METRO Up To No Good Again

[MetroMogul]

http://www.khou.com/video/index.html?nvid=349472&shu=1

Supposedly two of the proposed lines come close to costing $1 Billion dollars EACH. Those figures come from FTA letters to Metro.

[musicman]

Those figures come from FTA letters to Metro.

They come from METRO in their letters to the FTA according to the story.

[MetroMogul]

They come from METRO in their letters to the FTA according to the story.

Thanks for the correction.

[JJVilla]

A couple of things I find interesting about this report:

• They only focused on one figure/number in one part of the report. In other words they were not in context, as pointed out by someone that does these kind of feasiblities studies. Why did the reporter not put these in context?
  
• No one else is reporting this. Where is the media ourage? Yes, I did check to see if other news sources reported on this and they haven't. Especially more concerning was when I went to their website regarding this story and it was plastered with car ads! Maybe just chance?
  
• Other oversite entities and county officials have not commented. Again, where is the local gov't outrage? Are they and the rest of the media very slow?
  

This doesn't mean they're free and clear BUT very suspicous reporting since if costs have TRUELY gone up SO much then this should worry more people.

[editor]

A couple of things I find interesting about this report:

• They only focused on one figure/number in one part of the report. In other words they were not in context, as pointed out by someone that does these kind of feasiblities studies. Why did the reporter not put these in context?
  
• No one else is reporting this. Where is the media ourage? Yes, I did check to see if other news sources reported on this and they haven't. Especially more concerning was when I went to their website regarding this story and it was plastered with car ads! Maybe just chance?
  
• Other oversite entities and county officials have not commented. Again, where is the local gov't outrage? Are they and the rest of the media very slow?
  

This doesn't mean they're free and clear BUT very suspicous reporting since if costs have TRUELY gone up SO much then this should worry more people.

As much as I dislike KHOU, some of your criticisms don't make sense.

You postulate that the report is only valid if other TV stations and newspapers also do that story. This is false. When one outlet has a story that the others don't it's a GOOD thing. It's called competition. It should happen a lot more than it does. Some TV stations where I've worked, the news department would be in hot water if it had mostly the same stories as another station across town. Because of money problems, that's sadly no longer the case. If everyone ran the same stories all the time then Houston would only need one TV station.

You imply that the news coverage was tainted by the fact that there are car ads on the web site. This is incorrect. I know for a fact from having worked there that the sales and news departments are kept very separate. There is close to zero interaction between the two groups. Car ads on a web site don't prove anything. Try to go to any large Houston web site, magazine, newspaper, freeway, or anything else and NOT see a car ad. There are car ads everywhere.

As for local government outrage, how do you know there isn't any? Have you spoken to every member of the local government?

As for the context problem, I agree there probably is a problem there. But it's not the elaborate conspiracy you imagine. It's just a general assignment reporter trying to turn a story in the three or four hours given to research, set up interviews, drive to talk to people, shoot cover video, write a story, edit a story, and get ready for the evening news. It's not possible for a daily local television reporter to put as complex a story as this in context. That's not the job of the daily newscast. That's the job of newspapers, magazines, or long-form television magazine shows. For the reporter to put the story in full "context" would probably make the story close to an hour long.

I don't feel outraged that Metro is spending two billion dollars to build two light rail lines. At least they're being built. And the community will get a lot more benefit from those rail lines than the TRILLION spent on bailouts. I think the public has become numb to how much a billion dollars really is.

[jb4647]

As much as I dislike KHOU, some of your criticisms don't make sense.

I don't feel outraged that Metro is spending two billion dollars to build two light rail lines. At least they're being built. And the community will get a lot more benefit from those rail lines than the TRILLION spent on bailouts. I think the public has become numb to how much a billion dollars really is.

I agree. Those that complain about the cost of rail are against rail anyway...even if it only cost half a million. What some of the people need to do is do a little traveling outside of Houston to places with extensive rail lines like Chicago, NY, DC, & Europe. Once you've enjoyed the efficient method of transport that is rail then you will fall in love with it and demand it for Houston.

I belive that's the dirty little secret behind all the opposition and delay (and Delay for that matter) to rail in Houston is they know that once people try it they will want it. They're not stupid. I've always thought the smarter move would have been to build rail to downtown from the far off suburbs like Katy, Spring, Woodlands, Sugarland, Pearland etc. That would have built political support where it really matters; the wealthy suburbanites. Of course, I realize that they had to build the 1st train where they did inside the loop because of Congressional opposition from those very suburbs.

[editor]

I agree. Those that complain about the cost of rail are against rail anyway...even if it only cost half a million. What some of the people need to do is do a little traveling outside of Houston to places with extensive rail lines like Chicago, NY, DC, & Europe. Once you've enjoyed the efficient method of transport that is rail then you will fall in love with it and demand it for Houston.

I belive that's the dirty little secret behind all the opposition and delay (and Delay for that matter) to rail in Houston is they know that once people try it they will want it. They're not stupid. I've always thought the smarter move would have been to build rail to downtown from the far off suburbs like Katy, Spring, Woodlands, Sugarland, Pearland etc. That would have built political support where it really matters; the wealthy suburbanites. Of course, I realize that they had to build the 1st train where they did inside the loop because of Congressional opposition from those very suburbs.

I remember once there was a report about the number and amount of money donated to Tom Delay's campaign fund by auto dealers, manufacturers, and road construction companies, most notably concrete companies. I always figured that was the reason he did everything in his power to stymie mass transit in Houston.

As a point of interest -- The CTA (Chicago) just spent $1 BILLION rehabbing the Brown Line. The Brown Line is 11.4 miles long (including track shared with other rail lines). Metro is talking about $2 billion for 20 miles of NEW track. Sounds like Houston's getting a deal.

[TheNiche]

I agree. Those that complain about the cost of rail are against rail anyway...even if it only cost half a million. What some of the people need to do is do a little traveling outside of Houston to places with extensive rail lines like Chicago, NY, DC, & Europe. Once you've enjoyed the efficient method of transport that is rail then you will fall in love with it and demand it for Houston.

I belive that's the dirty little secret behind all the opposition and delay (and Delay for that matter) to rail in Houston is they know that once people try it they will want it. They're not stupid. I've always thought the smarter move would have been to build rail to downtown from the far off suburbs like Katy, Spring, Woodlands, Sugarland, Pearland etc. That would have built political support where it really matters; the wealthy suburbanites. Of course, I realize that they had to build the 1st train where they did inside the loop because of Congressional opposition from those very suburbs.

To dismiss the concerns of people over the extraordinary cost of light rail on the basis of that they are against it and are therefore your opposition...I'm sorry...that's absurd. It is a circumstantial ad hominem, and it is also just plain wrong. If light rail were so inexpensive as $500k for several miles at a time, I'd be for the massive implementation of it on a huge scale, much more extensively than METRO has ever proposed. As it stands, the cost makes it infeasible except in a very narrow set of circumstances. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have benefit, just that it isn't worth it.

Incidentally, though, I only live a half mile from light rail but never use it to go downtown because I can get there in my car in half the time. A vehicle that averages 19mph and obstructs vehicular traffic flow in the process is not efficient. My complaints about Houston's light rail are rooted not only in the cost, but in that local implementation is poor. The technology is not inherently flawed, however.

[jb4647]

I remember once there was a report about the number and amount of money donated to Tom Delay's campaign fund by auto dealers, manufacturers, and road construction companies, most notably concrete companies. I always figured that was the reason he did everything in his power to stymie mass transit in Houston.

I believe you're right about that. He and Culberson don't put that much effort into anything unless there is $$ behind it. Sort of like what Blago said about that IL Senate seat: "....it's a valuable thing, you don't give it away for nothing!"

I tell you, no one wants to mess with the Texas Automobile Dealers Association. I did some research a few yrs back about the repeal of Texas' blue laws around 1985. The only industry that got an exemption was the Automobile Dealers. To this day, they can only be open on Sat OR Sun but not both. This limits the amount of time most ordinary folks looking for a car have to shop and negotiate a good deal (either after a long day at work or one of two days on the weekend). The Texas Automobile Dealers Association paid a flurfload of $$ to the state legistature to put that exemption in.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...820709cv00.html

[TheNiche]

As a point of interest -- The CTA (Chicago) just spent $1 BILLION rehabbing the Brown Line. The Brown Line is 11.4 miles long (including track shared with other rail lines). Metro is talking about $2 billion for 20 miles of NEW track. Sounds like Houston's getting a deal.

This is a point of interest, and one that was pertinent to the story. The Chicago comparison is probably not apples-to-apples. There are a lot of different ways to calculate capital and/or operating costs. The story about METRO's cost estimates was too vague about that, and it is hard to say exactly what all was included or not included in the earlier figures or these figures. So I actually am willing to give METRO the benefit of the doubt on this--for now.

[Jax]

Incidentally, though, I only live a half mile from light rail but never use it to go downtown because I can get there in my car in half the time.

I live half a mile from the light rail and I use it every day, but that is because it's expensive to park in the Medical Center and I'm on a tight budget, and it's faster even with the fact that the train stops to get to my lab by rail rather than driving through traffic and parking and paying $10. And I use the train to go downtown as well but mostly to bars or movies or the park (discovery green) and festivals (international fest) and sports events Maybe I'm weird but I enjoy walking and not having to park, even if it does take 5 minutes longer than driving.

Keep in mind that cars stop at traffic lights too so the average speed of your car has to be similar to the light rail (or maybe less if you include driving up a parking garage in your average).

[editor]

This is a point of interest, and one that was pertinent to the story. The Chicago comparison is probably not apples-to-apples. There are a lot of different ways to calculate capital and/or operating costs. The story about METRO's cost estimates was too vague about that, and it is hard to say exactly what all was included or not included in the earlier figures or these figures. So I actually am willing to give METRO the benefit of the doubt on this--for now.

I wasn't talking about operating costs. Just construction.

In Chicago, it was roughly $1 billion to repair 10 miles of track.

In Houston, Mero's talking roughly $1 billion to build 10 miles of new track.

It's not apples-to-apples in a number of ways including the fact that the Brown Line in Chicago is elevated while I assume Metro's line will be at street level. None of us are transit engineers who can parse that kind of detail.

I'm merely comparing the fact that for the same price that Chicago got 10 miles of refurbished track, Houston's getting 10 miles of new track. So it does not appear, as the original poster declares, that Metro is up to "no good."

[TheNiche]

I live half a mile from the light rail and I use it every day, but that is because it's expensive to park in the Medical Center and I'm on a tight budget, and it's faster even with the fact that the train stops to get to my lab by rail rather than driving through traffic and parking and paying $10. And I use the train to go downtown as well but mostly to bars or movies or the park (discovery green) and festivals (international fest) and sports events Maybe I'm weird but I enjoy walking and not having to park, even if it does take 5 minutes longer than driving.

Keep in mind that cars stop at traffic lights too so the average speed of your car has to be similar to the light rail (or maybe less if you include driving up a parking garage in your average).

Depending on what part of downtown I'm trying to reach, and on the time of day, I either take Almeda or just hop onto 288. Either of those routes allow good long stretches without traffic signals. Walking isn't very appealing over very long distances, especially if I'm wearing work clothes or carrying anything of significant weight and/or value. One of my neighbors got robbed at gunpoint just recently while walking his dog over on Holly Hall much closer to the tracks and crime is chronically elevated along Main Street.

Even when I drive parallel to the light rail, I consistently outrun it...and by no small margin, either. When METRO first started running the Red Line and still had buses running alongside it, even they outran the light rail.

[TheNiche]

I wasn't talking about operating costs. Just construction.

In Chicago, it was roughly $1 billion to repair 10 miles of track.

In Houston, Mero's talking roughly $1 billion to build 10 miles of new track.

It's not apples-to-apples in a number of ways including the fact that the Brown Line in Chicago is elevated while I assume Metro's line will be at street level. None of us are transit engineers who can parse that kind of detail.

I'm merely comparing the fact that for the same price that Chicago got 10 miles of refurbished track, Houston's getting 10 miles of new track. So it does not appear, as the original poster declares, that Metro is up to "no good."

Government cost accounting involves more than just the bottom line, and different agencies (and even different users within the same agency) use different methods for different purposes. I am disputing the Dollar amounts cited; the differing engineering specifications are a wholly separate matter from what I was talking about, albeit admittedly very pertinent to the discussion.

Also, if METRO's cost estimates really have become this inflated, then they do need to be held accountable for having previously underestimated the costs by such a large margin. One of the ongoing problems I cite about METRO is the lack of accountability and oversight, and while I am giving them the benefit of the doubt--for now--if the allegations are true, then it would fit with the pattern of poor implementation and poor communication that I've been critical of in the past.

[JamesL]

While the cost discrepancies merit an explanation from METRO, I wouldn't assume they're up to no good. There are a few possible explanations I see:

1) The contracts are design-build-operate-maintain. The FTA number could include money already spent on planning and design and maybe operating costs for a few years.

2) The city is getting a ton of new infrastructure out of the deal with METRO. METRO is paring for new sewer and water lines along the routes as well as rebuilt streets and sidewalks, and all of this inflates the total cost of the project. These are costs the city would otherwise have to bear sooner rather than later since much of the infrastructure is nearing the end of its lifespan.

And Niche, now that they have the signal timing down there is no way a bus can out run a train. The 1-Hospital takes 23 minutes or so from Preston to MacGregor. METRORail takes 16 minutes and both are similarly direct.

[musicman]

A couple of things I find interesting about this report:

No one else is reporting this.

it was on 13 yesterday. the guy in the story was speaking before city council and wanted answers to the discrepancies.

[editor]

I am disputing the Dollar amounts cited.

Based on what? It's a fact that the report said $2 billion for both lines. It's a fact that Metro plans approximately 20 miles. It's a fact that $1 billion was spent rehabbing the ~10 miles of CTA Brown line. What's to dispute? Are you asking for links to the Brown Line total? I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

Try this link for a little clarity. (Danger! Sarcastic link!)

[musicman]

While the cost discrepancies merit an explanation from METRO, I wouldn't assume they're up to no good. There are a few possible explanations I see:

1) The contracts are design-build-operate-maintain. The FTA number could include money already spent on planning and design and maybe operating costs for a few years.

2) The city is getting a ton of new infrastructure out of the deal with METRO. METRO is paring for new sewer and water lines along the routes as well as rebuilt streets and sidewalks, and all of this inflates the total cost of the project. These are costs the city would otherwise have to bear sooner rather than later since much of the infrastructure is nearing the end of its lifespan.

the explanation metro gave on 13 was that the FTA letter included costs for railcars needed for the future or something similar.

[TheNiche]

Based on what? It's a fact that the report said $2 billion for both lines. It's a fact that Metro plans approximately 20 miles. It's a fact that $1 billion was spent rehabbing the ~10 miles of CTA Brown line. What's to dispute? Are you asking for links to the Brown Line total? I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

Try this link for a little clarity. (Danger! Sarcastic link!)

I was perfectly clear before, but it was my mistake and I must take responsibility for having incorrectly expected someone who works in the media to be capable of understanding or reporting something so moderately complex.

[totheskies]

To dismiss the concerns of people over the extraordinary cost of light rail on the basis of that they are against it and are therefore your opposition...I'm sorry...that's absurd. It is a circumstantial ad hominem, and it is also just plain wrong. If light rail were so inexpensive as $500k for several miles at a time, I'd be for the massive implementation of it on a huge scale, much more extensively than METRO has ever proposed. As it stands, the cost makes it infeasible except in a very narrow set of circumstances. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have benefit, just that it isn't worth it.

Incidentally, though, I only live a half mile from light rail but never use it to go downtown because I can get there in my car in half the time. A vehicle that averages 19mph and obstructs vehicular traffic flow in the process is not efficient. My complaints about Houston's light rail are rooted not only in the cost, but in that local implementation is poor. The technology is not inherently flawed, however.

It sounds like you ARE one of the people that wouldn't use the new rail lines... you don't use the current one. Please expound on the "very narrow set of circumstances" that would exclude the METRORail lines to be unfeasible in terms of cost.

Houston is a growing city and metropolis, and happens to be growing around these planned corridors. More people means more activity... more activity means an increased need for various transit options. Considering the fact that we documented the phenomenon known as "rail bias" to a fault on this forum, building new rail lines in growing population corridors seems pretty feasible to me.

[VicMan]

I like having the MetroRail because I don't like the idea of paying money for parking in Downtown or the Medical Center. When I go Downtown to explore the area or to take photos of stuff I park near the Smith Lands Station and take the MetroRail to Downtown.

Also at times I use the train to go to the bus station to take the bus to the city where I attend university.

[TheNiche]

It sounds like you ARE one of the people that wouldn't use the new rail lines... you don't use the current one. Please expound on the "very narrow set of circumstances" that would exclude the METRORail lines to be unfeasible in terms of cost.

Houston is a growing city and metropolis, and happens to be growing around these planned corridors. More people means more activity... more activity means an increased need for various transit options. Considering the fact that we documented the phenomenon known as "rail bias" to a fault on this forum, building new rail lines in growing population corridors seems pretty feasible to me.

A feasible project must satisfy two conditions: 1) it must have a long-term present value benefit that exceeds the long-term present value of the cost, and 2) as considered among a portfolio of mutually-exclusive alternatives, it must yield the highest internal rate of return. And I'm talking economics, here, not finance; I'm not suggesting that a transit system has to pay for itself as though it were a private enterprise. This is about maximizing benefit to the public, whether it ultimately means taxing them more or letting them hold on to their money to decide for themselves what they'd like to use it on. This system of cost-benefit analysis is actually quite socialistic in nature, but it works rather elegantly. I won't go into the details of measurement and evaluation because there's just too much ground to cover, but I would suggest Cost Benefit Analysis by E.J. Mishan as reccommended reading. It's out of print so you'll have to buy it used, but there's no better resource on the subject.

I would posit that the portion of the Red Line between downtown and the Smithlands lot in the Texas Medical Center as well as the portion of the University Line that is west of the Red Line, connecting Greenway Plaza and Uptown are all viable as some kind of high-capacity transit corridors. Several mutually-alternative technologies are no doubt feasible, ranging from Signature Bus service to BRT to Light Rail. Several mutually-exclusive alignments are also no doubt feasible, and along each alignment, there are no doubt hundreds of mutually-exclusive combinations of station locations, grade-separations, and other engineering details that are also feasible. Among these myriad options, it is a matter of developing an effective commuter model describing the impact to the transportation system...including pedestrians, local bus riders, P&R riders, high-capacity transit users, carpoolers, and single-occupant autos, and then evaluating which of the many alternatives are the best.

The problems, as I see them, are that METRO has a myopic worldview towards light rail--and the FTA is in large part to blame for it, as their funding analysis largely ignores the impact of at-grade light rail to other kinds of commuters. The very high cost of light rail is not conducive to running it to relatively low-demand areas without much congestion such as the East End, Northline Mall, Palm Center, or to Reliant Park. I have no doubt that a superior plan at the same cost would be to run Signature Bus or BRT to these lower-demand areas (and possibly beyond, to Hobby Airport for instance), and to use the savings to improve service or mitigate externalities of light rail (for instance by way of grade separations) in the areas that I've identified as most suitable for high-capacity transit...which are plagued by congestion such as discourages further densification in those areas.

[JJVilla]

NPV, IRR and PVR are great ways to assess the value of possible projects but not worth anything if not applied to competing projects. The arguement of rail opposition (or public projects that people oppose) is that it doesn't add value or in this case have a good NPV. Since freeways, roads and their other pet projects have such high NPV then they have a point--wait they don't make money. At least with public transport you can charge for that service. Hey I love my car as much as anybody else but this general opposing arguement is something that I find baffling when comparing value of rail to more freeways or worse toll roads that double tax us.

[TheNiche]

NPV, IRR and PVR are great ways to assess the value of possible projects but not worth anything if not applied to competing projects. The arguement of rail opposition (or public projects that people oppose) is that it doesn't add value or in this case have a good NPV. Since freeways, roads and their other pet projects have such high NPV then they have a point--wait they don't make money. At least with public transport you can charge for that service. Hey I love my car as much as anybody else but this general opposing arguement is something that I find baffling when comparing value of rail to more freeways or worse toll roads that double tax us.

I'm not sure that you understand the concepts involved, here. Go back and read through my post (especially the first paragraph) one more time and see if you want to retract anything. Any questions or criticism that remain, I'll be glad to provide feedback for.

[JJVilla]

I'm not sure that you understand the concepts involved, here. Go back and read through my post (especially the first paragraph) one more time and see if you want to retract anything. Any questions or criticism that remain, I'll be glad to provide feedback for.

There's a reason I didn't quote you because I was stating a general idea that people have when opposing mass transit (light rail in this case). One of the main, simplistic arguements against implementing this and related projects is of that they are of no use or add no value. It's a fact that freeways don't make any money and we can't pave our way out of the traffic mess we're headings towards (assumming cheap, safe oil is still available in the next couple of decades).

Btw, just because one writes or talk less about a subject it doesn't mean one knows less. Plus, what's so complicated about NPV and IRR anyway? I agree with you that as Americans we have to consider the added value but all mass transit and transportations projects require high CAPEX (along with variable costs) and I agree that's not the only consideration.

Anyway the main point is that we need to diversify our transportation options and it's time to catch up to the rest of the world or at least Dallas (in mass transit sense). I am not saying that light rail will eliminate all of our mass transit/traffic problems just add to one of the tools to reduce the burden. Plus I work for an oil & gas company so if you want to keep the gasoline/diesel/"hybrid" car or natual gas powered bus as your options for transportation then I'm not against it either. It would actually benefit me more (in a general sense) to go about in business-as-usual mode but this is beside the point.