Common sense is finite and irreplaceable
Rep. John Culberson had an opinion piece in this Sunday’s Chronicle laying out his vision of Houston transit. His basic point seems to be that urban light rail is ineffective, and that the answer is commuter rail. Culberson claims:
The most important lesson from the transit experiment is that light rail cannot survive without commuter rail, which cannot survive without buses.
That’s backwards. Sacramento, Denver, St. Louis, and Portland are among the 10 busiest light rail systems in the country, each carrying 50,000 or more trips per day. None connect to commuter rail. The busiest commuter rail system in the United States that does not connect to urban rail is New Haven’s, with less than 2,000 trips a day. Commuter rail costs much more to build and operate per rider than light rail does. It’s simply less cost effective. Of course, that may not bother Culberson, whose pet project is more than $1.5 billion over budget.
Maybe when Culberson says “light rail,” he doesn’t mean “commuter rail” but rather “rail that carries commuters.” But that doesn’t make sense either, since it would mean we have commuter rail already: well over half of the riders on the Main Street Line are going to or from work or school. There are more commuters riding on the Main Street Line than there are on half the commuter rail systems in the United States.
But I don’t have to contradict Culberson; I can simply let him contradict himself.
In 2001, the Chronicle reported:
Culberson, who made freeway congestion a campaign issue last fall, was lukewarm to a suggestion at the Katy meeting that rail transit be part of any mobility solution for the area’s far west side. Culberson said most suburbanites need their cars to get to their jobs and he decried heavy rail’s $40 million-per-mile construction costs.
Here’s Culberson’s version today:
The only piece missing from the new Katy Freeway is high speed commuter rail. I encouraged the Metropolitan Transit Authority to include a commuter rail line and Metro had plenty of chances to reserve space for it, but they couldn’t make up their minds and we couldn’t delay construction waiting for them.
Here’s Culberson in 2005, supporting METRO’s plan to substitute BRT for LRT:
In a 2003 referendum, voters in Metro’s service area approved expansion of rapid transit beyond the Main Street light rail then nearing completion.
That plan contemplated light rail for the new corridors.
The one unveiled Monday envisions use, at least in the short term, of a system called bus rapid transit in which rubber-tired vehicles run in dedicated guideways.
Culberson, R-Houston, said White “has recognized that the rail plan submitted to the voters had big problems, and he is trying to fix that.”
Here he is today:
Since voters approved the Metro Solutions plan in 2003, Metro has switched modes from light rail, to bus rapid transit, back to light rail. This frequent and sudden gear shifting has thoroughly confused the public, elected officials, and now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as evidenced by their recent response letter to Metro President Frank Wilson.
Here he is this September explaining his position on the 2003 referendum:
“Metro cannot build it anywhere other than where the voters approved it,” Culberson said.
But now thinks METRO should switch gears entirely:
Houston is growing outward in all directions, and the time is right for Metro to rethink the outdated 2003 Metro Solutions plan and articulate a bold, but realistic plan that will help us reclaim some of the time we spend trapped in traffic.
So what best suits the will of the voters?
(a) Build the system described in the referendum, with the line described as the “Westpark Line, from the Hillcroft Transit Center to Wheeler station” located so that it runs from the Hillcroft Transit Center to Wheeler Station with over half of the line along Westpark.
(b) Build a completely different system.
Culberson’s answer: (b). Or maybe not. Here’s his prescription:
I see as an opportunity for Metro to work with FTA and local stakeholders to develop a new and improved, comprehensive transit system that includes a major expansion of local and regional bus service, and high-speed commuter rail to our airports and busiest suburbs, all tying directly into a light rail network inside the 610 Loop.
Oddly, that’s what METRO is doing. METRO’s plans (pdf) include an expansion of bus service, commuter rail lines to Cypress, Sugar Land, and Galveston, and a light rail system largely inside the 610 loop, with extensions to the airports in the next phase.
So what is Culberson trying to kill? Presumably, this system description means he supports extending the Main Street light rail line to the Intermodal Center to connect to commuter rail, building the Uptown Line to connect commuter rail to Uptown, and building some version of the University Line to connect commuter rail to Greenway Plaza and UH. So where does he not want light rail? Well, there are three light rail lines in the 2012 system that don’t link commuter rail to job centers: the North Line, the East End Line, and the Southeast Line. All serve predominantly poor and minority neighborhoods. Don’t poor people deserve good transit, too?
Or maybe Culberson’s not laying out a vision at all. Maybe he’s simply trying to confuse things, hoping to delay METRO and keep them planning, rather than building. What’s your theory? Tell us in the forums.
One thing, however, is clear. When Culberson leaves the House, he can find work as a copywriter for succesories:
Time is our most precious commodity. Whether we spend it with family and friends, at work, or just relaxing, time allows us to do the things that we enjoy. But unlike other commodities, time is finite and irreplaceable.