John Culberson blocking metro rail funding

[Dubious]

Searching for the center of Houston quote but not finding.....


Hightower said the Energy Corridor, which includes part of Park 10, is Houston’s third-largest employment center, with about 75,000 people working in the region every day. “

http://www.chron.com/PRIVOXY-FORCE/n...in-1750499.php

Ethnic distribution map



This one says Sharpstown: http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/vi...223710051e2a65

[Refman]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx We all would love to have miles and miles and miles of cool looking high speed cutting-edge technology trains in Houston. That would be way cool, brah. However, money doesn't grow on trees and it's not responsible to think that it does and pour money into this pit. It's hilarious to me that you, as a lawyer, trot out the "well how much does a freeway cost" logic, then counter your own point that you must depend on non-rail transportation sources because you "have to be mobile at a moment's notice". The freeway cost argument is a non-starter, because freeways are a true necessity for Houston -- ambulances, firetrucks, lawyers (lol!), tractor-trailers all must use them. We need freeways. Even your fantasy-world nirvana cities of NYC and Boston require freeways. Rail in Houston is nothing more than a luxury pimped by the "city weiner envy crowd" who can't understand basic economics.

Wow...now you are posting crap that I think you do not really believe and that does not respond to what I actually said.

Nobody said that we do not need freeways. In fact, we have freeways and they are inadequate. Please point to where I suggested that we tear down all the freeways and build rail and only rail. You can't. If you see going to tear down somebody's point, try doing it in earnest, based on what was actually posted.

To improve traffic flow, the choices are to build rail or expand the freeways. Expanding the freeways will be expensive due to land condemnation. Rail will be expensive. Given the choice between two expensive options, I believe we would choose the more effective of the two for a greater number of people. This does not even delve into diminishing benefits for additional freeway lanes and the fact that you can only make the freeway so wide before you have structural concerns.

I am sure that you will do your usual ignoring of what I posted and make up something I did not post in order to refute it. Have fun.

[Scarface281]

Originally Posted by Dubious Searching for the center of Houston quote but not finding..... Hightower said the Energy Corridor, which includes part of Park 10, is Houston’s third-largest employment center, with about 75,000 people working in the region every day. “ http://www.chron.com/PRIVOXY-FORCE/n...in-1750499.php Ethnic distribution map This one says Sharpstown: http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/vi...223710051e2a65

Ethnic map has nothing to do with the population and population density. Good marketing is what had people thinking CityCentre was somehow the center of the city. Maybe the center of the west side between 290 and 59....LOL.

[rocketsjudoka]

Coming back late to this thread.

Originally Posted by Dubious Again, I'm all for our street car where it makes sense.. Downtown/Med Center/UH. But,light rail will never serve the reality of Houston since an overwhelming majority of our homes and jobs are spread over 500 square miles.

I can't comment directly on Houston since I haven't lived there for years and the work I did was on the Minneapolis LRT. As others have noted though if LRT can work in places like DFW, Atlanta, and Denver, places that have also developed on a sprawling model it could work in Houston. Also I don't think anyone is advocating LRT (or commuter rail since that was mentioned here) as the only solution to mobility. LRT should be part of a multi-modal system.

One man's 'sprawl' is another man's dream home. Single family housing gives families a defensible private space, free from the encroachment of neighbors top and under and side by side. Show me any study where high density living is preferred over single family homes by anywhere near a majority. Most sociological studies show higher density living cause more stresses on families. Most government housing agencies are tearing down their high density housing and developing lower density public options.

If we are talking about Cabrini Greens or Pruitt Igoes type hi rise concrete ghetto developments yes those have proven to be abject failures but density isn't about high rises versus single family houses but there is a range of things in between. In the last 20 years there has been a boom of development in things like townhouses and also luxury condo developments in practically every city of America. Even suburbs are embracing denser and more mixed use development and many have rehabbed or built whole new town centers that have hight density housing. Also single family house doesn't mean a house sitting on a half acre lot.

Also the development of sprawl and mostly single family houses isn't some sort of organic development driven by personal choice and markets but actually a decades long strategy that was as planned as any high rise development. Consider the amount of infrastructure that needs to go into building a sprawling suburb, think about highways that go out to it, the roads that connect it, sewer lines, power lines, parking lots and etc.. The creation of America suburbia in the post war error was governments working hand in hand with developers from providing infrastructure to establishing loan programs for people to be able to buy houses. Suburbia as we know it is an ideology made by people like William Levitt that governments agreed with and was heavily marketed to a postwar US population that was facing a housing crisis.

Further since you brought this up in some of your other post about the issue of freedom. I have heard this argument brought up in these type of discussions before that automobile depended sprawl is about freedom the problem with that though is that is freedom only if that is the lifestyle that you choose to live. Consider how free is it if the only option to me is to have to drive everywhere for work or just to get groceries? I don't think anyone here is advocating doing away with freeways or cars altogether but is advocating for having other options such as LRT and for other development patterns than just a car dependent sprawl. The argument though that seems to come from the other side is that is an imposition on freedom when ignoring that just continuing with sprawl is also an imposition on freedom.

There is no reason now for personal commuter cars not to be getting 50 miles a gallon or running on batteries other than the fact people prefer larger cars and seem to make the economic choice to pay for them.

There isn't a reason why cars can't do that and the technology to do that is already in place but it is easier as a society to change the type of power plants you build than to change en masse the type of cars that are on the road.

When the City of Houston starts worrying about greenhouse gasses we can just shut down the city. We make our living (and it's better than most) creating the stuff. I'd feel all guilty about it too if China wasn't opening thousands of coal fired generation plants every year. It does not matter what we do, the planet will warm and we will adapt or die. But we could run our buses on LNG now. We could promote efficient electric cars now. We could electrify the HOV lanes so electric cars and delivery vans could run all day, we could promote natural gas electric generation..... all things that would have much more effect over a much larger footprint than commuter rail.

As I said earlier Greenhouse gas emissions from cars versus rail are probably not a big enough factor to make much of a difference but you need to consider though the other negative environmental affects of roads and also parking for those cars that hasn't been brought up. As I stated freeways take up far more space than rail lines and parking lots take up even more space than that. All of that hard surface creates problems from runoff. So we could change all cars to running on no-emitting power sources and you would still have environmental problems.

Commuter rail for Houston is an academic 'mindset', driven by an envy factor, that does not not really solve anything for us. Doing what we do, being who we are, more efficiently, makes more sense than trying to force and retro-fit a different identity when ours is already set for 500 square miles and 3 million people. If you want to be socially active and promoting change, work on things that might really matter, because no one in Houston is going to walk a half mile to a train. They will drive to it.

The future though will happen whether you prepare for it or not. You are just accepting the current situation and considering that as what it will always be. Leaving aside issues of envy or what people do now the current model is unsustainable. Even in a city like Houston you cannot simply build your way out of congestion. Consider how much money, effort and land it would take to try to increase the capacity of SW freeway by 150% . The problem though is that if you just continue the current model of development that is the type of solution you will have to look for. Further as we see with sustained high gas prices having individuals spend more money just on basic transportation becomes a hindrance on development. The idea behind developing more LRT isn't so much about the current way of life but about changing our development pattern to prepare for the future.

[DonnyMost]

Originally Posted by Dubious Searching for the center of Houston quote but not finding.....

[Dubious]

Donny, I read the quote about Gessner and I-10 in the Chronicle somewhere, I just can't find it.

And we did just increase the capacity of 59 and 10 to where they work pretty well. They will be even better when technology breaks people of the' in at 9 and out at 5' rut.

I've got a lot of years in observing change and as much as things seem to change they don't really make really fundamental change.
Houston is what it is, it's not going to ever be a walkable high density city, for all the reasons I've listed but primarily because the politics have already been decided. We tossed the non-conflicting monorail plan ( I supported), we paved the Hardy, Westpark and Katy R.O.W.s, we elected a congressman on the promise to build I-10. The people who would have been served by the Richmond line revolted against it. At every turn since 1940 we have chosen (our elected leaders have chosen) this path. It's different but it's doable; it gives the people what they wanted.

[da1]

Originally Posted by rocketsjudoka Coming back late to this thread. I can't comment directly on Houston since I haven't lived there for years and the work I did was on the Minneapolis LRT. As others have noted though if LRT can work in places like DFW, Atlanta, and Denver, places that have also developed on a sprawling model it could work in Houston. Also I don't think anyone is advocating LRT (or commuter rail since that was mentioned here) as the only solution to mobility. LRT should be part of a multi-modal system. If we are talking about Cabrini Greens or Pruitt Igoes type hi rise concrete ghetto developments yes those have proven to be abject failures but density isn't about high rises versus single family houses but there is a range of things in between. In the last 20 years there has been a boom of development in things like townhouses and also luxury condo developments in practically every city of America. Even suburbs are embracing denser and more mixed use development and many have rehabbed or built whole new town centers that have hight density housing. Also single family house doesn't mean a house sitting on a half acre lot. Also the development of sprawl and mostly single family houses isn't some sort of organic development driven by personal choice and markets but actually a decades long strategy that was as planned as any high rise development. Consider the amount of infrastructure that needs to go into building a sprawling suburb, think about highways that go out to it, the roads that connect it, sewer lines, power lines, parking lots and etc.. The creation of America suburbia in the post war error was governments working hand in hand with developers from providing infrastructure to establishing loan programs for people to be able to buy houses. Suburbia as we know it is an ideology made by people like William Levitt that governments agreed with and was heavily marketed to a postwar US population that was facing a housing crisis. Further since you brought this up in some of your other post about the issue of freedom. I have heard this argument brought up in these type of discussions before that automobile depended sprawl is about freedom the problem with that though is that is freedom only if that is the lifestyle that you choose to live. Consider how free is it if the only option to me is to have to drive everywhere for work or just to get groceries? I don't think anyone here is advocating doing away with freeways or cars altogether but is advocating for having other options such as LRT and for other development patterns than just a car dependent sprawl. The argument though that seems to come from the other side is that is an imposition on freedom when ignoring that just continuing with sprawl is also an imposition on freedom. There isn't a reason why cars can't do that and the technology to do that is already in place but it is easier as a society to change the type of power plants you build than to change en masse the type of cars that are on the road. As I said earlier Greenhouse gas emissions from cars versus rail are probably not a big enough factor to make much of a difference but you need to consider though the other negative environmental affects of roads and also parking for those cars that hasn't been brought up. As I stated freeways take up far more space than rail lines and parking lots take up even more space than that. All of that hard surface creates problems from runoff. So we could change all cars to running on no-emitting power sources and you would still have environmental problems. The future though will happen whether you prepare for it or not. You are just accepting the current situation and considering that as what it will always be. Leaving aside issues of envy or what people do now the current model is unsustainable. Even in a city like Houston you cannot simply build your way out of congestion. Consider how much money, effort and land it would take to try to increase the capacity of SW freeway by 150% . The problem though is that if you just continue the current model of development that is the type of solution you will have to look for. Further as we see with sustained high gas prices having individuals spend more money just on basic transportation becomes a hindrance on development. The idea behind developing more LRT isn't so much about the current way of life but about changing our development pattern to prepare for the future.

Great post

[bullardfan]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx so much error in your post...where do I even begin??? rail's environmental benefits over buses are not clear, since rail runs on fossil-fuel generated electricity. "affordable transportation"?? Rail is anything but, unless you read mfastx's amateurish analyses that don't consider the cost to actually BUILD rail (lol). Then you talk about connecting Houston with Austin and Dallas? Whaaaah? Then to California, Florida and even New York! Good grief man you're out there with that. You must be one of the rail fanboys who thinks billions just grow on trees.

Affordable and convenient for houstonians as a means of transportation.
I never said it would be cheap to build. And environmental factors go beyond mere emissions. you mean connecting major cities with passenger rail is crazy b/c airlines are so affordable and convenient and why not ride a crappy bus for 20 smthg hours if you dont want to fly? Right? Rail? That's crazy talk. You're abso-f***in-lutely right.

And what about the jobs it creates? I guess that isnt a concern these days.
Why dont you just come out and say you dont want to pay higher taxes for the project? That at least makes some sense.

[AXG]

Originally Posted by Joe Joe Houston

Lol beat me to it

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx It sounds like your number one objective is to attract more riders to public transportation. That by itself is not a sufficient reason. You're advocating rail purely for having the "luxury" of having another mode of transportation, and in your subjective opinion it will make Houston a "nicer place to live" -- whatever that means. We don't have a problem with congestion on roads inside loop 610.

Not true. I experience it everyday.

Originally Posted by bigtexxx You have not convinced me why we need rail. You just want it to have the luxury of riding it. That's not reason enough. You're also driven by some weiner envy of other cities. Playing a "me too" strategy of trying to catch other cities on some subjective metric you dream up is not a wise vision for Houston if it involves spending the kind of money we're talking about.

Well, I suppose we don't "need" rail of course, I never said that. I support rail because of the positive externalities it brings, the increased transit ridership it brings (which in turn allows more people to move here without congesting the roads as much) and because its simply a better mode of transit than buses.

We don't "need" things like the Grand Parkway, but we are still building that. To each his own. I know you probably won't ever recognize the benefits of rail and I'm fine with that because a majority of people in Houston do.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx ...and ease up on the insults, brah.

You really do need to ease up on those insults.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx "affordable transportation"?? Rail is anything but, unless you read mfastx's amateurish analyses that don't consider the cost to actually BUILD rail (lol).

Rail is cheaper to operate than buses. If you want to talk about capital costs, rail is cheaper to buld than freeways.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx It's hilarious to me that you, as a lawyer, trot out the "well how much does a freeway cost" logic, then counter your own point that you must depend on non-rail transportation sources because you "have to be mobile at a moment's notice". The freeway cost argument is a non-starter, because freeways are a true necessity for Houston -- ambulances, firetrucks, lawyers (lol!), tractor-trailers all must use them. We need freeways. Even your fantasy-world nirvana cities of NYC and Boston require freeways. Rail in Houston is nothing more than a luxury pimped by the "city weiner envy crowd" who can't understand basic economics.

This has to be literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. We don't need freeways. There are plenty of cities that function better than ours without freeways. None of the vehicles you listed "must" use freeways. Have you ever heard of a street? Smh.

[bigtexxx]

Originally Posted by mfastx This has to be literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. We don't need freeways. There are plenty of cities that function better than ours without freeways. None of the vehicles you listed "must" use freeways. Have you ever heard of a street? Smh.

ooooh! this should be great. To take a page from your logic book, please tell me which world-class city DOESN'T have freeways?

I'm waiting.

[bullardfan]

There are many reasons why we need rail but above all we need it
because it really pisses bigtexx off.

[bigtexxx]

Originally Posted by bullardfan There are many reasons why we need rail but above all we need it because it really pisses bigtexx off.

lol

I dominate your thoughts and control your emotions

that's what happens when you can't argue toe-to-toe with the big boys

[da1]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx ooooh! this should be great. To take a page from your logic book, please tell me which world-class city DOESN'T have freeways? I'm waiting.

Rome, Florence, Chandigarh, I could go on and on.

[bigtexxx]

Originally Posted by da1 Rome, Florence, Chandigarh, I could go on and on.

Chandigarh? Great example of a world class city



if that's your vision for Houston, then I don't know what to tell you.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx ooooh! this should be great. To take a page from your logic book, please tell me which world-class city DOESN'T have freeways? I'm waiting.

Vancouver.

[bigtexxx]

Originally Posted by mfastx Vancouver.

1. not true

http://www.planetizen.com/node/25322

2. not relevant to Houston as it stands in 2012