Texas Transit Association

Four news articles of what has been called the worst political election in Houston’s history.

Article I:
Opponents eye Metro rail funds for highway work
By LUCAS WALL Houston Chronicle Oct. 26, 2003

Opponents of light rail expansion covet the $5.8 billion that Metro is seeking for new tracks and trains, eager to redirect that money toward increasing the number of highway lanes 53 percent by 2025.

Rail foes are urging voters to reject the transit-expansion plan on Nov. 4 so they can shift Metro’s proposed light rail spending into new roads. They are touting something called the 100 Percent Plan being drafted by the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the region’s transportation planning agency. The goal is to cut current traffic congestion levels in half by 2025 while keeping up with the region’s exploding population.

“If we took that money that’s being spent on the rail plan by Metro today and used it for building out the freeways, the tollways, the major thoroughfares in the regional plan, we would relieve congestion,” Harris County Judge Robert Eckels said. “As you add more people, you have to add more roadways. We need to make that money work smarter.”

The 100 Percent Plan has mapped out how many highways will be required in the eight-county region if bigger and more roads are the chief answer to reducing gridlock. A preliminary estimate from the HGAC indicates that 10,703 lane miles are needed to achieve significant congestion reduction.

“It’s important the public understand there are very good alternatives,” said U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston. “We will never have a chance to solve our traffic problems if Metro’s rail plan is approved.”

Finding the money for the extra asphalt and concrete is a tough task, however. The HGAC estimates the construction cost at $21.1 billion, but the region will have only $11.5 billion available for highway building in the next 22 years, if current funding sources remain constant.

With a $9.6 billion gap to close, highway advocates see the Metropolitan Transit Authority as one of their best potential cash cows.

Since 1988, Metro has spent 25 percent of its penny sales-tax collections on “general mobility” distributions to Houston, Harris County and 14 small-city members. It proposes extending the mobility contracts, used for road construction and maintenance, from 2009 to 2014 as part of next month’s referendum. That would add $774 million in road work, in addition to the $5.8 billion for 73 miles of rail and $979 million in new bus service.

Light rail critics say merely extending the mobility fund is not enough.

They would like to see Metro’s treasury raided for more highway projects, much as former Houston Mayor Bob Lanier snatched millions of dollars in transit funds last decade to pay for hiring new police officers.

The foes contend that light rail, running at slow speeds and mostly in streets within Loop 610, is a waste of tax dollars.

“Redirect those monies to things that do reduce congestion,” said Michael Stevens, a developer leading the anti-rail Texans for True Mobility campaign.

He contends that more than $5.8 billion could be diverted from Metro because there would be no need to pay for operating and maintaining the proposed trains if voters kill the transit plan. The transit authority counters that, that money would have to be spent running buses instead.

“They will generate $8 billion in cash to the bottom line,” Stevens said of Metro if voters refuse to accept more light rail. “That $8 billion is available in reality to commit to whatever makes sense.” That comes close to the $9.6 billion highway shortfall, he pointed out, and other revenue could be created.

Stevens and others say that a nickel-per-gallon gas tax in the eight-county metropolitan area, for example, would generate about $125 million per year. That’s almost $3 billion over the next 22 years.

Metro’s opponents are counting on Orlando Sanchez, who opposes the authority’s plan, being elected mayor. He could then appoint a majority of the Metro board and direct them to funnel money into roads.

Sylvester Turner and Bill White, the other two major mayoral candidates, support rail expansion.

This spring’s Houston Area Survey found only 28 percent of those polled favored bigger highways as “the best long-term solution to traffic problems.” More transit led with 47 percent, while 25 percent favored building urban communities closer to downtown.

Rail supporters scoff at HGAC’s idea of spending almost $1 billion per year widening highways, about double the current expenditure in the region. It’s fantasy to think Metro would give up its transit tax revenue to pay for more roads, train boosters say.

Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter is among those questioning the wisdom of trying to solve the traffic problem with new roads, calling the 100 Percent Plan nothing more than a “catchy phrase.” Massive roads will only create more sprawl, air pollution and additional congestion as people try to drive farther and farther, he said.

The $21.1 billion highway figure calculated by the HGAC does not include costs for buying additional right of way.

Those expenses have skyrocketed in recent years because widening a road now often requires purchasing hundreds of homes, stores, office buildings, restaurants and so on.

Costs on the Katy Freeway widening that began earlier this year have ballooned almost $250 million over initial estimates, partly because of right of way acquisition.

Alan Clark, the HGAC’s chief transportation planner, has acknowledged that at least one-fifth of the proposed new lane miles would be almost impossible to build because of limited right of way. But, he said, other capacity improvements can be made.

Converting major thoroughfares into “super streets” — expressways similar to Allen Parkway and Memorial Drive near downtown — would help ease traffic tie-ups on major roads, such as Texas 6 and FM 1960, Clark said.

He said it is critical to note that the 100 Percent Plan, which will be finished in the spring, includes mass transit. Metro’s proposed light rail lines are actually part of the working analysis. Rail critics are campaigning for voters to reject those lines Nov. 4, which would remove them from the HGAC plan.

But even if that occurs, Clark said, other transit options, such as new bus routes and commuter rail lines, will be studied.

“There’s no question about the fact that transit has to be part of the answer,” he said.

The Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University released its annual Urban Mobility Report last month. It concludes that a diverse set of transportation options are needed to address congestion. More road construction is needed but, by itself, won’t solve the problem, and public transit provides many benefits.

“Both sides are a little bit right,” said Tim Lomax, a research engineer who co-authored the report. “The thing that is pretty clear is that there is not a single set of solutions.”

Eckels, who chairs the HGAC Transportation Policy Council, and his allies all say they support mass transit, but only initiatives that are cheaper than Metro’s light rail plan. The county will soon release a commuter rail feasibility study for the U.S. 290 and Texas 249 corridors showing such a system could be built for $2.5 million per mile — trains included — and be up and running within three years. Those trains could run up to 80 mph on upgraded freight railroad tracks, according to a study draft.

Metro’s light rail plan, Eckels points out, would cost almost $80 million per mile, take 21 years to build, and likely run no faster than 40 mph. The transit authority notes that its Nov. 4 referendum includes a commuter line to Missouri City.

Schechter said he would welcome Harris County funding extra lines. But, he said, light rail must be built so commuters arriving in the city will have a way to reach their destination.

A commuter train arriving downtown does a Tomball resident no good if he works in the East End or Greenway Plaza, light rail proponents point out.

Article II:

Fed agency denies reviewing Metro budget
By LUCAS WALL Houston Chronicle Oct. 23, 2003

The federal agency that distributes grants to Metro has denied ever confirming numbers that purport to show the transit authority overestimated its future funds by more than $100 million.

Republican officials including U.S. Rep. John Culberson of Houston and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels released a chart last month prepared by the House Appropriations Committee that compared the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s grants budget through 2009 to data marked “FTA Projections.” The difference between the two numbers came to $116 million.

But in a Wednesday letter to U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont, the administrator of the Federal Transit Administration wrote: “FTA did not produce the chart or the figures included therein.”

Although $116 million is a small fraction of the $7.5 billion Metro proposes to spend in the next 22 years to expand the region’s transit system, rail opponents used the figure to denounce the authority’s budgeting. For example, a mailer this week from anti-rail group Texans for True Mobility states, “U.S. Department of Transportation Notifies Metro — Your Numbers Are Off By Tens of Millions.”

FTA Administrator Jennifer Dorn, whose agency is part of the Department of Transportation, also stated in the letter Lampson released Thursday: “The chart and its figures were never reviewed and confirmed by the FTA.”

Metro and its supporters said they were estatic about the letter. Culberson and other rail foes were baffled but said the letter doesn’t change their view that the transit authority lacks the money to complete the “Metro Solutions” plan it wants voters to endorse in a Nov. 4 referendum. The plan includes 73 miles of rail, 44 new bus routes, doubling HOV lanes, and $774 million of new roadwork.

“There was never any confusion at Metro about the veracity of these numbers,” said Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter. “I would hope this letter would end the discussion with an apology to the agency. We knew it was just a bunch of hogwash.”

Schechter accused Culberson and his allies of “deliberately misleading the public by ignoring the facts.”

Culberson, stepping off a plane from Washington, said he was outraged by Dorn’s letter. He pointed to a Sept. 25 letter from Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., indicating the House Appropriations Committee staff consulted with the FTA when it prepared the chart of Metro’s budget figures. Istook chairs the appropriations subcommittee for transportation, which decides federal transit funding.

“The chairman, I think, would be honest and accurate in telling me that the numbers on that chart were confirmed by the FTA,” said Culberson, who serves on the subcommitee. “Chairman Istook has a reputation for impeccable honesty and it is a very bad idea for an agency under his jurisdiction to question his honesty.”

Istook, reached at his Oklahoma City residence Thursday evening, said he relied on committee staff to answer Culberson’s inquiry.

“If they say they consulted with FTA, you can believe they did,” Istook said. “The fact that the consultation might have happened without the FTA administrator’s personally being aware of it is not out of the order.”

Istook said because he was not personally involved in the drafting the chart, “I don’t know if the FTA was ever presented with the same material staff had or if they were looking at two different sets of material. … The fact that people might reach different conclusions from the same set of data is nothing new under the sun.”

Lampson wrote Dorn on Oct. 9, asking her to clarify where the numbers in the chart came from. He and other Democratic members of Congress who support Metro’s referendum have criticized Culberson, alleging the chart’s figures were way off.

“Hopefully this will put that to bed,” Lampson said Thursday from Beaumont. “It’s my hope that we can get everybody, including Mr. Culberson, to back down from coming up with projections that don’t make any sense.”

The transit authority has acknowledged there is a difference of $43 million between its projections and the Bush administration’s six-year transit funding proposal, saying it’s because of different rates used to calculate annual increases in federal formula funds. This money is disbursed annually to transit agencies based on factors such as population and ridership. Metro used 8 percent based on historic trends; the president’s bill suggests 2 percent.

Metro said the rest of the discrepancy printed on the chart is due to the Appropriations Committee failing to include $66 million in federal grants the transit authority has already received plus a $7 million state clean-air grant.

The FTA has yet to verify whether Metro does have the $66 million in unspent grants, despite numerous requests in the past three weeks from Culberson and the Houston Chronicle. FTA spokeswoman Kristi Clemens did not return phone calls Thursday.

Culberson expressed frustration that the agency responded to Lampson, a minority party member, before it addressed the questions he and the newspaper have asked since Oct. 6 — three days before Lampson sent his letter.

“We have agencies responsible for overseeing monumental public works projects like transit who can’t give me simple answers to simple questions within three weeks,” Culberson said. “The taxpayers deserve accuracy and honesty in the fundamental revenue numbers that determine whether the transit authority can pay back the bondholders and build all the things it promises.”

Eckels said it remains clear there is some shortfall in Metro’s federal revenue projections.

Dorn’s letter “does nothing to give me more confidence in the numbers Metro has proposed,” he said.

Metro’s referendum asks voters to authorize $640 million in bonds to accelerate construction of the next 22 rail miles. The transit authority needs matching funds from the federal government to afford its new rail lines.

Lampson said Thursday’s development makes it clear Metro can afford its plan, which he called reasonable and essential for the city’s future.

“I don’t want anybody to come up with more outlandish statements about it,” Lampson said. “You wonder why someone is trying to belittle this effort.”

Article III:

Metro demands anti-rail identities
Texans for True Mobility spokesman says backers ’scared’ of retaliation
By TONY FREEMANTLE Houston Chronicle Oct. 25, 2003

Supporters of Metro’s $7.5 billion, 22-year transit plan demanded Friday that its opponents reveal who is backing their anti-rail “educational foundation” and stop running advertisements based on incorrect financial data.

The plan’s opponents countered that the law does not require them to reveal their backers and that the radio and television ads don’t mention the disputed numbers.

The dueling press conferences held Friday were prompted by a letter released the day before from the Federal Transit Administration stating it did not vet funding figures used by rail opponents to claim Metro was overestimating by $116 million the federal funds it would have for rail expansion.

Last month, rail opponents, including U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, released a chart prepared by the House Appropriations Committee which they said compared Metro’s budget numbers with projections by the FTA of how much money the transit agency would in fact receive from the federal government.

In a letter to U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont, FTA Administrator Jennifer Dorn said her agency “did not produce the chart or the figures included therein.”

Metro’s supporters pounced on the letter Friday to denounce the opposition for “misleading” voters and said Texans for True Mobility, the group leading the opposition, should pull ads based on those numbers.

“We need honest and fair facts,” said Ed Wulfe, the Houston developer who heads Citizens for Public Transportation, the pro-rail political action committee. “The arrogance that they (opponents) continue to show is divisive to our community.”

Chris Begala, spokesman for Texans for True Mobility, would not concede that Culberson erred by saying emphatically, as he did on local television, that the FTA had provided the data showing a $116 million shortfall.

“Ernest Istook (the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for transportation) says those numbers are correct and they were put together based on numbers provided by the FTA,” Begala said. “The committee is a higher authority than the FTA’s numbers. Istook’s office oversees the FTA’s numbers.”

Metro admits to a difference of $43 million between its projections and the Bush administration’s six-year transit funding proposal. The authority contends the rest of the supposed $116 million discrepancy is caused by the failure of the appropriations committee to include $66 million in federal grants already received by Metro and a $7 million clean-air grant from the state.

Regardless of how much the budget shortfall is, Begala said Texans for True Mobility believes Metro lacks money to complete a plan that includes 73 new miles of rail, 44 new bus routes, a doubling of HOV lanes and $774 million in roadwork.

“Let’s give them their argument,” Begala said. “They’re right. We’re $50 million off and we’re 11 days out from the election. If they don’t have those dollars, they are not sufficiently solvent to go out and undertake a project of that magnitude.”

Wulfe said Texans for True Mobility’s refusal to reveal its backers demonstrated the organization’s “contempt for voters.” Wulfe further said the organization is running ads based on the “misleading information conjured up by Mr. Culberson” and should pull them off the air.

Begala said the campaign had no plans to do so and called Wulfe’s demands “absolutely ludicrous.”

The backers of Texans for True Mobility did not wish to reveal themselves to the public, Begala said, because “they are scared of (retaliation from) very powerful entities affecting their ability to live and work in this community.”

The Harris County district attorney’s office is looking into whether the group’s refusal to disclose its backers is unlawful.

In another development Friday, the Houston Association of Realtors’ board of directors voted to endorse the Metro plan.

“It’s the price of admission to be a world-class city,” said HAR Director Rob Cook of Robert D. Cook Properties. “I’ve lived in Houston since 1975, and millions of dollars have been spent on transportation studies. Metro’s plan might not be perfect, but it’s a start. It’s time to quit talking and get moving.”

Article IV:

Light rail game: rank hypocrisy
By RICK CASEY Houston Chronicle Oct. 24, 2003

IF DANTE’S hell has varying levels for degrees of hypocrisy, where will the following players spend eternity?

· Texans for True Mobility: This group is bellowing in TV and radio ads and direct mail pieces that the Metro light rail plan “costs too much, does too little.”

The group appears to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose Metro’s light rail plan.

On its Web site, TTM offers a list of “news clippings,” the first of which is from a publication called the Houston Review. The article, “The Metro Money Train,” luridly lists some of the major contributors to Citizens for Public Transportation, the political action committee advertising in favor of light rail.

The article notes that contributors tend to be companies that expect to profit from light rail.

Siemens Transportation Systems, for example, gave “a staggering” $50,000. Siemens is selling the cars to Metro.

Other contributors are architects, engineers and landholders and developers who stand to benefit from the project.

Crescent Real Estate Equities, for example, owner of Greenway Plaza and downtown real estate, both of which will be served by rail, gave $25,000. So did Fulbright & Jaworski, the mega-law firm that does bond work.

This information is known because Citizens for Public Transportation filed the required disclosure forms — something Texans for True Mobility refuses to do.

So TTM is happy to tell you who is funding the other side of the debate. They just won’t say who’s funding their side.

TTM officials take this hypocrisy to a higher level by saying they don’t have to disclose their finances because they are a nonprofit engaged in education, not telling people how to vote.

This is so patently untrue that even their announcers have a hard time swallowing it. One of their radio ads concludes with this line: “Paid for by Texans for True Mobility.” But another concludes: “Political ad paid for by Texans for True Mobility.”

· The Metropolitan Transit Authority: For more than a month, Metro has been running slick newspaper and television ads touting the virtues of its light rail plan.

Idealized artists’ renderings of sleek trains pulling into tree-shaded stations turn hard steel into warm fuzzies.

Metro officials say it’s acceptable to use taxpayer and bus rider money to pay for this advertising blitz because they are simply informing voters of the program, not seeking their vote.

They say this with the same straight face that TTM officials use in saying their efforts are simply educational.

Metro officials estimate that from the time they called the election through Election Day, the cost of the, um, educational campaign will be $3 million. This includes creative and production costs as well as air time and print space. (The agency, it should be noted, ran ads before calling the election.)

If you’re a taxpayer who disagrees with the plan, you’ve got a good gripe about your taxes going to promote the other side.

· Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt: His Web site (www.tax.co.harris.tx.us/) features in its most prominent position five “featured items.”

Three of them attack Metro’s funding plans for its light rail proposal.

One, for example, is titled: “What METROs (sic) Not Telling Us About Their Revenue Forecast: Bettencourt To Inform The Public.”

Bettencourt is, of course, (all together now) simply educating the public. He certainly isn’t using his official taxpayer-funded Web site to oppose the Metro proposal.

He also links to copies of several negative articles about Dallas’ light rail system, but not to any readily available positive articles. (Bettencourt’s guilt is mitigated by technical incompetence. The copies are illegible.)