METRORail University Line

[ricco67]

What I found interesting as that during the one snippet of I heard from the KTRK news was that they are "enthusastic" about the metrorail being there, and they're streets are even more narrow than Richmond!

The other thing (that AOG casually ignored) is that on the east line, there were a couple of business owners who said they will suffer during the construction, but it's best for the city!

Why can't the AO people be just as pragmatic?

[musicman]

They were just discussing the pros/cons on ch 13's sunday morning show (City View). They had a reporter talk about it and then invited AO and METRO to speak. AO spoke. Then the reporter said that they invited METRO to respond but that they couldn't find a spokesperson to speak on the issue.

I will say that that Afton Oaks guy did say that his neighborhood did a survey with 73% of the neighborhood responding....that 97% were against the light rail going through Richmond.

[ricco67]

I saw that report, I didn't know it was on today, so I guess it was scheduled on a relatively short notice.

I did hear about the response of the polsters. but the thing is, 73% of this area being polled is a pretty lousy job of canvasing a relatively small neighborhood.

but the fact that remains is that this is still a relatively small number of people along a line! most of that neighborhood is closer to Westheimer than it is to Richmond (not including the south side of richmond).

[Furious Jam]

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4097233.html

What a relief it must be for AO that their pristine environment might finally be preserved at the expense of their lessers. Champagne and caviar all around!

Hear hear! Jolly good! Let them eat cake!

Mass transit is for the masses, not the blue bloods of Afton Oaks. Let them run their little train under the Westpark tollway to pick up all of the dirty daylaborers and other rabble, wilst we journey to the golf course in our Escalades. Tip top!

[musicman]

I saw that report, I didn't know it was on today, so I guess it was scheduled on a relatively short notice.

I did hear about the response of the polsters. but the thing is, 73% of this area being polled is a pretty lousy job of canvasing a relatively small neighborhood.

but the fact that remains is that this is still a relatively small number of people along a line! most of that neighborhood is closer to Westheimer than it is to Richmond (not including the south side of richmond).

they said 73 percent responded of all that were sent the survey. i believe they sent the entire neighborhood the survey. you always have people that dont care and wont respond.

[ricco67]

I guess I missed that part, but you would have figured they would have gone door to door on this issue.

Notice how he didn't suggest WHERE they should build it, only that it should be built elsewhere. If you're going to oppose something, then they should make a stand on where an alternative is!

I guess they don't want to hear from any other NIMBY's out there either.

[nmainguy]

They were just discussing the pros/cons on ch 13's sunday morning show (City View). They had a reporter talk about it and then invited AO and METRO to speak. AO spoke. Then the reporter said that they invited METRO to respond but that they couldn't find a spokesperson to speak on the issue.

I will say that that Afton Oaks guy did say that his neighborhood did a survey with 73% of the neighborhood responding....that 97% were against the light rail going through Richmond.

Numbers somewhat akin to the .27% of Culberson's constituants who oppose rail.

Math done using his numbers:

Population Dist 2000 census: 651,620

90% of the 2000 letters Culberson received=1800

1800 is .27% of Culberson's constituents.

It's time to get past a less than honest tiny minority and it's Congressman hijacking an entire LRT line.

[Houstonian in Iraq]

Yeah I know it was put to a vote. It just looks like Metro will cave in to the AOers and Culberson.

I would like to see them just grow a pair and make the move to just build it down the best route(Richmond). I'm sure there are more Houstonians wanting this rout than there is AOers. A vote on a specific route will make it official. Yeah it will take more time but it sure beats getting stuck with a crappy Westpark route. But like yall mentioned people might not come out or support a vote thinking they already did or just becuase their tired of hearing about it and don't care now

[ricco67]

According to the article in the chronicle, it seems like it's going to get even nastier.

seems like Councilwoman Ada Edwards' is not pleased that over 75 homes could be against the wrecking crew if the light rail is planned according to Clutterbucks' suggestion.

it's going to be interesting.

[TheNiche]

Jeez, I walked away from HAIF for a couple days and there's been this much activity! Amazing.

I think Musicman has held down the fort pretty well, and I must say that I've come to really respect the guy. I'm with him wholeheartedly on the notion that spending money isn't a problem--spending it effectively is.

I'm certainly not too attached to the map that I threw up a couple days ago, but I'm still very much in favor of grade seperations and a reduction in the number of low-ridership stops, wherever the precise alignment of the route happens to be. Speed may not matter so much to some folks, but a lot of people really and truely do value their time and most definitely WILL ride transit if it gets them places faster. It also matters to the folks in cars that will have to endure un-timed signals, reduced numbers of intersections, and reduced width of lanes (at the very least). If transit is about saving people's time, then lets save people's time.

Hey, Red. You said way back that the FTA determines effectiveness of a transit project by ridership and cost. I knew that much, but was wondering whether the equation takes into account the source of ridership, marginal rates of congestion reduction, the average distance traveled per user, and the other nuances that really flesh out the cost-benefit calculus into a useful economic model. If all they care about are the number of boardings and the cost, then that's a serious problem.

[nmainguy]

According to the article in the chronicle, it seems like it's going to get even nastier.

seems like Councilwoman Ada Edwards' is not pleased that over 75 homes could be against the wrecking crew if the light rail is planned according to Clutterbucks' suggestion.

it's going to be interesting.

It would have been nice if Clutterbuck had informed Edwards before releasing her plan to destroy upwards of 75 homes in her [Edwards] district with yet another deal-killer of a plan.

[templehouston]

Comparing BART vs. our system is difficult for me to do. BART to me is something that I prefer because it is commuter oriented vs. providing local service. BART connects with buses, cable cars, etc which provide the local service. To be honest, I haven't ridden BART since the mid-90's but that's how i remember it operating.

Actually, BART is one part of a transit system that attempts to cover the entire Bay Area. BART is indeed commuter oriented, as are the bus systems operated by several different transportation districts (e.g., SamTrans). They all move commuters to employment centers (which is more than just into the Financial District in SF). Parallel to BART is the Municipal Railroad, which runs buses, the three cable car routes, the trolleys on the F-Line, and the partially underground light rail on the J, K, L. M, and N lines all over the City. I guess these are the local sevice lines you don't care about. For the record, the subway always took longer to get to my office than the buses or the F-Line trolleys. The theory in SF is that you should be able to get anywhere in the City 24/7. Yes, SF is only slightly larger than the Spring Branch I.S.D., but don't forget that transit is not just about moving commuters.

1) Older people and students need alternatives to autos to get about.

2) We need to get cars off the road in order to improve air quality.

3) In case you hadn't noticed, even the President has figured out that continuing to import the oil to make gasoline to run those cars places us at the mercy of people who really don't like us and it makes them rich enough to build atomic bombs to boot.

4) Business visitors and tourists face great difficulty in moving about this city unless they take limos or cabs (and that certainly does not improve our image).

5) Finally, light rail doesn't bunch up like every bus system in ever city in this country.

6) Oh, yes, it's much more relaxing than driving on the Culberson WideButt Freeway.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Here are some interesting artist drawings and possible routings. Very nicely done IMO

http://metrosolutions.org/posted/1068/Univ...ev02.125968.pdf

[TheNiche]

Here are some interesting artist drawings and possible routings. Very nicely done IMO

http://metrosolutions.org/posted/1068/Univ...ev02.125968.pdf

Gotta love that Greenway station.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Gotta love that Greenway station.

I am more impressed with the way they have intended for Alabama to look if it is chosen. The areas west of the Spur on the Universities line were a given to look nice. These drawings provide a look into the eastern portion of the line and i like it.

[VelvetJ]

Unfortunately, most people in Houston don't care about local issues. This forum is one place where people do care and that is why we are all here. I've learned many things on this forum as have you. There are approximately as many people who are for the METRO Solutions projects as are against. That is why the 2nd vote was 52 to 48. So to say that relatively few people are against METRO solutions is wrong. The residents of afton oaks and congressman culbertson aren't the only ones against the project. They have been the most vocal however.

Your first question regarding most cost effective route is hard to answer because rail isn't the most cost effective use of monies in my opinion. Our population density is one thing that is working against us.

I agree that costs for rail are high but I feel that a well designed system can benefit the City. In my personal life i will spend more as well if I feel I"m getting or making a better product. I am definitely not a Walmart shopper. i don't automatically buy the cheapest thing at the store but there are many people who do. I actually do use the METRO system several times a week when i have extra time....including the bus system.

I'm assuming that years ago you're talking the late 80's Kathy Whitmire era. For the last week i've read how the Republicans are against mass transit, etc. I guess everyone forgets that Democrat, ex-Mayor Bob Lanier was just as against light rail as Tom DeLay. Ms. Whitmire was a popular Mayor and when she brought up the building of a rail system that ended up being her downfall. I believe Bob was head of METRO at the time and Kathy ousted him from the position for siding against rail. Bob then retailiated and ultimatedly won the Mayor position himself and Kathy disappeared from town. Then Mayor Bob spent much of METRO's cash on hand to fix city streets so that METRO couldn't not build the rail system outright. He was just as detrimental to light rail as Tom Delay. Don't forget Walter Mischer either. He was probably Houston's most powerful developer,banker,etc and was against rail and supported candidates who were also against it.

I"ve ALWAYS been willing to pay for an effective system. That isn't a recent change in my beliefs. At the same time, having no waste is just as important.

I read the same editorial this morning and kind of chuckled. I heard the same comment this past Tuesday at a National Night Out. He said, it should at least get you to the airport. I've known him for at least 15 yrs. He's a really quiet person and isn't vocal like we are here, but when it's time to vote, he will vote early and in this instance he did vote against the system for the simple reason that it didn't go the the airport. Then you mentioned a lady you met during the inaugural train ride who said the same thing. Believe it or not there are many people who also think like this. Go work an election sometime. I was a precinct chair for 3 or 4 yrs and was always appalled at how people voted. They had no idea who or what they were voting for but they had the right to vote so they did. THIS KILLS ME! We need educated voters otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to vote!

I definitely want what is best for Houston, my hometown. I've lived here 39 yrs, won't move and will be buried here. I get involved with City issues as well. Many Councilmembers know me by my first name because i am vocal and regularly speak before Council. I volunteer for many civic organizations as well. I do this because i believe so strongly in Houston and various causes.

Well, since I have not quite figured out how to quote individual paragraphs, I will just respond by addressing each one via paragraph.

# 1 I was actually only referring to the Richmond Route. The residents in Afton Oaks and a few business owners are indeed a relatively small amount of people to have to re-route the train from the most logical path that will be a KEY connection to some of the most important destinations in the entire region. This line is not like connecting Meyerland to Westbury. As you know, this line is connecting the city's top Universities with two major employment centers. So the efficiency of this line is crucial. It's time for Houston to evolve like it has since it's inception, and that evolution should be with less dependency on the automobile.

# 2 Musicman, in your opinion what would be the most cost effective solution that does not involve burning gasoline that the general population would find attractive enough to ride?

Also, I think it's time Houstonians realize that we are no longer at the point where CURRENT population density should be the major catalyst (behind cost) for building rail. We have got to get people out of their cars, period. And if that means residents on Mandell walking a couple of blocks to Richmond to catch a train that will take them to a new HEB Grocery store where the Shepard Plaza currently is, then so be it. And I think they will do it if given the option. I think many Houstonians just don't know what they are missing. Look how all of those suburbanites have fallen in love with the new Sugarland Town Square and style of the new developments in the Woodlands. That type of lifestyle could be enjoyed and will be enjoyed in the actual city of Houston if given a chance. Plus if we look at the bigger picture, rail will spur more urban styled development.

#3 Well, I never mentioned political parties, but as a strong supporter of the Democratic party myself, just let me say I was FURIOUS with Bob Lanier for just that, simply because I KNEW rail in Houston was inevitable and the longer we waited the more expensive and more difficult it would be to get it, and it would be only a matter of a few years before the roads that Metro's rail money was spent on would be in poor shape again, and the crime wave we experiencing at the time that was used as justification to raid Metro's savings, would pass. So what you stated above was not news to me at all. HOWEVER, can it be denied that the strongest opposition to mass transit tend to be from those that are Republican?

#4 (In response to musicman's last two paragraphs)

Yeah, I am totally with you here. But now I just wish we could find politicians who place what's best for Houston over making decisions that they know doesn't serve the city as a whole, simply because they are more concerned with being re-elected.

METRO is suppose to be the experts here, and I don't think they would have chosen Richmond as a route, just for craps and giggles. I believe as experts they have good reason choosing that particular route. What would be METRO'S motivation behind choosing to place rail along a street that would make the least sense and jeopardize federal funding by placing it in a area that will not generate the rider numbers needed to get the federal money? Does METRO have Houston's best interest in mind......I personally like to think so. I don't view METRO as self-serving. Can the same be said for John Culberson?

[nmainguy]

METRO is suppose to be the experts here, and I don't think they would have chosen Richmond as a route, just for craps and giggles. I believe as experts they have good reason choosing that particular route. What would be METRO'S motivation behind choosing to place rail along a street that would make the least sense and jeopardize federal funding by placing it in a area that will not generate the rider numbers needed to get the federal money? Does METRO have Houston's best interest in mind......I personally like to think so. I don't view METRO as self-serving. Can the same be said for John Culberson?

You pretty much nailed it. With all the talk, speculation, nay-saying and dreaming on this board, the final word is we voted for an E/W LRT line. METRO is expert in building LRT [witness the most successful system in the US] and of course they wouldn't intentionally design a deal killer. Of course METRO will review the new Culberson/Clutterbuck route and will act accordingly. It's a shame the very small minority who back Culberson are taking an inordinate amount of METRO'S time but I believe METRO is willing to be fair in it's assessment. I as well don't view METRO as self-serving; what have they to lose or gain? Culberson on the other hand is the most base of politicians who would sell his grandmother for a vote.

BTW, the new Culberson/Clutterbuck route may be causing a backlash they didn't intend. It doesn't put you in the best light when you pander to homeowners who clearly will lose no homes at the expense of 50-75 homeowners who will. Someone needs to brush-up on their PR skills.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

BTW, the new Culberson/Clutterbuck route may be causing a backlash they didn't intend. It doesn't put you in the best light when you pander to homeowners who clearly will lose no homes at the expense of 50-75 homeowners who will. Someone needs to brush-up on their PR skills.

Add to that-----The ONLY reason this new routing is suggested is because the "haves" decided they didnt want to see it through thier small neighborhood. The "have nots" will deal with it instead and loose homes and property in the process.

I cannot think of a better catalist for "Robinhood" type behavior. The "have nots" will not take this crap laying down and it will more likely propel them to come out in force to push for the LRT on Richmond. People who may have been silent on the issue before, perhaps will become very VOCAL in SUPPORT of LRT on Richmond.

[TheNiche]

Also, I think it's time Houstonians realize that we are no longer at the point where CURRENT population density should be the major catalyst (behind cost) for building rail. We have got to get people out of their cars, period. And if that means residents on Mandell walking a couple of blocks to Richmond to catch a train that will take them to a new HEB Grocery store where the Shepard Plaza currently is, then so be it. And I think they will do it if given the option. I think many Houstonians just don't know what they are missing. Look how all of those suburbanites have fallen in love with the new Sugarland Town Square and style of the new developments in the Woodlands. That type of lifestyle could be enjoyed and will be enjoyed in the actual city of Houston if given a chance. Plus if we look at the bigger picture, rail will spur more urban styled development.

Huh? "We are no longer at the point..."???

I know what you're trying to say, but in actuality, our population density inside the loop is still very very low in comparison with most other major cities. On a persons-per-acre basis, most of the inner loop is suburban. In fact, most of our older neighborhoods were built at a time when they were considered far-flung suburbs. Although there have been many new apartment complexes and townhomes built in recent years, density still is more of a limiting factor than an asset to us. Otherwise, you wouldn't have all these BRT lines.

#3 Well, I never mentioned political parties, but as a strong supporter of the Democratic party myself, just let me say I was FURIOUS with Bob Lanier for just that, simply because I KNEW rail in Houston was inevitable and the longer we waited the more expensive and more difficult it would be to get it, and it would be only a matter of a few years before the roads that Metro's rail money was spent on would be in poor shape again, and the crime wave we experiencing at the time that was used as justification to raid Metro's savings, would pass. So what you stated above was not news to me at all. HOWEVER, can it be denied that the strongest opposition to mass transit tend to be from those that are Republican?

How has implementing rail become more expensive over the past many years? Adjust for inflation, of course. Also, if as you suggest, we are dense enough now but weren't dense enough back then, then our investment would've been failing in the interim. And what counts the most when an investment is made are the initial years; its all about NPV. The further off are benefits, the less valuable they are.

#4 (In response to musicman's last two paragraphs)

Yeah, I am totally with you here. But now I just wish we could find politicians who place what's best for Houston over making decisions that they know doesn't serve the city as a whole, simply because they are more concerned with being re-elected.

METRO is suppose to be the experts here, and I don't think they would have chosen Richmond as a route, just for craps and giggles. I believe as experts they have good reason choosing that particular route. What would be METRO'S motivation behind choosing to place rail along a street that would make the least sense and jeopardize federal funding by placing it in a area that will not generate the rider numbers needed to get the federal money? Does METRO have Houston's best interest in mind......I personally like to think so. I don't view METRO as self-serving. Can the same be said for John Culberson?

It's not so much the route that concerns me--it's the configuration.

And no, I don't trust METRO.

[KatieDidIt]

The one thing Lightrail should NOT do is kick people out of their homes. Property ownership is a RIGHT in this country, its one of the things America was established on, and the city has NO right to take it just because they want to put some rail through it, that probably 80% of Houstonians will NEVER ride.

I am sick of the number of elderly they kicked out of their homes for St. George school 10 years ago for HISD.....then took forever to build on it. Many of those old folk could have died happily in the homes they worked hard for their whole life. But no...the city takes.

At least the Richmond line wouldn't displace people. Make the street dangerous and ugly sure...displace no.

[ricco67]

BTW, the new Culberson/Clutterbuck route may be causing a backlash they didn't intend. It doesn't put you in the best light when you pander to homeowners who clearly will lose no homes at the expense of 50-75 homeowners who will. Someone needs to brush-up on their PR skills.

Have you heard any additional grumblings about it?

I've been spreading the word in that particular part of the montrose today and plan to for the next couple of days. From what I have been gathering, people are a bit peeved.

Haven't heard anything citywide, though. This should make for some interesting back room fighting.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

so Culberson wants a new route that would destroy 100 homes instead of it going down Richmond which will destroy none????!!! that does not make any sense...

[musicman]

The one thing Lightrail should NOT do is kick people out of their homes. Property ownership is a RIGHT in this country, its one of the things America was established on, and the city has NO right to take it just because they want to put some rail through it, that probably 80% of Houstonians will NEVER ride.

I am sick of the number of elderly they kicked out of their homes for St. George school 10 years ago for HISD.....then took forever to build on it. Many of those old folk could have died happily in the homes they worked hard for their whole life. But no...the city takes.

At least the Richmond line wouldn't displace people. Make the street dangerous and ugly sure...displace no.

Many forum members have been commenting on the fact that light rail should not kick people out of their homes. Go down to the Sims Bayou area and look how many homes were bought out due to the bayou widening. Would you be against this as well? The first section of the widening as been completed and has definitely provided relief but at the expense of homes.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

No less than this...............

[musicman]

# 1 I was actually only referring to the Richmond Route. The residents in Afton Oaks and a few business owners are indeed a relatively small amount of people to have to re-route the train from the most logical path that will be a KEY connection to some of the most important destinations in the entire region. This line is not like connecting Meyerland to Westbury. As you know, this line is connecting the city's top Universities with two major employment centers. So the efficiency of this line is crucial. It's time for Houston to evolve like it has since it's inception, and that evolution should be with less dependency on the automobile.

Again, the AO and the few businesses you are talking about are the most vocal. when the actual vote was held, the results were 52 to 48. That isn't an overwhelming majority.

# 2 Musicman, in your opinion what would be the most cost effective solution that does not involve burning gasoline that the general population would find attractive enough to ride?

right now burning gasoline, making electricity are both expensive ventures.

Also, I think it's time Houstonians realize that we are no longer at the point where CURRENT population density should be the major catalyst (behind cost) for building rail. And I think they will do it if given the option. I think many Houstonians just don't know what they are missing. Look how all of those suburbanites have fallen in love with the new Sugarland Town Square and style of the new developments in the Woodlands. That type of lifestyle could be enjoyed and will be enjoyed in the actual city of Houston if given a chance. Plus if we look at the bigger picture, rail will spur more urban styled development.

For a city of our size we have a relatively low population density. That is what makes mass transit difficult here. I think you meant Woodlands Town Square not Sugarland. Remember the woodlands is a different beast completely. it was a planned community with areas for commercial and areas for residential. We are already relatively built out. Yes Houston could build something like that at the expense of businesses and homes that already exist or on existing parklands. I just don't think most people would want to build a town square in the middle of memorial park.

#3 Well, I never mentioned political parties, but as a strong supporter of the Democratic party myself, just let me say I was FURIOUS with Bob Lanier for just that, simply because I KNEW rail in Houston was inevitable and the longer we waited the more expensive and more difficult it would be to get it, and it would be only a matter of a few years before the roads that Metro's rail money was spent on would be in poor shape again, and the crime wave we experiencing at the time that was used as justification to raid Metro's savings, would pass. So what you stated above was not news to me at all. HOWEVER, can it be denied that the strongest opposition to mass transit tend to be from those that are Republican?

All i've heard on this thread were tom delay, john culbertson and bob lanier regarding who are against mass transit. Two republicans and a democrat. I can think of one councilmember i know personally who rides the bus and is a republican. Based on this data it would be hard to comment on such generalities. Remember you don't have to be vocal to provide opposition.

#4 (In response to musicman's last two paragraphs)

Yeah, I am totally with you here. But now I just wish we could find politicians who place what's best for Houston over making decisions that they know doesn't serve the city as a whole, simply because they are more concerned with being re-elected.

That's Houston politics for you.

METRO is suppose to be the experts here, and I don't think they would have chosen Richmond as a route, just for craps and giggles. I believe as experts they have good reason choosing that particular route. What would be METRO'S motivation behind choosing to place rail along a street that would make the least sense and jeopardize federal funding by placing it in a area that will not generate the rider numbers needed to get the federal money? Does METRO have Houston's best interest in mind......I personally like to think so. I don't view METRO as self-serving. Can the same be said for John Culberson?

Noone has said richmond was chosen for craps and giggles. I personally have doubts that this line will provide REAL relief for our transportation woes.

[nmainguy]

Many forum members have been commenting on the fact that light rail should not kick people out of their homes. Go down to the Sims Bayou area and look how many homes were bought out due to the bayou widening. Would you be against this as well? The first section of the widening as been completed and has definitely provided relief but at the expense of homes.

If you buy a home in a flood plain and continue to be flooded year after year, would you finally come to your senses, realize your mistake and sell out to the government so you'll never flood again? Go to Arbor Oaks. There are about 10 homes left. No one is forcing them out. They are free to live there and be flooded once again. It's really not a comparison to METRO building a line on Richmond that takes no homes-which is the real issue-or non-issue-here.

Edited August 8, 2006 by nmainguy

[GovernorAggie]

Noone has said richmond was chosen for craps and giggles. I personally have doubts that this line will provide REAL relief for our transportation woes.

Let me go on the record saying that I personally feel that those in search of "real" relief for transportation woesin a growing metropolis are deceiving themselves. "Real" would be a lasting, substantial benefit. If you will notice, the real traffic relief of LRT is the replacement of several buses, which with the stop and go nature of the vehicle using the right lane of roads and interacting with the overabundance of curb-cuts could actually make some difference. The carrying capacity of one 100' LRT vehicle is the same as possibly three 40-60 foot buses. Taking the lower number, you carry the same amount of people in twenty less feet. Throw in the fact that the LRT vehicles can be coupled in 2 or 3 car sets, and now you have one operator pulling possibly close to 600 people in 300', whereas you would need many more buses to do the same thing--and they get to mess up all the right-turn movements.

If you look at TTI's congestion reports for the last few years, look at the places that have increasingly better traffic situations--Buffalo, Cleveland, maybe even Detroit. What do these places have in common--they are all shrinking. Thus, you have fewer people living and working in these areas and in turn, lower demand. Voila--there's the only real 'answer' to transportation woes...shrink your city. End the growth.

Any perceived "relief" of "transportation woes" in places like Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta, Washington DC, and LA is at best temporary. If you feel that $320 million spent of Main Street is inefficient, how will you feel when the $2-$3 billion Katy Freeway is backed up less that 5 years after it opens? As great DC's system is, they still have traffic woes. The same goes for SF, LA, NY, Chicago, Portland, and Boston.

What is that about the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I will also go on record and say that in the grand scheme of things for the Houston-Galveston region, LRT (and for that matter CRT and Subway and Jet Packs) will not make a marked difference in traffic on their own. There has to be holistic land use changes and innovative methods of developing near these rail lines, etc. and we all know that the chances of that any time soon aren't the greatest.

The job of these transit options is to improve the local network and provide options. Who's to say that if University Line replaces 200 buses, those buses can't then be used to implement more routes that extend outside 1960/6?

Edited August 8, 2006 by GovernorAggie

[AftonAg]

That was already done when the rail voting took place. I see no need to further hold up progress trying to belay the stupid and backward jackassed, BS fears of a small group of whiners. Put the rail on Richmond and get on with the positive progress of mobility of the system. If the AO people dont like it, tough. Non of them will be losing thier homes and property. Those in the AO crowd that cant get exceedingly excited about rail on Richmond should try pissing on a spark plug. That may be the catalist to kill thier "me and my" method of thinking and move onto the "greater good" for the city as a whole.

Perhaps you can help me here Houston - who died and appointed you spokesman for the entire city?

[Furious Jam]

Perhaps you can help me here Houston - who died and appointed you spokesman for the entire city?

And who decided that you and a few hundred bluebloods could block a rail line that will benefit the entire city? Just because it passes somewhere near your lavish estates?

[musicman]

If you buy a home in a flood plain and continue to be flooded year after year, would you finally come to your senses, realize your mistake and sell out to the government so you'll never flood again? Go to Arbor Oaks. There are about 10 homes left. No one is forcing them out. They are free to live there and be flooded once again. It's really not a comparison to METRO building a line on Richmond that takes no homes-which is the real issue-or non-issue-here.

These houses didn't flood. the neighborhood in question was actually higher than the neighborhood on the opposite side of the bayou. It is a government organization with eminent domain powers taking homes. Just like we're talking

These people were forced out because the bayou was widened i.e. their land was taken.

Edited August 8, 2006 by musicman