MontroseNeighborhoodCafe Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Feb. 10, 2005, 1:04AM Metro's application criticized FTA, lawmakers say the authority used poor data, didn't follow rules with fund request By LUCAS WALL Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle A decision on whether to recommend federal funding for the next two MetroRail segments has been delayed because of problems with the transit authority's application, a federal agency and lawmakers said Wednesday. Metro did not appear in the Federal Transit Administration's annual funding recommendations to Congress issued Tuesday, making it unlikely the authority can stick to the timetable for building the next light rail segments promised to voters in a 2003 referendum. "It really is a shame Metro continues to be its own worst enemy and create problems that could easily be avoided by obeying the law and following the same rules that every other transit agency in the country has to follow," said U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, a member of the House transportation appropriations subcommittee and a light rail skeptic. "They want to be given special consideration allowing themselves to cut in line and ask for utterly inappropriate amounts of money or changes in law that they are not entitled to." When the Metropolitan Transit Authority applied for federal financing of the Northline and Southeast rail segments in August, it asked the FTA to pay for 100 percent of those lines in exchange for Metro footing the entire bill to construct light rail routes later in the Harrisburg and Westpark corridors. "We did not expect to receive a negative response to it," said David Wolff, Metro board chairman. "We thought it was innovative, and it has been done before in other parts of the country." Federal law requires a transit agency to pay for at least 20 percent of a project with local money, though the match usually is more like 50 percent. In its application, Metro asked the FTA to consider the next four rail lines together so that by 2012, when they were all done, Metro and the federal government would end up splitting the cost. Not using federal money on the subsequent two lines would allow Metro to skip the lengthy federal "New Starts" application and review process. "They knew it would not be accepted when they submitted it," said U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land. Paul Griffo, FTA spokesman, said the agency informed Metro last fall "that's not going to work and they needed to submit a conventional New Starts application." Culberson said Metro didn't run the plan by him before it was submitted in August. He called the request "highly improper, inappropriate and utterly impossible for the federal government to do." He cited Metro's need to resubmit its financial plan in November as a significant reason the transit authority didn't receive a project rating from the FTA in time to make Tuesday's budget report. Metro officials wanted the FTA to match them project for project rather than dollar for dollar on each line, as is generally done with urban rail construction nationwide. Metro President and CEO Frank Wilson said other cities, including San Francisco, have been allowed to use the nontraditional approach to get a system built faster. "We don't see it as inappropriate," Wilson said. "This was the only way to meet the startup date for all the lines and use federal money to do it." Metro has now accepted the FTA's timetable for construction of the four lines, meaning it probably won't get finished by the 2012 goal set in the ballot language voters approved in November 2003. Another factor cited in Metro's exclusion from the funding report is that it used unreliable data and incorrect cost estimates that have made it impossible to rate the project until those deficiencies are remedied. "The FTA has been working with them on including modeling that will arrive at reliable data," Griffo said. "We expect those issues will be resolved soon." Wilson called the statement that Metro has not used reliable figures "a poor choice of words. This is information they didn't understand." Chronicle reporter Gebe Martinez contributed to this story from Washington traffic@chron.com http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/front/3032695 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Like I said yesterday! Public sector losers! I know there are good people in the Public sector, but there you can get away with a lot more than in the Private.What a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Wow. That's my first impression.They mentioned other cities filing applications the way they did, but what was the status of their systems? Of their area's record with fixed-guideway transit? Wilson mentioned San Francisco, who's had transit for how long? METRO should have realized that Houston was just getting into the game. Since they built the Red Line on their own, this must have been their first New Starts application. They should know that if you are asking for money from the feds, you have to play by their rules--even if your idea is a better one.I can't think of too many times where almost a whole SYSTEM was a New Starts application. I mentioned Charlotte yesterday, but their application was for only the South Corridor line. I don't think they plan on applying for the other four in the way Houston just did. If they were thinking about it, I'm sure its out the window now.Once again, wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 although i suspected something like this was the cause for metro not being recommended for funds, i'm unnerved that metro has not met with and asked for counsel from cities such as dallas and charlotte on how these things work. this is a major transportation, taxing, pseudo government entity that did not do it's homework...on a huge scale! the arrogance of this agency to think that it does not seek or has not followed good advice. what a waste! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 The real kicker is that METRO is accountable to no one!And that's a darn shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Yeah, these transportation entities really aren't accountable to anyone. Especially if the politicians don't hold their feet to the fire. I think the Mayor White should have had his ear to the ground more, or at least his Director of Mobility or whatever that office was that he created. In the other thread, some people still maintain that there was some back-room conversation amongst people (DeLay, Culberson) that got Houston's app rejected. But now seeing this news makes me think that it is somewhere between METRO's arrogance and ineptitude. Especially given the tone of the FTA's responses--and FTA telling them last fall that they needed to re-submit the application. Why waste time plodding ahead when they gave you the virtual no back then. Unless METRO has been working on a back-up application, they have just wasted almost 6 months, and when that comes to federal funding, that could mean years.Then I look at places that applying for New Starts money last year--El Paso, Columbus, OH, Nashville. Some cities were "recommended" projects, some were "not recommended" and some were "exempt". I have to go back to the definitions but El Paso's light rail line was in the "exempt" category.When they publish the report on their website for this year, it will be interesting to see what the final category is for Houston.That's right, I said a light rail line in El Paso (even though this segment is only a mile-and-a-half). Turns out they already have the rail cars to use for the line too.I'm not impressed with METRO's work on this issue--especially given that the agency is what--20-25 years old? Charlotte's CATS is almost 7 years old, and they seem to have gotten it together. METRO stunk this one up this time, but I'm hopeful and confident that they'll get it together soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 There is no evidence to prove otherwise at this point, but quite frankly, to think that Delay and Culberson are complete angels in this is foolish. Unfortunately, because they have the upperhand, Metro has to be careful in countering anything. We are talking about the two biggest anti-rail figures in the region who are NOT "going to bat" for rail in Houston. The article stated Metro was told the application would not pass yet they blatantly submitted a "improper" application? People that are trying to expand rail in Houston? Why would they continue to believe the innovative idea on the application would work if the FTA told them before it wouldn't work?I have a admitted bias against Delay and Culberson, so I honestly suspect anything that comes out of their mouths, particularly with regard to rail, knowing their utter opposition to it. But I truly believe there is another side to this. If all that was keeping Metro from getting this money was a period at the end of a sentence, I don't think either of them would pick up a pen to add it, in order to further stall rail for this city. Keep in mind, rail is something neither of them want for Houston, and I believe this is somehow ALWAYS at play when it comes to their actions with Metro.*note*- Does anyone have any current figures as to how much the Katy Freeway project is over budget at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Actually, any increase in spending is due to inflation and not poor planning for the Kate Freeway. All projects currently in construction or on or ahead of schedule. Thank for the incentive program!!! If the incentive program wasn't in place, the Katy Freeway would be finished around 2011 or 2012 instead of 2008 or 2009. Any several pieces will be completed in late 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 No one is saying that DeLay and Culberson are angels in this one, but I cannot blame them for this if there is no evidence. If they really didn't go to bat, what about Sen. Hutchison, who is a bold rail advocate? I would like to think she was more involved. As far as believing anything out of DeLay or Culberson's mouths, it wasn't them but the FTA rep who said that they told Houston to resubmit the app.I have to wonder if there was a point by the Chronicle to print Culberson's and DeLay's quotes without printing Sen. Hutchison's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Actually, any increase in spending is due to inflation and not poor planning for the Kate Freeway.This is not completely true. There have been planning issues and if I'm not mistaken some articles have been posted on the Katy Freeway thread. This is about Metro, so I won't elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 As I stated in my initial post, I knew there was another side to this. This was NOT all of METRO's fault, just as I suspected. Read this Sunday's Chronicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.