The bold part is really significant and is really the exact opposite of claims by anti-rail groups. Metro's plan supported by 46 percent in survey By LUCAS WALL Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Voters who have made up their minds on Metro's Nov. 4 transit referendum support it 2-to-1, but a third are still pondering their choice, according to a Houston Chronicle/KHOU-TV poll. Both sides will be fighting for that large chunk of undecided voters who could push the outcome in either direction. Supporters of the $4.6 billion "Metro Solutions" plan -- the centerpiece of which is a $640 million bond issue to add 22 miles of light rail -- said Wednesday they are encouraged by the results but acknowledge they must sell more voters on the benefits of mass transit. Rail opponents said they take comfort that more voters didn't express support for the referendum considering the "educational" advertising the Metropolitan Transit Authority has aired. Opponents, who say the ads illegally advocate for the referendum, have yet to raise the cash necessary for a TV campaign. Government agencies such as Metro may inform voters about an issue but are prohibited by law from asking them to vote a certain way. The poll shows 46 percent of voters surveyed said they will vote for Metro's plan while 21 percent intend to vote against it. The remaining voters were undecided or didn't answer. "These numbers, only 46 percent in favor, are fairly surprising considering most voters have only heard one side of this issue," said David Hutzelman, director of the Business Committee Against Rail. The poll of 815 registered voters in the Metro service area was conducted Sept. 10 through Tuesday by the University of Houston Center for Public Policy and the Rice University James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. When asked to name the No. 1 problem in Houston, 31 percent of poll respondents listed traffic, transportation or poor streets. Jobs and the economy came in second at 30 percent. Most impressive for rail supporters is the poll's finding that 61 percent of those surveyed believe rail is a "vital" or "important" part of the region's comprehensive, long-range transportation solution. Only 14 percent labeled rail "not important" or believe it "has no place" in the mobility debate. "The fact that 61 percent see rail as a vital part of a regional transportation plan is a clear indication that people are concerned about mobility and want alternatives and the freedom to choose how they will get where they want to go," said Ed Wulfe, a real-estate developer leading the political action committee pushing for passage. Professors Bob Stein of Rice and Richard Murray of UH -- political scientists who supervised the polling -- said the proposition appears likely to win given the strong sentiment that Houston must add rail to its transportation mix. Stein said voters outside Houston expressed more support for trains even though all of Metro's proposed lines would be constructed inside the city limits. The plan includes expansion of the commuter-bus system that serves outlying areas, 44 new bus routes and $774 million in extra road construction. Metro will hold 19 public meetings to present the plan between Sept. 24 and Oct. 30. Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter said the poll is encouraging, though he'd hoped to see more support. Michael Stevens, a suburban developer opposed to rail construction, is weighing whether to lead an effort to kill the plan. Calling it "the largest waste of taxpayer dollars I have seen." But Stein said if he were going to launch a campaign against rail, "These are not the poll numbers I'd want to start with."
Thanks for the post. Though small in scope, this METRO Rail project is a significant first step to modernizing Houston transportation.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised. The fact that a majority of Houstonians believe light rail is "vital" or "important" to Houston and ONLY 14 percent think the opposite is really pretty significant for Houston. It really seems to echo what many business groups and outlying communities have been saying. And what is completely startling to me is the fact that this poll was done throughout the METRO service area which includes much of Harris County, an area we have been told so often simply doesn't like or want rail. In fact, the poll states that people outside the city limits want it MORE than those inside. That just shocks the hell out of me. You would think from all the rhetoric and tip-toeing around the subject by candidates that we are the same city we were when we elected Mayor Bob into office on an anti-rail platform in the early 90's. Clearly, this is not close to being true. I think this could alter how the candidates position themselves. Even Sanchez has said in recent forums that he would grudgingly support rail if the voters approved, a far cry from his complete anti-rail stance during the 2001 campaign and the year before when METRO went to voters to approve the downtown rail line. My bet is that candidates who have supported rail all along will hitch themselves to that wagon and say, "I've been supporting this all along." Those who haven't will say something like, "I just want what is best for the city of Houston" and offer tepid support.
Clearly, Jeff, you don't have a multi-millionaire running that is spending big bucks using it as a wedge issue. As Lanier did. In my opinion, that doesn't say a bunch about the average Houston voter... or, to put it another way, it says a bunch about Texans as voters in general. Throw enough money at them and they will vote for or against anything and anyone... in the main. Sophistication is not a strong suit. (I can say that... being a native Texan and Houstonian. Any outsiders say it and I'll get p*ssed off )
Now you just have to keep DeLay from getting up to a microphone and saying that God told him not to let Houston have light rail.
Not so fast boys, the anti-rail forces have yet to even start an ad campaign. When the public finds out how huge the costs are and that they are going to pay for it when they know they are not going to use it I think you'll see the large undecided segment go to the no side. All the ads have to say is "politician, boondoggle, higher taxes". Maybe you don't want to debate it again but: 1. Why do you want to retrofit an expensive new high density system on to the lowest density metropolitan area in the world? 2.Why is a train better than an expanded bus/HOV system that makes efficient use of the roadways we already have have and can share the roadway improvements we must build anyway. Busses are flexible in their origins and destinations, reducing the required walking component, the real limiting factor in a transit plan for Houston. I remember one study I read at Texas A&M when I was studying Landscape Architectue. It was about siting parking lots etc. but it said the average person considered 400' as the maximum distance they would walk from their cars. There won't be much of Houston within 400' of a rail line. I could support rail transit from the airport to downtown (40,000 people) to the Medical Center (40,000 people) , that seems to make some sense. I could even support extending the line on to Ft. Bend county if it could be shown to be self supporting like our toll roads are. What did Michael Berry say? For the money we are talking about we could we could just buy every projected new rider (over those presently using the bus system) a top of the line , $90,000 mercedes benz instead. Metro area taxpayers are not going to want to buy someone else a mercedes benz.
Gene, thank you for bringing some sensibility to this discussion. Metro is *wrong* for Houston. It simply is *not* cost effective. Not even close. When the liberals' were asked to justify the cost of building the lines, here is one response that is indicative of how they think about things: This is outrageous. The costs are very important. Raising taxes in Houston is an extremely difficult political chore. Because of this, spending is essentially a zero-sum game. When you devote tax dollars to rail, you subtract tax dollars from other critical areas. Fiscally irresponsible arguments, like that above, veiled under the guise of "oh but won't it be great!" are likely to lead Houston towards the path of gridlock. These pie-in-the-sky dreamers accuse rail opponents of 'running it like a business'. Well, if exercising sound financial judgment and decision making is "running it like a business", then I'll take that every day of the week. The liberals are making a passionate appeal to the emotions of voters, claiming rail will revolutionize Houston's transportation. It will not. They act as if the train will magically stop at everyone's front door and pick them up. It will not. They act like it is free! It is not. What the rail program represents is another new program to redistribute money to poorer Houstonians. We don't need Robin Hood here, thanks. A tiny percentage of the population will actually use these trains. The areas targeted in the latest Metro plan do not address the most critical transportation need, which is getting people out I-10, 290, 59, I-45 North and I-45 South. In fact, these situations will be *made worse* by the fact that money will be re-directed towards rail that could otherwise improve these highways. Houston's transportation system needs to be upgraded, but it must be done the *right way*. Building rail is an image that sounds great, but when you dig deeper, you will realize that it will cost an exorbitant amount of money and benefit very few people. Houston is simply not designed like Boston or New York. Building rail makes zero sense.
It would be surprising if a significant anti-rail campaign was mounted this late into the season, especially given the poll numbers. They wouldn't even be able make a significant ad buy on a local network prior to the first week of October. That would give them exactly one month to out-spend the pro-rail forces AND convince that 61 percent who consider light rail "vital" to vote against a light rail proposition this time around. The reason the rail opposition has been sparse is because there has been a huge amount of political wrangling behind the scenes. Remember that many of the most influential GOP contributors in Harris County sit on boards like the Greater Houston Partnership and Houston-Galveston Area Council, both of which are strongly in support of this light rail measure.
To you, yes. To me and a majority of other Houstonians, probably not. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Here is the latest missed deadline from Metro. Do we really want them starting a more ambitious rail project? Imagine the havoc this would create on Houston streets. Another transit-street project blows deadline By LUCAS WALL Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle It's a pattern well known to downtown motorists: A deadline for completion of a Metro transit street arrives, but the orange barrels and construction workers are still out in full force. Work on small pieces of Jefferson and St. Joseph was scheduled to be finished Wednesday, but numerous tasks are not done. Contractor Technology, which is doing the construction, obtained a four-day extension from the Metropolitan Transit Authority because of extra utilities it was asked to include under the streets. "They had to put in some more sanitary sewer lines for us and some electrical conduit for the downtown district," said Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton. "They should be finished by this weekend." There is much more to complete than a sewer line and some wires, however. The contractor still needs to install numerous items such as streetlights, bus stop benches and shelters, sidewalks, and trees. If Contractor Technology can't finish the work by Sunday, it will face fines. Metro said the extension should cause minor inconvenience. "Anytime you add work or broaden the scope of the project, you have to adjust the deadline," Connaughton said. This is the third straight transit-street deadline Metro has extended since June 15. Contractors on Congress and Pierce both failed to complete their work according to schedule and needed extra time. The entire 14-street Downtown/Midtown Transit Streets Project is 21 months behind original plans. The goal for finishing the project is now March 2005, with drivers and businesses to face major headaches next year when Travis and Smith -- two major downtown streets -- are ripped up. The rebuilding of two blocks of St. Joseph and three blocks of Jefferson is one of the smallest transit-street contracts. The short segment of Jefferson was actually thrown in at the last minute, Connaughton said, paid for with some leftover money. But it was only enough cash to cover three blocks, and four of the five lanes were repaved with asphalt. The blacktop is cheaper than longer-lasting concrete, the material used on the other 13 transit streets. Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter said his main concern is finishing the Main Street light rail line by the New Year's Day deadline. With Houston hosting the Super Bowl one month later, he said, it would be an embarrassment if that project doesn't get finished on time. "Everyone is telling me it's right on schedule and they are on task," Schechter said, adding with a laugh, "If we blow past the timeline on it, I just won't spend New Year's Eve in Houston."
Dam TJ is it even possible for you to post something that doesn't contain a defamation of the generic term ' liberal'. I guarantee you I am as liberal and socialist as anybody who posts here short of Vegan but I believe the reality of Houston's density and existing road-centric infrastructure make a bus/HOV public transit system much more sensable and affordable than a train system. How about if I propose to tax all luxury and SUV sales in the metro area to pay for a free bus system ; will that get me off of your side on this issue. And if I in anyway get associated with Tom Delay, just shoot me now!
I'm not sure rail is ever going to be successful in Houston. It could be, if anyone ever wanted to devote sufficient funds to the project. But at first, rail systems are always going to be of limited utility because of the lack of routes. And, of course, people don't want to build more because they're dissatisfied with the ones that exist. Cover Houston in rail, and I guarantee it gets significant usage and people would wonder how they ever lived without it. Problem is, that'd be a massive project, cause chaos on the streets, and cost a fortune. Wish it could be otherwise...
The problem I see for the anti-rail sympathizers is there is no central organization to promote the argument. Maybe some generic anti-tax group but other than Michael Berry there is noone speaking out. What our side needs is a natural gas powered bus company to come in and finance a campaign the way the engineering and construction companies have for rail.
It's always something. Culberson move puts rail funding in jeopardy Metro may try to change ballot wording to save plan By LUCAS WALL Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle The wrangling over Metro's Nov. 4 expansion referendum took another dramatic turn Thursday, once again threatening to altogether derail the plan. Metro and its supporters thought they had a ballot proposition that finally attracted some agreement. But they learned Thursday a local member of Congress released a letter from the Federal Transit Administration stating the ballot language adopted by the board would make Houston ineligible for rail funding. That ruling could kill the plan. The dispute is over whether individual rail segments must be listed on the ballot. The proposed segments -- 22 miles of light rail financed by a $640 million bond issue and authorization for another 51 miles to be funded later -- are included in the board resolution. That document is considered part of the referendum but does not appear on the computerized ballot screen because of its 22-page length. The ballot simply asks voters to approve "construction of extensions of Metro's rail system" and other transit projects. "Metro's got to have an accurate ballot that tells us what we're buying for $640 million and where they're going to build it," said Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston. "They have refused to tell the public precisely how many miles they are building and where." Culberson, a fierce rail opponent, used his position on the House transportation appropriations subcommittee to insert in July a provision -- applicable to no other city -- that no federal rail funds may be given for "any segment of a light rail system in Houston that has not been specifically approved by a majority of the participating voters." The 2004 transportation appropriations bill has passed the House and is awaiting Senate action. Culberson's release of the FTA letter prompted the Metropolitan Transit Authority's board of directors to call a special meeting Wednesday to consider amending the ballot language. The letter from William Sears, chief FTA counsel, throws Metro's election into chaos because changing the ballot language within 45 days of an election might run afoul of the Texas Election Code. And if the language isn't changed, Houston would see no more light rail in the near future if the FTA denies federal funding needed to build the lines. Culberson asked Sears on Sept. 4 for the opinion on Metro's ballot language, which the board adopted Aug. 18 and tweaked Aug. 28. In the letter to Culberson dated Sept. 10, Sears responded that "because the ballot does not identify the segments at issue, section 163 [of the pending bill] would prohibit FTA funding of the design, construction, or maintenance of any segments pursued under the authority of that vote." This week's controversy follows a track familiar to Metro, which was banned from receiving federal funds for the Main Street light rail line three years ago. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, objected because there was no vote on that line. Metro then built the $324 million project, opening Jan. 1, using its budget. Culberson's 11th-hour maneuver puts the Metro board in a difficult position. State law requires an election, including a description of the measure, to be filed within 45 days of Election Day. For the Nov. 4 election, that deadline is Saturday. But Metro can't convene today or Saturday because another provision of state law requires 72 hours notice to hold a public meeting. The timing of Culberson's release of the FTA letter is not likely a coincidence. He has battled Metro intensely, arguing the transit plan does nothing to reduce traffic congestion or improve mobility for his west Houston constituents. Almost all of Metro's rail expansion would be built inside Loop 610. Culberson is counting on residents from outlying areas to defeat the referendum once they see only inner-city rail lines listed on the ballot. The proposed lines are no secret, however, having received massive media coverage in the past few months, and maps are posted on Metro's Web site. Metro's plan also includes $774 million in street construction -- much of which would be spent outside the Loop -- and increased commuter-bus service to suburban areas. Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter issued a statement Thursday evening that "the board will consider next Wednesday ways to make the ballot language even more specific and detailed. This might also help Metro meet any new requirements that come about if proposed federal legislation becomes law that attempts to hold Houston to a different standard than any other city in the United States." The election code is not clear on whether an authority may amend its ballot measure after the 45-day time limit. David Beirne, a spokesman for the Harris County Clerk's Office, said the contract Metro has with the clerk to administer the referendum states any changes must be filed by 9 a.m. Tuesday. However, he added, another provision states penalties will accrue if any modifications are filed after Oct. 1. Beirne said it's a gray area on whether state law permits the changes after Saturday. Jonathan Day, a Houston attorney who represents Metro and helped the board draft the ballot language, said he believes Metro is allowed to make technical modifications to its language beyond Saturday's deadline. "When the city of Houston proposes a $150 million bond issue for roads, they don't list every road on the ballot," Day said. "This is a very unusual requirement." Metro's general counsel sent a letter, with the 22-page board resolution attached, to Sears earlier this week asking him to reconsider his opinion. The transit authority is waiting on a response. Though the bill is not yet law, the House rejected earlier this month an effort by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, to strip Culberson's amendment. All the controversy introduces the potential that Metro's referendum could end up in court. Day said a lawsuit would be the "absolutely worst-case scenario" that must be avoided. "It would be so counter-productive for the community. We want to keep some of this federal gasoline tax money here and not have these disputes that would result in our funding given for everybody else's transportation improvements."
THANK YOU John Culberson for demanding that rail supporters show the details on this project. Hiding behind the ideal of "rail being vital to Houston" without showing both design and financial details is very misleading and will surely lead to the wrong decision. The public deserves to hear answers on questions of design and financing. An undertaking this large and at this great of a cost must be explained to voters.
