$200 Million for Metro Rail in Obama's proposed 2012 budget

[editor]

PRESIDENT’S BUDGET INCLUDES MAJOR FUNDING FOR METRO

$50 MILLION MORE THAN LAST PROPOSED BUDGET

Signaling its support for Houston’s light-rail projects, President Obama’s FY2012 proposed budget includes $200 million in New Starts funds for construction of METRO’s North and Southeast lines.

The budget includes a $50 million boost compared to the past two fiscal budgets - $150 million proposed in FY2011 and another $150 million included in FY2010.

“We see this as a vote of confidence,” said METRO President & CEO George Greanias. “We think the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and others are seeing the progress we are making at METRO and that Houston’s work merits priority treatment.”

Ongoing efforts by Houston-area Congressional leaders have been key in advancing these rail projects and helping METRO stay on track to receive $900 million in federal funds for the North and Southeast lines.

“We are pleased that other people are seeing the progress that the NEW METRO is making,” said METRO Chairman Gilbert Garcia. “We are excited about this proposed budget. It goes a long way towards putting Houston’s mobility on the right track.”

[samagon]

where was that post/thread that funding was being removed for LR?

easy go, easy come?

glad to see there's a push to keep the funding, I think it's pretty obvious that the rails are going to keep going in, it's just a question of how much is paid for by local, state, or national government.

[ricco67]

where was that post/thread that funding was being removed for LR?

easy go, easy come?

glad to see there's a push to keep the funding, I think it's pretty obvious that the rails are going to keep going in, it's just a question of how much is paid for by local, state, or national government.

I'm not sure if that would be the case. In another article, it was mentioned how it would actually cost MORE if the funding stopped. While there was some uproar about that on chron.com about that, I'd agree because things would have to be moved around, removed, or paved so it doesn't look like we have miles of half-assed construction.

[samagon]

I'm not sure if that would be the case. In another article, it was mentioned how it would actually cost MORE if the funding stopped. While there was some uproar about that on chron.com about that, I'd agree because things would have to be moved around, removed, or paved so it doesn't look like we have miles of half-assed construction.

I was going off the assumption that the costs to stop and go back to the way things were would cost more than continuing on, so it would be silly (and I was making a big assumption that the city wouldn't be silly) to say "oh gosh, we lost funding, lets just cover all these holes and forget this ever happened"

I mean, when you break it down, the money (whether it comes from national government, local government, or bailing out Metro with more local funding) is still going to be traced back to our pockets.

[ricco67]

I was going off the assumption that the costs to stop and go back to the way things were would cost more than continuing on, so it would be silly (and I was making a big assumption that the city wouldn't be silly) to say "oh gosh, we lost funding, lets just cover all these holes and forget this ever happened"

I mean, when you break it down, the money (whether it comes from national government, local government, or bailing out Metro with more local funding) is still going to be traced back to our pockets.

I've been pondering what would it take for Metro to get it's full share instead of splitting it up.