METRORail University Line

[TheNiche]

I can't change your minds and you can't change mine - it is a standoff.

Speak for yourself. You can change my mind easily. Just give me a good solid argument with all the right numbers in the right places.

If your mind can't be changed...well then I really don't know what to tell you. It's just a shame is all.

[ricco67]

Speak for yourself. You can change my mind easily. Just give me a good solid argument with all the right numbers in the right places.

If your mind can't be changed...well then I really don't know what to tell you. It's just a shame is all.

I'd have to agree.

We all can be pursuaded through a well thought through discussion. There has been times when some of us actually started defending the opposite opinion of what we originally stood.

A mind that refuses to change and cling onto the fact that it knows is a mind that doesn't accept change or true logic. You have to be willing to at least see the faults in your own logic and defend it. The constant throwing out of slogans or irrelevent quotes does little to entrench your ideas.

Woo! #36!

[RedScare]

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.

Quite the conspiracy theorist, aren't you, AA? First you accuse AftOwl of being nmainguy, then Gary of being me.

Now, anyone who has been on this forum for awhile knows that I am a defense attorney...even you know that. However, did you know Gary happens to have been the subject of this thread?

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...181&hl=band

Here's a picture of him...

http://www.strideonline.com/index1.html

Now, really Ag. Do you think a defense attorney looks like THAT? More importantly, do you think defense attorneys have that kind of TALENT?

[Pumapayam]

Okay, now I am confused, I thought that you told me you were the same person?

[Houston19514]

I'd have to agree.

We all can be pursuaded through a well thought through discussion. There has been times when some of us actually started defending the opposite opinion of what we originally stood.

A mind that refuses to change and cling onto the fact that it knows is a mind that doesn't accept change or true logic. You have to be willing to at least see the faults in your own logic and defend it. The constant throwing out of slogans or irrelevent quotes does little to entrench your ideas.

Woo! #36!

Here's the problem with trying to persuade AftonAg with facts and logic, and why ultimately even he sees that his mind is unchangeable....

When one's position is based on pure emotion and not on any facts or logic, one's position is impenetrable to facts and logic.

[AftonAg]

Speak for yourself. You can change my mind easily. Just give me a good solid argument with all the right numbers in the right places.

If your mind can't be changed...well then I really don't know what to tell you. It's just a shame is all.

My mind can be changed, and has on many issues. Railroading of Richmond does not happen to be one at this point. There have been many attempts on this forum, most in the form of belittling the reasons that I and the clear majority of my neighbors oppose the Richmond route. Many of the posters have presented good arguments for the Richmond route, but most are filled with speculation or based on data provided by METRO which is automatically biased in my opinion, or from some other locale that may or may not be relevant. Fortunately my Representative in Congress, and several City Council members feel the same way, not to mention at least 48% of the voters that voted against rail all together.

Is it conceivable to any of the posters here that 5% of the 52% that voted for rail did so believing that it would be placed on Westpark instead of Richmond? Regardless of ballot language, METRO maps or any other information that may have been available 5% is a small number and it is certainly possible that if METRO had revealed at the time of the referendum that Richmond was their preferred route the referendum might very well have failed.

I believe that METRO had all the numbers regarding ridership required for Federal funding prior to the referendum but did not publish them hoping that the referendum would pass so that they could then proceed with their plans to "Cram rail down the throats of those that don't want it." We will find out soon enough if Mayor White will honor his promise.

[AftonAg]

Here's the problem with trying to persuade AftonAg with facts and logic, and why ultimately even he sees that his mind is unchangeable....

When one's position is based on pure emotion and not on any facts or logic, one's position is impenetrable to facts and logic.

I don't see it that way. I am still waiting on these facts - most of what has been presented as facts is laced with speculation. My opinions are always open for discussion, but because someone believes that they have put forth a "convincing argument" does not mean that I am going to abandon my position. I applaud everyone on here that feels compelled to stand up for what they believe is right, that doesn't mean that I have to share their belief. Apparently though anyone that does will not yield to the majority opinion of this thread is not as intellectually enlightend as those whose opinion can be easily changed. It would be very easy for me to have given up early on and found a forum where my opinion is the majority opinion, I opted to stay, and I truly believe that this thread is better for it. Welcome to page 36 by the way.

[Houston19514]

I don't see it that way. I am still waiting on these facts - most of what has been presented as facts is laced with speculation. My opinions are always open for discussion, but because someone believes that they have put forth a "convincing argument" does not mean that I am going to abandon my position. I applaud everyone on here that feels compelled to stand up for what they believe is right, that doesn't mean that I have to share their belief. Apparently though anyone that does will not yield to the majority opinion of this thread is not as intellectually enlightend as those whose opinion can be easily changed. It would be very easy for me to have given up early on and found a forum where my opinion is the majority opinion, I opted to stay, and I truly believe that this thread is better for it. Welcome to page 36 by the way.

The problem is, you have presented NO facts. People have shown you studies showing that in the large majority of cases, rail lines lead to increases in property values, not decreases. Yes, those studies were not done in YOU neighborhood, but they are instructive nonetheless. Posters have also pointed out evidence that there does not seem to be any widely-held belief in the community that rail will lead to a decrease in property values because if they did, people would surely not be proceeding with building million-dollar homes in the neighborhood. Seems like a perfectly logical argument to me. There are lots of places in town where one can build a new home. Why would ANYONE choose a neighborhood that may be heading towards ruination because of a rail line.

You, on the other hand, have presented No facts and NO studies to support your strongly and emotionally held belief that the rail line will lead to a decrease in property values. You have not even shared with us any logic on which your belief is based.

From day one, your posts have been nothing but tendentious and filled with falsehoods and speculation fueled by your emotions and preconceptions. See for example your 7:19 AM post. Wow, talk about speculation!! Now, you're attempting to read the minds of approximately 5% of the people who voted in the rail referendum. I would suggest (yes, I am merely speculating here) that IF there was a widespread belief that the line was going down Westpark, it is JUST as likely that 5% voted against the referendum because of that routing, either because (a) Westpark is in THEIR backyard, or ( they could apply simple logic and see that it is very clearly an inferior route. Face it, man. The ballot-language "argument" is a loser. Thank goodness the northside residents can see the benefits of a rail line and/or are not so breathtakingly clueless and self-centered that they aren't trotting out a lame argument about the North Hardy route having to be only on Hardy Street.

[AftonAg]

The problem is, you have presented NO facts. People have shown you studies showing that in the large majority of cases, rail lines lead to increases in property values, not decreases. Yes, those studies were not done in YOU neighborhood, but they are instructive nonetheless. Posters have also pointed out evidence that there does not seem to be any widely-held belief in the community that rail will lead to a decrease in property values because if they did, people would surely not be proceeding with building million-dollar homes in the neighborhood. Seems like a perfectly logical argument to me. There are lots of places in town where one can build a new home. Why would ANYONE choose a neighborhood that may be heading towards ruination because of a rail line.

The key word in your paragraph has been placed in BOLD face.

You, on the other hand, have presented No facts and NO studies to support your strongly and emotionally held belief that the rail line will lead to a decrease in property values. You have not even shared with us any logic on which your belief is based.

I have explained countless times my "belief" regarding LTR's possible effect on AO property values, you and others choose to belittle my opinions because they aren't backed by a mountain of speculative data and/or inhereently biased studies (most of which you agree aren't exactly applicable to this situation) that you cite as "hard evidence" in your arguments.

From day one, your posts have been nothing but tendentious and filled with falsehoods and speculation fueled by your emotions and preconceptions. See for example your 7:19 AM post.

I see the pro-railroading of Richmond exactly the same way.

Wow, talk about speculation!! Now, you're attempting to read the minds of approximately 5% of the people who voted in the rail referendum. I would suggest (yes, I am merely speculating here) that IF there was a widespread belief that the line was going down Westpark, it is JUST as likely that 5% voted against the referendum because of that routing, either because (a) Westpark is in THEIR backyard, or ( they could apply simple logic and see that it is very clearly an inferior route. Face it, man. The ballot-language "argument" is a loser. Thank goodness the northside residents can see the benefits of a rail line and/or are not so breathtakingly clueless and self-centered that they aren't trotting out a lame argument about the North Hardy route having to be only on Hardy Street.

I was not attempting to read any minds I was, as you say, speculating that it is not beyond reason that 5% of the voters cast their vote in favor of the referendum because they thought the route would be on Westpark, and not Richmond. Had METRO been truthful from the start about their real route preference the referendum probably would not have passed.

Why do all of you pro "railroading of Richmond" folks keep referencing the North line - that is another thread - but since you insist the citizens along the North Route did have some issues with the route, and METRO worked with them to provide a compromise route that they all could be happy with. I think that is great! That is all we in AO are asking for, we want METRO to work with us, but we will not stand idly by while "rail is crammed down the throats of people that don't want it."

[Houston19514]

I have explained countless times my "belief" regarding LTR's possible effect on AO property values, you and others choose to belittle my opinions because they aren't backed by a mountain of speculative data and/or inhereently biased studies (most of which you agree aren't exactly applicable to this situation) that you cite as "hard evidence" in your arguments.

See, that's the problem. You keep telling us you "believe" that the LRT will reduce your property values (indeed, countless times). But you have not once "explained" your belief. What is your belief based on? What logic, what experience, what studies, what facts lead you to that belief?

Why do all of you pro "railroading of Richmond" folks keep referencing the North line - that is another thread - but since you insist the citizens along the North Route did have some issues with the route, and METRO worked with them to provide a compromise route that they all could be happy with. I think that is great! That is all we in AO are asking for, we want METRO to work with us, but we will not stand idly by while "rail is crammed down the throats of people that don't want it."

Yes, we can all see perfectly clearly how you were so willing to "work with" METRO. Your constant repetition of your belief that METRO lied and continues to lie to you and that METRO ran people out of business along the Main Street route so that METRO friends and insiders could snatch up the properties are the statements of someone clearly ready to enter into good faith attempts to "work with" METRO. NOT.

The difference with the willingness of the north side people to "work with" METRO is that they were actally willing to compromise and accept routes that ridership studies showed would be preferable. They didn't just stampt their feet and say "No, the ballot said Hardy, it must go on Hardy". It entirely clear just how much you and the other AO'ers were willing to "work with" METRO. 'Yes, we'll work with METRO, so long as the rail line doesn't touch Richmond Ave.' It is to laugh.

[Pumapayam]

Hopefully this will put a smile on peoples faces in such a harsh drab thread.

[tamtagon]

Fortunately my Representative in Congress, and several City Council members feel the same way....

I would expect city council members to state a position on the route this train will take, but I dont think the Federal representative should influence the decision making process through political extortion.

[CDeb]

not to mention at least 48% of the voters that voted against rail all together.

I know this is a nice figure for your talking points, but it is wholly irrelevant. You don't "adjust" the meaning of an election based on the split of votes cast.

The results mean that slightly more than half the voters voted for the proposed system. They DO NOT mean that 100% of the voters voted for slightly more than half the proposed system.

[AftonAg]

I know this is a nice figure for your talking points, but it is wholly irrelevant. You don't "adjust" the meaning of an election based on the split of votes cast.

The results mean that slightly more than half the voters voted for the proposed system. They DO NOT mean that 100% of the voters voted for slightly more than half the proposed system.

Here we go again - take a post and twist the words in an attempt to change the meaning of the original post. I was merely pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that 48% of the votes on the 2003 referendum were against rail altogether. Yes, that does mean that slightly more than half voted for the proposed system, and conversely, slightly less than half voted against the proposed system.

How in the world you took that comment to mean that I was saying that 100% of the voters voted for slightly more than half the system is beyond me. My point was that 5% of the voters that voted for the referendum might not have voted for the referendum had they known that METRO's intended route was Richmond, and that there was never any intent by METRO of putting rail on Westpark. Pure speculation on my part, but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

See, that's the problem. Yes, we can all see perfectly clearly how you were so willing to "work with" METRO. Your constant repetition of your belief that METRO lied and continues to lie to you and that METRO ran people out of business along the Main Street route so that METRO friends and insiders could snatch up the properties are the statements of someone clearly ready to enter into good faith attempts to "work with" METRO.

The difference with the willingness of the north side people to "work with" METRO is that they were actally willing to compromise and accept routes that ridership studies showed would be preferable. They didn't just stampt their feet and say "No, the ballot said Hardy, it must go on Hardy". It entirely clear just how much you and the other AO'ers were willing to "work with" METRO. 'Yes, we'll work with METRO, so long as the rail line doesn't touch Richmond Ave.' It is to laugh.

METRO has a long history of deception with the voters in Houston and the 2003 referendum was just one more example. METRO will work with any neighborhood just like Brutus "worked" with Julius Caesar to govern Rome.

If you choose to just "trust" METRO to do the right thing in your neighborhood so be it, but please don't tell me that I should trust them to do the right thing in my neighborhood. They have shown me that they are not to be trusted.

[tamtagon]

My point was that 5% of the voters that voted for the referendum might not have voted for the referendum had they known that METRO's intended route was Richmond, and that there was never any intent by METRO of putting rail on Westpark.

It's also possible that more voters would have voted in favor of the referendum had Richmond been mentioned as a possible route.

It was a bad mistake to use Westpark as the label for the vote on this western expansion of Houston's train. I'm sure some people thought they were voting for/against a specific route, some knew they were voting for/against the expansion - route to be determined. Voters in this part of Houston should be accustomed to a different reality once the election smokescreen clears based on the actions of Congressional representatives; the poorly worded initiative has given way too much politically manufactured traction to those who would demand the route was pre-determined.

It's a wasteful and devisive exercise to politically manipulate a route decision that should be based on best case scenerio calculations. The residents of any particular neighborhood, like Afton Oaks, who dislike a routing consideration should keep it real when making noise.

[CDeb]

Here we go again - take a post and twist the words in an attempt to change the meaning of the original post. I was merely pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that 48% of the votes on the 2003 referendum were against rail altogether. Yes, that does mean that slightly more than half voted for the proposed system, and conversely, slightly less than half voted against the proposed system.

How in the world you took that comment to mean that I was saying that 100% of the voters voted for slightly more than half the system is beyond me. My point was that 5% of the voters that voted for the referendum might not have voted for the referendum had they known that METRO's intended route was Richmond, and that there was never any intent by METRO of putting rail on Westpark. Pure speculation on my part, but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

Nice try, but a common thread implied in many of your posts is that METRO and the rail system somehow have less legitimacy with a 52-48 vote than they would with a 62-38 or 72-28 vote and that they need to build a less than optimal solution to meet political ends rather than transportation ends.

[IHB2]

...that they need to build a less than optimal solution to meet political ends rather than transportation ends.

a truer observation has not been made in the previous 17gazillion posts on this thread.

that is exactly where White, Wilson, and Wolff (www.duh) ended up in trying to mollify Culberson before any serious cost-benefit studies were done.

[Houston19514]

METRO has a long history of deception with the voters in Houston and the 2003 referendum was just one more example. METRO will work with any neighborhood just like Brutus "worked" with Julius Caesar to govern Rome.

If you choose to just "trust" METRO to do the right thing in your neighborhood so be it, but please don't tell me that I should trust them to do the right thing in my neighborhood. They have shown me that they are not to be trusted.

Nice straw man you set up there.

Once again, you altogether missed (or intentionally avoided) the point. I did not say ANYTHING remotely like the words you are attempting to put in my mouth. NOTHING in my post said anything that can possibly be twisted to mean that I think you or anyone else should just lay down and totally "trust" METRO.

[WesternGulf]

My problem is that Metro has made changes to how the system will be built and it seems like the AO residents come up with new scare tactics. I seriously would like to, but this is why I am not taking the reaction too seriously. The problems of saving the trees, not taking up lanes for more traffic congestion, and having full access to businesses have been solved. I wonder what will be the next excuse if there was a way to show Afton Oak residents that property values will not drop or the train increasing the possibility of hitting people walking their dogs should be a non issue if there was something called responsibility.

Yeah yeah yeah, the Afton Oaks residents can say that they are not anti rail but anti Richmond if they want, but it is clear that the success of mass transit in this city is not a priority for them if they think that success will come with just having rail placed anywhere.

[AftonAg]

Nice try, but a common thread implied in many of your posts is that METRO and the rail system somehow have less legitimacy with a 52-48 vote than they would with a 62-38 or 72-28 vote

I wasn't implying anything - you inferred it from my post. I am much simpler than that when it comes to elections - if you win by one vote you win.

I keep hearing that the City of Houston can't be a "World Class" city without rail on Richmond, and how tthis little band on anti's know as Afton Oaks are going to penalize the whole city. It certainly seems to me that 52% to 48% indicates that there are a lot more people than just this little band of crazies from Afton Oaks that don't want rail on Richmond. While I am not anti rail, I did vote against the referendum in 2003 - because I didn't trust METRO, and it is my guess that the majority of my neighbors that voted against rail did so for exactly the same reason.

... that they need to build a less than optimal solution to meet political ends rather than transportation ends.

The world is full of compromises. So if the route ends up being less than "optimal" does that mean that all of you pro railroaders won't ride it?

[Pumapayam]

Just a small digression, but do you think AftonAg's wife ever wins an argument with him, or do you think he will ALWAYS have an answer for anything she puts on the table.

[Highway6]

On Metro Solutions' main News page, they have added a link to the Gulf Coast Institute's page detailing all the research and presentations they have compiled on the University Line. While that GCI page has been around for a bit, I don't believe Metro has ever linked to it up until this morning...

I wonder if this is a sign a) they are leaning towards ignoring Culberson and announcing a predominantly Richmond route and B ) if an announcment is coming soon.

[tamtagon]

I wonder if this is a sign a) they are leaning towards ignoring Culberson and announcing a predominantly Richmond route and if an announcment is coming soon.

I think that would be the best way to proceed. I do not think he's bluffing about making problems, but Culberson doesnt have any business trying to direct Metro's route decision making process.

[Houston19514]

I think that would be the best way to proceed. I do not think he's bluffing about making problems, but Culberson doesnt have any business trying to direct Metro's route decision making process.

I agree. They should go forward with the clearly-best plan.

That GCI link has all sorts of great information, including links to many studies of effects on property values. From the studies (including from very similar cities, such as Dallas) it is clear that if AftonAg was at all pro-rail (as he pretends to be). or at all interested in facts, or really concerned about his property values... instead of fighting the Richmond alignment, he would be working with METRO to get the alignment to run through Afton Oaks and to include a station in the Afton Oaks neighborhood. The studies are pretty clear: proximity to stations leads to signficantly higher property values.

[ricco67]

I agree. They should go forward with the clearly-best plan.

That GCI link has all sorts of great information, including links to many studies of effects on property values. From the studies (including from very similar cities, such as Dallas) it is clear that if AftonAg was at all pro-rail (as he pretends to be). or at all interested in facts, or really concerned about his property values... instead of fighting the Richmond alignment, he would be working with METRO to get the alignment to run through Afton Oaks and to include a station in the Afton Oaks neighborhood. The studies are pretty clear: proximity to stations leads to signficantly higher property values.

i think culberson is going to have other matters on his mind. he's being taken to task over his interference in the terri schiavo case. www.terripac.com

the way things are heading with the elections it seems to me this is a dare for him to try to derail (so to speak) the project.

gee..starting a pac sounds like fun. haif-pac?

[Pumapayam]

I wonder if this is a sign a) they are leaning towards ignoring Culberson and announcing a predominantly Richmond route and B ) if an announcment is coming soon.

Great Googley Moogley!!!

Almost 2 days without a post, what gives people, this along with the Downtown Pavillions project is the hottest topic on HAIF.

So when is the next milestone date for a decision?

[ricco67]

Well, I stopped posting on this topic so I could have time to look over the gulf coast institute's findings and found it very informative.

While it had quite a bit of data on generalities, i wouldn't have minded seeing some specifics, but considering how many areas they were looking at, I trust it to be a fair representation of the overall outcome.

I did find it interesting that single family homes took a hit in the short term being BY the station but increased substantially afterwards. While those that were a good distance did better right from the state.

My theory on that is that while some people initially saw it as a negative, they turned around and probably started using it.

The ones that were located a bit further down the line from the neighborhood probably did better for the sheer fact that they could walk or drive the additional distance, park their car and then hop on.

On a related note, being in midtown quite a bit these past couple of days, I stumbled across an area where people were parking by the Holman station and going on the rail to complete their transit. I counted about 30-50 cars there on a daily basis. as soon as I'm able to, I'll take a picture. Turns out the same thing is happening over at the station by the car dealership (the name escapes me at this time of morning).

Perhaps additional parking on the rail line wouldn't be a bad thing if it allows people from going to the more congested parts of the line.

It also makes me wonder if the city can enact some rules regarding parking in businesses to prevent vehicles being towed. You know the parking at the CVS would be quite attractive to those commuters.

[musicman]

On a related note, being in midtown quite a bit these past couple of days, I stumbled across an area where people were parking by the Holman station and going on the rail to complete their transit. I counted about 30-50 cars there on a daily basis. as soon as I'm able to, I'll take a picture. Turns out the same thing is happening over at the station by the car dealership (the name escapes me at this time of morning).

Old news. What will be interesting is whether the City will put parking meters to make more revenue. I know they added meters on a street that i used to park near the Clayton Library

It also makes me wonder if the city can enact some rules regarding parking in businesses to prevent vehicles being towed. You know the parking at the CVS would be quite attractive to those commuters.

Enacting rules on private property? The owner of the property determines the parking situation.

[ricco67]

Can you perhaps enlighten me as to what part of that is old news?

The fact that people are parking on the streets to ride rail? I have brought that up several times before on previous posts and I do that myself. what *I* didn't realize were the amount of cars that are located at that particular stop.

The city has been thinking about adding meters in various parts of the city for quite some time and have seen new ones pop up around the city. Personally I see nothing wrong with it as long as they're reasonable about it (making 12 hr meters like the ones on San Jacinto near the Four Seasons.). It would still be cheaper than the parking rates closer into town.

Yes, perhaps enacting rules for private property, some sort of ordinance might be enacted. it's high time that the city started doing a LITTLE zoning.

[nmainguy]

musicman Posted Today, 10:16 AM

QUOTE(ricco67 @ Saturday, September 9th, 2006 @ 7:27am)

Enacting rules on private property? The owner of the property determines the parking situation.

The city requires a certain amount of parking spaces per sq/ft. So you see, the owner does not have complete control of the parking situation. I'm sure when CVS builds their predictable pile of crap on Main there will be parking galore for their customers but not for us lowly transit nuts-unless the city chooses to step in with some new parking regs. We can only hope.