28 October 2007
Will taxpayers get to pay for the Main Street Line again??
You may know that Metro has selected Washington Group International as the "design/build" contractor for the Phase 2 light rail expansion. Back in 2006, WGI submitted a proposal to Metro that suggested (among many other hair-raising things) Metro sell the Main Street Rail Line, then lease back the line and all related facilities (page 10 of the pdf file). Metro would use the revenue generated from the sale to fund a portion of the Phase 2 rail expansion.
Nice!
Taxpayers have already paid for the Main Street Line, and if this proposal were to be enacted, taxpayers would get to pay for the line again, through a lease-back.
We don't know if this proposal is being considered, but it wouldn't be surprising if it is. This idea would be right up Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson's alley.
Big thanks to Tom Bazan and Ted Richardson for their continued work at shining a light on things Metro would rather keep in the dark.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/28/07 07:44 PM |
Grand Parkway is by developers, for developers
A few days ago, the Chron ran a (fawning) Q & A with the Gulf Coast Institute's David Crossley, and if we set aside most of the New Urbanism dreaming, he did make a good observation:
Q: Do you have the sense that Houston will get greener?
A: I think for five or 10 years we will lose massive amounts of green space, but I think at some point we will stop. There are 10 years of projects in the hopper and those projects are horrible; they are beyond belief and they are going up so fast they will probably devour as much as 1,000 square miles of land in the 10 to 15 years. But a lot of people are saying wait a minute, we don't have to accept that. We don't have to build those things. ... Of course if we don't build the Grand Parkway, most of that stuff doesn't happen. If we do build the Grand Parkway, all of it happens.
Q: So the Grand Parkway [a proposed 180 or so miles of highway circling greater Houston, a portion of which has already been built] is the great evil?
A: Actually it is. It's the worst project on the table. It is not a transportation project. If you look at the map of where it goes, no people live there. ... It is putting a road in rural places and saying, "Now you can go develop subdivisions."
Something we agree on! To elaborate on his statement that it's not a transportation project, but it IS a developers' project, the Grand Parkway was tabled decades ago as unnecessary for mobility, then brought back to life by developers (Billy Burge is president of the Grand Parkway Association) who see it as a golden opportunity to build subdivisions and retail centers.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/28/07 12:23 PM |
24 October 2007
Blogging it, METRO-style
METRO's $76,000/year blogger informs that METRO is working with Houston Grand Opera for the first time:
Walk into the lobby of the Wortham Center where two performances of the opera will be staged, and you'll see a huge METRO banner hanging from the ceiling. This is our first partnership with the Houston Grand Opera.
"We thought it was such a good fit for us," said Nicole Adler, advertising account executive at METRO. "It's about the different communities in Houston. We have a lot of refugees in Houston - more than people realize. Since METRO goes to all the different communities and services them, this was a way to acknowledge them, their hardship and be there to serve them."
Of course, a better way to acknowledge them might be to follow through with the 50% increase in bus service that was promised in the 2003 referendum (instead of cuts that are deemed "service adjustments").
Elsewhere, the METRO blogger assures that the next round of rail construction is going to move along right on time, as promised:
METRO's decision yesterday to build light rail on all five lines, instead of Bus Rapid Transit with a later conversion to light rail, represents a hugely ambitious goal.
We've said we would deliver all that by the end of 2012 - along with an Intermodal Terminal.
So how do we plan to do that?
Through a strategy called design/build. "Design/build, also called a hybrid delivery system, allows us to engineer and design a project while we're beginning construction," said Russ Frank, director of government affairs.
Let's hope it works out better than the promised rollout of the stored-value (Q) cards.
But if it doesn't, we're sure METRO's expensive blogger will spin it well for the organization.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 10/24/07 09:00 PM |
23 October 2007
METRORail: The Frank and Frank show
Neal Meyer has done quite of bit of digging and uncovered some interesting details about a consultant Metro began using a couple of years ago...a consultant who goes way back with Metro CEO Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson:
Mr. Wilson stipulated in the contract he awarded to Mr. Russo that he would make $1 million over the first two years of his employment with Metro, at a rate of $300 per hour. The contract was amended this past April, where Mr. Wilson bumped up Russo's pay by $10 per hour and increased the contract ceiling to $1.1 million. Mr. Russo's employment can be extended beyond the inital period, but we will not know on what terms.
That's just a small taste. Follow the link for more.
You know, this light rail business is almost incestuous.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/23/07 08:18 PM |
20 October 2007
Metro: Yeah, we know light rail construction is a pain...
A METRO spokeswoman said the concerns of residents and business owners are legitimate.
"It's a pain. It's a pain that we all have to bear in the meantime (but) will bring benefits in the long run," said Sandra Aponte Salazar, a METRO spokeswoman.
More than $2 billion-worth of pain that all must bear for the good of less than one percent of the public.
As for the long-term benefits, look how Main Street has thrived...
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/20/07 09:22 AM |
18 October 2007
METRO picks Richmond route, scraps BRT
METRO's board issued two big decisions today after several hours of sham testimony. Here is Rad Sallee's coverage for the Chronicle.
First, METRO chose the Richmond rail option that it has seemingly favored all along.
Readers of this blog know well my thoughts about the folly of running at-grade rail down busy streets, in the pursuit of being "world class" (hint: it's only thought to be "world class" by people who apparently haven't used transit in much of the world). In a sensible policymaking world, the Main Street experience would have warned decisionmakers away from repeating the same mistake -- actually, making a worse mistake, since Richmond is far more important to vehicular traffic mobility than Main Street is. Alas, we do not have the sorts of decisionmakers in Houston who are capable of constructing a truly "world-class" mobility system that serves current needs and anticipates future growth. So we are likely stuck with a rail route that is going to hurt overall mobility on an important vehicular traffic corridor, hurt the environment by replacing old trees with concrete, metal, and wires, and serve just under 1% of the public. Twenty years from now, Houstonians will likely wonder what we were thinking.
METRO's other big decision today was to scrap its Bus Rapid Transit plans for certain routes, and build all the routes with light rail from the start.
That will be welcome news to the communities that proved instrumental in the 2003 referendum actually getting a majority. It is the right thing to do (at least in terms of keeping a promise made -- whether ridership justifies the expense is, again, a question of policymaking with regard to overall mobility, but as we have seen for some time, policymaking at METRO often focuses on matters such as real-estate development or politics before overall mobility is considered). It should also head off at least one legal argument that METRO is not complying with the requirements of the 2003 referendum.
Feel free to offer your thoughts on today's activities in the forum (please do keep it respectful, though, whether you agree or disagree with today's actions) or on this post over at Lose an Eye, It's a Sport, where we've been having an interesting discussion about Houston transit and mobility and policymaking.
BLOGVERSATION: Houston Strategies, Lou Minatti.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 10/18/07 08:31 PM |
16 October 2007
KHOU analyzes commute times pre/post-SAFEclear
KHOU-11's Jeremy Rogalski reports on Houston's SAFEclear program, and whether the promises made by supporters early on actually square with reality:
“Traffic will move a lot faster.”
“Move the traffic along”
“Move the traffic on the freeways.”
Those comments came from Houston Mayor Bill White while he was launching the City’s Safe Clear wrecker program in 2005.
Top ranking officials in the Mayor’s Office of Mobility even went a step further:
“You will see a tremendous difference in the flow of traffic,” said Joe Breshears, Director of the Office of Mobility in December, 2004.
And David Saperstein, the program’s chairman pledged “a huge difference for people getting to work on time” in March, 2004. Six months later, Saperstein added that Houstonians would see “a dramatic uptick in the reduction of drive times.”
So, the 11 News Defenders wanted to know, has the city lived up to its promise?
We analyzed peak drive times for every major freeway into downtown: Gulf, North, Northwest, East, Eastex, South and Southwest. The Katy Freeway was not included due to construction.
The analysis covered the morning peak hours of 6:30a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and the afternoon peak hours between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. 11 News compared average drive times along those segments in 2003 to 2006, which is two years before Safe Clear, and two years after the program was launched.
The bottom line -- 86 percent of those routes saw not a reduction but an increase in average drive times.
Later in the story, Mayor White and Tim Lomax are quoted as downplaying KHOU's results, because more vehicles are on the road. While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that supporters of the program promised more than it has delivered (or possibly could deliver), or that Mayor White certainly has not been shy about trumpeting any statistic that reflects well on SAFEclear. We suppose that's just the nature of (ambitious) pols.
We also suppose that the sorts of people who get upset with proponents of Texas electricity deregulation when they argue that electricity prices might be even higher without deregulation won't bat an eye when it comes to assertions that congestion would be even worse without SAFEclear.
Now, to be fair, many of us who have criticized SAFEclear will readily concede that getting stalled cars off the freeway expeditiously helps traffic flow -- that seems obvious. However, we did have concerns about the original draconian program (which effectively treated the cars of poor people as a way of paying for the program), and we continue to wonder if the program as currently conceived gets the city the best bang for its ($3 million) bucks. Perhaps city officials could learn something from KHOU's analysis, instead of simply dismissing it?
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 10/16/07 10:46 PM |
15 October 2007
Stray current and Richmond rail: An evolving story
Over at Lose an Eye, It's a Sport, Cory Crow notes an evolving story by Rad Sallee on Chron.com today.
Apparently, opponents of light rail on Richmond held a press conference earlier to criticize the possible placement of the Westpark light rail line (renamed the University Line, even though that description was nowhere to be found in the 2003 referendum) on Richmond because of stray-current concerns and a 66-inch water line that runs under the street.
The version of the story carrying a 12:36pm time stamp had the following headline:
Rail foes: stray current may harm water line
Later in the day, the story (with the same hyperlink) "evolved" with no warning to readers, and so did the headline. Here's what was posted at 3:35pm:
Metro disuptes rail foes' stray current claims
The spelling error has not been corrected in the latest version of the story, which carries a 5:41pm stamp.
As Crow observes, this probably should have been posted as two separate stories (with their own hyperlinks), since the headlines read almost like a point/counterpoint. The final, balanced story could have been prepared for tomorrow's print editions (and given yet another hyperlink). The Chronicle does some nice work in getting stories to the web quickly, but we have long thought that once a story is posted, any significant changes ought to come in a new story (much as print newspapers once had multiple editions).
On the substance of the claims, METRO really cannot deny that it has been unable to end the stray-current leakage along the Main Street rail line. METRO cannot deny the simple physics of stray current (which can corrode metal over time). METRO also cannot deny that the TMC report indicates that the problem will have to be monitored carefully for the life of the rail line on Main, because of the critical infrastructure in the area. And as Tom Bazan can attest, even getting METRO to produce documents related to stray-current after multiple public-information requests has not been easy (suggesting it is a topic METRO would prefer not to talk about).
Whether you think this relates at all to the infrastructure located along Richmond probably tracks closely with your preference for the placement of the Westpark rail line. That said, METRO's record with regard to stray current issues along the Main Street rail line certainly doesn't entitle the organization to the benefit of the doubt when their PR representatives say, "don't worry, we have considered it and it's not an issue" (or when they idiotically compare the stray-current issue to graffiti).
RELATED COVERAGE: KRIV-26.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 10/15/07 07:07 PM |
11 October 2007
Chron: City presses METRO on general-mobility funding
The Chronicle's Rad Sallee reports that METRO is drawing scrutiny for possibly shortchanging the city of Houston and other local entities on "general mobility" fund transfers:
The Metropolitan Transit Authority and the city of Houston are trying to answer a $44 million question.
The city contends that under a 1999 contract between them, Metro is supposed to set aside 25 percent of its sales tax revenues for "general mobility" purposes such as street improvements and traffic signals for Houston, Harris County and 14 smaller cities in the agency's taxing area.
The $44 million represents the difference between what Metro allocated for Houston in fiscal years 2000-2002 and what the city's share would have been if 25 percent of the tax revenue had been set aside for general mobility, said Susan Bandy, Houston deputy director of public works.
Instead, about 19.5 percent was set aside in those three years. The share was back to 25 percent in 2003 and has stayed at that level since, she said.
"I have gotten no explanation," Bandy said.
The contract language appears to provide wiggle room for Metro to pay less than the agreed-upon share. It says Metro "intends" to allocate 25 percent but that it is "subject to Metro's commitments for transit-related operational expenditures and capital project expenditures."
Bandy and Mayor Bill White said a new contract being negotiated will tighten the language.
"I made it clear," White said Tuesday, "that on my watch we would interpret that the 25 percent was going to be paid. I did not consider it very meaningful if it was 'only to the extent available.' "
Let's hope Mayor White follows through on that statement (unlike his predecessor, who strangely enough, now heads the board of a bank). Until now, it seems like about the only person who's been pressing METRO on its general-mobility funding obligations has been local watchdog Tom Bazan.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 10/11/07 10:22 PM |
07 October 2007
Houston installs countdown signals to aid pedestrians
Houston is installing signals that tell pedestrians how long they have to safely cross the street. In addition to promoting safety, it will save the city money according to a Chron Wrap Up story, but here's another way to expand on the idea of traffic signals that count down -- use them as a way to curb red light running (via Scott Henson):
...installing lights that visibly countdown with a digital counter on greens and yellows...gives drivers literally split-second information about when the yellow turns to red.
You know, if it's about safety and not revenue.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/07/07 09:09 AM |
01 October 2007
Harris County changes EZ-tag perk for employees
You'll recall another Wayne Dolcefino exposé back in June which brought to light how many Harris County employees were benefiting from "non-revenue" EZ-tags:
In all, the list Eyewitness News got shows more than 5,500 free tags have been handed out
Today, KUHF-88.7 reports that the county is finalizing details of a new EZ-tag policy that will severely limit free use:
While the majority of commuters who use toll roads in Harris County pay about $40 a month for their EZ-Tags, about 500 employees of the Toll Road Authority have what are known as non-revenue EZ Tags that allow them to use the roads for free. Soon, that benefit could be gone if commissioners approve a new policy that would take those EZ-Tags away. Harris County Judge Ed Emmett says there are about 5000 non-revenue EZ-Tags in use, a list that has grown over the years.
[snip]
Commissioners last week postponed a vote on the new policy in order to iron out last minute details on exactly who gets to keep their free EZ-Tags and how they'll be used in the future. State law allows the non-revenue EZ-Tags on marked county vehicles, law enforcement and fire vehicles and for use in military convoys.
"I want to be sure that we take these tags away, that there aren't free EZ-Tags for people who don't deserve them, but that we have a way to monitor and enforce. It doesn't do us any good to have a policy if we can't enforce it."
[snip]
Harris County Department of Public Infrastructure Executive Director Art Storey says the change in policy is not about revenue.
"It's not a cost matter. It's a matter of government going out of its way to avoid any appearance of impropriety no matter how well-justified. If it looks like a special privilege for a government employee its best not to do it in these days of public scrutiny and public suspicion of government."
That is the correct attitude to have, an attitude Metro officials and employees should adopt. Kudos to Wayne Dolcefino for digging into the issue, and to Harris County commissioners and officials for doing the right thing to rectify the problem.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/01/07 07:54 PM |
29 September 2007
Aha! This is why Houston rushed installation of 20 more red light cameras
Remember when the city hurriedly installed 20 more red light cameras, even though the 50 that Council approved had already been installed? Suspicion was that this was to beat a new state law that imposed some limitations on the revenue-generating devices. Now we know how true that suspicion was. From TheNewspaper.com:
A little-noticed provision of Texas law took effect at the beginning of the month to force cities using red light cameras to appoint citizen oversight panels. The provision caused disruption in the city of Lubbock's red light camera plans yesterday.
According to Texas Transportation Code Section 707.003: "A local authority shall report results of the traffic engineering study required by Subsection (c) to a citizen advisory committee consisting of one person appointed by each member of the governing body of the local authority. The committee shall advise the local authority on the installation and operation of a photographic traffic signal enforcement system established under this chapter."
No camera installed after September 1 may issue a citation without this citizen's panel first reviewing a detailed engineering assessment that presents alternatives to photo ticketing. The Texas Transportation Institute, for example, found in 2005 that merely adding one second of yellow warning time at traffic signals beyond the minimum amount yielded a forty percent accident reduction (view report).
The wording of the law ensures that city council members who oppose the use of red light cameras have the right to appoint representatives to the oversight panel.
MayorWhiteChiefHurttMarthaMontalvo had to be concerned about their chances to add more cameras with this obstacle. You'll notice that Houstonians weren't allowed to vote on the red light camera program; it's not hard to guess it'd probably be voted down.
Let's recall what Asst. Chief Montalvo said when those 20 cameras were added at the last minute:
Montalvo said the decision to add the new cameras had nothing to do with a new state law, which takes effect Saturday, that could require some cities to do engineering studies at new locations.
Boy, that's ringing even more hollow now!
And then there's Matt Stiles' latest reporting on city-owned vehicles running red lights, including Houston police officers:
Houston police commanders say the city's red-light camera enforcement program should increase safety at intersections by prompting "behavior modifications" in motorists.
Not all of their own employees are getting the message, however.
More than 100 Houston police vehicles moving through intersections without emergency lights were cited in the first year of the cameras' operation, according to ticket data.
"We're just like regular citizens. We're only human," said Martha Montalvo, an executive assistant chief with the Houston Police Department who oversees the program.
"We're hoping for some behavior modifications from all angles, not only from our citizens but also from our city employees."
Back when it was just the general citizenry she thought needed behavior modification, Montalvo wasn't so forgiving.
She's got a bit more empathy going now: We're only human.
Maybe some longer yellow light times would help, Martha.
RELATED: Red-light cameras to city: You owe $16,425 (City Hall blog); HPD, METRO lead in red-light camera citations (City Hall blog)
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/29/07 04:06 PM |
28 September 2007
Some mobility concerns get Mayor White's attention
Mayor White has come out against a big high-rise condo project in the Rice University area, and he has promised legislation to deal with projects like this in the future.
Cory blogs about this at Lose an Eye, It's a Sport, with a focus on future zoning laws.
On the Chron's City Hall blog, Mike Snyder notes that Mayor White's concern primarily deals with traffic around the project:
White's letter gets straight to the point: "I believe that the proposed development of a 23-story mixed-use development with over 450 parking spaces, on the site of the Maryland Manor apartments, will impair mobility on Bissonnet, a two-lane street." He concludes with a promise to "use any appropriate power under law to alter the proposed project as currently planned."
So far, however, city officials have not identified any regulation violated by the project as proposed. Work is under way on a new traffic impact ordinance [PDF], but for now the city is powerless to require developers to alter their projects based on the findings of traffic impact studies.
It's a shame Mayor White isn't as concerned with the impaired traffic mobility that will wreak havoc on Richmond when Metro tears things up for light rail.
Or how about the concerns of MacGregor Place residents in getting the new Bus Rapid Transit line moved off MLK Blvd.?
MacGregor Place residents played the King card in their efforts to get Metro's planned Bus Rapid Transit line for the Southeast Corridor moved off Martin Luther King Boulevard.
A Sept. 7 letter, sent at their request by Martin Luther King III to Mayor Bill White, suggests that he use his influence to "maintain the positive character and integrity of this particular neighborhood."
While the letter does not flatly ask White to overturn Metro's route selection, it does say that correspondence from residents expresses "valid concerns" for "the wisdom of selecting another location."
[snip]
Metro spokeswoman Sandra Salazar said the MLK route was judged best in a Final Environmental Impact Statement and approved by the Metro board. It is also in the federal funding pipeline for construction to start in 2008, she said.
That's what will happen with the Richmond route, too.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/28/07 05:11 AM |
27 September 2007
Wayne Dolcefino vs. Metro, part 2
As promised, KTRK-13's Wayne Dolcefino tells us how to ride Metro's transit offerings for free:
we've found a way you can ride the bus or the rail absolutely free anytime you want.
"Are you referring to METRO employees?" asked Smalley.
That's right. METRO employees ride free.
"Why should they ride free if we have to pay?" asked passenger Jackie Harris.
"How can we compete with the private sector? One of those ways is a transportation benefit," said Smalley.
The perk on the park and ride is worth up to $1,700 a year just for one employee. It's a perk that's costing Houston taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Unless you buy METRO's logic.
"It's an existing seat," he said. "It's an empty seat."
Don't forget, the City of Houston pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy its employees Metro passes. It's all taxpayer money, you know, so no biggie.
Then Dolcefino digs where local media rarely goes: Metro's generous compensation:
But do METRO officials need a free ride? Sixty-nine executives make more than $100,000 a year. Smalley makes $175,000. Dionne Smith spends $400 a year commuting on the bus.
"If I've got to pay, they should too," she said.
"Did anyone say at METRO, this isn't a good idea?" we asked Smalley.
"We think it's a good idea," he answered.
And now, we've learned it's not just employees. Their spouses' get free bus and rail, too -- 3,000 more people. But METRO won't show us the list.
But Dolcefino did get a list of Metro salaries, and it's here.
And then there's this hilarity:
You'd think free passage would be an incentive for METRO officials to use mass transit. The METRO Blog says yes.
"A blog is a good example of new technology we want to capitalize on," said Smalley.
Writing the blog is part of Mary Sitt's $76,000 a year job at METRO.
"Even if she was just blogging, that might in itself be worth the money," said Smalley. Sitt told readers in July she was riding back to work on the train when she ran into four METRO officials, including Vice President Todd Mason and the CEO Frank Wilson.
"I happened to have my camera in my purse and snapped some photos," the blog said.
What a lucky coincidence for Sitt.
"Was that some kind of staged PR stunt and if that's the question, no it wasn't," Smalley told us. "We don't play those kind of games, Wayne."
We asked because Sitt said the pictures were taken on June 18 at 1:18pm. We looked at METRO's Q Card records and there was no record Sitt was even on the train that day or Mason or Wilson.
METRO's explanation -- maybe they just didn't swipe their Q Card and got on the train without a ticket.
"Are there instances when I'm rushing to catch a train and don't swipe my card on the reader? I'm sure there are instances," said Smalley.
Try that explanation the next time a METRO cop asks for your ticket. Let us know how it works.
Yeah, what a coincidence. Here's the Metro blog post to which Dolcefino's referring.
But the indefatigable Dolcefino still wasn't done. He confronted Metro Chairman David Wolff about Metro officials' (lack of) public transit ridership. Go read, and then chuckle.
One last thing: Metro employees are not happy with this, and they're expressing their frustration with Dolcefino at his blog. The comments are quite a read, to say the least.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/27/07 06:22 AM |
26 September 2007
Metro: Frank Wilson's too busy to ride public transit
Last night on KTRK-13, Wayne Dolcefino took a look at what it cost to make those goofy videos on Metro's website:
Just how much of your money is METRO spending to convince you to ride the bus and rail you are already paying for? And is it the job of METRO to convince us in the first place?
"This is the METRO Report, your source for news and happenings with your host, Elliot Roberts," said the ad METRO is running on its website.
Who's Elliot Roberts? Let's go to METRO headquarters and find out.
"I'm looking for Elliot Roberts," we said when we went into METRO headquarters.
"Who's Elliot Roberts? We asked METRO's George Smalley.
"He's an actor," said Smalley.
He's an actor you paid to do an imitation of Steven Colbert. You can catch his show on Comedy Central.
[snip]
"We're trying to add a little levity, a little lightness to an education piece," said Smalley.
We showed the video to bus passengers next to METRO headquarters.
"You think it was funny?" we asked.
"It was stupid," said one person.
That cost $46,000, a mere drop in Metro's overflowing, taxpayer-funded bucket.
Next up, a movie trailer!
The movie trailer cost $68,961 of your money to make and took three days to scout a location to shoot the video, even though METRO has more than 25 park and ride lots.
"Odds are, there's one near you," the ad says. "Maybe even in your own back yard."
Add another $115,000 to run the video before movies in 13 theaters. You paid talent fees of $3,750 for the actors. Apparently, no one in METRO's $3 million a year marketing department could do it as part of their work day.
And then this:
One of the park and rides lots is down in Missouri City. There are plenty of empty spaces there. Its near Frank Wilson's house, METRO's chief executive officer, but he doesn't use it even though the 163 downtown express can drop him off just a couple of blocks from METRO's headquarters. And the other bus connects to the METRO Rail that runs right next to Wilson's office.
"He's busier than the average commuter," I said.
"Certainly there is a higher expectation on a CEO about how they spend their time and make most productive use of time," Smalley replied.
But METRO spends your money telling you how much work you can get done on mass transit
"With the study time I get on the bus, I got a 'C+' in history," said an actor in the spot. "METRO rocks dude!"
But of course, Wilson gets a $1,000 a month car allowance. So maybe gas prices don't hit his wallet the same as yours.
Metro's transit offerings aren't efficient enough for a busy CEO, and the average commuter's busy-ness isn't comparable to Frank Wilson's. He's just more important!
Another fine example of Metro's tone-deafness.
Perhaps Metro officials could spend less time and money trying to sell an inefficient product, and more time making their product work better...for busy commuters AND CEO's.
Tonight, Dolcefino promises to show us how to ride the bus and light rail for free!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/26/07 05:14 AM |
23 September 2007
Metro works for the "greater" good...all 0.9% of it
Last week I ran across this post on Reason's Out of Control blog which included a link to some interesting data: Houston's public transit market share in 2005 was 0.9%.
For some clarification, Tom Bazan explained exactly what that means: Out of all the "trips" made by Houstonians, whether by car, bus, rail, whatever, less than one percent was carried by public transit. Think of all the hundreds of millions of dollars Metro collects each year, and then think of what percentage of the population that serves.
Yesterday, Rad Sallee noted that Metro's board approved a new budget for 2008 that totals $875 million:
The sum includes an increase, to $354 million, for operations — a cost that had held steady for three years before going up 4 percent in 2007.
But the biggest difference from the current budget is a 65 percent increase in the general mobility payments that Metro makes to the city of Houston, Harris County and 14 member cities in its service area.
That annual obligation, which amounts to 25 percent of Metro's sales tax revenue as required by a 2003 referendum, is budgeted at $185 million in 2008.
Metro President and CEO Frank Wilson attributed the jump to the city of Houston undertaking more mobility projects and presenting more invoices from those projects for Metro to pay.
Tom Bazan has suspected for a while now that Metro wasn't meeting its general mobility obligation to the city of Houston and Harris County areas where Metro collects sales tax revenues. Does Metro have some making up to do? Sure seems like it!
But what's really amazing is that light rail proponents complain that the 25% set-aside is too much!
METRO’s CFO, Francis Britton, estimates that since the program’s inception, more than $1.3 billion has been reallocated. Houston could have built a LOT of high-quality urban transit with $1.3 billion.
Even though three-fourths of the sales tax Metro collects goes to public transit, that's still not enough. The CTC wants 100% of it to go toward transit that serves a teensy fraction of Houstonians.
Here's an interesting tidbit from Sallee's story:
But 2007 was a busy year too, with detailed engineering and property acquisition starting on four of the lines, purchases of 65 new buses, opening of three new Park & Ride lots, and testing of a new fare card system.
Hmmmm, wonder what kind of property acquisition has been going on?
And then a bit of number crunching:
To pay for all this, Metro forecasts sales tax revenue of at least $450 million, $113 million in federal grants and $256 million from short-term borrowing with commercial paper.
Fares are estimated to bring in about $53 million, which would be 6 percent of total spending and 15 percent of operating costs.
Metro will take $450 million from local taxpayers, and fares from actual transit riders will bring in $53 million. That's a plan only government can love!
Today's Chron carries an op-ed by Roy R. Reynolds who laments the fact that Metro just does whatever it wants, no matter how ill-conceived the project. He starts off with a great point that Kevin Whited also made last week:
Houston Mayor Bill White took to the skies a couple of weeks ago to scope out traffic problems created by at-grade rail crossings. As the mayor's helicopter swooped around the city, he saw for himself how "arrogant" rail operators seemed when blocking intersections and creating long queues of cars.
He could have saved the 45-minute helicopter ride and just walked a few blocks from City Hall to see the same problems created by Houston's own light-rail system.
Further in, he gets to the meat of the problem:
Alas resistance, as they say, is futile. Metro recently held public hearings that allowed opponents of the Richmond rail route to voice their dissent. But surely all those attending the meeting know any words of discord fell on deaf ears.
Seemingly nothing can be said that will convince Metro's leaders of anything other than the plan they're forcing on Houston. Those who live and operate businesses along Richmond are told to sacrifice for the "greater good."
Houstonians are inundated with projected ridership figures aimed at showing how useful a rail line cutting through an already-busy part of town would be.
But those dubious numbers, which must come from some bureaucrat's crystal ball, are designed to secure federal funds. That way, Metro can force a whole nation to pay for a rail system that will serve only a handful.
Never mind that the light rail can't get commuters from the suburbs to their jobs. Or that Houston's decentralized population and wide geographic reach vastly reduce the utility of a static mass transit structure.
Logic hasn't dissuaded Metro in the past. Nor have various political scandals. So don't expect the rights of property owners along Richmond — the same kind of people who created a city of opportunity — to make a difference.
One last note, Kevin sent me this amusing email yesterday:
We caught a bus from Athens airport to nearby port city of
Ruffina. Very nice bus, minimal number of stops, took hardly any time
at all, three euros for the fare. Not like Metro's airport express!
Well, that's what we get with a quasi-governmental agency that has practically no accountability. And those who are in a position to force change aren't interested.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/23/07 05:32 PM |
21 September 2007
The danger train strikes again
Well, while Kevin and Anne [woops! That should be Kevin and Callie!] are off to the sunny Near East, I'm picking up the slack a bit by noting that the Danger Train has struck (a vehicle) again, just about an hour ago. Since the accident just happened, the details are pretty sketchy:
One of the train's passengers — a person in a wheelchair — was taken to St. Joseph's hospital by ambulance, they said. No other injuries were reported. All passengers of the train will be offloaded while Metro authorities consider whether to start a bus bridge along the route to bypass the accident scene.
Would it be too much to ask to build a train bridge to bypass the entire route? Evidently so, given Metro's expansion plans.
The cause of the accident is under investigation, officials said.
Hint: Elementary physics and stupid design are at fault. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time; therefore, putting trains and cars on the same street is a bad idea -- but only if the trains carry freight, apparently!
UPDATE: As Rorschach points out, the story seems to have changed. Most interesting alteration is that the first story mentions a wheelchair-bound person being taken to the hospital. The new story omits any mention of a wheelchair, and mentions only a "motorized scooter." Equally peculiar, we are informed that the scooter "broke in two" but we are given no information on her injuries, other than "they are considered not life-threatening." This seems to be an awfully mild - and vague - description for personal injuries, given that the scooter broke in two.
One still wonders how a person without a vehicle wrapped around them (meaning unrestricted vision) and, presumably, a red light, could miss something the size of a MetroRail train.
Posted by Ubu Roi @ 09/21/07 06:35 PM |
19 September 2007
If a developer can do it, why not homeowners?
Some Houston residents are tired of their street being used as a shortcut by other drivers, and they have an idea how to stop it (via KHOU-11):
"To us it's very unsafe to have a car going 50 miles an hour next to our horses when we're walking,” said Arango.
His horses do get spooked when a driver veers off busy Westheimer and uses a long, narrow street as a cut-through.
"They come right up to the horse they are blowing the horn and then they speed up to 60 (mph) said Arango. “ This is a real safety issue and that's what it is all about."
But it's more than horses. About 100 homeowners on East and West Rivercrest have long worried that speeding cars here pose a danger to their children.
"We see a hazard,” said attorney George Fleming, who lives on Rivercrest. Neighbors picked him to offer the city a deal.
"A sale of the street. We'd purchase the street,” said Fleming.
The City of Houston would pick the price and the residents would turn the roads private.
A few blocks away, Michael Levy worries if the city lets one wealthy neighborhood buy a public street and put up gates at either end, it could start a trend.
How is this different from the city selling streets to developers?
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/19/07 04:58 AM |
16 September 2007
Mayor, federal official observe at-grade freight-rail congestion
The congestion caused by Houston's at-grade freight-rail lines made the news earlier this week.
Here's an excerpt from Rad Sallee's reporting for the Chronicle:
A federal transportation official, invited by Mayor Bill White to see how freight trains often block street traffic here, got a bird's-eye view of exactly that on a helicopter tour of the area Monday.
Toward the end of their 45-minute tour, the copter flew over a four-lane street by a rail switching yard near southeast Houston, where a Metro bus and several tractor-trailers were waiting at a crossing, blocked by a stopped train.
"They're so arrogant," White told Surface Transportation Board Chairman Charles "Chip" Nottingham. "That train does not have to be stopped over those tracks. The railroad does not give a darn."
It has always been surprising to me that so many important side streets in Houston are cut off by freight rail tracks, which are elevated or routed away from traffic in many major cities. It's good to see Mayor White trying to address the issue.
Then again, Mayor White's argument may be undercut somewhat by the fact that the area's regional transit organization (METRO) is proceeding full speed ahead with plans to lay many more miles of light rail down the middle of busy streets, thereby contributing to congestion. That's a problem that some critics of congestion caused by at-grade freight-rail prefer to ignore.
RELATED: Rail issues "a giant challenge" for Houston (Houston Business Journal), Mayor wants trains to stop blocking roads (Jeremy Desel, KHOU-11 News).
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/16/07 09:08 PM |
12 September 2007
Some trees have all the luck
The Kirby Drive road widening project is threatening nearly 300 trees, and tree-lovers all over Houston are raising a hue and cry:
Save the Kirby Drive trees! (Trees for Houston)
Kirby Drive reconstruction plans pose important questions, trade-offs (CTC's Robin Holzer)
Trees for Houston vs. the Upper Kirby District TIRZ (Houston Strategies)
Kirby widening poses dangers (Gulf Coast Institute Blog)
Tree fight brewing in Upper Kirby district (KTRK-13)
However, the 200 or so trees along the path of Metro's proposed Richmond light rail expansion have few advocates on their behalf. Recall that Metro has said it will replace mature oak trees with crape myrtles and pine trees which will make Richmond "more attractive" than it was to begin with, according to a Metro official.
Other than that, there appears to be little outcry for saving the Richmond trees.
But as we all know, roads are bad and mass transit is good. Therefore, it is okay to sacrifice some trees if it is for the cause of utopian transit.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/12/07 07:09 PM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]