For METRO's Plan (Houston Chronicle light rail GAG alert)

Houston Chronicle Fact Check:

Spurious Claim #1: " The steamboat, the locomotive, the automobile, the Wright brothers' first powered airplane -- all were ridiculed in their day before they proved to be engines of progress that increased the quality and bounds of human life. Voters should view the Metropolitan Transit Authority's transit proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot in the same light. "

REALITY: The problem with making this comparison is that the year is no longer 1903. If it were a century ago when electric trolley cars were first invented this would be a valid point. But it is 2003 and trolleys, which made a 50 year run until the middle of the last century, have long since been antiquated technology.

Spurious Claim #2: "Many critics of the plan shamelessly swear they are not opposed to light rail, they are only opposed to every light-rail route Metro has ever proposed."

REALITY: This is an intentional strawman by the Chronicle. METRO's critics have never sworn that they are "not opposed to light rail." Some have stated that they are not opposed to rail-based transit in general and that they favor alternatives to light rail such as commuter rail and monorail. Light rail is viewed as one of the least efficient types of rail-based transit because of its slow speed and METRO's critics consistently oppose it for choosing this option over the others.

Spurious Claim #3: "Where are the rail proposals from Metro's opponents, who claim superior planning ability?" (implying that rail opponents have no alternatives)

REALITY: Detailed alternative transportation plans may be easily found through the websites of the two main organizations opposing METRO, BusCAR and Texans for True Mobility. The Chronicle is intentionally fibbing when they claim that no alternatives have been offered.

Spurious Claim #4: "Rail critics say it relies upon 19th-century technology, but the internal combustion engine used by cars and trucks long predates clean, electric-powered rail transit."

REALITY: Leo Durst built the first modern electric trolley car in 1885 by installing a wire "troller" cable on Baltimore's streetcars to provide electricity (this device is still used on light rail today). Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz built the first two modern internal combustion engines a year later in 1886.

Spurious Claim #5: "Critics say mass transit doesn't reduce congestion, but ignore the fact that congestion is growing faster in cities without multimodal mass transit"

REALITY: Note that the Chronicle offers no evidence of this claim. It should be pointed out that Washington, D.C. has one of the worst congestion problems of any city in America yet it also has one of the most developed and best run rail transit systems in the nation.

Spurious Claim #6: "While the fight seems to be over light rail, Metro Solutions is more bus and HOV lane than rail."

REALITY: Though Metro Solutions does indeed contain bus expansions it cannot be denied that the overwhelming majority of the plan is light rail oriented. Light rail consumes over three fourths of the ballot language in the referendum. Rail proponents like the Chronicle like to claim that the rail component is only 22 miles and costs about $600,000. This is simply the estimated cost of the first phase and even it is dubious (Metro is believed to have severely fudged their numbers as this phase will cost in the billions to build). The ballot language clearly indicates that voters are approving much more than the first phase an in fact lists over 60 miles of rail expansions

Spurious Claim #7: "Viewed in any light, the facts support the value of Metro Solutions. The myths offered by rail opponents are, put less charitably, falsehoods."

REALITY: Neither this Houston Chronicle editorial nor any of the several dozen that preceded it has demonstrated either (a) that the facts support light rail or (b) that any of the claims made by rail opponents are falsehoods. In fact the bulk of these editorials are severely lacking of any credible statistical data or serious analysis of either opponent claims or the transit plan itself.

LINKS:

The Metro Money Train - read all about the light rail contractors behind METRO's referendum and how they are bankrolling the campaign to pass it.

Houston BUSCAR - the Business Committee Against Rail - contains lots of facts about why METRO Solutions won't work.

Texans for True Mobility - Read how METRO Solutions costs too much, does too little

Secret Memo from the Houston Chronicle - Read why the Houston Chronicle CANNOT be trusted to accurately report Light Rail news

Tired of the Chronicle's left wing lies about Light Rail? Let them know! Send them the links above and tell them the facts that they refuse to report!

Lucas.Wall@chron.com
viewpoints@chron.com
john.williams@chron.com
readerrep@chron.com

Houston ping!

The metro light rail so called solution will greatly benefit the inner city and downtown at the cost of the suburbs. The suburbs is where the majority of the new homes and the people are settling. It will hurt Houston for decades to come. And if it is passed I and my wife will be leaving Harris county as soon as possible. Get out before the taxes that are already to hight explode throught the roof.

Good analysis.

We have Lite Rail in New Jersey and it attracts about 1/10 the passengers that they originally projected.

Lite Rail makes alot of local people alot of $$$.

Liberals tout it as a vehicle for social justice.

Where I live, the bus systems hit the same destinations, and you do not have to walk a mile to get to the station.

the reality is that Houston does not have the population density nor the workplace/shopping density to support rail transit. Things are simply too spread out.

All these proposals for rail transit are simply boondoggles to make a few people a lot of money at taxpayer expense.

Houston is simply a 'dinosaur' monster which will strangle itself and die at the hands of the internet and cheap/fast communications - work at home/shop at home.

Thanks for the ping, GOP. Alas, I have moved out of Houston... even out of Harris Co.... but I DO have the internet and thanks to you, I have email addys, so I will email anyway! :-)

And for the rest of you, MOVE OUT OF THAT CRUMMY TOWN IF YOU CAN! COMMUNITIES OUTSIDE OF THAT DUMP ARE SAFE, CONSERVATIVE AND PEACEFUL - THANK HEAVENS!

(Sorry for yelling.)

What's the skinny on the Council members? Is everyone in a specific district and have only one council member to vote for. What's the "at-large" positions? This will be my first time voting in a mayoral election in Houston. Since there are no party affiliations on the ballot, I want to do some homework on who i should be voting for. Thanks!

You get to vote for mayor, 5 at large councilmen, 1 district councilman, city controller, and the METRO referendum. Here are my recommendations:

MAYOR: Sanchez
CONTROLLER: Tatro
AL 1: Ellis
AL 2: Elford AL 3: Sekula Gibbs
AL 4: Keller
AL 5: Berry
A: Berry
B: none
C: Goldberg
D: none
E: Wiseman
F: McConn (FYI - MJ Khan has ties to CAIR)
G: Daily
H: Longoria
I: none
METRO referendum: NO

Thanks for the tips. It's hard to tell who is a leftist and who isn't without doing lots of research.

Tatro proclaimed he was a conservative in radio ads and Berry had a strong conservative platform , but all the others are mysteries.

There probably will be a mayoral runoff.

I'm not a big fan of light rail because it's slow and in efficient but I'm not a fan of "road widening" either. Making more and bigger roads is not the answer. That's just encouraging the car traffic congestion problem. But another problem I see with Mass transit is that Houston isn't a very walker friendly city. What I mean by that is you can't get to far on foot wihtout leaving the sidewalk. And riding a Bicycle? Forget it. Personally, If we don't start thinking bigger, and get ahead of this problem, Houston will start to lose some business out to the smaller cities where getting around is currently easier.

I'd like to see an improved bus system for getting around the inner loop, light rail or better walking routs for gettting around down town, commuter rail for the sub-urbs (in chicago they have a great system and it's very fast) that is run predominatntly durning rush hour with a lighter schedule off-peak and routes going to the major office zones (down town, Katy, 290, greenspoint, baytown, clearlake, ect.) more biking routes and biking friendly roads, and more connection roads (built smarter to aleviate cogestion by alternate routs not giant roads; they're not cost efficient (remember that if you build it you have to maintain it) Houston compared to chicago, has more curvy roads and it's harder to find you way around because there isn't a distinct north/south, roads just go where ever they please which is not only inconvenient but messy at times and hell when you first get here.

Until people are willing to buy the cleanest cars on the market (which by the way also sacrifice on travel time/they're amazingly slow) then maybe we have to realize that we can't have it all. Sometimes the best way for the future isn't the best way right now. You can't have the most convenient, most clean, and cheapest system without sacrificing something.

The only reason that people will ever use a mass system in mass is if they truely don't need a car. That means that you have to walk no more than 2 blocks on foot, it stops where you want it to, it's reasonably priced, and efficient. Honestly, I don't think people in the suburbs will ever be without a car until thier area is so transit saturated that having a car is a bigger inconvenience. that in itself is a waste...

Ahhh whatever... Houston's going to swallow itself...

Houston voters who don't keep up with the issues or aren't familiar with the candidates can still cast a meaningful ballot.

All they have to do is vote just the opposite of whatever the Houston Chronicle editorial board recommends, and they'll be voting correctly at least 80% of the time.

I worked for Siemens on this very project and remember well the decision to fund some PAC dollars. The article about the "Metro Money Train" seems to imply that what these companies were doing was nefarious or downright illegal. However, under the current laws governing donations to campaigns, that is the only way companies/PACs can make sizable donations to a certain cause.

$50,000 by Siemens was a cheap investment to make when they have over 500 employees in the U.S. directly working on the project who have families dependent on their income. OTH, it probably wasn't without a little arm twisting by certain METRO personnel to some of these company contacts who were discreetly told something like this: "If you want to stay a part of this project, I'm sure Mr. Company XXXXXXXXX you will be glad to help with a political contribution."

I worked for Siemens on this very project and remember well the decision to fund some PAC dollars. The article about the "Metro Money Train" seems to imply that what these companies were doing was nefarious or downright illegal.

I don't believe there is a single place in that article that implies Siemens did something illegal. It does however characterize their act as nefarious and unethical because it is. The fact of the matter is that METRO has a signed and sealed contract for Siemens to be its sole railcar provider. That contract is full of all sorts of perks, bonuses, and guarantee clauses that dump literally millions of dollars int Siemens' pockets if voters approve a rail expansion. For Siemens to bankroll METRO's campaign for that expansion accordingly creates a blatantly unethical conflict of interest.

I guess I mistook your screen name.

As I said in my statement: "the article seems to imply..." which sets the whole tone for its contents. Especially when they intermix names like "Enron" to discribe certain practices. The story is meant to inflame emotions - not to hold a rational and meaningful examination of the facts.

If you are refering to the incentive clauses that are built into the contract for Siemens to preform beyond what the contract specifies, big deal. Give you a little insight, performance incentives are standard contract clauses for amounts that are so big and schedules so critical to meet.

However, your statements about "millions of dollars" going towards Siemens for the expansion is incorrect and nonsensical. Siemens doesn't get anything that any other company wouldn't have gotten if they had made the winning bid. Of course if you actually read the contract (like I was paid to do), you might know this kind of stuff...

As the carshell manufacturer, Siemens will not make close to any of its' normal profit margins on the Houston Project. The introduction of such a new design coupled with the diligent oversite by the contract's engineering consultant (LTK) will eat up most of the profits through the R&D effort.

Siemens has successfully built a plant in the U.S. that employs thousands of workers nationally. Though I had my own reasons for leaving the company, your unsupported arguments do nothing but show your ignorance of the real situation.

As I said in my statement: "the article seems to imply..." which sets the whole tone for its contents. Especially when they intermix names like "Enron" to discribe certain practices.

If you pay close attention to the METRO campaign currently being waged you will know that the Enron association to METRO has been commonly made for months. They've got it all - fraudulent accounting practices, cozy and unethical relationships with certain other politicians and businesses, and conflicts of interest galore.

The story is meant to inflame emotions - not to hold a rational and meaningful examination of the facts.

It has an emotional element to it just as all EDITORIALS do, but the factual content of it seems, as best I can tell, undisputed and undisputable. The simple facts are that (a) Siemens has a huge multi-million dollar contract with METRO, (b) Siemens' contract guarantees them further multi-million dollar deals with METRO on any light rail expansion, and (c) Siemens is now bankrolling METRO's campaign to make those contract extensions a reality. That is by definition an unethical conflict of interest.

If you are refering to the incentive clauses that are built into the contract for Siemens to preform beyond what the contract specifies, big deal.

No. I am referring to clauses that virtually guarantee Siemens another contract with any light rail expansion. Siemens made $120 million on the main street pilot line. If the METRO referendum passes it is virtually guaranteed that they WILL recieve an additional contract for three or four times that ammount. That is not a "performance incentive." That is a greasy loaded government pork barrel deal to a firm that has been literally given a monopoly over rail car production for the city of Houston.

However, your statements about "millions of dollars" going towards Siemens for the expansion is incorrect and nonsensical. Siemens doesn't get anything that any other company wouldn't have gotten if they had made the winning bid.

You cannot be seriously maintaining that as fact! Let me put it in plain language for you then.

METRO referendum passes = Siemens getting hundreds of millions in NEW rail car purchases.
METRO referendum fails = Siemens getting nothing more than they already have.

See the difference there? It's a big one of...oh, say...a couple hundred million dollars!

Of course if you actually read the contract

I've actually got a copy of it around here somewhere and it supports virtually everything I've said. The bottom line is that Siemens is made the exclusive producer of METRO's rail cars and that means ANY expansion of METRO's light rail gives millions in business to Siemens. It's a guaranteed reality - if METRO's ballot measure passes Siemens gets rich.

Listen, I understand you may have some sort of in house loyalty to your former company but that doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is highly unethical. I have friends who worked at Enron too, but that didn't make Enron's behavior any more ethical and not even the most loyal of them would dispute that fact.

As the carshell manufacturer

No. They got the full deal. Carshells, car amenities, a huge portion of the electrical infrastructure, you name it. The cars themselves were shipped to Houston on flatbeds from a Siemens plant in San Francisco.

The introduction of such a new design coupled with the diligent oversite by the contract's engineering consultant (LTK) will eat up most of the profits through the R&D effort.

False. METRO's contract with Siemens actually PAYS them the costs of designing the new rail car prototype.

Siemens has successfully built a plant in the U.S. that employs thousands of workers nationally.

That they may, but they are also backing a corrupt and unethical light rail boondoggle that will harm not thousands of people but rather millions - as in the 3 million Houston residents who all pay taxes to fund the thing.