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

[Slick Vik]

You know the suburbanites would have a fit if Metro dared to run a non P&R ride bus through those areas "that get very little transit service." In the 80's Metro went crazy trying to run buses through every nook and cranny of the service area. There used to be local bus service in Clear Lake, Webster, and the other little communities bordering the bay, all operated by Metro. Ridership didn't justify the expenditure of dollars to operate the routes. But let's not act like Metro didn't try at one time.

People in the suburbs fear the possibility of blacks and mexicans riding around their neighborhoods.

[The Pragmatist]

Fair enough. It is bigger out there on the east side than it looked in that other map I found. But as far as my original statement "most" of Harris County, I think 70% would fairly qualify as "most" (and I'd bet it's higher than 70% on a population basis).

According to METRO, it looks to be about 83% of the county's population is in their service area.

http://www.ridemetro.org/AboutUs/Board/working_meetings/2011/Presentations/062311_Chairman_board_report.pdf

[kylejack]

According to METRO, it looks to be about 83% of the county's population is in their service area.

http://www.ridemetro...oard_report.pdf

Hm, a pretty optimistic outlook from Metro. When I lived in Spring I couldn't have reasonably got to Metro without a car. These days it would be a little easier with my bicycle, but they didn't offer bike racks at the time.

[ToryGattis]

Hm, a pretty optimistic outlook from Metro. When I lived in Spring I couldn't have reasonably got to Metro without a car. These days it would be a little easier with my bicycle, but they didn't offer bike racks at the time.

The service area is just their tax base (1% sales tax) they are allowed to serve - doesn't mean they actually serve all of it, especially the far suburbs - thus the debate on this thread and about the GMP.

[Pleak]

You know the suburbanites would have a fit if Metro dared to run a non P&R ride bus through those areas "that get very little transit service." In the 80's Metro went crazy trying to run buses through every nook and cranny of the service area. There used to be local bus service in Clear Lake, Webster, and the other little communities bordering the bay, all operated by Metro. Ridership didn't justify the expenditure of dollars to operate the routes. But let's not act like Metro didn't try at one time.

People in the suburbs fear the possibility of blacks and mexicans riding around their neighborhoods.

Yes, yes, yes. People in suburbs are nothing but ignorant racist nimbys.

Not at all like the enlightened worldy citizens-saints of the inner city.

You know:

The good people who don't want the riff-raff and crowds that will come with the 22 story buidling being built at Ashby and Bissonnet.

The good people who live in Afton Oaks who don't want MetroRail running thru their pristine neighborhood destorying the fabiric of their society with poor people. (i.e. blacks & hispanics)

The good people of the Heights who bemoan the loss of their grand ol' ways of life because of the atrocity of a Wal-Mart besmirching the fabric of their society and bringing in untold numbers of low-life. (i.e. poor, blacks, hispanics)

Or the building of an old folks home because it will ruin their perfect little world of jaunting down to a safe and sanitized "world market" experience and bring in hordes of cane-toting gang-bangers.

The good people of Midtown who are gnashing their teeth that a non-profit is moving in that will feed the hungry (and not even at that site) and bring in hordes of alcolholic stalkers who demand protection money. (i.e. mentally ill, homeless, poor people)

Especially the last two - the Heights and Midtown used to be full of minorities and poor people and nothing else because nobody wanted to live there. Then they were "discovered" - when were they lost again? - and people started pushing the minorites out. Only its a subtle thing - they call it gentrification - but it has the same effect. Everybody looks like everybody else and they are all the same socio-economic class and everybody is happy about their wonderful world.

But it's the suburbs who are racist.

[mfastx]

I'd just like to remind everyone since the point seems to have been ignored - METRO has invested a pretty damn good amount of money in the P&R system - which not only generates little ridership compared to the local routes, but it serves suburban areas.

The P&R system is great - and a lot more people could use it.

I have asked this many times but no one has provided an answer - what other major city takes a significant amount of money that's supposed to be deticated to transit.. and diverts it to roads??

And if that city exists, do they have a good transit system?

[Slick Vik]

Yes, yes, yes. People in suburbs are nothing but ignorant racist nimbys.

Not at all like the enlightened worldy citizens-saints of the inner city.

You know:

The good people who don't want the riff-raff and crowds that will come with the 22 story buidling being built at Ashby and Bissonnet.

The good people who live in Afton Oaks who don't want MetroRail running thru their pristine neighborhood destorying the fabiric of their society with poor people. (i.e. blacks & hispanics)

The good people of the Heights who bemoan the loss of their grand ol' ways of life because of the atrocity of a Wal-Mart besmirching the fabric of their society and bringing in untold numbers of low-life. (i.e. poor, blacks, hispanics)

Or the building of an old folks home because it will ruin their perfect little world of jaunting down to a safe and sanitized "world market" experience and bring in hordes of cane-toting gang-bangers.

The good people of Midtown who are gnashing their teeth that a non-profit is moving in that will feed the hungry (and not even at that site) and bring in hordes of alcolholic stalkers who demand protection money. (i.e. mentally ill, homeless, poor people)

Especially the last two - the Heights and Midtown used to be full of minorities and poor people and nothing else because nobody wanted to live there. Then they were "discovered" - when were they lost again? - and people started pushing the minorites out. Only its a subtle thing - they call it gentrification - but it has the same effect. Everybody looks like everybody else and they are all the same socio-economic class and everybody is happy about their wonderful world.

But it's the suburbs who are racist.

I agree it's not just the suburbs who are racist

[MetroMogul]

Doesn't change the fact that taxes are being collected without services provided. I guess they decided to swap heavily subsidized, underutilized and expensive bus service for the GMP. Even if Metro was still running the high-loss bus services instead, that money wouldn't be available for LRT.

But it's not Metro's job to fund their road repairs/expansion, especially if Metro buses aren't utilizing those roads.

Yes, yes, yes. People in suburbs are nothing but ignorant racist nimbys.

Not at all like the enlightened worldy citizens-saints of the inner city.

You know:

The good people who don't want the riff-raff and crowds that will come with the 22 story buidling being built at Ashby and Bissonnet.

The good people who live in Afton Oaks who don't want MetroRail running thru their pristine neighborhood destorying the fabiric of their society with poor people. (i.e. blacks & hispanics)

The good people of the Heights who bemoan the loss of their grand ol' ways of life because of the atrocity of a Wal-Mart besmirching the fabric of their society and bringing in untold numbers of low-life. (i.e. poor, blacks, hispanics)

Or the building of an old folks home because it will ruin their perfect little world of jaunting down to a safe and sanitized "world market" experience and bring in hordes of cane-toting gang-bangers.

The good people of Midtown who are gnashing their teeth that a non-profit is moving in that will feed the hungry (and not even at that site) and bring in hordes of alcolholic stalkers who demand protection money. (i.e. mentally ill, homeless, poor people)

Especially the last two - the Heights and Midtown used to be full of minorities and poor people and nothing else because nobody wanted to live there. Then they were "discovered" - when were they lost again? - and people started pushing the minorites out. Only its a subtle thing - they call it gentrification - but it has the same effect. Everybody looks like everybody else and they are all the same socio-economic class and everybody is happy about their wonderful world.

But it's the suburbs who are racist.

Why'd you quote me? I never hinted that these areas were racist. They just didn't utilize the provided bus service. But since we're on the subject now, I agree, your average suburbanite doesn't want "illegals" or "Obama supporters" (nice code words by the way) riding into their neighborhoods. I never understood that line of thinking though. Believe it or not, "thugs" drive so they could just drive into the neighborhood and clean out the place. Makes much more sense than riding unreliable Metro buses and trying to haul a 60' flat screen TV back to "da hood" via the same unreliable Metro service.

It's not limited to the suburbs or white people. I'm sure the new urbanites of all colors and creeds don't like Metro buses rumbling down their streets, but unfortunately for them, the buses, much like the freight trains they also loathe, were there first.

[Pleak]

People in the suburbs fear the possibility of blacks and mexicans riding around their neighborhoods.

This is why I quoted you. If you are not hinting that the suburbs are racist - what on earth are you hinting? Half the suburbs are full of minorities. Why would they not want themselves to drive around in their own neighborhoods? Why would they only fear two groups of people not like them being in their neighborhood if they were not harboring racist tendencies. That is definately what you are implying.

I was just pointing out that basically everybody is racist/bigoted. Every neighborhood wants everybody in it to be just like them and they start throwing up arguments/rules/defenses to keep the "others" out. Whether it is suburbs saying no to buses, the Heights throwing a hissy fit about Wal-Mart, ad nauseum.

By the way - what is an "average suburbanite" who doesn't like Obama supporters? Is it the black family living in Missouri City attending Windsor Village UMC on Sunday? Or maybe the black family in Pearland, or the hispanic family in Pasadena, or the hispanic family in Rosenberg? You seem to have a vision of the suburbs as a place of lily-white glowing faces that are all huddled in their living rooms around a KKK hood hiding from the roving brown invasion on public transportation. There might be some suburbs like that - but the reality is they are a big splattering of color. I think the real segregation comes is by income rather than by race. Things in the suburbs are definately segregated there - and that is by structural defination. But it also exists in the inner city.

[mfastx]

Pleak, I think you might have the wrong guy. You are quoting Slick Vik, not MetroMogul.

[Slick Vik]

This is why I quoted you. If you are not hinting that the suburbs are racist - what on earth are you hinting? Half the suburbs are full of minorities. Why would they not want themselves to drive around in their own neighborhoods? Why would they only fear two groups of people not like them being in their neighborhood if they were not harboring racist tendencies. That is definately what you are implying.

I was just pointing out that basically everybody is racist/bigoted. Every neighborhood wants everybody in it to be just like them and they start throwing up arguments/rules/defenses to keep the "others" out. Whether it is suburbs saying no to buses, the Heights throwing a hissy fit about Wal-Mart, ad nauseum.

By the way - what is an "average suburbanite" who doesn't like Obama supporters? Is it the black family living in Missouri City attending Windsor Village UMC on Sunday? Or maybe the black family in Pearland, or the hispanic family in Pasadena, or the hispanic family in Rosenberg? You seem to have a vision of the suburbs as a place of lily-white glowing faces that are all huddled in their living rooms around a KKK hood hiding from the roving brown invasion on public transportation. There might be some suburbs like that - but the reality is they are a big splattering of color. I think the real segregation comes is by income rather than by race. Things in the suburbs are definately segregated there - and that is by structural defination. But it also exists in the inner city.

You sound kind of defensive there. It's called white flight for a reason. They want avoid those who tend to be in poor areas, and in Houston that's blacks and Mexicans. I'm not going to sugar coat it. Of course there are other areas where this is prevalent too but the suburbs are one of these areas. But I do agree it's probably more economic and racial is an indirect side effect of that.

[j_cuevas713]

Just my two cents... Metro wouldn't agree to something without plans already in place to build the University and Uptown lines. It would be ridiculous to assume otherwise, plus look at how fast the other three lines are being built. I have a feeling they are speeding up construction to gain support before the vote.

[Pleak]

Pleak, I think you might have the wrong guy. You are quoting Slick Vik, not MetroMogul.

Post #91

[Pleak]

You sound kind of defensive there. It's called white flight for a reason. They want avoid those who tend to be in poor areas, and in Houston that's blacks and Mexicans. I'm not going to sugar coat it. Of course there are other areas where this is prevalent too but the suburbs are one of these areas. But I do agree it's probably more economic and racial is an indirect side effect of that.

Not defensive at all. Just annoyed about the standard answer that suburbs don't want transit because of the color of the riders and fear of them.

What suburbs want in transit is reliability and frequency and ease of use. That probably won't happen except for things like the P&R routes because it is not cost-effective to send a multiple train/bus/rickshaw/whatever route to most suburbs. So if you only have a couple of buses/trains a day or you have to make 3 transfers to get anywhere - no one is going to ride because it is just easier and more reliable and better use of time to just drive.

Suburbs in Houston won't get anything for years till the density is there. And there won't be any ridership till the above needs are met. It's a catch-22 for which there is no good answer.

[mfastx]

Post #91

Oh alright. For a second there it looked like you quoted Metro and not Slick, nevermind.

Carry on.

[ricco67]

Just thought I'd bump this a bit.

Things went a bit off topic, but I hope people would continue to debate it properly again.

[mfastx]

I'll be voting "no" (absentee ballot) because I want GM payments eliminated. But even in the unlikely event that a "no" vote passes, GM payments will most likely continue anyway. Really it's a pointless vote, and I hate that.

[Rehan]

Been working the polling place in Cypress (Cypress Top Park) this week. Only two people of the hundreds I have talked to have flat out said they were voting yes because they were afraid we (in uninc. Harris Co.) would be losing out in millions on local projects. I think the majority of people who have even just a little bit of good information on this (regardless if they are from in the loop or the suburbs) know the GMP are not the best way for our transit dollars to be spent. I'm sure the vote will be close, but I'm optimistic that common sense prevails in the end.

In response to mfastx - True. I'm sure Metro will continue the GMP on some scale. To me one of the big differences will be that light rail expansion will not be effectively shut down until 2025.

[ricco67]

I am going to vote "no", unless there is a compelling reason why metro should share funds with every municipality in the area.

[kylejack]

I am going to vote "no", unless there is a compelling reason why metro should share funds with every municipality in the area.

Agreed. The Metro sales tax is applied in the Metro service area. It should be used for that alone. If other cities or counties want taxes to fix their road issues, they should levy a tax or cut spending somewhere else.

[Slick Vik]

I am going to vote "no", unless there is a compelling reason why metro should share funds with every municipality in the area.

Corruption is the only reason

[TheNiche]

Corruption is the only reason

Please elaborate. Who is corrupt? What is the nature of the alleged corruption?

[mfastx]

I'm still waiting on someone, someone to provide me with an example of a successful transit system giving a quarter of its funds to roads. I just can't imagine siphoning away money from transit going to roads as being a good solution. It defeats the purpose.

[TheNiche]

I'm still waiting on someone, someone to provide me with an example of a successful transit system giving a quarter of its funds to roads. I just can't imagine siphoning away money from transit going to roads as being a good solution. It defeats the purpose.

Since the source and quantity of transit funding varies so greatly between jurisdictions and is frequently supplemented by outside entities, do you really think that someone that bothered to fulfill your obscure request would lead to some kind of a relevant conclusion?

Or is this all just a continuation of vapid, whiny rhetoric?

[mfastx]

Since the source and quantity of transit funding varies so greatly between jurisdictions and is frequently supplemented by outside entities, do you really think that someone that bothered to fulfill your obscure request would lead to some kind of a relevant conclusion?

Or is this all just a continuation of vapid, whiny rhetoric?

I'm trying to get people to realize that we will never have a better transit system (bus or rail) if we continue to take money away from it and put it to roads.

[TheNiche]

I'm trying to get people to realize that we will never have a better transit system (bus or rail) if we continue to take money away from it and put it to roads.

No, that isn't necessarily true. Sales tax revenue is increasing at a rate well above the rate of inflation. Therefore the inflation-adjusted amount retained for transit will continue to grow as well, allowing for an incrementally better transit system over time.

What you want is simply more revenue dedicated to mass transit. And you want it now. Why don't you just say that?

[mfastx]

No, that isn't necessarily true. Sales tax revenue is increasing at a rate well above the rate of inflation. Therefore the inflation-adjusted amount retained for transit will continue to grow as well, allowing for an incrementally better transit system over time.

What you want is simply more revenue dedicated to mass transit. And you want it now. Why don't you just say that?

I've been saying that.

Both you and I know that any serious improvements in Houston's transit system won't happen unless funding significantly increases. To suggest anything otherwise is disengenous.

I know you don't care about transit. But don't act like our transit system doesn't need more funding.

[TheNiche]

I've been saying that.

Both you and I know that any serious improvements in Houston's transit system won't happen unless funding significantly increases. To suggest anything otherwise is disengenous.

No, you've made poorly-qualified and alarmist forecasts, and also pretending that a particular change (eliminating GM payments) is the sole method to skin a cat when in fact there are many. That is disingenuous. Never mind that if the cat were skinned, there's no guarantee that they'll do with the carcass what you want done with it. Money is only step one of a solution. After that takes leadership, planning, and execution. You may be disappointed.

I know you don't care about transit. But don't act like our transit system doesn't need more funding.

Putting aside your strawman fallacy...if I honestly didn't care about transit (which I do), then I wouldn't need to act like transit didn't need funding. I could state it honestly and without hesitation (which I'm not).

[mfastx]

No, you've made poorly-qualified and alarmist forecasts, and also pretending that a particular change (eliminating GM payments) is the sole method to skin a cat when in fact there are many. That is disingenuous. Never mind that if the cat were skinned, there's no guarantee that they'll do with the carcass what you want done with it. Money is only step one of a solution. After that takes leadership, planning, and execution. You may be disappointed.

You're over analyzing. For some reason I get to you and I'm not sure why. I'm pro transit that's all. I know that funding is just one step but it's a huge step, and without funding, what else can happen to seriously improve transit?

I realize that I may be dissapointed. I'm very worried about post-referendum. I am somewhat confident that an "against" GM payments vote will pass. But I am very worried that the board will disregard the public vote and continue them anyway. I am worried that METRO won't use the extra money to buy new buses, start the Univeristy/Uptown lines, and in general complete the METRO solutions plan. But I'm willing to take that risk because in the event of a "for" vote, nothing will change over the next decade. $400 million more over 11 years? That's nothing. No real improvements will be made and it's a step back in the wrong direction.

Putting aside your strawman fallacy...if I honestly didn't care about transit (which I do), then I wouldn't need to act like transit didn't need funding. I could state it honestly and without hesitation (which I'm not).

Every time I advocate for more funding for METRO, you always reply with some condescending comment about how we can't afford it, etc. It doesn't seem to me that you care about funding a quality transit system. That's just how you come accross over the HAIF board. I don't know what you really want, but it sure seems like you're against meaningful transit improvements, especially when they involve rail (even though most can agree it's an important part of having a better transit system in Houston).

Anyway I have a question for you: throughout the last few years, you've complained about METRO's mishaps during construction. However you seem to have none of those concerns about METRO ripping up Uptown for years. Wouldn't there be similar METRO goofs during the construction of this deticated lane bus system? Simply because it is bus construction as opposed to rail construction doesn't mean that there won't be the same sorts of those classic METRO problems during construction, right? I don't get it.

[kylejack]

But I am very worried that the board will disregard the public vote and continue them anyway.

They have stated that GMP probably will continue in some form, but a No vote definitely gives them more leeway to decide just how much or little to give away. I'd rather they just go ahead and end the GMP and dare those opponents to go cry to the state about ending Metro. Let's have that fight and see who comes out on top.