February, 2007:

He’s had his day in court for his civil citation for running a red light at a camera-enabled intersection, and now Michael Kubosh is fixing to file that lawsuit he’s been promising to do.

Michael Kubosh said Sunday that he will argue the city cannot impose a civil penalty on drivers who run red lights.

“The city has gone outside their legislative authority,” said Kubosh, who will be represented in court by his brother, lawyer Paul Kubosh. “We just can’t let this go because accidents increase at intersections where these things are put up.”

That fact is clearly in dispute, but as we’ve seen before, Kubosh is a little free with such statements.

State lawmakers debated for years whether municipalities should be able to issue civil citations to red-light runners using camera technology. In 2003, they amended the traffic code to permit the civil enforcement of vehicle safety standards under state law or municipal ordinance.

Kubosh called that an “obscure provision” that does not allow the city to go ahead with its program.

City Attorney Arturo Michel responded that argument won’t hold up in court. It doesn’t matter under what bill the provision was approved, he said.

“Courts look at what the words say,” he said. “The plain language of the rules allows us to regulate.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in June said the Texas Department of Transportation “may also install cameras on state highway rights-of-way to monitor compliance with traffic-control signals.”

[…]

[Kubosh] argues the city cannot issue civil citations to offenders because that conflicts with state law, which defines running a red light as a misdemeanor criminal offense. Offenders caught by police can face a fine up to $200.

Getting caught on camera, however, is a civil violation that carries a $75 fine. The ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle, or the last person to register it, not necessarily the driver. Those who are ticketed are expected to pay the fine or contest the penalty in court.

“The city’s administrative enforcement procedure deprives traffic-ticket defendants of their constitutional rights, such as the right to trial by jury, the right to remain silent, the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to have their guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” reads a draft of the lawsuit.

Those rights are reserved for criminal offenders, not civil.

I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t say I’m impressed by the case Kubosh is making here. Still, as this report by the House Research Organization (PDF, hat tip to Newswatch) points out, there is no clear law on the subject, so who knows what a court may do. One possibility, given the opinion of AG Greg Abbott and pending legislation by Sen. Carona that would clearly legitimize some cameras, is that they’re upheld for TxDOT-controlled intersections but not for others. We’ll see how it goes.

Via Houstonist, I see that some major changes to SH-288 are in the works.

The plans that were introduced have crews building toll road lanes on a 26 mile stretch of Texas 288.

Two lanes in each direction will be build along the median from 59 to 610.

Three lanes will be build from 610 to the Beltway in each direction.

From the Beltway to County Road 60 near Rosharan will be back down to two lanes in each direction.

“TexDOT always planned for 288 to be a major corridor. We knew there would be a lot of expansion. There would be of course a lot of residential and a lot of coming from Brazoria county into Harris County,” said Norm Wigington With the Texas Department of Transportation.

The drivers would have to have EZ tags.

Pearland City Councilman, Kevin Cole supports the plan. “It’s a good thing. The 288 corridor is the last major corridor in Houston, with this close proximity to Houston to develop.”

I’m okay with adding toll lanes. 288 is almost entirely a commuter road, especially south of 610 – it’s pretty convenient to Reliant Stadium, the Medical Center, and the Museum District, so there is some non-rush hour traffic as well, but the vast majority of people driving it are folks living in places like Pearland who work in Houston. It’s fine by me to put more of the burden to pay for the extra capacity on them. The current lanes will remain free, so people will still have a choice, and unlike the Trans Texas Corridor, I doubt there will be a non-compete agreement that will disincentivize maintaining the free lanes. I sympathize with The Facts, but only to a point. SH-288 is not I-10 or US-59. Its toll lanes will be like the Hardy or the Westpark toll roads, optional for getting where you’re going rather than mandatory.

Tory has more on this. I will say, as one who drives south on that freeway in the morning and north in the afternoon, it’s not entirely a one-way road, and the northbound direction gets pretty crowded from folks heading to 59 and 45 on their way home. Not really enough to worry about for the most part, but it is there.

I think Clay Robison put it well when he said that Rick Perry’s bad week has continued with the release of a critical audit of the Trans Texas Corridor.

The State Auditor’s Office issued a sharply critical report on the Trans-Texas Corridor on Friday, concluding that taxpayers may never know how much they could end up paying for a toll road that parallels Interstate 35 from San Antonio to Oklahoma.

And if the Texas Department of Transportation doesn’t improve its accounting of project costs, taxpayers won’t know if the public costs are appropriate, auditors said.

[…]

Although costs for the Trans-Texas tollway, including financing, are to be provided through a developer, some costs could be partially paid by the state, the audit report said.

Texans could pay $13.6 billion in financing costs for the initial phase of TTC-35 plus a possible $16.5 billion for additional rail line projects, according to the audit.

[…]

The state agency has succeeded in carrying out part of the agreement with the consortium, auditors noted.

“However, weaknesses in the department’s accounting for project costs create risks that the public will not know how much the state pays for TTC-35 or whether those costs are appropriate,” they concluded.

The audit noted a “lack of reliable information regarding projected toll road construction costs, operating expenses, revenue and developer income.”

The transportation agency plans to enter separate contracts with developers for each segment of TTC-35 and is negotiating a contract for the first segment, Texas 130 near Austin.

Although the state could receive $3 billion in concession payments from developers, such payments could be reduced if inflation, interest rates and other factors increase the developers’ costs, auditors said.

Auditors recommended more legislative oversight of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the transfer of toll revenue projections from TxDOT to the state comptroller and increased public access to information about the project.

They also proposed that TxDOT officials provide regular financial forecasts to the governor, the Legislature and the comptroller and submit development agreement contracts of more than $250 million to the attorney general for review and approval.

The full report is here. This may be a critical report, but it’s not one that challenges the concept of the TTC, just how it’s being carried out. If we must have a TTC, then I’d want to see these recommendations carried out, but I don’t accept the need for this scheme, and I’d hate to see this audit become the default compromise position. There is a better way. Let’s not lose sight of that. Eye on Williamson has more.

This HAIF thread (scroll down to post #2532) has some reactions from people who attended the Thursday town hall meeting of Rep. Culberson’s at Rice University. A brief sample, from “Quinlan”:

It was a pretty full house and there was quite a bit of tension in the air. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro “Rail on Richmond”—I would say upwards of 80%. Culberson made many attempts to steer the conversation away from rail, but the crowd kept bringing the topic back to rail. There were many outbursts from the crowd, showing an obvious frustration with his, as one attendee put it, “pandering”, and it seemed like many in the crowd had decided that he no longer deserves enough respect to keep these things civil and orderly. There were many times when Culberson, even with his microphone, could not make himself heard over the raucous crowd.

Culberson kept repeating, ad nauseum, that he was only respecting the intent of the voters in the 2003 election, by insisting on his designated route that only has “slight modifications” from the map allegedly put before voters. It was pointed out to him that the map he had on hand as his prop was not accurate and that the language on the ballot proposal included that the “final scope, length of rail segments or lines and other details, together with implementation schedule, will be based upon demand and completion of the project development process, including community input.” All of this went in one ear and out the other (unsurprisingly, with incredible speed).

[…]

Some of my thought about Rail on Richmond after reflecting on the meeting:

*Even if his so-called map is the map voted on by the voters in 2003, why should he get to decide what “slight modifications” should be permitted to it?
*What really is his agenda here? It’s obvious that it isn’t to “respect the actions of the voters”. He breaks that tenet on a nearly daily basis. It is also fairly clear that the majority of his constituents favor Rail on Richmond. What political purpose is served by his continued opposition to Rail on Richmond?

And from “Furious Jam”:

He wasn’t interested in having a meaningful discussion on the issue. He even categorized the issue as moot from the beginning. And when he did speak, it was nothing but constant contradictions:

“I’m a fiscal conservative”, then “my option isn’t much more expensive and the ridership will be nearly the same”.
“I’m for control at the local level”, then “I’m going to protect you from Metro”.
“The voters approved Westpark only and we have to abide by that”, then “my slight modification runs it inside the freeway”.

He kept pointing at a map that he claimed was part of the ballot (it wasn’t) and said that we all had to abide by that map, but then promised to block Metro from using the public easement illustrated on the map and again championed his 59 option, which was never on any map prior to the election.

Check it out.

So sorry I was unable to make it to the Culberson town hall meeting last night. Sure looks like it was fun.

[The Universities] line was at the center of a raucous gathering Thursday night at Rice University, where supporters and opponents of a proposed segment on Richmond argued about the plan.

Some supporters engaged in a shouting match with U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, who opposes rail on Richmond and hosted a town hall meeting on it.

When Culberson said that “97 percent of residents on or near Richmond oppose” a light rail line there, the audience of about 200 erupted in “boos” and catcalls.

RichmondRail.org, a group of civic associations, neighborhood groups and business owners, which supports light rail on Richmond, met in the same auditorium just prior to Culberson’s meeting.

Culberson repeatedly had to ask the crowd to settle down and speak politely.

“One at a time!” Culberson cautioned. “I am not going to recognize anyone who does not speak politely.”

Culberson was red-faced when the crowd gave a standing ovation to Robin Holzer, chairwoman of the Citizens’ Transportation Coalition, who told Culberson that he was “misleading” the audience.

“I feel pandered to, I feel marketed to, I feel misled,” Holzer said. “You never told us you oppose rail. And, I’m a bit suspicious about hearing you say local government makes the best decisions, then you come here and tell them how to do it.”

Culberson responded, “I’m sorry you don’t recognize reality.”

Oooh, snap. Tell you what, when Culberson stops repeating that stupid 97% statistic, which can be more accurately characterized as “Of the people who contacted my office to say that they opposed rail on Richmond, 97% oppose rail on Richmond”, then I’ll take his judgment about reality recognition more seriously. Till then, I don’t think so.

So. Anybody here attend that meeting last night? If so, please do tell in the comments.

UPDATE: Forgot to link to today’s Chron editorial, which recapitulates the Neartown statement. Check it out.