METRORail University Line

[KatieDidIt]

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 so there is no way they could have stayed.

If the homes the city took were constantly flooding, and they were purchased a fair value to prevent further flooding to other other homes, I can see the benifits to both parties. But the "taking" of homes in non-risk areas is wrong.

The issue of flooding bayous is so different than a city "want" of a rail I can't even begin. The WANT of rail isn't in the same category as the NEED to prevent future flooding for the good of the city....

People in flood plain homes choose to build in an iffy area and roll the dice...those homes are also one of the reasons Houston has such problems with flooding. The people who live in the neighborhoods off Richmond didn'tchoose a home in a risky area, and the city has no right to TAKE non-risk homes just because they WANT a cho-cho train to make Houston seem more progressive.

As to Afton Oaks, many posters keep going on and on how wealthy these people are. We had friends that bought a house there 10 years ago for 138k, and they don't put themselves in the category anywhere close to "blueblood." So I have to say I am miffed at this sentiment.

Edited August 8, 2006 by KatieDidIt

[musicman]

"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.

I've haven't experienced the real traffic relief of the LRT yet. If you are a driver near the light rail, i'm sure that you're drives times have actually lengthed due to the LRT. Remember, they are commuters too and in fact exist in higher numbers. roads have been closed which lengthened drives times. Lights aren't in sync downtown as they are supposed to be, etc. FYI, the rail system we have here is limited to 2 cars sets due to the length of blocks so saying that they can carry 600 people is incorrect.

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.

The recent opening of 59 south from the beltway to hw6, was definitely appreciated by people who live out there and immediately cut drive times. It is more efficient as well because of decrease drives times, the vehicles are not on the road as long as they normally would be. I think we've lost some history here regarding our freeway expansion. For those that were here in the 70's, we were considered the most congested city in the nation. As a result of that, we started our freeway expansion. That round of expansion is approaching an end with the Katy freeway expansion. based on Txdots efforts, we are no longer the most congested city. We have also been lucky that Austin didn't modernize their system therefore more money was available for us. these projects have provided real relief to our areas and shorter travel times are reflected. I know i've definitely seen an improvement with the recent opening of the 59 near downtown. Due to the spreadout nature of our city, the improvements to the freeway system are seen as postive by the majority of the population cause they have shortened commute times.

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?

Well based on our first line, there were routes that were closed following the opening of the light rail, the trolley system was shut down and many other routes were shortened. The additional monies gained from these actions were put into the operation of the light rail.

The issue of flooding bayous is so different than a city "want" of a rail I can't even begin. The WANT of rail isn't in the same category as the NEED to prevent future flooding for the good of the city....

People in flood plain homes choose to build in an iffy area and roll the dice...those homes are also one of the reasons Houston has such problems with flooding. The people who live in the neighborhoods off Richmond didn'tchoose a home in a risky area, and the city has no right to TAKE non-risk homes just because they WANT a cho-cho train to make Houston seem more progressive.

As to Afton Oaks, many posters keep going on and on how wealthy these people are. We had friends that bought a house there 10 years ago for 138k, and they don't put themselves in the category anywhere close to "blueblood." So I have to say I am miffed at this sentiment.

Well there are people here saying that we need light rail. that it is needed to prevent future congestion. You say that they want it.

You made a good point katie, do we need light rail expansion or do we want light rail expansion?

to reiterate, the homes that were taken did NOT flood because the other side of the bayou was lower. those homes on the otherside were actually flooding. now they don't.

[nmainguy]

If the homes the city took were constantly flooding, and they were purchased a fair value to prevent further flooding to other other homes, I can see the benifits to both parties. But the "taking" of homes in non-risk areas is wrong.

The issue of flooding bayous is so different than a city "want" of a rail I can't even begin. The WANT of rail isn't in the same category as the NEED to prevent future flooding for the good of the city....

People in flood plain homes choose to build in an iffy area and roll the dice...those homes are also one of the reasons Houston has such problems with flooding. The people who live in the neighborhoods off Richmond didn'tchoose a home in a risky area, and the city has no right to TAKE non-risk homes just because they WANT a cho-cho train to make Houston seem more progressive.

As to Afton Oaks, many posters keep going on and on how wealthy these people are. We had friends that bought a house there 10 years ago for 138k, and they don't put themselves in the category anywhere close to "blueblood." So I have to say I am miffed at this sentiment.

Katy,

The taking of homes is a non issue as there will be no taking of homes for the U Line. It's a tactic of more miss-information being used by Culberson and the anti rail groups to scare people. In fact, the only homes that would be taken would be under the plan Culberson and Clutterbuck propose.

The reason posters comment on the wealth of AO is because AftonAg comes on the board and says he's wealthy and has a silly joke: "Do you know what they call people from Afton Oaks? 'Boss'".

So instead of sticking to facts, the anti's and AOer's seem to be more into juvenile jokes and plans that destroy any homes but their own-which incidentally will not happen regardless.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

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

No one.

Im no politician interested in reelection or compromise. Im just a concerned citizen that is in STRONG disagreement with the garbage coming out of AO.

If i were the spokesman for or leader of the entire city, this thread would not exist. The LRT on Richmond would already be under construction.

[KatieDidIt]

oh I think current rail is a want not a need. Most Houstonians have to drive into town even to use the rail..which by the way has created more congestion in the medical center and around Reliant, IMHO. Its upwards of an hour to get into Reliant parking at times due to the shutting down of half the gates. I also thought it was brilliant to put rail right down the center of the medical center, where people are driving around totally stressed out or emotionally overwhelmed.

The only people who currently use the rail, that I know of, are those that work downtown and go to an event at Reliant or visit the med center for a few hours. Then they return to downtown to get there car and drive 35 minutes home.

The only real needed rail, and one that would be actually used, would be commuter lines from satellite burbs into downtown to relieve congestion on the over taxed freeway system. I wish the I-10 construction had left room for that. Perhaps when they widen 45 in the future they will plan for it.

But this is just my perception of things. Perhaps all those people living downtown really need rail.

Edited August 8, 2006 by KatieDidIt

[VelvetJ]

The Niche, maybe I need to make myself a little more clear. In the past, one of the reasonings behind not having rail in Houston was that we are not dense enough. What I'm saying is that is no longer reason enough to fight rail. If we are trying to wait until Houston is dense enough, or try to wait until we reach 10,000 ppsm, we will be waiting long past our lifetimes. Even after all of the money we have spent on our gigantic freeways, congestion is still a problem. Our air quality is far from some of the best in the nation. And I personally believe we will be looking at $5 per gallon gas, sooner than we think.

Doesn't Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta share similar densities with Houston being the most dense of the three? What was the point in Dallas and Atlanta investing in rail? Don't they know they aren't dense enough for rail? What fools.

Regarding cost, did we not end up having to pay more for our rail line than what we could have? Didn't we do it alone? Maybe I'm clairvoyant?

Lastly, Ok, I can accept you not trusting METRO for whatever reason you have, but does this mean you trust John Culberson? Do you think he has genuine motivations?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The only real needed rail, and one that would be actually used, would be commuter lines from satellite burbs into downtown to relieve congestion on the over taxed freeway system.

Complete BS.

[VelvetJ]

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.

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

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.

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.

That's Houston politics for you.

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.

Musicman, it is your belief that 48 percent of Houston's voting public is against rail going down Richmond avenue SPECIFICALLY? I don't believe that. Just from casual conversation I have found that at least 1 resident of northwest Houston, 3 residents of Southwest Houston, and 1 resident in Clear Lake couldn't care less whether rail is specifically on Richmond Avenue or not, they just agree that the most logical route should be taken. I am speaking of the specific Richmond avenue route. If you are making the argument that everyone who voted against rail during the election must automatically be against rail on Richmond then that is a different animal. Those people more than likely don't want rail anywhere at at anytime in Houston. If they are against rail on Richmond, it is because they are against rail in general.

Burningng gasoline and electricity may both be expensive, but at this point using an electric alternative would be the wisest thing for us, and I think there are a number of reasons we can point out to why that is.

No, I meant Sugarland Town Square and the developments around the Woodlands mall. I am not talking about the entire Woodlands development or the entire city of Sugarland. Those residents love the urban style of those new developments. Being able to live, work and play in a single area has become very attractive. Have you been to the Sugarland Town Square on a Saturday or Sunday evening? Plus, you mentioned this could happen in Houston at the expense of homes and businesses? Are you kidding me? You know you don't sound like a Houston resident right now don't you? The city that has lost half of it's history to new development? A city where someone would even consider the destruction of the River Oaks Theater? A city that will fell mature oak trees and thick forests for a strip center? Now businesses and homes are a concern for more urban development along a rail line? And of course most people wouldn't want a Town Center in the middle of Memorial park, but the sad thing about that is, in Houston it's probably possible. Oh well, at least we know the River Oaks is safe for at LEAST another year.

Musicman, you didn't answer the question. Can it be said that most opponents to Mass transportation tend to be supporters of the Republican party? I didn't say all Republicans are against it, I said most of it's opposers tend to be.

Lastly, I think it's short-sighted to think this line on Richmond would provide relief to our transportation woes......at the moment. A full network, which we are trying to achieve, will provide the maximum benefit of this particular line. We are trying to achieve a goal. We are trying to complete a puzzle to make a beautiful picture. We can't do that with only two pieces. Those pieces will reach their full potential when the other pieces are added and the picture is complete.

[nmainguy]

musicman @ Monday, August 7th, 2006 @ 11:37pm)

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.

Is this the newest twist to deflect from the topic? Except for Presidential elections, the majority-overwhelming or not-rules. It's not kind of a majority-it's not a little bit pregnant-it's a win for people who are pro-rail. I think if the anti-rail folks would quit grasping at straws and face reality, we could move forward instead of being stuck in the mud of non-existant house takings and a minority who question a clear win in an election on rail.

Edited August 8, 2006 by nmainguy

[CDeb]

The only real needed rail, and one that would be actually used, would be commuter lines from satellite burbs into downtown to relieve congestion on the over taxed freeway system.

This is false. The truth is that both are needed. If you just build commuter rail, how are all those commuters going to get around once they get into the city center? If you can't move them once they get downtown, you're looking at a whole lot of empty (and expensive) trains. The commuters can't all work within a quarter-mile of the station.

On the other hand, for a successful local system, you need a way to bring other users TO the system in order for them to be able to use it.

You need both, and it's the classic chicken/egg argument as to which you build first (unless you're blessed with "more money than Davey Crocket" and can build it all at once). Most would say to build the local system first because there will always be some local traffic to move (as we're seeing with our current system).

Edited August 8, 2006 by CDeb

[Highway6]

The only real needed rail, and one that would be actually used, would be commuter lines from satellite burbs into downtown to relieve congestion on the over taxed freeway system.

So.. you among others are assuming that everyone that lives in the suburbs must work downtown, right ?

What if I work anywhere else - Med Center, Greenway, Uptown. The CRT just got me to the new intermodal station downtown.. now what ??

That is why you work from the inside out. Someone last week used the analogy of taking the freeway downtown, where there is only one exit, which dead-ends and connects to no other street... how useful would that be ?

We already have Commuter and Express busses that go from every Transit PArk and ride in the suburbs into town, they are already in somewhat dedicated HOV lanes... How useful would that system be if there wasn't already an established local Metro service in-town.

It wouldn't.

Same with rail.

[nmainguy]

Aug. 8, 2006, 11:35AM

Clutterbuck explains rail proposal

She says she isn't in favor of razing homes, but backs suspending tracks over freeway

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4100985.html

Clutterbuck explained that while driving on Dallas' North Central Expressway she had seen a light rail line suspended over the wall of the freeway and asked Metropolitan Transit Authority officials to consider a similar arrangement here.

Morgan Lyons, spokesman for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, said he consulted with a DART engineer and neither of them could think of a DART line suspended as described. Lyons said parts of the system are elevated over freeways at crossings or run parallel to freeways, possibly appearing cantilevered when seen from a car.

Again, another Culberson follower who can't keep her story straight.

BTW, I can't visualize a cantilevered track without thinking of how it would cut through the new bridges. Elevate it at every bridge? Re-build the bridges? The $ signs are dancing in my head as the federal $ fly to a different city.

[KatieDidIt]

yes, I understand the fact that many don't work downtown, but the other fact is most Houstonians aren't going to walk more than a few blocks...so an interior system is useless it stops every few blocks.

And what a trafficmare that would create.

Systems that run to to mini-downtowns from the burbs make more sense.....but only if people are willing to walk a few blocks. If a station went to Uptown, how many would actually be willing to risk thunderstorms and 98 degrees on a 1/4+ mile hike to work?

In fact I really think any rail is useless here, Houstonians like there cars and really don't like walking. IMO its just a huge waste of money.....no matter where they put it.

Edited August 8, 2006 by KatieDidIt

[west20th]

IMO its just a huge waste of money.....no matter where they put it.

How much money was spent on the I-10 project? The one that will obsolete and beyond design capacity in a few years, requiring another billion or so people don't have to get out of their cars.

[nmainguy]

yes, I understand the fact that many don't work downtown, but the other fact is most Houstonians aren't going to walk more than a few blocks...so an interior system is useless it stops every few blocks.

And what a trafficmare that would create.

Systems that run to to mini-downtowns from the burbs make more sense.....but only if people are willing to walk a few blocks. If a station went to Uptown, how many would actually be willing to risk thunderstorms and 98 degrees on a 1/4+ mile hike to work?

In fact I really think any rail is useless here, Houstonians like there cars and really don't like walking. IMO its just a huge waste of money.....no matter where they put it.

You nor I have any stats on who "most Houstonians" are and whether they're willing to walk 1/4 mile in any weather. My observations and experience is many people DO walk that 1/4 mile+.

I understand you don't care for any rail of any kind but like the anti-rail people's signs which say "There's a Better Way" you nor they have yet to reveal what that might be.

Edited August 8, 2006 by nmainguy

[TheNiche]

How much money was spent on the I-10 project? The one that will obsolete and beyond design capacity in a few years, requiring another billion or so people don't have to get out of their cars.

I agree. We should've rebuilt 290, the North Loop, and I-10 inside the loop at the same time. We also should've added capacity to the West Loop, extended the Westpark toll road through to Kirby, and built an adequate interchange at Spur 527. That'd fix the I-10 problem (and several others).

[KatieDidIt]

I agree. We should've rebuilt 290, the North Loop, and I-10 inside the loop at the same time. We also should've added capacity to the West Loop, extended the Westpark toll road through to Kirby, and built an adequate interchange at Spur 527. That'd fix the I-10 problem (and several others).

I am certainly not anti-rail, but I strongly believe it will not provide anywhere close to the type of relief "pro-railers" think it will.

Corporations allowing people to work from home offices or satellite offices 2-3 times a week would have more of an immediate effect.

Of course..that a Eutopian vision.

Peace

[CDeb]

My observations and experience is many people DO walk that 1/4 mile+.

As a TAMU student I do it every day. And it's hot here, too.

[TheNiche]

The Niche, maybe I need to make myself a little more clear. In the past, one of the reasonings behind not having rail in Houston was that we are not dense enough. What I'm saying is that is no longer reason enough to fight rail. If we are trying to wait until Houston is dense enough, or try to wait until we reach 10,000 ppsm, we will be waiting long past our lifetimes. Even after all of the money we have spent on our gigantic freeways, congestion is still a problem. Our air quality is far from some of the best in the nation. And I personally believe we will be looking at $5 per gallon gas, sooner than we think.

Doesn't Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta share similar densities with Houston being the most dense of the three? What was the point in Dallas and Atlanta investing in rail? Don't they know they aren't dense enough for rail? What fools.

Regarding cost, did we not end up having to pay more for our rail line than what we could have? Didn't we do it alone? Maybe I'm clairvoyant?

Lastly, Ok, I can accept you not trusting METRO for whatever reason you have, but does this mean you trust John Culberson? Do you think he has genuine motivations?

Dallas and Atlanta have got superior systems, in my view, than we have here. To put it simply, they serve broader populations. DART extends to Plano (the suburbs)! DART uses a P&R format! DART is grade-seperated except in downtown areas! DART achieves reasonably fast average speeds! That's what I'm looking for in a rail system.

The gross cost of installation is unlikely to have increased or decreased substantially, and how the cost was divided between local/federal governmentes had very little to do with timing and very much to do with political support (or the lack thereof).

I don't trust Culberson, AOers, or Clutterbuck, either, btw. Whatever made you think that I did?

[AftonAg]

No one.

Im no politician interested in reelection or compromise. Im just a concerned citizen that is in STRONG disagreement with the garbage coming out of AO.

If i were the spokesman for or leader of the entire city, this thread would not exist. The LRT on Richmond would already be under construction.

I believe they would call your system a dictatorship, we live in a democracy where people are free to express their opinions. You in turn are free to consider our opinions garbage, which speaks volumes to your maturity level. The fact is, as Musicman so eloquently points out, that light rail on Richmond will not improve drive times significantly, and it will not carry 600 passengers per train, it will increase drive times on Richmond just as it has on Main for all the reasons he cites.

Thanks to the media, Afton Oaks is the most often named group against rail on Richmond but, and understand this very clearly, many others, including other neighborhoods along Richmond, and business owners along Richmond do not want light rail on Richmond. So all of the posters on here need to realize that the anti- Railroading of Richmond group is much larger than just Afton Oaks.

As for not being a politician, clearly that isn't your calling stay in your present career, and remember to smile when you ask people, "Can I Super-Size that for you?"

[zaphod]

Clutterbuck explained that while driving on Dallas' North Central Expressway she had seen a light rail line suspended over the wall of the freeway and asked Metropolitan Transit Authority officials to consider a similar arrangement here.

Morgan Lyons, spokesman for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, said he consulted with a DART engineer and neither of them could think of a DART line suspended as described. Lyons said parts of the system are elevated over freeways at crossings or run parallel to freeways, possibly appearing cantilevered when seen from a car.

he must be thinking of where the red line goes from elevated to at-grade right before diving under central expressway between lovers lane and mockingbird. its not even close to the freeway, rather its right by greenville ave. Although i do see how he could have mistaked it for being suspended over the freeway, he really should have the common sense to research and educate himself on these things. Man, all it takes is going to wikipedia or googling DART and browsing nycsubway.orgs other cities transit pages and he'd be all set.

Maybe someone should send a letter to this guy giving him a list of neutral-opinion mass transit sites where he can educate himself. It seems like he doesnt know much about how other systems are layed out. Maybe if he saw how things are done in other places he'd be able to better make decisions.

Edited August 8, 2006 by zaphod

[west20th]

Dallas and Atlanta have got superior systems, in my view, than we have here.

Of course they do. They are much farther along with their overall transit plans than we are. We are just starting. I really don't understand your point in stating that Dallas and Atlanta have superior rail systems. That will always be the case until we start moving and completing our own rail.

As for not being a politician, clearly that isn't your calling stay in your present career, and remember to smile when you ask people, "Can I Super-Size that for you?"

My you are petty. Can we just debate this w/o personal attacks.

[AftonAg]

Aug. 8, 2006, 11:35AM

Clutterbuck explains rail proposal

She says she isn't in favor of razing homes, but backs suspending tracks over freeway

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4100985.html

Again, another Culberson follower who can't keep her story straight.

BTW, I can't visualize a cantilevered track without thinking of how it would cut through the new bridges. Elevate it at every bridge? Re-build the bridges? The $ signs are dancing in my head as the federal $ fly to a different city.

COnspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy, liars, liars, liars, liars, liars, The sky is falling, The sky is falling, The sky is falling. Sheesh Nmain you sound like a broken record. According to you the only person we can believe and the only person that can keep their story straight is, ummm, let's see, I'll think of it, oh yeah you. So you rail on Afton Oaks when, as all rational posters know, we are but one small group of people opposed to railroading Richmond. Is it because we are a little pocket of affluence that you hate us so much, or because we have organized well, and utilized the political system effectively to make our voices heard?

[nmainguy]

he must be thinking of where the red line goes from elevated to at-grade right before diving under central expressway between lovers lane and mockingbird. its not even close to the freeway, rather its right by greenville ave. Although i do see how he could have mistaked it for being suspended over the freeway, he really should have the common sense to research and educate himself on these things. Man, all it takes is going to wikipedia or googling DART and browsing nycsubway.orgs other cities transit pages and he'd be all set.

Maybe someone should send a letter to this guy giving him a list of neutral-opinion mass transit sites where he can educate himself. It seems like he doesnt know much about how other systems are layed out. Maybe if he saw how things are done in other places he'd be able to better make decisions.

{psssst...he's a she }

[TheNiche]

As a TAMU student I do it every day. And it's hot here, too.

College students everywhere walk a lot. They also don't tend to wear suits.

Heat, humidity, and wind are very much of a problem for the corporate set...especially when they could just as easily walk from their living rooms to their garages, hop in their car, drive in an air-conditioned environment to the parking garage at work, walk into the lobby, and never once have to expose themselves to potential discomfort or the perception (real or not) of there being crime or unpleasant people to deal with.

[AftonAg]

Of course they do. They are much farther along with their overall transit plans than we are. We are just starting. I really don't understand your point in stating that Dallas and Atlanta have superior rail systems. That will always be the case until we start moving and completing our own rail.

My you are petty. Can we just debate this w/o personal attacks.

Go back and count the number of personal attacks that I have received versus the number that I have made. We all have a point where someone gets under our skin enough that we lash out. It is rare for me and I apologize to the forum as a whole. "Can we just debate this w/o personal attacks", I think you will find this a recurring theme in many of my posts.

I am certainly not anti-rail, but I strongly believe it will not provide anywhere close to the type of relief "pro-railers" think it will.

Corporations allowing people to work from home offices or satellite offices 2-3 times a week would have more of an immediate effect.

Of course..that a Eutopian vision.

Peace

Katie - you are a breath of fresh air. It seems to me that this rail will serve the colleges and enable them to travel faster to the Richmond strip to party. Just a thought.........

[west20th]

College students everywhere walk a lot. They also don't tend to wear suits.

Heat, humidity, and wind are very much of a problem for the corporate set...especially when they could just as easily walk from their living rooms to their garages, hop in their car, drive in an air-conditioned environment to the parking garage at work, walk into the lobby, and never once have to expose themselves to potential discomfort or the perception (real or not) of there being crime or unpleasant people to deal with.

Heat and humity aren't a problem with the corporate set in Dallas or Atlanta? They seem to have overcome these obstacles and built "superior" transit systems to Houston. Doesn't Houston also rate a good transit solution? And, in general, the "corporate set" isn't the main target group for light rail.

Edited August 8, 2006 by west20th

[AftonAg]

Is this the newest twist to deflect from the topic? Except for Presidential elections, the majority-overwhelming or not-rules. It's not kind of a majority-it's not a little bit pregnant-it's a win for people who are pro-rail. I think if the anti-rail folks would quit grasping at straws and face reality, we could move forward instead of being stuck in the mud of non-existant house takings and a minority who question a clear win in an election on rail.

He has you there musicman - it was a clear victory for rail - on Westpark, not on Richmond and therin lies the rub. When it gets approved on a ballot Metro should honor the voters wishes and put the LTR (Little Toy Railroad) where it was approved.

[west20th]

Go back and count the number of personal attacks that I have received versus the number that I have made. We all have a point where someone gets under our skin enough that we lash out. It is rare for me and I apologize to the forum as a whole. "Can we just debate this w/o personal attacks", I think you will find this a recurring theme in many of my posts.

Katie - you are a breath of fresh air. It seems to me that this rail will serve the colleges and enable them to

travel faster to the Richmond strip to party. Just a thought.........

I really don't have time to score keep personal attacks. The "well they did it first" defense is pretty thin.

Please try to stay current with the info used in your arguments. The Richmond strip has been dead since the nineties. Just a note. Not all Richmond businesses are against rail. Outside the loop they generally are not. I can't remember that organization's name (pro-rail on Richmond) but I see their signs on the way home from work, I'll get back with you on that.

[nmainguy]

According to you the only person we can believe and the only person that can keep their story straight is, ummm, let's see, I'll think of it, oh yeah you.

I've never said I was the only person to believe [you already knew that] but I've been consistent. I've always been for the line if not the exact route. Initially I didn't want it through your neighborhood. I wanted it to turn north on Weslyan to Westhiemer. When I found that option was off the table, I choose the most direct route which goes through-but does not stop in nor take any homes from AO. You on the other hand continue to be all over the page when one day you say they're taking homes and the next is they're not taking homes but they're taking people's easements, conveniently leaving out that it's not "their" easements but the city's.

College students everywhere walk a lot. They also don't tend to wear suits.

Heat, humidity, and wind are very much of a problem for the corporate set...especially when they could just as easily walk from their living rooms to their garages, hop in their car, drive in an air-conditioned environment to the parking garage at work, walk into the lobby, and never once have to expose themselves to potential discomfort or the perception (real or not) of there being crime or unpleasant people to deal with.

People in other warm climate citys have no problem with heat or "unpleasant" people. Many people ride transit and walk in a suit. If it becomes too warm, they might remove their jackets. Your argument is empty.

Edited August 8, 2006 by nmainguy