METRORail University Line

[AftonAg]

WOW! That's amazing! You have no trouble with a freight train rumbling past AO but a quiet electric train that takes no property on Richmond is akin to Hell on Earth!

I can always count on you Northlame to or is it AFTowl today - hmmmm anyone seen Aftowl lately of course not. you would have to look under that Nmain signature. I notice that you have not denied your little charade

you went to a Division III school? b/c it seems like that's all the Ags scheduled before they have to play a conference game.

As the source of all knowledge I am sure that you know that these games are scheduled years in advance - and the Ragin Cajuns beat A&M about ten years ago . . . let's try to stay on topic

[nmainguy]

I agree we should minimize the impact of freight trains on traffic and on residential areas. I was just thinking if we were going to be spending that kind of money and winding up with a series of freeway-style overpasses, with all the related noise/blight problems on the surrounding area, perhaps we should be thinking of some other solution. While traffic would improve, exchanging occasional train noise for traffic noise doesn't seem much of an improvement.

And personally, I'd be a lot more concerned about a 6 lane bridge in my neighborhood than a tram.

Which might lead one to question AO's real agenda. Freight trains and freeway overpasses are OK but an electric train will destroy their property values?

I would suggest the AOers get out of their fantasyland, hop into their SUV's and take a drive to Westpark @ Newcastle to see what's in store for them: roaring vehicular traffic, elevated pollution and noise, loss of green space and trees...but they'll still cling to their increasingly bogus claims.

In any event, those bridges will more than likely be built.

[IHB2]

As the source of all knowledge I am sure that you know that these games are scheduled years in advance

now that you've agreed to my omniscience, I'm sure you'll agree that a light rail spur looping off Richmond, north on Newcastle to Shetland to Vossdale to W. Alabama to Kettering returning to Richmond will best serve the transit interests of all AO residents, their nannies and their maids, and confound that lying pro-rail aftowl who says he lives off Mid Lane, which as we all know is not part of AO.

[CDeb]

you went to a Division III school? b/c it seems like that's all the Ags scheduled before they have to play a conference game.

UL is a charter member of I-A, although they've rarely played like it lately.

[Pumapayam]

Please keep this topic on subject , this is a pretty important to me and it is already immense in size as it is, take this sports talk offline with PM's or to "off topic" please .

A small update on stats regarding ridership, which includes the existing MetroRail Line .

Although Houston voters in 2003 approved a $7.5 billion plan to expand Metro's light rail and bus service and begin commuter rail lines, the share of Houstonians taking transit to work slipped from 5.9 percent in 2000 to 5.1 percent in 2005.

[mpbro]

I'm curious if anyone has statistics on property tax receipts along the current MetroRail corridor before and after the current line went in.

I'm guessing that land values along dodgier parts of Main Street have doubled in the last few years. From the city's perspective, it seems like putting this rail line through distressed populated areas is a no-brainer investment, with maybe a 5-year payout. Freeways don't increase property values, at least not as directly as the rail.

[AftonAg]

Please keep this topic on subject , this is a pretty important to me and it is already immense in size as it is, take this sports talk offline with PM's or to "off topic" please .

A small update on stats regarding ridership, which includes the existing MetroRail Line .

Although Houston voters in 2003 narrowly approved a $7.5 billion plan to expand Metro's light rail and bus service and begin commuter rail lines, the share of Houstonians taking transit to work slipped from 5.9 percent in 2000 to 5.1 percent in 2005.

oh my we are touchy . . . . get over yourself puma - narrowly added to the above quote by aftonag

looking at your stats from a business point of view if ridership is going down despite how "wonderful" rail is - it will be a loser, and then we the people will have to subsidize it. Didn't the METROganda published at the time indicate that the Main St. line would enjoy excellent ever increasing ridership?

[nmainguy]

oh my we are touchy . . . . get over yourself puma - narrowly added to the above quote by aftonag

looking at your stats from a business point of view if ridership is going down despite how "wonderful" rail is - it will be a loser, and then we the people will have to subsidize it. Didn't the METROganda published at the time indicate that the Main St. line would enjoy excellent ever increasing ridership?

Mass transit isn't a money-making proposition. it is a public service. It has and will always be subsidized just as courts, jails, police and firemen, public schools and teachers, water, sewage treatment-the list goes on. Transit is just another service the public voted on and approved knowing full-well it was never intended to turn a profit.

[RedScare]

Didn't the METROganda published at the time indicate that the Main St. line would enjoy excellent ever increasing ridership?

It is ever increasing....not that you care.

[TheNiche]

I'm curious if anyone has statistics on property tax receipts along the current MetroRail corridor before and after the current line went in.

I'm guessing that land values along dodgier parts of Main Street have doubled in the last few years. From the city's perspective, it seems like putting this rail line through distressed populated areas is a no-brainer investment, with maybe a 5-year payout. Freeways don't increase property values, at least not as directly as the rail.

This is a convoluted argument. The City didn't pay for LRT; METRO did. And METRO doesn't collect property taxes. Moreover, freeways do have a direct impact upon property values--otherwise large landowners wouldn't be willing to donate land to TXDoT in order to bring a proposed freeway alignment through their property...but that does happen. Also, the regional nature of freeway impacts make them more dispersed over a large area, while LRT affects what is really only a set of small nodes along the route.

If you'd like a comparative quantitative analysis of the geometric and financial principles that limit LRT's short-run impact upon the tax base, I can provide that.

It is ever increasing....not that you care.

I think that Red is correct with respect to LRT; however, it is interesting that per capita ridership seems to be slipping in other modes of mass transit.

[AftonAg]

It is ever increasing....not that you care.

Sorry red - but you are going to have to back that up with some facts . . . . . not just your opinion. If that is the case then why hasn't METRO publicized it. Seems like it would be a good time what with the "shortsighted opposition growing" and all.

Mass transit isn't a money-making proposition. it is a public service. It has and will always be subsidized just as courts, jails, police and firemen, public schools and teachers, water, sewage treatment-the list goes on. Transit is just another service the public voted on and approved knowing full-well it was never intended to turn a profit.

But it is expected to be break even at the very least. Watertreatment plants are paid for when you pay your water bill by the way. and the municipal courts, police, and most other services are paid for by taxes also, you are right aftowl the list goes on and so do the taxes.

On another note it was mentioned on here not long agothat Houston should build a magnetic train - several people were killed in Germany today in an accident on a magnetic train when it hit a maintenance vehicle. The train was just a "demonstration" model built by the manufacturer. it was travelling @ 125 mph when it hit the maintenance vehicle. Back to der drawing board. Sadly the accident will probably set the development of levitation trains back substantially.

[nmainguy]

why hasn't METRO publicized it.

Actually METRO touts it's increasing ridership on a regular basis:

http://www.ridemetro.org/news/releases/080306_1.asp

http://www.ridemetro.org/news/releases/042406_1.asp

http://www.ridemetro.org/news/releases/022706_3.asp

http://www.ridemetro.org/news/releases/pr36.asp

[TheNiche]

Sorry red - but you are going to have to back that up with some facts . . . . . not just your opinion. If that is the case then why hasn't METRO publicized it. Seems like it would be a good time what with the "shortsighted opposition growing" and all.

But it is expected to be break even at the very least. Watertreatment plants are paid for when you pay your water bill by the way. and the municipal courts, police, and most other services are paid for by taxes also, you are right aftowl the list goes on and so do the taxes.

I'm pretty sure that they've already put out press releases about increasing LRT ridership. Look for it. [EDIT: nmain just did; thanks.]

I think nmain's point was that transit isn't supposed to break even with its operations...just as is the case with "municipal courts, police, and most other services," as you mentioned. If METRO doesn't break even financially today with their sales tax, they will tomorrow. And it'll come out of our pocket one way or another. Such is the nature of public finance.

That doesn't mean that your point is necessarily invalid...just that it is confused. Very similar to the Republican stance on the Social Security issue.

On another note it was mentioned on here not long agothat Houston should build a magnetic train - several people were killed in Germany today in an accident on a magnetic train when it hit a maintenance vehicle. The train was just a "demonstration" model built by the manufacturer. it was travelling @ 125 mph when it hit the maintenance vehicle. Back to der drawing board. Sadly the accident will probably set the development of levitation trains back substantially.

That was actually my post. I didn't suggest that Houston should build a Maglev system, but that the state should. I think that it'd fall under TXDoT's authority, although it could very easily be some form of private/public partnership.

The crash that occurred today was preventable, but was ultimately the result of human error. The system evidently lacked adequate emergency override systems and the pilot didn't follow procedure to ensure a clear track.

[CDeb]

But it is expected to be break even at the very least.

Very, very few public transit agencies do.

[GovernorAggie]

Very, very few public transit agencies do.

Correct-a-mondo! And not only that, but I think that there may be only one public transit agency that actually turns a profit.

Regarding the "find" that the Chronicle gave regarding lower transit share for Houston in 2005 vs. 2000...this should be a non-item, but they published it because they knew some folks would be on that like wild dogs on a meat suit. Here's why it is a nice way of twisting info:

Unless they provide the actual scope of the area that they are referring to, I will use the Houston Urbanized area as a basis (that is...it doesn't only overlap with METRO's service area and includes places such as Sugar Land, the Woodlands, and Pearland). With that in mind, if the share dropped in 5 years, could it possibly be because the City of Houston (and even Harris County's) share of the population of the region decreased over those five years as the other, definitely suburban and severely transit-restricted areas gained share of the population? Using the urbanized area is a conservative approach. If I looked at the actual metropolitan area, then it would underscore this trend even more. These people who have arrived over the last five years or so are more and more moving to places where the use of transit is not all that feasible. Thus, overall, the share statistically decreased.

I'd be more interested in seeing the share of transit usage from 00-05 in the METRO service area. That would be more telling, IMO. I'm not talking just ridership numbers, but also share.

Which reminds me--the accusations of ridership that people use against transit agencies is a farce and they should be called on it. State and City DOTs use vehicular counts all the time to justify the need for road expansion. People aregue that ridership only counts boardings and not people. Touche. However, traffic counts number the vehicles, not the people. For example, a person uses the rail to get to work. Once at work, the go to lunch. On the way home, they stop by a store. That turns out to be 6 boardings for that one person. But the same applies for raods. Jim leaves his house for work, and enters I-10. Jim has Jim Jr. with him and takes him to daycare, also on I-10. Leaving work, Jim picks up JIm Jr. from daycare, and Jane calls Jim to ask him to pick up bread. Well Jim is already on I-10 so he gets back off I-10 to go to the store, and he also does like many people and get right onto the freeway and back off in order to miss a traffic ligth in order to stop by the bank. Then Jim heads on home. Jim has also accounted for 6 trips, even though he's one person.

It's even more drastic if a traffic counting tube is on an arterial (like Richmond) and jack is heading westbound and then U-turns over the same counting tube to head eastbound. Double counting for one "trip".

[feufoma]

I've been following this thread closely. While I can see where property owners and businesses along Richmond have some valid concerns, I believe that in the long run it would make more sense for the line to go down Wheeler/ Richmond until Greenway Plaza and then over to Westpark. At that point it could continue down Westpark to the Hillcroft area with a spur to Uptown. That may or may not be the best routing but it makes sense to me.

That being said, the main beef that I have with all of this is that other cities don't seem to have such a problem getting transit in place. I was just in Amsterdam and they're completing a new north-south subway line. That city has far more complex soil conditions than Houston but the system is being built! It's so frustrating to think we can't even get a little tram system in place here. It's really becoming a joke...

[TheNiche]

That being said, the main beef that I have with all of this is that other cities don't seem to have such a problem getting transit in place. I was just in Amsterdam and they're completing a new north-south subway line. That city has far more complex soil conditions than Houston but the system is being built! It's so frustrating to think we can't even get a little tram system in place here. It's really becoming a joke...

We aren't Amsterdam...even if we were, that they built it doesn't mean that it was a good public investment.

Not to sound childish, but if several of your friends jumped off a cliff...

[FoUTASportscaster]

Hello all, I have been a lurker on this site for near a year now I have been following the news and opinions on this site regarding metrorail. I normally wouldn't post, but I feel I have to give some facts and correct the gross inaccuracies of AftonAg's post. As a transit advocate in general and rail in particular, I feel I have to give some facts to set the record straight.

First, there is not a single transit agency in the nation that recovers its operating cost. The best isn't 90 or even 80, but 74% by Washington DC's system. That means it has to find revenue that's a little more than one quarter of its operating cost. New York, with its huge ridership numbers only recovers 58% of its operating expenses. Even if you look at the transit friendly cities like Toronto and Vancouver in Canada, you won't find recovery numbers like DC's.

Even if you look at the successful system of Dallas's DART agency, you'll only see about 11% fare box recovery, though that number is scewed by the 1% sales tax and their aggresive expansion that adds capital costs to the mix. They are currently undergoing an expansion that will more than double the current system. Coupled with the TRE commuter system's (the existing system, not the planned one that is dependant on Grapevine voting yes in November) 35 miles and the DCTA's new system of 20 miles of commuter rail, The North Texas area will almost 150 miles of rail (though that is a very small amount compared to the amount of highway miles in the area). But the main thing is that they are dependant on the sales tax to get it done. Without it, there is no system at all, even bus.

Also As DART expanded, it faced opposition from neighborhood groups like Knox-Henderson that opposed the rail line and subway station. The line has since appreciated property values by 50% over comperable properties not served by rail. But DART didn't build the station at the request of the neighborhood group. They asked a couple of years later for DART to go ahead and build one. DART said sorry, there are other cities and neighborhoods that want rail, go to the back of the line. Now here they are, 6 years after they could have had a rail station, but they won't get one by 2018 and likely not by 2030, the latest expansion plan in the works. That's a decision that they regret, and likely the case is being in this situation.

So the point is, just like your water, sewer and trash bill pays for the maintance and expansion of the current system of sewers, water mains and landfills, the sales tax does the same for the current system. It has its limitations, but unless TxDoT turns its attention away from subsidizing sprawl by building highways all over the place, that will have to do.

Bottomline is you'll have to do better than that, Afton, to ruin the name of Metro.

As a final goodbye, I have been doing some research on the disbanding of the Dallas streetcar system in favor of buses. This was in 1954. There was a petition signed by the ciizens of the Oak Lawn area north of the Uptown area against the transition. They stated that the lack of transportation would cause a decline on property values. And as most might know, that was the case as the inner city started to decay. What a difference 50 years can make. Now somehow transit cause declines in property values.

[AftonAg]

I'm pretty sure that they've already put out press releases about increasing LRT ridership. Look for it. [EDIT: nmain just did; thanks.]

That doesn't mean that your point is necessarily invalid...just that it is confused. Very similar to the Republican stance on the Social Security issue.

What on earth does the republican stance on Social Security (which is a great oxy-moron btw) have to do with anything on this thread?

That was actually my post. I didn't suggest that Houston should build a Maglev system, but that the state should. I think that it'd fall under TXDoT's authority, although it could very easily be some form of private/public partnership.

The crash that occurred today was preventable, but was ultimately the result of human error. The system evidently lacked adequate emergency override systems and the pilot didn't follow procedure to ensure a clear track.

At the time I posted this information about the train wreck there was very little information regarding how and why it happened - most crashes of vehicles operated by humans are the result of human error - mechanical failure accounts for a very low percentage.

Hello all, I have been a lurker on this site for near a year now I have been following the news and opinions on this site regarding metrorail. I normally wouldn't post, but I feel I have to give some facts and correct the gross inaccuracies of AftonAg's post. As a transit advocate in general and rail in particular, I feel I have to give some facts to set the record straight.

First, there is not a single transit agency in the nation that recovers its operating cost. The best isn't 90 or even 80, but 74% by Washington DC's system. That means it has to find revenue that's a little more than one quarter of its operating cost. New York, with its huge ridership numbers only recovers 58% of its operating expenses. Even if you look at the transit friendly cities like Toronto and Vancouver in Canada, you won't find recovery numbers like DC's.

Even if you look at the successful system of Dallas's DART agency, you'll only see about 11% fare box recovery, though that number is scewed by the 1% sales tax and their aggresive expansion that adds capital costs to the mix. They are currently undergoing an expansion that will more than double the current system. Coupled with the TRE commuter system's (the existing system, not the planned one that is dependant on Grapevine voting yes in November) 35 miles and the DCTA's new system of 20 miles of commuter rail, The North Texas area will almost 150 miles of rail (though that is a very small amount compared to the amount of highway miles in the area). But the main thing is that they are dependant on the sales tax to get it done. Without it, there is no system at all, even bus.

Also As DART expanded, it faced opposition from neighborhood groups like Knox-Henderson that opposed the rail line and subway station. The line has since appreciated property values by 50% over comperable properties not served by rail. But DART didn't build the station at the request of the neighborhood group. They asked a couple of years later for DART to go ahead and build one. DART said sorry, there are other cities and neighborhoods that want rail, go to the back of the line. Now here they are, 6 years after they could have had a rail station, but they won't get one by 2018 and likely not by 2030, the latest expansion plan in the works. That's a decision that they regret, and likely the case is being in this situation.

So the point is, just like your water, sewer and trash bill pays for the maintance and expansion of the current system of sewers, water mains and landfills, the sales tax does the same for the current system. It has its limitations, but unless TxDoT turns its attention away from subsidizing sprawl by building highways all over the place, that will have to do.

Bottomline is you'll have to do better than that, Afton, to ruin the name of Metro.

As a final goodbye, I have been doing some research on the disbanding of the Dallas streetcar system in favor of buses. This was in 1954. There was a petition signed by the ciizens of the Oak Lawn area north of the Uptown area against the transition. They stated that the lack of transportation would cause a decline on property values. And as most might know, that was the case as the inner city started to decay. What a difference 50 years can make. Now somehow transit cause declines in property values.

Congratulations - on conquering your forumaphobia and making a post, I am sure mommy must be very proud of you for overcoming such a debilitating affliction.

This is Houston - not Dallas, and quite frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn how they did it in Dallas.

As for ruining the name of Metro - I have no need to ruin their name - they do a fine job of it all by themselves.

[feufoma]

We aren't Amsterdam...even if we were, that they built it doesn't mean that it was a good public investment.

Not to sound childish, but if several of your friends jumped off a cliff...

The trams and subway line in Amsterdam are packed at all hours of operation! Providing an alternate means of transportation in an efficient manner seems to be a prudent investment. Naturally, I don't have the figures, but taking the attitude that "we're not Amsterdam" is childish indeed. It's a city of only 730,000 people but so far ahead of Houston in urbanity it's depressing (if you're into cities, architecture, culture and that kinda' thing).

[nmainguy]

Congratulations - on conquering your forumaphobia and making a post, I am sure mommy must be very proud of you for overcoming such a debilitating affliction.

This is Houston - not Dallas, and quite frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn how they did it in Dallas.

As for ruining the name of Metro - I have no need to ruin their name - they do a fine job of it all by themselves.

Perhaps since you ceased long ago to add anything of value-other than insuring none of the rest of us will ever be considered the dumbest guy in the room as long as you lurk-you may want to consider cutting your already considerable losses.

Now, in 3-2-1 ag's response in his traditional bold face: Well Gary is really Redscare and Nmain is owl and he lives in a slum and I have a PLASMA TV because when you're from Afton Oaks they call you boss and besides I'm not done insulting our newest member FoUTASportscaster because I don't have any facts to refute him!

By the way, FoUTASportscaster-excellent post and information-welcome.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Congratulations - on conquering your forumaphobia and making a post, I am sure mommy must be very proud of you for overcoming such a debilitating affliction.

This is Houston - not Dallas, and quite frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn how they did it in Dallas.

As for ruining the name of Metro - I have no need to ruin their name - they do a fine job of it all by themselves.

Oh it wasn't a phobia. Other than a generic comment, I really don't have a lot to add to most discussions on Houston. On the occasion when I do, someone else could have and usually did. But I dislike the Wendall Cox/Randall O'toole wannabe's anti-transit comments and thought I should set the record straight.

While not 100% sure, I am pretty willing to say that Dallas and Houston's development (minus zoning) was pretty similar in the post WW2 era. So it is easy to believe that one neighborhoods like of foresight could easily be repeated here, and likely will be.

As for the Metro name, it is easy to bag on a transit system that has limited funding, has to actually pay for roads, is pretty much is a bus only system for a major metropolitan area, has short-sighted neighborhood groups fighting its every step, and has congressional leaders doing everything it can to keep it from getting federal funds.

DART's system is the complete opposite on all of those and because of it, will soon have one of the largest systems of rail in the US, especially outside the NE.

...and besides I'm not done insulting our newest member FoUTASportscaster because I don't have any facts to refute him!

By the way, FoUTASportscaster-excellent post and information-welcome.

Thank you. As a debater, you know your case is doing well when the opponent has to fall to those measures. An opposite veiwpoint isn't a bad thing, as it allows different angles to come into light. However, what's above wasn't an opposite viewpoint, but I'm sure you all know that.

[nmainguy]

Thank you. As a debater, you know your case is doing well when the opponent has to fall to those measures. An opposite veiwpoint isn't a bad thing, as it allows different angles to come into light. However, what's above wasn't an opposite viewpoint, but I'm sure you all know that.

You are welcome. Of course opposing viewpoints will usually weed out the misinformation on both sides by mere logic. I'm as guilty as anyone for long ago failing to stop enabling those such as ag that have no desire for informed discourse-so I will endeavor to resist any future enabling.

[Houston19514]

Perhaps since you ceased long ago to add anything of value-other than insuring none of the rest of us will ever be considered the dumbest guy in the room as long as you lurk-you may want to consider cutting your already considerable losses.

Now, in 3-2-1 ag's response in his traditional bold face: Well Gary is really Redscare and Nmain is owl and he lives in a slum and I have a PLASMA TV because when you're from Afton Oaks they call you boss and besides I'm not done insulting our newest member FoUTASportscaster because I don't have any facts to refute him!

By the way, FoUTASportscaster-excellent post and information-welcome.

ROFL Excellent post Nmain. Couldn't have said it better myself. (And my thanks, also to FoUTA for his logical and fact-based post.

[TheNiche]

As a final goodbye, I have been doing some research on the disbanding of the Dallas streetcar system in favor of buses. This was in 1954. There was a petition signed by the ciizens of the Oak Lawn area north of the Uptown area against the transition. They stated that the lack of transportation would cause a decline on property values. And as most might know, that was the case as the inner city started to decay. What a difference 50 years can make. Now somehow transit cause declines in property values.

Correlation does not indicate causality.

[Houston19514]

Correlation does not indicate causality.

Actually, correlation does indicate causality. It just doesn't prove it.

[TheNiche]

What on earth does the republican stance on Social Security (which is a great oxy-moron btw) have to do with anything on this thread?

The Republican stance is that SS will go bankrupt in so many years. The term 'bankrupt' scares people, but it also obscures the real issue. No matter what is on the books of a government entity, be it the SSA or METRO, each engages in the practice of reallocating resources within society. The financial records are very poor indicators of the actual benefits and costs that will affect individuals. In actuality, METRO (or its equivalent) is extremely unlikely to ever go completely bankrupt because taxes will either rise to make up for the deficit in the long term or some other transit agency would be formed to take over when METRO disolves...and METRO's capital investments, good and poor, would still have been made.

So to bicker over the financial status all you like. It really isn't that critical. What matters are the allocation of actual goods and services within society.

The trams and subway line in Amsterdam are packed at all hours of operation! Providing an alternate means of transportation in an efficient manner seems to be a prudent investment. Naturally, I don't have the figures, but taking the attitude that "we're not Amsterdam" is childish indeed. It's a city of only 730,000 people but so far ahead of Houston in urbanity it's depressing (if you're into cities, architecture, culture and that kinda' thing).

Once again, allow me to say categorically that:

HOUSTON IS NOT AMSTERDAM.

HOUSTON WILL NEVER BE AMSTERDAM.

If you dispute that, then you will force me to call into question your sanity.

Psst...btw, there is no society or region in which "cities, architecture, culture and that kinda' thing" doesn't exist. I'm into all of these things and have very few qualms when it comes to appreciating a variety of them. Incidentally, it is easier to appreciate them when you don't make the overriding normative assumption that there is a 'right' way for a given people to do culture.

Actually, correlation does indicate causality. It just doesn't prove it.

I can live with that. Point taken.

[feufoma]

Once again, allow me to say categorically that:

HOUSTON IS NOT AMSTERDAM.

HOUSTON WILL NEVER BE AMSTERDAM.

If you dispute that, then you will force me to call into question your sanity.

Psst...btw, there is no society or region in which "cities, architecture, culture and that kinda' thing" doesn't exist. I'm into all of these things and have very few qualms when it comes to appreciating a variety of them. Incidentally, it is easier to appreciate them when you don't make the overriding normative assumption that there is a 'right' way for a given people to do culture.

Please don't be insulting. You know what I'm saying if you're of average intelligence, which I have no reason to doubt that you are. I'm obviously not saying that Amsterdam and Houston are the same. Houston's not even on the level of Atlanta and Dallas and probably never will be. I was simply lamenting the fact that other cities (e.g., Amsterdam) are able to work against the odds (natural conditions in Amsterdam's case) and get things done. I'm also saying that in the last several years Houston resembles a po dunk, backward burg that can't even develop a measly tram system even though a much smaller, though culturally superior, city like Amsterdam is capable of developing an efficient transit system that includes a rail component.

Economically? Of course the Metro system that might be developed in Houston wouldn't even begin to break even. That's not the issue. Transit systems aren't in place to break even or generate a profit. Moreover, sustaining private property values isn't the issue. If a person doesn't like living near the train then that person should move. It's a utilitarian thought but that's too bad.

Providing current and future citizens of Houston with another transportation alternative is what's needed. Otherwise, most Houstonians are going to be stuck in unimaginable traffic. Do you really want to live in a place like that? Oh, nevermind, you do already.

[TheNiche]

Please don't be insulting. You know what I'm saying if you're of average intelligence, which I have no reason to doubt that you are. I'm obviously not saying that Amsterdam and Houston are the same. Houston's not even on the level of Atlanta and Dallas and probably never will be. I was simply lamenting the fact that other cities (e.g., Amsterdam) are able to work against the odds (natural conditions in Amsterdam's case) and get things done. I'm also saying that in the last several years Houston resembles a po dunk, backward burg that can't even develop a measly tram system even though a much smaller, though culturally superior, city like Amsterdam is capable of developing an efficient transit system that includes a rail component.

Economically? Of course the Metro system that might be developed in Houston wouldn't even begin to break even. That's not the issue. Transit systems aren't in place to break even or generate a profit. Moreover, sustaining private property values isn't the issue. If a person doesn't like living near the train then that person should move. It's a utilitarian thought but that's too bad.

Providing current and future citizens of Houston with another transportation alternative is what's needed. Otherwise, most Houstonians are going to be stuck in unimaginable traffic. Do you really want to live in a place like that? Oh, nevermind, you do already .

I've marked up phrases in your response that reveal your underlying elitism and disregard for the local culture. I may be in the minority on this opinion, but in my mind, this attitude is no more or less backward than that of racist thugs or cocooned religious fundamentalists.

In your middle paragraph, I'm not going to argue with you because I don't necessarily disagree. It is a non-issue.

The last paragraph, however, indicates how little thought you've put into your rhetorically-loaded post. You've effectively claimed that we're already stuck in unimaginable traffic...but if we're stuck in it, surely we can imagine it. In all honesty, the traffic could be much much worse. Seriously, I think that there will be a time when high-capacity fixed-guideway transit becomes a real and necessary option, but I doubt that we're living in those times just yet. Why build now to solve problems of the future? And far more importantly, I am just about certain that the way that we've implemented LRT is a failure; that is my biggest gripe. After that, my next biggest gripe is the way that the political process became so rhetorically convoluted by various competing interests. "World Class City," my left asscheek.

[CDeb]

I am just about certain that the way that we've implemented LRT is a failure; that is my biggest gripe.

How so? I'm quite certain that you've probably made the point in a previous post. If you have, can you link me to it?

I'm not arguing with you, I just want to read your opinion because I generally enjoy your posts and respect your thought-out opinions.