Slick Vik Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 The Metropolitan Transit Authority has put the brakes on plans to construct a Pearland area Park & Ride, which was originally expected to be complete in mid- or late 2014 and would have taken 900 to 1,000 cars off Texas 288 daily. He (Tom Lambert) questions how much investment is appropriate for Metro to make in areas outside its service area, from where it derives no tax revenue. http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland/news/article/Pearland-to-look-at-Park-Ride-options-after-4879542.php Sucks for Pearland, but METRO's viewpoint makes sense. If suburbs are going to keep voting against initiatives they shouldn't get any money, especially if they don't even pay into the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Sucks for Pearland, but METRO's viewpoint makes sense. If suburbs are going to keep voting against initiatives they shouldn't get any money, especially if they don't even pay into the system. Except that it may backfire on METRO long-term as the surrounding communities start up their own transit agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 12, 2013 Author Share Posted October 12, 2013 Except that it may backfire on METRO long-term as the surrounding communities start up their own transit agencies.That's good for them if they decide to do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Sad. I was waiting for this to open so my wife can stop driving to work. Why can't the city arrange for something like Woodlands Express buses? Or is that what they mean by making park & ride a reality without Metro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Except that it may backfire on METRO long-term as the surrounding communities start up their own transit agencies.Why would that be bad for metro? The suburbs should already be doing that. all we have other than metro is Harris county transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Makes sense. If they don't pay the tax for transit, they shouldn't get transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Why would that be bad for metro? The suburbs should already be doing that. all we have other than metro is Harris county transit. Because then, instead of having one transit agency with unified service over the entire metropolitan area, we'll have many competing entities. Getting them all to work together will be quite a chore as we have already seen in the recent hubub on Metro sales tax allocations. Not that Metro has been a stellar performer, but most likely new transit agencies in the surrounding areas won't be either. It'll be just more turf wars instead of a logical and well thought plan for the entire area. Think the suburbs are fighting Metro now to get just a part of the sales tax back? Wait until they've got their own transit to fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Because then, instead of having one transit agency with unified service over the entire metropolitan area, we'll have many competing entities. Getting them all to work together will be quite a chore as we have already seen in the recent hubub on Metro sales tax allocations. Not that Metro has been a stellar performer, but most likely new transit agencies in the surrounding areas won't be either. It'll be just more turf wars instead of a logical and well thought plan for the entire area. Think the suburbs are fighting Metro now to get just a part of the sales tax back? Wait until they've got their own transit to fund. If a suburb creates its own transit agency, it's highly probable they would drop out of Metro and be able to capture the sales tax. Pearland isn't paying the tax now, so that's a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I think the suburbs are more focused on creating local job bases then they are on facilitating transit to Harris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 If a suburb creates its own transit agency, it's highly probable they would drop out of Metro and be able to capture the sales tax. Pearland isn't paying the tax now, so that's a moot point. It's a moot point at the moment, but sooner or later the residents are likely to want transit. Then it becomes a question of whether to join Metro or to form their own agency. If Metro doesn't engage them now it's more likely that they will go their own way and thus hem Metro in. Since Pearland doesn't pay the tax, Metro could charge a higher price for park and ride service there to recoup some of the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.