Universities line stakeholders start talking about process
METRO’s board met Thursday and attendance was astonishing. The board room was standing-room-only at 120, with another ~100 attendees in the lunch room to watch the proceedings on closed-circuit TV.
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.