METRO meeting June 18 regarding halting of transit expansion

IS it your argument the IOC is above reproach?

My argument from the start on this topic is the marginal increase in chances is not worth billions.

I'm all for public transport, I feel people want rail just to have rail and are letting it cloud their judgement. Rail takes freaking forever to construct and costs massive upfront. If you made new 'premium' (ie better) bus routes targeted towards professionals who commute and stopped the image of metro buses being unsafe, late, and dirty you could take the ridership numbers on proposed routes and build rail where we can use it. But the best part is you could have it full tilt in months, not a decade.

 

You brought it up. Are you saying that was their selection criteria? Link please.

You can have a cup of Raman noodles in 60 seconds. That doesn't make it better than a steak. Faster/cheaper doesn't make it better. That is one criteria of many to consider. The problem is you feel cost is the one and only criteria and refuse to acknowledge other criteria dismissing other opinions as 'wanting to have rail just for rail'.

I made a sound argument and your rebuttal was the IOC skipped Houston cause we didn't offer them prostitutes and blow.

 

www.google.com

"prostitutes IOC"

I don't feel your argument is sound because

1. On the list of reasons Houston was not selected, public transport is too low to make it an improvement priority.

2. Spending billions for increased chances to win an Olympic bid makes no financial sense.

 

I missed the link where that impacted how Houston was overlooked Or how that is relevant to the public statements made about our lack of transportation options.

Virtually every organization has its problems ...not sure how that it relevant here. Please give some insight why you felt that was relevant.

1. So you acknowledge it was raised as a concern to our bid.
2. Nobody has said that is the singular reason a city invests in any infrastructure. It is ONE reason, however. You put all the reasons together to get your big picture.

Is the reason that every Olympic city was chosen since 1992 because they had multiple transportation options in that city? No sane person would make that claim.
Is it a coincidence that each of those cities had light and heavy rail as well? No, it isn't a coincidence.

Cities that invest in themselves to make it a more livable place for its citizens, as a whole, make the whole city more dynamic and vibrant and thusly will attract more business and industry.

There is a reason so many businesses are now moving to the woodlands. It was planned better than Houston and people like to live there. Now, the COH lost a huge tax base and we continue to promote even more urban sprawl.

 

Who cares this much about the Olympics? It costs a ton of money, makes your city incredibly crowded, and leaves it in shambles. Greece probably wishes they had their 11 billion back right about now.

 

Don't really care about the Olympics, but rail would vastly improve our transportation system. And it wouldn't take more than a couple billion to build a good inner city core system. Which isn't a lot considering we spend many times that on highways.

 

The point isn't about winning the Olympics. Just using the Olympics to illustrate a point about selection criteria for world class cities ...and we fell short. We didn't fall short on venues as they said we had perhaps the strongest bid. But we fell short cause we simply don't have many of the other things that make a great city, such as transportation, to host such a large event.

What makes a great city? Its a place where people really like to live and visit. That's where we fell short.

 

It is neccessary to expand road maintenance if bus service is to expand. Many roads within Houston's 610 loop are complete shiite. Sure, the freeways and highways are great (which is where majority traffick flow lies) but city streets cannot withstand the same forces from Texas size trucks and busses.

 

So what happened? Did they come to any conclusion or anything?

 

Sorry that might sound confusing. I meant, were the majority of people supportive in the meeting?

 

Culberson injects some sanity and logical thinking into the Houston rail fiasco. Proud to have him as my representation.


Culberson inserts Metro rail-line limits into federal spending bill

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...serts-Metro-rail-line-limits-into-3650601.php

 

Bump, yeah, but here's some interesting insight on bus versus rail that you might find of interest:

If you replaced 2 train tracks with a dedicated 2 lane road and ran passenger buses would it be more efficient?