I agree 100% with you on this one Jeff. I don't usually wish bad things on people, but I am convinced that Houston would be a much better place to live if Rob Todd, Bert Keller & Steve Hotze held hands and jumped off the top of Transco Tower together....without parachutes!!! If Judge Bob Eckels and Paul Bettancourt were standing at ground level to break their fall, it would be even better!!! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited January 25, 2001).]
Wasn't there a vote of some kind several years back where Houstonians showed support for a light rail / mass transit plan? Metro, and others, have contended that there is no basis for a vote, since they do not plan to issue any debt on the inital rail line and support facilities. This is one of those cases where I feel it's better to rely on the METRO board, who's members are appointed by our elected officials. If we asked for a public vote on every major project, nothing would ever get done. No one ever asked for my support for the upgrades to the Hermann Park Golf Course, or the west loop, or the hundreds of millions being spent on this Grand Parkway project, or the $200 million Astrohall/convention center project, or the new city police administration building, or.... ------------------ Stay Cool...
dc: You got it. Or the Wortham Center, or the zoo, or the Museum of Fine Arts, or the Grand Parkway, or Park and Ride.... Anytime someone cries foul on something that involves tax dollars, I always wonder what is up. Tex: Hotze? Did you say, "Hotze?" Who's he? ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Tex: You should add Barry Klein to that list as well. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Jeff -- I understand you concerns. The problem is that you simply can't get something for nothing. Apparently the people in California think you can still get power without building new power plants. The world simply doesn't work that way. We can all cry about the need for a better commute and less pollution from combustion engines, but the fact is we can only afford what we can afford. A comprehensive rail system that allows one to give up one's car is not workable in a city like Houston which is the exact opposite of dense! Unless and until you ban the sale of automobiles or jack up the price of gasoline (something envirnomentalists have rooted for for a long time now), you will not have people choosing to take trains when they still have to purchase cars and fuel to get to their weekend destinations. You could require people to ride mass transit, but I wouldn't suggest trying that in Texas! Again...it costs $300 million to run this rail 7 miles!!! And that's at street level competing with other auto traffic!! I know we all want beautiful trains streaking through the city and we all want new stadiums and we all want great schools and we all want cleaner air, we all want everyone to be fed and sheltered...but someone ultimately has to pay the price. At the end of the meal, the waiter always brings the check. I could dream of great transportation systems but in the end we have to look at what is feasible economically. We can't be all things to all people. Rail has been a money-loser in every city that it's been introduced since 1950. I'm not saying that it doesn't provide some great benefits. And I'm not totally oppposed to rail. I am, however opposed to rail when it does not ease congestion. Actually I'm against Metro spending any of our dollars on anything that doesn't improve mobility in our town. Metro admits that is not what this project is about. At the same time they won't reveal this big "master plan" they claim they have. What it boils down to is they start with a relatively useless line (in terms of moving people -- and one that is already served well by buses) so that later they can say, "Hey..we've already spent $300 million...in order to really make that a worthwhile investment you need to vote us more money so we can build more rail." ------------------
oh yeah...and another thing. If we're committing to this solely to clean the air, it seems to be limiting the work done to invent cleaner burning engines. In 10 years it is possible that we might all be driving at least hybrid vehicles. That might make it less expensive for all of us to keep driving our cars. And at the same time it won't have the polluting effect it does today. When there's a need for a fix, smart people and the market economy usually find a way to fix it. ------------------
Max: You are right that there are practicality issues to be addressed but I don't think you've really looked into the Metro plan well enough. $300 million for 7 miles of rail is a BARGAIN compared to the 9 mile stretch of the Grand Parkway that is costing $2 billion. A Grand Parkway, I might add, that serves no purpose to anyone but the developers who want to develop land but need the through-way. One problem... That through-way is slated to go through wetlands that are protected (for now) by the federal government. If that isn't bad enough, add to the list the George Observatory. It is VERY nearby and the light pollution from the highway would diminish its effectiveness many times over. That observatory is the only one in this part of the country and is important to scientists. Hell, if you want to ignore a new stretch of highway, try the $500 million re-do to 59 from 610 to downtown. That spun lawsuits because of homeowners nearby who now have to deal with drivers doing 60 down their once neighborhood streets. I realize that not everyone would ride light rail, but there are thousands of people who ride Metro every single day and if light rail does nothing more than take hundreds of buses off the streets, it is worth it. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Oh, and by the way, the judge in the light rail suit recused herself. Good move... Judge steps down from Metro rail case By MIKE GLENN Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle State District Judge Tony Lindsay decided today to step down from hearing any more of a lawsuit that seeks to prevent Metro from starting its light rail project down Main Street. A court clerk said Lindsay recused herself from the case less that 24 hours after the attorney for the Metropolitan Transit Authority filed a motion asking that Lindsay remove herself. In his motion, Metro attorney Jonathan Day argued there was a "reasonable doubt of impartiality" because the judge's husband, Texas Sen. Jon Lindsay, has been an outspoken opponent of Metro's light rail proposals. The motion also notes that the lawsuit's plaintiff, City Councilman Rob Todd, was once Tony Lindsay's law clerk. On Jan. 18, Judge Lindsay temporarily blocked Metro's plans for laying track on Houston streets and set a hearing on the matter for Jan. 29. Todd and local rail opponents want a referendum on whether the agency can use city right of way for its 7.5-mile line from downtown to Reliant Park. The rail opponents contended that they needed only 500 valid signatures to force an election and recently submitted about 1,100. City officials said the charter requires 20,000 signatures and rejected the petition, which prompted the lawsuit. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Jeff...If I included everyone on that list who should be on there, my fingers would fall off from typing so much! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
On congestion: The rail line would replace the dozens of bus routes which currently use this route, and would either use lanes which are currently reserved for busses, or create new lanes. For instance, through the medical center, they have taken out the median in preparation for the project. Ask anyone who has tried to use the downtown bus corridors during rush hours -- the hundreds of busses add significantly to the congestion in this area. The light rail line should help, by getting rid of these busses. I think you are underestimating potential usage of the line. No, everyone isn't going to use it. It will never replace the automobile as the main form of transportation. But, it will be used a lot more than you might think. The parking lot shuttles for the Medical Center and Reliant Park will be huge benefits. When the arena is in place, and more parking lots in the Enron Field / Arena / GRB area get turned into businesses (Remember, Crescent Holdings plans to use 10 blocks smack in the middle of this area for a huge mall and outdoor retail/entertainment park) it will be helpful for this area as well. Also, park and ride service is flourishing, particularly since more people are moving to the suburbs. I know a lot of people that use it in the Medical Center who love it. Some of the big drawbacks are that the hours are limited for each line (7-6), and you can't really go anywhere after work. The other is that the routes are slowed by rush hour through downtown -- to a good extent because of all the busses routed through this area. Having a fast, reliable, route through downtown, connected at the transit center to suburban parking lots by HOV lanes, can only help this service grow. On the plan: This was a cry of the opponents for a long time, but if you'll notice, it hasn't been lately. Metro has had a 2020 Mobility plan in place, which does cover the light rail line -- this was overlooked by many opponents. It's published and has never been a secret. METRO also invited opponents -- and the public or any other interested party -- to contact them for more information. Tom Delay, for instance, never too them up on their offer to discuss the plan. I'll bet Rob Todd hasn't either. It does not address specific additions to the rail line, because those routes would be determined at a later time, based on potential usage, and would probably require bonds. IMHO they could have addressed potential extensions more explicitly, but that's not the same as not having a plan. METRO will include these potential extensions in the 2025 Mobility plan, due out this year. A summary of the 2020 plan, and updates on the 2025 plan, are available on their website. METRO has a lot of information on light rail and it's other plans available on it's website. METRO Home Page: http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/ "Mobility for the new millennium" : http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/pdf/Millennium.pdf Light Rail Home Page: http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/lrt/railintro.htm Light Rail FAQ: http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/railqs.htm Newsletter, which includes map of route: http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/lrt/metrorail_issue1.pdf On the environmental issue -- It's important, but I think in the case of light rail, and specifically this line, the environmental benefits are actually secondary to the advantages in alleviating traffic and parking problems. We also can't count on technology to eliminate the need for mass transportation, or to fix our pollution problems. In a recent study (posted in a thread a few weeks ago by Jeff, I think) they pointed out that car engines today are much more efficient and create much less pollution, than those of 10 years ago. However, it's also made it easier for people to get bigger cars and engines. The bigger cars, and more cars in general, have resulted in a net gain of zero. ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited January 25, 2001).]
dc -- metro itself admits that this 7 mile stretch of rail will do nothing to ease congestion. The rail line actually runs at street level and interferes with traffic. It's caused tons of accidents in other cities with people running red lights through cross streets. I'm not wholly opposed to rail. I just don't think it can ever be economical in this town on a micro or macro level. Personally, as long as I still have to have a car and pay insurance on it, you won't see me riding rail. Not to mention the fact that it limits my ability to get to my clients and to the courthouse on time if I rely on mass transit. For the city, I don't believe a comprehensive rail system is economically feasible simply because of the very size of the city. You can draw all the pretty pictures of potential rail lines across a city map on Metro's webpage all you want....it still doesn't answer the question of whether or not there is enough in the city coffers to get it done without bankrupting the city. And given the recent rise in energy prices (both gas and electricity) I don't see many Houstonians hoping for a tax hike anytime soon to pay for these little train sets. ------------------
Also, Ken Hoffman of the Houston Chronicle visited several cities a few months back which had started using Light Rail to see how it was affecting those cities. He found that it was working incredibly well. In fact, while Metro buses are hideously dirty and dangerous, light rail is actually refeshing and clean. Most people who refuse to use a bussing system would, in fact, ride a light rail if it took them where they wanted to go; myself being one of them. In addition to all of the support given here on why Main Street sounds like a good beginning, I'd like to toss in this. Main Street is a sess-pool that needs some major revamping. Other cities have shown that areas where light rail has been installed have vastly improved in property value, and growth. I, personally, would love to see Main Street in all of it's glory once again. BTW, congrats to everyone on this board. You actually have changed some of my political views. While I am still Republican on the National level, I have decided to vote democratically locally, this past years election notwithstanding. ------------------ I got nothing.
Yeah...Ken Hoffman's articles were the model of objective journalism! What a joke! ------------------
