METRO's November 6, 2012 Ballot to Expand Bus Service and Reduce Debt

[TheNiche]

Here's some anecdotal evidence: I lived downtown and took it every day because paying $13 to park is absurd. No HOV lanes or carpools went from my house to the Med Center. I talked to a lot of other Med Center employees on the train who were in the practice of parking downtown (not at park and ride lots) and riding the train.

But why bother, when the post I was responding to wasn't making the right points? I addressed what he provided, which was pretty flimsy.

If you lived downtown, then you could've caught one of a myriad of bus routes to the TMC if those routes still ran. So could the TMC employees parking downtown for some reason. There are better guerrilla commuting tactics in this city.

And yeah, this whole string of debate has been pretty flimsy.

[TheNiche]

You're wrong niche. People in those areas need transit more than us because for many of them the price of driving is not affordable or even an option. That's why the red line should've gone far south of where it goes now. But who cares about poor people right?

If transit is for poor people, then we should be subsidizing their auto loans. Academic studies show that low-skilled people with cars are more employable than people without cars. This is the sort of thing that helps them rise up out of poverty. Beyond that, I favor jitneys and buses in poor areas. They can stretch a finite transit budget in order to reach places that fixed-guideway transit cannot reach within reason.

[Ross]

You are in the minority. The majority of Houstonians want rail lines. Sorry.

Buses are not proven at all. Houston has historically had one of the lowest public transit ridership in the country. A lot of people think a line connecting the TMC and Downtown is useful. And your last statement makes no sense at all. How are your trips affected by light rail if your trips never go anywhere where rail goes?

I make a number of trips that cross the light rail lines. All of the rail lines block cross traffic. Downtown is less annoying because all the cross streets still work, but outside of Downtown, cars have to go blocks out of the way to cross the rail.

Of course, I would probably be less critical of Metro if a staffer had not told me to my face I was too stupid to understand transit issues at a public meeting some years ago.

[kylejack]

If you lived downtown, then you could've caught one of a myriad of bus routes to the TMC if those routes still ran.

But that has nothing to do with the statement, "It doesn't go anywhere useful." Clearly it does, just not useful to Ross.

[TheNiche]

But that has nothing to do with the statement, "It doesn't go anywhere useful." Clearly it does, just not useful to Ross.

Well sure, but I was addressing the part of his statement that indicated that LRT was personally inconvenient to him.

[RedScare]

Of course, I would probably be less critical of Metro if a staffer had not told me to my face I was too stupid to understand transit issues at a public meeting some years ago.

Hmm. I wonder why he would say that?

[IHB2]

You're wrong niche. People in those areas need transit more than us because for many of them the price of driving is not affordable or even an option. That's why the red line should've gone far south of where it goes now. But who cares about poor people right?

you and mfstx continue to post opinions that imply you do not believe METRO has been an effective public transit agency, and the Red Line was never subject to the politics specific to the Solutions Plan failures, so Culberson and Afton Oaks can't take the blame for its alignment or for the reduction in bus service that occurred to feed passengers to it. and still you advocate for more tax $$$ for this agency w/o ever arguing for doing whatever is necessary to build a competent transit agency.

[Houston19514]

It has high ridership per mile because there are so few miles of it and because it has been positioned in between truncated bus and shuttle routes and peoples' final destinations. It was the low-hanging fruit. There is no evidence to conclude that a large proportion of ridership would have driven alone to work rather than utilizing public transit or carpooling (on METRO-sponsored HOV lanes).

Actually, yes there is such evidence. I think it's something like 40% of the rail ridership is new transit ridership.

[RedScare]

Actually, yes there is such evidence. I think it's something like 40% of the rail ridership is new transit ridership.

Not only that, but frankly, I have never once seen the evidence that proves the existence of the "truncated bus line" conspiracy. Certainly, some bus routes were rerouted off Main Street, as METRO's and the City's intentions were to clean up Main Street. However, I do not know of a single bus route that dead ends into the rail line. There are literally dozens of bus routes that run north on San Jacinto, Travis and Louisiana, and south on Fannin, Milam, and Smith. There are east-west routes on 12 separate downtown streets. But, they all run through downtown, not end there.

The "truncated bus line" theory began as a supposed conspiracy by METRO to inflate rail ridership numbers. It was big on conservative blogs. But, I've never seen anyone produce before and after route maps that prove the conspiracy. Anyone?

Here is the Downtown bus map to begin...

http://www.ridemetro...closeup-map.pdf

[kylejack]

Not only that, but frankly, I have never once seen the evidence that proves the existence of the "truncated bus line" conspiracy. Certainly, some bus routes were rerouted off Main Street, as METRO's and the City's intentions were to clean up Main Street. However, I do not know of a single bus route that dead ends into the rail line.

The only one I know of is 25 Richmond, which used to come into downtown but now terminates at Wheeler Station. Others stayed roughly the same, including 1 Hospital and 81/82 Westheimer.

[RedScare]

Yeah, 1 Hospital is my exhibit #1 to the urban mythsters. Not only does it not truncate into the rail, it literally parallels the rail line all the way from north of downtown to the Med Center! If your conspiracy is to bump rail numbers by forcing bus riders onto the train, this is absolutely the first bus route to truncate!

[Slick Vik]

If transit is for poor people, then we should be subsidizing their auto loans. Academic studies show that low-skilled people with cars are more employable than people without cars. This is the sort of thing that helps them rise up out of poverty. Beyond that, I favor jitneys and buses in poor areas. They can stretch a finite transit budget in order to reach places that fixed-guideway transit cannot reach within reason.

Do you consult for major auto companies?

[Ross]

Hmm. I wonder why he would say that?

She, and it was after I asked why Metro had not commented on the potential for rail from the suburbs before constructing light rail Downtown. All I wanted was to know if Metro had considered the issue and had any policy statements. A link to a website would have been fine. The staffer looked at me, and said something to the effect of "I am not going to waste my time explaining the importance of light rail to someone who is obviously ignorant of the complications of transit policy and how important it is that light rail Downtown be built before any other projects can be considered". She then stomped off. Given that her job was to explain that sort of thing to the people who pay her salary, I was pretty mad. And still am, to some extent, since I think Metro is doing an exceedingly poor job of managing, designing, and implementing light rail projects.

[mfastx]

Rail disrupts signal timing if you drive past it, within or between the places where rail goes. That is pretty annoying, IMO.

I'll grant you that Ross' statements were fairly bombastic; its just the responses to him haven't been much better, though.

Alright I get it. It's a valid point for sure. Honestly though in my experience buses have gotten in my way much more than rail has. In my experience, both modes have gotten in my way.

I make a number of trips that cross the light rail lines. All of the rail lines block cross traffic. Downtown is less annoying because all the cross streets still work, but outside of Downtown, cars have to go blocks out of the way to cross the rail.

Of course, I would probably be less critical of Metro if a staffer had not told me to my face I was too stupid to understand transit issues at a public meeting some years ago.

That's pretty bad that they told you that. Although I don't think that you should just say something like "rail is a waste of money, etc." because I feel like you haven't really studied transit. In a lot of cases, rail works great. And it works great in a lot of other cities. If you are serious about improving public transit, then rail is worth a look. The one line we have works great.

you and mfstx continue to post opinions that imply you do not believe METRO has been an effective public transit agency, and the Red Line was never subject to the politics specific to the Solutions Plan failures, so Culberson and Afton Oaks can't take the blame for its alignment or for the reduction in bus service that occurred to feed passengers to it. and still you advocate for more tax $$$ for this agency w/o ever arguing for doing whatever is necessary to build a competent transit agency.

The Red Line was built with local funds, correct. If I do recall correctly though METRO intended to apply for federal grants. I cannot really comment on it much further however, but from what I understand I do believe that politicians prevented METRO from getting federal funding in any way for the Red Line. So mayor Brown made the decision to build it with local funds.

I do not think the reduction in bus service directly correlates to the Red Line. As mentioned above, the only line I notice that was shortened was the 25. Other lines were just moved a street or two over IIRC.

I do recognize that METRO has had many faults. However that doesn't mean that rail is not a good transit solution for certain corridors. I don't think people should be opposed to a project, say, like the University Line because METRO has had some faults. Connecting Uptown and Greenway Plaza is a damn good idea and a rail line through there would be well utilized, even an at-grade one.

[kylejack]

Delay and Culberson were very active in trying to stop any rail construction by Metro. I got the impression that our imperfect light rail system was meant to be a starter system just to get the ball rolling, since there was so much obstruction.

[IHB2]

I do recognize that METRO has had many faults. However that doesn't mean that rail is not a good transit solution for certain corridors. I don't think people should be opposed to a project, say, like the University Line because METRO has had some faults.

what good is a good solution if it is not implemented well?

if you haven't already guessed I am not anti-rail, I am anti-METRO's past management competence and anti-giving a single dime more to what is essentially the same agency, with the only changes coming in the board and CEO. the same execs that have been screwing up for years are all still there.

the board is new and relatively inexperienced, the CEO had never worked in transit before, and the same bureaucrats are still in charge of the daily operations.

it does not inspire confidence that giving the same people 2.1 BILLION more dollars over the next decade will lead to a better public transit system.

[mfastx]

what good is a good solution if it is not implemented well?

if you haven't already guessed I am not anti-rail, I am anti-METRO's past management competence and anti-giving a single dime more to what is essentially the same agency, with the only changes coming in the board and CEO. the same execs that have been screwing up for years are all still there.

the board is new and relatively inexperienced, the CEO had never worked in transit before, and the same bureaucrats are still in charge of the daily operations.

it does not inspire confidence that giving the same people 2.1 BILLION more dollars over the next decade will lead to a better public transit system.

What do you mean exactly by "implemented well?"

Once the infrastructure is in place, implementing it well is the easy part. Things like signal timings, frequencies, and other minor issues can always be fine-tuned and fixed.

Even though the current proposal is mostly at grade, it is still miles and miles better than what we have. Are your concerns with construction?

While the current administration has no experience, the previous administration (who were the ones who came up with the plans for the line) did. Even though they were crooks, lol, they still had experience.

Anyway, I guess it's a moot point, since it doesn't look like the University Line will be built under the current administration anyways. Let's see how they do with more funding for the bus system.

[MetroMogul]

Not only that, but frankly, I have never once seen the evidence that proves the existence of the "truncated bus line" conspiracy. Certainly, some bus routes were rerouted off Main Street, as METRO's and the City's intentions were to clean up Main Street. However, I do not know of a single bus route that dead ends into the rail line. There are literally dozens of bus routes that run north on San Jacinto, Travis and Louisiana, and south on Fannin, Milam, and Smith. There are east-west routes on 12 separate downtown streets. But, they all run through downtown, not end there.

The "truncated bus line" theory began as a supposed conspiracy by METRO to inflate rail ridership numbers. It was big on conservative blogs. But, I've never seen anyone produce before and after route maps that prove the conspiracy. Anyone?

Here is the Downtown bus map to begin...

http://www.ridemetro...closeup-map.pdf

The 2 - Bellaire (the busiest route in Houston), 4 - Beechnut, 8 - S. Main, 15 (now the 14) - Hiram Clarke, 25 - Richmond, 65 - Bissonnet, and the 132 - Harwin Express were all truncated to feed into the rail line. With the exception of the 132 these were all high ridership lines, though over the years that ridership has declined, in some cases significantly. But it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. And the reason the 1 - Hospital comes so readily to mind is because it's the only bus that parallels the rail line from the Medical Center to downtown Houston. The 53/81/82 escaped the truncation because they did not spill into a rail station like the aforementioned routes. The same goes for the 9 - Gulfton, 11 - Almeda, 52 - Hirsch, 60 - S. MacGregor and the 78 - Alabama.

This is all pretty common knowledge for those of us who ride the bus. It just goes to show you the people who shout the loudest on one side or the other on public transportation issues have little hands on experience with actual public transportation.

And one more thing; the 1 - Hospital was not truncated most likely due to it's unique nature; it serves various hospitals across town, hence it's name. It couldn't survive any sort of truncation because it's purpose is to be a through route from the northside hospitals to the TMC.

And yet ANOTHER thing, the demise of the popular downtown trolley service was a result of Metro trying to shoehorn each route into one of the downtown LRT stations. The reroutes (a Bell St. trolley, really?) combined with a .50 fare (for worse service) and no free transfer to local buses sent ridership into a free fall. Eventually the services were cut altogether.

[MetroMogul]

I don't know anyone who uses the train.

COME ON

[kylejack]

This is all pretty common knowledge for those of us who ride the bus. It just goes to show you the people who shout the loudest on one side or the other on public transportation issues have little hands on experience with actual public transportation.

I'm a shouter, and I ride daily. I don't want rail developed instead of bus, I think we should develop both.

And yet ANOTHER thing, the demise of the popular downtown trolley service was a result of Metro trying to shoehorn each route into one of the downtown LRT stations. The reroutes (a Bell St. trolley, really?) combined with a .50 fare (for worse service) and no free transfer to local buses sent ridership into a free fall. Eventually the services were cut altogether.

Downtown trolley service has now returned as Greenlink.

[MetroMogul]

The Greenlink is nice. And free. The little buses are charming. Metro needs to invest in those for low ridership lines instead of using old paratransit buses.

But the Greenlink service doesn't come close to matching the old trolleys or the Texas Special routes that came before them.

[mfastx]

The 2 - Bellaire (the busiest route in Houston), 4 - Beechnut, 8 - S. Main, 15 (now the 14) - Hiram Clarke, 25 - Richmond, 65 - Bissonnet, and the 132 - Harwin Express were all truncated to feed into the rail line. With the exception of the 132 these were all high ridership lines, though over the years that ridership has declined, in some cases significantly. But it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. And the reason the 1 - Hospital comes so readily to mind is because it's the only bus that parallels the rail line from the Medical Center to downtown Houston. The 53/81/82 escaped the truncation because they did not spill into a rail station like the aforementioned routes. The same goes for the 9 - Gulfton, 11 - Almeda, 52 - Hirsch, 60 - S. MacGregor and the 78 - Alabama.

Are there any old maps that show these routes pre-2004? And where are you getting your ridership numbers for specific routes? I believe I've seen individual route ridership numbers for last year, but don't remember seeing them for the last 10 years.

This is all pretty common knowledge for those of us who ride the bus. It just goes to show you the people who shout the loudest on one side or the other on public transportation issues have little hands on experience with actual public transportation.

I rode the bus for years but I rode it shortly after METRORail opened. I have traveled a lot and always use local public transportation to get around.

That being said, I think that having a few high capacity rail lines to more efficiently carry larger groups of people between employment centers is just as important as having a good bus system.

[IHB2]

What do you mean exactly by "implemented well?"

there is a plan. it is approved. it costs a lot of money. the plan has an implementation schedule with promised completion dates.

that schedule is not only not met, but the cost triples and the federal government finds evidence of illegal activity on the part of management. finally the most essential parts of the plan are scrapped several years after the promised completion date for lack of funds and lack of agreement among the parties for any way to move forward.

that's what I mean.

[mfastx]

there is a plan. it is approved. it costs a lot of money. the plan has an implementation schedule with promised completion dates.

that schedule is not only not met, but the cost triples and the federal government finds evidence of illegal activity on the part of management. finally the most essential parts of the plan are scrapped several years after the promised completion date for lack of funds and lack of agreement among the parties for any way to move forward.

that's what I mean.

Trust me, I'm just as upset as anyone that 1) the economy screwed everything up and 2) METRO leadership screwed it up even more.

Although I do think that even though things are delayed, every effort should be made to finish off phase I of the plan. The extra $200 million towards METRO will help towards that goal. We will see if that money will go to providing new service as the 2003 referendum dictates, or if it will simply bolster the existing system.

The rail portion of the plan still needs to be built.

[IHB2]

Trust me, I'm just as upset as anyone that 1) the economy screwed everything up and 2) METRO leadership screwed it up even more...The rail portion of the plan still needs to be built.

According to the METRO Board after Friday's vote, specifically Garcia and Spieler, this referendum will NOT result in the completion of "the rail portion of the plan" even if the "NOs" win and METRO gets the full penny sales tax.

[Pleak]

The economy screwing everything up is a completely false arguement. If anything, the economy tanking should have helped Metro implement the plan, not bungle it. Over the last several years, entities that had capital projects already approved and funds for them found out when they went bid them that the bids were all coming in significantly lower than was forecast. They had substantial funds left over for additional capital projects.

Yes the cost of raw materials was up due to foreign demand, but labor is less fungible and contractors and suppliers domestically were dying for work and willing to destroy their margins to keep working. I know this first hand as I used to work for a fairly large domestic concrete producer. I now own some very expensive ESPP toilet paper in said producer once it went belly up. They were hurting for any job - commercial, government, etc and margins crashed.

Even the worlds biggest concrete producer - US operations located here (CEMEX) narrowly avoided the same fate. If Metro could not take advantage of the bidding process in an environment such as this, I think this would be a textbook definition of "not implemented well".

[mfastx]

According to the METRO Board after Friday's vote, specifically Garcia and Spieler, this referendum will NOT result in the completion of "the rail portion of the plan" even if the "NOs" win and METRO gets the full penny sales tax.

I watched the whole board meeting and it was only clear that a "yes" vote would prevent construction of the University Line. They never even talked about what would happen in a "no" vote. Can you elaborate on what they said exactly?

The economy screwing everything up is a completely false arguement. If anything, the economy tanking should have helped Metro implement the plan, not bungle it. Over the last several years, entities that had capital projects already approved and funds for them found out when they went bid them that the bids were all coming in significantly lower than was forecast. They had substantial funds left over for additional capital projects.

IIRC, METRO was counting on some local funds (sales tax revenues) to help fund the rail lines. Those revenues came in much lower than METRO had projected in 2003.

[IHB2]

I watched the whole board meeting and it was only clear that a "yes" vote would prevent construction of the University Line. They never even talked about what would happen in a "no" vote. Can you elaborate on what they said exactly? IIRC, METRO was counting on some local funds (sales tax revenues) to help fund the rail lines. Those revenues came in much lower than METRO had projected in 2003.

from the chron article, these are quotes:

"I want that University line, but ultimately I can't get everything I want," Garcia said. "I am going to try to work hard to get what we need, and what we need now is to pay down that debt, get community support and increase ridership."

The University line, as outlined in the 2003 referendum, would run from the Hillcroft Transit Center to the Main Street line's Wheeler Station. Board member Christof Spieler cited the line's importance in explaining his lone "nay" in Friday's 8-1 vote.

"This proposal does not give enough money to transit," Spieler said, adding that politics had prevented better policy. "The reality is we have to operate within a political environment that we're given. Are there some bullies in this political environment? Yes. I'll leave it to the public to judge what happened."

Garcia qualifies his statement re no Univ Line, but Spieler's comment does not, and his own proposed ballot language did not include the bus restriction on the penny b/c METRO needs 100% of that penny + lots of fed funding that currently is not available if they want to build the Univ and Uptown Lines in the next 20 years.

[Pleak]

IIRC, METRO was counting on some local funds (sales tax revenues) to help fund the rail lines. Those revenues came in much lower than METRO had projected in 2003.

Which goes back to Niche's point on one of these many insanely long threads on Metro. His point was to build out the rail in the future when it was actually needed and the arguement against it was it would cost so much more. But the counter-arguement was that revenues (sales tax) would also rise in the future to offset the cost increase.

Yes, Metro may have had lower tax revenues than they initially projected (which if they had been implementing well - would have contingently planned for instead of being caught flat-footed), but the corresponding capital costs should have gone down as well during the same time as it has been a bad time for the construction industry the last few years.

Another question - was it really a dip in sales tax revenue so much that caused Metro's problems? Was it counting on additional federal funds that were blocked by ornery politicians?

I actually thought a large part of it was a gross miscalculation of how much the rail line were going to cost to construct.

Which one is the main reason?

[mfastx]

Garcia qualifies his statement re no Univ Line, but Spieler's comment does not, and his own proposed ballot language did not include the bus restriction on the penny b/c METRO needs 100% of that penny + lots of fed funding that currently is not available if they want to build the Univ and Uptown Lines in the next 20 years.

There is nothing in the quotes you provided (which I had already seen) that tells us that even in the case of a "no" vote, the University Line will not be built.

If METRO got the whole tax they would easily be able to afford half the cost of the line while the feds provided the other half. The feds intend on funding the line, if not they would have not given METRO a ROD on the University Line.