Christof makes an observation about the Universities rail controversy.
It’s important to realize first of all that nobody is speaking for Westpark. The vocal proponents of Westpark are those who are against rail on Richmond. They don’t want Westpark because they think rail on Westpark is good; they want rail on Westpark because it means no rail on Richmond. That’s in contrast to Richmond, where, while there is considerable opposition, there is also considerable support in the surrounding neighborhoods for Richmond.
And there are those who oppose rail on Westpark. There are residential neighborhoods directly bordering Westpark between Edloe and the Union Pacific railroad; they lobbied against Richmond in the and will do so again. And any alignment that tries to avoid Richmond east of Shepherd either by elevating above 59 or by running at grade alongside the freeway trench will run into two very organized civic groups (Boulevard Oaks and Neartown) that are already on record for a Richmond alignment and that know how to organize (they’re the reason 59 is depressed under Montrose now). And what about the businesses along Westpark, especially those with back driveways that cross the METRO right-of-way?
The point is that without a vocal constituency in favor of a line on Westpark, it will likely die. Will John Culberson actually champion building the line on Westpark where he insists it has to go, and will he fight to ensure that it gets FTA funding as other cities have gotten via earmarks, thus upholding the will of the voters by seeing the Universities line through to completion? Or, since he’s never before lifted a finger to support mass transportation in Houston, will he be content to let it die and thus finally overturn the referendum that he fought in vain to defeat in 2003? You know what I think.