Corrupt Bargain in Houston Light Rail Contracts (FR Original Find)

4/23/04 | me

[GOPcapitalist]

FROM TODAY'S HOUSTON CHRONICLE

April 22, 2004, 11:55PM

Metro agrees to contract for next 4 light rail lines

By LUCAS WALL

Metro has taken a significant step toward the construction of Houston's next four light rail lines.

Directors on Thursday authorized signing a five-year contract estimated at $60 million with STV Inc. of New York, the same consortium that shepherded development of the Main Street line, which opened Jan. 1.

...

Six firms competed for the project, which includes options for two two-year extensions. Dennis Hough, the Metropolitan Transit Authority's director of contracts, said STV and its 16 subcontractors stood out as the most qualified companies to continue oversight of light rail construction in Houston.

NOW TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:

TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION
CONTRIBUTOR SEARCH
Please Click On the Report Number to View Reports

STV Incorporated, to Citizens For Public Transportation, $3,000.00 03-JAN-03 http://204.65.203.2/public/216570.pdf

Stv Incorporated, to Citizens For Public Transportation, $25,000.00 26-JUL-03 http://204.65.203.2/public/230485.pdf

NOTE: Citizens for Public Transportation was the pro-Metro Political Action Committee that ran the referendum campaign for the light rail expansion that STV just got.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Ah, so you admit, you use/need the highways, even though you don't drive.

Well, actually no. The major distribution centers near Philadelphia are Allentown and Harrisburg. The roads leading from these places to the stores I use are the PA Turnpike toll roads. So maybe I don't really use the highways.

How about, if we take and pile all the extra costs for not using the highways on you, so you pay your full share for them.

Extra costs for not using the highways?

Go without pants and food for a while.

If this is the level of discourse you are capable of, I'm not interested.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Highway haters? Because I disagree with the politcally determined method of financing I'm a highway hater? What kind of loony debate is this?

And of course, we would have to cut off their supplies of oil and chemicals from Houston, as no roads, no workers to control the pipelines and the railroads for their stuff either.

Thanks, we've got our own refineries and chemical plants here in Philadelphia (seven refineries with a total capacity of 1.2 million barrels per day and lots of associated chemical plants). Not as big as you guys, but big enough for ourselves. We are a net exporter of these items to the rest of the country.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Lovely place. Herman's ideal.

Its sad that this childish nonesense the level of discourse you are capable of.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Take our friend Hermann for example. He's posted countless tirades on the "lost property tax revenue" from constructing a highway on a narrow and geographically negligible strip of space that by its very existence as a highway increases the adjoining property value and accompanying revenues tenfold if not more.

Maybe this is how it works in Houston, but it doesn't up here. Any freeway ever built around here went through an area already long settled, and generaly chewed up a strip of houses and businesses (if it didn't do that, it was either run through a park or a warehouse district or estate country). There was no associated benefit of "more development" with "more property taxes" in an already highly developed area retrofitted later on with freeways. On the contrary, even a narrow freeway (say one housing lot wide) is going to chew up 100 or so houses per mile. That's $300-$400K per year here at typical property tax rates. A 20 mile freeway might represent a property tax loss of $6 million per annum. A much wider road like I95, mowing through row-house neighborhoods would chew up 400 houses per mile, which even with a lower property tax rate of about $1500 per year is still $600,000 per mile. That's real money to me.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Houston has no zoning, it just grows, like 'Topsey'.

I'm aware of that. But there is much more to planning codes than zoning, which deals only with the types of structures you can erect on a particular piece of land. For example, every Highway Code I am aware of, although it doesn't come right out and say it, makes the construction of a traditional town with narrow streets and unfilleted corners illegal. It frequently also forces the construction of over-sized arterials that ill fit with the surroundings. One would hardly build a house next to such an 8-lane road, although in Houston it might be "legal" because no one is forbidding it through zoning. The alternative of not building such a road is not allowed, because the roads have to be sized by various equations and parameters and the traffic routed in certain ways.

One of the striking things about a traditional city is the general lack of congestion outside the immediate downtown (which is congested more because it is where everyone seems to want to go). The reason is that every street goes through, so traffic is fairly evenly distributed over a large grid system. In the suburbs, its rare to have a through street within 1 mile of another through street. Enormous amounts of traffic end up funneled down just a few roads, leading to traffic jams and tie-ups and lights. This later situation is what is encouraged in the State Highway Codes. Its impossible to have a traditional town or suburb in such conditions.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Only $200,000,000 per mile for the Toonerville Trolley? I am impressed with the slickness of the waste. We build subways for that price up here, so at the end of the day we have something to show for it. Our trolley lines tend to cost about $20,000,000 per mile at most, generally much less for in-street ones.

I wonder where all the money is going?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

One of the things Herman doesn't seem to realize, is the difference in Houston's freeways, from those in the North East. We have frontage roads, which allow continuous access and development, all along the freeways, while up there in yankeeland, they have truely limited access highways, which have no frontage roads, and so are useful only for transit, rather than development.

We can't afford to build roads like that. First off, the topography wouldn't allow it to be done economically - you'd be doubling your earthmoving costs at a minimum, which are already huge. Second, our whole region is already developed. New roads involve knocking down houses and business (in the rare cases where pre-planning was done, the State bought the land while its development occurred), not driving the development of new ones. People would see little justification politically to such schemes. Why demolish established houses and business for the benefit of new developers? That just isn't right.

do you realize just how good we have it in Houston.

Thanks, but I can do without your lengthy commutes and snarled traffic and no alternatives but driving.

[rustbucket]

Disclosure does not equal "ethical," and doesn't even necessarily equal "legal."

What? The Marc Rich pardon was not ethical?

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Dear Truck,

I will say this about you, you're a persistent a$$. While GOPc and I have never met I do know who he is and have several personal and political friends who know him from the Harris County GOP. We have emailed, FReepmailed and posted to each other for a couple of years and I know most of his positions well. He is straight forward and will give you a reason for all his positions and while I do not always agree, he is without doubt one of the most informed members of the GOP in SE Texas.

OH and before you claim I'm another alter ego, I have met:
Flyer; Eaker; TexasCowboy; humblegunner; Dog Gone; humidston; PetroniDE; Xenalyte; ollieMB; bobbyd; Allegra; and Andy Meyers is my County Commissioner

A few of them will even admit it.

[GOPcapitalist]

Here is the Texans for True Mobility press release from October 6 2003. The METRO Money Train

Yeah, and you want to know why they put that there? Cause I sent it to them after posting the same info on FR's Texas Forum. And you wanna know where most of the info from the earlier article came? That's right. Stuff I posted on the Texas forum. You're in way over your head on this one, mac. You obsession is laughable.

[GOPcapitalist]

I wonder where all the money is going?

If you read the original post you would know. It's going to companies like STV and Siemens who wheeled and dealed their way into a cushy contract.

[GOPcapitalist]

Maybe this is how it works in Houston, but it doesn't up here. Any freeway ever built around here went through an area already long settled, and generaly chewed up a strip of houses and businesses

As I've said before, YOU are the exception rather than the rule. Most of this country is still geographically rural, meaning they can still build and expand long stretches of highway with only minimal need to plow through non-farm property. The only places that won't work are urban dumps like New Jersey and New Jersey is thankfully a minority among states.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Engineering and Equipment generally is not the expensive part of a contract. There are exceptions, like East Side Access in NYC, but these are exceptions. Usually, most of the money goes for land and construction.

[GOPcapitalist]

I'm aware of that. But there is much more to planning codes than zoning, which deals only with the types of structures you can erect on a particular piece of land. For example, every Highway Code I am aware of, although it doesn't come right out and say it, makes the construction of a traditional town with narrow streets and unfilleted corners illegal. It frequently also forces the construction of over-sized arterials that ill fit with the surroundings.

Funny. You must not have ever been to the Texas Hill Country either. It's full of little towns dating from the 1800's. Like so many other things here, their roads are bigger than many modern ones in yankeeland and it doesn't "ill fit" with anything. Several of those towns grew up with a wide center street and have always been that way. Today some state highways go down the middle of those wide streets at 4 or 6 comfortably large lanes with 100-year old stone buildings standing on either side of them.

One would hardly build a house next to such an 8-lane road, although in Houston it might be "legal" because no one is forbidding it through zoning.

That's an odd observation, considering that the ONLY place in the country where houses right up against 8 lane highways may be consistently observed is yankeeland. Yeah, they stick sound barriers in between the two but that's about it. Some houses are less than 50 feet from traffic. Down here we generally don't do that and where neighborhoods do run up against freeways, there's a frontage road and a little space after it to separate. Simply put, Hermann, you seem to have siezed upon the most wretched attributes of highway construction in your equally wretched yet fortunately isolated region of the country and assumed upon them that everybody else must do the same. Go out and see America sometime and I mean the real America. It does not stop at the Hudson River or the Mason Dixon Line as many in your region seem to think. We build our highways with space and we put things that people will use like Wal-marts and places to eat and malls along them, not compacted row housing.

[GOPcapitalist]

Thanks, but I can do without your lengthy commutes and snarled traffic and no alternatives but driving.

Having driven in both for years, I can safely say that Houston's traffic is no worse than (and in fact is preferable in many ways to) Washington, DC, which has one of the strongest mass transit systems in the nation. Our commutes are comparable to those in the transit-friendly cities of Yankeeland while also offering substantial mobility and convenience advantages. If it's gonna take a long commute to get to work I'd rather spend 45 minutes in the comfort of my car than on a smelly crowded train.

[GOPcapitalist]

Engineering and Equipment generally is not the expensive part of a contract.

It is when you're cutting crony deals and ordering "prototype" train cars built from scratch by an exclusive provider to work only on your system rather than getting passenger cars that are compatible with any similar rail track. Metrorail Phase I cost $300 million plus to build and Siemens got almost a third of it.

[GOPcapitalist]

Right. So when contractor STV makes a publically disclosed contribution to the pro-Metro PAC you complain it's unethical, and when non-disclosed contributions are made to the anti-Metro PAC

Wrong again. The non-disclosed contributions you speak of were not made to a PAC. They were made to 501(c) non-profit for educational advertising, or that which is often called "soft money." Soft money of this sort is perfectly legal in Texas.

some by companies and individuals that stand to profit by the bond refernedum's defeat

Explain again exactly how they stood to profit. Or better yet, explain it for the first time since you didn't do that either.

Where's the outrage from the civic minded citizens about the millions of dollars raised from unknown sources to run the slick television ad campaign against the Metro Bond?

Why should there be outrage at TTM? Soft money under 501c provisions is legal in Texas and was ruled so when the DA threw out a frivolous complaint by your beloved Houston Chronicle. By contrast, corrupt deals where a clear conflict of interest exists and issue advocacy by a government agency are not.

As has been explained to you before, STV, as the major contrator overseeing the original project, was in a strong position to win the new project bid.

Gee, ya think? And they solidified that position with a sizable friendly campaign contribution!

[GOPcapitalist]

Thanks HC. The only reason Garbage_Truck is arguing the pro-metro position here is the fact that I'm arguing against it. For reasons that remain unknown to me, he's adopted some sort of bizarre adversarial obsession with me and seeks out my posts on local politics threads such as this one just to be combative. Why did he pick me? Who knows. I must've touched a raw nerve with him somewhere along the way.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Having driven in both for years, I can safely say that Houston's traffic is no worse than (and in fact is preferable in many ways to) Washington, DC, which has one of the strongest mass transit systems in the nation.

Imagine what it would be like if suddenly another 400,000 people hit the roads every day because METRO and MARC and VRE weren't running. That would be an utter nightmare.

Our commutes are comparable to those in the transit-friendly cities of Yankeeland while also offering substantial mobility and convenience advantages. If it's gonna take a long commute to get to work I'd rather spend 45 minutes in the comfort of my car than on a smelly crowded train.

I've never ridden in a smelly train. The reason commutes are comparable is that there is a universal limit to what people are willing to put themselves through every day. Construction of highways (or building rail lines) tends to induce demand up to capacity at peak times. People also tend to be willing to commute in large numbers only so far, and only a few hardy souls will brave 2+ hour oddessys. Lacking mass transit, Houston could not possibly be built to the density achieved in the northeast or Chicago, even if you folks wanted to,w hcih I very much doubt. No amount of highways could handle all the peak demand to get into Chicago, or Manhattan, or Philadelphia, or Boston, or DC. Its simply a matter of different landforms left over from the days prior to the government constructed highway system.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You must not have ever been to the Texas Hill Country either. It's full of little towns dating from the 1800's. Like so many other things here, their roads are bigger than many modern ones in yankeeland and it doesn't "ill fit" with anything. Several of those towns grew up with a wide center street and have always been that way. Today some state highways go down the middle of those wide streets at 4 or 6 comfortably large lanes with 100-year old stone buildings standing on either side of them.

Again you miss the point. The Highway codes dictate overly wide residential streets and feeders as well as arterials. Our dense eastern towns of course have broad major streets too (the major streets in Manhattan, Philadelphia, and Chicago are 6-8 lanes). Its our residential and secondary streets that are much different and "out of code".

That's an odd observation, considering that the ONLY place in the country where houses right up against 8 lane highways may be consistently observed is yankeeland. Yeah, they stick sound barriers in between the two but that's about it. Some houses are less than 50 feet from traffic. Down here we generally don't do that and where neighborhoods do run up against freeways, there's a frontage road and a little space after it to separate. Simply put, Hermann, you seem to have siezed upon the most wretched attributes of highway construction in your equally wretched yet fortunately isolated region of the country and assumed upon them that everybody else must do the same.

Again, you fail to realize the reasons for this. (1) The hosues were there first. (2) Land is expensive and must be expensively worked to build highways in much of the country.

Most amusing, the place you curse the most in my region, New Jersey, is the only state that builds roads like you describe. Its part of what makes it such a craphole in my mind, though I'd imagine you see it as one of their better features.

Go out and see America sometime and I mean the real America. It does not stop at the Hudson River or the Mason Dixon Line as many in your region seem to think.

Must you folks be such pompous asses? I'd dare say my little slice of America is quite a bit more "real" than your bland interchangeable suburb of Anywhere, USA. Do you even know enough geography to recognize that I live west of the Hudson River?

As to your encouraging my travel, I've been to about 20% of all the counties in the US, missing them in a big area so far only in the most southern states from Alabama to Arizona, including almost everywhere east of the Mississippi and north of a line from Miami to St. Louis. I think I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the country besides your little slice, thank you very much. Certainly familiar enough to not have to hold the people from other parts of it in contempt like you folks seem to with all non-Texans.

We build our highways with space and we put things that people will use like Wal-marts and places to eat and malls along them, not compacted row housing.

Again, the buildings along our highways were there first. Yes, we had development before the freeway. And no, we aren't interested in socialist schemes to knock down neighborhoods by eminent domain and replace them with "approrpiate" structures like you describe. We'd rather try to minimize the impact of the freeway, if it must be built. And we certainly wouldn't want to eat in a restaurant next to a freeway.