This is what happens when voters are driven by emotion rather than data. Hopefully, the county commissioners and the voters will remember that when it comes time to plan and vote on flood control bonds. From the InBox:
Bill King
In 2001, the last year before Metro began spending money on light rail, Houstonians took over 89 million trips on Metro’s local bus service.[i] Last year, the combined trips on the local bus service and the light rail system came in at about 76 million, a decline of over 14% since 2001. [ii] Over that period Harris County’s population has grown by over 30%.
Considering that after Metro invested $2.2 billion in light rail, yet fewer Houstonians are opting to take transit, it seems a good time to ask: Was it worth it?
This, of course, is not what the promoters of Metro’s light rail system promised back in 2003. Nor, I expect, is it what the voters thought they were going to get when they voted in favor of the 2003 referendum which authorized the construction of the light rail system. The rosy projections of increased transit ridership originally promised in 2003 have long since been abandoned. Instead, the program appears to have mostly converted a significant portion of bus riders to light rail riders.[iii]
This means the light rail has done virtually nothing to reduce congestion. Getting some buses off the street probably improves congestion to some minimal degree, but then I have never been in a traffic jam on Harrisburg anyway. And the light rail causes its own congestion, like the fact that we can no longer synchronize the lights downtown.
Although Metro’s leadership appears to have mostly abandoned the idea of building more light rail, it still seeks to justify the investment on a variety of other grounds.
It argues, for example, that the light rail has spurred development in the areas it serves. And there is some evidence that supports that contention. The East End is certainly experiencing a revival that more or less coincides with the light rail being extended into that neighborhood. To what degree that new development was caused by the light rail or independent of it is difficult to ascertain.
In my opinion, Metro undermines its credibility by frequently citing the total new development along the light rail lines. I think the last number I heard was $8 billion. But that includes all the new development in the Texas Medical Center, which had absolutely nothing to do with the light rail.
But whether there have been any collateral advantages from the construction of the light rail system is not the question we should be asking ourselves. The question should be: Why did Houstonians support building in the first place?
I don’t have any polling from the time of the referendum, but polling on transit over a long period of time has shown that most people support transit because they hope someone else will take it and relieve the congestion they experience. (SeeIf So Many People Support Mass Transit, Why Do So Few Ride?, Eric Jaffe, City Lab, September 22, 2014.) Contrary to the public’s impression, very little definitive scholarly research shows that transit reduces congestion.
This raises what I have always thought that is one of Metro’s principal problems: the lack of clear objectives. Metro’s vision and mission statements are so vague that they can be interpreted to mean anything. Interesting, neither even mentions the word “congestion”. (Click [here]to read vision and mission statements.)
It is impossible to manage an organization that does not have a clear objective(s). This is a conversation we need to have. What do we want Metro to do? Is it to reduce congestion? Provide transportation to those who cannot afford a car or are physically incapable of operating one? Spur redevelopment? Perhaps Metro should have another referendum to answer this fundamental question.
And then the question we will have to ask ourselves: What is the most cost-effective strategy to accomplish the objective(s)? There is no way to know that answer, until we know the objective. But I doubt light rail, especially at-grade light rail, is going to be the solution for any objective.
In the meantime think about this. What could we have done instead with the $2.2 billion that was spent on light rail? The answer is lots. Like solving most of our flooding problem or resurfacing virtually every street in the street in the City or repairing our dilapidated wastewater system or putting more police officers on the streets or demolishing some of the thousands of dangerous buildings in the City or any one of dozens of other critical priorities facing the City.
The question is not whether light rail is a good thing or not. The question is whether it was the best use of $2.2 billion of taxpayer money. The answer to that question is pretty clearly, “No.”
[i] Metro keeps separate ridership statistics on its local service, which covers the city street grid, and its “Park & Ride” service, which shuttles passengers from the suburbs using its HOV system.
[ii] The FTA counts “unlinked” trips. That is anytime a transit rider get on a transit vehicle. Because riders frequently must transfer between buses and/or trains, a single commute can result in a transit agency (including Metro) counting a single commute two or more times. Some Metro critics argue that Metro’s ridership statistics are inflated because the light rail system resulted in more transfers as riders were forced to take a bus to an LRT terminus to continue their trip. I have not found any data that would support or refute this claim. Metro can track transfers on riders which use the Metrocard, but it has only aggregated that data for one short term study fairly recently. I cannot think of any way to reconstruct the data going back to 2003.
[iii] At least, that is what pretty clearly happened when the original red line on Main Street was opened 2004-2005. It also appears to have occurred when the Main Street line was extended to the north in 2013. However, there was an increase in ridership when the East End and University lines were opened in 2015, without any corresponding decrease in bus ridership. This was about the same time that Metro rolled out its Reimagine program, which dramatically restructured its bus routes. So, it is difficult to sort out whether the new light rail lines had fundamentally different ridership dynamics or if there was a loss in ridership along those lines like the Main Street line that was offset by an increase in ridership from Reimagine.
I still can’t believe that Rep. Ted Poe (R-2) supports building another boondoggle rail line in Harris County. And his reasoning for that support doesn’t pass the smell test, so you have to ask yourself, what is this really about?
I can’t answer that one but I can debunk his argument that “his constituents” want it. Not a chance. His congressional district is comprised of 698,488 residents, of which 518,345 are of voting age. There are very few residences along the portion of that line that is included in his district. Very few residences means very few voters. Why is he favoring a few constituents over the vast majority?
The length of the proposed boondoggle rail line on Richmond Ave. that is included in Poe’s CD-2 is 1.7 miles:
To put that in perspective for his entire district:
The 1.7 mile length in his district would include four stops: S. Shepherd, Menil, Montrose, and Wheeler. If you live four blocks off Richmond and eight blocks between stops, are you going to walk twelve blocks in the Houston summer heat to catch a ride that goes a mile or so? Seriously?
Let’s think about those “constituents” in Atascocita and Kingwood? Are they “for” this boondoggle? Hardly. And there’s lots more of them. Or what about those in Spring? Are they “for” this boondoggle? Again, more of them.
Let’s say that you live up in Huffman near Gardenia Gardens and want to eat at Pepino’s Italian Restaurant on Richmond, right in the middle of Poe’s section of the boondoggle rail line. What is that $60 million per mile boondoggle going to do to help you? Nothing at all. You’ll drive the 41 miles and hope that the toy train hasn’t run over another bicyclist and shut down traffic on Richmond.
It’s like saying that Rep. Steve Stockman should support building a rocket launch pad in Shoreacres because his “constituents” in Shoreacres want one.
So let’s drop the whole “my constituents” want it. Because they don’t and Poe hasn’t done any research whatsoever to conclude that they do. His entire support is due to “dozens” of phone calls, “hundreds” of emails, some blockwalking by his staff (seriously, in this heat?), and over a thousand Facebook comments, all in the space of two days. Here is his comment posted on Facebookat 11:21 am on Wednesday, July 31st:
STATEMENT FROM CONGRESSMAN POE: “On Monday, I asked for your opinion on whether or not federal funds should be prohibited from helping to build the Richmond Rail in Houston. Over the past few days, my office has received dozens of phone calls, hundreds of emails and over one thousand Facebook comments on this issue. Many of you even took the time to speak to my staff in-person when they went door to door in the district to talk to those of you in the affected area. I thank you for all of your input on this issue. It’s simple: blocking federal funds from coming to Houston will not save any money. Instead, your money will be spent on building infrastructure in other cities. I look forward to working with Congressman Culberson, the Houston Congressional Delegation and METRO to find a solution that serves both the interests of our constituents and the City of Houston.”
Wow, two whole days of “research” before he decides to support it! Isn’t he the workaholic. And we know that many of those participating in his Facebook poll were constituents of the CongressWOMAAN! How bizarre.
On the other hand, you have Rep. John Culberson, who has been providing real transportation solutions in Harris County. Think I-10 West and the nightmare it used to be versus what it is today. Culberson is aware of the fact that it costs on average five times the amount per mile to build a rail line as it does to build a freeway lane and the freeway lane carries five times as many people. Do the math.
Culberson’s district includes a much larger segment of the toy train, about 6.3 miles. He is completely against it because his constituents don’t want it. And he actually polled the property owners, property lessees, and business owners along the line that would have to deal with the boondoggle train and increased traffic jams on a daily basis. Here is what he found:
Summary of Poll west of Shepherd (83{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} reached) – Property Owners
But hey, it isn’t a Facebook poll, so it doesn’t count.
Here is Ted Poe on the floor of the House trying to explain his support for the boondoggle toy train. Notice that his main argument is that someone else is going to get the money – not that it is a good idea, or that it is necessary, or that it makes sense. Nope, just spend the money before someone else does.
