Culberson stakes his claim
John Culberson made his case against rail on Richmond with a commentary in the Chronicle this weekend. Let us read between the lines:
Metro must keep its word on rail route
Voters approved a Westpark line; not rail along Richmond Avenue
By U.S. REP. JOHN CULBERSON
If you follow the ongoing debate over rail on Richmond Avenue through the Houston Chronicle, you might think that opposition to rail on Richmond is limited to a small but vocal minority of people who live or work on Richmond. In fact, 97 percent of the home, business and property owners on Richmond who have contacted my office strongly oppose rail on their street, even though 9 nine of the 10 voting precincts in the Richmond corridor supported the rail referendum in 2003.
Culberson is hoping you miss his wordplay here. He’s comparing opposition among the few people who are directly on Richmond (”97%”) to previous support (”9 out of 10″) for the referendum among the neighborhoods as a whole. Those neighborhoods seem still to generally support rail on Richmond, as evidenced by the position of the Neartown Association, Culberson’s 18% support in those neighborhoods in December, and a 2,500 strong petition drive.
Would John Culberson apply a similar standard to other transportation projects? Did he decide whether to widen the Katy Freeway by asking only the businesses fronting on it (hundreds of which were bulldozed by that project)? Or did he take into account the views of the people who live near the freeway, and those who would use it every day?
And note that his measure of opposition is counting people who actually contacted his office — as part of an organized anti-rail letter-writing campaign.
The most important and overlooked fact in this debate, and the reason many voters in the Richmond corridor supported the rail referendum, is that the ballot language and the accompanying maps specifically referred to “Westpark.” Metro provided its board members with a detailed Key Map of the entire Metro Solutions rail system in July 2003. This map clearly shows the proposed rail line extending southwest from the existing Main Street Line along State Highway 59 to Westpark and ending at the Hillcroft Transit Center.
So there was a map distributed to METRO board members and so the public, which didn’t see that map, made its decision based on that map?
I’ve dealt with this before. There is no requirement — federal, state, or local — that voters approve specific alignments for rail lines. There is a federal requirement that METRO study all the alternatives for a rail line. METRO had not done such a study, and they made it clear that such a study, considering multiple options, would have to be done to choose an alignment for this line. METRO’ literature did not show or describe specific alignments, just end points — in this case, “Wheeler station” (which is on Richmond) and the “Hillcroft Transit Center” (which is on Westpark). “Westpark” was clearly a line name: other lines were called things like “Southeast.”
By “overlooked,” Culberson means “endlessly discussed.”
Metro actually studied and rejected the idea of rail on Richmond in 2003 because of the immense difficulty of building rail down the middle of a major thoroughfare with at-grade crossings at busy streets like Shepherd, Kirby and Buffalo Speedway.
I am working with Metro on a line that complies with the ballot language and protects local neighborhoods by running within the Southwest Freeway right of way to Westpark, without taking a lane of traffic or homes on the north or south side of the freeway.
Culberson’s line “protects local neighborhoods” by building an elevated rail line 25 feet above people’s back yards, on which trains would run within 10 or 20 feet of 3rd floor bedroom windows. And it would cost more and carry fewer people than either of the other options.
Some supporters of rail on Richmond accuse me of applying a double standard because I spearheaded the expansion of the Katy Freeway, but the Katy Freeway cannot be moved. It was built in 1952, long before neighborhoods and businesses supplanted the rice fields and prairies around the interstate.
But the Katy Freeway could have been widened in other ways, without taking as much property and with fewer impacts on neighborhoods. In fact, local residents organized as the Katy Corridor Coalition proposed just that. But Culberson pushed for the “quick and dirty” solution to save money. After a $1.3 billion, nearly 100% cost overrun due in part to property acquisition costs, that seems a bit foolish.
The homes and businesses along Richmond have enjoyed the street’s oak-lined median for generations. Richmond was never intended to be a rail corridor. During the 2000 election, I campaigned vigorously on the promise to expand the Katy Freeway as soon as possible, and the idea received overwhelming support. My support for the I-10 expansion is not a political calculation; it’s the fulfillment of a promise.
Do you remember voting on the expansion of the Katy Freeway? There was no vote. Simply because Culberson was elected against no serious opposition in a district heavily leaning towards his party doesn’t mean the voters were approving the details of his Katy Freeway reconstruction plans.
At President Gerald Ford’s funeral, he was remembered repeatedly as someone who kept his word. Whenever my service to the people of District 7 is complete, I hope that I will be remembered for keeping my word. I promised to honor the will of the voters who approved the 2003 rail referendum, and I have kept my word.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I secured $12 million for engineering on Metro’s north and southeast rail lines last year, and $6.5 million for its bus service over the past two years. I also helped Metro get reimbursed for 50 percent of the construction costs of the Main Street Line, which it built without seeking FTA approval, by putting language in the transportation bill requiring FTA to reimburse Metro for half of the $340 million line.
Read “which it built without seeking FTA approval” as “which it was forced to build entirely with local funding because my friend Tom Delay placed a federal requirement on Houston that no other city had to meet.”
Throughout my 20 years in public service, I have done my best to protect the quality of life of my constituents. Fighting to keep rail off of Richmond is no different. The voters approved “Westpark” and the Metro Board made the solemn promise in the 2003 ballot resolution that the election “will be binding on Metro and will constitute [a] contract with the voters and may not be repealed, altered or rescinded by any succeeding Board without voter approval at a subsequent election.” Our greatest asset in life is our good name, and good names are earned by keeping your word. Metro should keep its word to the voters by building rail on Westpark instead of Richmond.
Did I miss something here? Never once in this entire piece did John Culberson say anything about trying to do what is good for Houston. He wants you to think that it’s him against METRO. But what’s at stake here isn’t the future of METRO; it’s the future of Houston. METRO doesn’t lose if we build a rail line in the wrong place; we all do.
Chuck Kuffner put it well: “What do you want Metro to serve: the people of Houston, or ballot language as interpreted by the people who lost the referendum?”
Culberson, a Republican, represents District 7 in Houston.
Except the neighborhoods around Richmond, because they didn’t vote for him anyway.
Represent yourself in the forums.