Houston on the move

When George Greanias stepped into his current role of Acting President and CEO of Houston Metro, he was inheriting responsibility for an organization with more than its fair share of problems. Building programs had stalled, public trust was at an all-time low and the previous Chief Executive had departed in a swirl of misconduct allegations, jeopardizing $900 million in federal grant money. Given the circumstances, the fact that his new job was a seemingly temporary appointment might have come as some relief. Or perhaps not. “When the board asked me to take this job on an acting basis they told me not to do it unless I was willing to do it permanent basis,” Greanias says when we speak with him roughly three months into his tenure. “That’s the understanding that I very much want to continue.” Whether or not he remains in the big chair indefinitely, it’s hard to imagine the Metro board finding many better candidates. With an obvious love for his city and an unshakeable belief in public transit’s power to transform the urban environment, Greanias certainly seems to fit the bill. Houston’s residents should have little cause for complaint if this temporary arrangement becomes permanent.

You've been a long time advocate for light rail in Houston.  Why do you think it's a good fit for the city?

GG. It's a piece of the larger puzzle. I think that the controversy about rail in Houston has gone on for so long and has been so contentious that it's overshadowed the fact that rail is not the solution. It's a part of a total package and an essential distributor network. It's the spine of the distribution within the inner part of the city, which in Houston's case is some 600 square miles. It facilitates us doing a better job of distributing our bus routes. It becomes critical for distributing people in any commuter rail program that's built and it allows us to provide more public transportation at a more cost efficient price. 

But it is again, part of a total package. People who say we're going to build rail at the expense of bus or at the expense of other forms of transit are missing the point. Rail is a part of that system.  It's just as essential to have a good bus system, just as essential to have a good para-transit and van and HOV lanes and park and ride lots. It's all part of the operating system. If we don't do it what we're going to miss is a major opportunity to create a more efficient distribution network within the community.

Making sure these systems interlock and fit together it must be of paramount importance. What kind of challenges are involved in making sure that happens?

GG. One big change I'm looking to effect at Metro is to make it more of a partner with other governments and agencies in this region that are taking up responsibility for transit issues. Metro service area is not coextensive with the whole of the greater Houston region. So for us to be successful in our mission we need to help others, for example those who are looking to build commuter rail lines outside our service areas but which will connect up within our service areas. We need to help them become successful. What I've been saying is that we don't need to be at the head of the table on every discussion, on every issue but we do need to be at the table and we need to make sure that other folks who need to be there are also in attendance.

I've been here a grand total of three months, so it's very early on but I will tell you that just in the preliminary conversations that I've had with people there's been a very positive response. I think that we're at an interesting point in the history of the region. I think the realization of the need for transit if probably stronger now than I've ever remembered it. I think the willingness to explore various ways not only to provide the transit, but also to develop the funding sources to pay for those efforts is further along than it's been in a long, long time.

You mention that you've only been in position for three months. How have those first few months been for you?

GG. It's certainly been interesting. Number one, we obviously had a series of issues that needed to be addressed. I think that the board and the new management have been going after those questions pretty aggressively. We've made a lot of progress.

I also think that based on getting to know the people in the organization, meeting with virtually everybody in the company there's a great deal of strength here. I've likened it to being a six-cylinder engine that was only allowed to operate on two of its cylinders. We have a great deal of horsepower in this company that we need to unleash. One of my goals going forward is to make sure that the talent that's here gets the chance to perform up to what they're capable of.

You've touched on the controversy around Metro in recent years. For this kind of system to really work you have to have the support of the people that are ultimately going to use it. Do you think there is that kind of local enthusiasm are does more work need to be done to win people over?

GG. There are three things that we're focused on all of which I think speak to that question. Number one, we're working to restore trust in the authority inside as well as outside. I think that's essential to your point that metro cannot be effective if it doesn't have the community's trust and support. Number two, we need to keep our commitments. Those commitments include the agreements that were made in 2003 in the referendum that approved the current rail program but it also includes providing absolutely superior bus service, para-transit services for the disabled, park and ride services, the whole package of transit that Metro is responsible for. That's part of building that trust.

The third thing is to make sure that when it comes to customer service the day in/day out delivery of the services we offer are second to none. Bit by bit, people in the authority, many of whom already believe this, are getting the message that we really are serious about that. We're going to deliver superior customer service. That's going to be our focus on a daily basis and all those things contribute to a better relationship with the community, which is essential for us to accomplish our mission.

The past couple of years have been pretty difficult no matter what kind of business you're in. Has the downturn had any impact on the development of transit systems in and around Houston?

GG. In terms of the infrastructure construction it really hasn't. Where it has affected us, of course, is in our ability to maybe go as aggressively wanted to in some of the other service development areas. Part of that has been because of the delays in the construction program. Where it has affected us, of course, is because of the drops in employment where we've experienced reductions in ridership and our sales tax revenues have dropped because of the overall economy. That's no different than any other government in this area.

I will say though in comparison to other parts of the country we are still in substantially better shape financially and most importantly, unlike many other transit agencies, Metro has preserved service. We have not been doing significant reductions in service, the kinds of things you've seen at other transit agencies. It's been pretty much business as usual which I think is a real tribute to the financial management of the operation and the commitment to saying that the first priority is to maintain the service levels that are essential for the community.

You're still waiting on confirmation of $900 million in federal funding. How is that progressing?

GG. We're in communication with the Federal Transit Administration who makes the decision on that. They've indicated that they're going to be giving us a response fairly soon. So we continue to be optimistic that sooner, rather than later we will get this grant approved. If you're familiar with the ways of Washington while we're waiting on the full funding grant agreement the Congress has actually gone ahead and appropriated funds to support that agreement. So we have $150 million approved for Houston in the current federal fiscal year and the budget that's moving through the House and the Senate right now contains another $150 million for the fiscal year that starts 1 October. The answer is actually that the money's already there. Now we just need the agreement.

It's a very long and complicated process. Something every transit agency in every region is going to have to think about is how much they want to build their financial plans, their infrastructure plans around federal grants. The landscape has changed a lot since this debate started in the 1980s. Back then the split was the federal government would give you 80 percent of the money, while 20 percent of the investment would come locally. Today it's more like 50/50 and I would bet that that split will change even more, placing a heavier burden on the localities.

The other part of it is, depending on how urgent you feel the need is, do you really want to wait for the length of time it takes to go through the federal process. It's a very lengthy, very complicated process and there is tremendous competition for limited dollars. There's a whole separate question here about how localities are going to fund their programs that I think everybody, not just Houston, is going to have to address.

Does the fact that you have to find more funding locally mean that you have to make a stronger business case for this kind of development?

GG. I think the business case is very strong. Maybe sometimes the authorities have not made it as well as they could. I think that part of it is that public transit's held to a different, higher standard than other forms of transit infrastructure. The fact is the Metropolitan Transit Authority is probably the only operation in this region that gives you an honest accounting of what it costs to provide what they deliver. In other words when we tell you what the cost of transit is, we tell you the cost of building the infrastructure, of the equipment and of the operating costs. It's all there.

You build a freeway and you never capture the total cost. You know what it costs to build it but think about all the people that have to buy cars in order to make that road useful. Think about the insurance they have to pay. Think about the police that various communities have to provide to support the roadway. Think about the maintenance cost. So when we ask what a freeway costs,  we actually think about a very small portion of its actual operating cost.

In terms of getting an apple to apples comparison of what's the most efficient way to move people around, we are a long way from getting that kind of analysis out there in the public discourse. Going back to your question, making the business case for transit is made more difficult because we don't have a ready and agreed upon comparison with other forms of transportation infrastructure. If we did my guess is that public transit would be far more supported because we realize that, as a solution, it is extremely cost effective.

Is it a particular challenge to change public attitudes to transit in the US, which has traditionally had such a strong relationship with the private car?

GG. I don't think it's a major attitude change because back a couple of years ago when the price of gasoline here ran up to what for us is an atrocious $4.00 a gallon, our ridership numbers went up. In the US right now $4.00 is kind of the magic trigger figure for changing people's behaviors. My point is that I think that the attitude is already there, it's just a matter of the incentives being appropriate. I don't believe that it's a case of lowering fares to encourage more people to ride.

My argument is that you've actually got to increase the cost and the inconvenience of the alternatives. So when Mayor Bloomberg in New York City, for example, tried to follow the example of the mayor in London of putting in congestion pricing what he was really trying to do was to say, "I'm going to make it more expensive and less convenient for you to use your vehicle. We want you to get out of that and get into a public transportation." Back then it was not terribly popular and he couldn't get it through. I suggest that as time goes on and the price of energy inevitably goes up the trend towards public transit is going to look more and more attractive to people. Our challenge will be to be have the system in place that can support that increased demand when it comes.

Travel benefits

Greanias tackles the question of whether or not investment in public transit brings wider economic rewards

It's not a matter of opinion, it's an unquestionable fact. We already have seven and a half miles of rail down the main street corridor running from basically the south end of Reliant Stadium, the football stadium north of the University of Houston Downtown. If you look about five or six blocks at either side of that seven and a half miles of rail, which is pretty much walking distance to the stations, you'll see something pretty striking. The estimates run from one billion to maybe as high as two or three billion dollars worth of new investment, investment that came since the rail program was announced and the construction began. It's a very clear correlation between the decisions on the placement of rail and the decisions on development.

You see it now on the north line which is an extension of the current line. You see property values already going up. You already see decisions being made about bringing in new businesses based on the fact that we're putting a rail infrastructure in. To my mind and in that sense development follows infrastructure decisions in many cases. You don't want to start on a barren plain.

We route based on where ridership demands justify it, but it's sort of a chicken and egg situation. We look for areas where there's ridership. We start construction there and then people decide that because we're building rail there they are going to make investment decisions around that decision. It's a constant cycle of us evaluating where the opportunities are, moving forward in infrastructure and then private sector coming and seeing investment opportunities based on what the public sector is doing. It's kind of a virtuous circle once it gets going.