I've always known that you can't handle yourself in a debate with me. This is just further evidence. Thanks for the imitation though.
Congrats to the rail people. I didn't like this plan at all and don't think it will help solve our biggest problem which is traffic congestion but I hope it all works out for the sake of the city. It will certainly help our image if anything.
I've used trains in Atlanta, Philly and New York and they were clean to me. I'm glad to see the plan passed and with White waiting in the wings to be mayor of the city, the plan will move forward without any hassle since he has the power to appoint metro board members. I was quite suprised at the amount of people who bought into the lies and propaganda given by the anti rail folks but oh well, the good guys won. SEE YA ON DA TRAIN JORGE!!!
I've never acted as if I could debate with you Trader_Jorge. I've told numerous people at numerous times that I believe that you are an extremely intelligent person who just happens to have different principles, beliefs, etc. (except for a shared appreciation of Vegas). I rarely attempt to debate you because I understand my own limitations and, most of the time, others say what I would say, just much more eloquently. But, as most people on this BBS believe, even if I had the capability, I wouldn't attempt to debate you on any continuous basis because the way you debate makes that very unattractive. And for someone who is as obviously as smart as you are, that's very unfortunate. For this issue, it's not worth it to get into a debate with you. My personal experience with rail is why I voted for this plan. I believe that if Houston can follow in the footsteps of Chicago, Dallas, the Bay Area, etc., then the city will be better off for it. When I go visit my parents in Chicago, we rarely drive anywhere because the train system there is so functional and convenient. Chicago's not New York. My parents live 50 miles from downtown, yet we can make it down there to shop, eat, go to sporting events, go to plays, etc. without having to worry about traffic or parking our cars. Sure, they may lose money, but money's not everything. The rail will hopefully provide people with a convenient way to get from home to work or leisure activities without having to worry about traffic, polluting the air, or other expenses.
I don't think it's an either/or game. The Katy Freeway expansion is on...and I support it. Those lanes are necessary to deal with a problem that exists right now...that cannot wait for rail some 15 years from now. I agree entirely. But I don't think that supporting a rail system for the inner-loop with a complementary commuter rail system in the long-term is a bad idea...particularly alongside additional lanes.
Rails I've ridden: Paris - best in the world. Did this every day for a long time. New York - probably the least attractive I have ridden, but hey - they are old and have a ridiculous number of daily traffic...nothing here would ever be like it. Regardless, it is a good system for access and convenience. DC - Good system. Clean, efficient (except for the people and cars that seemed to wind up on the rails on a weekly basis), and good access. I used this daily and mostly during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Boston - more limited experience, but it still was good. SF - same as Boston Atlanta - I did this daily for a while. It was good, but very limited. Would have been better if they had been allowed to build all the lines they wanted. Instead a few neighborhoods blocked it and now there is no access to them except stupid little windy streets that are congested all day, every day. London - limited and it has been a while, but it was fine. Rome - a little nutty. Dallas - used it once to go from Mockingbird to a Mavs game. It was really easy for such an event.
don't forget that the approved Metro plan also includes: 50 percent increase in bus service including 44 new routes ·New "Signature Express" buses on major crosstown routes with more frequent service and fewer stops for faster trips ·Nine new transit centers ·More than doubling the HOV-lane network to 250 miles of two-directional commuter-bus service ·Nine new Park & Ride lots with commuter-bus service $979 million in bus expansion ·$774 million in road construction http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/electioncentral/2003/metrorail/plan/index.html
I think the problem is that many of you are comparing a Rail system in Houston to Northeastern cities and European cities which have a much more condensed population and are not as spread out as we are here in Houston. We are a newer city and much of the population does not live within the city area aside from some areas and a recent growth in downtown living. The amount though does not create a need for a rail when there are other, much more pressing matters like traffic congestion. It seems to me that people think, "What the hell, its just the City Paying for it out of my tax funds that I don't see anyway so why the hell not" Its not going to relieve traffic congestion and its simply going to allow very few, as well as the bums and wanderers of downtown a new venue. This image we have of some Eastern city or some Parisian experience is flawed and the areas that they are placing the Rail in will line that rail with the people that wander downtown. Have you people seen that Bus station outside of downtown on Main? Thats the kinda folks you'll be riding with so watch your purse and enjoy wasting tax dollars. It makes no sense. Some people here complain about the National Defecit and excessive spending yet are so gung-ho about this. To be quite honest, I don't know what the City is doing subsidizing transportation. I'm sure its so the people without cars can cruise around and become another Philly or Baltimore. Expand the roads for taxpayers and stop pandering for votes by giving additional benefits to those not benefitting the system.
Yeah, screw the poor!! Hey, F.D. Kahn, do you bus your own table when you go out to eat? Are there clerks at the gas stations where you fill-up? Who makes the copies in your office? I could go on and on. Who would perform these services for you if poor people weren't around?
Yes you are right, all tax payers have cars, and only homeless vagrants and criminals and non contributors to society would not drive. Quite a long post to make such a baseless claim.
It makes no sense. Some people here complain about the National Defecit and excessive spending yet are so gung-ho about this. To be quite honest, I don't know what the City is doing subsidizing transportation. I'm sure its so the people without cars can cruise around and become another Philly or Baltimore. Expand the roads for taxpayers and stop pandering for votes by giving additional benefits to those not benefitting the system. Interesting... You say you don't want the city subsidizing transportation, yet you want them to expand the roads. So you basically only want the city to subsidize transportation for you, right?
Oh c'mon. Save your class warfare nonsense for someone else. I believe that everyone is entitled to the money they deserve based on their work. If someone works at any job, whether an executive, a lawyer, a janitor or a shoe shiner; they should are respected because they are working for the money they are making. BUT! I don't like programs that don't benefit enough people. A majority of the people wandering downtown and that will use the rail will be the homeless and others in the downtown area. I feel this is a misuse of capital. The city is there to use tax funds to build roads and create the means for people to travel, not to subsidize those that cannot travel on their own.
He and his peers are the only ones who contribute to society. He already answered this question, how dare you not read his entire post?
A majority of the people wandering downtown and that will use the rail will be the homeless and others in the downtown area. Why? Homeless people don't need efficiency - they have nowhere to go. I would assume they'll keep using the bus system, which is more convenient for "wandering". The city is there to use tax funds to build roads and create the means for people to travel, not to subsidize those that cannot travel on their own. Actually, the city is there to do what the people ask from it where possible. And the people wanted light rail. Not the homeless people, but the rest of the people in the city. Who uses light rail in Dallas? Is it just populated by a bunch of homeless people? It has the exact same widely distributed population structure that Houston has.
We currently have the Metro system which can be expanded. Having a multi billion dollar rail project will take away from funds that need to be allocated towards the road system. There is currently a great deal devoted to public transportation, need we invest more when the benefit will be little different from the current metro bus system??
Khan, I apologize for the sarcasm, but your elitist attitude really bothers me, particularly the hypocricy. You claim people should pull themselves up by their boot straps but you don't even want to help out with transportation to get them to work. And that's not even taking to account the ridiculous claim that they will be the only ones using rail.
Yeah, we should bend over backwards to accommodate for homeless people -- people who pay ZERO in taxes and devalue the tax base of the city. What a brilliant policy.
