Systemwide Data On LRT And Bus Ridership

[RedScare]

Gov, METRO does have eminent domain.

[GovernorAggie]

Gov, METRO does have eminent domain.

I know. But so does HCTRA. One is expected to deal with the public. The other shrugs its shoulders at the public.

[TheNiche]

"Circumstantial ad hominems are a waste of bandwidth."

That's an instant Niche-classic!

You are too much.

If anything, I am too little.

[TheNiche]

Houston has a rather large population of people that only want projects funded that THEY will use. They disagree completely with the concept of providing public transportation for the economically disadvantaged.

This is true, but I am not among them. The least expensive way of moving people in a congestion-free environment remains private vehicle on paved roads. This is most certainly true in the economic sense, and it plays out the vast majority of people's commuting patters. But in the real world, congestion creates real problems because it results in wasted time, and time has a lot of value; additionally, since people that use mass transit by choice tend to be poor, it should be borne in mind that congestion on roads tends to result in the wasting of more affluent people's time, and that is particularly destructive because their time carries a higher private and social opportunity cost. Congestion reduction techniques that can free up capacity on the least expensive form of transportation oftentimes necessitate the implementation and subsidy of relatively more expensive mass transit. This, not transportation for the poor, is the justification for all but the most high-volume transit routes--those are the ones that would remain if METRO were to vanish and the private sector were to fund only profitable bus routes.

The fact that they can afford or prefer to drive their own vehicles means (in their minds) that only roads should be built.

It is as much a matter of selfishness as it is of ensuring the growth of the local economy and ensuring the greatest quality of life for the greatest number of residents.

If public transit is provided at all, it should only be busses, since they are cheap (they think) and that is all the poor deserve. Trains infuriate them for several reasons, not the least of which is that trains draw riders and support from additional wealthier demographics, making them harder to defeat.

It has nothing at all to do with what is deserved. Nobody is entitled. It is about efficiency.

I don't like trains because they cost way too much and seem to be implemented in such a way that they hurt mobility as much or more than they help it. They are supported by wealthier demographics, and yes it is frustrating that so many people could be so short-sighted, but one does not dislike something because it is difficult to defeat politically--only because it is not cost-effective. Otherwise, one would not be against it in the first place.

Numerous studies reveal METRO to be one the most efficient and best run transit agencies in the country. Its bus system consistently gets high marks. Additionally, its initial rail line is the most successful LRT line implemented in the country. To state that an agency should be rebuilt when it is considered one of the best run systems shows the overwhelming bias of the author against public transit of any kind, not just METRO.

METRO does have a good bus system, generally speaking. It has a particularly good record on P&R lots and HOV lanes. That much is good, and in fact it should be expanded upon.

The LRT and seemingly every related component, seems a dismal failure to this point. Poor implementation, non-systematic thinking, and political plays that screw with the public. Ridership is not the only measure of success, no matter what the FTA says. METRO has a stunningly bad track record when it comes to dealing with changes in their system, and they're off to a particularly bad start on their TOD efforts. Most anybody hooked up with other governments that have to deal with them can tell you the horror stories, and I've even leaked a couple to HAIF from time to time.

Your final conclusion in this paragraph is that my conclusion that METRO should be rebuilt is indicative of an anti-transit mindset on my part, but you'll note from my comments that mass transit is not some inherently-evil thing.

I also believe rail transit can be viable in Houston, partly because of its attractiveness to a larger demographic. It makes no sense for a public entity to refuse to give the public what it demands.

I do too, but not in the form that they have implemented it. I also believe that their timing is probably off by at least 5 to 10 years IMO.

I do not support rail for rail's sake, or rail that does not serve the public. But, if a larger percentage of the public will use rail, then rail is what should get built, regardless of Niche's libertarian agenda.

I will be gracious, Red. I will sincerely give you the benefit of the doubt and take you for your word that you honestly believe that rail is a viable form of transit right now and in the form that it has been implemented. I only wish that you would do the same rather than accusing me of espousing libertarian dogma.

One of the confounding matters of Pragmatism, Red, is that even different people operating from the same basic set of assumptions and goals can reach remarkably different conclusions without being intellectually dishonest. The solution to disparities in the conclusions should not be to label and isolate the other person, but to examine how the different conclusions were reached and resolve them through reason and logic.

[TheNiche]

Yikes. After having responded to Red, I'm a bit short on time, but you merit a good bit of attention...more, frankly, on account of that your comments are more substantive. If nobody else does, would you please bump this thread tomorrow or send me a PM? Thanks.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

Not that I really want to wade into this debate, but there's something about the original post that bothers me. I also have an anecdote about Randal O'Toole.

It is true that METRO ridership increased from 1996 to 2001 (which, incidentally, reversed a trend of decreasing ridership from 1990 to 1996) and then began decreasing until the influx of Katrina refugees in September 2005. But The Mighty Wizard seems to be inferring, without explicitly stating as such, that the decline in METRO's ridership is somehow related to the construction (not the actual operation) of the light rail line. However, many other things happened in 2001 (the post-dotcom economic downturn, the collapse of Enron, 9/11, etc.) that could be blamed, at least in part, on METRO's ridership decline. In my experience, economic conditions seem to have a considerable effect on transit ridership; when there are fewer jobs, there are fewer people riding transit to get to them. Inferring a connection between decreasing ridership and the initial construction of the rail line is very weak, especially since METRO's overall route network remained largely unchanged until the rail line was completed.

Now, if the author wants to argue that ridership decreased in 2004 as a result of the bus system being restructured to feed into the rail line, I'd probably agree. While eliminating some bus lines that run parallel to the rail is sensible, I think METRO took it overboard and truncated too many lines (or failed to reroute them in a manner that would bring even more riders to the rail line - more on that in a moment) and made transit use less attractive for many people. My point is simply that ridership between 2001 and the rail line's opening in 2004 would have decreased under any circumstance. In order to accurately document the effect of the rail line on overall ridership, he should have used 2003 - the year before the light rail line began operation - as his baseline year.

This critique extends to the author's observations about decreased ridership on routes that have been truncated into the rail line, such as the 2 Bellaire or the 14 Hiram Clarke: he is selectively using baseline years that will show the greatest decrease in ridership to make the rail look as bad as possible. He uses 2000 as the baseline year for the 2 Bellaire and 1999 as the baseline year for the 14 Hiram Clarke because ridership on these routes began to fall in subsequent years. These routes, however, were not truncated into the rail line at the Texas Medical Center until 2004. While I don't doubt that this restructuring cost both routes some riders, any ridership decreases that occurred on these routes before the rail line opened simply cannot be blamed on the rail line's construction; these routes were losing riders before construction even began.

This is not to say I disagree with everything in The Mighty Wizard's blog: his observation about the 18 Kirby, and how its ridership decreased after METRO reduced its frequencies from 30 minutes to 15 minutes, is spot on. The elasticity between bus ridership and bus frequency is well-researched.

I also think that the discussions on this thread about METRO's decision to merely truncate lines at rail stations, rather than extend them across the path of the rail line and provide new service to areas that weren't serviced before, is also valid. For example, instead of truncating the 25 Richmond at Wheeler Station, METRO could have extended it down Wheeler to TSU and UH, thereby filling a gap in Third Ward between the 42 Holman and 80 Dowling. It would also have begun building ridership for their future rail and BRT expansions; I certainly would begin using such a route because it would have been a one-seat ride between my home and my office.

I'm obviously not defending METRO here - I think they make a lot of bad decisions and, as somebody who works in the transportation industry and is an advocate of expanded public transportation, that annoys me - but I really think that The Mighty Wizard is twisting the statistics to make METRO's ridership losses due to the implementation of rail worse than they really are. If he were completely honest about the negative effect of the rail line's implementation on METRO's ridership, he really should have used 2003 as the baseline year for all of his calculations instead of 2001.

Both sides of the rail debate have a habit of selectively using statistics to make rail seem better or worse than it really is, and it annoys me. Let's compare apples to apples and get an accurate understanding of the pros and cons of urban rail systems.

As for Randal O'Toole: about a year ago, I happened to be copied into an e-mail exchange between himself and a handful of rail proponents. The discusssion ended up as most debates about rail transit do - a lot of selective statistics were thrown about, the discussion devolved into mind-numbing tedium, and nobody's mind was changed - but it was interesting to read O'Toole's arguments. He is an unabashed libertarian, and I think that he truly does believe what he writes. But some of the things he wrote had me shaking my head wondering "is this guy for real?" He always seemed to want to have it both ways: if a rail line failed to live up to its ridership projections, it was because the agency building the line artificially inflated the numbers to get FTA funding. If a rail line exceeded its ridership projections, it was because the agency building the line artificially supressed numbers so that the line would appear to be more of a success than it actually was. If rail ridership grew less than bus ridership over a given period of time, the rail line was a failure because it was not growing as fast as the system as a whole; if rail ridership grew faster than bus ridership, it was because the rail system was taking resources away from the bus system (to be sure, I think this latter condition is what has happened here in Houston; my point is simply that O'Toole employed a "you can't win" rhetorical approach that I found to be rather cheap). He also made frequent use of non-sequiturs; he made a point of mentioning that the mayor of Portland who originally championed its light rail system was later convicted of child molestation. That might make the guy a scumbag, yes, but what that had to do with Portland's light rail system itself was anybody's guess. He kept noting that he actually loved trains and that he helped restore vintage passenger cars and steam engines, as if that gave him some sort of extra credibility when it came to his criticisms of urban rail systems. Finally, an angry condescension in his responses was palpable; I honestly got the feeling that he took a personal offense to any sort of urban rail project as well as to those who defended them. (Indeed, he's now even come out against the 2nd Avenue project in Manhattan; not even a subway in the densest, most transit-friendly location in the nation that is projected to carry 213,000 riders a day is good enough for him).

I came away from the debate with the reinforced opinion that he really is too extreme to be considered a reliable source on rail transit. This isn't to say that some of his arguments aren't valid, or that all of the arguments that the rail proponents threw at him were valid. I just find his rhetoric to be so strident that I view his writings with a great deal of skepticism. That O'Toole found his way into one of Niche's economics textbooks is, in my opinion, unfortunate. However, economic academia does generally seem to have a bias against rail transit, so I guess it's not surprising.

[musicman]

Not that I really want to wade into this debate, but there's something about the original post that bothers me.

i know during the election, METRO promised some additional bus routes to serve areas previously unserved. Those haven't come to fruition plus other routes have been cut. I think METRO is concentrating too much on LRT development at the expense of bus transit expansion.

[GovernorAggie]

However, economic academia does generally seem to have a bias against rail transit, so I guess it's not surprising.

I did not know that. This explains a lot.

[TheNiche]

I did not know that. This explains a lot.

I'm still short of time today...contributing to the architectural realm in a more direct way than through HAIF lately...but I'll try to get around to a good response by the end of the week.

In the mean time, I'll confirm that economists REALLY don't like LRT, at least in Houston. Back before the METRO Solutions vote, the chair of the UH economics department systematically polled every economics professor at every university in town and could not find a single one that was supportive of the plan. It was unanimous. He tried to get Chronicle coverage, but the reporters at the Chronicle were just as much in favor of LRT as economists were against it.

LRT is also a good conversation starter to use if you want to hear a good solid Bart Smith rant. I took the devil's advocate stance once, and about the only upside that he couldn't deflate on the spot was that civic pride is a highly-valued benefit that must be accounted for.

[GovernorAggie]

I'm still short of time today...contributing to the architectural realm in a more direct way than through HAIF lately...but I'll try to get around to a good response by the end of the week.

In the mean time, I'll confirm that economists REALLY don't like LRT, at least in Houston. Back before the METRO Solutions vote, the chair of the UH economics department systematically polled every economics professor at every university in town and could not find a single one that was supportive of the plan. It was unanimous. He tried to get Chronicle coverage, but the reporters at the Chronicle were just as much in favor of LRT as economists were against it.

LRT is also a good conversation starter to use if you want to hear a good solid Bart Smith rant. I took the devil's advocate stance once, and about the only upside that he couldn't deflate on the spot was that civic pride is a highly-valued benefit that must be accounted for.

That's cool, Niche. That's just fascinating to me regarding the economists, but I can't say that I'm surprised once I think about it long enough. I wonder how they feel about any rail-based transit, or transit in general.

[musicman]

That's just fascinating to me regarding the economists, but I can't say that I'm surprised once I think about it long enough. I wonder how they feel about any rail-based transit, or transit in general.

I'm sure that if the expenditure offered a good return in ridership, they would be for it.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Why doesn't Sir Genius, the anti-METRO wizard, talk about the multiple years of street construction that forced METRO to reroute several routes in downtown alone (Granted, some of this was on METRO itself but there was also the Cotswold project, which lasted longer than the original construction timetable)? I mean, if we're being fair and unbiased about this thing, that should get serious attention. Moving bus routes around every few months (some of them several times in a span of a couple of years) doesn't exactly promote bus ridership to your average customer.

Ah well...

Carry on.

[TheNiche]

That's cool, Niche. That's just fascinating to me regarding the economists, but I can't say that I'm surprised once I think about it long enough. I wonder how they feel about any rail-based transit, or transit in general.

They like both private and public forms of transportation generally speaking, but everything is context-based. What works in NYC may not work in Houston, and what works in Houston may not work in Waco, but it isn't all about size; what works in Galveston may not work in Houston, either. There is no single correct answer for every situation.

The great frustration that most of them (including myself) have is that when an issue becomes a hot-button topic, the voting public tends to get polarized so that there are very few prospective outcomes that are even considered, and that of those outcomes, very few criteria get singled out as indicators of success or failure. The result is that a mockery is made of the public input phase, where proponents cite ridership and choices as the sole indicators of success while those who are against are screaming about rights of way acquisition and business hardship dominate the other side. Neither side recognizes that each is completely missing the point, but voices of reason are drowned out. All the economists are interested in doing, after all, is measuring the benefits, measuring the costs, netting the two out, and figuring out which of various options gets the best bang for the buck.

I can't speak for O'Toole, but most of them that I've ever met or been taught by are intellectually honest.

[KinkaidAlum]

Ah yes, so the econ profs from all over the city "supposedly" hate light rail. What a shock.

Get back to me when said professors have run for public office so that their opinions matter any more than a pre-K teacher at Awty International...

[RedScare]

Economists are no different than members of any other profession. There are some who try to be non-partison, and let the research dictate the conclusion. But, like every other profession, there are those who form their conclusions first, and search for ways to justify the conclusions. Even your statement that "they" like both public and private forms of transportation is incorrect, in that you are trying to suggest that economics is an exact science, where all "intellectually honest" economists agree. Like scientists, there are great debates regarding economic theory.

A more accurate statement would be that economists who you agree with favor certain transit in contect. Ones that you disagree with are intellectually dishonest.

[TheNiche]

Economists are no different than members of any other profession. There are some who try to be non-partison, and let the research dictate the conclusion. But, like every other profession, there are those who form their conclusions first, and search for ways to justify the conclusions. Even your statement that "they" like both public and private forms of transportation is incorrect, in that you are trying to suggest that economics is an exact science, where all "intellectually honest" economists agree. Like scientists, there are great debates regarding economic theory.

A more accurate statement would be that economists who you agree with favor certain transit in contect. Ones that you disagree with are intellectually dishonest.

Red, stop being a dick. When I stated that "they like both private and public forms of transportation generally speaking," I made a statement that was vague enough to be indisputable. That was precisely my intent. You're right that there is a great diversity of opinion that cannot easily be summed up; so I kept it nice and general. But I stand by the spirit of my statement. Most economists don't draw lines in the sand and refuse to cross them under any circumstances...the ones that do are s***ty economists, and their peers figure it out pretty quickly. Even O'Toole knows better.

But more importantly, Red, as I have already described to you earlier in this thread, is that:

One of the confounding matters of Pragmatism, Red, is that even different people operating from the same basic set of assumptions and goals can reach remarkably different conclusions without being intellectually dishonest. The solution to disparities in the conclusions should not be to label and isolate the other person, but to examine how the different conclusions were reached and resolve them through reason and logic.

Ah yes, so the econ profs from all over the city "supposedly" hate light rail. What a shock.

Get back to me when said professors have run for public office so that their opinions matter any more than a pre-K teacher at Awty International...

You misunderstand. Economics professors from each of the major universities unanimously hate light rail as it was proposed by METRO. They didn't vote to "hate light rail" as a technology.

And why shouldn't a pre-K teacher's opinion matter if it backed up by sound reasoning? I suppose that as a social worker, yours should be completely ignored as well, right?

Kinkaid, you should know better than to take an anti-intellectual stance. I'm disappointed in you.

[TheNiche]

I've been putting this response off for too long, so I'm going to knock it out and then return to semi-lurk mode for a while while I take care of business:

To your first point, pull back from the trees and look at the forest. My point about all of those cities complaining about their transit agencies was that those are cities with well-established rail-based transit systems, and honestly I pointed them out because I would think that even the biggest LRT opponents (or Metro opponents) in this town would point to those places and say, "these places got it right...Metro should be more like them." SO, the goal was to show that even transit systems that apparently comparatively "got it right" have their issues in their own towns. THAT was the point. And furthermore, how would you rebuild Metro--given the parameters set by agencies like FTA and the State even before you contemplate such a move?

Political oversight and accountability are key to bringing about a positive change. Right now, METRO is set up in a very odd way. The City of Houston appoints 5 of 9 board members; the Mayor nominates and the City Council approves. Another 2 board members are appointed by the Mayors of 14 other cities. The final 2 members are appointed by Harris County; the Judge nominates and the Comissioners approve. So public accountability for METRO's performance is divided amongst 15 Mayors, 14 Councilmembers, 1 County Judge, and 4 County Commissioners--a total of 34 elected officials, none of whom view METRO as their primary concern!

If there is a problem, even one that a large segment of the public fumes over, who should they complain to? Ultimately, who should they vote against? And what if the voting public's concerns over METRO and their political affiliations are split? It is easy to see how watered down things get when looking at METRO's accountability. This needs to change. I'd personally propose that this entity, which has been afforded such great powers, needs to have a board that is elected directly by its constituents, those that it taxes. This is the very first and most crucial step.

One of the funny things about METRO is that it seems to have difficulty working with other government entities toward the same ends. Folks with the City have been especially critical of them--which is perhaps odd, since the City has a slim majority of influence over their board--still, they need to be made more user-friendly to other governments as well as to their constituents. Their relationship with the business community is also not very lubby-dubby. The failure of the TMC Transit Center project was a complete and utter disaster. They spent several million dollars, for instance, placing support columns in the TMC site so that a developer could build on it without having to lay a foundation, but none of the developers could afford to do anything on the site without making it a larger building than had been planned, which would've required demolishing what was already there and starting from scratch. But ultimately, Texas Medical Center, Inc. vetoed it altogether--there had been a communication problem, and METRO was basically responsible for developers having put themselves out there and wasted a whole lot of time and money proposing things that could never have been. The list of incompetent actions goes on...there are other matters that I'm not at liberty to disclose, but they're bad. Very bad.

And when I advocate something like rebuilding METRO from the ground up, that doesn't mean that I'm saying that they should be disolved as an entity, their assets sold off at auction, with us then starting all over again. Perhaps that phrase was not the best one that I could've used--the word "ground" has implications beyond what I actually meant.

And furthermore, how would you rebuild Metro--given the parameters set by agencies like FTA and the State even before you contemplate such a move?

I'm glad you bring this up. There are a lot of little things that METRO has to work around with respect to State and Federal laws and regs. For instance, I'd like to tweak how METRO is financed so as to try and more equitably tax those that enjoy the benefits of METRO. Under current state law and the prevailing political climate, many of my personal preferences (which would involve tolling every existing and future public highway and major thoroughfare) are basically irrelevant. And the FTA's methodology of deciding which cities receive funding for transit projects is extremely backwards.

There's admittedly not much that can be done about this.

Secondly, thanks for calling what you perceived as my observation as valid; however I think you missed some of that point as well. My point there was (and still is) that transit HAS to be looked at from a different pair of glasses because a lot of its measures of "efficiency" are in some ways diametrically opposed to other infrastructure.

The public has a different set of measures of perceived efficiency of both roads and transit than do folks who make a career of transportation management. But ultimately the economists are right to try and reduce it to measures of cost and benefit in terms that are comparable--that is a currency measure. I strongly suggest this book: Cost Benefit Analysis: An Informal Introduction. In response to popular demand, a new edition just got released in 2006, but I haven't looked it over and can't comment on it.

Face this, Niche, LRT measurements and observations in Houston are only 3 years old now. I know typical Houston nature is to expect results even before the improvement is completed, but we don't know everything locally yet. It just hasn't been long enough. Sure traffic is an issue with it today, but the question is, without it would traffic have become is issue on its own by 2025? 2035? I know, I know Niche--address it then, right? Well, what about the cost? A $300 Million line in 2004 would cost well above that in 2025 in hard capital costs as well as soft costs like lane rents, salaries for construction workers, and bought time from utilities to move their infrastructure. This gets even higher in 2035. At least the thing was built while traffic impacts would be comparatively low to the future potentially. SH6 probably seemed like a good idea when it was built, but years later it's a beast. Grand Parkway is gonna get built when it does because it has to beat the traffic chronologically--and it'll be cheaper now than later (even at $4B). Why should LRT be different?

By 2025 or 2035, I would not be at all surprised if traffic were so bad that we ended up yanking out the Red Line and replacing it with a grade-seperated version so as to rejoint the Midtown grid, eliminate adverse impacts on traffic, and be able to run more than two attached LRT vehicles per train to accomodate ridership growth. That's my greatest concern is that we underbuilt it, just like METRO underbuilt the TMC Transit Center, but on a larger scale, and that we're just going to outgrow it before we are able to see any real net benefit.

As for the costs, you're talking about price inflation. Since 2002, construction costs have risen dramatically because there was a sudden onset of demand from overseas for construction materials just as low interest rates spurred a global building boom, which made the labor market for construction very tight. It would be poor judgement to extrapolate out very recent trends 20 to 30 years in the future. I personally do not anticipate that the costs of construction will rise at any greater a rate than the overall rate of inflation in the long term. The inflation-adjusted long-term opportunity cost of capital tends to be between about 2.5% and 3.0%, so in fact, it is difficult to conceive of a world in which it is better to make an investment today to tackle a problem that doesn't need to be addressed for another 20 years.

Your last point in this paragraph, that transportation should be built to meet not only immediate demand but future demand, is correct. However, the value of benefits derived in the future should be discounted by that same 2.5% to 3.0% to account for the opportunity cost of capital that would be necessary to induce those future benefits. It is akin to stating that a dollar in your pocket today is better than a dollar in your pocket tomorrow, next year, or a decade from now, and asking you what you'd be willing to sacrifice of today's dollar in order to assure a dollar at the conclusions of each of those increments of time.

Seriously, read Mishan's book. It's all in there, and he's really really anal.

Thirdly, you like HCTRA--but you like it for the reasons that you don't like Metro and TxDOT, no stupid, uninformed, loud, messy public citizens to deal with. This is a serious issue. An agency with eminent domain powers SHOULD have to deal with the public. Do you not think that TxDOT and Metro would be more efficient and better agencies if they had HCTRA's power and money source WITH eminent domain power? Of course they would. TxDOT would have tolled everything by now (they've been building toll roads since the 60s with I-30 in DFW being the first) if they weren't so "handcuffed" by the public. I remember reading an editorial last year that said in the early 80s Metro had money IN PLACE from Congress (the late Sen. Benson) to build heavy rail with SUBWAY through downtown, but again the "stupid" local public got in the way and turned that money down, calling it unnecessary (interestingly enough, people keep asking why Metro won't build subway). The day HCTRA has to deal with the public (as they should with, I say again, EMINENT DOMAIN POWER) is the day their efficiency goes down.

I would like having HCTRA's officials elected directly, just as I'd prefer that METRO's be. It is good to have some semblance of public accountability. But that executive (or board of executives) needs to be allowed to make executive decisions without getting bogged down. The damage done to the public by relatively petty squabbles among neighborhoods--especially neighborhoods with money and lawyers--is often greater than the damage from an inappropriate taking of lands.

Debates like ours keep what may be good projects from happening because we armchair-quarterback the thing to death. Architects and planners in this forum wouldn't dare try to tell economists what's right or wrong about economic theories or whatever. Maybe economists should consider the same about planners and architects. Oh that's right, the forum is a place for an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. But according to you, transferring that to the process of building public projects is not ideal and should be avoided or ignored all together (just ask HCTRA).

I would argue that a good planner is both an architect and an economist. The two realms are not at all mutually exclusive, even though they are often thought to be. Just as a good economist will recognize that there that a dollar value can be placed upon good aesthetic form, a good architect will recognize that good aesthetics come at a cost. There is middle ground to be had. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, those that aren't intimately involved in such projects typically won't see the middle ground. The loudest voices tend to gravitate to one of two polarized positions, at which point any semblance of sanity breaks down. They beleive that if they give an inch, their whole argument may be compromised...and to effect change that is in their favor, it may be strange, but it seems as though they are justified to take the stances that they do. But what is in their favor is often vastly different from what is the optimal outcome, and I'd submit to you that the debate over rail through Afton Oaks, for instance, is an excellent example of failed public input on account of that so many other factors that will make a much greater difference to the larger public were basically overlooked.

[GovernorAggie]

Niche, those are all fair and good responses. Just a couple questions:

1. Let's say the Metro's and HCTRA's decision-makers are elected. On what basis would you elect them? By district? All at-large (which I think will go through about as easy as a camel through a needle's eye)? If by district, how do you divide them?

2. Regarding the under-building of TMC Transit Center and the Red Line--do you think the original goal was to underbuild one or both? Or is it possible that they were "working with what they had" (in financial and more importantly, political, capital)? As I've said before, apparently Sen. Benson had funds ready to go in the 80s to build subway at least through downtown...and Metro had voter approval for an all-elevated system later in the 80s. We all know about the influence of Culberson, DeLay, and Lanier on the outcomes of at least the Red Line, so do you think the money spent on Red Line was a "at least we can pay for this" approach? Do you think that the project would've been better with congressional support for an FTA match (a $648 million LRT could've been much different that a $324 million LRT)? Then again, the alternative could've been waiting until $648 million was in the bank, but then you run the risk of another Lanier taking that away on a whim.

[TheNiche]

1. Let's say the Metro's and HCTRA's decision-makers are elected. On what basis would you elect them? By district? All at-large (which I think will go through about as easy as a camel through a needle's eye)? If by district, how do you divide them?

For METRO, they have a constituency that is defined by boundaries right now; it is the very same constituency that approved the METRO Solutions referendum. With HCTRA, or for that matter, FBCTRA, just divide it up by county...keep it simple. The specifics of how a board or executive director should be elected are IMO a very flexible matter. I'd personally prefer a single elected official with two-year term limits, but I'm not fixed on anything. Imperfect accountability is better than practically none at all.

2. Regarding the under-building of TMC Transit Center and the Red Line--do you think the original goal was to underbuild one or both? Or is it possible that they were "working with what they had" (in financial and more importantly, political, capital)? As I've said before, apparently Sen. Benson had funds ready to go in the 80s to build subway at least through downtown...and Metro had voter approval for an all-elevated system later in the 80s. We all know about the influence of Culberson, DeLay, and Lanier on the outcomes of at least the Red Line, so do you think the money spent on Red Line was a "at least we can pay for this" approach? Do you think that the project would've been better with congressional support for an FTA match (a $648 million LRT could've been much different that a $324 million LRT)? Then again, the alternative could've been waiting until $648 million was in the bank, but then you run the risk of another Lanier taking that away on a whim.

I don't think that METRO intentionally under-built the TMC Transit Center--that would have been an extraordinarily bad example of self-sabotage, one that really doesn't help their credibility. With the decision, probably cognizant, to underbuild the Red Line, I'm not sure which possibility is more likely. They either 1) had just resolved that something was going to get built, whether it was good infrastructure or not...and that seems laughable except that federal funding looks like it'll be available for the next lines and I cannot tell that they've improved upon the design...or 2) they resolved to get something on the ground around which they could manipulate ridership and make it look like an entire system was a slam dunk based upon ridership and cost as the sole criteria, which is all that the FTA requires.

I can't speak to the Sen. Benson issue, as I wasn't around and am not too familiar with the details.

[KinkaidAlum]

And why shouldn't a pre-K teacher's opinion matter if it backed up by sound reasoning? I suppose that as a social worker, yours should be completely ignored as well, right?

Kinkaid, you should know better than to take an anti-intellectual stance. I'm disappointed in you.

You can't get much more anti-intellectual than your original statement.

Until you give me the name of the study, the names of the professors polled, and the list of local univesities where said profs are employed, I will doubt your assertation. You should know well enough to cite your sources. If you don't back them up, then how can I decide if your original statement of "fact" was based on "sound reasoning?"

[TheNiche]

You can't get much more anti-intellectual than your original statement.

Until you give me the name of the study, the names of the professors polled, and the list of local univesities where said profs are employed, I will doubt your assertation. You should know well enough to cite your sources. If you don't back them up, then how can I decide if your original statement of "fact" was based on "sound reasoning?"

The study doesn't have a name because it wasn't a "study". It was a poll. Not something destined for submission to an academic journal. Universities surveyed were at least UH and Rice, although the exact phrase that I recall the former department chair having used was "the major universities in town." That's all I know because that's all the guy that conducted the poll told me. If you continue to doubt me, please feel free to contact Professor Richard Bean of the UH Department of Economics. I'm sure that he'd be thrilled to tell you about it.