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

[IHB2]

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.

some METRO board members and other heavy hitters (Ballanfant - former mayor of West U, Chmn Garcia, Mayor Parker) are on the record as asking for a "yes" vote. why do you think that is?

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/A-vote-for-Metro-referendum-will-mean-continued-3923750.php

[kylejack]

some METRO board members and other heavy hitters (Ballanfant - former mayor of West U, Chmn Garcia, Mayor Parker) are on the record as asking for a "yes" vote. why do you think that is?

http://www.chron.com...ued-3923750.php

I don't know why, and I remain puzzled why these Board members don't make the case for not voting Against. It is better in every way for Metro, so why wouldn't Metro support an Against vote?

Even Metro's ads describe what the two votes do without recommending one or the other. I would even say that they hint at leaning toward an Against vote.

[TheNiche]

You're over analyzing. For some reason I get to you and I'm not sure why. I'm pro transit that's all.

Yes, I am frustrated with you. The purpose of language is to tie together concepts that are mutually understood within a consistent framework of logic and reason. Your concepts are poorly defined and presumptuous; your logic is weak, rife with fallacies. I explain how and why that is with precision, over and over, but you do not learn.

For instance, you say that you are pro-transit and that that is all, as though that should mean something particular and discrete. The issue is more complicated than that, however. I am pro-transit. So why are we bickering, then? What, can't you remember?

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).

You and I are not on the same page as to what constitutes a "quality transit system". To me, it is an intermodal optimization function that goes beyond transit and broadens the scope of the question to address systematic regional mobility. You favor discrete improvements along pre-selected corridors. I advocate sound governance and effective and transparent strategic planning processes, and I will support whichever portfolio of improvements scores the highest benefit-cost ratio, wherever those improvements may be along the system, and I do not pretend to know which ones they'll be.

So, the reason that you don't know precisely what kind of a system I want is because neither do I.

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.

I mentioned before that I really, really like it that the Uptown Management District has taken the lead in developing the proposal and is funding so much of the project. Their organization is comprised and led by neighborhood stakeholders (including major taxpayers). That largely negates one of METRO's fatal flaws, which is that METRO is led by appointees of appointees of various mayors, basically unaccountable and unresponsive to stakeholders.

Moreover, I can understand Uptown's motivations. Go read the Downtown Management District's mobility study. It shows us that one of the things that METRO does very well is that they provide good P&R service to downtown Houston. Since Uptown is laid out in a less efficient manner than is downtown, and since METRO's P&R generally bypasses Uptown, they're looking for ways to enhance their connectivity and reap the reward. It may be that this is just an interim project, something to hold them over for a couple decades until the economics of light rail improve to a point where it can be installed along with the appropriate number of grade separations.

[Slick Vik]

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

Certain people that strong armed the mayor and Garcia. Don't be naive

[TheNiche]

Certain people that strong armed the mayor and Garcia. Don't be naive

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

Be clear or begone, troll.

[Slick Vik]

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

Be clear or begone, troll.

Your tactics of intimidation won't work on me.

[IHB2]

I don't know why, and I remain puzzled why these Board members don't make the case for not voting Against. It is better in every way for Metro, so why wouldn't Metro support an Against vote?

Even Metro's ads describe what the two votes do without recommending one or the other. I would even say that they hint at leaning toward an Against vote.

I would say: 1) you are either clueless or choose not to acknowledge the obvious political concerns of proponents of METRO the agency (as opposed to proponents of specific METRO plans for spending the tax $$$) should a "NO" vote prevail, or 2) you simply post this kind of comment b/c of your unconditional faith in light rail as essential to the solution to Houston's transit needs.

[kylejack]

If they're concerned about political consequences, they should explain it.

[IHB2]

If they're concerned about political consequences, they should explain it.

they have been explaining since the day of the final compromise language - about 3 months ago. apparently you haven't been interested enough in the issue to pay attention.

The compromise language reads as it does b/c the County was threatening to go to the state legislature and have METRO's charter amended, and every single one of the service area cities except C of Houston that have a METRO board member threatened to pull out of METRO.

After the compromise was reached, the County and member cities have continued to make the eact same threats should a "NO" vote prevail.

proponents of a "NO" vote, like CTC and Houston Tomorrow, have gotten increasingly shrill in warning that a "YES" vote means no more rail expansion ever. that outcome is doubtful, but the threatened consequences of a "NO" victory are not.

[kylejack]

they have been explaining since the day of the final compromise language - about 3 months ago. apparently you haven't been interested enough in the issue to pay attention.

Nope. They talk about the supposed benefits of Agree, never the disadvantages of Disagree.

The compromise language reads as it does b/c the County was threatening to go to the state legislature and have METRO's charter amended, and every single one of the service area cities except C of Houston that have a METRO board member threatened to pull out of METRO.

That is the reporting from the media, but no member of the Metro board is publicly making that case.

[IHB2]

Nope. They talk about the supposed benefits of Agree, never the disadvantages of Disagree.

That is the reporting from the media, but no member of the Metro board is publicly making that case.

Harris County Commissioner Radack explains the county's position in this Oct 4 MP3 interview - he makes the points beginning at minute 3 and continuing through minute 15:

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=48050

Quotes from Mayor Parker and METRO Board Chmn Garcia from Nov 2 with specific mention of "NO"vote potential consequences:

http://www.chron.com/default/article/Future-of-rail-riding-on-the-Metro-referendum-4004808.php

can't access Ballanfant's article in the Village/SW News sometime last month in favor of YES vote, but he's on the record in that article supporting Garcia's position.

[JamesL]

We can speculate on potential consequences of AGAINST prevailing until the cows come home, but it's absolutely certain that METRO will have over $2 billion more to spend on transit.

[IronTiger]

I read voting YES means that light rail funds basically disappear and everything that isn't under construction will be cancelled. Truth to that?

[Slick Vik]

I read voting YES means that light rail funds basically disappear and everything that isn't under construction will be cancelled. Truth to that?

Basically

[ToryGattis]

My understanding is that the *new* money coming from the sales tax increment (i.e. they say Metro will go from keeping 75% of the penny to 81% of the penny, so that extra 6%) are the only funds restricted to buses and debt reduction. The original 75% is unrestricted, and can certainly still be spent or rail (as it will need to be to finish the 3 lines under construction). Can somebody confirm this?

[JamesL]

That's correct. The increment is projected to be $400 million over 10 years, $200m or which will be used to pay off commercial paper. But with payments to be made on the recently-issued light rail bonds it doesn't look like METRO will have the capacity to issue any more for big capital projects.

[VelvetJ]

Is it possible for a private company to build rail in Houston because the shortsightedness that has plagued this city has reached the terrifying level. The imbalance in infrastructure investment in a city of this size and population growth, coupled with the thought of gas prices in 10 years is not only irresponsible it is terrifying.

[Trae]

Is it possible for a private company to build rail in Houston because the shortsightedness that has plagued this city has reached the terrifying level. The imbalance in infrastructure investment in a city of this size and population growth, coupled with the thought of gas prices in 10 years is not only irresponsible it is terrifying.

Completely agree. Houston is going backwards, as other metro areas in this country expand rail, not take funding away from it. It was a good plan too, just faced so much opposition. It really is too bad heavy rail wasn't approved back in the 80s.