METRO Ridership Continues To Grow

[attorneyguss]

There are too many possible factors at play here, among them economics (gas prices), convenience (crowded highways), attitudinal changes (why did it take me 8 years to even try the train).

I think it would be useful to look elsewhere for precedents that show city growth and what factors struck a balance between growth and infrastructure spending. But first i'm curious whether everyone here agrees that the mass adoption of an efficient public transport system is both desirable and preferable to gridlock and more roads.

Stumped if I know

[IHB2]

But first i'm curious whether everyone here agrees that the mass adoption of an efficient public transport system is both desirable and preferable to gridlock and more roads.

Nobody votes for gridlock. It's the efficient part that is causing the disputes.

If we are going to build fixed-rail systems in a big metro area designed wholly for automobiles, the routing and interaction with auto traffic has to be the 1st priority, but what we have gotten from METRO is an attempt to balance that priority with what it can afford to build.

Add to that METRO's proven squandering of $100s of millions of taxpayer money on the 2003 "Solutions" plans, and proven malfeasance at the highest levels of previous METRO management, and you have our current predicament in which METRO says the "Uptown Line" once scheduled to be operational by 2012 may be running by 2030 (if METRO can find some funding).

[Pleak]

Nobody votes for gridlock. It's the efficient part that is causing the disputes.

If we are going to build fixed-rail systems in a big metro area designed wholly for automobiles, the routing and interaction with auto traffic has to be the 1st priority, but what we have gotten from METRO is an attempt to balance that priority with what it can afford to build.

Add to that METRO's proven squandering of $100s of millions of taxpayer money on the 2003 "Solutions" plans, and proven malfeasance at the highest levels of previous METRO management, and you have our current predicament in which METRO says the "Uptown Line" once scheduled to be operational by 2012 may be running by 2030 (if METRO can find some funding).

Don't forget the looting of Metro's "war chest" that had been built up to pay for rail back in the 90's. I believe it was good old Bob Lanier who did that - wasn't it somewhere around $600 million ( my memory may be failing me here) that. Plus the continued diversion of 25% of the funds that are supposed to support Metro being siphoned off for non-mass transit purposes.

[ricco67]

Don't forget the looting of Metro's "war chest" that had been built up to pay for rail back in the 90's. I believe it was good old Bob Lanier who did that - wasn't it somewhere around $600 million ( my memory may be failing me here) that. Plus the continued diversion of 25% of the funds that are supposed to support Metro being siphoned off for non-mass transit purposes.

You're correct, Lanier pillaged the funds that METRO had and diverted them to Police and other projects I forget.

I wonder if there is some way to allow metro to get its full penny tax back, instead of it being split up to other entities?

[ToryGattis]

I wonder if there is some way to allow metro to get its full penny tax back, instead of it being split up to other entities?

They'd definitely like to, and I think they're considering a referendum to do that (?). But the people who appoint their board are the beneficiaries of that $ (CoH, Harris County, smaller cities), so it will be a very tough sell. If they follow the path of other transit agencies, they will push themselves into the equivalent of bankruptcy (mainly with rail spending) and then demand the extra money or threaten draconian bus service cuts.

[mfastx]

They'd definitely like to, and I think they're considering a referendum to do that (?). But the people who appoint their board are the beneficiaries of that $ (CoH, Harris County, smaller cities), so it will be a very tough sell. If they follow the path of other transit agencies, they will push themselves into the equivalent of bankruptcy (mainly with rail spending) and then demand the extra money or threaten draconian bus service cuts.

Which other transit agencies have followed this "path?"

They have been pushed to the equivalent of bankruptcy by Bob Lanier.

[ToryGattis]

Which other transit agencies have followed this "path?"

They have been pushed to the equivalent of bankruptcy by Bob Lanier.

Plenty over the years. Go back through the archives here to find some of them: http://ti.org/antiplanner/

Metro was just fine without the 25% until they embarked on the overly-ambitious light rail plan well after the Lanier administration. They could still be just fine with the Main St. line and even the University line, but the other lines are likely to put them in a deep fiscal hole.

[IHB2]

Which other transit agencies have followed this "path?"

They have been pushed to the equivalent of bankruptcy by Bob Lanier.

agreed that Lanier spent dedicated METRO money on police by a technically legit switcheroo, but 20 years later the alleged reasons for that have been simplified and lost is the civic/political context in which he acted.

No doubt Lanier was hardcore anti-rail but he was also a 1st term mayor faced with 2 huge problems - Houston was not yet recovered from its 1980s oil crash depression, so revenues and reserves were down, and there was a serious crime wave that peaked in the early 90s. His alternative would have been a tax hike, but that would have been political suicide given the shaky post- depression state of the local economy.

So IMO his prospects for future reelection drove a lot of what he did.

As a resident here at the time I had no problem with taxpayer money dedicated to an amenity like LRT being diverted to put more cops on the street and fix deteriorating streets.

Since he was elected for a 2nd term with 92% of the vote I don't think I was the only one that felt that way.

[Houston19514]

agreed that Lanier spent dedicated METRO money on police by a technically legit switcheroo, but 20 years later the alleged reasons for that have been simplified and lost is the civic/political context in which he acted.

No doubt Lanier was hardcore anti-rail but he was also a 1st term mayor faced with 2 huge problems - Houston was not yet recovered from its 1980s oil crash depression, so revenues and reserves were down, and there was a serious crime wave that peaked in the early 90s. His alternative would have been a tax hike, but that would have been political suicide given the shaky post- depression state of the local economy.

So IMO his prospects for future reelection drove a lot of what he did.

As a resident here at the time I had no problem with taxpayer money dedicated to an amenity like LRT being diverted to put more cops on the street and fix deteriorating streets.

Since he was elected for a 2nd term with 92% of the vote I don't think I was the only one that felt that way.

Not only that, but Lanier pretty explicitly campaigned for his first term on the platform of killing the monorail and diverting Metro funds to police and roads.

[mfastx]

Plenty over the years. Go back through the archives here to find some of them: http://ti.org/antiplanner/

Sorry, but all I see from that website is an obvious anti-rail and transit bias. Most the transit agencies that this website criticizes are not only better than Houston's METRO, but they are developing and expanding their transit lines even more. I hope that METRO follows the path of the agencies that this website fasly criticizes.

Metro was just fine without the 25% until they embarked on the overly-ambitious light rail plan well after the Lanier administration. They could still be just fine with the Main St. line and even the University line, but the other lines are likely to put them in a deep fiscal hole.

Just fine? METRO has historically had one of the lowest transit riderships out of any large city. You really think public transit in Houston is "just fine?" Do you even ride METRO? How is the current light rail plan overly-ambitious? You are the same person that insisted that Houston would probably not get rail funding, well you were wrong. How do you know that the lines they are building are "likely" to put them in a fiscal hole? Are you on METRO's board?? Did you know that light rail has a cheaper operating cost than buses (see for yourself, I started a thread on it )?

When you compare the United States to other developed nations, public transit is severely underfunded here. Congress just shells out trillions for highways but it's like pulling teeth the get any transit funding. Yes, most agencies have trouble funding capital projects when they only have enough money to cover operating costs. But rather than just have cheaper and low quality public transit, maybe they should be funded more? It would be pretty hard for TxDOT to build and maintain roads if they didn't get the billions and billions of dollars they get each year from the government, wouldn't it?

agreed that Lanier spent dedicated METRO money on police by a technically legit switcheroo, but 20 years later the alleged reasons for that have been simplified and lost is the civic/political context in which he acted.

No doubt Lanier was hardcore anti-rail but he was also a 1st term mayor faced with 2 huge problems - Houston was not yet recovered from its 1980s oil crash depression, so revenues and reserves were down, and there was a serious crime wave that peaked in the early 90s. His alternative would have been a tax hike, but that would have been political suicide given the shaky post- depression state of the local economy.

So IMO his prospects for future reelection drove a lot of what he did.

As a resident here at the time I had no problem with taxpayer money dedicated to an amenity like LRT being diverted to put more cops on the street and fix deteriorating streets.

Since he was elected for a 2nd term with 92% of the vote I don't think I was the only one that felt that way.

I realize all of that, and I know the majority of Houston during that time was not worried about public transit at all. However the fact is that Lanier did more financial damage to METRO than any of these rail lines will.

[ToryGattis]

It was 'just fine' in a financial sense. And I believe it won awards as a transit agency for the service it provided the poor over such a large city.

TXDoT is funded by gas tax from the cars that use it. The Feds should only be responsible for the interstate system. Transit is a purely local investment and should be locally decided and funded on its own merits.

This pretty much sums up Metro's problems: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2010/03/decline-and-fall-of-metro.html

[TheNiche]

Sorry, but all I see from that website is an obvious anti-rail and transit bias.

All I see from your comments are an obvious pro-rail and transit bias. See my inane and ridiculous comments on your inane and ridiculous protestations. Hopefully it will become clear to you that rhetoric is not an effective means of objective victory in a debate...though I'll grant you that there are a lot of stupid people out there, easily appealed to. If your objective is to undermine Tory and manipulatively generate popular support for your cause, then kudos to you.

Just fine? That's what he said. METRO has historically had one of the lowest transit riderships out of any large city. METRO gets better bang for the buck than most cities in spite of having to operate in a low-density post-WW2 urban environment. You really think public transit in Houston is "just fine? That's what he said. Do you even ride METRO? I do. It's more or less fine, although there's a lot of stuff that was done half-assedly that I'd rather have not been done at all. How is the current light rail plan overly-ambitious? North, East, and Southeast lines have limited ridership potentials and are better served by BRT; their opportunity costs could have been used to expedite the University Line and to get it built with better grade separations. You are the same person that insisted that Houston would probably not get rail funding, well you were wrong. The ultimate outcome was improbable considering METRO's sloppy handling of the 'Buy American' rule and belt-tightening at the federal level. He was neither right or wrong, but his analysis was sound. How do you know that the lines they are building are "likely" to put them in a fiscal hole? How do you know that they won't? Are you on METRO's board?? Are you on METRO's board?? Did you know that light rail has a cheaper operating cost than buses (see for yourself, I started a thread on it )? Did you know that light rail has a higher capital cost than buses?

When you compare the United States to other developed nations, public transit is severely underfunded here. Other countries are stupid. Congress just shells out trillions for highways but it's like pulling teeth the get any transit funding. Congress shells out waaay too much transit funding. Congress is stupid, too. Yes, most agencies have trouble funding capital projects when they only have enough money to cover operating costs. But rather than just have cheaper and low quality public transit, maybe they should be funded more? No, that would be stupid. It would be pretty hard for TxDOT to build and maintain roads if they didn't get the billions and billions of dollars they get each year from the government, wouldn't it? It's pretty hard for TXDoT just to maintain the roads it has with the money it gets. It should get more money.

I realize all of that, and I know the majority of Houston during that time was not worried about public transit at all. However the fact is that Lanier did more financial damage to METRO than any of these rail lines will. METRO's mission is to enhance regional mobility, not merely to develop hipster-approved carnival rides posing as transit. The alternative uses of its funds would seem to further its mission, so I do not see it as damaged.

[ToryGattis]

I asked a more knowledgeable friend for his thoughts, and here's what he sent:

1. Metro massages its ridership numbers and none are trust-worthy. Witness the fact that numbers it submitted to the feds, which is what O'Toole relied on in 2010 (Cato Policy Analysis #663), are at variance with what it includes in its annual report for that year show on its website.

2. Lanier is not hard core anti-rail...he signed off on Metro's rail plan approved by voters in 1988, and he endorsed the Red Line before construction began in 2001 ("Oh, let's let them have their little toy train", he told the Houston Chronicle, in more or less those words) and he endorsed the extensions before Metro's 2003 referendum.... He also let Metro, under his buddy Billy Burge's chairmanship, conduct a months long study of commuter rail when he was mayor and issue a statement that commuter rail may be appropriate in the future. (Lanier is conflicted on the issue; he knows rail is bad policy but as a political animal he is compelled join his buds in the establishment. He was willing to buck that group when it served his interest as mayor...but not since. He's a sad case.)

3. Texas has six cities with a dedicated transit tax, and at one point three were less than one percent...Ft. Worth, I think I recall, was at the time just a quarter of one percent. Very few agencies in the country are funded with a dedicated transit tax...One percent is HUGE, and for many years collected far more than projected in the original plan released before the 1978 election authorizing the Metro tax. A former Executive Director, Alan Keeper, once bragged to the Chron, circa 1985, that Houston is "the Saudi Arabia of transit agencies."

4. Metro's ridership numbers may be rising but bear in mind that Metro uses its bus program to force feed riders to train stations and double counts riders who make transfers. In spite of that artificial boost to its productivity numbers it is far below its peak when it was a bus-only system. O'Toole's Cato report on rail nation-wide, cited above, states that ridership was on upward trend in 2001 before rail construction began.

5. Metro's annual report shows the agency suffers operational losses of a million dollars DAILY, has a farebox recovery rate around 20% while it promised in its founding report to voters to target a 50% recovery rate, and that the average Houston household gives up to Metro about $500 a year.

6. Lastly, I'll point out that in my 30 years of involvement in transit questions I have never encountered a transportation economist who endorses the decision of cities to convert bus-only systems to bus and rail, and they always point to the OPPORTUNITY COST, how much service and ridership could have been expanded if rail programs had never been launched. This is the underlying theme in the landmark 2010 speech by Peter Rogoff, head of the Federal Transit Administration, when he urged cities to abandon their plans for "shiny" new rail lines and focus on bus service.

(See: Video of Rogoff's speech and his speech notes: http://www.fta.dot.gov/news/speeches/news_events_11682.html)

Barry Klein, Pres./ Houston Property Rights Association

[RedScare]

Ha Ha! Barry Klein? Anyone who takes his METRO rants even remotely seriously deserves whatever hit to their credibility they get! Wow, Tory. I can't believe you went the Barry Klein route.

[ToryGattis]

Ha Ha! Barry Klein? Anyone who takes his METRO rants even remotely seriously deserves whatever hit to their credibility they get! Wow, Tory. I can't believe you went the Barry Klein route.

Take his opinions however you like (and he and I don't agree on everything), but facts are facts.

[RedScare]

Take his opinions however you like (and he and I don't agree on everything), but facts are facts.

Unless those facts are opinions. Again, when you use Barry to make your point, your point is suspect.

[kylejack]

5. Metro's annual report shows the agency suffers operational losses of a million dollars DAILY, has a farebox recovery rate around 20% while it promised in its founding report to voters to target a 50% recovery rate, and that the average Houston household gives up to Metro about $500 a year.

Barry Klein, Pres./ Houston Property Rights Association

That recovery ratio was based on the 1978 Regional Transit Plan, which had extensive rail planned. Longer trips recover more money. The city didn't go for that, so obviously the recovery ratio target has to come lower. Barry should come post here and we can discuss it with him.

[BarryKlein]

A few points about Metro promises, and a correction:

1. Metro could not assume in 1978 that all of Harris County would be in the district since voting was done by enclaves. Furthermore, the 29 page REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN, released in July of that year, made no differentiation about performance commitments based on which enclaves voted YES and which voted NO, such as Pasadena and Baytown. Metro is stuck with its "promises", for whatever they are worth.

2. In that 1978 report, Metro states it will first maximize the utilization of existing transportation facilities (p.9) and promote private transportation (jitneys are mentioned) (see pp. 9 and 16). Of course it quickly veered from that promise when it began issuing rail design contracts in 1979.

3. Metro committed to pay-as-you-go funding capital projects to save on interest charges (p. 26). Another promise abandoned.

4. And, here's a statement that must have had them chuckling: "The MTA Board has recognized that the availability of federal tax dollars is no reason to construct a costly and unused system as has occurred in other cities" (p. 26). Before 1978 had ended Metro was preparing a federal grant request for funds to build a CBD people mover, such as we see (unused) in Detroit and Miami. Community outrage, including a harsh press release from the League of Women Voters, a Metro ally who helped sell voters on the plan, made them back down.

5. A CORRECTION: I see now that I wrongly stated that Metro's annual report shows states that Metro costs the average family $500 annually...that is my calculation based in part on the sales tax revenue number given in the reports. Metro would NOT be so foolish as to put a number like that in its annual report.

[mfastx]

It was 'just fine' in a financial sense. And I believe it won awards as a transit agency for the service it provided the poor over such a large city.

Well, they were operating a very cheap and sub-par transit system. A very inefficient one too, as the bus only transit system only managed about 14% farebox recovery.

TXDoT is funded by gas tax from the cars that use it. The Feds should only be responsible for the interstate system. Transit is a purely local investment and should be locally decided and funded on its own merits.

This pretty much sums up Metro's problems: http://houstonstrate...l-of-metro.html

False. Gas tax only pay for roughly 50% of highway construction. This is stated in a Pew Research Report, you should check it out. If you think the feds should only be responsible for the interstate system, then you are in favor of the feds funding a national high speed rail system, correct?

The second part of your post is just an opinion, but the fact is that the feds finance most major capital projects, which includes our highways, airports, and rail. I don't see anything wrong with that.

All I see from your comments are an obvious pro-rail and transit bias. See my inane and ridiculous comments on your inane and ridiculous protestations. Hopefully it will become clear to you that rhetoric is not an effective means of objective victory in a debate...though I'll grant you that there are a lot of stupid people out there, easily appealed to. If your objective is to undermine Tory and manipulatively generate popular support for your cause, then kudos to you.

I have a pro-infrastructure bias. I am in favor of all projects that improve our city's infrastructure. Whether it be highways, airports, or rail, I am generally in favor of those projects. I believe that infrastructure here in the US is quite underfunded and would like to see more money going to building and improving our infrastructure. That is my objective.

We have had a historically inefficient transit system here in Houston. Our bus only system only had 14% farebox recovery, I don't think that should qualify as a "bang for your buck" system. What has been done half-assedly? If you are thinking of the rail line, I somewhat agree. However, certain congressmen made sure that we wouldn't get any funding to build a better system, so I'm proud that METRO has managed to improve its system the way it has with so many people against it. We've already had the BRT vs. rail discussion, so I'll just save some time and not argue with you, although I disagree. While I agree that METRO "f-ed" up in terms of following policy, the new leadership of METRO seems competent enough, and they ended up getting the funding, so the results speak for themselves. I don't know that the new rail lines will hurt METRO fiscally, but I'm not going to make assertions if I don't know what I'm talking about. When you say that light rail has a higher capital cost than buses, are you including the cost of the streets that the buses drive on? Doesn't that have to be included? If so, then rail definitely has a lower capital cost than buses. However, for the sake of argument, even though rail has a higher cost than buying buses, rail is more efficient in the long run, carries more people, and is more reliable. I'm sure you know all of the pros and cons as a result of all the debates we have had on here.

I hope you are joking with the second series of your replies. In any case, I will not address them.

1. Metro massages its ridership numbers and none are trust-worthy. Witness the fact that numbers it submitted to the feds, which is what O'Toole relied on in 2010 (Cato Policy Analysis #663), are at variance with what it includes in its annual report for that year show on its website.

Agreed. The only reliable source on ridership numbers is the APTA quarterly ridership report.

3. Texas has six cities with a dedicated transit tax, and at one point three were less than one percent...Ft. Worth, I think I recall, was at the time just a quarter of one percent. Very few agencies in the country are funded with a dedicated transit tax...One percent is HUGE, and for many years collected far more than projected in the original plan released before the 1978 election authorizing the Metro tax. A former Executive Director, Alan Keeper, once bragged to the Chron, circa 1985, that Houston is "the Saudi Arabia of transit agencies."

The cities that have good transit systems around the country are adequately funded. Cities with high transit ridership might not require as many operating funds, due to the fact that they have more efficient rail systems which carry a lot of passengers, which means that they recover a higher percentage of farebox recovery. However, if you look at most transit agencies with high ridership, you'll find that they are adequately funded. For example, Los Angeles's transit agency (which has about 1.5 million boardings a day) has more than a 1% sales tax. A 1% sales tax fund might be very large for medium sized cities, but for large cities, it is adequte at best.

4. Metro's ridership numbers may be rising but bear in mind that Metro uses its bus program to force feed riders to train stations and double counts riders who make transfers. In spite of that artificial boost to its productivity numbers it is far below its peak when it was a bus-only system. O'Toole's Cato report on rail nation-wide, cited above, states that ridership was on upward trend in 2001 before rail construction began.

Do you have a reliable source on your bolded assertion besides what this guy is telling you? There are also plenty of riders who make a bus to bus transfer, more actually. I'm sure there were plenty of bus to bus transfers when ridership was at its peak in the 1990s. So that's not much of an argument.

6. Lastly, I'll point out that in my 30 years of involvement in transit questions I have never encountered a transportation economist who endorses the decision of cities to convert bus-only systems to bus and rail, and they always point to the OPPORTUNITY COST, how much service and ridership could have been expanded if rail programs had never been launched. This is the underlying theme in the landmark 2010 speech by Peter Rogoff, head of the Federal Transit Administration, when he urged cities to abandon their plans for "shiny" new rail lines and focus on bus service.

(See: Video of Rogoff's speech and his speech notes: http://www.fta.dot.g...ents_11682.html)

Name one city in the US that both:

A) has a bus only transit system

and

C) has higher ridership than METRO

A transit agency's goal should be to provide transit to as many people as possible, and therefore taking as many cars off the road as possible. Rail has proven to do that better than buses. Every city with a high transit ridership has a backbone rail system. Every other major city in the world isn't stupid, they are building rail for a reason. It works.

4. And, here's a statement that must have had them chuckling: "The MTA Board has recognized that the availability of federal tax dollars is no reason to construct a costly and unused system as has occurred in other cities" (p. 26). Before 1978 had ended Metro was preparing a federal grant request for funds to build a CBD people mover, such as we see (unused) in Detroit and Miami. Community outrage, including a harsh press release from the League of Women Voters, a Metro ally who helped sell voters on the plan, made them back down.

Detriot's system is unused because it is so small. Miami's people mover is very "used," you can see for yourself by looking at the APTA ridership report. If METRO had constructed the heavy rail system proposed in the 1970s, its ridership would probably be similar to Atlanta's (which is about double our transit ridership).

[TheNiche]

I have a pro-infrastructure bias. I am in favor of all projects that improve our city's infrastructure. Whether it be highways, airports, or rail, I am generally in favor of those projects. I believe that infrastructure here in the US is quite underfunded and would like to see more money going to building and improving our infrastructure. That is my objective.

We have had a historically inefficient transit system here in Houston. Our bus only system only had 14% farebox recovery, I don't think that should qualify as a "bang for your buck" system. What has been done half-assedly? If you are thinking of the rail line, I somewhat agree. However, certain congressmen made sure that we wouldn't get any funding to build a better system, so I'm proud that METRO has managed to improve its system the way it has with so many people against it. We've already had the BRT vs. rail discussion, so I'll just save some time and not argue with you, although I disagree. While I agree that METRO "f-ed" up in terms of following policy, the new leadership of METRO seems competent enough, and they ended up getting the funding, so the results speak for themselves. I don't know that the new rail lines will hurt METRO fiscally, but I'm not going to make assertions if I don't know what I'm talking about. When you say that light rail has a higher capital cost than buses, are you including the cost of the streets that the buses drive on? Doesn't that have to be included? If so, then rail definitely has a lower capital cost than buses. However, for the sake of argument, even though rail has a higher cost than buying buses, rail is more efficient in the long run, carries more people, and is more reliable. I'm sure you know all of the pros and cons as a result of all the debates we have had on here.

I hope you are joking with the second series of your replies. In any case, I will not address them.

Yes, I know that you are biased. Everybody is biased. You can't form and espouse an opinion and not favor that opinion. You seem to understand that, and yet use others' "bias" as a form of attack rhetoric just by pointing it out. This is what leads me to believe that you are attempting to manipulate the vast horde of stupid people. All of my comments that followed were meant to unravel the variously nonsensical rhetoric that you espouse. They weren't meant to be clever, merely to demonstrate that your claims lack substance, that you and I could conceivably be going back and forth at each other like eight year olds and get nowhere. "Yuh huh!" "Uh uh!"

[ToryGattis]

If you think the feds should only be responsible for the interstate system, then you are in favor of the feds funding a national high speed rail system, correct?

Nope, for reasons fully articulated here: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-feds-should-stay-out-of-high-speed.html

and plenty more here: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/search/label/high-speed%20rail

When you say that light rail has a higher capital cost than buses, are you including the cost of the streets that the buses drive on? Doesn't that have to be included? If so, then rail definitely has a lower capital cost than buses.

No and no. Streets serve a whole lot more than just buses. In fact, the street grid is not optional. It *must* exist, even if only for police, ambulances, fire trucks, garbage collection, construction equipment, and freight deliveries. There is no city in the world without a basic street grid, which is also why it's perfectly reasonable to fund it from property taxes, since all properties must be connected to it to receive services.

Metro spent around $50m/mile to build the Main St. line, and will spend well north of that on the new lines, approaching $100m/mile. Do you really believe that's even within an order of magnitude of what streets cost?

If you want to understand why rail is appropriate for some cities and not others (like Houston), go to minute 8 in my TEDx Houston talk here:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-tedx-houston-talk-mostly-about.html

[samagon]

So I want to give some numbers I can't verify, but are given on the complete streets Houston website, it says that 40% of houstonian do not drive, for whatever reason.

It points out elderly, or those unable due to disability, but the only way I can believe that is if children are included.

[kylejack]

So I want to give some numbers I can't verify, but are given on the complete streets Houston website, it says that 40% of houstonian do not drive, for whatever reason.

It points out elderly, or those unable due to disability, but the only way I can believe that is if children are included.

19% below the poverty line, for one.

[TheNiche]

So I want to give some numbers I can't verify, but are given on the complete streets Houston website, it says that 40% of houstonian do not drive, for whatever reason.

It points out elderly, or those unable due to disability, but the only way I can believe that is if children are included.

Yeah, that statistic must include children and the elderly. According to the Census Bureau's American Factfinder, 90.1% of commuters in the City of Houston drove or rode in a car, truck, or van in 2010. Adding buses, trolley buses, taxicabs, and motorcycles, the total comes up to 94.7% of commuters. But that's just for the journey to work. It doesn't take into account housewives, children, the retired elderly, or the disabled...who by and large also drive or will get driven around; it shouldn't matter whether they're behind the wheel or in the back seat. They all use streets.

[TheNiche]

19% below the poverty line, for one.

My data also points to 19% below the poverty line, although I can't break out bus from rail travel or taxicabs and motorcycles from bicycles to add those in. Also, I'm sure that they appreciate the every day low prices offered at Wal-Mart, Family Dollar, and McDonald's, whose business models would collapse without surface streets capable of handling the logistics framework.

But also...that's only about 9% of commuters. I fail to see why public policy should be reshaped toward transit that serves such a insignificant and marginally productive cohort. In my view, more should be done to shift them away from transit and into automobiles. The reasoning here is that low-skilled labor is fairly ubiquitous and that reliable transportation to work is a major hiring criteria. Transit does not fit the bill. A household below the poverty line that has a car is more easily pulled up and out of poverty than one that is dependent upon public transit.

[kylejack]

Just because you bummed a ride from a friend or family member one day in 2010 when it was raining doesn't mean you have reliable access to a car. I get a ride from my mother occasionally, but I don't drive.

[BarryKlein]

A few more comments...

1. The Infrastructure Lobby is a powerful force in Houston and Texas politics. Much of its influence rests on the flawed annual Mobility Reports put out by the Texas Transportation Institute which exaggerates the cost of congestion as it pumps up motorists' fear of "gridlock". The TTI methodology has changed over the years as criticisms rolled in. One of the best was published in 2006 by the office of Transport Canada Environmental Affairs. Look on pages 6, 7, 8 of "The Cost of Urban Congestion in Canada" (http://www.gatewaycouncil.ca/downloads2/Cost_of_Congestion_TC.pdf). This one is ignored by TTI.

2. Census bureau data shows that the average commuter travel time for Houston area workers remains under half an hour decade after decade (28 minutes in the latest) a fact which is true for most urban areas. This is a reflection of mankind's wish to limit time spent commuting. In fact, "congestion is self limiting" was the conclusion of legendary planning academic Melvin Webber. Some researchers conclude that workers commuting choices are shaped by two constraints, time and money, and that humans actual enjoy travel. in the opinion of some, commuters have TWO TRAVEL BUDGETS. In their view, we spend on average a little more than a hour a day in travel, and we try to limit expenses to a range (drawing from memory here) between 9 and 14% of our annual incomes.

You can find more about this by reading at these links:

http://www.uctc.net/access/access17lite.pdf (page 2, Melvin Webber opinion)

http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v38y2004i9-10p643-675.html

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/describing_problem.htm

(note section: "Is congestion the same everywhere", and these words:

"travelers have indicated that more important than the severity, magnitude, or quantity of congestion is the reliability of the highway system. People in a large metropolitan area may accept that a 20 mile freeway trip takes 40 minutes during the peak period, so long as this predicted travel time is reliable and is not 25 minutes one day and 2 hours the next."

Yacov Zahavi (a pioneer in this area of research. He actually spent time in Houston working with H-GAC transportation head Alan Clark in the 1970s): http://www.surveyarchive.org/zahavi.html

It's my view that the endless construction occurring on the road system, due to utility work, rail installation, and road repair and expansion, are what leads to the unpredictability of travel times. By looking at the pie chart on that FHWA document a little bit of math is enlightening. Incidents, such as accidents, account for 25% of traffic congestion, and bottlenecks, which are partly due to reduced lanes in construction zones, add 40% to the congestion picture. Thus one can see that 65% of "congestion", which we should understand is a subjective experience, is not due to excessive cars on the road but to incidents and bottlenecks.

3. I believe infrastructure is overfunded and I am supported in this view by the work of Oxford scholar, Bent Flyvbjerg, famous for his critiques of large and costly infrastructure which he calls "mega-projects".

He asserts that deliberate deception is typically used to move them to the decision stage.

http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/

http://www.st-annes.ox.ac.uk/about/people/profile/details/bent-flyvbjerg.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Flyvbjerg

The more broadly the above information is understood the more likely the Texas Establishment can be upended and rationality brought to transportation policy debates.

4. To those that think most US transit agencies are adequately funded, I again refer you to the speech by Peter Rogoff, FTA administrator, which I linked to in my prior post.

(See: Video of Rogoff's speech and his speech notes: http://www.fta.dot.g...ents_11682.html)

In there you will find this statement: "First, when you expand the universe of transit agencies studied from the seven largest rail operators to 690 separate rail and bus systems, the estimated funding shortfall to bring the entire transit system in a state of good repair grows from $50 billion to $78 billion." Deferred maintenance is a growing problem. We should all recall the horrific accident in DC a few years ago. That system has a $12 billion dollar backlog of repairs and needs new equipment. Thus a rail car in need of replacement packed with commuters crashed with almost 80 people injured and nine killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_29,_2009_Washington_Metro_train_collision#November_29.2C_2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124573949695640729.html

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907095,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528203,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/us/suits-settled-in-washington-dc-metro-train-crash.html

5. Finally, as I wrote yesterday: I'll point out that in my 30 years of involvement in transit questions I have never encountered a transportation economist who endorses the decision of cities to convert bus-only systems to bus and rail, and they always point to the OPPORTUNITY COST, how much service and ridership could have been expanded if rail programs had never been launched. This is the underlying theme in the landmark 2010 speech by Peter Rogoff, head of the Federal Transit Administration, when he urged cities to abandon their plans for "shiny" new rail lines and focus on bus service.

[TheNiche]

Just because you bummed a ride from a friend or family member one day in 2010 when it was raining doesn't mean you have reliable access to a car. I get a ride from my mother occasionally, but I don't drive.

Okay, so you're one of the 5.3% that don't use streets to commute and are a rainy-day burden on your poor ol' mum. Relevance?

[lockmat]

I've only scanned over this discussion, but I agree with something Tory said about the red line capacity. I've only ridden it on a "normal" day a couple of times and there was mostly plenty of room. However, when I go to Reliant (Rodeo, Texans, Final Four, College football bowl game etc), it is jammed packed and the closer you get to Reliant, it's almost impossible for more people to board.

I can't imagine what it was like for the Super Bowl or what the next Final Four is going to be like. I'm sure planners are aware of this and will accommodate with more buses. Do they run more trains or run them more often for special events?

[ToryGattis]

I can't imagine what it was like for the Super Bowl or what the next Final Four is going to be like. I'm sure planners are aware of this and will accommodate with more buses. Do they run more trains or run them more often for special events?

I think I read somewhere once that the fastest spacing they can get away with is every six minutes. More often than that causes major traffic problems. That is their spacing at peak times, and, I'd assume, for major events.

Oh, and that stat most definitely includes children. In fact, I'd say they're probably the vast bulk of them, if you assume under 16 is roughly 1/6 or 1/7 of the population.