Woo hoo! Let me hear those sweet sounds of concession:
Anti-rail group Texans for True Mobility broke up its party at midnight but refused to concede defeat until the final precincts report. Rail foes acknowledged likely defeat, however, while maintaining the narrow margin shows voters were skeptical of Metro's plan."This is far from a mandate," said Michael Stevens, chairman of TTM.
Paul Bettencourt, Harris County tax assessor-collector, said "Metro needs to heed that there are serious concerns in the community that their plan doesn't fix the problem."
The next step for Metro is to obtain federal matching funds. Otherwise it won't be able to afford to build the rail lines. U.S. Rep. John Culberson and fellow rail critic House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, vowed during the campaign to fight for federal dollars on behalf of Metro if voters endorsed the plan.
"This vote does reflect the desperation of Houstonians for immediate traffic relief," said Culberson, R-Houston, one of Metro's harshest critics. "The closeness reflects deep flaws in Metro's plan."
But Culberson said despite his dissatisfaction, he will follow the voters' will.
"My job now is to move forward with this new instruction from the voters," Culberson said. "I've got my marching orders."
Culberson, it should be remembered, does not represent all of Harris County, or all of Houston for that matter. He represents a piece of west Houston, and a generally conservative piece at that. Based on the vote totals, I think it's pretty safe to say that Culberson's constituents voted against Metro by a fairly significant margin.
So in that sense, the people who will be "watching" him are probably not in his district anyway. They may campaign against him, but they can't vote against him. So I don't know how much he really fears "watchdogs" on the rail issue.
No one has ever gone broke in Houston by underestimating the stupidity of the voting public. That's why we have a school system that is headfirst down the toilet, we can't drain the streets when it rains, and we've had a mayor for the last six years that could have been replaced by an orangutang and it would have been an improvement. We've wasted hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent on sports stadiums and now we're going to waste billions of dollars to be spent on toy trains.
Metro's insistance on rail is idiocy. We do not have the population density per square mile to make rail viable, and yet they keep insisting it's the panacea to our traffic problems. Well, folks - we just pissed away a big chunk of money on it and I hope I'm still alive in 10 years to be able to stand up and shout I TOLD YOU SO, YOU IDIOTS!!!
Posted by: Clothahump on November 5, 2003 9:02 AMSo in that sense, the people who will be "watching" him are probably not in his district anyway.
True enough. However, as I noted before, if the new Congressional map does get upheld, Culberson will also be representing the Medical Center, which is a lot more pro-rail than the west side is. So he does need to be careful about what he says and does, at least in theory.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on November 5, 2003 9:04 AMNo one has ever gone broke in Houston by underestimating the stupidity of the voting public.
Would you like to extrapolate that to the rest of the state, or is Houston uniquely stupid? I'm just curious.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on November 5, 2003 9:22 AMWell, this is one westside Republican in John Culberson's district (old and new) who voted for rail and I know of several other around my neighborhood.
Of course the real story on rail support will be told when the pro-Metro votes are tallied from precincts in Rep. Culberson's new district.
Posted by: Patrick on November 5, 2003 9:23 AMWell, this is one westside Republican in John Culberson's district (old and new) who voted for rail and I know of several other around my neighborhood.
As am I. But I also know far more folks, at least in our neighborhood, who opposed the rail plan than supported it.
I had to hold my nose voting for it, though, because I think it stinks that the current plan doesn't yet commit funding for much outside the loop -- and that's where we need to get commuters off the freeways. (I'm sure I don't have to tell you how bad the Katy is, for example.) And if that piece doesn't get built, then I believe this will be a classic boondoggle. I believe that was a significant factor in the opposition from the outlying parts of town.
Posted by: Tim I. on November 5, 2003 9:27 AMCharles,
I've got some thoughts on the rail vote at UNMEDIa - welcome your comments...
Posted by: Aziz on November 5, 2003 9:40 AMThanks, Houston voters, for approving light rail! Hopefully, the project will be a wonderful success, with tens of thousands of happy commuters leaving their cars and riding restfully, though slowly, off to their destination stations conveniently located right next to their jobs.
But more likely, there will be construction delays, lanes removed from city streets, cost overruns, few riders paying too little so taxpayers make up the difference, and no reduction in congestion at all.
Either way, I hope the Houston rail success/failure becomes clear before the Capitol Metro mafia here in Austin hold yet another referendum on light rail.
Sad, but most supporters have a misguided belief that light rail will convince *other* drivers to abandon their cars, leaving the roads less congested for themselves, who of course would never ride those slow trains.
I had to hold my nose voting for it, though, because I think it stinks that the current plan doesn't yet commit funding for much outside the loop -- and that's where we need to get commuters off the freeways....And if that piece doesn't get built, then I believe this will be a classic boondoggle. I believe that was a significant factor in the opposition from the outlying parts of town.
I whole-heartedly agree. I have long hoped the Katy Freeway expansion included a rail line or at least the provision for a rail line. But there's too much money and too much inertia against it right now. Check John Culberson's donor list sometime. It's thick with West Houston real estate players, housing and road construction companies and car dealers.
No, this plan is not likely to help with congestion to Katy...but really that's the fault of the politicos like Culberson and Lindsay. They have excluded themselves and, by their showboating crusade, their constituents. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out if the commuter rail lines along the 290 and 59 corridors come to fruition and Katy is stuck with an endless cyle of freeway widening.
I have long hoped the Katy Freeway expansion included a rail line or at least the provision for a rail line.
It should be noted that this is one of the major points of contention that the Katy Corridor Coalition has about the Culberson-approved I-10 expansion plan. Their alternate plan allows for a future rail line.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on November 5, 2003 10:19 AMYep. The KCC plan is much better than the TxDOT plan. It does cost more, but in the long term I think it would be worth every penny.
Posted by: Patrick on November 5, 2003 10:53 AMIf Dallas's experience is any guide, rail drives density. If you look at the real estate adjacent to DART stations, you see sudden increases in residential construction, particularly apartments (and even retail with apartments above). This has happened along the DART lines, even though there were substantial zoning issues to be resolved.
It's pretty safe to anticipate that the same thing will happen in Houston. If you have any money, buy property within 3 blocks of a Metro station, and you'll make a ton within 5 years, as people figure it out. If you've got a long horizon, buy out on the extension.
Posted by: precinct1233 on November 5, 2003 10:56 AMI have long hoped the Katy Freeway expansion included a rail line or at least the provision for a rail line.
That would be a disaster - light rail stretching out to katy, would mean a commuter would need 1 to 2 hours to get downtown. Remember that light rail is slow, high frequency, has low volume of passengers. It is not feasible to stretch a light rail line over commuter distances.
And you cant seamlessly link a light rail line to a heavy rail/commuter rail line either. The gauge of teh tracks is very different because of the differences in weight and speed requirements. A heavy rail line would fall right off the light rail tracks. And a light rail car wouldn't even fit on a heavy rail track.
Posted by: Aziz on November 5, 2003 12:31 PMAziz is right. People seem to have quite a few misconceptions about light rail. Think of it as a trolley car running to Katy, and that's what light rail would be like. Completely ineffective as a commuter solution in that circumstance.
But for affluent folks who want to ride from downtown to the football stadium and think buses are icky, light rail will be great. Go Trolleys and Go Texans! :|
Posted by: kevin whited on November 5, 2003 1:01 PMRemember that light rail is slow, high frequency, has low volume of passengers. It is not feasible to stretch a light rail line over commuter distances.
Until April, I lived in San Jose, where they had a light rail system into the downtown area. South of the downtown area, the light rail moves along highway medians and stops about every two miles, traveling at 55-60 MPH between stops.
To travel a dozen miles into downtown via light rail takes 20 minutes at most. Usually the rush hour commute takes considerably longer. Where the light rail in San Jose fails is *north* of downtown, where it goes along the median of a surface street, stopping every mile, and at red lights, doing 30-35 MPH at best.
Light rail along highway medians, going sufficiently fast with limited stops, is feasible for distances up to 20-30 miles.
Making it share the right of way on slower surface streets is not. If you want light rail along surface streets, you might as well use limited-stop buses. It's much cheaper and just as effective -- it's just not as "sexy" as rail and it doesn't curry favors from rail construction companies and their unions.
Even in the horrific Katy corridor, unless the light rail system can go in higher-speed mode to within at least a mile or two of downtown, it will take too long to be an option for many folks.
Sorry to get pissy here, Kevin and Aziz, but I'm fairly certain I wrote that I'd like to see a rail line in that corridor and didn't specify a "light" rail line.
Furthermore if you take note of the second paragraph, I predicted a bit of "commuter rail envy" in the Katy corridor if similar lines are developed as proposed on the 59 and 290 corridors.
I know you guys were against this proposal, but please do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting my comments and then proceding with a patronizing lesson on the difference between the two types of rail.