new interstate, for example, and you block federal funding for the interstate, you are overriding the will of the people.

Yeah, but he didn't block funding for the whole system, just not on the Richmond line. I think I read that the Main Street line was funded locally, though.

 

And Culberson didn't just "say he would do something in office," he explicitly promised both before and after the referendum that if it passes, he would "go to bat for Metro." Instead, he explicitly blocked funding. That's a serious lie in my book, and by acting like it's not a big deal, you actually are defending it.

Except that he never said that. Culberson wanted to block federal funding for rail in Houston if that didn't pass (actually, I believe the wording was without majority approval). The closest thing to your quote lies to comes from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. [bill could clear Metro track for U.S. funds - Local transit president happy over panel action, Houston Chronicle - Wednesday, June 14, 2000]

 

The Senate bill lists transit agencies, including Metro , eligible for funding, but it does not specify amounts or how the money may be spent.

These details will be worked out in a House-Senate conference committee. In this process, DeLay's ban could be removed, but observers said that it is very unlikely without his consent.

DeLay, the third-most powerful Republican in Congress, will be the Houston area's only conference committee member, and members of Congress usually defer to the local representative.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, sits on the Appropriations Committee but not the conference committee.

A Hutchison aide said, "When the community decides what it wants, she will go to bat for the community."

Metro 's best chance of getting federal aid for rail may lie with the persuasive ability of local supporters.

Influential individuals, such as Enron Chairman Ken Lay, and organizations, including the Greater Houston Partnership, have asked DeLay to change his mind.

Neither the Houston Chronicle search nor a good old fashioned Google search turned up anything else relevant.

[H-Town Man]

I remember very well him saying it, specifically the phrase "go to bat." I remember after the referendum passed him acknowledging that he would have to follow through on what he said and compete to get money for Metro. I don't have a link, but you're standing on shaky ground.

[IronTiger]

I remember very well him saying it, specifically the phrase "go to bat." I remember after the referendum passed him acknowledging that he would have to follow through on what he said and compete to get money for Metro. I don't have a link, but you're standing on shaky ground.

I have access to the Houston Chronicle archive via a Houston Library Card, and I can't find anywhere where he said that. The only thing that he did say is that he'll help METRO match funds for $640 million, which he didn't do.

How am I standing on shaky ground? On every one of these topics I try to do research on the subject and figure out the truth, not talking up half-truths heard elsewhere and making crazy accusations. That's all.

[H-Town Man]

I have access to the Houston Chronicle archive via a Houston Library Card, and I can't find anywhere where he said that. The only thing that he did say is that he'll help METRO match funds for $640 million, which he didn't do.

How am I standing on shaky ground? On every one of these topics I try to do research on the subject and figure out the truth, not talking up half-truths heard elsewhere and making crazy accusations. That's all.

Okay... A few posts ago you said that Culberson was only involved to the extent that he would block funds if it didn't pass, and now you acknowledge that he was going to help Metro get $640 million in matching funds? Change your argument a bit there?

[IronTiger]

Okay... A few posts ago you said that Culberson was only involved to the extent that he would block funds if it didn't pass, and now you acknowledge that he was going to help Metro get $640 million in matching funds? Change your argument a bit there?

His words, not mine. Here. [Metro board changes referendum's wording, Houston Chronicle - Tuesday, September 23, 2003]

A part of the relevant article has been included.

Culberson introduced legislation in July that would bar federal funding for "any segment of a light rail system in Houston that has not been specifically approved by a majority of the voters." The provision has been approved by the House but not yet voted on by the Senate.

Metro is counting on $640 million in matching funds from the Federal Transit Administration for the next 22 miles of rail it wants to build. FTA chief counsel William Sears has issued an opinion that Metro 's previous ballot language failed to satisfy Culberson 's requirement.

Schechter had asked Sears to reconsider his opinion. That may be moot with the new ballot language, but Schechter said late Monday that Metro has not heard back from Sears.

"We are confident that the language passed today satisfies the requirement," he said.

After Monday's vote, Culberson said he is satisfied with the new ballot but not with the rail plan itself. He said he will help Metro win federal matching funds for rail if voters approve the plan, but until Election Day , he is urging them to reject it.

Culberson also accused Metro of trying, before the change, to mislead voters into thinking a "yes" vote would authorize only 22 new miles of rail.

"Until today," he said, " we did not know that by voting yes we were giving legal approval to the full 73-mile system."

Metro officials have frequently stated that the $640 million bond issue on the referendum ballot would pay for 22 miles of new rail lines, but they have also said repeatedly that they hope to eventually build out the entire system. A second bond referendum would be needed to approve further expansion.

There you go. 

[H-Town Man]

You just proved my original argument - that Culberson said he would help Metro get money if the referendum passed.

 

He said he will help Metro win federal matching funds for rail if voters approve the plan, but until Election Day , he is urging them to reject it.

 

There I go? There you go.

 

[IronTiger]

You just proved my original argument - that Culberson said he would help Metro get money if the referendum passed.

 

 

 

 

There I go? There you go.

Except for maybe the fact I already mentioned that and stated that he was always against rail while you were swearing up and down that he said "go to bat for METRO" (those words) and seemed more concerned in trying to trip me up in an effort to discredit what I was saying.

 

So yes, he lied. I'm not disputing that. What makes this especially bad? That it involved rail, and anything involving federal rail funding is a "special" sin?

 

I'm done arguing here. No use arguing with someone whose mind is already set and has already insulted those who disagree with him. 

[bachanon]

the title of this thread is asking for argument.  maybe h-town could change the title to pro-rail vs anti-rail.  if the thread gets ugly, we will lock...as always.  i hate to have to read a thread i do not care for just to make sure it is in keeping with HAIF user standards.

 

please play nice so moderators can go about their business.  if h-town doesn't change the title, another mod or the editor may swoop in; i'll let it ride for awhile.

 

my two cents: rail IS 19th century; rail IS 21st century.  are planes stuck in the 20th century or are they bigger, better, safer, as we move forward?  one more point: when traffic is bumper to bumper down richmond, westheimer, and alabama ,24/7, afton oaks and river oaks will wish for a quiet train taking up two lanes moving people through their neighborhoods with few or no chances to stop.  density is happening in houston now, immediately, as we speak (read); it is conceivable that houston could continue to increase in density for a decade or longer, much longer.  

 

build rail now.  

 

name calling the opposition is unproductive.

[H-Town Man]

Except for maybe the fact I already mentioned that and stated that he was always against rail while you were swearing up and down that he said "go to bat for METRO" (those words) and seemed more concerned in trying to trip me up in an effort to discredit what I was saying.

 

So yes, he lied. I'm not disputing that. What makes this especially bad? That it involved rail, and anything involving federal rail funding is a "special" sin?

 

I'm done arguing here. No use arguing with someone whose mind is already set and has already insulted those who disagree with him. 

 

Sorry I couldn't find those exact words for you. I don't have Chronicle archive access, or the patience to spend the evening searching through.

 

The point is, as you admit, HE LIED. That was the only point I was ever really making to begin with. What makes it especially bad? The fact that it's a lie.

 

Stop carrying on about "insults," I never personally insulted you or anyone else. The term "Rednecks" was meant humorously and for alliteration, and I merely said that there was stupidity among the opposition (referring specifically to the quote in my first post), not that every member of it was stupid. You defend public servants who lie and then spout righteous indignation because an internet poster said something a little insulting? If someone really insults you, take the high road; don't spend all day engaging with them in argument and then fall back on that when you've given up.

 

[bachanon]

thanks h-town!

 

[IronTiger]

Sorry I couldn't find those exact words for you. I don't have Chronicle archive access, or the patience to spend the evening searching through.

 

The point is, as you admit, HE LIED. That was the only point I was ever really making to begin with. What makes it especially bad? The fact that it's a lie.

 

Stop carrying on about "insults," I never personally insulted you or anyone else. The term "Rednecks" was meant humorously and for alliteration, and I merely said that there was stupidity among the opposition (referring specifically to the quote in my first post), not that every member of it was stupid. You defend public servants who lie and then spout righteous indignation because an internet poster said something a little insulting? If someone really insults you, take the high road; don't spend all day engaging with them in argument and then fall back on that when you've given up.

Fair enough. But for the record, I never defended Culberson, just clarifying what he did and didn't do, and it's not unique to him (only in the fact it regards rail).

Mentioning that Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house" doesn't make you a Palin defender, for instance...

...and just because I stop arguing doesn't mean there's a "winner" in an argument.

[BigFootsSocks]

A lot of cost overruns happen. Katy Freeway's widening ended up being $2.67 billion in 2008 (including ROW acquisition). Originally it was estimated in 1986 to be 1.1 billion to 1.3 billion, but accounting for inflation to 2008, that's 2.1 billion to 2.4 billion. While there were cost overruns, it's not as bad you try to make it out to be. That's not to mention that TxDOT is an agency funded an entirely different way.

Just because those are decimal points doesn't mean that it is not a large amount of money. $200,000,000 in cost over-runs is an insane amount of money.

[H-Town Man]

Fair enough. But for the record, I never defended Culberson, just clarifying what he did and didn't do, and it's not unique to him (only in the fact it regards rail).

Mentioning that Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house" doesn't make you a Palin defender, for instance...

...and just because I stop arguing doesn't mean there's a "winner" in an argument.

 

I knew you'd be back.

 

Most people would say that this sounds like a defense: "But wow, a politician not doing something he said he would do in office? Call a congressional hearing, this is unheard of!"

 

And since you have shown a special sensitivity to the use of quotation marks in this thread, it's worth mentioning that I never referred to myself as the "winner."

[H-Town Man]

Just because those are decimal points doesn't mean that it is not a large amount of money. $200,000,000 in cost over-runs is an insane amount of money.

 

I think it's more like $370 million to $570 million in overruns, just using his numbers.

[IronTiger]

I knew you'd be back.

But not to argue. At least not about Culberson and rail anymore.

Most people would say that this sounds like a defense: "But wow, a politician not doing something he said he would do in office? Call a congressional hearing, this is unheard of!"

Most people would call that sarcasm (at least, I hope so).

 

And since you have shown a special sensitivity to the use of quotation marks in this thread, it's worth mentioning that I never referred to myself as the "winner."

It would be different if we were actually discussing it in person. I don't use air quotes in real life conversations.

Look, I'm really not defending Culberson, but am I generally disgusted at politics and politicians in general, of which Culberson is thrown into.

As for cost overruns, it doesn't mean that every agency that underestimates a cost is incompetent or the project isn't worth it. The Big Dig went $10 billion overbudget (at least) and still had problems. That was a disaster.

[H-Town Man]

But not to argue. At least not about Culberson and rail anymore.

Most people would call that sarcasm (at least, I hope so).

 

It would be different if we were actually discussing it in person. I don't use air quotes in real life conversations.

Look, I'm really not defending Culberson, but am I generally disgusted at politics and politicians in general, of which Culberson is thrown into.

As for cost overruns, it doesn't mean that every agency that underestimates a cost is incompetent or the project isn't worth it. The Big Dig went $10 billion overbudget (at least) and still had problems. That was a disaster.

 

Well, of course sarcasm can be used to defend someone. I agree about the Big Dig.

 

[Luminare]

Reading all of this gives me cancer >.< ! Still waiting for this to become a productive conversation.....anytime now.

[BigFootsSocks]

I think it's more like $370 million to $570 million in overruns, just using his numbers.

Which is still an insane amount of money.

And Luminare, you said it yourself, rail discussions are never productive. It's just an endless cycle of people who have very strong opinions on the matter.

[Trae]

Good questions. I like rail because of the option that it gives. It lets me get around the city without dealing with a car, putting up with the lurching and bumpiness of a bus, or paying the high cost of a taxi. It's just a very pleasant way to move about. And I do like the other people you see on a train; you have more human interaction in your day and the people are for some reason generally in a better mood than on a bus.

The anger comes from watching rail in Houston get thwarted over and over despite the popular support for it.

It really is sad to see where Houston is today with rail. Could you imagine how the city would have grown if the 1980s heavy rail plan was built? It would be completely different and a few light rail lines in the loop still would most likely have been built around this time.

I just came back from St. Louis recently and took the train from their airport to my hotel in Clayton. Took about 40 minutes but I was fine with that. I'm going to Seattle next weekend and they have a link from their airport to downtown. Basically every major city in America (NYC, Boston, DC, SF, LA, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Philly, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc.) all either have a rail connection from their airport to downtown, or (only Denver on the list) are in the process of constructing it. Houston is of course the largest metro area and city without a link.

If I could walk to the light rail station under construction near my apartment (or most likely get a short two minute ride there) and take that train to downtown, where I would transfer on another to the airport, I would do it. It's about options and we have none in Houston. Yeah, it would take 60 to 80 or even 90 minutes. But at the same time, I'm not driving 45+ miles roundtrip to and from the airport. I also would not have to watch my tank go down on that drive, or deal with traffic, or deal with the Parking Spot (which those off site lots take 20+ minutes themselves once you get into their lot and they take you to your terminal). Instead I could text, listen to music, talk on the phone and just bullshit on the train ride to the airport like I did in the other cities I have been to and utilized the options that those cities give people. Meanwhile, my cars keeps it miles driven low, less wear and tear, etc. It isn't all about saving time and for some reason antirailers seem to think that is all rail is good for.

Right now, I am currently debating whether or not I really want to drive the 30+ miles to far west Katy and see a friend who bought a house over there. If there was rail, I would already be on the Blue Line-Katy train and tell my friend to pick me up from the Grand Parkway station. But nooooo, Houston was blessed with John Culberson and Bob Lanier.

[samagon]

As for cost overruns, it doesn't mean that every agency that underestimates a cost is incompetent or the project isn't worth it. The Big Dig went $10 billion overbudget (at least) and still had problems. That was a disaster.

 

The people I know from Boston think it sucked at the time, and the cost overruns were ludicrous, but after it's all said and done, the city is much improved from it.

[IronTiger]

The people I know from Boston think it sucked at the time, and the cost overruns were ludicrous, but after it's all said and done, the city is much improved from it.

Arguably part of the cost was stuff that should've been done years ago: the city had no real downtown highway system at all except for a crappy 1940s viaduct that wasn't designed to handle nearly as much traffic as it did.

[plumber2]

Reading all of this gives me cancer >.< ! Still waiting for this to become a productive conversation.....anytime now.

 

I know. I'm worn out, and almost crosseyed.