This alternative transportation plan has been endorsed by BikeHouston, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP), Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club, and Just Transportation Alliances. For more information, or for details on how your group can sign on to the plan, contact John D. Wilson at wilson@ghasp.org.

Houston’s transportation plans and policies are at odds with the desires of the public and with the public interest. Only 19% of the public believes that “building bigger and better roads and highways… would be the best long-term solution to the traffic problems in Texas.” In comparison, 56% favor “making improvements in public transportation” and 24% favor “developing communities where people live closer to where they work and shop.” (2000 Texas Environmental Survey, Stephen Klineberg, Ph.D., Rice University) The public needs choices – the public needs the option to take fewer trips and drive fewer miles; the choice to support mobility in existing communities rather than subsidize sprawl that benefits developers and land speculators; and the choice to use a public transportation system that offers high-quality mobility for everyone, regardless of whether they have access to a private vehicle.

Houston’s problem isn’t too few roads, it’s too little mobility. In 1999, the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) analyzed data obtained from the Texas Transportation Institute and concluded, “building new and wider roads has had little long-term impact on road congestion.” The highway building craze creates ‘induced travel’ – on average, half of new highway capacity is filled with driving that would not have occurred if the road space had not been added.

Funding priorities limit the choices travelers can make Texas and Houston continue to divert every dollar in sight to build more highways, at the expense of public transportation and air quality. For fiscal years 2000 - 2003, the Texas Department of Transportation dedicated 97% of its $5 billion in construction-related resources to road and highway infrastructure.

In the Houston region, few people have any realistic option beyond automobile dependence, which has consequences for individuals and the community at large. For those who can’t depend on a private vehicle, their mobility is severely restricted. For the community at large, it means that the automobile comes first when making land use, infrastructure, public safety, and other policy decisions. Public health, quality of life, and economic welfare are secondary considerations in many circumstances.

The lack of choices affects every household
Living in an auto-dependent city costs every household thousands of dollars each year, and many people don’t have reliable access to a car. Last year, STPP ranked the Houston metro area the most expensive city based on percentage of personal income spent on transportation. Houston area residents on average spend more of their income on transportation than on housing. The study found that Houston households spent well over $8,800 each year to get around, or 27 percent more than the national average. Averages don’t even begin to describe the burdens faced by the one in five Texans isolated and forgotten by an ‘auto focused’ city like Houston.

Transit development is the alternative regional transportation option. Within neighborhoods and activity centers, cycling and walking are options, too. While METRO has made important strides in providing good bus service, it is evident that the Houston region’s transit system is a poor option for most people. Elsewhere in the country and world, people can and do choose to use transit because they prefer not to drive. A credible regional transit system would improve public health, enhance everyone’s quality of life, and provide economic benefits to its users.

Changing Funding Priorities: Ending the Anti-Transit Funding Bias
A comprehensive re-evaluation of funding priorities is needed for the Houston-Galveston area. Until that is completed, the following changes should be made.

1. End the use of “dedicated” transit funds for street construction. Use state and federal highway funds to replace Metro’s commitment for “general mobility” funds that are currently used for regional road construction. In other parts of the country, general transportation funds are shared between transit and highway projects. While some worthwhile projects are supported by the diversion of METRO funds to other local governments, transit funds should be used for transit purposes.
2. Stop setting a higher standard for transit projects. Construction and operation of transit facilities has less impact on the public than freeway expansion, but transit projects are subjected to far more extensive public review. Houston Proposition 3 asked for a referendum on a $300 million light rail project that has been approved by METRO and the City of Houston and is already underway. In contrast, the multi-billion dollar expansion of the Katy Freeway is expected to move forward without any local government approval or voter referendum. A consistent, mode-neutral policy on transportation decisions should be established.
3. Reduce the need to drive by expanding mobility. Houston’s federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds should be directed to projects that improve air quality and increase mobility, rather than expand highway capacity. These scarce dollars are often spent on freeway interchanges and other road projects disguised as “congestion mitigation.” The only sure way to ease the burden of traffic congestion is to reduce the number of vehicle trips and miles.
4. Equity for people who aren’t in cars. Bicycling, transit, and walking facilities should be fully funded as an integral part of all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist. Transportation agencies should give equal consideration to the public safety and convenience of bicyclists and pedestrians as well as drivers and transit patrons. Every transportation improvement is an opportunity to enhance public safety and convenience, regardless of what mode the public chooses to use when traveling.
5. Fund transit-oriented development. Pilot programs to connect people to transit in public-private development partnerships should be funded from state and federal highway accounts. Across the country, transit-oriented development projects are being funded, but in Houston these projects are considered luxuries. For instance, METRO requires other entities to fund transit-oriented development projects along its Main Street light rail project.

Taking The Next Step Towards World-Class Transit
Many people prefer – or must use – public transportation. Yet public transportation in Houston doesn’t serve every community and often fails to meet the community’s expectations. Taking these four steps will improve public health, enhance everyone’s quality of life, and help the economy of urban Houston.

1. Increase transit funding. TxDOT, H-GAC, and METRO should stop diverting transit and CMAQ funds to highway and street projects, and should start shifting reasonable amounts of other transportation funds to transit projects when the projects are designed and ready to build.
2. Meet the community’s expectations in every transit project. Transportation agencies such as METRO and TxDOT often limit the options before seeking community input. Transit must be developed in coordination with adjacent public and private land uses, considering the character of the affected community. When transit services and facilities are designed, METRO and TxDOT should commit to funding the community’s expectations – even if it means nontraditional design or a more expensive project.
3. Dramatically improve bus service regionwide. The Houston region needs more buses, serving more locations, with service that is more frequent. Cleaner, quieter, and more comfortable buses are needed – as new technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles are proven, they should be used in appropriate service areas. Until an urban rapid transit system is built, buses are the only option for those who depend on transit. Those for whom transit service is a lifeline should have access to high-quality mobility – comfortable, frequent, and reliable – not a bare minimum of service.
4. Build an urban rapid transit system by 2012. METRO chose the HOV Park & Ride system for its suburban rapid transit system – it is almost complete. An urban rapid transit system is necessary to make urban infill and redevelopment economically sustainable – and the system must be designed to help attract that growth to urban Houston. Such a design should:

…be directed to areas with the highest projected ridership, including ridership projected on the basis of “induced development” (just like the projections for the Grand Parkway).

…link together existing high demand centers – areas with high residential density, major employment activity centers, and areas with demonstrated transit ridership.

…be integrated in public-private redevelopment projects for the redevelopment of areas with large tracts of vacant or underused land.

… stay inside the beltway – connecting destinations with 30 - 45 minute trips.

The result will be a mobility system that will be convenient for people who can’t drive – so convenient that families can begin to choose not to drive.