I’m hearing that the status of the Universities rail line and its eventual location are about to be back in the news. To get an idea of where we are, and what the options are for putting this thing somewhere other than Richmond, read Christof’s series of posts on the subject:
Hard facts about Richmond rail
Westpark: Where the politics are
Westpark: How would it work?
The Universities line, Shepherd to Main
How do we serve Greenway?
I support rail on Richmond because I believe it will provide the best ridership for the lowest cost. I believe it’s the only alignment that has an active constituency in favor of it, while all alignments will have an active opposition to them. It’s the best solution as well as the one that’s most likely to actually happen; as I’ve said before, I believe this is a fight between rail and no rail, not a fight between rail on Richmond and rail somewhere else. I want this line to be built, and I believe this is the best way to get it.
The key phrase in that last sentence is “I want this line to be built”. Other alignments can be made to work, and I’ll gladly settle for the next-best solution if it’s the only one that can be agreed upon. I want Richmond for pragmatic reasons, not ideological ones. Show me a plan for Westpark that will be actively supported by the current opponents of a Richmond line – and that most definitely includes Rep. John Culberson, whom I firmly believe will not support any actual, feasible plan – and I’ll get behind it. Show me a real commitment to getting this built, and I’ll stop pushing for Richmond. I want a Universities line. I want it on Richmond because I believe that’s the best place for it, but I’ll take it someplace else if that’s the best we can do. If you don’t want it on Richmond, tell me where you do want it, and what you will do to help make it happen, and we can go from there. Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, we’re fighting the 2003 referendum all over again, and the anti-Richmond forces need to accept that they lost that battle. It’s time we moved forward from there.
UPDATE: Not quite the news, but Miya Shay notes that a group of anti-rail folks showed up at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. No one is sure why, since according to a member’s chief of staff “Metro’s not expected to come up with a plan until next Spring”. Maybe it was a flash mob kind of thing. Who knows?
I was driving on Westpark for the first time in a while the other day (taking some electronics to the recycling center there) and it seemed pretty clear that rail there is a ridiculous idea. For much of it, there’s nothing to feed riders onto it.
If that turns out to be the choice, I have real questions about whether it’s worth building.
Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, we’re fighting the 2003 referendum all over again, and the anti-Richmond forces need to accept that they lost that battle.
Umm, how do you figure?
Westpark was on the ballot, not Richmond.
Mr. Spieler can go on and on and on about options other than the one he and you prefer not having political support, but the fact is that the only option with majority voter support is the one that was on the ballot: Westpark.
METRO is running into these political problems precisely because they decided radically to amend the METRO Solutions plan approved by a majority voters. That plan is the source of their political support. The further they depart from that plan, the more tenuous their claims of “political support.”
Same stuff, different day, Kevin. Once again, I note that you completely avoid the question of what you actually do support, instead of what you oppose. And once again, the issue of “Westpark” being on the ballot is baloney.
You lost on this question. Accept it.
John-
I live along Westpark. Rail would be a horrific, expensive waste.
Culbertson’s and Wong’s comments on Westpark rail make me wonder if they’ve ever been on that street, or if they’re just utterly deranged.
Spieler’s analysis is excellent. He lays out each option and the costs and benefits of each. This is the way it should be done.
Richmond is clearly the best option. We need to consider something else–the next rail line has to be a real ridership success to keep the rail program alive and vital. Only the Richmond option (of all those Spieler laid out) has that potential.