Judging rail
Charles Bacarisse, candidate for Harris County Judge, has had a lot to say about light rail recently. Or, rather, he’s said one thing over and over.
From his platform:
As county judge, I pledge to use every tool at my disposal to demand that METRO either (1) adhere to the clear terms of the 2003 Referendum, or (2) take a revised plan to the voters for their consent.
In an email to Off the Kuff on February 5:
Long story short: since METRO went back to the drawing board, they must go back to the voters.
From the Chronicle on February 7 (Does the Chronicle read Off the Kuff, perhaps?):
“The word ‘Richmond’ is never mentioned in the ballot language,” Bacarisse added, “and if they want to change it they should just go back to the voters and ask for permission.”
From a debate last Friday sponsored by the Intown Chamber and the Houston Association of Realtors:
“They also are not adhering to the language of the 2003 METRO Solutions ballot that was passed by our community.”
I’ve talked before about the ballot language (and about the fake documentation, too). Short story: no law requires METRO to ask approval to put light rail on a particular street, and the proposed University Line west of Main fits the ballot description as well as, say, the Main Street Line fits its name.
But here’s the interesting part: in all of these statements, Bacarisse is talking about legalities, not transportation. He likely thinks that the University Line is not a worthwhile project, but he’s not saying that. He’s talking about the ballot. And that’s probably a very astute political move. Attacking METRO as an undemocratic bureaucracy plays well with his anti-big-government Republican base. But it still keeps his options open to run as a pro-transit candidate in November by putting out his own plan.
Ed Emmett, Bacarisse’s opponent in the Republican Primary, is taking a different approach. He’s not attacking METRO, but he’s also not putting forth the kind of extravagant pro-rail rhetoric we heard from, say, Lee Brown. Here’s his take on the University Line:
I think the logical place to put it is down Richmond,” said incumbent Ed Emmett, a transportation consultant. “That’s where the people are, that’s where the businesses are.
…
Emmett countered that the voice of the public has been expressed by neighborhood associations along the transit route, which he said support the light rail line as a bloc.
“If these people don’t speak for the people, then I don’t know who does,” the county government chief said.
It’s a fairly straightforward analysis. Emmett seems to be trying to come off more as a competent technocrat than as a politician, a formula that’s worked very well for Bill White. He may be losing some primary votes in the process, but he’s hoping to pick up votes in November.
Luckily for Emmett, his transportation background helps him out. At Friday’s debate, both candidates were asked about commuter rail.
Bacarisse went first:
“I do favor heavy commuter rail on the 290 corridor and also we need to look at at out the I-10 corridor as well as 288 south. What I’m concerned about is that METRO has insisted on moving forward with a light rail plan that really does not address areas of congestion in our community, and that’s a problem.”
…
“We need heavy rail, we need it where people are traveling back and forth, and we need it to serve the most riders it can possible serve.”
Emmett responded:
“Commuter rail is something I’ve been talking about for a long time, even before I became county judge, because it has to be part of the overall regional transportation system. The first corridor really should be 290. Unfortunately, I-10 is not an option because they took the railroad up so you can’t build commuter rail out I-10. Likewise, there’s no railroad track out 288, so you can’t do that either. The second option would be 90A down Main Street, and that is a viable option, as is 45 coming in from the south from Galveston. All those need to be done.”
Bacarisse’s answer is a political one: it sounds good, but it doesn’t make much sense (is the Galleria area, where METRO is proposing light rail, not congested? And how do the riders get from commuter rail, which can enter neither Downtown not Uptown nor Greenway nor the Texas Medical Center, to work?) and it’s factually inaccurate. Emmett’s answer is a technical analysis: a bit boring, but accurate.
Transit plays an interesting role in Houston area politics. Most other kinds of transportation projects — freeway widenings, toll roads, container terminals, airport expansions — tend to receive broad bipartisan support from elected officials and little attention from the media or the public. Where they do get controversial, the controversy tends to be local. But transit projects are, from the moment they are proposed, vigorously opposed by some and almost automatically supported by others. And transit projects involve the kinds of issues people get excited about: big government, emminent domain, suburbs vs. the city, even race. No other form of transportation offers as much room for politicians to play politics.
The irony is that transit projects are actually more subject to public input than any other kind of transportation projects. We’ve never voted on a freeway, a toll road, or a road widening. Highway projects are changed dramatically after environmental impact statements are completed and hearings are held, toll roads don’t involve any sort of hearings or published reports at all, and road widenings — which routinely take private property — are approved as line items in pages of lists. Even port projects — which do need voter approval if bonds are involved– don’t get the constant attention from the media that transit does.
Transit is a political proxy; it stands for much more than just tracks. It’s an issue, that, played well, can win elections. We’ll see soon
whether Bacarisse or Emmett is playing it best. Early voting (pdf) begins on next Tuesday the 19th. Election day is March 4. Meanwhile, discuss in the forums.