On Tuesday June 3rd, 2008, Harris County Commissioners Court voted on two items intended to expedite construction of “Segment E” of the proposed Grand Parkway (SH 99):

I.1.a.2. Recommendation that the Toll Road Authority be authorized to negotiate a preconstruction agreement with TxDOT for early development of Segment E of the SH 99 Grand Parkway.

I.1.d.2. Recommendation for authorization to negotiate [for professional services] with… Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., PBS&J, Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., Aviles Engineering Corp., HVJ Associates, Inc., and Terracon Consultants, Inc. … for Segment E of SH 99 Grand Parkway in Precinct 3.

CTC members attended to urge Harris County to defer segment E. We urged the County not to commit our tax dollars and county resources to the Grand Parkway.

We know that it’s critically important to plan for our future transportation needs. So why wouldn’t we want to build segment E of the proposed Grand Parkway? There are many reasons:

Spend our tax dollars where the people are. Harris County must first and foremost serve the needs of current taxpayers. That means focusing on transportation projects that will benefit the majority of Harris County residents who live and work in our densest, busiest areas. It does not mean building a highway across largely-uninhabited areas to benefit a handful of spec builders.

There is almost no existing demand for this roadway. Further, the population growth models on which the travel demand models rely, assume (circularly) that this roadway will be built. The Gulf Coast Institute recently analyzed GIS census data for the this area. They found that in 2005, of the 80,420 people who lived within 3 miles of the proposed segment E route, almost 66,000 - 82% - of them lived within 3 miles of either IH-10 or US-290. The analysis reveals that fewer than 15,000 people lived along the proposed route of segment E. The Katy Prairie is not where the people are.

Invest in the priority projects instead. Even as a toll road, this project won’t be free. Every County project poses an opportunity cost in the form of other projects the County is unable to take on. Reconstructing the congested US-290/IH-610 interchange which affects hundreds of thousands of current taxpayer-travelers, or extending the Hardy Toll Road to downtown, are more important projects.

Segment E would subject thousands to worse traffic congestion. This proposed roadway is expected to lure another 100,000 people or more to live in a far-flung area with inadequate infrastructure to serve them. Worse, an analysis by the Gulf Coast Institute revealed that in 2005 there were only a scant 2,257 jobs in the proposed corridor. That means that more than 97% of residents would be entirely dependent on cars for travel. Rather than relieving traffic congestion, segment E would create significant additional congestion on US-290 and IH-10.

Invest in local access instead. As the Houston Chronicle detailed last month, Harris County residents aren’t clamoring for new highways; they need new ways to get to the store (May 5, 2008 “Suburbanites ran, but couldn’t hide, from traffic pain”). Before we build any new highways, the County should invest in the local streets and sidewalks county residents need to live their daily lives.

Residential patterns are changing. With $3/gallon gas behind us and $4/gallon gas just ahead, Harris County residents are making different choices. Many people are choosing to live closer to where they work, and for most people, that means closer to central Houston. Investing in roads that assume people will continue to want to live ever-farther out just isn’t a smart bet any more.

Harris County residents value Katy Prairie wildlife and habitat. The Katy Prairie is a world-renowned ecosystem for wildlife habitat, and hosts thousands of species of birds. Thousands of people annually visit northwest Harris County from all over the world to experience the birding opportunities available in this coastal prairie habitat. These visitors represent a small economic engine - ecotourism - that Harris County should develop and benefit from. Folks at the Katy Prairie Conservancy are working hard to secure the prairie for generations of Houstonians to come. That will get a lot harder if we build a toll road across the middle of it.

Katy Prairie includes strategic agricultural land. As fuel costs continue to rise, shipping food long distances will get less and less economical. As our region continues to grow, access to secure local food supplies will become more and more important.

As to the Harris County vote, the Court voted unanimously to authorize both the negotiations with TxDOT and the professional services contracts, hastening to clarify that these are just planning steps and not a vote to build the road. On some level that’s true: today’s vote is just one baby step in a long process that may or may not result in construction of segment E of the Grand Parkway. Our hope is that it will not.

CTC was invited to the Sierra Club’s statewide annual meeting in Austin, where we were presented with the Lone Star Chapter’s 2007 Special Service Award. We were nominated by the Houston Regional Group. Evelyn Merz, chair of the Houston group, said this to introduce the award:

The Citizens’ Transportation Coalition, organized in 2004, provides a needed independent voice that concentrates on transportation issues in the Houston area. The Houston Group has worked with the CTC on several locally important transportation issues: noise abatement techniques for the construction of the Loop 610 adjacent to Memorial Park, the routing of light rail, and currently the Grand Parkway and sunset review of TxDOT. Their leadership was instrumental in raising the visibility of the light rail issue on Richmond Avenue in the media and galvanizing support for light rail on this important local transportation corridor. The CTC provides leadership on most transportation issues in the Houston area.

The CTC also organized and led a freight rail tour for decision makers in the Houston area and led a second trip in February 2008. You would be surprised at how interesting a freight rail tour can be! Considering freight rail as an alternative to trucking, especially when trucking means more multiple lanes of concrete highway being laid across Texas, is something we should be thinking about — especially in view of the Trans Texas Corridor.

The CTC organizes public information meetings, hosts a website with discussion forums on various transportation issues, and provides on-line fact sheets on a array of transportation questions. These fact sheets include general topics of light rail expansion, commuter rail, and freight rail as well as analyses of specific projects such as Interstate 10 inside Loop 610 and the Interstate 45 Bayou Crossing. All of the fact sheets are clear, well written, and demonstrate that the author understands the deep connection between transportation choices and the environment.

The CTC also co-sponsored a Houston candidate forum in October 2007, which was organized by the Houston Sierra Club. Each of the candidates was asked to address the same four questions and the CTC designed the forum’s transportation question.

The Houston Sierra Club values the work being performed by the CTC and is happy to present them with the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter’s Special Service Award.

Our thanks to Evelyn for the kind words and to Sierra Club for this honor! While just three of us — Adra Hooks, Gene Creely, and I — went to Austin to accept the award, it represents the efforts of many, many others. Congratulations to all of CTC’s busy volunteers, and keep up the good work!

But there’s another Kirby project coming soon that neighbors are starting to talk about.

The Upper Kirby TIRZ and Harris County Improvement District #3 (collectively, “Upper Kirby”) will install 72″ storm sewers in a section of Kirby that the FEMA project missed, from US-59 north to Westheimer. The goal is to improve storm water drainage and reduce street flooding. (Improvements to the segment from Westheimer to San Felipe have been tabled.)

Absolutely everyone we’ve talked to, including neighbors in the adjacent Davy Crockett and Avalon Place neighborhoods, is excited about the storm water improvements. Fortunately, new storm sewers can be installed under the existing street, between the existing curbs.

Given that the storm sewer project requires tearing up and reconstructing the street, the Upper Kirby district also intends to make street improvements, to leave Kirby safer and more functional after the project. While some of the improvements, like adding a raised center median, are really important, other elements of the project plan, like widening the traffic lanes and pushing back the curbs, have raised controversy.

In total, Upper Kirby has committed to spend $8.5 million on the project ($7 mm TIRZ, $1.5 mm HCID3), and they plan to break ground in January 2008. However, Kirby Drive is publicly-owned by the City of Houston so both Public Works and City Council have oversight of the project.

More to the point, the 100 feet of publicly-owned right-of-way between property lines on Kirby is part of our shared “public realm”. And that means we — the public — deserve some say over the design of Kirby’s future.

To that end, the Upper Kirby District will host a community meeting on Sat Sept 15 from 9:00 to 11:00 am at their offices at 3015 Richmond at Eastside. If you have an interest in Kirby’s future, please plan to attend. Upper Kirby has posted the current 70% design schematics for public review. In the meantime, here’s more about some of the issues and design challenges on Kirby.

The devil is in the details
So… Upper Kirby wants to rebuild Kirby as a better street. That sounds great! And fortunately, groups like the national Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) have published terrific new guidelines for how best to design great urban thoroughfares.

In a perfect world, Kirby Drive would include a whole host of critical elements:

• wide sidewalks for all the new urban shoppers and diners
• mature tree canopy to shade and cool the sidewalk, clean the air, and protect pedestrians from wayward cars
• benches and other street furniture to create an inviting pedestrian realm


• raised center median with left-turn pockets to ensure drivers turn safely and reduce crashes
• center refuge islands and mid-block crossings to help pedestrians cross the street safely
• ADA-compliant ramps at intersections and other pedestrian crossings to accommodate Houstonians with mobility challenges


• wider outside curb lanes to accommodate METRO buses and bicyclists
• narrower driving lanes to encourage “traffic calming”
• on-street parking both for convenience and also to serve as a further buffer between fast-moving traffic and pedestrians
• oversized truck ban to keep semi-trailers out of a busy commercial district
• underground duct bays to bury electric and other utilities

Together, these elements would comprise a great urban boulevard that accommodates motorists, deliveries, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians all equitably and well. And building this great boulevard would only require about 130 feet of right-of-way.

But unfortunately, Kirby’s right-of-way is just 100 feet from property line to property line. Unless the City decides to start buying up private land to widen the right-of-way, some of these design elements have to go, and that’s where trade-offs come in. According to ITE, the very “nature of thoroughfare design is balancing the desired design elements of the ideal thoroughfare with right-of-way constraints.” Deciding which elements to prioritize should depend in part on the growth forecast for Kirby, and also in part on community preference.

Kirby is one of Houston’s busiest commercial corridors
Kirby is home to everything from banks, medical facilities, and law offices to big box stores, one-of-a-kind shops, galleries, and restaurants. Kirby is not only a place to visit, but also a place to work for thousands of Houstonians. As a result, Kirby is a street that should be accessible to everyone, including the one-in-five adult Texans who cannot drive. As we plan Kirby’s future, we must ensure it will accommodate all of its users well, including motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled.

Raised medians will dramatically reduce crash risk on Kirby
A recent study by the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) found that Kirby Drive boasts several of the most dangerous intersections in our 8-county region, with more than 560 crashes between 1998 and 2001 on the stretch from Bissonnet to San Felipe. However, there are hundreds of mid-block crashes, including dangerous right-angle crashes, on Kirby as well. That’s because Kirby still has an ill-considered continuous left-turn lane — aka “suicide lane” — that allows drivers to make any turn, anywhere, any time.

Continuous left-turn lanes work well on slow, 3-lane streets like Rice Blvd through the Village. But they’re dangerous on a wide, fast street like Kirby. Instead, adding a raised median of any kind will dramatically improve safety on Kirby. By controlling where drivers can turn left across the center, a raised median will reduce turning conflicts and thereby reduce crashes. A raised median will improve safety for drivers and pedestrians alike.

However, this raised median can take several forms and widths, ranging from a 3-foot-wide median as on Main Street near Mecom Fountain, to an 11-foot-wide median with left-turn pockets, to a 14-foot-wide landscaped median with refuge islands for pedestrians. A wider median will leave less room at the roadside for pedestrians, and possibly for the entire block length. While adding some kind of raised median is desirable, the trade-off to get a wider median at the expense of the roadsides should be weighed carefully.

More high-rise, pedestrian-oriented development is coming soon
Kirby is changing. You cannot travel on Kirby today without noticing all of the tall construction cranes. Kirby has what real estate people call “location, location, location” and lots of new development is coming fast. With the 7-story West Ave and the 32-story 2727 Kirby projects underway, there are nearly 500 residential units under construction right now, just between Westheimer and Kipling. The West Ave project also includes 180,000 square feet of retail space. Other major parcels along Kirby are changing hands, whole blocks at a time. All signs point to Kirby becoming a much more intense, urban corridor in the next two to three years. (Click on the image below for a larger aerial view of two of the redeveloping sites on Kirby.)

More importantly, this new development is not old-style and car-based; it’s urban and pedestrian-oriented. Developers are orienting new buildings not to parking lots but to Kirby’s sidewalks. They know that we can count on some of these new residents to walk to hot spots like Taco Milagro, Stone Mill Bakery, Beck’s Prime, and Whole Foods because it will be easier to walk the block or two than to drive. That means Kirby’s roadside must be wide enough to accommodate an ever-growing number of pedestrians.

New developments may offer land for pedestrian realm
In some locations, like the West Ave project just above, developers are getting variances from the City Planning department to enhance their urban-style development. The result is that projects like West Ave — instead of facing vast parking lots — will actually have public sidewalks in the 5 to 10 feet of private land between the property line and the building face, essentially expanding Kirby’s public right-of-way.

It is possible for the City of Houston to adopt an ordinance in the near future that would require all new development on Kirby to work this way. Developers would get to build closer than the current 25-foot setback allows, simultaneously creating a 5- to 10-foot public access easement for wider public sidewalks. Council Members Anne Clutterbuck and Pam Holm have expressed willingness to consider such an ordinance, but it would require support from a majority of Council members to pass, and therefore support from property owners on Kirby. However, such an ordinance, if it passes, would only govern future redevelopment on Kirby, and not existing sites. It is therefore possible that pedestrian space given up to traffic lanes today, may be recovered from adjacent property owners in the future, but it’s no sure thing.

Wider driving lanes would sacrifice the public pedestrian realm
Driving lanes on Kirby currently measure 9 feet 6 inches. While Texas law dictates that no vehicle may be wider than 102 inches (8 feet 6 inches), some drivers would prefer wider lanes on Kirby. However, wider traffic lanes will come only at the price of a narrower roadside. In some locations, current plans would leave narrower sidewalks than exist today. (Visit CTC’s forum to see full-size renderings of Kirby’s roadside and the impact of wider traffic lanes on sidewalks at various locations.)

ITE’s guidelines for urban thoroughfares call for 10-foot lanes in urban commercial districts, in order to allow 15 feet or more for wide sidewalks and roadside buffers. City of Houston guidelines, designed for suburban streets in unconstrained rights-of-way, recommend 11-foot traffic lanes. However, the City recently rebuilt Main Street downtown with 10-foot lanes, expressly to leave more room on the roadside for pedestrians. Further, the City has already begun the reconstruction of Kirby south of US-59, without widening the traffic lanes.

Wider driving lanes would require transplant or replacement of mature trees
Street trees play several critical roles along urban boulevards. Trees obviously provide shade and cool the sidewalk, but they also scrub vehicle exhaust particles from the air, and form a physical buffer between pedestrians and wayward cars. According to a letter from Trees for Houston to Mayor White, widening Kirby’s right-of-way will necessitate the removal of 274 trees, 174 of which are between Westheimer and US-59.

Upper Kirby is committing to replace trees on Kirby with large, 6-to-8-inch caliper trees. The project plans include funds for 200-300 trees, though replacement tree species have not yet been specified.

However, with wider traffic lanes, the space behind the curb for trees and sidewalks will be diminished significantly, perhaps by as much as 41%. One proposal would leave just under 4 feet for street trees and landscape buffer with 6-foot sidewalks.

North of Westheimer, Kirby is residential
Just north of Westheimer, Kirby becomes a very different street. At San Saba Street, just behind Taco Milagro and Stone Mill Bakers, Kirby goes from commercial to single-family residential. Instead of shops and parking lots, Kirby’s sidewalks pass the fences and side yards of Avalon Place homes. While this stretch is where property owners will most fiercely oppose widening Kirby or removing trees, it is also, ironically,the stretch that least needs wide urban sidewalks for access.

Underground duct bays would allow burying utilities
Today, Kirby is lined with telephone and power poles that are strung with heavy cables. As population density increases on Kirby in the next few years, these poles and cables will only proliferate. Burying these utilities would not only make Kirby more attractive and reduce risks in a windstorm, but also would allow street trees to grow tall unimpeded. Everyone we have talked to agrees that burying utilities would improve Kirby. Fortunately, the needed duct bays could be buried under the existing street pavement and would not require widening the curbs. However, it is not clear whether the current project budget includes funds to bury the utilities.

Kirby Coalition’s Starscape initiative will fund amenities
In addition to the district’s street reconstruction project, the Kirby Coalition is raising private money for aesthetic enhancements to the street. The Kirby Coalition includes businesses and land owners along Kirby from Allen Parkway all the way to Reliant Stadium. Their “Starscape Initiative” includes a decorative pavement design for seven major intersections on Kirby, and with enough funds, will also include benches and other street amenities.

Let’s find the compromise design solution, quickly
It seems that we all share a common motivation: building a better Kirby Drive. The question now is whether we will come together as smart, thoughtful people and reach some consensus about what a better Kirby Drive should consist of. I am hopeful we can.

However, we must work together quickly. Upper Kirby intends to finalize the project plans in September and put the work out to bid by October. The goal is to break ground on the Richmond to Westheimer section this January 2008, and finish the work before the holiday shopping season next November. So do your homework now, and plan to attend the public meeting on Sat Sept 15th.

Contact your elected City officials
Several members of Houston City Council are interested in this project and would like to hear from you:

• District C Council Member Anne Clutterbuck:
  districtc@cityofhouston.net or (713) 247-2004
  Kirby south of Westheimer is in Council district C
• District G Council Member Pam Holm:
  districtg@cityofhouston.net or (713) 247-2007
  Kirby north of Westheimer is in Council district G
• At-large Council Member Peter Brown:
  atlarge1@cityofhouston.net or (713) 247-2014
• At-large Council Member Sue Lovell:
  atlarge2@cityofhouston.net or (713) 247-2013
• At-large Council Member Melissa Noriega:
  atlarge3@cityofhouston.net or (713) 247-2005

Because planning for the project has been federally-funded, TxDOT is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to document the potential benefits and impacts of the project. Back in May 2000, TxDOT released a draft of the environmental report (DEIS), and in June 2000 they hosted a public meeting to solicit feedback from the community. At the time, something like 600 people came out for the meetings, which says a lot about public concern over the project. Many had problems with specific alignments and most expressed opposition to the whole project.

Seven years later, TxDOT is struggling under a statewide shortage of funds for road construction and maintenance, and they are now proposing to develop Grand Parkway segment C as a toll road. They held a public hearing Thursday night about the proposal. More than 200 people came out and it doesn’t sound like anyone has changed their minds.

Many of the criticisms argue for not building segment C at all:

Existing travel demand cannot justify a $500+ million toll road
The fact that I was able to stand in the middle of FM 762 (a few hundred feet from the proposed Parkway route) to take this picture at 4:30 pm on a Tuesday speaks volumes about the current traffic situation in Fort Bend County, south of the BNSF railroad. There is certainly traffic congestion on Crabb River Road north of the railroad to US-59. One participant called for Crabb River to be widened by a lane or two. But there is no traffic congestion south of the railroad because there is very little development down there today.

There are some who hope that building the Grand Parkway would spur more growth and economic development in Fort Bend and Brazoria. But that would make this a development project, not a transportation project. Many speakers at the meeting derided the idea of spending tax dollars on a project that would benefit developers rather than residents. And $582 million is a lot of public money to spend trying to solve transportation problems that don’t exist, when there are current tax payers facing serious transportation problems elsewhere today.

No toll, no road
Grand Parkway Director David Gornet told the Houston Chronicle that “Without tolling, [the Parkway] would not be completed anytime soon. It might be 25 or 30 years, if you try to wait for it to rise to the top in demand as a road paid for with tax dollars.” Likewise, Fort Bend Commissioner James Patterson told the Chronicle, “We’re not going to get that road built without it being a toll road of some kind.”

But many speakers at the hearing pointed out that toll roads cost locals more, not less, than state tax-funded roads. Several speakers voiced the refrain, “no toll, no road” and made it clear that they were perfectly happy if the Grand Parkway doesn’t get built for a long, long time.

Widespread environmental impacts
Some of our region’s best unspoiled natural habitat is located in this part of Fort Bend and Brazoria counties. The Brazos River flows through here, and Smithers Lake, Big Creek, Oyster Creek, and Hayes Creek are all here, too. There’s a reason this area is home to Brazos Bend State Park, the George Observatory, Austin’s Woods, and the Lake Worthington Conservation Area. It’s also home to several active bald eagle nesting sites. (Click here for full-size map.)

Constructing a road through here would cause direct environmental harm along the route of the highway. But it will also cause widespread “indirect” environmental harm through the residential and commercial development that will assuredly follow construction of the highway.

Induced development in floodplains
As this map above shows (click for full-size image), much of segment C treks bravely across floodplain (light blue) and actual floodway (dark blue). (Visit CTC’s forum to see all five of the segment C land use maps.)

Loss of agricultural land
Farming isn’t exactly sexy, but every single one of us needs to eat, regularly. Since the 1820s, the fertile Brazos River valley has been great farmland for raising cotton, sugarcane (It’s called Sugar Land for a reason!), sorghum, rice, and other crops. The adjacent prairies are ranchland for beef cattle.

Today, much of the food Americans eat travels 1,500 miles to get from farms to our plates. Given concerns over health and sustainability, thousands of Houstonians are striving to “eat local”. Converting Fort Bend and Brazoria farmland into subdivisions and strip malls will make all of us more dependent on long-distance food, not less.

Other criticisms relate to the design of the structure:

Elevations of the proposed structure
TxDOT is proposing to take the Grand Parkway over many locations, including:

• 50-foot elevated ramps over the existing structures of US-59;
• 20-foot bridge structure over Sansbury Blvd and Rabbs Bayou;
• 30-foot bridge structure over the BNSF RR;
• 20-foot mostly-solid overpasses at Reading Rd, Myers Rd, and others.

• Fort Bend County Judge Robert Hebert:
  hebertb@co.fort-bend.tx.us (281) 341-8608
• Fort Bend Commissioner Pct. 1 Tom Stavinoha:
  commpct1@co.fort-bend.tx.us (281) 344-9400
• Fort Bend Commissioner Pct. 4 James Patterson:
  commpct4@co.fort-bend.tx.us (281) 980-2235


• Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace:
  dwallace@sugarlandtx.gov or (281) 275-2714
• Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen:
  mayor@ci.mocity.tx.us(281) 403-8500
• Richmond Mayor Hilmar Moore:
  (281) 342-5456
• Rosenberg Mayor Joe Gurecky:
  online (832) 595-3340
• Stafford Mayor Leonard Scarcella:
  mayor@cityofstafford.com or 281-261-3902


• Brazoria County Judge Joe King:
  joek@brazoria-county.com (281) 756-1200
• Brazoria Commissioner Pct. 2 Matt Sebesta:
  matts@brazoria-county.com (281) 756-1548
• Brazoria Commissioner Pct. 3 Jack Harris:
  jackh@brazoria-county.com (281) 331-3197

The sun may have set on the meeting, but TxDOT is accepting public comments until 5:00 pm on Thu Sept 13, 2007. You may submit comments in writing online, by email to segmentccomments@grandpky.com or by mail to:

TxDOT Houston District
Attention: Director of Project Development
PO Box 1386 Houston TX 77251-1386.

And you can always comment (and find more information) in CTC’s forums.

The simple idea behind bike racks on buses is improved mobility: a rider can reach more places more quickly with a bike and a bus than she can with either one alone. For example, if I have a 10-minute walk to my bus stop on Westheimer, a 10-minute bus ride, and a 10-minute walk to my destination, then my trip takes 30 minutes. If I can ride my bike to my bus stop in 4-5 minutes, park it on the front of the bus for the 10-minute ride, and retrieve it to ride to my destination in another 4-5 minutes, then I have saved 10 minutes. The bus ride may be the same, but I cut my travel time by a third!

Great access is about having mobility choices, and putting bike racks on buses gives more Houstonians more choices. For more on the merits of bike racks for buses, check out CTC’s 2006 brief (365 kb PDF).

Thanks to Senator Rodney Ellis, Houston City Council Member Carol Alvarado, Council Member Anne Clutterbuck, Mayor Bill White, and other elected representatives for tirelessly promoting the bike rack concept. Thanks also to the many dedicated bicycle advocates — including BikeHouston, Houston Bicycle Club, Greater Houston Offroad Biking Association, Texas Bicycle Coalition, Lilibeth Andre with the City of Houston Bikeway Program, Dan Raine with the Houston-Galveston Area Council, and many others — who persisted in building support for the program. It truly took a village!

And a big thanks to METRO for supporting multi-modal trips, and deciding it’s time to make it happen! The first set of bus routes with racks will run in July 2007, and a map will be available soon. Look for racks on every bus in the fleet by the end of the year. Yay!

For more, read the Houston Chronicle article.
Comments (and bikes) are always welcome in our online forum.

UPDATE: Also check out the great live video feature KPRC-2 did Monday morning: “Some METRO buses go green”.

This year, we will meet at an exciting new venue: Houston TranStar’s operations center on Old Katy Road. TranStar is Houston’s futuristic control center to:

• provide real-time traffic data
• operate dynamic highway message signs
• manage regional emergencies like hurricanes and floods
• dispatch SafeClear wreckers for crashes and other incidents
• coordinate efforts between local jurisdictions, and more!

Our meeting will include introductions of new CTC board members, brief presentations on CTC’s 2006 accomplishments, and wrap up with a guided tour of the TranStar facilities!

The meeting is Saturday, April 21 from 10:00 am to 11:30 am. The event is FREE, but you must be a current member of CTC to participate. If you plan to join us, please RSVP to Adra Hooks: treasurer@ctchouston.org.

If you have not yet renewed for 2007, it’s not too late. CTC membership is just $20 for an individual. Please download a 2007 membership form from our website and bring it with payment to the meeting!

For three years, CTC has been all about improving public participation in transportation projects. In that context, direct elections sound promising. However, CTC’s board members believe that the shift from an appointed to an elected board would severely limit METRO’s accountability to local governments, especially the City of Houston, and remove all incentives for regional cooperation.

HB 1813 had a public hearing on Tuesday, April 3, before the House Transportation Committee. I went to Austin to testify against it, and submitted a letter from CTC (32 kb PDF) for the legislative record. Key excerpts:

While CTC is very much in favor of expanding the power of our franchise and democracy in general, HB 1813 fails to accomplish this. As submitted, HB 1813 proposes to take the current system of accountability to directly elected officials, and replace it with an alternate system of special interests funded by those with the most to profit from eating at the public trough. Nowhere in HB 1813 is there a mechanism to mandate and ensure the regional perspective and cooperation that are vital to make METRO successful. HB 1813 is a recipe for bad public policy.

Within Houston, the Port of Houston Authority and METRO are governed by appointed boards. These boards are charged with managing professional agencies with staffs who possess highly-specialized skills. Houston’s elected leaders have depended on appointed members of these boards since their inception. The result is a world-class port responsible for more than one fifth of the regions’ economic output, and a transit agency that has implemented one of the best commuter transit systems in the country and one of the most successful light rail lines in the country. It’s no wonder that the same appointed board structure was chosen for the soon to be created Harris County Freight Rail District.

Fundamentally, the future of Houston’s transportation system depends on both coordination among the many agencies building it, and also a long-term view. It defies belief to propose that sound long-range planning might possibly come from board members caught up in a two-year election cycle.

Tuesday night, the Transportation committee left this bill and many others (like the Safe Passing Bill) pending in committee. We should know on Tues Apr 10 which bills will be sent to the House floor for broader consideration.

In the meantime, CTC welcomes public participation in our forums.

In their book, In Search of Excellence, authors Tom Peters and Robert Waterman observe that,

“In a world where the rate of change seems to be escalating rapidly, core values provide a source of guidance.”

The City of Houston is assuredly changing ever-more-rapidly; are there core values to guide us and shape Houston’s future?

On March 31st, about 100 Houstonians braved an early morning downpour to answer that question. In a workshop convened by Blueprint Houston at the Tejano Center for Community Concerns, Houstonians from across the city wrestled with words and attempted to articulate our shared values.

But we didn’t start from scratch.

We built on the Guiding Values from the Citizens’ Agenda for Houston’s Future developed by more than a thousand Houstonians who participated in Blueprint’s first Citizens’ Congress and public survey in 2003.

Previous participants drafted guiding values statements across 8 categories: environment, community, economy, transportation choices, neighborhoods, government, education, and culture. Our job on Saturday was to review the draft statements and validate that these are in fact values held by most Houstonians. We broke up into small groups and reviewed the values, statement by statement.

Transportation Choices
We value and will work for

• The best transportation system in America
• A high level of access for all
• An integrated, efficient, multi-modal network
• Coordinated land use and transportation planning
• Choices and safety

The idea is to determine what we can agree on. For example, the ten people in my breakout group all agreed that Houstonians value transportation “choices and safety”, and we all want a “high level of access for all”. But some of us felt weird about wanting “the best transportation system in America.” Why in America? Is that even realistic? We felt better about striving for “the best transportation system possible.”

Our discussion about “coordinated land use and transportation planning” was more heated. It’s the right goal but the city mostly doesn’t regulate land use. Does transportation follow from land use? Doesn’t new transportation induce new land uses? What if we push for “Transportation planning that facilitates quality growth”? We felt more comfortable with that statement.

We had similar group discussions in each category over the next two hours. And as we wrestled with values, so did eleven other groups. Throughout the morning, Blueprint Houston facilitators captured the consensus from participants in each of the breakout groups. At the end of the day, the facilitators have to pull it all together and get us to final statements. Expect a final draft of Houston’s vision and values from Blueprint Houston soon. In the meantime, we can all make sure the City is on board with the simple notion that Houston’s future will be better for all of us if we all know what we’re striving for.

Chapter 42 (2.4 mb PDF) of Houston’s Code of Ordinances sets requirements for different types of development. Since 1999, it requires “private streets” for multi-family residential complexes — apartments — to be at least 28 feet wide. “Shared driveways” for single-family residential developments — townhouses — were deemed adequate at 16 feet.

As originally envisioned, 16-foot driveways worked well for small townhouse developments with two or perhaps three units on one 5,000 square foot lot. Even the back-most unit would be just 60-80 feet from the curb.

But in the years since the ordinance was written, developers have assembled multiple-lot parcels to build many more townhouses in the same place. In these larger developments, a shared driveway may extend 200 feet or more, or make 90-degree turns with unforgiving geometry, which is a problem. Some of these driveways are unnavigable by a Suburban or large pickup truck, never mind a fire truck. Further, the ordinance allows the second story of the structures to be cantilevered and extend 4 feet over the driveway beyond the first floor.

Recent meetings of the Houston Planning Commission’s Mobility Subcommittee surfaced this issue. According to Mike Shrum of the Houston Fire Department (HFD), a fire in a multi-story town house requires a ladder truck, so they can rain water down on top of the fire. The smallest ladder truck they have is 9 feet tall and 9 feet wide, with “outriggers” that extend 5 feet on each side to stabilize the truck. The first problem: you cannot plant a 19-foot-wide ladder truck in a 16-foot-wide driveway. The second problem: ladder trucks don’t turn corners well.

Consider the plan shown at right (click the diagram for a larger, detailed plan view) for a 21-unit townhouse development along one of Houston’s bayous. Vehicles enter the site via gates from a through-street on the left and from a dead-end street on the right. Most of the town houses are along the middle driveway which has no direct gate access to the street. According to HFD’s Shrum, it would likely be very difficult to fight a fire effectively in units 7 or 8 (noted in red box), because they are too far from the street to reach directly, and the driveway is too narrow to get to them.

I would guess that most every Houston homebuyer assumes protection from the fire department as a given. But many would be dismayed to learn that in practice, the current ordinance allows some homes to be designed and built that are beyond the reach of the fire department. This has serious implications for home owner liability, property insurance rates, and requirements for protective devices like smoke detectors and sprinkler systems.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Consider: the site above could be planned differently. Structures could be arranged further apart to allow safe access to all of them. Done this way, it may not allow the same number of units, and a developer may argue that it will reduce the profitability of the development. But I doubt the intended homeowners will find that the most pressing concern.

This shared driveway issue is a perfect example of the current opportunity to improve land planning in Houston. It’s not about telling property owners how to use their property. Good planning is about ensuring projects are built in a way that minimizes unintended consequences.

For the future, the Mobility Subcommittee is discussing possible revisions to Chapter 42’s shared driveway ordinance. But for now, all of us should be sure to install smoke detectors and check the batteries periodically!

Feb. 10, 2007, 7:13PM
Off Track
Countering Culberson’s view
It’s time for lawmaker and all Houstonians to see the importance of University rail line

By ROBIN HOLZER

Just five years ago, U.S. Rep. John Culberson stood up for both advancing the greater good and minimizing its impact on individuals. He said in a press statement, “We all recognize the immense importance of the Katy Freeway to prosperity and growth throughout the Houston metropolitan area, and we will do everything in our power to accelerate its reconstruction and minimize the disruption that major freeway construction often causes.” It seems today that he has lost sight of these principles.

Like the Katy Freeway expansion, Metro’s University light rail line will bring benefits across the Houston region. First, the University line will connect Greenway Plaza and Uptown — two of Houston’s largest employment centers — to our regional transit network, which already serves downtown and the Texas Medical Center. Second, it provides the essential east-west link between the Main Street line and the new Uptown line, providing access to the Galleria and the office towers surrounding it. By doing so, the University line will enable both suburban commuters who currently arrive by park-and-ride buses and urban users of the Main Street line to access much more of central Houston without a car.

Imagine: If you are a daily westside commuter who cannot use the IH-10 or US-290 Park & Ride service because you don’t work downtown, you will now have access to the Uptown line and west Houston by a transfer at Northwest Mall or the Northwest Transit Center. Imagine what you can do with your new spare time when you no longer have to drive.

Dense areas linked

In addition to regional benefits, the University line has local neighborhood benefits as well. Light rail will bring significantly more frequent, more comfortable and more accessible transit service to both Richmond and Westpark. By doing so, it will improve access in this corridor. Further, replacing some of the existing buses with higher-capacity trains will reduce the number of vehicle movements on the street, which will benefit motorists.

Replacing diesel buses with electric trains also will reduce local noise and air pollution. Many neighborhoods along the proposed Richmond route are eager for these benefits, which is why the Neartown Association and several of its member civic clubs have formally endorsed a Richmond alignment. Finally, the University line connects dense urban neighborhoods such as Gulfton, Neartown and Third Ward to employment centers and educational institutions including the University of Houston, Texas Southern University and the University of St. Thomas.

Given both regional and local benefits, the question of where to place the University line is critical. The alignment will determine how many people, businesses and institutions are well-served by the line, and this decision will shape our city for the next 50 years.

Voices go unheard

But Rep. Culberson says that this planning process should focus only on “the people who have the most at stake those who own homes, businesses or properties along Richmond.” Culberson does not seem to hear the voices of neighbors a block or two away from Richmond, nevermind the voices of Houstonians across our city. Who can help him hear us?

Culberson says that “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.’ ” (”Ballot promise / Metro must keep its word on rail route,” Outlook article, Jan. 28.)

However, just as the so-called “Main Street line” runs alternately on Main, Fannin, San Jacinto, Braeswood and Greenbriar, the once-named “Westpark line” cannot possibly run entirely on Westpark because that right-of-way ends at Kirby. The ballot language stated explicitly that this line would run “westward from the Wheeler station on Phase I MetroRail to the Hillcroft Transit Center.” A quick glance at a map shows that Wheeler station is on Wheeler, and that Wheeler and Richmond are the same street.

The plan since May 2006

Running the line on both Richmond and Westpark was always an option; the more significant question is where and how it will transition from one to the other. The ballot language explains: “Note: 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.” This federally required project development process is just what Metro and the public have been working through since May of 2006.

As of December, Metro is studying just three remaining alignment alternatives west of Main Street. The option that is expected to serve the most people most cost effectively is called the “Cummins” option. It runs west from Wheeler Station down Richmond to the west end of Greenway Plaza, then turns south onto Cummins to cross over the Southwest Freeway, and turns west on Westpark to reach the Hillcroft Transit Center. It serves dense residential neighborhoods in Neartown and Gulfton, and dense employment centers in Greenway Plaza and Upper Kirby. It will put high-capacity transit where the people are and thereby serve Houston well.

The option that Culberson is promoting was ranked 13th in terms of cost-effectiveness. It runs west from Wheeler Station down Richmond to Montrose, then turns south to run elevated behind Neartown homes along the Southwest Freeway. At Kirby it crosses south to Westpark and continues west to the Hillcroft Transit Center. By requiring more elevated sections, it is expected to cost nearly $50 million more than the Cummins option, and by running along the Southwest freeway, construction will disrupt significantly more traffic.

By running farther from where the people are with fewer stations, it is also expected to attract 38 percent fewer riders. That performance will hardly appeal to fiscal conservatives.

Employ I-10 approach

As with any major transportation project, neighbors will inevitably be affected by construction of the University line, no matter where we build it. But we can and should employ the approach Culberson advocated for the Katy Freeway expansion: “accelerate its [re]construction and minimize the disruption.”

Culberson could accelerate funding for the project to get it done quickly. Metro and the city of Houston can work together to anticipate the impacts and find ways to mitigate them.

Off-site fabrication and sequenced construction of short segments can dramatically reduce the time a street is disrupted. Temporary driveways and good signage can improve access during construction. Performance incentives for contractors and small business assistance can ensure that the very places that make our neighborhoods vital will still be in business after the line opens. Culberson’s proposal to build a more costly and less effective version of the same project elsewhere will never be the best solution for these issues.

Recognize our stake

Placing the University line where it will serve the most jobs and the most people at a reasonable cost will improve our entire transit system. It is time for all Houstonians, including Culberson, to “recognize the immense importance” of the University line “to prosperity and growth throughout the Houston Metropolitan area.”

I urge all Houstonians to recognize our stake in this project and contact our congressional leaders. Ask them to support the best University line for the most people, and to ask Culberson to recover his perspective on access and prosperity for the whole city.

Holzer chairs the board of the Citizens’ Transportation Coalition, a nonprofit transportation advocacy organization. CTC is committed to engaging Houstonians in the planning of transportation projects that affect them. Visit http://www.ctchouston.org for more information.

Source: http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4542413.html

In case you’re wondering, yes, this is a response to Culberson’s OpEd that ran two weeks ago.

I am delighted that the Chronicle not only published the piece, but also included our system map. Every line on this map is scheduled to be up and running by 2012, and it’s important that it all work together as an integrated system. Whether we build the University line in the right place — where it will serve the most Houstonians — will affect every user of the system.

METRO will determine an alignment for the University line by May 2007. If you have a stake in the success of Houston’s transit system — and you do — now is the time to contact your Congressional leaders in the House and Senate. Ask them to stand up for great Houston transit, and insist that the University line get built in the right place.

Feel free to comment in CTC’s forums.

“consider and propose policies that support a sound quality of life and sustainable growth for Houston, and where appropriate, to recommend methods for turning those policies into actionable programs or ordinances.”

Yesterday, we advanced changes that — if adopted — will facilitate more meaningful public involvement in the Major Thoroughfare and Freeway Plan (MTFP) amendment process. Since the MTFP targets roads for expansion, neighborhoods can be very interested in the process. The plan is amended each year; but until now, citizens had little visibility to the process and limited opportunity to affect the plan.

Key elements of the improved process include new:

• pre-submittal meetings where applicants can consult with Planning & Development staff (January)
• informal workshops for applicants to discuss proposed changes with Planning Commission members (May)
• public open house(s) for citizens to review and discuss applications (June)

These will all be new, earlier opportunities for ordinary Houstonians to learn more about proposed road expansions and affect them. These sessions will be in addition to the formal public hearings held each July and August, prior to Planning Commission and City Council action.

These changes will increase public involvement in road planning, which neighborhoods have been clamoring for. It’s up to the Planning Commission to adopt them. I think they should; let me know what you think in CTC’s forums.

Here’s what’s coming in June:

IH-10 expansion: Washington to Taylor
The Katy Freeway expansion west of the 610 loop is well known. But the project also includes work inside the loop, where IH-10 is among Houston’s least-congested freeways. TxDOT is planning 3 new detention ponds and a pumping station to mitigate flooding on the highway. They’ve also designed a major expansion of frontage roads, adding frontage roads where there were none around Shepherd and Studemont, moving on- and off-ramps at T C Jester and Washington, adding new elevated frontage roads which would rise 23 feet above Cottage Grove Park, and eliminating some of the grassy slopes which have reduced freeway noise. Neighborhood groups are worried, and it’s not clear that the frontage roads are even needed. The final phase of design is underway and should be completed this fall.

Get involved:

• Attend a meeting: TxDOT will hold a public open house on Thu June 8, 2006 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm regarding the proposed construction of flood mitigation pond(s) along White Oak Bayou near IH-10 inside the loop. The meeting will be held at Sinclair Elementary School (cafeteria), 6410 Grovewood Ln, Houston, 77008.
• Get more information: CTC’s IH-10 fact sheet
• Discuss these projects in CTC’s forums here: “Are proposed I-10 frontage roads inside 610 needed?”

Harris County toll road privatization study
In addition to providing much-needed transportation in major Houston corridors, Harris County’s toll road system is a cash machine, generating more than $300 million in revenue last year. As a result, a couple of investment banks told the County they would pay big money to privatize the system. Back in October 2005, Harris County agreed to look at their options with a comprehensive study that will determine whether it is in the county’s interest to fully or partially privatize the toll road system. CTC members are already fighting to make the toll road authority more accountable to Harris County taxpayers, and we’re concerned that privatization would make the situation worse, not better. The results of the privatization study are due back before the Commissioners’ June 20, 2006 meeting.

Get involved:

• Attend a meeting: Harris Cty Commissioners’ Court will review the next Capital Improvement Plan on Tues June 20, 2006 at 9:00 am. They meet downtown at 1001 Preston, 9th floor chamber, Houston, 77002.
• Discuss the privatization concept in CTC’s forums here: “Selling off Harris County’s toll road system???”
• Review the Harris County Commissioners’ Court agenda

METRO transit expansion
In 2004, 86% of Houstonians told the Houston Area Survey that a “much-improved mass transit system” is “important for the future success of Houston.” In that spirit, planning and design is underway on a system of urban light rail, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail lines which will open by 2012. These projects will shape our city and our neighborhoods for decades to come, and crucial decisions about alignments, station locations, and connections are being made right now. One light rail line (the Universities line), three BRT lines (East End, Southeast, and Uptown), and one major transfer facility (the Northern Intermodal Terminal) are in various stages of planning and design. Decisions on alignments will be made by the end of this year. We have a limited amount of transit funding; if we do not get these projects right it we will not have a chance to do it over.

Get involved:

• Attend a METRO public meeting (Call (713) 739-4018 for more info):
  Northern Intermodal Terminal meeting on Thu June 8, 2006 from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. Kettleson Elementary School, 600 Quitman St., Houston, 77009.
  Uptown BRT corridor meeting on Wed June 14, 2006 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. St. Martin’s Episcopal Church, 717 Sage, Houston, 77056.
  Universities LRT corridor meeting on Tues June 27, 2006 from 4:00 to 7:00 pm. Third Ward Multi-Service Center, 3611 Ennis, 77004.
  Universities LRT corridor meeting on Thu June 29, 2006 from 4:00 to 7:00 pm . NEW LOCATION: Holiday Inn Select, 2712 Southwest Fwy, Houston, 77098.
• Get more information: CTC’s Houston transit expansion page
• Discuss METRO’s transit expansion projects in CTC’s forums here: Local Transportation Projects & Programs

Each month, we’ll let you know what’s happening and how you can get involved. Some projects will be featured here and many more meetings will be on CTC’s online calendar. If you know of a project that should be included on our website, please email chair@ctchouston.org.

On a Tuesday night two years ago, more than 140 community leaders packed a public hearing held at the Greenway Plaza offices of the Houston-Galveston Area Council. They demanded to know whether the $77 billion of projects proposed in the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan could meet Houston’s mobility needs without worsening flooding, increasing air pollution, condemning countless homes and businesses, and consuming valuable open space.

Several leaders also asked which future(s) are we planning for? Will we really need 1,200 new lane-miles of highways when gas hits $5 or $8 or $10 per gallon and fewer people can afford to drive? Won’t we need a lot more transit options as Houston’s elderly population doubles in the next 30 years? Will the next 3.2 million Houstonians really want to live even further out from their jobs?

We were shocked and dismayed to learn that Houston’s regional “plan” for 2025 failed to deal with any of these questions. While other U.S. regions use “scenario planning” to ensure today’s projects will meet a variety of needs in an uncertain future, Houston’s plans simply assumed that current growth and development trends will continue unchanged, with the next 20 years the same as the last 20 years.

Until now.

On May 26, 2006, Harris County Judge Robert Eckels and other TPC members approved using the results of the recent Envision Houston Region community workshops to define one or more alternate “growth scenarios” for use in Houston’s next Regional Transportation Plan. The idea is that status quo development can ultimately hurt Houston’s quality of life, and we cannot afford to let that happen. We would be smart to consider alternative growth strategies — in addition to the trend — and what infrastructure we would need to help make them happen.

According to Alan Clark, H-GAC’s Director of Transportation Planning, more than 1,300 community members participated in the 9 Envision Houston workshops held across the region. He said that despite differences in geography, participants identified surprisingly common values and preferences with respect to future growth and development in our region:

• preserve open space, preserve flood plain, expand park system
• live and work closer together
• less traffic congestion, lower cost transportation, better mobility
• more transit
• healthier environment

Achieving any of these quality of life goals will require improving the linkage between transportation planning and land use planning. And to do that, we’ll need more policy guidance for land uses and transportation systems from our elected leaders in cities and counties across the region.

Read more about the Envision Houston process and discuss your ideas in CTC’s forums.

The planning process is only just beginning, and it’s important. From UH, to TSU, to Wheeler Station, to Neartown, to Greenway Plaza, to Uptown and the Galleria, the fate of the entire Universities line hangs on building community consensus around a set of route alignments. An open and informed public planning process based on rigorous technical analysis is essential. And METRO is poised to do just that during the next 6-8 months, with consultants scheduled to start work next Friday.

But… Congressman Culberson doesn’t seem to want to wait around for a pesky study to inform his transportation policy-making, as evidenced by this email he sent some of his constituents:

Dear Richmond-Area Home or Business Owner,

This Wednesday, April 12, I am hosting a Town Hall meeting in the Shell Auditorium in Rice University’s McNair Hall (6:30 to 8:00 PM) to gauge for myself the level of support or opposition to METRO’s proposal to build light rail down Richmond Avenue. I take my job as Representative very seriously, and my job requires me to work on behalf my constituents when they reach a strong consensus on quality of life issues. In the last few months, I have received hundreds of letters, emails, and phone calls opposed to building light rail on Richmond. I also recognize that the ballot used in the referendum in November 2003 clearly spelled out the “Westpark Corridor” as the proposed route, and that there is much more land and room for development along Westpark.

I know that there have been a number of meetings on this issue, and that you are fatigued from all the time this process is consuming. I am grateful for the time and energy you have spent so far, and I am confident we will reach a point this week where all members of the community have been thoroughly educated on the proposals, and have given their final input. At this town hall meeting I will listen to your comments and ideas, and make a decision based on your input. Afterwards, I will inform METRO of my position. It is very important for me to hear from as many Richmond-area residents and business owners as possible so that I can reach a conclusion based on your opinions. I am respectfully asking that you set aside one more night to share your thoughts with me, so that I can best represent you in Washington. Thank you for your patience and your time, and I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday.

John Culberson
Member of Congress

Houston doesn’t need this kind of politics. What we need is good planning. CTC believes that:

If you agree, I encourage you to come to Culberson’s town hall at Rice at 5:30 pm Wednesday night at Rice and speak up for good transit planning. Plan to arrive early since this venue is much too small for the expected crowd.

And in the meantime, contact the Congressman’s office (713) 682-8828, ask to talk to District Director Nick Swyka or Chief of Staff Bill Crow and tell them that we need to keep all the alignments on the table and study them. If you send email, I encourage you to copy Mayor White and the Chronicle at the same time.

1.a.3. Recommendation that the County Judge be authorized to execute transportation improvement agreements as part of the Metro Multi-Cities Program between the county, Metro, and the cities of:

a. Hilshire Village to provide funding for improvements on Ridgeley Drive from Westview Drive to Wirt Road.
b. Spring Valley to provide funding for improvements on Voss Road/Bracher Drive from IH-10 to Spring Branch Creek.
c. Bunker Hill Village to provide funding for improvements on Memorial Drive from Strey Lane to Clarendon and Knipp to Briarforest.
d. Piney Point Village to provide funding for improvements on North Piney Point Road from Innesfree to Surrey Oaks.

The “Metro Multi-Cities” program — also known as the “General Mobility” program — is the brain child of former Houston Mayor and transportation czar Bob Lanier. Since 1978, transit investment in Houston has been funded by a 1-penny sales tax paid by everyone in METRO’s service area. Mayor Lanier’s argument was that “most Houstonians will never ride the transit their sales taxes are paying for” so to be fair, they should get something, too (i.e. road and bridge construction). So METRO gives up a bunch of sales tax revenue and gives it back to cities in the service area to fund non-transit projects. (Of course, I would argue that good transit benefits drivers, too: I reckon that Houston freeway drivers would notice if the more than 40,000 commuters who board park-and-ride buses each weekday were in cars on the freeway, contributing to congestion, instead.)

So how much money are we talking about? $100 million/year. METRO’s 1-penny sales tax currently generates ~$400 million/year. Fully 1/4 of that is carved off for General Mobility, and allocated according to a formula. This week, Hillshire Village gets $1.73 million, Spring Valley gets $2.35 million, Bunker Hill Village gets $1.37 million, and Piney Point Village gets $281,370. But these are just four examples of a much larger redistribution. The City of Houston, Bellaire, Bunker Hill Village, El Lago, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Humble, Hunters Creek, Katy, Missouri City, Piney Point, Southside Place, Spring Valley, Taylor Lake Village, West University Place, and major portions of unincorporated Harris County all benefit from METRO’s largesse.

Even if you like the idea of spending transit money on road construction in wealthy jurisdictions and places with no bus service, some Houstonians may wonder why it is that more than 90% of METRO’s sales tax revenue is collected in the City of Houston, but Houston only gets 73.7% of the General Mobility money.

But it’s the $6.5 billion lost opportunity cost that really gets me. Let me explain: METRO’s CFO, Francis Britton, estimates that since the program’s inception, more than $1.3 billion has been reallocated. Houston could have built a LOT of high-quality urban transit with $1.3 billion. What’s worse: that local money could have been used as the match to secure another $1.3 to $5.2 billion in federal dollars, for perhaps $6.5 billion for new transit investment. But it wasn’t. And the program is scheduled to continue until 2014.

Now instead, we all have to work hard to help Congressman Culberson understand the importance of connecting the centers and encourage him to bring us the scant ~$1 billion in federal money METRO needs to build Houston’s next set of urban transit lines.

Comments? Discuss the program in CTC’s online forum.

Mayor Bill White, Congressman John Culberson, and three district City Council Members — Holm, Clutterbuck, and Edwards — hosted a public meeting regarding METRO’s Universities line at St. Luke’s UMC tonight. Their stated purpose was to listen to concerns and comments from people in the corridor. Like the METRO board meeting in February, several hundred (KTRK-13 says nearly a thousand) interested residents came out to participate.

The talking point that really caught my attention was that both Mayor White and Congressman Culberson explicitly vouched for METRO.

Mayor White introduced the topic asking, “Have you noticed that METRO has controversies from time to time?” and eliciting laughter. He reassured the audience saying, “We recruited new leadership for METRO” early in the first term. “We recruited the finest leaders in the city and the finest transit president in the country.” He said clearly that “rapid transit is an important issue” and Houston has to be serious about it:

“We’ve grown as a city and become more dense. We know there have to be alternatives other than expanding every major thoroughfare and freeway because that’s so expensive and so disruptive to our neighborhoods.”

Mayor White also reminded us that “we’re fortunate to have a Congressman on the key committees to make sure our city get its fair share of transportation funding, including transit funding.” So if we want federal money to put some real alternatives in some of our neighborhoods, Culberson is the person to go get it.

Congressman Culberson echoed the Mayor’s praise of METRO, saying “we all should know that there’s new METRO leadership.” He acknowledged his past disagreements with the previous administration, and said of the new leaders, “I’ve been extremely impressed with them” and “the new METRO board has been a real pleasure to work with.” (I hope that the Congressman works hard enough to secure needed funding to earn similar praise from METRO’s leaders.) I think the point of all the compliments is that Houstonians can and should expect more and better projects from METRO now than ever before.

Culberson was the only leader who presumed to anoint a specific route alignment, saying “I think instinctively we’ll do better to put [the rail] on Westpark where we do have the corridor,” and went on to talk about serving suburban Fort Bend County and 290. I don’t think he understands yet that his district now includes urban activity centers that are starving for high-quality urban transit. The other leaders talked about the importance of getting good information and making careful route decisions based on facts.

In general, all of the leaders present again expressed their commitment to a collaborative planning process. Several leaders assured the audience that there will be many opportunities to participate and “nothing will get crammed down the community’s throat.”

The public comments brought many speakers for Westpark, some for Richmond, and a few who are eager for commuter rail to their suburbs. Of the scores of people signed up, only the first 30 had the opportunity to speak, and each for only a minute or so. Fortunately, the district City Council members are convening nine neighborhood meetings in April in neighborhoods all along the corridor. And METRO will start the federally-required public meeting process soon after.

If you’re wondering whether you should participate in this process, you should, and Mayor White explained it best: “You are participating in an important process of building Houston for the next generation.”

The meeting opened with public comments. Thirty-one of 47 speakers came to address which options METRO should consider in the Universities light rail corridor. Five elected officials led the comments: state Representative Martha Wong, followed by Houston City Council Members Pam Holm (district G), Anne Clutterbuck (district C), Peter Brown (at-large #1), and Ada Edwards (district D). Martha Wong said there is great concern along Richmond that while the big corporations will survive the disruption of construction, that the small businesses cannot. She urged METRO to consider Westpark saying “that’s where we voted for.” Pam Holm said she is committed to working for a positive, constructive approach, that supports the community and our quality of life, and capitalizes on the resources of citizens who could be METRO’s strongest advocates. She said that building a transportation system for our city is a team effort, and that City Council can help facilitate inclusive communication. Anne Clutterbuck said she has spent many hours listening to residents and business owners, and she has found stakeholders who want mobility, want light rail, and want to work cooperatively with METRO. She asked METRO for many commitments: to continue to consider all options, to keep the process open, to encourage residents and business owners to have input, to take their concerns seriously, to provide independently verifiable ridership numbers, to provide the public with accurate revenue estimates, to keep the public advised of the timeline, to have public meetings, to consider the impact to business and city revenue during construction, and to enhance other aspects of transit service to maximize ridership along the proposed lines. Peter Brown spoke of building a great 21st century city with a great, balanced transportation system. He said the very “purpose of cities is to maximize exchange and to minimize travel times,” and that we must do this through the connections of our transportation system. He asked METRO to invite the City of Houston Planning Department to participate in meaningful corridor planning along the proposed lines, but commited to “fight any reckless eminent domain program.” Ada Edwards said she supports continued study and a good faith effort to hear citizens. While she said “Richmond should be studied until it’s absolutely shown undoable,” she also acknowledged the need for a thorough hearing of the concerns put forward by businesses.

What’s most notable to me about the elected officials’ comments is less about what they said than what they did not say: no one called for another expensive transit referendum and no one demanded that Richmond be taken off the table before it is studied. Chalk up one victory for democratic process and informed decision making!

The other 26 speakers included residents, business owners, professors, museum trustees, college presidents, architects, urban planners, chamber of commerce members, civic association presidents, transit providers, and real estate developers. Some spoke in support of a Richmond alignment, some in opposition, and many asked METRO to study the options and share the results. It is clear to me though, that much of the controversy stems from disagreement about “the facts” and what they mean.

Two speakers raised the issue of Richmond traffic but from entirely different perspectives. Daphne Scarbrough, the owner of The Brass Maiden, described Richmond as one of the busiest streets in the city and an important alternative to the Southwest Freeway. She seemed to suggest that a rail line would get in the way of cars. Further, she observed that east of Shepherd, Richmond is only two lanes each direction, and she fears there is no room for a rail line without using eminent domain to take parking and property from the adjacent land and business owners. Daphne concluded saying she does not want to see this area take an economic loss. Meanwhile, Adra Hooks observed that the Castle Court Neighborhood Association which also adjoins Richmond, views the traffic from a different perspective. She observed that today, Richmond already carries more than 25,000 vehicles per day and is near capacity, so “the question is not whether Richmond will be redeveloped, but how.” She described the current environment as “toxic for pedestrians and high risk for vehicles,” and said that Castle Court, like the Neartown Association, believes that rail transit is a viable alternative to pouring more concrete for cars. Adra echoed the sentiments of leaders in the Galleria and The Medical Center which are already “choking” on too much traffic and working hard to build pedestrian and transit alternatives to car travel. While she is also a board member of CTC, Adra spoke today as a resident who lives one block from Richmond and as a board member of the Castle Court Neighborhood Association. For reference, CoH traffic counts are available here (207 kb PDF).

For their part, the METRO board members listened intently to all the speakers, and Chairman David Wolff thanked several speakers for their suggestions. In particular, he accepted an offer from the AIA to help with consensus building, and thanked Tory Gattis for specific suggestions on how to help keep businesses afloat during the construction period. But all of the respectful exchanges of ideas in METRO’s board room failed to capture some of the strong community sentiment the Universities rail line faces.

My cousin Sharon observed the meeting from the overflow room nearby. She described the energy level there as feverish and the atmosphere as caustic. Opponents of Richmond rail hissed, booed, and catcalled as speakers in the board room talked about studying options. They applauded Richmond opponents, especially when Chris Seger described the Richmond opposition as “serious and well-funded”and mentioned discussions with the City Controller regarding how to call another referendum. My cousin said many were angry and it seemed like they’d already made up their minds — “we voted for Westpark!” — and were irritated with anyone who suggested looking at alternatives.

Planning METRO’s next transit lines will be a long process. Thursday’s board meeting included many important statements, but in the end, nothing has been concluded. I am sincerely grateful to everyone who came to the meeting today, because “the world is run by the people who show up.” But the opportunities for each of us to talk with our neighbors and fellow Houstonians about the best way to build the Universities line are just beginning.

For more, see related blog posts at Tory Gattis’ Houston Strategies and Houston Architecture Info Forum.

METRO needs federal funds to expand Houston’s rail system, which means METRO must play by the federal rules. As a result, they must analyze all of the best routes for rail viability and pick the strongest one in order to have any chance of winning federal matching dollars. METRO plans to study Westpark, Richmond, and other route alignments through the Universities corridor. They will look at ridership, neighborhood and business impacts, right-of-way requirements, traffic and environmental impacts, and many other factors. They will also gather a LOT of community input. This process is expected to begin with public meetings in April and run through December 2006. It will culminate with preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) which will present METRO’s recommended alignment alternative. This DEIS will be subject to public review and comment.

Public participation makes better projects. More to the point, gathering broad public input is the right and democratic thing to do. But apparently, this doesn’t satisfy everyone, especially two local elected representatives.

There is a group of small business owners along Richmond east of Shepherd who fear that rail on their street may destroy them. They have joined with residents from the Afton Oaks neighborhood west of Weslayan. They have been organizing since late summer and they are working hard to take Richmond off the table right now. Ironically, they are calling themselves “Richmond Area Residents and Businesses for Rail” or RARBFR.

These individuals have serious and important concerns about METRO’s project. So do other Richmond-area organizations like Neartown Association, the Museum District Business Alliance (MDBA), the Menil Foundation, the University of St. Thomas, and Crescent Real Estate-Greenway Plaza. But where Neartown, MDBA, Menil, UST, and Crescent have all committed to working with METRO to address their concerns inside the prescribed process, RARBFR is demanding to sidestep the process. They have secured this letter from US representative John Culberson:

January 25, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:

“I am writing to add my support for the Richmond Area Residents and Businesses for Rail, and urge that the Houston METRO Board of Directors oppose extending light rail down Richmond Avenue or Westheimer. My office has received a large number of complaints from concerned neighbors who oppose the construction of a light rail line down Richmond and I share their concern. The rail line would damage the neighbors’ quality of life, diminish their property values, create a safety hazard in residential areas, destroy beautiful trees and landscaping, and eliminate desperately needed traffic lanes.

I am confident METRO’s new leadership will listen to the communities affected by these rail plans. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of business owners and residents along the Richmond corridor do not want rail to be built there, and they should not have it forced upon them. I urge the METRO Board to respect the wishes of the people who have invested so much in their homes and businesses along Richmond, and build the rail line where it already has ample right of way along the Westpark Corridor.

I pledged to honor the results of the 2003 referendum, and I will continue helping METRO work with the FTA to secure Houston’s fair share of transit funding. Protecting the quality of life we have worked so hard to build is one of my top priorities, and I want to add my strong objection to those of so many others who do not want this rail line built down Richmond or Westheimer. Our Mayor Bill White and the METRO Board have said repeatedly that they will protect neighborhoods and listen and be responsive to neighborhood concerns. Moving this unwelcome rail line is a great place to start. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.”

John A. Culberson
Member of Congress

Houstonians deserve the best transit system METRO can build, which means looking at all possible choices of where to put rail. Politicians must not prematurely determine a route based on their political needs.

Many H