Metro to drop University BRT line for now, citing rising costs and changing ridership

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County will not pursue the University Corridor bus rapid transit line, a core element of the MetroNext program, delaying the project indefinitely.

During a Tuesday meeting of the board of directors’ Strategic Planning Committee meeting, members were informed by Metro staff that the agency’s financial picture is not conducive to pursuing the project, citing rising operational costs and farebox revenue losses due to the lasting impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If the finances are not there and not sound, we have a responsibility to make sure that our decisions are financially sound,” said board chair Elizabeth Gonzalez Brock. “Without the numbers working, then we cannot move forward.”

related to METRO

Whitmire’s Metro emphasizes street repairs, microtransit. What does that mean for METRONext?

by Akhil Ganesh / Staff Writer

The University BRT line, along with the Gulfton and Inner Katy BRT lines, was a centerpiece of the METRONext initiative, a series of projects and improvements the agency’s previous leadership said would drastically change public transit in Houston. Voters approved $3.5 billion in bonds for the initiative in 2019. None of those bonds have been sold.

Some speakers voiced their continued support for the University BRT during the public comment period of Tuesday’s meeting.

“The University BRT is a major next step in manifesting the freedom that those who call Houston home deserve,” said Diego Degenhart. “It is a vital link between backbone communities … and major destinations.”

Speakers conceded the project may look different than originally conceived, but they urged the board to consider moving forward with the project and not forgo federal grant funds.

“I understand that you’re changing your priorities,” said Isaac Metcalf. “But if you miss that deadline, you’re missing out on literally a billion dollars in money.”

He was referring to a June 27 application deadline for a Federal Transit Administration grant.

“We understand that voters voted for this. We understand that there’s an obligation to keep this on the front burner,” said board member and committee chair Bob Fry. “I suspect that every budget season we will be looking very, very hard at this to see if it makes any more sense than it does now.”

The delay on the University BRT does not mean that MetroNext as a whole is dead, officials said. Some of the projects, however, may be revised.

The fate of the MetroNext BRT projects has been up in the air since Mayor John Whitmire took office and appointed Brock and other board members. Whitmire has been publicly against the University and Gulfton corridor projects, and the agency had taken down its webpages for the projects, with leaders referring to the information as advocacy rather than simply factual.

No decision has been made on the fate of the other BRT projects. The Inner Katy project remains in a review phase, partially due to needed coordination with the Texas Department of Transportation. The Gulfton BRT is expected to be reimagined as part of a broader revitalization effort of the area in collaboration with the city.

Bus rapid transit is designed to have a higher capacity than a normal bus route, and often utilizes dedicated lines. The idea is to provide the flexibility of buses with the reliability of trains.

Metro’s first foray into bus rapid transit was the Silver Line in the Galleria area. The service launched at the beginning of the COVID pandemic in 2020 and its ridership has never met projections. Earlier this year, the agency decreased the frequency of the line, taking it out of the federal definition of bus rapid transit.

Neither the committee nor the board are required to take action to abandon the University line, as it will fall out of the project development phase when Metro misses a June 27 application deadline for a Capital Improvement Grant from the Federal Transit Administration.

The decision does not preclude the agency from applying again for the program. However, any costs associated with the project starting from the June 27 deadline until the agency applies again would not be reimbursable. To date, Metro has spent $72 million on the University BRT project with approximately $44 million reimbursed to the city.

According to Metro staff, those costs could come from a potential redesign of the project.

The 25.3 mile University line would have run from the Westchase Park-and-Ride to Tidwell Transit Center and contained 41 stations. The idea was to provide high-capacity and high-frequency transit that would have connected Houston’s various universities and provided transit access to historically underserved areas.

Tuesday’s decision did not surprise advocates, but it still came as a disappointment to LINK Houston’s director of policy and planning Peter Eccles.

“This is what we were worried about when the BRT projects were taken off of the (Metro) webpage with little fanfare,” Eccles said. “It’s disappointing to see them back away from something that was promised.”

He saw other issues with the delay, citing a federal environmental approval that is only good for three years. Though Metro can use some of the work it already has done, all of it will need to be updated.

“I heard some doubt being cast on the certainty of those grants that it’s up to 60 percent. Once the grant is awarded, we have that 60 percent,” Eccles said. “To me, it seems a lot less certain to be reapplying in the future.”

According to Chief Financial Officer George Fotinos, the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the financial impact of the University BRT project. The agency is projecting a $500 million loss in farebox revenue over 15 years. That, coupled with an $850 million increase in operating expenses stemming in part from inflation. That $1.35 billion difference cannot be covered with issuing debt or applying for grants, per Fotinos.

Continuing on the current path with the University BRT line would force Metro to make cuts to maintain its current level of service for four years, and would not have resources for any additional initiatives, he said.

“The opportunity costs are very high,” Fotinos said. “We’re on a track that we’re really kind of married to, there’s nothing else we can do.”

Staff presented a potential set of alternatives that could be pursued instead of the University BRT, namely with more attention to road infrastructure for buses in certain corridors, rebuilding the agency’s reserves, and investing in service and reliability. Other options include an increase in police funding and stabilizing their workforce.

Eccles pushed back against what he saw as a false dichotomy between the two options, with no possibility for middle ground where the University BRT would be scaled down but still provide a vital east-to-west connection that parallels Metro’s busiest bus routes.

“It was like we can do all of it or we can do nothing,” Eccles said. “I don’t think that’s faithful to the MetroNext plan that was overwhelmingly passed by voters.”