U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Houston
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 12-13-2008, 01:26 PM
 
34 posts, read 44,277 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiverTodd62 View Post
So many lies and half-truths. Where to start.

Oh I see, so the Toonerville Trolley we built first doesn't actually do the things light rail is claimed to do, but the *next one* will. And if that one falls short then the one *after* that.

I am not talking about theories, I am talking about facts, with references.

And the facts show that in those cities that have expanded and completed systems, light rail does not reduce congestion.

For 50 years, federal and state tax dollars have been spent serving those who generate them via gasoline taxes. Taxes on motorists are the source of the federal mass transit subsidies so not only have motorists been paying for their own roads but paying the rail as well. And we already covered the fact that most roads are inside the city so the city has been the biggest beneficiary of that spending over the last 50 years.

You want options? Let the users pay for them. Like motorists do.

The cost of car maintenance is a voluntary cost assumed by those who decide to have a car. Maybe it's time to start taxing everybody so the state can pay for my oil changes?

health and global warming, your reading comprehension skills are as bad as your logic deficiencies. I didn't say car emissions are not a problem, I said light rail doesn't reduce car emissions. I didn't say that exercise isn't healthy, I said there is no evidence riding light rail leads to fitness.

surface layer conservative thinking at its finest.

cities suffer congestion because the cities who have built light rail also are growing by large %.

congestion would be much greater in portland, denver and even dallas had a light rail not been implemented.

people in cities for the last 50 years have subsidized suburban growth through their taxes. period.

and yes, again, light rail does reduce congestion. see sentence # 2. and yes, just google mass transit and health and you will find hundreds of studies showing mass transit increases walkability.

unless you don't believe walking is healthy....which you might not.

and how do you "voluntarily decide" to not have a car if you are not serviced by any tax funded mass transit ?

your logic is old, tried, and failing.

your argument is essentially that your personal greed surpasses public good.


from Angel713's link

"A 14-month study completed by Goodman Corp. last year said the rail line is economical, will reduce air pollution, ease traffic congestion and provide a hurricane evacuation method."


if heavy rail reduces air pollution and congestion....light rail also doesn't.. Come on.

Last edited by traveler3; 12-13-2008 at 02:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2008, 01:43 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
8,903 posts, read 8,188,843 times
Reputation: 3173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiverTodd62 View Post
And for the record I am generally supportive of commuter rail, although my support will be line specific based on the economics. The average fare box recovery for heavy rail commuter lines is 58% and I already stated that my threshold was 50%. I don't think Metro really wants commuter rail though.
Well they do, or they wouldn't not be planning for it. UP just needs to cooperate and you'll see commuter rail on the 290 corridor in just 18 months.

In fact: Galveston OKs analysis on proposed Houston rail line | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 02:28 PM
 
Location: NW Houston
1,150 posts, read 1,854,579 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveler3 View Post
cities suffer congestion because the cities who have built light rail also are growing by large %.

congestion would be much greater in portland, denver and even dallas had a light rail not been implemented.
Simply not true. As stated, Houston has seen congestion grow less than nearly all other major cities and it isn't because those cities are growing faster. Cities growing much slower than Houston who have built rail have still seen their congestion grow faster. Facts are the facts, and they trump your armchair theories every time.

I'm not interested in what pro-rail studies commissioned by transit agencies say a rail line WILL DO, I am interested in what rail lines that have actually been built HAVE DONE. And the performance results are nowhere near the promises.

You "voluntarily decide" based on where you choose to live and work. For example, if I really wanted the option to ride to work on a bus I wouldn't have bought a house or taken a job that is not convenient to a bus route.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
3,437 posts, read 3,070,358 times
Reputation: 2112
Once Houston finally gets the right kind of rail, that is centralized inside the loop, the life of the city will be a lot more energetic and the problems with the no zoning won't be totally gone but will be majorly alleviated.

What do you all want, rail trains or commuter trains?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 02:38 PM
 
Location: NW Houston
1,150 posts, read 1,854,579 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel713 View Post
Well they do, or they wouldn't not be planning for it. UP just needs to cooperate and you'll see commuter rail on the 290 corridor in just 18 months.

In fact: Galveston OKs analysis on proposed Houston rail line | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Maybe, I tend to be cynical when it comes to bureaucrats.

Sounds like a promising commuter line. From Galveston to Houston, that's got to be 50 miles, and for the same cost as the 7.5 mile light rail "Red Line"? Sounds like a bargain. See? I am willing to accept mass transit when it makes economic sense.

And travler, your premise is flawed in assuming that because commuter rail reduces congestion and emissions that light rail also does. The Gal-Hou line *would* take cars off the road because there are NO mass transit options currently on that route.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 02:56 PM
 
34 posts, read 44,277 times
Reputation: 26
And travler, your premise is flawed in assuming that because commuter rail reduces congestion and emissions that light rail also does. The Gal-Hou line *would* take cars off the road because there are NO mass transit options currently on that route.


same as an extended line into the suburbs of houston. (5 transfers and 1.5 hours is not reasonable suburban bus mass transit)


regardless, i believe the line will continue to be expanded. you may have been born 40 years to late for your argument.

your arguments are directly out of a brochure from the cato institute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 03:08 PM
 
Location: NW Houston
1,150 posts, read 1,854,579 times
Reputation: 624
No my arguments are directly out of Metro audited annual reports and TAMU TTI Mobility studies.

You should stop being so selfish and greedy. If you want to have mass transit options, move to a location that is presently served by mass transit. Don't move to a location not served by mass transit then whine that the public should pay for and build a rail line to serve you. Take some personal responsibility, dude. You may have been born yesterday judging from your arguments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 03:43 PM
 
34 posts, read 44,277 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiverTodd62 View Post
No my arguments are directly out of Metro audited annual reports and TAMU TTI Mobility studies.

You should stop being so selfish and greedy. If you want to have mass transit options, move to a location that is presently served by mass transit. Don't move to a location not served by mass transit then whine that the public should pay for and build a rail line to serve you. Take some personal responsibility, dude. You may have been born yesterday judging from your arguments.
you really have no clue about the history of highway funding or suburban development and it's relation to tax payer dollars.

everything you have argued FOR has created the congestion and infrastructure budget shortfalls that most large cities experiences today.(i.e. more lanes/bigger roads)

the general public has paid tax $$ for 50 years of your sprawl (utility lines, water lines, roads) so you can live without density

again, your conservative greed and surface layer reasoning won't allow you to admit that the publicly funded suburbs you choose to live in, was at the expense of mass transit options and people's tax $$ in urban areas

some of us just want to recoup a portion of that 50 years of general tax $$ for alternative options in transit

Last edited by traveler3; 12-13-2008 at 03:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 03:44 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
8,903 posts, read 8,188,843 times
Reputation: 3173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiverTodd62 View Post
Maybe, I tend to be cynical when it comes to bureaucrats.

Sounds like a promising commuter line. From Galveston to Houston, that's got to be 50 miles, and for the same cost as the 7.5 mile light rail "Red Line"? Sounds like a bargain. See? I am willing to accept mass transit when it makes economic sense.
For one, the Red Line had to totally be built from scratch. It is also in an area of higher land value and businesses at to be taken care of. For the Hou-Gal line, there is already an existing rail bed and ROW. For what it is worth though, the entire new 38 miles of light rail planned to be complete by 2012 will coast the same as the Hou-Gal line. I don't think the Red Line cost as much as the Hou-Gal line will be. I'll look that up later.

Quote:
And travler, your premise is flawed in assuming that because commuter rail reduces congestion and emissions that light rail also does. The Gal-Hou line *would* take cars off the road because there are NO mass transit options currently on that route.
It's not all about cars. The big muzzling buses also get in the way. Who wants to be behind those things? Plus, buses are higher maintenance than light rail trains. It's already been proven. If you have an light rail system and bus-rapid transit system, the BRT system would cost less in the beginning, but the costs in the long-run would be much more expensive (higher maintenance). Also, some people have this "thing" against riding a bus. More people would rather sit in a light rail train than a bus, thus taking more cars off of the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 04:03 PM
 
Location: NW Houston
1,150 posts, read 1,854,579 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveler3 View Post
the general public has paid tax $$ for 50 years of your sprawl (utility lines, water lines, roads) so you can live without density

again, your conservative greed and surface layer reasoning won't allow you to admit that the publicly funded suburbs you choose to live in, was at the expense of mass transit options and people's tax $$ in urban areas
Just an absolute lie, water lines by MUDs supported wholly by it's users, electric by utilities that derive all it's income from users, neighborhoods by private developers, roads by gasoline taxes from motorists that drive on them. The fact is that people in suburbs have been subsidizing and supporting cities. One day you will grow up and move to the suburbs, too.

People moved away from the cities and it's high crime, pollution, and taxes. Cities decayed and couldn't support themselves so they reached out and annexed the suburbs. People moved further away. Cities wanted them back, needed them back, and reached out to annex again. That's why Houston keeps annexing, first Clear Lake, then Kingwood, and their holy grail is the Woodlands.

People in the suburbs like paying their own way. That's why all the toll roads are in the suburbs. People in the city don't like paying their own way, would never support a toll road or rail line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Houston

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:09 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top