05 February 2009
Mr. Wilson goes to Washington
With his hat in his hand, begging for some of the "stimulus" pie:
Frank J. Wilson, our president & CEO, was scheduled to host the chat. He had to fly to Washington today for an unexpected trip to meet with Congressional leaders on METRO's funding needs, as part of the proposed economic stimulus package.
And the head of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says things are looking good for METRO:
Houston Metro is due to receive as much as $180 million over the next 12 months from a huge economic stimulus bill to help jump-start construction of two light rail lines, a House committee chairman said Wednesday.
The long-delayed rail lines on the city’s north and southeast sides are a “very high-rated project,” said Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who heads the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The project, he said, is ready to go and has cleared all but one step of a federal review.
“I will work with the Houston (congressional) delegation and with the Federal Transit Administration to process this project along,” Oberstar told the Houston Chronicle.
Asked if Metro’s overall request for $410 million from the economic stimulus bill had been realistic, Oberstar replied, “I should think so.”
[snip]
Oberstar’s comments followed an hourlong, closed-door meeting with a delegation that included Frank J. Wilson, the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s president and CEO, and Democratic Reps. Al Green and Sheila Jackson Lee. Also present were Houston Metro board members Burt Ballanfant. George DeMontrond and Jimmy Stewart, and Houston City Council member Sue Lovell.
“We are delighted with what we heard today,” Wilson said after the meeting, adding that Metro has a champion in Oberstar.
Like flies drawn to ... well, you know.
One can only imagine the backflips Mr. Procurement Disaster was doing after his meeting.
Meanwhile, in unrelated news, while METRO continues to scratch its head over declining ridership numbers, a homeless man was killed by a METRO bus after getting "into a scuffle with another man at a METRO bus stop, possibly over food the other man had." Who wouldn't want to ride the bus and witness such events?
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/05/09 04:54 AM |
03 February 2009
METRO: Don't call it a trend!
Tom Bazan sent out an email blast this weekend with METRO's latest ridership figures, and he noted that December's bus ridership declined a whopping 32 percent from the previous December. Add to that the previous three months'-worth of declining bus ridership numbers (a 21 percent decrease for the quarter) and you might think METRO has a trend.
Nope. You'd be wrong, as the Chron's Rosanna Ruiz found out when she decided to write a story on it and called Raequel Roberts for METRO's reaction.
Metro has reported an across-the-board drop in total ridership for a fourth consecutive month, blaming cheaper gas prices and continued blow-back from last year’s fare increases. Officials had predicted that ridership would go down, but not by this much.
In the last three months of 2008, system-wide ridership fell by 12 percent, compared to the same period the year before, to 21 million from 24 million. Metro officials are confident riders will be back after a short cooling-off period.
Although the numbers show a consistent, downward trajectory over four months, Metro spokeswoman Raequel Roberts was reluctant to call it an outright trend.
Which raises the question: At what point does it become a trend? Six months? A year? And what, if anything, should be done about it?
Nothing will happen because it's METRO we are dealing with. Couple lower gas prices with the frustration and inconvenience of having to deal with METRO's scheduling and it's not too hard to figure out why bus ridership has declined. Just read the comments to the Chron's story.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/03/09 04:59 AM |
22 January 2009
A red light camera ticket nightmare
What could possibly go wrong? How about this (via KPRC-2):
Eileen Donevant did what I hope most of us would do. She took her directions from a Houston police officer motioning her through the red light.
About a week later, she got a $75 ticket for running the red light.
So what do you do?
“If an officer's directing you to go through an intersection, then yeah, you need to do so,” Lt. Kevin Gallier said.
Then why, we asked, did Donevant get a ticket?
“There are some times, just like in any other organization, where some communication can break down,” explained Gallier.
Really. That's not what we've been told. After all, someone is personally checking each and every ticket to make sure only valid tickets are mailed out.
HPD says each set of pictures snapped and the video captured by the red-light cameras is reviewed before a citation is mailed out, but the officer directing Donevant through the red light is not in the picture. He’s standing off camera to the right.
Oh. Nevermind. Personally reviewing every ticket isn't a guarantee something won't go wrong. How many tickets were mailed out that day based on the officer waving cars through the intersection? How many people just paid instead of facing the nightmare to fight the ticket?
HPD did delete Donevant’s ticket when we contacted them, but Donevant says prior to calling us she wrote letters and called the city herself with no success.
The city says the only way to appeal a red light camera ticket is to schedule a hearing downtown.
One is presumed guilty; therefore, in order to correct a municipal screw-up, one must take a day off from work or arrange for child care, drive downtown, find parking (a very fun prospect thanks to Liliana Rambo's organization), and wait to be heard.
And don't forget -- the city now wants to put a hold on vehicle registrations for those who don't pay their tickets. Super! That's running the city like a business!
Moral of the story? If you receive a red light camera ticket in error, contact local media.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/22/09 06:43 PM |
12 January 2009
The latest METRO Solution: A pretty brochure
The Chronicle's Rosanna Ruiz reports that METRO has responded to the facts that it still can't reach agreement with its preferred rail construction partner and still can't actually finance its rail expansion by... creating a fancy brochure (!):
The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County went as far as creating a nine-page color brochure that promised that construction could begin within 90 days on North and Southeast light rail lines with a $410 million infusion.
Moving that quickly — and simultaneously — on two light-rail lines may seem farfetched considering that Metro's track record includes completing only a single, 7-mile rail system.
Also, Metro has thus far been unable to reach a final contract agreement with Parsons Transportation Group, the firm it announced in April would build its rail lines.
Here is an excerpt from a fun comment on the story:
Houston Transit seems to have it's [sic] hands out for $400 million for new light rail. If, Houston Transit got the $400 million, what would be the "remaining cost" the five new alignments -- $3 billion or 4.5 to 5 billion? Ans: 4.5 bil - 5 billion more.
(Houston's 50%, need to be borrow all of it: $2.5 bil)
Where is the brochure showing Houston total Light rail construction costs that would include future Debt Service and Operating Costs. I hope the new rail brochure shows all the "new" rail crossing rail in downtown --the new bridges or tunnels over or under Main Street.
The brochure should also show Metro's current "lousy" bus service declining by 20% more, due to increased light rail operating and debt costs. Maybe the brochure should show the City of Houston's additional Stimulus request for $175 million to build road and bridges for Metro's Intermodal Terminal. (roads for a PPP Project that will be privately owned of course)
For even more fun, the brochure might also show Frank "Procurement Disaster" Wilson (unethically) negotiating his next gig with some contractor if/when he is unable to deliver the promised rail expansion on time or otherwise.
We're pretty sure that METRO's brochure won't show any of those things.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/12/09 10:27 PM |
04 January 2009
Taking apart Mayor White's spinning of red-light-camera study
There have been several follow-ups to Bradley Olson's story on the findings of Houston's long overdue red-light-camera study.
TheNewspaper.com came up with a couple of interesting points after looking the data:
The Rice-TTI study compared 24 months of pre-installation data to between 13 and 21 months of post-installation data for each of the five groups. According to TheNewspaper's analysis of overall accident data found in the appendices, the average number of monthly collisions went from an average of 15.4 collisions per month in the two years prior to camera enforcement to 58.3 accidents per month in the post-installation period. Although this figure is not reported in the study itself, the general fact is briefly acknowledged.
"The absolute number of collisions at camera-monitored intersection approaches is not decreasing," the study admitted.
To achieve the appearance of success, the study divided red light camera intersections into "non-monitored" approaches -- the directions of travel at the intersection where the red light camera is not looking -- and the "monitored" approaches where ticketing took place. There was a 132 percent increase in collisions at the non-monitored approaches of the intersection where red light cameras were installed and a non-significant 9 percent increase at the monitored approaches. The study treated these increases in both rear end and T-bone collisions as unrelated to the red light camera as long as the accident happened outside of the camera's view.
The study concluded that because the accidents went up at the non-monitored approaches of red light camera intersections, but effectively stayed the same at the monitored approaches, that the red light cameras were responsible for the "benefit" (a smaller increase) at one part of the red light camera intersection, but not the increase in acccidents at the other. This line of thought would suggest that the increased accidents at the non-monitored approaches of red light camera intersections reflected an increase in accidents at the other city intersections that had no red light cameras at all. The study admits this implication is untrue.
The second point: The data from the Houston study is at odds with the data from the statewide red-light-camera study that purported to show red-light cameras reduced accidents:
Increases in Houston collisions documented by Rice-TTI mysteriously became decreases in collisions in the TxDOT-TTI report, as follows:
Monroe at Gulf Freeway East Service Road: a 913% increase became a 41.7% decrease
Hollister at Northwest Freeway: a 747% increase became a 60.5% decrease
FM1960 West at Tomball Parkway: a 307% increase became a 44% decrease
Richmond at Dunvale: a 103% increase became no change
South Sam Houston Freeway at Telephone Road: a 164% increase became a 19.3% decrease
East Freeway North Service Road at Normandy: a 52% increase became a 25% decrease
North Freeway West Service Road at West Rankin Road: a 18% increase became a 32.7% decrease
Then Bradley Olson posted a follow-up story on Chron.com suggesting the Houston study was flawed, which prompted Scott Henson, who blogs at Grits for Breakfast, to express his skepticism:
While not long ago, the Chronicle touted the results of a much less rigorous study uncritically, in this case, where the results do not support red light cameras, the whole story was centered around claiming the research methodology was flawed. Writes Bradley Olson:
Because red-light cameras are known to have a spillover effect — meaning that they have been shown to impact the number of accidents at intersections where there are no cameras — robust examinations of camera programs always compare crash data with that in other cities.
It's what statisticians call a control group. Unless the study authors compare crashes at the 50 intersections where red-light cameras have been installed with other intersections in which they have not been — preferably in other cities — no conclusions can be drawn from it.
This is utter gobbledy gook, not a legitimate statistical analysis! Red light cameras create their OWN control group when researchers monitor accidents at the intersection BEFORE and AFTER enforcement begins.
That was the flaw I identified in the Texas Department of Transportation study published in December - in the vast majority of intersections they studied, data was not gathered before cameras were installed to compare them. In the Houston study, they had that data going back several years, so IMO the results are actually much more robust and probative than TXDOT's.
[snip]
The reporter also claims, bizarrely, that, "At a ratio of 10 to 1, study after study on the effect of red-light cameras ... have found that they drastically reduce crashes." That's simply false on its face, which further leads me to think Olson's sources were feeding him a line of bull. As I wrote in reaction to the TXDOT study:
in Lubbock red light cameras were discontinued after accidents overall increased 52% at intersections with cameras. Similarly, the state of Virginia eliminated their use after studies in every city using the devices found the number of accidents increased. In other jurisdictions, studies have found reductions in right-angle accidents but nearly equal increases in rear-end collisions, including in injury accidents.
The Houston figures jibe closely with those results, so I don't see why Olson or Mayor White are so surprised that accidents increased in Houston, too. That's what happens when officials prioritize revenue generation over public safety.
And finally, a letter in today's Chronicle, points out that most red-light-camera violations occur in the first two seconds after the light has turned red:
These are not very likely to be the ones that cause serious accidents, but they certainly are the source of a huge amount of revenue being raised by the city. Heavily penalizing these early violations does almost nothing to reduce the accident rate because most red-light-running accidents are caused by drivers who are oblivious to the red light. They run the light much later than two seconds into the red, and they are usually impaired or oblivious to the danger they face.
And a California study showed that three-fourths of all red-light-camera violations occurred in the first second after a light turned red.
The point?
Lengthening yellow light times will do more to reduce red light running and accidents than cameras ever will.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/04/09 03:32 PM |
29 December 2008
Chron: Wrecks more than doubled at intersections with at least one red-light camera
Finally, the study has been released (completely unrelated to that lawsuit, we're sure), and incredibly, Mayor White and Bob Stein have decided they're going to sell a different conclusion, saying red light cameras have actually improved public safety: (via the Chron's Bradley Olsen):
Red-light cameras installed at some of Houston's most dangerous intersections did not reduce the number of crashes there, according to a long-awaited study the city commissioned on the matter.
In fact, wrecks at intersections with at least one red-light camera more than doubled, the data shows. The analysis examined accident data at intersections that had at least one camera which monitored traffic in one direction, or "approach" of the intersection.
Study authors said the reason for the increase at "monitored approaches" is actually that the city has seen a major uptick in collisions during the past year, one that they believe red-light cameras helped mitigate. In other words, the study, released today, concludes that there were far fewer collisions at intersections with red-light cameras than there otherwise would have been if the cameras had not been installed.
"Collisions are going up all over the city," said Bob Stein, a Rice University political science professor and one of report's four authors. "But red-light cameras have held back that increase at approaches where they have been installed."
Regarding the bolded sentence, read the following from the study:
Although this study supports the idea that that red light cameras have a positive effect in reducing collisions at monitored approaches in comparison with non-monitored approaches, several questions have been raised by these findings. The most important of these is “Why have accidents at non-monitored approaches increased so dramatically in the past year?” As suggested above, these results could be evidence of an increase in collisions across the city. The selection in 2006 of intersections with high rates of collisions could be serving to magnify this effect.
Currently, conclusions on a general increase in collisions across the city are not supportable with available data. Population growth and congestion stand out as possible factors behind slower traffic flow and increased collisions on a citywide level. However, this hypothesis is beyond the scope of this report and will have to be tested with specific data and rigorous analysis.
Just something to consider, as you read MayorWhiteBobStein's spin:
Mayor Bill White said the findings prove that the red light cameras are making city streets safer.
"The program is proving successful in improving public safety, which has been the goal since the beginning," White said in a written statement. "We believe the findings and conclusions provide sound evidence of that."
Or something else.
UPDATE: Kevin and Cory have struggled through the study. Both now need aspirin.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 12/29/08 07:48 PM |
23 December 2008
People like their cars
Yesterday's Move It! column noted that METRO's ridership is down:
Ridership went down in November for all of Metro's primary modes of transportation: rail, Park and Ride and local bus service.
The slide in Metro's ridership comes at a time when commuters now rely upon public transportation at record levels, according to a recent report from the American Public Transportation Association.
METRO's ridership bookkeeping has always been mysterious, so who knows what the agency's real numbers are. But it's not hard to figure out that a contributing factor in the reduced number of riders is what happened to gas prices. Given a choice -- affordable gas prices vs. late, uncomfortable, inflexible mass transit -- the vast majority of people will choose to drive their cars. It's personal freedom.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 12/23/08 05:10 AM |
20 December 2008
Area transit agency manipulating statistics? Just call it the Houston Way
The Chronicle's Rosanna Ruiz reports that the performance of METRO's bus service is registering complaints from management and riders alike:
Metro buses continue to run late and have failed to achieve the agency's modest goal of 61 percent on-time performance, a feat that does not evoke confidence in the transit agency, board chairman David Wolff complained Thursday.
Metro buses have run on schedule 59 percent of the time for the first two months of this fiscal year. The agency reported a 55 percent on-time percentage in 2008.
"I get letters from people saying, 'I wait and wait. I'm going to quit taking the bus because I can't depend on it,' " Wolff said during the board's monthly meeting. "An important part of running a transit service is dependability. An important part of dependability is punctuality."
[snip]
During the public-comment portion of Thursday's meeting, board members waited on Bellaire resident Marta Epps to breathlessly make her way to the podium, where she wanted to complain about Metro's decision to raise the fare from $1 to $1.25.
Epps apologized, but said a late bus was to blame for her tardiness.
That's priceless.
The following comment -- not so much:
David F. Feeley, the agency's senior vice president of operations, said the 61 percent goal is nothing to boast about, but he blamed the shortfall on the way Metro measures its travel times.
"I don't think that number accurately reflects the actual performance," Feeley said about Metro's arrival and departure times in October and November.
According to Metro staff, the agency calculates its on-time performance through on-board devices that count passengers and time of arrival at each stop. The agency collects data for each stop, not simply at the start and end of each route. If one bus along a route, for instance, experiences a delay because of a parked train, subsequent stops also will be behind and recorded as late arrivals.
Buses are considered late if they are more than five minutes behind schedule. Delays of 20 minutes or more are considered "anomalous" and are excluded from the final tally.
We had to re-read that bold part a few times to make sure we were reading it correctly.
Upon reflection, however, it does not not surprise. After all, if MayorWhiteChiefHurtt's police department can miscategorize murders so that Houston won't be designated the murder capital of Texas on their watch, why shouldn't the local transit agency lie about delays to make their dismal numbers look a little less dismal? We've been learning a lot recently about the "Chicago Way" in terms of politics -- maybe we can deem this sort of deception the "Houston way!"
In any case, it's good to see the Chronicle transportation reporter offering a little more criticism of METRO than either of the last two reporters on the beat (Rad Sallee and Lucas Wall).
Cory Crow asks some pointed questions in his post on the story. We'll conclude with a "what he said."
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 12/20/08 11:58 PM |
10 December 2008
The OTHER red-light camera study
The Houston Press' Hair Balls blog hears that there's another red-light camera study, and this time it focuses solely on Houston:
Much is being made of a Texas A&M study recently released saying that red light cameras reduce accidents by 30 percent across the state.
But Hair Balls has gotten a whiff that there's another study out there looking specifically at Houston and that the results are not so rosy. What's more, a local civil rights lawyer says the City of Houston is refusing to release it.
Attorney Randall Kallinen says Rice University professor Robert Stein (who is no enemy of the mayoral administration) completed a study three months ago and turned it over to the city. Kallinen says he spoke to Stein about the report.
"Legally," says Kallinen, "I could tell you everything I know about that study, but morally I told Mr. Stein that I wouldn't say much about it. But let me tell you, that draft report is in direct odds to what the report from A&M said."
So far the city is refusing to release the study in response to TxPIA requests, but mayoral spokesman Pat Trahan says it will be released in a few days.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 12/10/08 04:54 AM |
01 December 2008
State Auditor's Office, Queen Sheila raise concerns over METRO
Isiah Carey and Texas Watchdog both call attention to this audit report by the State Auditor's Office on METRO.
The report (which should be read in its entirety) is generally complimentary of METRO. However, the most interesting section (Chapter Three, beginning about page 16) raises questions about optimistic projections by METRO, as well as concerns over debt. METRO responds at some length to the questions (beginning around page 19).
In the meantime, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who has been thinking about Houston light rail since she was a six-year-old running around the Jamaica area of Queens, has scheduled a press conference to criticize METRO -- not over the questions raised in the audit report. No no, that would be timely and salient. Instead, Queen Sheila apparently is upset because METRO isn't functioning well enough as a local jobs program. See her press release after the [Read More] jump. The release indicates that a press conference will be held downtown on Wednesday, December 2, so we're not sure exactly when it is going to take place. But if you make it, please leave us a comment and let us know about it.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 12/01/08 10:43 PM |
30 November 2008
METRO IAH express bus service long overdue, but expensive
The Chronicle's Rosanna Ruiz does a nice job with this METRO press release posing as a news article:
Houston residents and out-of-town travelers can rely ... on taxis, shuttles and now nonstop bus service to George Bush Intercontinental Airport.
Metro has added nonstop bus service to the airport for $30 round-trip.
The buses, similar to those used by Park and Ride commuters, run every 30 minutes to and from Metro's downtown passenger plaza, 815 Pierce, to Bush airport's Terminal C.
[snip]
In comparison, SuperShuttle vans cost $23 for a trip to the Bush airport and $44 round-trip.
Yellow Cabs cost $44.50 to downtown, $51 to get to the Galleria area and $55 to travel to Reliant Stadium.
This is a needed, long overdue service that METRO should have been shamed into offering years ago.
That being said, it's also an expensive, needed, long overdue service.
The Chronicle reporter might have done some comparisons on large cities that offer similar services, and how much it costs to get into the central business area. Chicago, St. Louis, and Philadelphia (to name a few) all offer train rides into their central business areas for less money. Surely other cities offer express bus service. But the reporter doesn't take the initiative to provide those comparisons, which probably weren't included in METRO's press information either.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 11/30/08 09:06 PM |
27 November 2008
Shock: Desired behavior leads to undesirable outcome
On Monday, METRO's expensive blogger wrote a post titled, "When Public Transit's Cash Cow Runs Dry." The first paragraph is a doozy:
Americans are driving fewer miles this year than last year - and that means the Highway Trust Fund, fueled by the gasoline tax, took in billions of fewer dollars in Fiscal Year 2008. We drove 90 billion miles less in a period of 11 months in FY08 compared to the year before, reported the U.S. Department of Transportation last week.
Isn't that the goal of transit experts, agencies, and enthusiasts? For Americans to drive less? So, public transit fans get their desired outcome, but suddenly realize there's a downside.
Genius.
And the solution? Increase taxes, of course!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 11/27/08 07:13 AM |
20 November 2008
Outstanding red-light camera ticket? No car registration for you!
City Council has approved MayorWhiteChiefHurtt's latest plan to get red light runners to pay their tickets:
The City Council on Wednesday approved a measure that will allow the state to deny vehicle registration to drivers who do not pay their red-light camera tickets after repeated warnings.
As many as 25 percent of those who receive the $75 citation never pay up. Until now, there was nothing the city could do about it.
Under the measure approved Wednesday, if a driver does not pay after 85 days, the city can get the Texas Department of Transportation to put a "hold'' on the vehicle owner's registration that cannot be cleared until the ticket is paid.
"It's not complex,'' Mayor Bill White said. "If you get a citation when you're running the red light, then you pay the citation. Or, if you think there's some mistaken identity, then you go and contest it. It's pretty simple. But what you don't have an option to do is just ignore the citation."
Yeah, if you want to contest a ticket, all you have to do is take time off work, arrange daycare for the kids, drive all the way to downtown, pay for parking, etc, etc. Simple.
Despite Mayor White's assertion that "it's not complex," there are concerns from other quarters:
Not so fast, said George Hammerlein, who handles local governmental affairs for Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt's office.
Because that office administers registration renewals, the city would have to reach an interlocal agreement with the county, a step for which there still were a number of hurdles, Hammerlein said.
"We had a meeting and identified a series of areas we had concerns about before we could even think about going forward, and they haven't addressed them all yet," he said.
Hammerlein said a primary concern is customer service. If 100,000 people a year fail to pay red-light tickets, he said, that would mean 100,000 people could end up waiting in long lines at county offices to get new registrations, only to be turned away.
"That has a big impact on our lines and the overall customer service level that we strive for," he said.
And Councilman Sullivan wasn't sold on the plan:
Sullivan said he was skeptical of the ordinance for a number of reasons: What if a couple goes through a divorce and the notice of a ticket goes to the wrong address? What if someone gives away a vehicle as a gift? He also cast doubt on whether the process would be fluid, given that it involves the city; a private contractor that administers the cameras; the county, which handles vehicle registration renewals; and the state, which would apply the holds.
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 11/20/08 05:38 AM |
12 November 2008
Another Houston driver takes on Danger Train, loses
In a rare bit of reporting on the topic, the Chron notes that a Danger Train crash took place earlier:
Three passengers on a MetroRail train were taken to a hospital this morning after the train collided with a car at a downtown intersection.
The accident occurred about 9:20 a.m. as the driver of the car attempted an illegal left turn at Main and Leeland, said Metro spoieswoman Raequel Roberts.
The passengers were taken to St. Joseph Medical Center with injuries that were deemed non-life-threatening, Roberts said.
The car was traveling on Leeland when it crossed the northbound train's path and was struck on the driver's side, Roberts said.
The driver, who was not injured, was cited by police for turning illegally, she said.
Northbound train service resumed about 10:50 a.m.
So, the Danger Train, METRO's "transit backbone," was out of service for an hour-and-a-half because at-grade light rail and bad Houston drivers continue to be a bad mix.
Imagine how well the coming at-grade rail lines in busy corridors like Richmond (which is how METRO and its sycophants translate "Westpark") will mix with Houston drivers!
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 11/12/08 02:18 PM |
02 November 2008
Pasadena to get METRO service
Meanwhile, the outer reaches of Harris County still get nothing. Except taxed, of course.
The last Chron Move It! column had news of Pasadena's new service:
Metro approved a proposal to expand bus service to Pasadena beginning next year. Metro expects to run buses from Houston to Pasadena's Town Square Mall with a stop at the Monroe Park and Ride.
Similar service from the Monroe site is now available to Baytown.
Metro predicts an annual cost of $79,000. Harris County and federal funds are expected to cover the new route since it lies outside Metro's service area.
How nice for them.
Here's an idea: If METRO can expand its service to non-taxed areas by contract, how about if non-serviced areas have the ability to terminate their taxed contract with METRO?
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 11/02/08 12:58 PM |
In anticipation of the the Grand Parkway's F-2 segment...
...a Dallas developer has bought a chunk of land at Spring Steubner and Kuykendahl for a new retail center:
The undeveloped land bought by Hopkins Commercial Real Estate Inc. is located at the southeast corner of Kuykendahl and Spring Stuebner, just north of Houston. The property was purchased last month from three separate owners for an undisclosed amount. Most of the property was previously earmarked for residential construction.
Steve Gregory, president of Dallas-based Hopkins Commercial, said the site is a long-term investment for a retail center that will be built, possibly in one to three years. The site is attractive to the company because a leg of the Grand Parkway that will start construction in late 2010 will go by the 56 acres.
Swell.
PREVIOUSLY: Grand Parkway archives
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 11/02/08 12:13 PM |
16 October 2008
As economy slows, METRO approves fare increase
KTRK-13 reports that METRO's well-publicized* fare increase was approved today:
Beginning next month, you will need a little extra change to ride METRO. For the first time in 14 years, the transit authority board has voted to raise the base fare.
It is up a quarter from $1.00 to $1.25. Prices go up from there. People who ride farther will see higher increases, as much as a dollar in some cases. Even though the move is unpopular with some riders, METRO board members consider the hike a necessity.
Remember the 2003 referendum that promised a 50% increase in bus service?
Instead, METRO bus riders get a fare increase and reduced service (err, service "improvements").
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
* There were public hearings right after the hurricane, when METRO services weren't operating, after all.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 10/16/08 10:14 PM |
13 October 2008
What do METRO, Diana Ross, and an elephant all have in common?
Starting today, you'll see a giant elephant with sunglasses standing on the rail.
At least, you'll see this image in brochures on our buses and trains - and later this week, on posters at our Park & Ride lots and various shopping centers around town.
It's all part of our new anti-terrorism campaign that tells an important message without creating fear.
"We were looking for a way to get the terrorism message across but not be scary and intimidating to people," said Sydney Veeder, account executive and copywriter for the campaign. "We wanted something very eye-catching, above and beyond the normal visual. An elephant stands out a little bit on a rail platform."
The message is simple: If you see something, say something!
On the radio, you'll hear 60-second spots in both English and Spanish. The English spot features a Motown tune with lyrics penned by Veeder.
"I thought of Diana Ross and the Supremes and the sense of empowerment against outside forces that can't be controlled. That fit in perfectly with anti-terrorism," said Veeder, pictured on the right.
Motown, Diana Ross and the Supremes, and a sunglasses-wearing elephant fit in perfectly with METRO's anti-terrorism message?
That's our tax dollars at work.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/13/08 06:40 PM |
06 October 2008
METRO's advantage: tax dollars
In today's Move It! column (one of the last?), Rad Sallee talks about how Wall Street's problems affect local transportation entities. Here are a couple of excerpts:
County Judge Ed Emmett said the toll road authority has more than $800 million in the bank and, if necessary, could build two long-awaited projects, the northeast quadrant of the Sam Houston Tollway and the Hardy Toll Road extension to downtown, with that money alone. Both projects will break ground soon, he said.
And:
Metro has one advantage over the other two agencies: Its main revenue source is a 1-cent sales tax that rises with inflation and is based on a variety of goods, not just motor fuel or toll road use. The agency has collected $520 million from the sales tax in the past 12 months and has cash reserves of $134 million.
At present, Metro is "pretty much a cash business," said Wilson. Compared to its 2008 budget of about $800 million, he noted, current debt is $143 million.
But the debt will increase sharply next year when construction of five light rail lines and the rest of the Metro Solutions plan get under way.
[snip]
Under a 2003 transit referendum, no more than $640 million in bonds may be issued for Metro Solutions.
To cover the remaining cost — and some estimate the total well over $3 billion — it will need 50 percent federal funding and probably substantial help from private companies seeking joint developments with Metro around transit facilities.
What I find interesting is Sallee's characterization of the one-cent sales tax as an "advantage." HCTRA collects its revenues from tolls, and whether or not one agrees with toll roads, drivers make a decision to pay the toll and fund HCTRA. With METRO, EVERYONE within the taxing jurisdiction forks over money, when most of the taxpayers never even use the agency's services. Advantage: METRO. Screwed: taxpayers.
Of course, we know METRO funds itself through tax dollars, not through fare collection. Its (overall) transit offerings are so pathetic, it could never live off fares. Someday, perhaps a local pol will take on METRO, start standing up for those of us who get nothing as METRO takes our money, and put a dent in METRO's entitlement mentality. I can dream!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/06/08 06:29 PM |
26 September 2008
METRO bus driver kills woman; METRO investigates
Earlier this week, a METRO bus driver killed a woman who had just exited the bus. Both KRIV-26 (Fox) and KHOU-11 have stories that suggest METRO officials might not be able to blame this accident on the victim:
(Channel 26) Shawn Cunningham says, he was at the bus stop to pick up his mother, 61-year old Arrilla Carr. He says Carr stepped off the bus, which quickly lurched into a right-hand turn.
And after the bus passed by, he saw his mother crumpled on the pavement. "I looked and my mom was laying in the middle of the street, twisted up like a wrung-out towel."
Cunningham is a trucker by profession, who says the bus driver's turn was too sharp and too fast. He believes if the driver had checked his convex mirrors, he would have seen Carr walking alongside the bus.
And:
(Channel 11) Police say she had just gotten off the bus at Veterans Memorial and Pecan Drive in North Houston when the bus cut across the shoulder of the road. The back end of the bus went up on the curb where Carr was about to cross the street.
Fox's story notes that METRO is investigating (itself??), and that the bus driver has been "relieved of duty." And now, the victim's family has filed a lawsuit.
However, an award-winning Houston Press investigation two years ago uncovered how abominably METRO behaves in these situations:
The Houston Press has spent the last four months independently investigating Metro's bus operations. It took an appeal to the Attorney General of Texas's Open Records Division to open up Metro's records. In examining thousands of public documents and interviewing more than a dozen recent survivors of Metro accidents and families whose relatives were killed by Metro buses, the Press found repeated instances of the following:
• Metro rejecting the safety recommendations of its own investigators
• Metro offering bus accident victims much lower amounts to settle cases than what was recommended by its own claims committee
• Metro hounding victims to settle their cases, even approaching them to sign settlement forms as they lay in their hospital beds
• Metro not offering any form of apology to victims even when their bus drivers caused the accidents
• Metro creatively interpreting accident statistics in ways that enable it to misrepresent the actual number of bus crashes occurring each year
• Metro taking no responsibility for accidents incurred by First Transit, a private subcontractor that operates one-sixth of Metro's buses and consistently posts a higher accident rate.
Mrs. Cunningham's family will have to persevere if they hope to hold METRO to account.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/26/08 06:48 PM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]