METRORail University Line

[Transit Nut]

Mr. Spieler has an interesting article regarding Culberson's editorial:

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...akes-his-claim/

Ultimately, METRO has narrowed down its choices on the western end to 3. We will then have a thorough comparison when the DEIS comes out in March, just like we did for the North Corridor (Fulton vs. Irvington) and the Southeast Corridor (Scott-Griggs vs. Wheeler-MLK). Just wait a month or two.

[musicman]

Mr. Spieler has an interesting article regarding Culberson's editorial:

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...akes-his-claim/

I like Mr. Spieler however this isn't one of his most convincing rebuttals. Kinda sounds like we do here.

[H-Town Man]

Mayor White should lead this effort - he has enough political capital to make it happen. Right now, no one is applying public pressure to this jerk - that needs to change.

Mayor White does not want to get in a fight. He wants to be governor, which means no bad vibes from prominent Harris County Republicans. If we had a mayor like Daley, the line would already be built.

[nmainguy]

We know that rail on Richmond has many notable proponents. I think that these politicians, business people, and neighborhood associations need to come together and draft some kind of formal request to Culberson for him to get out of the way - something that can be simultaneously published in the Chronicle. Mayor White should lead this effort - he has enough political capital to make it happen. Right now, no one is applying public pressure to this jerk - that needs to change. Culberson has spun all of this as him defending the interests of people along Richmond (which is, at best, a half-truth, to say nothing of his real motivation for doing so). The only way to counter that spin is to publicly expose him as defying the interests of the rest of the city.

I just received an email from Joe Webb at richmondrail.org. He says they have over 3000+ signatures on their petition. You can sign here if you haven't already:

http://richmondrail.org/support/petition.php

If you choose to add your name to the 46 signatures against rail on Richmond please feel free to go to:

http://www.mobilitycoalition.org/sign.html

Check out signee #37 to see what we're up against.

BTW: Christof's rebuttal is excellent and does sound like most of us here who embrace the facts.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...akes-his-claim/

Chuck Kuffner put it well:

[Furious Jam]

I just received an email from Joe Webb at richmondrail.org. He says they have over 3000+ signatures on their petition. You can sign here if you haven't already:

http://richmondrail.org/support/petition.php

If you choose to add your name to the 46 signatures against rail on Richmond please feel free to go to:

http://www.mobilitycoalition.org/sign.html

Check out signee #37 to see what we're up against.

Gee, one site touts a long list of businesses and organizations that publicly support rail on Richmond. The other is a smattering of cranks. I'm not sure which one I can identify with.

[TheNiche]

Gee, one site touts a long list of businesses and organizations that publicly support rail on Richmond. The other is a smattering of cranks. I'm not sure which one I can identify with.

One would hope that people can think for themselves and don't need to reference a list of supporters or naysayers of a project as an indication of what they themselves should think...

[Double L]

Mayor White does not want to get in a fight. He wants to be governor, which means no bad vibes from prominent Harris County Republicans. If we had a mayor like Daley, the line would already be built.

That's a bunch of crazy talk. Bill White has said before "I'm all about building consensus where I can". He's not getting involved in an unsolvable issue which will create political divide. Daley called the smoking ban "wasting our time" and "let's look at some real issues". He is not a good mayor IMO. Also, Bill White has no stated intentions for governorship. Perry plans to stay governor for "at least twelve years" if he doesn't get a Vice Presidency offer and he could become a tough opponenent if he wins more support from the republican party.

[TheNiche]

That's a bunch of crazy talk. Bill White has said before "I'm all about building consensus where I can". He's not getting involved in an unsolvable issue which will create political divide. Daley called the smoking ban "wasting our time" and "let's look at some real issues". He is not a good mayor IMO. Also, Bill White has no stated intentions for governorship. Perry plans to stay governor for "at least twelve years" if he doesn't get a Vice Presidency offer and he could become a tough opponenent if he wins more support from the republican party.

Perry as VP?

It'll never happen. What are you smoking?

[Double L]

My thoughts exactly. He made a shot at it in his state of the state address in which he was talking about a lot of national issues.

I don't think Perry is a good contender as a VP nominee because he has been a far too controversial Texas governor. I think sometimes he can be a real common sense politician but other times I see him play politics or blatantly support business interests.

I think the best politician Texas has to offer is Kay Bailey Hutchison.

...but back on topic.

[H-Town Man]

That's a bunch of crazy talk. Bill White has said before "I'm all about building consensus where I can". He's not getting involved in an unsolvable issue which will create political divide. Daley called the smoking ban "wasting our time" and "let's look at some real issues". He is not a good mayor IMO. Also, Bill White has no stated intentions for governorship. Perry plans to stay governor for "at least twelve years" if he doesn't get a Vice Presidency offer and he could become a tough opponenent if he wins more support from the republican party.

Building consensus where he can? Could you possibly think of a wimpier statement from a political perspective? Daley sees what's good for his city, and lets no one get in his way toward accomplishing it. White encounters an ornery local congressman, and decides to work on other issues. You tell me who is a better mayor.

And by the way, the smoking ban is stupid. I have never been a smoker and don't personally like the smell of cigarette smoke, but come on... how much of a whiny, overly-domesticated society have we become, that we have to start banning cigarette smoke? In BARS of all places! Kinky Friedman's de-wussification campaign would have been good for things like this.

[west20th]

If you choose to add your name to the 46 signatures against rail on Richmond please feel free to go to:

http://www.mobilitycoalition.org/sign.html

Check out signee #37 to see what we're up against.

BTW: Christof's rebuttal is excellent and does sound like most of us here who embrace the facts.

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...akes-his-claim/

I kind of like signature #43.

[musicman]

One would hope that people can think for themselves and don't need to reference a list of supporters or naysayers of a project as an indication of what they themselves should think...

How true.

[Double L]

Daley has been a corrupt mayor, he's been putting lots of money into pork projects like millenium park while crime has been rising, and the cities poor neighborhoods are getting worse, he is involved in "machine politics".

Honestly, Rick Perry has a better record of common sense decisions than Richard M. Daley.

[west20th]

Honestly, Rick Perry has a better record of common sense decisions than Richard M. Daley.

I'll assume that is because Daley is totally devoid of common sense decisions. For the life of me I really can't think of any common sense decisions Perry has ever made.

[Double L]

Perry balanced the budget, put more money into healthcare, reducing crime, engaged in tort reform, he introduced CHIP, plenty more, I'd say that's a better record than Daley. Daley has been getting involved in anti-Iraq protests (not his role) and he has several scandals under his belt.

[west20th]

Perry balanced the budget, put more money into healthcare, reducing crime, engaged in tort reform, he introduced CHIP, plenty more, I'd say that's a better record than Daley. Daley has been getting involved in anti-Iraq protests (not his role) and he has several scandals under his belt.

Hmmm....balanced the budget with a new business tax in times of record surpluses. Put more money into health care, any results? Half-assed tort reform, now you can't sue for malpractice but the AMA (or whoever licenses DR's) does nothing to get rid of the incompetent quacks who generate most of the malpractice suits. Introduced CHIP and turned the administration over to his buddies who totally screwed it up. Yeah what a great guy. Actually I hope someone picks him for VP, it will get him out of our hair. Actually, to be fair. Perry can't take total/blame credit for a lot of that stuff. The Govenors in Texas aren't that powerful. He's just an over-coiffed show pony. Give the blame/credit to Dewhurst and Craddick.

Oooops sorry for getting so far off topic.

[Double L]

All the programs you talk about are still moving forward for us from what the situation was before. They may have more work to do but he still shows fiscal responsibilty and the ability to get the state's priorities in good order. Daley put money into pork projects like Millenium Park but the cities ghettos have been getting worse.

...so no, Perry's not perfect (I liked Chris Bell better) but he's better than Daley.

[west20th]

All the programs you talk about are still moving forward for us from what the situation was before. They may have more work to do but he still shows fiscal responsibilty and the ability to get the state's priorities in good order. Daley put money into pork projects like Millenium Park but the cities ghettos have been getting worse.

...so no, Perry's not perfect (I liked Chris Bell better) but he's better than Daley.

Well I can't argue with you there. Don't know much about Daley.

[Double L]

EDIT: My original point was only that even Perry, with all of his critics has been involved in even less scandal and accusation of corruption as Daley.

[H-Town Man]

Daley has been a corrupt mayor, he's been putting lots of money into pork projects like millenium park while crime has been rising, and the cities poor neighborhoods are getting worse, he is involved in "machine politics".

Honestly, Rick Perry has a better record of common sense decisions than Richard M. Daley.

I didn't say I liked Daley's machine politics. But I do like the fact that he gets things done that are important to the city, and doesn't get muscled by local congressmen. White needs to show some muscle, plain and simple.

Perry's an idiot. Ever heard of the Trans-Texas Corridors?

[Furious Jam]

One would hope that people can think for themselves and don't need to reference a list of supporters or naysayers of a project as an indication of what they themselves should think...

Well I obviously have my own opinion, or else I wouldn't be posting here. But both the quality and the quantity of supporters on an issue can be relevant. If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

[musicman]

If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

There are people with quite a bit of free time on their hands.

[TheNiche]

Well I obviously have my own opinion, or else I wouldn't be posting here. But both the quality and the quantity of supporters on an issue can be relevant. If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

Posting lists of supporters adds nothing to the argument and has absolutely nothing to do with which side of an issue is objectively correct.

But as a political tactic, it works because there is a recognition that not everyone necessarily does think for themselves when complex matters are being debated and that those people can easily be won over by an endorsement from someone or some organization with a name that carries weight. That is more or less the basis for the existence of political parties.

[Double L]

It doesn't surprise me that Bill White doesn't want to get involved in this debate.

[nmainguy]

Well I obviously have my own opinion, or else I wouldn't be posting here. But both the quality and the quantity of supporters on an issue can be relevant. If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

Perhaps the supporters of rail on Richmond; verified on-line with no attempt to hide their origins-clearly out-weigh the anti's in numbers-have a valid and well thought out point and are a like-minded group of individuals that think the same way. The anti's hide behind the Brass Maiden's voice mail.

I'm proud to be on the side of a group that is upfront and not some back-room gang of slackers with more money than sense who rely only on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

[Double L]

Saying you're going to put the rail down "the line of highest ridership" is a statement that can rally a lot of people who aren't involved in the issue behind it, but upon closer look there might be more factors than ridership such as whether or not Afton Oaks is an efficient environment to place a rail system or whether the cost is worth the benefit.

Polls/petitions are glimpses and not facts, but glimpses none the less. I wouldn't decide an issue based on a poll or a petition but it's worth giving a look at as long as you can take it simply as the opinions of the average citizen. After all, all you Culbertson supporters better recognize that he made his Univ. line decision based on what the majority of his constituents were saying.

[TheNiche]

... who rely only on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

This, from someone who prefaces his accusations by committing back-to-back ad hominem fallacies and fails to provide adequate premeses?

Honestly, what is it about our society that we become so childishly partisan? I just don't get it.

[TheNiche]

I wouldn't decide an issue based on a poll or a petition but it's worth giving a look at as long as you can take it simply as the opinions of the average citizen.

Yeah, that's the tricky part. Taking a poll is an expensive proposition. Whoever finances it will essentially dictate its outcome. It all comes down to how you ask the question, and then how you write up the press release. So you end up having to accept there's already limited usefulness in knowing the popular opinion because what is popular isn't always right, but if you then place the poll's validity in question...well it starts to look like a pretty useless indicator of anything in particular.

[musicman]

I'm proud to be on the side of a group that is upfront and not some back-room gang of slackers with more money than sense who rely only on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

both sides are very upfront and have money supporting them. if you don't believe that then you're relying on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

[Furious Jam]

Posting lists of supporters adds nothing to the argument and has absolutely nothing to do with which side of an issue is objectively correct.

No offense, but that's just nutty. If I posted a list of 500 accredited climatologists who believe that global warming is occurring, and someone else responded by posting a list of 50 anonymous crackpots who think that global warming is a myth, you're telling me that those lists would add nothing to that argument? Obviously, the opinions/support of some people carry more weight than the opinions/support of others, depending on the issue. Here, you have a list of neighborhood associations and other organizations representing the interests of thousands of people and businesses in the affected area. And you say that list carries no more weight than a short list of anonymous opponents? Again, nuts.

You use the term "objective", as if every argument can be conclusively settled by some quantifiable measurement. The reality is, very few arguments can be settled in such a fashion - if it were that easy, there probably wouldn't be an argument to begin with.

In fact, there is virtually nothing objective about this issue. I'm amazed you can't see that after 34 pages of this. The people who oppose rail on Richmond do so for personal reasons only. They don't care whether rail on Richmond would be objectively best for Houston - all they care about is that it's not for them.