Tell DC we want Rail

[mfastx]

The problem with the whole discussion of Culberson though is that, once we get past the blind hatred, he does have a point.  METRO has a very poor track record with managing large projects and I think pretty much everyone agrees that they did a poor job managing the funds that they were allocated from the 2003 election.  I'm also not overly impressed with the job that they're doing on the current projects either. 

 

There's a school of thought that since this is federal money, it's "free" money, but there's a fiduciary responsibility to spend it effectively and I don't think that it is wrong of Culberson to demand that accountability.

 

NOTE - this is not related to Culberson's stance regarding rail on Richmond.

 

He might have a point to ask questions about METRO, but to make it a federal crime to allocate federal dollars on two specific proposed rail corridors because some campaign contributors have special interests in the matter is ridiculous.  

 

If he's worried about METRO being fiscally responsible then he should settle the matter locally.  METRO is doing a fine job on their current projects. 

 

And let's not pretend that METRO just pissed away money from the 2003 referendum, the economic recession was the primary culprit in METRO not being able to complete the University line at this point.  

 

It's not Culberson's job to determine if METRO qualifies for transportation funds.  It's the FTA's job.  They thoroughly investigated METRO more than usual and determined that they qualified for federal funds on the currently under construction lines.  The new METRO leadership has done a lot to repair its relationship with the FTA and even got a ROD for the University Line should they choose to proceed to ask for federal funds.  It's painfully obvious that this is solely political and I would argue that Culberson doesn't know any more than the FTA does about METRO and their ability to responsibly construct the line.  

 

These petty actions by Culberson 100% relate to his stance regarding rail on Richmond.  He has said numerous times that he wants a Westpark alignment and the fact that he specifically prevented rail on Richmond and Post Oak and not the other lines is proof enough for me that he doesn't give two shits about financial accountability form METRO.  

[IronTiger]

And let's not pretend that METRO just pissed away money from the 2003 referendum, the economic recession was the primary culprit in METRO not being able to complete the University line at this point.  

 

Primary culprit? Although you're right since METRO is partially based on sales tax, to blame the very late start on the recession seems to be stretching a bit, considering that the economy was still doing pretty well up until around 2008.

[mfastx]

Primary culprit? Although you're right since METRO is partially based on sales tax, to blame the very late start on the recession seems to be stretching a bit, considering that the economy was still doing pretty well up until around 2008.

 

I have seen multiple graphics in METRO presentations showing the amount of tax revenue they would have had if the recession didn't hit.  It would have been enough to build the University Line entirely with local funds.  

[livincinco]

It's not Culberson's job to determine if METRO qualifies for transportation funds.  It's the FTA's job. 

 

 

 

With all due respect, that's not correct.   The power to appropriate money is exclusively a function of the legislative branch and is specifically a function of the House Appropriations Committee of which Culberson is a member.  The FTA is part of the executive branch and is charged with dispensing the funds in accordance with the laws set by the legislature.  Denying Congress the ability to set conditions to how money is authorized is a significant rewrite of the Constitution.

[IronTiger]

I have seen multiple graphics in METRO presentations showing the amount of tax revenue they would have had if the recession didn't hit.  It would have been enough to build the University Line entirely with local funds.  

 

But they shouldn't have counted years of the economy being fantastic to do those metrics, and usually public projects tend to do okay in times of recession. Either way, if this "potential tax revenue" is anywhere close to correct, building the University Line (at least the Richmond part of it) is probably just a few years away, whether Culberson likes it or not. Unfortunately, I'm betting those charts don't take into account how METRO often bungles the funds they do have.

[Slick Vik]

But they shouldn't have counted years of the economy being fantastic to do those metrics, and usually public projects tend to do okay in times of recession. Either way, if this "potential tax revenue" is anywhere close to correct, building the University Line (at least the Richmond part of it) is probably just a few years away, whether Culberson likes it or not. Unfortunately, I'm betting those charts don't take into account how METRO often bungles the funds they do have.

It isn't if his words become federal law.

I have seen multiple graphics in METRO presentations showing the amount of tax revenue they would have had if the recession didn't hit. It would have been enough to build the University Line entirely with local funds.

Sending 25% to gmp is absurd also

[IronTiger]

It isn't if his words become federal law.

IIRC, Culberson wanted federal funding for the Richmond corridor to become illegal. That's an effort to stop Richmond from being used as a rail corridor, but if what METRO says is correct, that they could've raised the funds themselves had it not be for the recession (cutting sales tax income of which METRO uses), then they could build it (with local funding) whether Culberson liked it or not.

[mfastx]

With all due respect, that's not correct.   The power to appropriate money is exclusively a function of the legislative branch and is specifically a function of the House Appropriations Committee of which Culberson is a member.  The FTA is part of the executive branch and is charged with dispensing the funds in accordance with the laws set by the legislature.  Denying Congress the ability to set conditions to how money is authorized is a significant rewrite of the Constitution.

 

I was under the impression that the house appropriates the number of federal dollars to go towards transit, and the FTA decides specifically which cities/transit authorities are worthy of said funds. How is what I stated incorrect?  

 

What Culberson is doing is just a petty tactic and it's solely political.  He is clueless when it comes to transit, it's a shame that the appropriations committee isn't made up of more knowledgeable individuals.  

[livincinco]

I was under the impression that the house appropriates the number of federal dollars to go towards transit, and the FTA decides specifically which cities/transit authorities are worthy of said funds. How is what I stated incorrect?  

 

 

That only occurs if the House provides general funding without specific conditions.  The House can put specific conditions on funding that restricts the ability of the Executive Branch to spend.  It's commonly referred to as an "earmark" and it happens way too frequently.

 

https://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/earmarks_definition.html

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I agree with what Culberson is doing, I'm just saying that it's completely inside his authority to do it.

[mfastx]

That only occurs if the House provides general funding without specific conditions.  The House can put specific conditions on funding that restricts the ability of the Executive Branch to spend.  It's commonly referred to as an "earmark" and it happens way too frequently.

 

https://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/earmarks_definition.html

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I agree with what Culberson is doing, I'm just saying that it's completely inside his authority to do it.

 

Right, I understand the processes behind it, and I agree that it happens too frequently. 

 

Very frustrating to say the least, hopefully some semblance of the line eventually gets built.  IMO an east-west line is really the only line worth spending money on at this point. 

[livincinco]

Right, I understand the processes behind it, and I agree that it happens too frequently.

Very frustrating to say the least, hopefully some semblance of the line eventually gets built. IMO an east-west line is really the only line worth spending money on at this point.

I tend to favor BRT over rail, but agree that an east-west route will likely generate more ridership than the other proposed line.

Culberson's amendment is extremely specific to preventing rail along a specific segment of Richmond. It still allows an east-west connector, just not on that corridor. Cue usual comments about how it won't get any ridership if it's not on Richmond.

[mfastx]

I tend to favor BRT over rail, but agree that an east-west route will likely generate more ridership than the other proposed line.

Culberson's amendment is extremely specific to preventing rail along a specific segment of Richmond. It still allows an east-west connector, just not on that corridor. Cue usual comments about how it won't get any ridership if it's not on Richmond.

 

I'm sure you've heard me say this before, but Richmond would probably generate the 2nd highest ridership of any East-West corridor, #1 being Westheimer.  Westheimer would likely require grade seperation however (which I'd prefer obviously, but grade separation is still a mind-blowing concept at METRO). 

 

Westpark ridership would be dismal.  Ironically, Culberson's supposed "preferred alignment" is to take it next to 59 and down Westpark.  It would cost more money and attract less riders.  It's ironic that Culberson is proposing something that would be a less efficient use of taxpayer dollars. 

[Slick Vik]

I tend to favor BRT over rail, but agree that an east-west route will likely generate more ridership than the other proposed line.

Culberson's amendment is extremely specific to preventing rail along a specific segment of Richmond. It still allows an east-west connector, just not on that corridor. Cue usual comments about how it won't get any ridership if it's not on Richmond.

There have been studies done for the Richmond corridor. Starting from scratch is a ridiculous idea.

[IronTiger]

With the exception of that little strip between US-59 and the homes (east of Hazard, west of downtown), the railroad ROW seems like it WOULD be the cheaper option, and wouldn't require cutting up streets, limiting turns, or whatever. Unless the railroad ROW was super-expensive to acquire. Even then, it would balance out after all the work you to do to Richmond.

[livincinco]

I'm sure you've heard me say this before, but Richmond would probably generate the 2nd highest ridership of any East-West corridor, #1 being Westheimer. Westheimer would likely require grade seperation however (which I'd prefer obviously, but grade separation is still a mind-blowing concept at METRO).

Westpark ridership would be dismal. Ironically, Culberson's supposed "preferred alignment" is to take it next to 59 and down Westpark. It would cost more money and attract less riders. It's ironic that Culberson is proposing something that would be a less efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

So get it on a ballot as a bond measure and locally fund it. Culberson has no say if that happens.

[IronTiger]

See, here's what I don't get. One hand, we have this:

I have seen multiple graphics in METRO presentations showing the amount of tax revenue they would have had if the recession didn't hit.  It would have been enough to build the University Line entirely with local funds.

But on the other hand, we also have the "a Westpark corridor will have abysmal ridership" study.

If Metro is telling the truth on the first one, then the second one is probably truth as well, and then building the University Line isn't more than a few years away--the Richmond part of the rail could be built with local funds and everything else takes the rest of federal funding (well, at least some of it). Culberson's efforts will be thwarted and everything still plays out legally.

But if METRO is wrong about their "potential" funds, then "potential" ridership is probably also faulty numbers and the Westpark/Richmond corridor ridership numbers are much closer together than one thinks they are.

Does anyone else see the problem here?

[mfastx]

But on the other hand, we also have the "a Westpark corridor will have abysmal ridership" study.

If Metro is telling the truth on the first one, then the second one is probably truth as well, and then building the University Line isn't more than a few years away--the Richmond part of the rail could be built with local funds and everything else takes the rest of federal funding (well, at least some of it). Culberson's efforts will be thwarted and everything still plays out legally.

But if METRO is wrong about their "potential" funds, then "potential" ridership is probably also faulty numbers and the Westpark/Richmond corridor ridership numbers are much closer together than one thinks they are.

Does anyone else see the problem here?

 

I'm not sure I understand you entirely.  A figure I saw for Westpark alignment ridership was 20-something thousand, and the figure I saw for Richmond ridership was around 40,000.  I concede that I cannot cite any sources but I do recall numerous presentations about tax revenue and ridership projections.  Believe it if you want. 

 

And that idea sounds good but I'm not sure if getting federal funds for the Westpark section only would be possible, since it is still technically a continuation of a project on Richmond Ave.  

 

There are ways for METRO to build the line even with this roadblock that Culberson has graciously offered.  A sound agency would explore and exhaust all possibilities. 

[IronTiger]

My point is, I'm not pro-Culberson but am a bit suspicious of METRO's studies and what it says as truth. A lot of studies commissioned by organizations with a result they want is often geared to tell them what they want to hear (this isn't just METRO, it's many others too), and I'm not even sure of how they get ridership numbers, but I'm sure thee's a lot of guesswork and assumptions. A theory that I offered earlier is that ridership is a numbers game. Lowball it and you won't get funding, go too high and if it fails to make that mark, you'll have a hard time getting funding again, so the trick is to go high but low enough so that if it exceeds that, the line will be a "huge success" and chances of funds are easier next time around.

[livincinco]

I'm not sure I understand you entirely.  A figure I saw for Westpark alignment ridership was 20-something thousand, and the figure I saw for Richmond ridership was around 40,000.  I concede that I cannot cite any sources but I do recall numerous presentations about tax revenue and ridership projections.  Believe it if you want. 

 

And that idea sounds good but I'm not sure if getting federal funds for the Westpark section only would be possible, since it is still technically a continuation of a project on Richmond Ave.  

 

There are ways for METRO to build the line even with this roadblock that Culberson has graciously offered.  A sound agency would explore and exhaust all possibilities. 

 

Agree completely and that's one of the key issues that I have with METRO.  Without question, they've hit a roadblock by having to deal with an obstinate Congressman, but it's not like this situation is unique.  Congress is filled with idiots and efficient agencies find a way to get things done anyway.  METRO, on the other hand, seems to be completely stymied by this situation and doesn't appear to be capable of coming up with solutions.

 

To be fair though, it's not just a METRO problem, it's a government bureaucracy problem at many levels.  Government is certainly capable of doing great things, it's just that it rarely seems to actually get them done.

 

[Slick Vik]

My point is, I'm not pro-Culberson but am a bit suspicious of METRO's studies and what it says as truth. A lot of studies commissioned by organizations with a result they want is often geared to tell them what they want to hear (this isn't just METRO, it's many others too), and I'm not even sure of how they get ridership numbers, but I'm sure thee's a lot of guesswork and assumptions. A theory that I offered earlier is that ridership is a numbers game. Lowball it and you won't get funding, go too high and if it fails to make that mark, you'll have a hard time getting funding again, so the trick is to go high but low enough so that if it exceeds that, the line will be a "huge success" and chances of funds are easier next time around.

So you're insinuating bribery for numbers?

[Slick Vik]

See, here's what I don't get. One hand, we have this:

But on the other hand, we also have the "a Westpark corridor will have abysmal ridership" study.

If Metro is telling the truth on the first one, then the second one is probably truth as well, and then building the University Line isn't more than a few years away--the Richmond part of the rail could be built with local funds and everything else takes the rest of federal funding (well, at least some of it). Culberson's efforts will be thwarted and everything still plays out legally.

But if METRO is wrong about their "potential" funds, then "potential" ridership is probably also faulty numbers and the Westpark/Richmond corridor ridership numbers are much closer together than one thinks they are.

Does anyone else see the problem here?

I don't think you can federally fund pieces like that.

[IronTiger]

So you're insinuating bribery for numbers?

It's not bribery, it's based on population and density but with some guesswork thrown in to essentially gamble for funds. What is the margin of error for these numbers, anyway?

[mfastx]

My point is, I'm not pro-Culberson but am a bit suspicious of METRO's studies and what it says as truth. A lot of studies commissioned by organizations with a result they want is often geared to tell them what they want to hear (this isn't just METRO, it's many others too), and I'm not even sure of how they get ridership numbers, but I'm sure thee's a lot of guesswork and assumptions. A theory that I offered earlier is that ridership is a numbers game. Lowball it and you won't get funding, go too high and if it fails to make that mark, you'll have a hard time getting funding again, so the trick is to go high but low enough so that if it exceeds that, the line will be a "huge success" and chances of funds are easier next time around.

 

As far as tax revenue projections, I acknowledge that of course they are trying to make things look good, but until I see other figures I can't assume that the projected revenues would have been inaccurate.  It was based off the economy increasing at the rate it was in the mid 2000s. 

 

As far as ridership goes, I remember METRO lowballed ridership projections on the original Red Line and it beat those expectations very quickly.  Guess we have to wait and see for the next few lines, especially since they need to rework the bus system.  Until that, ridership will most likely be less than impressive (light rail ridership increased by about 13% in the first three months of the extension's opening).  

 

I generally agree with you though. 

[mfastx]

Agree completely and that's one of the key issues that I have with METRO.  Without question, they've hit a roadblock by having to deal with an obstinate Congressman, but it's not like this situation is unique.  Congress is filled with idiots and efficient agencies find a way to get things done anyway.  METRO, on the other hand, seems to be completely stymied by this situation and doesn't appear to be capable of coming up with solutions.

 

To be fair though, it's not just a METRO problem, it's a government bureaucracy problem at many levels.  Government is certainly capable of doing great things, it's just that it rarely seems to actually get them done.

 

 

At this point even METRO acknowledges that it couldn't afford to build the line even with federal funds, so I guess we will have to wait and see what their next move is.  I'd like to see an experienced head honcho brought in to oversee the next steps METRO takes, whatever they are.  Although I do think the people Parker appointed are an improvement. 

[IronTiger]

At this point even METRO acknowledges that it couldn't afford to build the line even with federal funds, so I guess we will have to wait and see what their next move is.  I'd like to see an experienced head honcho brought in to oversee the next steps METRO takes, whatever they are.  Although I do think the people Parker appointed are an improvement.

And that's the other problem...despite the "anti-rail" people, METRO isn't too good itself, and the general incompetency of the agency gives fuel for those not wanting to put more money into it.

There it runs up the same problem of school funding...put too little into it and everyone suffers (METRO without money will be completely worthless), put too much in and it gets eaten up by bureaucrats.

[livincinco]

At this point even METRO acknowledges that it couldn't afford to build the line even with federal funds, so I guess we will have to wait and see what their next move is. I'd like to see an experienced head honcho brought in to oversee the next steps METRO takes, whatever they are. Although I do think the people Parker appointed are an improvement.

Agreed. I'm not sure that they would get sufficient support for a bond measure either, which might be why they haven't attempted it. There's definitely a level of public trust that they need to rebuild.

[Slick Vik]

A pretty significant measure passed in 2003, but culberson and others found ways to bypass parts of it. Bob Lanier sidestepped a measure and gave money to cops instead. Until the track is laid all odds at against rail in houston.

[livincinco]

A pretty significant measure passed in 2003, but culberson and others found ways to bypass parts of it. Bob Lanier sidestepped a measure and gave money to cops instead. Until the track is laid all odds at against rail in houston.

So, honest question here because I'm assuming that one or more of the below is true and I'm curious to know which it is.

- You have not read the text of the 2003 referendum (which is not easy to find)

- You don't understand how bond measures work

- You're intentionally distorting facts about the 2003 referendum to try to prove a point

That referendum was a bond measure that authorized a defined amount of money to be spent towards an objective. The money, either through METRO miscalculation or mismanagement ran out well before the overall objective was met. METRO had no authority under the terms of the referendum to obtain additional funds without voter approval.

Bond measures are always about revenue, not objectives.

[Slick Vik]

So, honest question here because I'm assuming that one or more of the below is true and I'm curious to know which it is.

- You have not read the text of the 2003 referendum (which is not easy to find)

- You don't understand how bond measures work

- You're intentionally distorting facts about the 2003 referendum to try to prove a point

That referendum was a bond measure that authorized a defined amount of money to be spent towards an objective. The money, either through METRO miscalculation or mismanagement ran out well before the overall objective was met. METRO had no authority under the terms of the referendum to obtain additional funds without voter approval.

Bond measures are always about revenue, not objectives.

The strategy of culberson and afton oaks was to stall as long as possible, in the hopes the university line never got built, and it proved fruitful in the end. Had there been zero resistance it would have been done or near complete by now.

[IronTiger]

The strategy of culberson and afton oaks was to stall as long as possible, in the hopes the university line never got built, and it proved fruitful in the end. Had there been zero resistance it would have been done or near complete by now.

Well, apart from avoiding the question posed to you, "zero resistance" isn't always a good thing. We would have a freeway running straight through Harrisburg if there was "zero resistance". Of course, that's for a freeway, and we all know how freeways are always bad and light rail is always good.    

 

As for the 2003 referendum, do you honestly not know (it's okay if you don't) or are you trying to distort information? Or both?