METRORail University Line

[ricco67]

I think most of the posters on this forum will agree with me that you are way over the line with this post.

I totally agree, that was a pointless post and is in need of a deletion if possible.

Back on topic:

If you wish to get technical: there were TWO people killed on the light rail.

One was that was mentioned by Niche' and he DID run a red light and the train had some damage, but no costs were released as to the damage. usually the "at fault" driver (most likely the car) pays for the damage to the rail. It was found that he ran the red light and was at fault. For some reason (more likely hoping to chase a dollar or at the prompting of a 3rd party...hmm..) they filed a suit against metro. The status of the suit is unknown.

the 2nd victim was a New Orleans evacuee who didn't know any better than to NOT walk on the tracks by the astrodome. He was wearing headphones and listening to loud music when he was struck.

In a post in another thread, I mentioned that there hasn't been a Light rail accident in 2 months and from the statistics that I have seen the accident rate will continue to decrease as more become more aware of it.

Niche', I don't quite understand your point on 60 people's lives statement. Is this a statitistical guess on the previous couple of years?

I would also like to point out that rail has always had accidents, but texas seems to have a higher number than the rest of the nation, due to the fact that people usually don't pay attention to signals and such. There is also the matter of countless children are killed or maimed by them playing around trains.

Can't we just let people who get themselves in these idiotic positions accept responsibiity for their own stupidity?

[musicman]

Would it be easier if we could just price people by race and class-upper class whites like ourselves excluded of course because we ARE priceless (You ARE Upper Class White aren't you?)-because 3% of this and 3% of that is just too busy for us. Would it be easier for us to say that the Calvin Kleins we give to our cook, Juanita, would be worth, lets say, 50% less because they are used? But that's not a good comparrison because as good as a tamale maker our little Juanita is, we're not quite sure she's worth even half of $6,000,000 (that would be $3,000,000, right?) Besides, if Juanita ships them off to her sister in Honduras, their value is sure to drop so we can see this formula just isn't going to work...

You seem like a nice young man-maybe you could simplify it for us.

You should stop hanging out with your Uncle Archie.....btw tamale is NOT a word. The correct spelling is tamal.

I would also like to point out that rail has always had accidents, but texas seems to have a higher number than the rest of the nation, due to the fact that people usually don't pay attention to signals and such.

The higher rate is in Houston specifically......

[RedScare]

Niche', I don't quite understand your point on 60 people's lives statement. Is this a statitistical guess on the previous couple of years?

I would also like to point out that rail has always had accidents, but texas seems to have a higher number than the rest of the nation, due to the fact that people usually don't pay attention to signals and such. There is also the matter of countless children are killed or maimed by them playing around trains.

Can't we just let people who get themselves in these idiotic positions accept responsibiity for their own stupidity?

That was Niche's improper use of economic theory to attempt to make an irrelevant point. Companies routinely weigh the costs of safety improvements against the number of lives lost if the improvement is not made. The number of lost lives or injuries expected is multiplied by the expected legal recovery of the victims. If the legal payout is less than the cost of the safety improvement, the improvement may not be justified, in a business sense.

What Niche ignores is that mass transit is not a for-profit enterprise. Since there are no profits, there is no point at which safety is outweighed by threat to those profits. He also ignores the realities of jury awards. The trains were placed on the street to save money, to be sure. However, aesthetics, engineering and other factors also went into the equation. Safety is very important, but METRO rightly considered that trains on the street are no more dangerous than semis. They also considered Houstonians to be no more stupid than citizens of countless other cities that have street crossings. Perhaps they miscalculated on the last one.

While sympathizing with the death of the person who ran the redlight, I can't help but be amused by the people who rush to the aid of a law breaker, merely because he met his demise by running into a METRO train. If you read blogHouston, or any of the other ultra-conservative blogs, they rush to this poor man's side, while simultaneously deriding every other poor schmuck (such as Katrina evacuees) who happens to not have the wherewithal to get out of harm's way.

[ricco67]

That was Niche's improper use of economic theory to attempt to make an irrelevant point. Companies routinely weigh the costs of safety improvements against the number of lives lost if the improvement is not made. The number of lost lives or injuries expected is multiplied by the expected legal recovery of the victims. If the legal payout is less than the cost of the safety improvement, the improvement may not be justified, in a business sense.

What Niche ignores is that mass transit is not a for-profit enterprise. Since there are no profits, there is no point at which safety is outweighed by threat to those profits. He also ignores the realities of jury awards. The trains were placed on the street to save money, to be sure. However, aesthetics, engineering and other factors also went into the equation. Safety is very important, but METRO rightly considered that trains on the street are no more dangerous than semis. They also considered Houstonians to be no more stupid than citizens of countless other cities that have street crossings. Perhaps they miscalculated on the last one.

While sympathizing with the death of the person who ran the redlight, I can't help but be amused by the people who rush to the aid of a law breaker, merely because he met his demise by running into a METRO train. If you read blogHouston, or any of the other ultra-conservative blogs, they rush to this poor man's side, while simultaneously deriding every other poor schmuck (such as Katrina evacuees) who happens to not have the wherewithal to get out of harm's way.

Thanks for the clarification of that point. I was totally lost trying to figure that out.

I do know that safety has a "per unit" cost/savings ratio involved. A prime example was the wiring in the fuel tanks of most major airliners. It wasn't an issue until one of them blew up. Go fig.

Back on topic, is there a current website that keeps up with (unskewered) crash results/counts? The only reason I know about the zero crashes in 2 months is because I was watching the Metro meeting from last week on cable. (damn those boring sunday morning TV schedules!)

[wakester]

Does anyone want to discuss the results of examining the "Clutterbuck alignment," the one cantilevered over the edge of 59?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...it/4145071.html

http://metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112145/

So Metro would be better off paying for all the cost for Richmond vs getting half of the Clutterbuck cost from the Feds.

One otherthing, on that metro map they show a San Felipe line. That would be nice.

[AftonAg]

The matter is irrelevent as to who is building, A-owl's statement remains true. If people are still building, then they are confident that the A-oaks wil remain a solid property investment (which it truly is), therefore there is nothing that is really going to affect your property values... unless high street adversely affects it.

I disagree with you on the relevancy Ricco. As I am privy to one of the Greater Houston Areas upscale designers projects, (Robert Dame Designs) I have personal knowledge of no less than six cases in AO of rebuilds that are being done by the same people that lived in the dwelling that was to be or has since been demolished in favor of a much larger dwelling. In every one of those cases the property has passed from one generation to the next. The fact that AO will remain a solid property investment is true, but that does not preclude a slip in values for any number of reasons.

I also do not see how the High Street project will have an adverse afect on the AO property values, it sounds to me like more upscale shopping and housing inside the loop which would be more likely to make the AO values go up than down. Construction traffic may be a problem though.

[ricco67]

I disagree with you on the relevancy Ricco. As I am privy to one of the Greater Houston Areas upscale designers projects, (Robert Dame Designs) I have personal knowledge of no less than six cases in AO of rebuilds that are being done by the same people that lived in the dwelling that was to be or has since been demolished in favor of a much larger dwelling. In every one of those cases the property has passed from one generation to the next. The fact that AO will remain a solid property investment is true, but that does not preclude a slip in values for any number of reasons.

I also do not see how the High Street project will have an adverse afect on the AO property values, it sounds to me like more upscale shopping and housing inside the loop which would be more likely to make the AO values go up than down. Construction traffic may be a problem though.

no, i DO think its relevant to what a-owl is saying. if people thought the property values would decline then they would sell and take the profits and run.

so you're saying that the additional traffic isn't a concern for you during and after the construction, as well as seeing it as a major plus to your subdivision so that it will only increase your property values?

[TheNiche]

That was Niche's improper use of economic theory to attempt to make an irrelevant point. Companies routinely weigh the costs of safety improvements against the number of lives lost if the improvement is not made. The number of lost lives or injuries expected is multiplied by the expected legal recovery of the victims. If the legal payout is less than the cost of the safety improvement, the improvement may not be justified, in a business sense.

What Niche ignores is that mass transit is not a for-profit enterprise. Since there are no profits, there is no point at which safety is outweighed by threat to those profits. He also ignores the realities of jury awards. The trains were placed on the street to save money, to be sure. However, aesthetics, engineering and other factors also went into the equation. Safety is very important, but METRO rightly considered that trains on the street are no more dangerous than semis. They also considered Houstonians to be no more stupid than citizens of countless other cities that have street crossings. Perhaps they miscalculated on the last one.

While sympathizing with the death of the person who ran the redlight, I can't help but be amused by the people who rush to the aid of a law breaker, merely because he met his demise by running into a METRO train. If you read blogHouston, or any of the other ultra-conservative blogs, they rush to this poor man's side, while simultaneously deriding every other poor schmuck (such as Katrina evacuees) who happens to not have the wherewithal to get out of harm's way.

Actually, you are substituting principles of financial theory for economic theory; if I had a couple hours, I could shred your arguments to bits...but I am in a rush at the moment, so I'll get back to you on this.

Fundamentally, finance is concerned with the viability of a project as far as private endeavors are concerned. Economics is concerned with the social impact. As such, in economics, it is CRITICAL that you account for consumer surplus. In cases where accidental deaths are concerned, the true social costs are almost always higher than what the typical jury will award. In an ideal legal system, if a company was at fault for the death of somebody, the family could claim the deceased's net present value on the market (inclusive of some less tangible factors) and the government could claim the lost consumer surplus.

And as I explained earlier, the fault-based legal system doesn't translate very well into economic analyses. If a doctor made a stupid mistake and got himself killed, it really doesn't matter how he died so much as it matters that that is one less doctor in the world that can provide medical services. I'm not disputing fault; I'm just saying that society will be worse off for his death.

If injuries are predictable and statistically measurable, then it is fairly simple to come up with a cost-benefit calculus for projects that would eliminate them. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd love it if METRO was more transparent with their data and analyses.

[AftonAg]

no, i DO think its relevant to what a-owl is saying. if people thought the property values would decline then they would sell and take the profits and run.

so you're saying that the additional traffic isn't a concern for you during and after the construction, as well as seeing it as a major plus to your subdivision so that it will only increase your property values?

Some people might sell and take the profits and run, or they might hang on hoping for a long term improvement, taking the tax write-offs in the mean time until they transfer the property to the next generation.

I expect traffic on Westheimer to be way worse than it is now during the construction phase of High Street. If I am to believe what I have read about the development the possibility is there for it to have a positive effect on AO property values.

[RedScare]

if I had a couple hours, I could shred your arguments to bits...but I am in a rush at the moment, so I'll get back to you on this.

Don't bother. No one cares. This is a thread about routing of rail lines, not hypothetical economic analysis. I only posted that response to get your economic panties in a wad. Predictably, it worked...so well, in fact, that you'll probably post a longer one this afternoon.

[Houston19514]

Actually, you are substituting principles of financial theory for economic theory; if I had a couple hours, I could shred your arguments to bits...but I am in a rush at the moment, so I'll get back to you on this.

Fundamentally, finance is concerned with the viability of a project as far as private endeavors are concerned. Economics is concerned with the social impact. As such, in economics, it is CRITICAL that you account for consumer surplus. In cases where accidental deaths are concerned, the true social costs are almost always higher than what the typical jury will award. In an ideal legal system, if a company was at fault for the death of somebody, the family could claim the deceased's net present value on the market (inclusive of some less tangible factors) and the government could claim the lost consumer surplus.

And as I explained earlier, the fault-based legal system doesn't translate very well into economic analyses. If a doctor made a stupid mistake and got himself killed, it really doesn't matter how he died so much as it matters that that is one less doctor in the world that can provide medical services. I'm not disputing fault; I'm just saying that society will be worse off for his death.

If injuries are predictable and statistically measurable, then it is fairly simple to come up with a cost-benefit calculus for projects that would eliminate them. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd love it if METRO was more transparent with their data and analyses.

Fundamantally, why do you keep ranting on about your totally irrelevant economic "thoughts", all started because there were one or two deaths associated with (not caused by) rail vehicles? Are we to believe that no deaths have been caused by or in relation to the cars, trucks, and buses that currently travel our roadways (including Richmond)? There have been many many many weak "arguments" presented in this thread, but the fact that one or two deaths occurred that were associated with rail vehicles, NEITHER of which was in any way the fault of the rail vehicle or its operator, has got to be the weakest.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

This is really a bizarre and out of line remark for a HAIF member.......show some class or go elsewhere.

Put a halt to all personal attacks all together. No one is worst than the other..................

[NativeChristian]

Don't bother. No one cares. This is a thread about routing of rail lines, not hypothetical economic analysis. I only posted that response to get your economic panties in a wad. Predictably, it worked...so well, in fact, that you'll probably post a longer one this afternoon.

My goodness gracious!!! Isn't it funny how we can become so distracted that before we know it we're shopping at a booth with Juanita-looking for just the right corn husks for tamales-when all along we meant to be at Neimans for Godiva? Well that seems to be the problem here today isn't it. Now I'm sure that nice young man doesn't really mean to be so-verbose? (that's a new word we learned last night after being told rather bruskly by our little Master Niche that he prefers less verbose humor...perhaps his attention span needs a little cardio?)

In any event this IS a topic about routing of rail lines which leaves the Native Christian absolutly facinated and wanting for more.

Our greatest fear for the Poor Souls of Afton Oaks (PSAO) is that the Siemens S70 used on our lovely Main Street Human Freight Line may actually be used on Richmond as a (GASP) hybrid diesel thingy. Now while we and Bittsy enjoy a smooth and quiet glide between Botox in the TMC and cocktails at The Whisky, we will not abide our bi-directional, six axel, low floor (absolutly essential for todays Manolo sling-backs) S70 to belch obnoxious fumes on the 6 million dollar men and women of quaint Afton Oaks. We will NOT be amused and should this happen, be assured our Carlos, Jose and Juanita will be firmly affixed to the rails along side that nice Mr. AftonAg and his seeing eye dogs.

[IHB2]

So Metro would be better off paying for all the cost for Richmond vs getting half of the Clutterbuck cost from the Feds.

One otherthing, on that metro map they show a San Felipe line. That would be nice.

I believe METRO's figures show that for the segment under study (Dunlavy-Edloe), Clutterbuck's plan would cost more than twice as much (w/less than 1/2 the potential riders) as rail on Richmond over the same segment. So, yes, from a taxpayer's POV paying the total cost for Richmond would make more sense.

The dismissal of the Clutterbuck plan, and CM Clutterbuck's crawfishing re: her original plan are detailed in the article. ("Oh, did I say Edloe, I meant the UP tracks. Oh, did I say Mandell, I meant Dunlavy. Oh did I say Westpark, I meant the north side of 59, but not Richmond, no not Richmond, certainly not any part of Richmond, well maybe a teeny part of Richmond...or not"...).

"Due diligence" indeed! According to the article METRO says she changed the suggested route twice between when she submitted it (July 14 she claims) and METRO's publication of the comparison (last weekend is when I received the METRO email announcement). I know why she changed the original suggestion, and I know when she would have had to do it, so METRO basically came up with these numbers in less than 2 weeks.

Clutterbuck was having a good rookie year on several important issues and not treating her constituents like idiots until this truly stupid ploy. Maybe this will teach her not to be the stalking horse for Culberson's trial balloons. I mean hell she may have been his campaign manager, and she may call him her mentor, but that doesn't mean she has to let the audience see the puppeteer pull her strings.

[KinkaidAlum]

Back in 2005, when it looked like I would be moving home, I purchased a house right across the street from Mrs. Clutterbuck. I didn't know that fact until she showed up on my doorstep on the very same week that I had placed a Herman Litt campaign sign in my yard.

She hadn't taken the time to welcome me to the neighborhood for the first few months that I lived there, but she certainly found the time when she saw with her own eyes that her new neighbor was going to support the Democrat running against her.

Of course, if she had seen the Massachusetts Cape and Island plates on the Volvo wagon with an eracism bumper sticker and an M the Moron sticker, she probably could have figured that out!

[TheNiche]

Don't bother. No one cares. This is a thread about routing of rail lines, not hypothetical economic analysis. I only posted that response to get your economic panties in a wad. Predictably, it worked...so well, in fact, that you'll probably post a longer one this afternoon.

So you spent all that time writing up a response designed specifically to get a rise out of me? Somebody's got too much time on their hands.

And you're right that I'm going to write a longer response, but only because it seems to have drummed up responses from a couple of other folks.

Psst. People who don't care typically just don't respond.

Fundamantally, why do you keep ranting on about your totally irrelevant economic "thoughts", all started because there were one or two deaths associated with (not caused by) rail vehicles? Are we to believe that no deaths have been caused by or in relation to the cars, trucks, and buses that currently travel our roadways (including Richmond)? There have been many many many weak "arguments" presented in this thread, but the fact that one or two deaths occurred that were associated with rail vehicles, NEITHER of which was in any way the fault of the rail vehicle or its operator, has got to be the weakest.

God forbid I put too many "thoughts" into a $100 million public investment.

A rigorous cost-benefit analysis will compare the marginal impact of various alternative investments by forecasting the future accident rates under different conditions as compared to the no-build scenario. It will also take into account the fact that accidents vary from fender-benders all the way up to fatalities...and in some cases, having injured people is even worse than having dead people.

Intuitively, I would expect that the no-build scenario would result in the least number of new accidents (that is to say, any configuration of light rail will likely produce quantifiable safety hazards somewhere and is very unlikely to reduce them by any appreciable measure). The next least impactful would be the Clutterbuck plan, as it has only limited interaction with traffic. A configuration with rail elevated above Richmond would have the next least impact, with the major disadvantage here being only that there are big concrete posts for drunk drivers to ram into. The most disruptive configuration is to have rail at grade-level down Richmond.

IMO the safety issue should require that strong consideration be given to a configuration that at the very least incorporates elevated sections of LRT at major intersections. I seriously doubt that it is worth it to spend that much more money on the Clutterbuck plan, even though it'd have the least safety issues. On the other hand, if the speed of service can be increased, that'd bolster the argument for the Clutterbuck route. Depending on how METRO computed its ridership estimates, it might also add to them.

You'll have to forgive me if I distrust them and am the one constantly raising my hand and asking questions, but I just don't trust them. I don't trust Culberson or Clutterbuck eitherr, but then they aren't the ones running the numbers, building, or operating the infrastructure.

Now I'm sure that nice young man doesn't really mean to be so-verbose? (that's a new word we learned last night after being told rather bruskly by our little Master Niche that he prefers less verbose humor...perhaps his attention span needs a little cardio?)

Bingo. See that's the kind of stupid joke that I can appreciate. Feel free to take a jab at me any time you like. Some days, I could absolutey use one.

Btw, its not that I can't pay attention...I just don't like stupid jokes that spin their wheels and go nowhere. I think you've just gone a little bit overboard with your Colbert imitation, that's all.

...to belch obnoxious fumes on the 6 million dollar men and women of quaint Afton Oaks.

They'd probably be worth more, commensurate with their higher-than-average earning power, but somewhat offset by the higher-than-average age of the population.

[AftonAg]

Back in 2005, when it looked like I would be moving home, . . . Of course, if she had seen the Massachusetts Cape and Island plates on the Volvo wagon with an eracism bumper sticker and an M the Moron sticker, she probably could have figured that out!

Now this is rich - you live in Houston, but you consider Massachusetts home. So did you just come to Houston to show us "how you do it up North"? If you are planning on moving "home" why are you so adamant about mass transit in Texas?

I don't blame you for leaving Massachusetts, there is far less chance of getting hit by a drunken Kennedy in Houston, especially if you are riding a METRO bus. If you need help packing just let me know I would be happy to show up, with boxes, to help.

For the record I would rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than for a drive with Ted Kennedy.

Sorry for straying from the topic, but I just couldn't resist taking some shots at my good friend Kinkaid whose vitrolic responses to my posts have been duly noted.

[AftonAg]

My goodness gracious!!! Isn't it funny how we can become so distracted that before we know it we're shopping at a booth with Juanita-looking for just the right corn husks for tamales-when all along we meant to be at Neimans for Godiva? Well that seems to be the problem here today isn't it. Now I'm sure that nice young man doesn't really mean to be so-verbose? (that's a new word we learned last night after being told rather bruskly by our little Master Niche that he prefers less verbose humor...perhaps his attention span needs a little cardio?)

In any event this IS a topic about routing of rail lines which leaves the Native Christian absolutly facinated and wanting for more.

Obviously you have learned the meaning of the word verbose, and at the same time provided an excellent example of it. You obviously spent a lot of time composing this post for a topic about rail, but you fail to provide any real commentary on your position on Rail on Richmond. Which IS the subject matter of this topic.

Our greatest fear for the Poor Souls of Afton Oaks (PSAO) is that the Siemens S70 used on our lovely Main Street Human Freight Line may actually be used on Richmond as a (GASP) hybrid diesel thingy. Now while we and Bittsy enjoy a smooth and quiet glide between Botox in the TMC and cocktails at The Whisky, we will not abide our bi-directional, six axel, low floor (absolutly essential for todays Manolo sling-backs) S70 to belch obnoxious fumes on the 6 million dollar men and women of quaint Afton Oaks. We will NOT be amused and should this happen, be assured our Carlos, Jose and Juanita will be firmly affixed to the rails along side that nice Mr. AftonAg and his seeing eye dogs.

After one of my early posts I was called pompous, I think it is now safe to say that if I ever was the most pompous poster on this thread that is certainly no longer the case. I do appreciate your writing style however and my dogs and I thank you for your splendid, but overly verbose, efforts. If I didn't know better I would swear that your post was written by Miss Manners.

I am curious though Native Christian - are you a Texas Native Christian or an American Indian Native Christian?

[TheNiche]

Now this is rich - you live in Houston, but you consider Massachusetts home. So did you just come to Houston to show us "how you do it up North"? If you are planning on moving "home" why are you so adamant about mass transit in Texas?

I don't blame you for leaving Massachusetts, there is far less chance of getting hit by a drunken Kennedy in Houston, especially if you are riding a METRO bus. If you need help packing just let me know I would be happy to show up, with boxes, to help.

For the record I would rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than for a drive with Ted Kennedy.

Sorry for straying from the topic, but I just couldn't resist taking some shots at my good friend Kinkaid whose vitrolic responses to my posts have been duly noted.

AftonAg, don't be an ass. He still lives in Boston and you could've picked that up if you'd read the very first sentence of his post. You seem to be grasping for straws on these repetitive insults.

You tell NativeChristian that he's being too verbose and off topic...so what is the above an example of?

Edited August 31, 2006 by TheNiche

[AftonAg]

AftonAg, don't be an ass. He still lives in Boston and you could've picked that up if you'd read the very first sentence of his post. You seem to be grasping for straws on these repetitive insults.

You tell NativeChristian that he's being too verbose and off topic...so what is the above an example of?

You know my opinion of you so there is no need for me to verbose in my reponse. I am wondering though why didn'y you respond to Houston1stwordonthemoon - when he called me a pervert and insinuated that I was a child molester? no need to respond - I know you for what you are.

[RedScare]

You know my opinion of you so there is no need for me to verbose in my reponse. I am wondering though why didn'y you respond to Houston1stwordonthemoon - when he called me a pervert and insinuated that I was a child molester? no need to respond - I know you for what you are.

Perhaps Niche is verbose because he puts a lot of thought into what he is saying. He may lean a bit too free market for some tastes, but at least he is looking at both sides...unlike your increasingly vitriolic and insulting posts. 1st Word went over the line and was called on it. He then backed off. That is the self-policing nature of the forum. Your posts are now non-stop insults...and Niche called you out on it. Maybe you could learn from 1st Word and back off, too.

Edited August 31, 2006 by RedScare

[The Great Hizzy!]

I've not paid any attention to this thread. Ho hum. Just curious as to whether they ever got the strawman to dance in Afton Oaks? I might pay money to see that, actually.

Carry on.

[Subdude]

The discussion here is turning into insults and flame wars. It doesn't belong on HAIF. Can we get it back on topic please?

Thx.

[Houston19514]

Intuitively, I would expect that the no-build scenario would result in the least number of new accidents (that is to say, any configuration of light rail will likely produce quantifiable safety hazards somewhere and is very unlikely to reduce them by any appreciable measure).

This is what I don't understand or agree with. It strikes me as perfectly intuitive that taking a bunch of buses and cars off the road and replacing them with rail cars (relatively very few in number, that stay in their dedicated areas, don't weave in and out of traffic, or constantly stop and go, and are operated by relatively professional drivers) would result in a reduction in accidents, perhaps even appreciably so.

[aftowl]

Now this is rich - you live in Houston, but you consider Massachusetts home. So did you just come to Houston to show us "how you do it up North"? If you are planning on moving "home" why are you so adamant about mass transit in Texas?

I don't blame you for leaving Massachusetts, there is far less chance of getting hit by a drunken Kennedy in Houston, especially if you are riding a METRO bus. If you need help packing just let me know I would be happy to show up, with boxes, to help.

For the record I would rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than for a drive with Ted Kennedy.

Sorry for straying from the topic, but I just couldn't resist taking some shots at my good friend Kinkaid whose vitrolic responses to my posts have been duly noted.

You've been given so many opportunities to place a positive spin on your sides reputation from removing illegal yard signs to posting actual results from a poll or petition as others have done. http://www.mobilitycoalition.org/sign.html

Instead you flaunt your disregard of city ordinances as a virtue and misconstrue an anecdote of someone's visit home as vitriol.

Regarding verbosity, it is welcome when presented well whether you agree with the poster or not.

Only when it is presented in the form of personal attacks and true vitriol is the poster disregarded and at risk of being entirely ignored.

Edited August 31, 2006 by aftowl

[KinkaidAlum]

Come on, AftAg, where's the love?

I am a native Houstonian. Born downtown at St. Joseph's even. Both of my parents are native Houstonians. Mom graduated from Lamar. Dad from Kinkaid. Both sets of my grandparents were also native Houstonians. My entire extended family still resides in Texas, mostly in Houston but some now in the Hill Country (Austin, Hunt, Ingram, and Junction). I am a direct descendant of Jane Long!

So, forgive me for wanting what I see is best for my HOMETOWN and forgive me for being able to see that not everything in Houston is perfect.

[TheNiche]

You know my opinion of you so there is no need for me to verbose in my reponse. I am wondering though why didn'y you respond to Houston1stwordonthemoon - when he called me a pervert and insinuated that I was a child molester? no need to respond - I know you for what you are.

I tend to respond to people when they get their facts wrong...I'll only bother with calling out the childish stuff if I happen to be addressing something of substance (like a factually incorrect statement) or if it just gets way out of hand.

To be clear, I sympathize with your cause (although for vastly different reasons than the ones you cite). Your set of input on this matter almost makes me wonder whether you're actually a pro-rail person in favor of the Richmond alignment that is just trying to stir up anti-AO sentiment.

[TheNiche]

This is what I don't understand or agree with. It strikes me as perfectly intuitive that taking a bunch of buses and cars off the road and replacing them with rail cars (relatively very few in number, that stay in their dedicated areas, don't weave in and out of traffic, or constantly stop and go, and are operated by relatively professional drivers) would result in a reduction in accidents, perhaps even appreciably so.

Point taken...but then that's something else I'd like to see from METRO. Bus accident statistics. We all know it happens, but we rarely hear about it. There were 67 crashes in 2004 and 52 crashes in 2005. What was the typical crash rate for the bus routes that were along the Red Line's route before LRT? For that matter, is there any difference in the level of crash severity? Bender fenders aren't bad; when people get sent to the hospital, that's a different story. I just don't know, though.

I was pleased to notice that in both of the plans looked at by METRO, they had fewer stops along Richmond per mile than are along the Red Line. If the stops are more spread out, then the line may not be as well-suited to bus replacement. It is also entirely possible that if a P&R was built at the line's terminus at the Hillcroft TC or if the Uptown route connects to the Northwest TC if it had parking garages, we might start seeing ridership that is so intense in the relatively near future that busses might be brought back into service to suppliment the LRT.

Your point was a good one, but these are all unknowns to me. Hard data could prove either of us to be correct, and I just don't know.

[AftonAg]

Come on, AftAg, where's the love?

I am a native Houstonian. Born downtown at St. Joseph's even. Both of my parents are native Houstonians. Mom graduated from Lamar. Dad from Kinkaid. Both sets of my grandparents were also native Houstonians. My entire extended family still resides in Texas, mostly in Houston but some now in the Hill Country (Austin, Hunt, Ingram, and Junction). I am a direct descendant of Jane Long!

So, forgive me for wanting what I see is best for my HOMETOWN and forgive me for being able to see that not everything in Houston is perfect.

My apologies Kinkaid - Your post about Massachusetts led me to believe that you were from Massachusetts and that was your home. Apparently I wasn't the only one that believed that, and like most Texans I resent someone that isn't from Texas telling Texans how they should do this or do that, or what is "wrong" with Texas in General. The fact that you are a native Texan, and a direct descendant of a greatly admired Texan Jane Long, is certainly something to be proud of. Like you I want what is best for Houston, we only disagree on the route, not the concept. Please accept my hearfelt apologies.

[AftonAg]

Perhaps Niche is verbose because he puts a lot of thought into what he is saying. He may lean a bit too free market for some tastes, but at least he is looking at both sides...unlike your increasingly vitriolic and insulting posts. 1st Word went over the line and was called on it. He then backed off. That is the self-policing nature of the forum. Your posts are now non-stop insults...and Niche called you out on it. Maybe you could learn from 1st Word and back off, too.

So Gary - or is it Redscare - I forgot to look - I just hope everyone on here knows that you have dual identities on this forum, but then you aren't the only one are you? Do you deny it? Please explain why it is necessary.

I have yet to see any apology from Houston1st, or many others for that matter for insults to me or anyone else. I have made apologies when they were warranted, and even admitted that I was wrong once or twice.

My posts are absolutely not non-stop insults. I put a lot of thought into my posts as I am sure the majority of posters on this forum do. The real problem is that my opinion is contrary to that of the majority of the posters. I can't change your minds and you can't change mine - it is a standoff.