Houstonians crave traffic solutions, poll says

Houstonians crave traffic solutions, poll says
…………………………………………………………………

BY B.J. ALMOND
Rice News Staff

Transportation,
mobility and road conditions were identified as the biggest
problems facing the Houston area in a recent survey conducted
by Rice University and the University of Houston. In response
to an open-ended question, 40 percent of the participants
cited these problems — twice as many (19 percent) as
cited the economy/loss of jobs, which ranked as the next
most common problem facing Houston in the survey.

Almost three-fourths
(73 percent) of the survey participants rated traffic and
mobility in the Houston metropolitan area as a “very
serious” problem. No other issue or problem, including
the economy, crime, pollution, public education and local
taxes, was classified as a “very serious” problem
by more than 47 percent of the survey respondents.

“The clear
message is that the public’s appetite for a solution
to Houston’s traffic problem is extremely strong,”
said Robert Stein, Rice dean of social sciences, who conducted
the survey with Richard Murray, director of the University
of Houston Center for Public Policy. “Candidates for
public office, particularly the mayor in 2003, will have
to address this issue in some way.”

The survey of
648 registered voters in the METRO tax/service district
was conducted by telephone last December for the Citizens
for Public Transportation, a political action committee.
Nearly 79 percent of the interviews were with residents
of the City of Houston; the other participants live in municipalities
or unincorporated areas.

Stein was surprised
to find that more than half (52 percent) of the registered
voters believe that rail is either a “vital” (29
percent) or “important” (23 percent) part of a
comprehensive, long-term transportation plan for Houston.
Only 10 percent of the interviewees said rail “has
no place” in any long-term transportation plan for
Houston.

By a margin of
more than three to one, 62 percent of voters said they would
support approving the next phase of a mass-transit plan
if the proposal did not raise taxes and included some additional
rail lines to connect with the Main Street line as well
as bus improvements and continued spending for street construction.
Only 21 percent said they would vote against such a plan,
and 17 percent were undecided.

“We could
not find a significant demographic group who won’t
support such a plan, not even conservative Republicans,”
Stein said.

Voter support
for a no-new-tax, long-term transportation plan dropped
to 56 percent when the proposal focused solely on buses,
street and road construction and excluded light-rail expansion.

Support for expanded
light rail was close to a majority. Forty-nine percent of
those taking a position on an expanded rail plan said they
were “strongly for” the proposal, and only 15
percent were “strongly against.”

Race or ethnicity
did not appear to be a factor in support for expanding light
rail in the METRO service area. The same proportion —
63 percent — of Anglo, African-American and Hispanic
voters surveyed support the proposed expansion of light
rail. That support was slightly higher outside the City
of Houston (68 percent) than within the city (61 percent),
which Stein attributes to the “reasonably shorter commutes”
of people within the city.

When asked about
the type of rapid transit line they would like METRO to
build in their area, 30 percent preferred rail, 17 percent
chose bus and 44 percent had no preference.

But the majority
(52 percent) said they were concerned “a great deal”
that Houston could lose federal transit dollars if the city
fails to come up with a comprehensive, long-term mass-transit
plan.

The Citizens
for Public Transportation hopes the survey will help the
community’s leaders and METRO board decide whether
and how to proceed with a referendum on mass transit and
light rail.

Stein noted that
federal budgets have to be completed by April 2004, so if
Houston does not have a referendum by this November, the
city will have to wait another two years to apply for federal
funds in the next budget cycle.