METRORail University Line

[infinite_jim]

went to my first richmondrail meeting tonight and the people from the CTC are good folks

I'll be there for the town hall meeting and for the public meeting at the JCI next summer.

support what you believe in!

[nmainguy]

i didn't

I asked: "BTW, how did you vote on the non-binding resolution?"

I didn't ask about a petition. I specified the non-binding resolution. We all get it. You choose not to vote. Or did you choose not to vote before you voted? Please explain. Inquiring minds want to know.

[musicman]

I asked: "BTW, how did you vote on the non-binding resolution?"

I didn't ask about a petition. I specified the non-binding resolution. We all get it. You choose not to vote. Or did you choose not to vote before you voted? Please explain. Inquiring minds want to know.

the last SEVERAL posts you and I were talking about were concerning the two petitions not whether I voted which BTW I did vote..

[Subdude]

Keep it on topic here folks. If you just want to swap insults then take it somewhere else. No one else wants to read it.

[musicman]

The Federal Transit Administration has given a helpful push to the Metropolitan Transit Authority's plans for its North and Southeast bus rapid transit lines, Metro President and CEO Frank Wilson said Tuesday.

FTA officials announced early in the day that the two projects are among six nationwide that might qualify for 50 percent federal funding under the Bush administration's 2008 budget proposal.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/4532288.html

When there's a plan and a consensus, things work so much better

[ricco67]

is there a captain obvious award available?

[Transit Nut]

Robin Holzer of the Citizens' Transportation Coalition (CTC) had an editorial published in the Chronicle today. She has posted a copy on her blog:

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/robin/2007...-about-houston/

[musicman]

Many neighborhoods along the proposed Richmond route are eager for these benefits, which is why the Neartown Association and several of its member civic clubs have formally endorsed a Richmond alignment.

I have heartache over several of her comments but for some reason i hate this the most. it would be my preference to have the people in a certain area decide their fate vs. those in another area. to say the neartown association is speaking for everyone along richmond is a misnomer.

[Highway6]

I have heartache over several of her comments but for some reason i hate this the most. it would be my preference to have the people in a certain area decide their fate vs. those in another area. to say the neartown association is speaking for everyone along richmond is a misnomer.

It is more than just the Neartown Association... it is lots of the individual neighborhood civic associations, some that part of the Neartown association, some that are not... neighborhood civic associations whos officers are selected/voted on by the neighborhood to speak on their behalf..... I would guess that if neghborhood association endorses something, then its a good chance the majority of that neighborhood approve.

http://www.richmondrail.org/blogs/?p=33

[musicman]

It is more than just the Neartown Association... it is lots of the individual neighborhood civic associations, some that part of the Neartown association, some that are not... neighborhood civic associations whos officers are selected/voted on by the neighborhood to speak on their behalf..... I would guess that if neghborhood association endorses something, then its a good chance the majority of that neighborhood approve.

Yes i know one of the officers in blvd oaks. he said that if it has to be built, better richmond than through their neighborhood.

[KinkaidAlum]

While it might be true that many of the Boulevard Oaks folks want it to be built on Richmond rather than "through their neighborhood," there are many others who want it because it makes the most sense.

My sister lives on Milford. She wants it down Richmond because she is much more likely to use the bridges recently completed over 59 to get to Richmond (just a few short blocks away from her house) than she would be to have to deal with reaching light rail somehow built alongside or above the freeway. Additionally, she's pointed it out to me on many occassions that there is absolutely NOTHING she'd want to get to along the freeway or westpark whereas the Richmond rail could take her to Greenway Plaza, the Edwards Cinema, and close to the Whole Foods on West Alabama.

[musicman]

While it might be true that many of the Boulevard Oaks folks want it to be built on Richmond rather than "through their neighborhood," there are many others who want it because it makes the most sense.

Boulevard oaks is just like haif, we agree to disagree.

[Highway6]

Boulevard oaks is just like haif, we agree to disagree.

On that map showing the civic associations... what are the gray areas on Richmond, not mentioned as For Richmond Rail?

The big gray area on the NW corner of Montrose and Richmond isnt a civic association.. it is UST and they have already stated they are for Richmond alignment.

Two other areas could possibly be civic associations.. the small one as the SW corner of Montrose and Richmond

The bigger one betwene Shepherd and Wood head on the N side of Richmond.

What are these two neighborhoods and what are their stances ?

Regardless though... of the Neighborhood associations on Richmond between the Spur and Shepherd.. 5 out of possibly 7 (im estimating from the map, somone clue me in if Im wrong) have endorsed the Richmond alignment.... not to mention UST and the Menil Foundation.

[musicman]

On that map showing the civic associations... what are the gray areas on Richmond, not mentioned as For Richmond Rail?

The big gray area on the NW corner of Montrose and Richmond isnt a civic association.. it is UST and they have already stated they are for Richmond alignment.

Two other areas could possibly be civic associations.. the small one as the SW corner of Montrose and Richmond

The bigger one betwene Shepherd and Wood head on the N side of Richmond.

What are these two neighborhoods and what are their stances ?

I'm just looking at the data you posted from the pro-rail organization. if the data wasn't there, maybe they wanted to remain neutral? that question could be posed to the pro-rail folks and maybe they'll update the info either way.

I think the ones along richmond have more at stake. we went to eat on richmond this past weekend and the place had a couple of anti-rail signs. i asked the lady who said that they were worried about losing parking. she said that from the meetings she went to, other businesses/homes were more worried about losing the structures themselves. and i can understand that because some of buildings sit 2-4' from the sidewalk. on some portions i don't see the ROW for 2 traffic lanes plus 2 lanes for the LRT unless some demolition occurs.

If METRO could show the concerned property owners the rail plan as it affects their property, i'm sure it would appease those along richmond. there are still too many unknowns.

[dbigtex56]

Two other areas could possibly be civic associations.. the small one as the SW corner of Montrose and Richmond

Castle Court Neighborhood Association.

Meanwhile, Adra Hooks observed that the Castle Court Neighborhood Association which also adjoins Richmond, views the traffic from a different perspective. She observed that today, Richmond already carries more than 25,000 vehicles per day and is near capacity, so

[musicman]

Castle Court Neighborhood Association.

Meanwhile, Adra Hooks observed that the Castle Court Neighborhood Association which also adjoins Richmond, views the traffic from a different perspective. She observed that today, Richmond already carries more than 25,000 vehicles per day and is near capacity, so

[Transit Nut]

Did anyone go to the Culberson town hall meeting at Rice tonight?

[Quinlan]

I attended the town hall meeting tonight at Rice.

It was a pretty full house and there was quite a bit of tension in the air. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro "Rail on Richmond"---I would say upwards of 80%. Culberson made many attempts to steer the conversation away from rail, but the crowd kept bringing the topic back to rail. There were many outbursts from the crowd, showing an obvious frustration with his, as one attendee put it, "pandering", and it seemed like many in the crowd had decided that he no longer deserves enough respect to keep these things civil and orderly. There were many times when Culberson, even with his microphone, could not make himself heard over the raucous crowd.

Culberson kept repeating, ad nauseum, that he was only respecting the intent of the voters in the 2003 election, by insisting on his designated route that only has "slight modifications" from the map allegedly put before voters. It was pointed out to him that the map he had on hand as his prop was not accurate and that the language on the ballot proposal included that the "final scope, length of rail segments or lines and other details, together with implementation schedule, will be based upon demand and completion of the project development process, including community input." All of this went in one ear and out the other (unsurprisingly, with incredible speed).

There were also impassioned questions regarding healthcare reform, pleas to support our troops by ending the bloodbath in Iraq and urgings to help prevent Bush from going to war with Iran.

Culberson even got to talk about how border patrol agents who are currently on trial for shooting at an unarmed border-crosser running away from them should---instead of being prosecuted---be required to take target-practice so they will be sure not to miss next time.

Some of my thought about Rail on Richmond after reflecting on the meeting:

*Even if his so-called map is the map voted on by the voters in 2003, why should he get to decide what "slight modifications" should be permitted to it?

*What really is his agenda here? It's obvious that it isn't to "respect the actions of the voters". He breaks that tenet on a nearly daily basis. It is also fairly clear that the majority of his constituents favor Rail on Richmond. What political purpose is served by his continued opposition to Rail on Richmond?

*With the shift in power in Congress, the Republicans no longer run the Appropriations Committee. Perhaps it would be wise to start letting the Democrats in charge know what we think about this? David Obey from Wisconsin is the chair of the committee, John Olver of Massachusetts is the chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Ciro Rodriguez and Chet Edwards of Texas are on the committee, with the former on the Transportation Subcommittee. It might be worth all of our time to put in a call to each of them and ask for some help on this.

*For a man who loves to espouse the perils of an over-reaching federal government, he sure does seem to be meddling in an area where the decisions are likely best made by the local government.

[infinite_jim]

he did say that it would be built, even that is something from someone who truly opposes rail

[Furious Jam]

he did say that it would be built, even that is something from someone who truly opposes rail

Remember, congressmen are all too willing to hand out pork, ala Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere". It doesn't surprise me that Culberson is willing to support Rail to Nowhere. It does, however, shock the conscience that a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative would openly champion a wasteful rail option with a straight face.

I too was at the meeting, and it's impossible to listen to Culberson for even a minute without having your BS detector go off. He wasn't interested in having a meaningful discussion on the issue. He even categorized the issue as moot from the beginning. And when he did speak, it was nothing but constant contradictions:

"I'm a fiscal conservative", then "my option isn't much more expensive and the ridership will be nearly the same".

"I'm for control at the local level", then "I'm going to protect you from Metro".

"The voters approved Westpark only and we have to abide by that", then "my slight modification runs it inside the freeway".

He kept pointing at a map that he claimed was part of the ballot (it wasn't) and said that we all had to abide by that map, but then promised to block Metro from using the public easement illustrated on the map and again championed his 59 option, which has never on any map prior to the election.

Oh, did I mention that he called out the Chronicle as unfair? And repeatedly promised to always bring us the truth? Gee, whom should we trust? The 4th Estate or a local politician who is best buddies with Tom Delay?

I think John Culberson represents everything that's wrong with politics. I'm not saying that he's corrupt, but he is a shameless liar who only has his own best interests at heart.

[CDeb]

Gee, whom should we trust? The 4th Estate or a local politician

Neither.

[Highway6]

I went.. It was good to see so many there from the Pro-Richmond camp.

I like all the boos he got when he said 90 something percent of people on Richmond were against rail.

You get the feeling he's been saying his lines so much on this matter that he believes it now.

When one guy mentioned what Culberson' route would do, elevating the track over a hundred homes, adding noise, chasing so many away form thei homes... Culbersons stated many times that the elevated portion would down in the trench - elevated over the cars but under the homes.

Which Metro has said just isn't the case.... that it would have to go over the 59 cross bridges, it can't go in the trench- under them.

[Furious Jam]

The one thing I got out of the meeting is that Culberson has invested too much in this to ever back down. I may have asked this before, but are there any scenarios where we can get federal funding for the other routes, but build on Richmond with our own money (like we did on Main)? Also, Culberson kept repeating the mantra that "this is what you voted for". Why not just have another election just on the Richmond issue to make it clear? Didn't we have two elections on Toyota Center?

[MidtownCoog]

Oh, did I mention that he called out the Chronicle as unfair?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4574737.html

[TheNiche]

I may have asked this before, but are there any scenarios where we can get federal funding for the other routes, but build on Richmond with our own money (like we did on Main)?

We didn't get federal funding for the Red Line, and funding it ourselves was pure idiocy. If we had the option of building Culberson's line with federal funding vs. building the Richmond line with our own funding, Culberson's would be the better option, just going by the numbers. And without any matching funds at all, frankly, the no-build scenario wins out.

He's definitely got some leverage, but he's also engaged in a dangerous game of chicken.

[Furious Jam]

If we had the option of building Culberson's line with federal funding vs. building the Richmond line with our own funding, Culberson's would be the better option, just going by the numbers. And without any matching funds at all, frankly, the no-build scenario wins out.

I'd rather not build at all than accept Culberson's route. Having the train make a 90 degree turn at Montrose would impact traffic in my area far more than just running it straight down Richmond. Also, it would have to cut through and be elevated above a strictly residential area, resulting in a far greater impact to people's homes than the Cummins route. Additionally, I can't see how it would be built in a manner that wouldn't drastically affect the homeowners along the north of the 59 trench. Finally, more construction on 59 is just unacceptable. In the end, it's just a gerrymandered route that has been created without any rational basis. It is definitely not better than nothing, and I would oppose it - as would nearly everyone in my part of town.

Culberson cannot argue that we didn't vote for Richmond, then force on us a proposal than no one has ever voted on either. Can't have your cake and eat it too. No to 59.

[musicman]

Having the train make a 90 degree turn at Montrose would impact traffic in my area far more than just running it straight down Richmond.

Now you're sounding like the Afton Oaks people. The best route which optimizes the number of riders and affects/impacts the least amt of vehicular traffic should be chosen....whatever that might be.

[Furious Jam]

Now you're sounding like the Afton Oaks people. The best route which optimizes the number of riders and affects/impacts the least amt of vehicular traffic should be chosen....whatever that might be.

Um, no. If the original Richmond proposal that AO complained about had the train turning left on Weslayan, then flying over their backyards, before finally #$%*ing up 59 with even more construction, then I'd be on even footing with them. But even considering the Culberson route's impact on Montrose, I'd still be open to it if it was designed by professional urban and transit planners as a route that would serve the greatest number of people in the most efficient way. But in reality, it's just something that Culberson pulled out of his @$$.

[Pumapayam]

But in reality, it's just something that Culberson pulled out of his @$$.

Hence why you are not called Happy Jam!

[The Voice of University Oaks]

The 4(f) issues associated with taking out a chunk of Chew Park alone will kill Culberson's option, let alone the poor cost per rider numbers that will doubtlessly keep it from getting a positive rating from the FTA New Starts evaluation process.