A Rail Line That May Make Sense
I suspect that those of you who have followed my critiques of Metro over the last year or who read my arguments against Metro's proposed LRT program in Sunday's Houston Chronicle (see the article here), will be surprised to hear that I was glad to see Metro's go forward with the environmental studies on a possible rail line along US90 to Fort Bend County. While we do not have enough data yet to make an informed decision, there is a good chance this will prove to be a reasonable transit investment for our community. So, you are probably wondering, why is this different from Metro's proposed LRT? Well, since you asked:

1. Cheaper. The cost of building this line along an existing freight rail line is likely to be much less expensive than the LRT. The preliminary numbers I have heard suggest that it could be as little as one-third of the per-mile cost of the LRT. Assuming the line will qualify for FTA funding, which is likely, the local portion of the per-mile cost could be as low as 20% of the cost of the LRT. 2. Grade Separation. There will more opportunities to separate the grade of this rail line from the existing vehicular traffic. Much of the existing freight rail right-of-way is already grade separated. Assuming that the line is built in or adjacent to that right-of-way, the line could take advantage of existing grade separations and might have a partner in the railroad and local communities to add additional grade separations.

3. Congestion Reduction. While we have not yet seen any traffic studies, it seems likely that this line would, unlike the proposed LRT, result in a reduction in traffic congestion. It would become an alternative for the Southwest Freeway, one of our most congested roadways. By connecting this line to the existing Main Street line, it would become a "mini-commuter" line, giving Ft. Bend County residents a rail alternative to get to jobs in the Medical Center and Downtown.

4. Line Length. When it comes to rail, length matters. Rail is most efficient when it is carrying its passengers longer distances. Because rail must follow a single, fixed pathway, there is some inefficiency in getting passengers to and from the rail line. The longer the potential ride, the less significant this inefficiency becomes.¹ Also, if you look at other successful rail programs, they rely on, and typically began with, one long "backbone" line and then were expanded off that main line. Dallas' rail system is a good example. Adding to the existing Main Street line would create a line that would be approximately 16 miles, far longer than anything contemplated in the proposed LRT. I can find no other city that has attempted to build a web of lines out in short segments as proposed in the existing Metro plan.

But whether this line makes ultimately makes sense or not is not the real issue. What I find disappointing about the current transit policy debate in Houston is that it has devolved in two "knee-jerk" camps. You are either for rail or you are against it. I recently corresponded with a popular blogger who favors Metro's LRT proposal. This individual is a thoughtful, well-intentioned person. In our correspondence he admitted that he had never read any of the traffic studies that show that the LRT will make congestion worse, he did not know how much the project was going to cost or have any idea how we would pay for it. Nor had he reviewed any ridership projections or considered if the money might be better spent on some other mobility project.² But he knew he was for it. In some quarters support for Metro's proposed LRT has become an article of faith.

Frankly, we cannot afford to be making our mobility investments on projects that we like. All of the projections show that Houston's traffic is going to get much worse and soon. We have gotten a little bit of a respite with the current economic downturn, but before you know it the rest of Houston's freeways are going to look like Highway 290 does today. Also, as economic activity picks up, there will be even greater demand for transit from our fellow citizens that cannot afford to own an automobile. We do not have luxury or time to try to use transportation policy to change Houston’s development patterns. That is a multi-generational task, if it can be done at all. We better get about the business of making good, hard-nosed transportation decisions that rigorously look at the cost-benefit ratio of every single investment. If we continue to make investments based on blind faith in any particular mode, be they rail or highways, we are doomed to LA-like traffic in our near future and Houston's poorest families will continue endure unfair hardships trying to live in this City without an automobile.

ERRATA: In my most recent blog on Metro (Metro's Train Wreck), I had a bust in my spreadsheet and overstated the amount that Metro's grants have declined in recent years. The following paragraph has been substituted in the on-line version (see http://billkingblog.com/). The numbers in this paragraph come from the 2000-2008 Metro audits that can be found on Metro's website.

"Less Federal Dollars. When the current administration was put in place one of the promised benefits was to be its prowess in obtaining federal funding. We have been repeatedly warned not to interfere or criticize Metro's policies because it might reduce our chance for federal funding. However, during the last six years, grants from federal and state transit assistance programs have steadily declined. In 2004, Metro received $140 million in grants. By 2008, that number had dropped to $90 million, a 35% decrease. Based on the average grants received in 2001-2003, Houston has lost nearly $100 million in grants since Wilson arrived."

---

¹ If you doubt this, think about your own experiences in Manhattan. If you are only going a few blocks, you are much more likely to walk and catch a cab than to take the subway.

² For an excellent discussion of alternative investment analysis see Tom Kirkendall's last blog at http://blog.kir.com/archives/2010/03/the_metro_train.asp.

The Metro Train Wreck
There could hardly be a more fitting image for the close of the current Metro administration than the recent photographs for a wrecked Metro buses in front of Metro's headquarters after having been broad-sided by Metro's Main Street light rail. The last six years are likely to be remembered as the most ruinous time for public transportation in Houston's history as Metro has pursued a single-minded obsession to build its version of an at-grade rail system regardless of the cost, both in financial terms and in the degradation of the bus system on which over 100,000 Houstonians rely daily. Fortunately, Mayor Parker has ordered top-to-bottom review of the agency. Here is what that review is likely to find.

Decline in Ridership. Since 2004, Houston population has grown by over 10% from just over 2 million to 2.25 million. At the same time gas prices rose 47% from $1.81 per gallon to $2.67 per gallon. These two factors should have virtually guaranteed an increase in transit. However, exactly the opposite has occurred as bus boardings dropped almost 24% from 88 million in 2004 to 67 million in 2009. Instead of increasing bus service by 50% as it promised the voters in the 2003 referendum, Metro has slashed bus routes and increased fares by over 50%. Today Metro actually operates 225 fewer buses than it did in 2003. An outside performance audit in 2008 found that on-time performance fell by 29% from 2004 to 2008. Financial Disaster. Since 2003, Metro's sales tax revenues have increased by 43%, rising from $357 million to $512 million. At the

same time, its fare revenue increased by 41% from $42 million to $60 million by charging an ever dwindling ridership more. Yet, Metro is in the worst financial shape in recent history. At year end 2003 Metro's current assets exceeded its current liabilities by $125 million. The budget just adopted by the Metro board projects that it will have current accounts deficit of $165 million by the end of this fiscal year, a stunning loss of nearly $300 million in just five years. Over the same period, Metro's debt has swelled by nearly 50% from $546 million to $816 million.

Less Federal Dollars. When the current administration was put in place one of the promised benefits was to be its prowess in obtaining federal funding. We have been repeatedly warned not to interfere or criticize Metro's policies because it might reduce our chance for federal funding. However, during the last six years, grants from federal and state transit assistance programs have steadily declined. In 2004, Metro received $140 million in grants. By 2008, that number had dropped to $90 million, a 35% decrease. Based on the average grants received in 2001-2003, Houston has lost nearly $100 million in grants since Wilson arrived.

LRT Stalled. Even if you are one of those that think that building an at-grade rail system that will make congestion worse is a good idea, the Wilson administration has been a disaster. After spending six years and more than $200 million on planning the LRT, we still do not have any assurance that we will ever receive the funding necessary to build any of the lines. Metro, of course, to continue to promise that we are on the verge of seeing the federal dollars pour in. However, Metro told me in April 2008 that it would have full funding agreements on the North and Southeast by the end of 2008 and the University line by 2009. As of now we have neither.

In the meantime, the cost of the LRT has risen from the $1.2 billion originally estimated to something well in excess of $3 billion. Metro is seeking to borrow $2.6 billion to build the LRT, over four times what it promised the voters would be the limit in the 2003 referendum. Originally, Metro assured voters that it could build the LRT without tapping the mobility payments that are so critical to the Houston and the other member cities. Metro's projections now show that it can only afford the LRT if those payments are terminated in 2014.

Fractured Trust. The worst sin, however, has been the dissembling manner in which Metro has been administered over the last six years. There are countless examples from stonewalling reporter's request for information to Metro's recent attempt to get Attorney General to exempt from open records status its traffic studies showing the nightmare the LRT will create at many intersections. Of course, there is no better example than the recent reports of documents being shredded and the firing of Metro lawyers reminiscent of the Nixon-Archibald Cox episode.

In 2003, after a spirited public debate, this community approved, by a narrow margin, a consensus plan to enhance public transportation with a multi-modal approach. Part of that bargain was a limited experiment with a light rail system. The voters specifically limited the resources that Metro could devote to the light rail for fear that the cost might undermine the solid, dependable bus service that existed at that time. Metro's leadership has shredded that contract with the voters in favor of its own grandiose vision of transit that has little to do actually solving Houston's mobility problems. In the meantime, traffic congestion continues to get worse and working families that rely on public transportation to get their jobs everyday find riding Metro a more difficult and more expensive proposition.

Would You Like a Transit Lesson with that Shoe Shine?
Recently as I was leaving a rodeo committee meeting at Reliant, I stopped at a shoe shine stand to have my boots shined. During the shine I struck up a conversation with the young man operating the stand. It was late and he told me was about to head home, which was near Westheimer and Highway 6. I asked him how long it would take him to get home.

"Oh, about two to three hours," he replied.

"How can that be?"

"Oh, I ride the bus."

He then went on to share that one of reasons it took so long was that Metro had cut back the number of buses running, making it harder to make the two connections necessary to navigate the 14-mile trip home. He also told me that since the bus fares had been increased the roundtrip would cost him $5.00. He had calculated that the higher bus fare would pay for his gas if he drove to work. So he was saving up his money to buy a car. In doing so he could get to work earlier and stay longer and thus increase his income. Or he was considering using the extra time to take some classes at HCC so that he could get a better job.

There were three things that struck me about this conversation. First, in debates about public transportation policy we frequently hear about issues such traffic congestion, development patterns and air quality. What we rarely hear discussed is the very important role that transit plays in providing economic opportunity. Transit provides low income workers who cannot afford to own an automobile the ability to get to a job and begin building a financial base. This is a tremendously important contribution, not only to the workers who need the transportation, but also the employers that employ these workers and thus to our local economy generally.

Second, one of the favorite pastimes of the new urban pundits is to deride Americans' "love affair" with the automobile. They depict the attraction of the automobile as some sort of deranged erotica, the last vestiges of mankind's desire to dominant nature as opposing living harmoniously with her. This is complete nonsense. The allure of the automobile is very simply freedom; the freedom to go where you want when you want. This young man's desire to own a car was a perfectly rational economic decision from his perspective. He wanted a car to free up his time to improve his own economic circumstances.

Third, our transit policy in Houston has utterly failed the transit dependent like this young man. For it to take 2-3 hours to make a 14-mile trip is a disgrace. And his story is hardly unique. The Houston Chronicle has run a series of stories documenting similar travails. The poor service is a direct result of Metro decision to downscale its bus service. It is rarely discussed today, but the 2003 referendum which authorized the light rail, also mandated that Metro would increase bus service by approximately 50%. Instead, today we have fewer buses and fewer bus riders than we did in 2003.

The truth is that transit policy in Houston is made by people that do not have to rely on public transportation to get to their jobs. It is made by businessmen, lawyers, developers, academia, the media and other wealthy elite whose grandiose vision for the city trumps the real life hardships of trying to hold a job without access to an automobile. We can only wonder what our transit system would look like if the folks that actually had to use it everyday to get to work had a voice in making our policy.