METRO's November 6, 2012 Ballot to Expand Bus Service and Reduce Debt

[editor]

Press release from Metro:

---

METRO BOARD APPROVES BALLOT LANGUAGE

ELECTION CALLED FOR NOVEMBER 6TH

METRO’s Board voted and approved a proposition today regarding the future of the General Mobility Program (GMP) which will be placed on the ballot on November 6, 2012.

In an 8-1 vote, the board of directors voted to put forth a new proposal which would continue the GMP in its current form, allocating a quarter of its one-cent sales tax to its 16 member jurisdictions. However, allocations will be fixed (capped ) at the 2014 levels and any growth in revenues beyond the quarter of the sales tax will be split 50-50 between METRO and the other jurisdictions from October 2014 through December 2025. This allocation change is targeted to result in an additional $400 million for METRO.

"This proposal will focus on two things; increased ridership and fiscal responsibility,” said METRO Chairman Gilbert Garcia.” The transit agency will be able to enhance our bus service and reduce short-term debt on the balance sheet. Throughout public discussions and meetings, I have always tried to find some type of compromise between the parties who wanted to continue GMP as it is, or end the program. This measure works toward that goal."

The incremental growth portion allocated to METRO will be used for the following purposes:

· Increase bus service hours and the purchase of up to 200 buses;

· Construction of up to 1,000 additional bus shelters;

· Commercial paper debt payments up to $200 million;

· Operation and maintenance costs associated with additional service, bus shelters, Park and Ride facilities, bus transit centers and bus operating facilities.

The proposition also calls for another election to be held prior to December 31, 2025 regarding METRO's continuing support of the General Mobility Program.

For more about METRO’s 2012 General Mobility Program (GMP) Referendum web page, click here.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

So what does a no vote mean?

[Slick Vik]

What a joke. What was the point of public meetings if Garcia got what he wanted anyway? The board made a decision now just went against it. VOTE NO AND GET RID OF GMP.

[LTAWACS]

Why don't the other board members use the media to expose this traitor?

[IHB2]

What a joke. What was the point of public meetings if Garcia got what he wanted anyway? The board made a decision now just went against it. VOTE NO AND GET RID OF GMP.

I'm guessing METRO's polling showed the "No" vote won't win, and faced with a full scale rebellion by the county and the member cities the agency compromised to get the $400 million over the next decade rather than some even smaller amount.

still, until the alchemists are done constructing the ballot language so that nobody can parse how the new measures will work in practice, we won't be able to get a read on what METRO really hopes to accomplish with this compromise.

this from the Chron article:

"Board member Christof Spieler, a city of Houston appointee, voted against the ballot language, saying he was concerned it would leave inadequate funding for the proposed University light rail line."

IMO he's not just "concerned" he knows the Univ Line #s probably don't work under this referendum unless the feds come with a lot more money than is currently expected.

[mfastx]

So basically, if GMP passes, METRO will stay the same. $200 million is nothing. Hell, a bus cost almost a million dollars doesn't it? So at best they could replace a couple hundred buses. That does nothing to improve service.

Oh well. We will be stuck in Houston while other cities invest in transit.

EDIT: Oh, and the fact that METRO is getting the $400 million over a period of 10 years makes it even more useless. It's gonna take a lot more than that to improve bus service meaningfully.

[Slick Vik]

I'm guessing METRO's polling showed the "No" vote won't win, and faced with a full scale rebellion by the county and the member cities the agency compromised to get the $400 million over the next decade rather than some even smaller amount.

still, until the alchemists are done constructing the ballot language so that nobody can parse how the new measures will work in practice, we won't be able to get a read on what METRO really hopes to accomplish with this compromise.

this from the Chron article:

"Board member Christof Spieler, a city of Houston appointee, voted against the ballot language, saying he was concerned it would leave inadequate funding for the proposed University light rail line."

IMO he's not just "concerned" he knows the Univ Line #s probably don't work under this referendum unless the feds come with a lot more money than is currently expected.

Yea but at the meetings 99% of ordinary people want to get rid of GMP payments. The only people who want them are those with some vested interest. The mayor and Garcia basically bent over to Radak and Ed Emmet. And it's sickening. They had a good ballot out a couple of weeks ago which the board voted on, yet went back on their word because it didn't satisfy Radak and gave him what he wanted. That makes no sense. Is this not a democracy?

[Pleak]

Actually Metro is not.

[LTAWACS]

Someone like Wayne Dolcefino should expose these crooked rats.

[kylejack]

Seems like a bit of a win-win for Metro. They're getting more than they got previously either way. If uninformed voters manage to tip scales to No, they get the whole enchilada.

[ToryGattis]

Heard Gilbert Garcia, Metro Chairman, speak on this at a blogger lunch event today. He was much more excited about it than the old proposal, because it did get extra money for Metro, even if it was dedicated to non-rail. Money is fungible: they can move buses into this new budget, as well as debt payments, and free up old budget for rail. He said that by 2025 the GMP will be less than 18% of the 1% sales tax, rather than 25% now, because the growth past 2014 will be split between Metro and the smaller entities. The Mayor seemed to be happy with it too (she was at the event), although the city is giving up the extra GMP split they could have gotten.

[IHB2]

Yea but at the meetings 99% of ordinary people want to get rid of GMP payments. The only people who want them are those with some vested interest.

ummm ok, but a few more people than the folks so interested that they take time to go to the meetings and speak will decide this issue in November...

there are 6 or 7 big $$$$ bond issues and the METRO referendum (which is a de facto tax increase in the member cities if NO wins) on the November ballot.

if every one of them passes it means at least $150.00 more in annual taxes for the owner of a $150,000 property, so you could be ytalking about serious money for lots of homeowners and businesses.

it won't be surprising if all of them are voted down.

ironically, if the voters are in a "no" mood, METRO may luck out and get all the GMP $$$ b/c people will think they are voting no to stop METRO from getting the money.

[kylejack]

Less money for member cities is not a de facto tax increase unless those cities do in fact increase taxes. That will be their decision to make.

[IHB2]

Less money for member cities is not a de facto tax increase unless those cities do in fact increase taxes. That will be their decision to make.

true, but I do understand how that decision usually turns out, especially when it's for the maintenance of critical infrastructure like streets, sewers, etc.

[Slick Vik]

ummm ok, but a few more people than the folks so interested that they take time to go to the meetings and speak will decide this issue in November...

there are 6 or 7 big $$$$ bond issues and the METRO referendum (which is a de facto tax increase in the member cities if NO wins) on the November ballot.

if every one of them passes it means at least $150.00 more in annual taxes for the owner of a $150,000 property, so you could be ytalking about serious money for lots of homeowners and businesses.

it won't be surprising if all of them are voted down.

ironically, if the voters are in a "no" mood, METRO may luck out and get all the GMP $$$ b/c people will think they are voting no to stop METRO from getting the money.

Yes but just showing what the general mood of the people was. They want an advanced rail system. They don't like the buses even though they are a necessary evil, they don't care for massive highway projects. The mood of people is changing. But this just shows a total failure of METRO to use people's input.

[MetroMogul]

Before I declare any sort of victory, I want to know what Metro means by "service expansion." We learned many years ago what "service improvements" meant under Frank Wilson. And when do we get the 200 new buses? Not that I'm too concerned about that as I enjoy the older buses very much. They have a lot more charm than the Hybrids taking over the fleet now.

[Houston19514]

ummm ok, but a few more people than the folks so interested that they take time to go to the meetings and speak will decide this issue in November...

there are 6 or 7 big $$$$ bond issues and the METRO referendum (which is a de facto tax increase in the member cities if NO wins) on the November ballot.

if every one of them passes it means at least $150.00 more in annual taxes for the owner of a $150,000 property, so you could be ytalking about serious money for lots of homeowners and businesses.

Where did you come up with that number?

To my knowledge, there are bond issues proposed by the City, by HCC, and by HISD.

The city's issues result in no tax increase.

HCC's would result in a $37 increase for a $150,000 house.

HISD's would result in a $53 increase for a $150,000 house.

Total tax increase for a $150,000 house: $90.

http://www.chron.com/default/article/Council-adds-another-410-million-to-November-3791549.php

[IHB2]

Where did you come up with that number?

To my knowledge, there are bond issues proposed by the City, by HCC, and by HISD.

The city's issues result in no tax increase.

HCC's would result in a $37 increase for a $150,000 house.

HISD's would result in a $53 increase for a $150,000 house.

Total tax increase for a $150,000 house: $90.

http://www.chron.com...ber-3791549.php

you're right I'm wrong. sorry, no intent to mislead. the $150 is the estimate I came up with for my own property value based on the chron #s.

[Ross]

Yes but just showing what the general mood of the people was. They want an advanced rail system. They don't like the buses even though they are a necessary evil, they don't care for massive highway projects. The mood of people is changing. But this just shows a total failure of METRO to use people's input.

There are a lot of us who just wnat Metro to quit wasting money on stupid, inappropriate rail projects that will do nothing at all to relieve congestion in Houston. Roads and buses are the only proven transit methods here. Given the power, I would remove all the rail tomorrow. It doesn' t go anywhere useful, and does nothing to relieve congestion. In fact, I find rail makes my trips, which never go anywhere rail goes or will go, more difficult becuase of the interference with vehicle traffic.

[kylejack]

There are a lot of us who just wnat Metro to quit wasting money on stupid, inappropriate rail projects that will do nothing at all to relieve congestion in Houston. Roads and buses are the only proven transit methods here. Given the power, I would remove all the rail tomorrow. It doesn' t go anywhere useful, and does nothing to relieve congestion. In fact, I find rail makes my trips, which never go anywhere rail goes or will go, more difficult becuase of the interference with vehicle traffic.

It has one of the highest riderships per mile of any rail line in the country because it goes to useful places. People riding aren't driving their cars as much, so of course it relieves congestion, especially in places like the Med Center in the morning and evening rush hours. More rail lines are being built that will go to other useful places.

[RedScare]

There are a lot of us who just wnat Metro to quit wasting money on stupid, inappropriate rail projects that will do nothing at all to relieve congestion in Houston. Roads and buses are the only proven transit methods here. Given the power, I would remove all the rail tomorrow. It doesn' t go anywhere useful, and does nothing to relieve congestion. In fact, I find rail makes my trips, which never go anywhere rail goes or will go, more difficult becuase of the interference with vehicle traffic.

Translation: Since I don't use it, it is a waste of money.

[TheNiche]

It has one of the highest riderships per mile of any rail line in the country because it goes to useful places. People riding aren't driving their cars as much, so of course it relieves congestion, especially in places like the Med Center in the morning and evening rush hours. More rail lines are being built that will go to other useful places.

It has high ridership per mile because there are so few miles of it and because it has been positioned in between truncated bus and shuttle routes and peoples' final destinations. It was the low-hanging fruit. There is no evidence to conclude that a large proportion of ridership would have driven alone to work rather than utilizing public transit or carpooling (on METRO-sponsored HOV lanes).

The new lines that are being built go to places like the power center where Northline Mall used to be, the Magnolia Transit Center, and Palm Center on Griggs. UH and TSU is a useful place for rapid transit, I suppose, but ridership potentials still seem fairly limited...except of course, for the pre-existing community of transit riders.

You could craft a less propagandistic response pretty easily, if you bothered to try, though.

[Ross]

Translation: Since I don't use it, it is a waste of money.

I don't know anyone who uses the train. I know a bunch of people who complain about the impact to traffic and the waste of money.

[RedScare]

I don't know anyone who uses the train. I know a bunch of people who complain about the impact to traffic and the waste of money.

This is a well recognized method of gauging transit use and efficiency.

[j_cuevas713]

Thats ridiculous, I go to the Art Institiute, and if the damn rail had been built like it was supposed to by now, I would have saved a ton on gas. I would have been able to park at the Fannin South Sation and ride the train all the way to school. I know a ton of students who have expressed they would do the same coming from the east and south parts of town. Yea rail wont relieve all congestion but hell more buses won't help at all. Light rail MUST connect major areas of this city, thats how its best used. Plus I like the agreement Metro made. You may not like the politics but all I give a damn about is the bottom line of where this city is going. If more rail is going to help better connect the city for its future then I say make it happen. I guarantee that the other 3 lines under construction will have great ridership despite all the rail opponents. It simple, if you give people other options for transit trust me they'll use it.

[mfastx]

There are a lot of us who just wnat Metro to quit wasting money on stupid, inappropriate rail projects that will do nothing at all to relieve congestion in Houston. Roads and buses are the only proven transit methods here. Given the power, I would remove all the rail tomorrow. It doesn' t go anywhere useful, and does nothing to relieve congestion. In fact, I find rail makes my trips, which never go anywhere rail goes or will go, more difficult becuase of the interference with vehicle traffic.

You are in the minority. The majority of Houstonians want rail lines. Sorry.

Buses are not proven at all. Houston has historically had one of the lowest public transit ridership in the country. A lot of people think a line connecting the TMC and Downtown is useful. And your last statement makes no sense at all. How are your trips affected by light rail if your trips never go anywhere where rail goes?

[TheNiche]

And your last statement makes no sense at all. How are your trips affected by light rail if your trips never go anywhere where rail goes?

Rail disrupts signal timing if you drive past it, within or between the places where rail goes. That is pretty annoying, IMO.

I'll grant you that Ross' statements were fairly bombastic; its just the responses to him haven't been much better, though.

[kylejack]

It has high ridership per mile because there are so few miles of it and because it has been positioned in between truncated bus and shuttle routes and peoples' final destinations. It was the low-hanging fruit. There is no evidence to conclude that a large proportion of ridership would have driven alone to work rather than utilizing public transit or carpooling (on METRO-sponsored HOV lanes).

Here's some anecdotal evidence: I lived downtown and took it every day because paying $13 to park is absurd. No HOV lanes or carpools went from my house to the Med Center. I talked to a lot of other Med Center employees on the train who were in the practice of parking downtown (not at park and ride lots) and riding the train.

You could craft a less propagandistic response pretty easily, if you bothered to try, though.

But why bother, when the post I was responding to wasn't making the right points? I addressed what he provided, which was pretty flimsy.

[kylejack]

I don't know anyone who uses the train. I know a bunch of people who complain about the impact to traffic and the waste of money.

Hi Ross, I'm Kyle. You know me and can't use that line anymore.

[Slick Vik]

It has high ridership per mile because there are so few miles of it and because it has been positioned in between truncated bus and shuttle routes and peoples' final destinations. It was the low-hanging fruit. There is no evidence to conclude that a large proportion of ridership would have driven alone to work rather than utilizing public transit or carpooling (on METRO-sponsored HOV lanes).

The new lines that are being built go to places like the power center where Northline Mall used to be, the Magnolia Transit Center, and Palm Center on Griggs. UH and TSU is a useful place for rapid transit, I suppose, but ridership potentials still seem fairly limited...except of course, for the pre-existing community of transit riders.

You could craft a less propagandistic response pretty easily, if you bothered to try, though.

You're wrong niche. People in those areas need transit more than us because for many of them the price of driving is not affordable or even an option. That's why the red line should've gone far south of where it goes now. But who cares about poor people right?