June 14, 2005
The new Metro plan
I've now read about the new Metro plan, and I think it's pretty good. At the very least, I think Mayor White deserves a lot of credit for getting Reps. Culberson and DeLay in harmony with the program. I hope we all remember later on what nice things Rep. Culberson had to say about Mayor White's fiscal stewardship.
I wish there'd be something along I-10 from downtown, as that would be the most convenient location for me to get on board (though the proposed commuter rail coming in along US 290 will pass relatively nearby), and I'm really sorry to see the proposed route to Intercontinental Airport get pushed back, but if there are now fewer political obstacles to overcome I can accept that. What I care about is that it gets done.
More Chron coverage can be found here, here, and here. Tory Gattis and Steve Bates both give it a qualified thumbs-up, while Kevin...well, let's just say he's not a very happy camper.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on June 14, 2005 to Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
At least Kevin and Anne have each other to put out the fires in their hair.
Kuff, the plan includes BRT, which is a good idea, but it still invests heavily in costly rail boondoggles, the current model of which has already destroyed Metro's ability to serve the public transportation needs of the general public and has lead to a large-scale destruction of Metro bus routes as well as a massive decrease in actual Metro ridership and bus fares.
The plan really appears to be nothing more than a federal bail-out of a Metro in deep trouble.
I really don't see why the vast majority of us, who don't live in the upscale Houston-area neighborhoods in favor of which Metro is obviously abandoning its original public mission, should committ, through federal funds and local sales taxes, to finance and subsidize a costly public ride to work for Porsche and Lexus owners who knowingly choose to live along highly-congested freeways far from their offices. And all of this, to boot, not because it serves a legitimate public interest, but rather because it serves the special interests of the developers and contractors who own the Mayor and the Metro board.
As to Mayor White's "fiscal stewardship"?
:^D :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D
What's that, turning the Clearsafe revenue stream into an entitlement? Cutting the police academy classes? Cheating the firefighters? Red light cameras?
Or, could it be the wreck -- as well as the international laughingstock --- the light rail boondoggle's public safety record and high cost have made of Metro finances and service?
Or maybe it's just that anything looks good after Lee Brown's "fiscal stewardship" ... :^D