There is the impression left by Mr. Sallee's column that Bazan is or has been wrong in voicing his concerns and criticism of METRO and the electrified boondoggle legacy of Lee. P. Brown, named METRORail.

Stray Current:

FACT - The system was shoddily built, and not properly tested for stray current leakage prior to service start-up.  It took three years, and a significant expenditure of taxpayer funds to identify and attempt to cure the sources of stray current leakage.  The system still operates outside the design specifications.  Stray current still exists, and no one knows the extent of cumulative damage to the infrastructure in the three years METRORail operated prior to the repairs and modifications, which has brought the stray current leakage down to where METRO claims is "manageable."  No one at METRO can state the stray current leakage has been stopped, and that infrastructure will not be damaged in the future.

The industry forms Corrosion Committees, as METRO has, to manage the expense of future damage resulting from stray current.  He is not convinced that there was NO cumulative damage, and that there is no danger of premature failure of city infrastructure and the 40+ year old substructures of the expressway bridges which span the METRORail.

Bazan presented evidence of City-owned infrastructure damage, which he contend is from stray current corrosion, to the METRO board last month.  From METRO's own stray current reports, there was a significant level of stray current detected in the vicinity of the Museum District platform situated on San Jacinto, just north of Hermann Drive.  There was a premature failure of an 8-inch steel-reinforced concrete water line pipe, situated at San Jacinto and Herrman Drive, around February 26, 2006, which interrupted the METRORail operation.  The city claims there was no record of any failure analysis of this pipeline.  The intersection was rebuilt during the construction of METRORail, and infrastructure was being worked on in this vicinity around March of 2002.  There was no contractor daily work report referencing that this pipeline was ever protected from stray current.

Regarding the recent speech made by Mr. Marcotte concerned FY2008, one might be curious if Mr. Sallee asked Mr. Marcotte if the words "Stray Current" and METRO or, the corridor where METRORail operates, ever rolled off his lips during that presentation when the $2 million for corrosion control out of the CIP allocations was being discussed?

Is this the same Mr. Marcotte who was running the water system in Washington, D. C. back in 2004 when the EPA started enforcement action over unsafe levels of Lead in the drinking water?  Didn't he claim he had no knowledge that the Lead levels were too high?  This denial seemed reminiscent of the "I Know Nothing!" denial from the Sgt. Schultz character in the 1960's era TV Comedy series "Hogan's Heroes."

General Mobility Funds:

FACT: When Bazan did sit down with the Mayor's staff, the first item mentioned was $44+ million which seemingly was not collected by the prior administration.  Why did METRO refuse to disclose the information, seeking a TXOAG opinion so as to "stonewall" the information.  According to the few documents "pried" from METRO, when compared with other agency documents, a huge discrepancy was observed.  In Bazan's view, $44 million is still a huge amount.

The Mayor stated publicly that he had hired people to try and unravel METRO's financial statements and failed.  There are still significant discrepancies that METRO will not explain in writing.  Further, the City, also flush with sales tax revenue, does not seem to be anxious to invoice METRO for these funds.  In April 2007, there was about $109 million unbilled, and that was reduced to $90+ million four months later.  At that rate, METRO can sit on the GMP funds for years before distributing it, while METRO collects interest on the hoarded funds, and City taxpayers pay the project interest on the bonds.

Defeased Leases:

FACT:  The actual data is detailed in the METRO annual financial statements, anyone who looks will likely be startled at the amount of payments, for decades!  The facilities were already paid for, and METRO entered into these "finance" agreements so as to get a lump sum payment necessary to have enough cash to start building the METRORail boondoggle.  Tax credits to investors still "short changes" federal taxpayers and are egregious!

The U.S. Congress BANNED the use of Defeased Leases by transit agencies in 2004.

=========

Excerpt from WSJ

Civic Duties

How Big Tax Shelter With Cities

Shortchanges Federal Treasury

Use of Sale, Leaseback Deals,

Worth Billions Each Year,

Is a Target of a New Bill

Chicago Sells Its 911 System

By JOHN D. MCKINNON

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

October 7, 2004:

"The essence of the deals -- which the Internal Revenue Service dubs SILO, for "sale in, lease out" -- is a sale of depreciation rights. If a city builds, say, a subway system, it can't deduct the cost from its income taxes over future years, for a simple reason: Cities don't owe income taxes. So the city sells the subway to someone who does.

The buyers, typically financial firms, then can depreciate the subway -- that is, deduct a portion of its cost from their income each year for several years running. In a final step, the buyers, having no use for a subway, immediately lease it back to the city. The terms of the deals are structured to leave the city with a packet of cash. (The city often conveys the property to the investors in a long-term lease, which is treated for tax purposes as a sale.)"

========

Might one suggest that each day that passes, we learn more, and that Bazan likely was not wrong in his overall criticism of METRO, and he's confident the facts that emerge over time will support his contention that METRORail is an unsafe boondoggle.

Now I can see that these blogs are getting more FREAKING boring by the day.  What's going on here?!  It was interestingly enough to where I would say something---for and/or against other folks on here (that includes you, Mr. Royko) but I can honestly say that my time is constantly being wasted in doing so.  Why isn't there any blog posts popping up that I, Cedric Collins, might be interested in "participating" in?

What is this particular topic supposed to prove?  Whatever happens, happens.  NEXT TOPIC, PLEASE?!  THANK YOU!!

Cedric wait until metro announces the timeline for the qcard. Then you and everyone will want to "participate" in that topic. The rancor from the uaual suspects will be entertaining to say the least. Ms Sit may have to explain why metro is switching from what many see a fair fee sysytem to one that MR Royko always chants is "unfair".

I saw on a bus that the QCard is to roll out on Dec 17th.  I have been using it since late Feb and like it.  I look forward to people loading on the bus faster and not messing with transfer cards.  

I have also seen the placard stating the dec 17 date. I asked ms sit in an earlier post about the actuality and finality of this date but i have received silence. If the date is accurate that leaves little time to inform the public of the coming changes. You Wakester use the card but the changes coming about are more than the formal introduction of the Qcard. The changes are fundamentally staggering for any one who rides the bus as of now. No more paper passes(Day, week, monthly,or yearly) nor will there be discounts unless one purchases qcard. Dollar charge every time one enters bus whether transfering onto another bus unless one purchases metros Qcard. Children pay full fare(1 dollar) unless each child has their own Qcard. Shall I go on. I sound like Royko now.

Coug6666,

No, you don't sound like Royko. Changing to the Qcard is  something we can adjust to using. You're attempting to understand and adjust to that change by asking questions in earnest.

The difference between you and Royko is that you don't hate the Qcard and that are not doing everything within your power to eliminate it simply because...

One thing that bothers me about the switch to the Q Card is that the people most affected by it will probably be the poorest. I imagine that most Houstonians who regularly take bus trips that require multiple transfers--and that, therefore, take a huge amount of time--are those who can't afford cars. At present, these folks can buy $2 day passes to make such multiple-transfer trips, but when the Q card arrives and the $2 day pass goes away, such trips could end up costing much more.

coug6666,

        I'll be here when something pops up.  I just want to know---what "dispelling rumors" is METRO trying to give the pink slip to?  Can somebody at METRO enlighten us on this issue.

Steve Palmer wrote:  "One thing that bothers me about the switch to the Q Card is that the people most affected by it will probably be the poorest. I imagine that most Houstonians who regularly take bus trips that require multiple transfers--and that, therefore, take a huge amount of time--are those who can't afford cars. At present, these folks can buy $2 day passes to make such multiple-transfer trips, but when the Q card arrives and the $2 day pass goes away, such trips could end up costing much more."

That would be me. That's the ONLY reason I'm against the Q Card. I don't care about raising the discount, having computer chips, or stuff like that. If it wasn't for the Day/Weekly/Monthly passes, I wouldn't have learned my way around the city as well as I have. For the first 6 months I lived here, I rode almost every local and express route just to see where they went. It was also for job hunting.

But when the Q Card goes live, I can't do stuff like that anymore. I have to go to work, and go straight home to avoid spending more than $2 a day. The 2 hour transfer window from my first dollar is gone because it's a simple Point A to Point B operation. The other dollar might have to get me from work to Wal-Mart to my house, but it's gonna cost me a dollar just to go to Wal-Mart. Then, getting home from Wal-Mart will cost me another dollar because it's a return trip.

Basically, if I need to do anything at all other than go to work, it's gonna cost me at least $3 that day.

Now, I think where this huge loss of revenue was coming from was not the Day, Weekly, or Monthly Pass. It was the 365-day Pass, and the discounted 365-day Pass. The rates Metro was charging were just hemorraghing money. Seriously, $52 for a discounted 365-day pass when the full rate didn't even come out to $1 a day. Ridiculous.

In an 11/9/07 news release “METRORail Breaks 40 Million Boardings”, Metro modestly calls its METRORail “the most successful light rail line in the country”. Upon the addition of five new lines, METRORail is bound to become “the world most successful”...

Read the news release at: http://www.ridemetro.org/News/releases/110907_2.asp

Clarification - in my previous comment, “the world most successful” was not a quote from the news release, rather my ironic highlight.

What success?

The majority of "forced" boardings are merely bus transit dependent riders, with last months TVM revenue/boarding ratio a mere 13-cents.

According to METREAUX's own latest report to the NTD:

http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pu … s/6008.pdf

***********

Looking at virtually every of Operating Expense ratios, the boondoggle tram far exceeds the costs of Bus when compared to the 7.5 mile "Transit Backbone."

Operating Expenses/Vehicle Revenue Mile

Bus    $6.34

Tram  $17.51

Operating Expenses/Vehicle Revenue Hours

Bus    $92.48

Tram  $241.24

Unlinked Passenger Trip/Vehicle Revenue Miles

Bus    $1.96

Tram  $12.70

Unlinked Passenger Trip/Vehicle Revenue Hours

Bus    $26.63

Tram  $175.07

Why not just divert EVERY bus rout to the transit platforms, and force all riders to board the glorious Utopian tram, so as to say it is a "WORLD CLASS" Socialist success.

As I said in another blog post:

"....and the moral of the story is......"

Mr. Collins,

The moral of this sad episode is that the tram cost taxpayers far too much, and provides far too little to the citizens throughout the service area.

"The moral of this sad episode is that the tram cost taxpayers far too much, and provides far too little to the citizens throughout the service area."

Now you wait just a doggone minute here!  It may have cost too much for you taxpayers (not my problem) but how can you say that it provides---what you said here (far too little to the citizens throughout the service area)?  Ummm---that's because THERE'S NO PLANNED EXPANSION TO THOSE AREAS THAT MAY HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED BY METRO YET---DUH!  What needs to happen is to expand more buses to areas similar to where I live.  That would be nice.  Then, you can really leave your vehicle at home.

The bus is welfare in the context of costs-to-much-does-to-little, and there are  better ways of doing welfare.