I think there's a simple way to interpret this article about how John Culberson has forced Metro into a box by publicly opposing a Richmond Avenue route for the Universities rail line.
Culberson said last week that "to my mind, the only way Metro can make this work is to find a way to do an elevated line down the Southwest Freeway that doesn't destroy traffic lanes or homes or businesses."The congressman said the details are up to Metro.
"I'm not going to tell Metro how to build it or where to build it," Culberson said, adding that he will not support rail on Richmond.
Culberson gave Metro a little wiggle room on Friday, saying that although he prefers no rail at all on Richmond, he might allow a "tiny fragment" near Main, if necessary to connect the line to Metro's existing rail system.
Such support, however, depends on whether "the community is comfortable with it," he said.
Metro has been deeply involved in studying the costs and benefits of putting the line on Richmond, Westpark or a combination of the two.
Culberson said the time for such study ended three years ago, a reference to the November 2003 referendum in which voters narrowly approved Metro's rail expansion plans and a prior vote by Metro's board to put a line designated "Westpark" on the ballot.
[...]
Culberson said Friday it makes sense to suspend tracks on the north side of the freeway, so they would not interfere with traffic.
He also said that an elevated design on that side would not require riders to cross the freeway to reach Greenway Plaza and Lakewood Church, if the elevated portion continued that far.
[Mayor Bill] White said last week that he has consulted Texas Department of Transportation district engineer Gary Trietsch on how such a structure might be built. Any construction on or over the freeway or its embankment would require TxDOT permission.
White's Aug. 4 note asked Metro to "seriously consider ... some structure, presumably elevated in some portion," from St. Thomas to a point where it could cross the freeway."
[...]
Neither Culberson nor [City Council Member Anne] Clutterbuck offered suggestions on how Metro trains could fit over the walled, below-ground freeway without endangering vehicles or taking space now occupied by the Museum District's decorative bridges, or on where passengers would board.
"Metro created this dilemma," Culberson said.
"They did this to themselves with deceptive bait-and-switch (ballot) language that said Westpark, and Westpark ends at Kirby."
Culberson was on the board of the anti-rail advocacy group Texans for True Mobility. The opposition from some segments of the Richmond business community has given him an opportunity to do by fiat what he couldn't do at the ballot box.
The plan is simple: If Richmond is off the table, Metro is forced to put forth a lesser plan, such as this elevate-it-over-the-freeway scheme. The required feasibility studies then show that ridership will be insufficient and the expense will be excessive. Naturally, the Federal Transportation Administration refuses to provide funding, leaving Metro with the choice of finding its own money or giving up. And thus the anti-rail forces win.
I don't know what to do about this right now. Frankly, I think Sedosi has the right idea - Mayor White needs to be a little less deferential to Culberson and really push for what's best for the whole city. That'll get ugly, and likely cost him some popularity, but that's why we pay him the big bucks. I just hope he realizes this, and the sooner the better.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on August 13, 2006 to Planes, Trains, and Automobiles | TrackBackThe phony insistence that the ballot language specified routes and not corridors is just the current incarnation of this attempt to overturn the vote.
The voters approved rail. There's no denying that. I don't deny that. The voters also approved certain routes that METRO presented, after studies and research and input and community debate. Rail skeptics forced METRO into putting those routes before voters so that METRO wouldn't have a blank check to do whatever it wanted. Call it phony if you want, but that was how the debate went down in our community. The rail advocates won the vote, but rail skeptics won some caveats. Compromise! Democracy! Good!
METRO gets itself in trouble when it decides it can depart from the routes described in METRO Solutions (and let's not even get started about the promised 50% increase in bus service that never materialized). METRO is on its firmest ground when it closely adheres to the routes described in METRO Solutions. It can honestly claim to have the will of the people behind it, and can properly castigate Rep. Culberson or anyone else who might stand in the way of that popular will.
METRO is on its weakest ground when it decides it can substitute the personal preferences of Kuffner or Christof or Robin or Childers or Galleria Real Estate Developers for the preferences of those who decided the matter in 2003, after long conversations and debates.
Posted by: kevin whited on August 13, 2006 10:43 PMW#hat to do now? How about just giving up? Clearly Culberson has the upper hand and is, as you pointed out, anti-rail. We get the government we elect.
Posted by: Dennis on August 14, 2006 4:43 AMBuild it down Richmond anyway. Build it without the federal funds, like we had to when Delay stopped federal funds before. Do what's right for us and just pay for it. Give the federal money that could have come to us if Culberson wasn't so racist to Dallas, New York, Chicago, Seattle, and, gawd, San Francisco. Their politicians like having federal money to build local projects and don't paint their transit authorities into corners. That's it, just give the money to San Francisco, John.
Posted by: Scott on August 14, 2006 2:33 PMCan anyone explain to me why it is that Metro is forced to consider this nonsensical plan to run rail on top of people's homes when Metro has a huge easemenet on the south side of the freeway? If the purpose of the Culberson/Clutterbuck proposal is to more closely resemble that which the people of Houston "mistakenly thought they were voting for" then it makes more sense to align the rail on the south side of the freeway where Metro owns a large easement. However, If we are now contemplating an elevated line the most sensible place to elevate would still be Richmond! The Clutterbuck/Culberson proposal is an effort to placate those short sighted few that live or own businesses on Richmond when the great majority of Houston sees clearly the benefit that would be derived from rail on Richmond. Their proposed rail alignment would destroy two historic neighborhoods and two parks and Metro better not even contemplate it. It's simply out of the question.
Posted by: Moustapha El-Hakam on August 14, 2006 2:37 PMBill White-U need to put on the pressure here or we wont have light rail. our city cannot afford that!
Posted by: israelite007 on August 14, 2006 10:08 PMCulberson and Clutterbuck are being nonsensical, to put it more politely here than I did on my own blog. They hated that Metro won and are trying to screw up the Metro route system and using the GOP sound bite policy to do that. Any position that sounds OK in a 5-second sound bite most voters will accept. So their position is "Metro said it would put the rail along Westpark. They should follow what they told voters." Metro Solutions was a general description of the plan and had caveats in the presentation. This position of a Westpark mandated plan has been demolished by Christof Spieler referring back to the documents, maps, interviews, and presentations.
Posted by: Easter Lemming on August 15, 2006 12:33 AMMayor White should call for another METRO vote, specifically to approve a route down Richmond. Culberson & the wingnuts have been filibustering about how the public did not approve going down Richmond, but approved Westpark. Well, give them the public vote & then tell the congressman sweetly, "you promised to support any plan a majority approved."
Also, an aside on something said in the comments on Sedosi's blog: the anti-railers keep going on how rail can't work in Houston because it is 'low-density' i.e. is surrounded by suburbs. The whole idea of a suburb was invented when trolley car lines were run out to the country to give the middleclass homes outside of the corrupting influence of the city. Los Angeles was laid out as it is on trolleycar lines. Saying raillines won't work in Houston is bunk.