METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion

[august948]

Why do that? Give metro their full 1% that was voted on a long time ago, let the municipalities raise their rates.

Maybe if they don't want to have high road degradation, they'll lobby metro to add rail?

Because that would bring the tax rate into line with the reality of the situation. METRO has been working with 3/4% for quite a while. Let them keep that and let the voters decide if they should get more for additional projects. Get the other government entities out of the picture and let them justify to their voters any increases needed for roads without using METRO money to balance their budgets.

Frankly, I would think the lobbying would be for more park and ride lots and routes, not more rail. It's not sexy but it's successful.

[Trae]

If Katy, Missouri City, and others want bus routes, then they should ask for them. Who leads unincorporated areas? The COH indirectly? Bus routes should be provided to those areas also.

[RedScare]

METRO's 9 member board has 2 members appointed by the 14 mayors of cities served by METRO, other than Houston. 2 other members are appointed by Harris County Commissioners Court to represent the unincorporated areas. 5 members are appointed by the Houston mayor.

[IHB2]

Why do that? Give metro their full 1% that was voted on a long time ago, let the municipalities raise their rates.

Maybe if they don't want to have high road degradation, they'll lobby metro to add rail?

From the METRO website:

"The Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973. In 1978, Houston-area voters created METRO and approved a one-cent sales tax to support its operations. METRO opened for business in January 1979. The Authority has transformed a broken bus fleet into a regional multimodal transportation system.

Communities that are part of the METRO area include the cities of Houston, Bellaire, Bunker Hill Village, El Lago, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Humble, Hunters Creek, Katy, Missouri City, Piney Point, Southside Place, Spring Valley, Taylor Lake Village and West University Place. Major portions of unincorporated Harris County are also included."

METRO is arguing that w/o the return of the .25% the LRT system will not be completed for several decades (2030 is Greanias's date even if METRO gets the full 1%). METRO is claiming that it will NOT have to cut any of its other planned expansion, but will be stuck with only 3 of the 5 key new spokes of the LRT, thus rendering the system inefficient.

In light of that claim, why would METRO's recapture of the .25% make sense to the small towns and villages on this list, since the LRT will give them nothing in comparison to METRO contributions to HOVs, Park & Ride service, etc (excepting possibly Bellaire that hopes for big things by agreeing to site the Uptown/Univ Line intersection at the Westpark/Tollway/610 clusterf***)?

Also from the METRO site. I imagine "quality of life" may be in the eye of the beholder among the leaders and taxpayers of the contributing municipalities. The projects below would require additional taxation if not for METRO Mobility payments, and in places like Bellaire political futures ride on keeping a tight rein on tax expenditures:

"In partnership with the city of Houston, Harris County and the surrounding 14 multicities, METRO's General Mobility Program was established to enhance regional mobility and ease traffic congestion. Funded by a 25 percent allocation from METRO's 1 percent sales tax revenue, the General Mobility Program provides funding for the construction and maintenance of:

• Streets and roadways
  
• Bridges and grade separations
  
• Traffic-control signals
  
• Sidewalks and hike & bike trails
  
• Streetlights
  
• Drainage improvements
  
• Landscaping
  

METRO also provides funding for traffic management programs such as, the Motorist Assistance Program (MAP) and SafeClear Program, which provide assistance to disabled vehicles on the region's freeway system.

Since its inception, the General Mobility Program has provided funding totaling more than $2 billion

within its service area. In FY2010 alone, funding provided by the program totaled approximately $150.1 million. Based upon independent forecasts of future sales tax revenues, METRO projects that it will provide an additional $648 million through FY2014.

Examples of Projects Currently funded by METRO's General Mobility Plan:

City of Houston Improvement Area Amount Genoa-Red-Bluff Beltway 8 to Pinetree $6.5 million N. Main I-45 to Airline $4.6 million Hillcroft US 59 to Bellaire $6.8 million Pinemont T.C. Jester to Ella $7.6 million Ley Road Mesa to HB&T RR G/S $7.0 million S. Shaver Gulf Frwy to Hwy 3 $6.5 million

Harris County Perry Road FM 1960 to SH 249 $7.4 million Kuykendahl Road FM 2920 to Willow Creek $8.0 million Cypress Rosehill Cypress Needle to Manor Bend $4.0 million Hollister Beltway 8 to Bourgeois $4.5 million

Multi-Cities Will Clayton Parkway US 59 to Wilson Road $3.0 million Newcastle Bellaire to Beechnut $5.2 million Hedwig Village East/West Mobility Project $7.2 million Voss/Bracher IH-10 to Spring Branch Creek $3.3 million"

[Slick Vik]

If a majority of people want to give METRO more funding, then they should weigh their priorities and perhaps vote for the mayoral candidate that will promote that policy...or that they believe will make appropriate sacrifices to one budget item or another, when that action becomes necessary.

We live in a representative democracy, and that is a good thing. Voters do not understand public finance.

Tradeoffs are a necessity of good governance. There's far more to life than the sheer quantity of transit riders.

Stop. What about the billions spent on highways?

[TheNiche]

Stop. What about the billions spent on highways?

What about them? They're built and maintained by a state entity, TXDoT, funded by a gasoline tax that does not adjust for inflation such that they have scant funds with which to do anything except maintain the highways that we've got. Just like METRO, the pace of new agency-funded expansion has decelerated to a relative creep. However, unlike METRO, TXDoT cannot issue bonds. It is constrained in that way.

The only difference is that farebox recovery for a highway can often be above or near 100% of operating and capital costs, allowing local toll road agencies to pick up the slack, keep building, and charge the cost to the actual user. That would not be possible with most forms of transit, although some longer-range bus operators have run commuter routes out of Conroe and Brazoria County, IIRC. But then, such for-profit transit agencies wouldn't be feasible without TXDoT's old freeways and without competition in those geographic areas from a subsidized agency. (Perhaps this should serve as a reminder that a flat ribbon of concrete actually does more than just to provide a guideway for single-occupant automobiles and that mobility is the goal; the mode of technology that enables mobility should be irrelevant. Damn the coolness factor.)

[mfastx]

The only difference is that farebox recovery for a highway can often be above or near 100% of operating and capital costs...

I'm assuming you meant tollways? There is no farebox recovery for highways. Including gas tax, the "recovery" is roughly 50%. But remember not everyone that pays gas taxes drives on highways, thus it is an inefficient funding mechanism.

[kylejack]

Aren't tollways and freeways both varieties of highways?

[mfastx]

Aren't tollways and freeways both varieties of highways?

Yes but tollways have the capability of having 100% farebox recovery like Niche suggested, but freeways do not, so I needed clarification.

[Pleak]

Tradeoffs are a necessity of good governance. There's far more to life than the sheer quantity of transit riders.

But this is HAIF. The only thing that matters is how much of that transit ridership is on rail - no matter the cost or practicality. And how much neon is on the buildings downtown.

[totheskies]

In my opinion, someone will have to budge here. If METRO can't reclaim the full one-cent sales tax, then it needs to pursue additional revenue through other sources like the FTA or another tax that's just on Houston residents. If they can recover it, then Houston and the multi-cities need to stop bitching and raise their own taxes.

Our tax rates in this country, especially in Texas, are at historic lows. Eventually someone needs to stand up and make people realize that taxes have a purpose. If paying higher taxes improves my transit, the education of our kids, and the overall quality of life, then I say raise 'em.

[mfastx]

But this is HAIF. The only thing that matters is how much of that transit ridership is on rail - no matter the cost or practicality. And how much neon is on the buildings downtown.

Umm okkkk.

I find it so strange that some people here are so against building rail. It's as if people have a hatred for rail. Why would anyone think that having less transit ridership is better? That doesn't make sense to me.

Why would people want this city to be less desirable?

[TheNiche]

In my opinion, someone will have to budge here. If METRO can't reclaim the full one-cent sales tax, then it needs to pursue additional revenue through other sources like the FTA or another tax that's just on Houston residents. If they can recover it, then Houston and the multi-cities need to stop bitching and raise their own taxes.

METRO and every other local entity should always be pursuing outside funding, whether its from the state, the FTA, or pretty much anywhere.

Does anybody know what the mechanism would be for one of the other member cities, say West U, Bellaire, Taylor Lake Village, or El Lago, to pull out of METRO?

Our tax rates in this country, especially in Texas, are at historic lows. Eventually someone needs to stand up and make people realize that taxes have a purpose. If paying higher taxes improves my transit, the education of our kids, and the overall quality of life, then I say raise 'em.

At the federal level, expenditures are elevated. It's just that they've been financed with debt and by issuing new money. But the thing is...when an investor buys federal debt, they aren't buying mortgages or corporate paper. The issuance of additional debt is a tax directly against the supply of loanable funds, or the investment part of the GDP equation. Likewise, when the government prints new money, the effect is inflation and the depreciation of currency relative to other currencies, making all goods and especially imports more expensive. Expenditure in any given year is an indirect tax upon the economy; it is still a tax.

Also, I posted an analysis of state revenues last year which indicated that the tax burden has gradually increased since 2000 (when Rick Perry took office as governor). My data was adjusted for inflation and population growth, as well.

Around that same time, I had also posted data comparing educational achievement and education spending, broken down by race. It turned out that Texas performs quite well once you isolate groups of students based on ethnicity. (For instance, even though Iowa spends more money per student, their test scores are lower than Texas' for white, black, and hispanic students...but Texas has more black and hispanic students, and so on the face of it, it only seems like we're not doing as well. Adjusting for these factors, we were solidly middle-of-the-pack in terms of student performance and we were were at or near the top in terms of bang for the educational buck. That doesn't necessarily mean that Texas shouldn't be spending more money on education, but it does imply that being judicious in our expenditures is also wise. For instance, where transit is concerned, I might point out that a water taxi along Buffalo Bayou would be cool and enhance the quality of life, but it would also just be stupid. That money could be put to better use elsewhere, whether by providing more bus routes or by providing for better technology in schools.

[Slick Vik]

METRO and every other local entity should always be pursuing outside funding, whether its from the state, the FTA, or pretty much anywhere.

Does anybody know what the mechanism would be for one of the other member cities, say West U, Bellaire, Taylor Lake Village, or El Lago, to pull out of METRO?

At the federal level, expenditures are elevated. It's just that they've been financed with debt and by issuing new money. But the thing is...when an investor buys federal debt, they aren't buying mortgages or corporate paper. The issuance of additional debt is a tax directly against the supply of loanable funds, or the investment part of the GDP equation. Likewise, when the government prints new money, the effect is inflation and the depreciation of currency relative to other currencies, making all goods and especially imports more expensive. Expenditure in any given year is an indirect tax upon the economy; it is still a tax.

Also, I posted an analysis of state revenues last year which indicated that the tax burden has gradually increased since 2000 (when Rick Perry took office as governor). My data was adjusted for inflation and population growth, as well.

Around that same time, I had also posted data comparing educational achievement and education spending, broken down by race. It turned out that Texas performs quite well once you isolate groups of students based on ethnicity. (For instance, even though Iowa spends more money per student, their test scores are lower than Texas' for white, black, and hispanic students...but Texas has more black and hispanic students, and so on the face of it, it only seems like we're not doing as well. Adjusting for these factors, we were solidly middle-of-the-pack in terms of student performance and we were were at or near the top in terms of bang for the educational buck. That doesn't necessarily mean that Texas shouldn't be spending more money on education, but it does imply that being judicious in our expenditures is also wise. For instance, where transit is concerned, I might point out that a water taxi along Buffalo Bayou would be cool and enhance the quality of life, but it would also just be stupid. That money could be put to better use elsewhere, whether by providing more bus routes or by providing for better technology in schools.

Another technically sound post, against rail transit. Sigh.

[Pleak]

... For instance, where transit is concerned, I might point out that a water taxi along Buffalo Bayou would be cool and enhance the quality of life, but it would also just be stupid. That money could be put to better use elsewhere, whether by providing more bus routes or by providing for better technology in schools.

Not at all like putting a water taxi in a drainage ditch in the Woodlands.

[IHB2]

In my opinion, someone will have to budge here. If METRO can't reclaim the full one-cent sales tax, then it needs to pursue additional revenue through other sources like the FTA or another tax that's just on Houston residents. If they can recover it, then Houston and the multi-cities need to stop bitching and raise their own taxes.

Our tax rates in this country, especially in Texas, are at historic lows. Eventually someone needs to stand up and make people realize that taxes have a purpose. If paying higher taxes improves my transit, the education of our kids, and the overall quality of life, then I say raise 'em.

thx for steering the thread back to the point of the title - the essence of which is METRO is seeking a tax increase from somebody, whether that somebody is METRO (METRO execs trying really hard to avoid saying this, opting instead for the scarier "halting transit expansion" if they don't get more tax $), or that somebody is the municipalities that capture the 1 cent sales tax and expect 25% of it back.

in a state with the nation's 2nd largest population and the largest #s of rightwing zealots, crony capitalists, evangelical Christian theocracy advocates, xenophobes, anti-science know-it-alls, and every other type of stereotypical yahoo, you're comment about tax rates and the value of taxes represents the belief of a tiny minority of the Tx voting population.

the upcoming referendum may have a chance of a slim majority among purely City of Houston voters like the Solutions vote did, but the smaller communities are likely to oppose it in big numbers.

[Pleak]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but Metro cannot ask for a "tax increase" They are limited by state law to 1% sales tax. If I remember correctly, the state gets 6.25%, whatever city you live in gets 1% and then a local "special purpose" entitiy can tax up toa maximum of 1%. In Houston area - that's Metro. Stafford doesn't belong to Metro and has some sort of improvement district - they built their performance center and a bunch of road improvements and underpasses under the Union Pacific tracks with their money. I think several of the Fort Bend cities not in Metro are in the the Fort Bend Transit District which funds a Park-n-Ride type service from the UH campus, mall and Fairgrounds to the Galleria, Greeway Plaza and Medical Center.

So Metro can't get any more tax money without changes at the state level. But the cities could - but their thought is why should I be the bad guy that raises taxes (and get voted out) when I can get the money from Metro?

So there is your stalemate.

[Houston19514]

Our tax rates in this country, especially in Texas, are at historic lows.

This is simply not true.

What Texas tax rates are at historic lows?

Sales tax rates? No.

Property tax rates? No.

On a national basis, what tax rates are at historic lows?

Income tax rates? No.

[august948]

So Metro can't get any more tax money without changes at the state level. But the cities could - but their thought is why should I be the bad guy that raises taxes (and get voted out) when I can get the money from Metro?

Exactly. Cut the surrounding municipalities out of it and let them raise their own taxes and make their own improvements. If they want a park-and-ride, they can pay for it or contract METRO to do it. If the voters in the far suburbs want a park-and-ride, or commuter rail, or even local bus service then they can make the decision and fork out the funds. It doesn't make much sense for them to pay taxes to subsidize a rail system that isn't even remotely planned to reach them, plus subsidizing local bus service that doesn't reach them either. So, naturaly, there is opposition or apathy from suburban voters to inner-city rail plans (see Tom Delay et al.)

[RedScare]

In my opinion, someone will have to budge here. If METRO can't reclaim the full one-cent sales tax, then it needs to pursue additional revenue through other sources like the FTA or another tax that's just on Houston residents. If they can recover it, then Houston and the multi-cities need to stop bitching and raise their own taxes.

There is actually another option. METRO could sub out some of its mission. For instance, Harris County is looking into commuter rail. METRO could encourage it. The rail lines would feed into METRO's bus and rail routes, improving transit, and expanding transit financing. Only METRO's ego would keep this from working.

[august948]

Cooperation toward common goals? Now THAT'S a novel concept!

[MetroMogul]

To touch on something mentioned earlier; Metro's ridership was increasing and was even breaking records right until construction of the light rail began and focus shifted from growing the bus system to building rail lines. Many of the bus lines that have been eliminated over the past ten years or so were in existence in some shape or form for decades, pre Metro and even pre Houtran. The Acres Homes bus that someone mentioned earlier isn't the 44, it was a previous version of the 64 - Lincoln City route which has been under the threat of cancellation for almost ten years but has survived through re-route after re-route. Other bus services in Acres Homes have been cancelled outright like the 43 - Pinemont Plaza and the 74 - Carver Road Circulator. Those routes were cobbled together from pieces of the old 44 - Studewood (and later the 44 - Acres Homes Ltd.). The 35 - Fairview and the 313 are other routes that had roots stretching back decades (the 20 - Fairview and the 75 - Taft).

I notice that people who are pro rail aren't necessarily pro Metro, or even Metro patrons. People who wish for the "inefficient buses" to be replaced are often those who don't ride those buses in the first place. Sure, Metro bus service is inefficient at times, but not just because it exists, but because Metro has neglected it in favor of trendy rail. You may or may not remember that it was the promised 50% increase in bus service that pushed the 2003 referendum over the top, only for then Metro Chairman David Wolff to comment later, "There's no demand for it." And there is for rail? I could have sworn the 52% of those that voted in the Metro Solutions plan voted for BOTH, not one.

As far as the shrinking bus fleet goes, those 200 buses were retired with no replacement not due to age, but because they weren't needed due to a drastic reduction in service. When Metro was at it's peak in the 90s, about 1/3 of it's flet was over retirement age (12 years). Service was better, on time performance was better, and the bus system was expanding and not contracting. Ridership was increasing and not declining. The population has risen as well as gas prices but bus ridership is in a free fall? There's something wrong with that. It would seem that Metro can't walk (build rail) and chew gum (operate the and expand the existing bus system) at the same time.

[mfastx]

I notice that people who are pro rail aren't necessarily pro Metro, or even Metro patrons. People who wish for the "inefficient buses" to be replaced are often those who don't ride those buses in the first place. Sure, Metro bus service is inefficient at times, but not just because it exists, but because Metro has neglected it in favor of trendy rail. You may or may not remember that it was the promised 50% increase in bus service that pushed the 2003 referendum over the top, only for then Metro Chairman David Wolff to comment later, "There's no demand for it." And there is for rail? I could have sworn the 52% of those that voted in the Metro Solutions plan voted for BOTH, not one.

I assume you are talking about me. I grew up riding the buses and still do when going somewhere were parking isn't cheaply available. My accusation of METRO buses being inefficient is purly numbers and statistics wise. If you look at the numbers, they are clearly less efficient than rail, especially in Houston's case.

It's very clear that there is no demand for buses. Have you actually looked at some numbers and statistics? The bus line with the highest ridership is something like less than 10,000 daily boardings. That's about 1/4 the ridership of the light rail line.

While Wolf was clearly not the smartest man in terms of negotiating contracts, he ran METRO, saw the numbers, and knew what he was talking about.

As far as the shrinking bus fleet goes, those 200 buses were retired with no replacement not due to age, but because they weren't needed due to a drastic reduction in service. When Metro was at it's peak in the 90s, about 1/3 of it's flet was over retirement age (12 years). Service was better, on time performance was better, and the bus system was expanding and not contracting. Ridership was increasing and not declining. The population has risen as well as gas prices but bus ridership is in a free fall? There's something wrong with that. It would seem that Metro can't walk (build rail) and chew gum (operate the and expand the existing bus system) at the same time.

Ridership was declining before light rail was constructed, look at the numbers. It's not in free fall it is holding steady at rouhly 230,000 riders for a few years now. Most of Houston's population growth has not been in the inner city, where bus riding is viable, but in suburban areas where people wouldn't even think once about taking a bus.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. If METRO pays less per person to operate rail than they do buses, then how does running a rail system cause them to cut bus routes? Rail replaces bus routes, and routes that are inefficient and losing tons of money are discontinued in any transit agency. If METRO gets more funds, they will have enough money to not only maintain and run great light rail lines, but also improve their bus system.

[IHB2]

While Wolf was clearly not the smartest man in terms of negotiating contracts, he ran METRO, saw the numbers, and knew what he was talking about...

Ridership was declining before light rail was constructed, look at the numbers. It's not in free fall it is holding steady at rouhly 230,000 riders for a few years now. Most of Houston's population growth has not been in the inner city, where bus riding is viable, but in suburban areas where people wouldn't even think once about taking a bus.

Regarding your opinion of Wolff as METRO Board Chmn: I believe the continuing fiscal disaster, discovery of illegal contracts, METRO-buying real estate shenanigans, and more in the years following Wolff's ouster have proven conclusively that either he did not know what he was talking about, or he was actively engaged in, or turned a blind eye to, corrupt practices at METRO.

Your statement about the falling/stable ridership, about the geographic location of greatest population growth in METRO's service area, and the viability of inner city buses pretty much counters your argument to construct more inner loop rail.

Having an efficient network of LRT lines would definitely improve mass transit inside the loop, but only if both taxpayers can afford it (including the opportunity costs of not addressing public/mass transit in other ways than a fixed guidway system) and that system does not cause a decline in general street mobility b/c of siting decisions made for political and/or financial reasons.

[mfastx]

Regarding your opinion of Wolff as METRO Board Chmn: I believe the continuing fiscal disaster, discovery of illegal contracts, METRO-buying real estate shenanigans, and more in the years following Wolff's ouster have proven conclusively that either he did not know what he was talking about, or he was actively engaged in, or turned a blind eye to, corrupt practices at METRO.

Wolff had experience running other transit agencies. I recognize that he did not do things the right way, but I don't believe that he didn't have a clue about transit in general, and he had the right ideas, just went about them the wrong way.

Your statement about the falling/stable ridership, about the geographic location of greatest population growth in METRO's service area, and the viability of inner city buses pretty much counters your argument to construct more inner loop rail.

I believe that one of the reasons why inner Houston's population growth isn't as rapid as it could be is because of the lack of transit/alternative options other than a car.

Having an efficient network of LRT lines would definitely improve mass transit inside the loop, but only if both taxpayers can afford it (including the opportunity costs of not addressing public/mass transit in other ways than a fixed guidway system) and that system does not cause a decline in general street mobility b/c of siting decisions made for political and/or financial reasons.

Well the point of retaining their whole transit tax is so that they can afford it. If they can't afford it, they won't build it.

I do not agree with METRO's decision to build a mostly at-grade rail line, but its miles better than what we currently have, and if it were more expensive, funding would be much more difficult to get than it already is and it just wouldn't be feasable to build a completely or mostly grade separated line.

I'd like to see if those routes METRO cut were because of decreasing ridership, or if they cut routes and as a result, riderhsip decreased. Does anyone have a breakdown of routes that were cut by METRO, and when they were cut?

[IHB2]

Wolff had experience running other transit agencies. I recognize that he did not do things the right way, but I don't believe that he didn't have a clue about transit in general, and he had the right ideas, just went about them the wrong way.

I believe that one of the reasons why inner Houston's population growth isn't as rapid as it could be is because of the lack of transit/alternative options other than a car.

Well the point of retaining their whole transit tax is so that they can afford it. If they can't afford it, they won't build it.

1. You must be talking about the Metro CEO Frank Wilson, not Wolff. Wolff is a real estate developer (and not Ed Wulfe the Blvd Place developer) and Wilson was his CEO. Frank Wilson's transit exec work in his previous positions in New Jersey and San Francisco were linked to questionable procedures that prompted govt investigations. This is all well-known and contributed mightily to this latest loss of public confidence in METRO's ethics and general operational competence. Greanias and the new board have spent most of their time trying to figure out how to survive the inept/corrupt practices of Wilson, Wolff, and their ilk (many of whom are still employed in exec positions in the "new" METRO).

2. Why wouldn't more buses, better routes, fit your request for more inner loop alternatives to cars rather than building rail and canceling more bus routes, since you're arguing that's 1 reason for slower inner city pop. growth?

3. They already started building "it" without sufficient funding in place to guarantee its completion according to the 2003 Solutions vote. That's why the entire LRT system is at risk now.

People on here can condemn DeLay, Culberson, Afton Oaks, et al for the obstructionists they are, but the fact is METRO didn't get these factors under control before they started spending $millions to plan & build the lines.

Greanias spoke in the West U area last week. He is straightforward about the stakes. METRO screwed the pooch in every way imaginable and basically shut the entire Solutions plan down, and Greanias and the Board are faced with a "fool me twice" voting population. He's not upbeat about METRO accomplishing any of its 2003 goals before the 2020s at the earliest, more likely around 2030.

I'll leave it to your imagination to project LRT construction costs/mile in the 2020s vs. the $$$s projected in the 2003 referendum.

[mfastx]

1. You must be talking about the Metro CEO Frank Wilson, not Wolff. Wolff is a real estate developer (and not Ed Wulfe the Blvd Place developer) and Wilson was his CEO. Frank Wilson's transit exec work in his previous positions in New Jersey and San Francisco were linked to questionable procedures that prompted govt investigations. This is all well-known and contributed mightily to this latest loss of public confidence in METRO's ethics and general operational competence. Greanias and the new board have spent most of their time trying to figure out how to survive the inept/corrupt practices of Wilson, Wolff, and their ilk (many of whom are still employed in exec positions in the "new" METRO).

You are correct, I was mistaken.

2. Why wouldn't more buses, better routes, fit your request for more inner loop alternatives to cars rather than building rail and canceling more bus routes, since you're arguing that's 1 reason for slower inner city pop. growth?

The inner loop already has the same amount if not more bus routes thad it had when ridership was at its peak. The route cancellatons have been mostly outside the loop on long routes with thin ridership. While some routes have been canceled due to light rail, light rail replaced those routes so that is a wash.

The point I am making is that in the inner loop every major street has a bus route. Adding more buses wouldn't increase ridership, and they would just cause more traffic on busy inner loop streets. If anything, METRO could improve stops and add signage indicating when the next bus would come, I would be totally in favor of that. But bus service can't get much better than it already is inside the loop without significant investment. And if we are going to invest significantly, why not build rail?

3. They already started building "it" without sufficient funding in place to guarantee its completion according to the 2003 Solutions vote. That's why the entire LRT system is at risk now.

They have enough funding to complete the lines under construction, I'm not sure what you're refering to.

People on here can condemn DeLay, Culberson, Afton Oaks, et al for the obstructionists they are, but the fact is METRO didn't get these factors under control before they started spending $millions to plan & build the lines.

People condemn DeLay and Culberson because they are a complete joke. Any intelligent person knows that they simply have an anti-rail agende due to a few of their constituants and do not give a rat's ass about METRO or the well being of public transportation in Houston. They fight hard for highway funding and fight hard to stop any funding towards mass transit. If they cared about "quality of life" etc. then they would work just as hard to secure funding for rail and other transit projects.

Greanias spoke in the West U area last week. He is straightforward about the stakes. METRO screwed the pooch in every way imaginable and basically shut the entire Solutions plan down, and Greanias and the Board are faced with a "fool me twice" voting population. He's not upbeat about METRO accomplishing any of its 2003 goals before the 2020s at the earliest, more likely around 2030.

I'll leave it to your imagination to project LRT construction costs/mile in the 2020s vs. the $$$s projected in the 2003 referendum.

He's not upbeat of public transit in Houston because of people like Culberson. He knows that there are people who will stop at nothing just to see METRO fail.

METRO is under far more intense scrutiny than HCTRA and TxDOT. I guarantee you that if those two transportation agencies were investigated, you'd find illegal activites too. If you don't believe that, then you're being naive.

[IHB2]

They have enough funding to complete the lines under construction, I'm not sure what you're refering to.

I am referring to the undeniable fact that in the 2003 Solutions Plan the voting public/taxpayers were promised 5 operational LR lines in 2012.

Now 3 lines are under construction and may be operational by 2014 (however just this weekend we learned UH is not willing to allow the SE line on its property as designed, so it's back to negotiation/planning/court for the damn ROW).

The other 2 lines, including the "spine" of the entire system are on indefinite hold and have been for 2 years. According to Greanias just last week, if everything goes perfect with the tax referendum METRO may be able to break ground on the Univ Line in 2015, Uptown Line - no timetable for even breaking ground. Greanias's other 2 scenarios are no further expenditures on either line until 2018-2020 at best or the worst-case the 2 lines will be built around 2030 (!).

Almost a decade into the Solutions Plan, given this level of incompetence, occasional lawlessness (the Spanish railcar procurement), accounting chicanery,and utter waste of literally 10s of millions of tax $, METRO taxpayers should be skeptical of anything METRO proposes re: LRT don't you think?

We all got bent over by METRO management & Board and didn't even get a kiss...

[MetroMogul]

I assume you are talking about me. I grew up riding the buses and still do when going somewhere were parking isn't cheaply available. My accusation of METRO buses being inefficient is purly numbers and statistics wise. If you look at the numbers, they are clearly less efficient than rail, especially in Houston's case.

It's very clear that there is no demand for buses. Have you actually looked at some numbers and statistics? The bus line with the highest ridership is something like less than 10,000 daily boardings. That's about 1/4 the ridership of the light rail line.

While Wolf was clearly not the smartest man in terms of negotiating contracts, he ran METRO, saw the numbers, and knew what he was talking about.

Ridership was declining before light rail was constructed, look at the numbers. It's not in free fall it is holding steady at rouhly 230,000 riders for a few years now. Most of Houston's population growth has not been in the inner city, where bus riding is viable, but in suburban areas where people wouldn't even think once about taking a bus.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. If METRO pays less per person to operate rail than they do buses, then how does running a rail system cause them to cut bus routes? Rail replaces bus routes, and routes that are inefficient and losing tons of money are discontinued in any transit agency. If METRO gets more funds, they will have enough money to not only maintain and run great light rail lines, but also improve their bus system.

You keep mentioning numbers but you haven't shown me very much, and the numbers you are showing me don't make any sense. What's 230,000? Is that daily, monthly, or yearly boardings? Make yourself clear. Also, the rail ridership is so high because that's the only way into downtown if you're coming from south/southwest via the bus. A number of high ridership bus lines were truncated in 2004 so the passengers could make bus to rail transfers to justify building the line in the first place. And, those bus to rail transfers are inefficient because now instead of a one seat ride into downtown, I have to transfer to a rail line that isn't much faster, and in some instances slower, than the bus I just got off of. And God forbid I miss the rail connection. That means I'll have to wait another six minutes. And if you know Metro, six minutes can mean meeting your connection or missing it.

You also say there is no demand for bus service. How do qualify that statement? Metro ridership was breaking records up until about 2001, when MetroRail construction began in earnest and then came the massive service cuts. Why would you cut bus service when you are breaking ridership records? Explain that. Also, explain the demand for rail? You seem to site ridership numbers. Those numbers are the result of forced transfers. That's not demand, that's necessity; if I don't transfer to the rail line then I can't get downtown.

[MetroMogul]

I am referring to the undeniable fact that in the 2003 Solutions Plan the voting public/taxpayers were promised 5 operational LR lines in 2012.

Now 3 lines are under construction and may be operational by 2014 (however just this weekend we learned UH is not willing to allow the SE line on its property as designed, so it's back to negotiation/planning/court for the damn ROW).

The other 2 lines, including the "spine" of the entire system are on indefinite hold and have been for 2 years. According to Greanias just last week, if everything goes perfect with the tax referendum METRO may be able to break ground on the Univ Line in 2015, Uptown Line - no timetable for even breaking ground. Greanias's other 2 scenarios are no further expenditures on either line until 2018-2020 at best or the worst-case the 2 lines will be built around 2030 (!).

Almost a decade into the Solutions Plan, given this level of incompetence, occasional lawlessness (the Spanish railcar procurement), accounting chicanery,and utter waste of literally 10s of millions of tax $, METRO taxpayers should be skeptical of anything METRO proposes re: LRT don't you think?

We all got bent over by METRO management & Board and didn't even get a kiss...

Not to mention we have't even seen what could be considered a fraction of the 50% increase in bus service.