SEARCH RESULTS
08 August 2006
Confusion reigns supreme with Metro's University Line
The latest story on Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck's proposed University line route is a bit strange. Not because of Rad Sallee's reporting, but because of the material he has to work with:
Houston Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck apologized Monday to residents from neighborhoods in the Museum District for the impression that she is pushing a light rail plan that would raze some of their homes for the tracks.
Instead, she said, her proposal would place the tracks outside the sound walls that separate the neighborhood from the north side of the Southwest Freeway, with the tracks overhanging part of the freeway. The plan is an option to avoid laying the tracks on nearby Richmond Avenue.
[snip]
Clutterbuck explained that while driving on Dallas' North Central Expressway she had seen a light rail line suspended over the wall of the freeway and asked Metropolitan Transit Authority officials to consider a similar arrangement here.
"Metro showed me their plan and said 'you'd take all these houses,' but I said, 'You're not listening that's not what I'm asking. You wouldn't have to take all those houses if it's cantilevered."
Morgan Lyons, spokesman for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, said he consulted with a DART engineer and neither of them could think of a DART line suspended as described. Lyons said parts of the system are elevated over freeways at crossings or run parallel to freeways, possibly appearing cantilevered when seen from a car.
[snip]
Glen Eisen, who lives on Castle Court a block north of the freeway, said that even if the rail were suspended, Metro would still have to take some homes to reach Main. Clutterbuck said she had not investigated how Metro might accomplish that transition or how the cantilever technique would affect the signature bridges over the freeway.
Well, this has certainly cleared everything up. Suspend the tracks just like Dallas did...except that Dallas didn't do that.
But this confusion isn't Councilwoman Clutterbuck's fault; it's Rep. John Culberson's fault. Really!
Doug Childers, president of www.richmondrail.org, joked that "when we said put the rail where the people are, we didn't mean this." He blamed the confusion in part on U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, for announcing his opposition to a Richmond route last week before studies were completed.
Speaking of confusion, that would be the same Doug Childers who works for a firm that wants to capitalize on light-rail development. We need a scorecard to keep track of all this.
BLOGVERSATION: The Mighty Wizard.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/08/06 06:19 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (9)
01 August 2006
Rep. Culberson announcement on Richmond rail this morning (updated)
Rep. John Culberson's office sends along word that the congressman will be announcing his position on Metro's proposed Richmond Avenue rail this morning at 10 o'clock at the James Coney Island parking lot, 3607 South Shepherd Drive, Houston.
Metro is set to announce its preferred alignment on Monday.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: The Chronicle's Rad Sallee has a story today that covers both anti-Richmond and pro-Richmond groups. The story does not once mention the 2003 referendum on light rail on Westpark, instead focusing on the assertions of those who favor and oppose Richmond rail.
Doug Childers makes another appearance in a Chronicle story:
Doug Childers, president of richmondrail.org, said Monday that he has 1,200 signatures on a petition favoring Richmond over Westpark as the route.
The story does not make clear that Childers is an associate principal at a firm that hopes to capitalize on light-rail development in dense areas, as the Chronicle reported previously:
One proposed Midtown project could have been a model for urban development: Morris Architects planned an energy-efficient new building combining offices, apartments and retail, but because of high construction costs and depressed office rents, the firm is now considering existing buildings on or near light rail, said Morris architect Doug Childers.
Childers is also a member of the Greater Houston Partnership's Transit Committee. As we've noted before, what the downtown establishment wants, it tends to get in Houston, and the downtown establishment seems particularly keen on putting light rail on Richmond. News consumers may find that background on Childers useful, since most reports to date have suggested (by omission) that he fronts just another citizens' group.
Speaking of citizens' groups, the Citizens' Transportation Coalition's Robin Holzer makes an appearance at the end of Sallee's story:
Robin Holzer of the Citizens Transportation Coalition, a volunteer group that analyzes local road and transit projects, notes that some parties have not taken sides on a route but favor "a full, detailed planning process."
"This rail infrastructure will shape Houston for the next 20 to 30 years," just as the Loop and Beltway have, she said. "It's imperative to build the University line and others in the right place, where they will serve the most people. Finding the right place requires detailed, thoughtful analysis."
Holzer questioned why Culberson would announce a decision four months before Metro's environmental impact studies will be completed.
Because of the phrasing, a casual news consumer probably wouldn't realize that "some parties [that] have not taken sides on a route" would not include Holzer's group, which has strongly supported Richmond rail on its website, going so far as to question the accuracy of one anti-Richmond group skeptical of METRO's utopian promises that Richmond rail won't take lanes from traffic, property from landowners, or trees from the environment (see this photo collection, which illustrates that those concerns are real). One could draw the conclusion that perspectives different from those of the CTC are not part of detailed, thoughtful analysis.
In the end, it remains unclear why the preferences of Christof Spieler, Robin Holzer, architects who hope to benefit from Richmond rail development, Galleria/Greenway realtors, and bloggers from the Heights should trump the preferences of 2003 voters and Richmond homeowners and businessowners who oppose METRO's Westpark/Richmond bait and switch.
It will be interesting to see if Rep. Culberson shares that view.
UPDATE (10:59 am): Rep. Culberson announced his opposition to rail on Richmond, citing communications from Richmond constituents opposing rail on Richmond by a margin of well over 90%. That brought cheers from anti-Richmond activists. Pro-Richmond activists expressed displeasure, but were mostly respectful during the Congressman's announcement (interrupting a couple of times). I didn't try to count heads (the professional journalists can do that), but I did get a number of photos that I will post and link after work today.
UPDATE (12:35 pm): Responding to the line that today's story does not mention the 2003 referendum, Chronicle assistant city editor Don Mason emails the following:
True, but the accompanying graphic does mention it under "pros" for the Westpark route, and we've hardly ignored that argument in our coverage.
Those are fair points. The graphic in question is located here.
UPDATE (4:15 pm): Dan Patrick says he will be speaking to Rep. Culberson in the 5:00 hour on KSEV-700.
UPDATE (9:41 pm): Some photos from the event are posted to this Flickr set.
UPDATE (08-02-2006): The good folks at Lone Star Times have posted my captured audio mp3 of Dan Patrick's interview with Rep. Culberson here.
BLOGVERSATION: TBIFOC.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/01/06 06:05 AM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (9)
29 January 2007
Chron: METRO cuts bus service six days, claims net weekly increase
In an article about rider complaints over METRO's latest "service adjustments," the Chronicle's Rad Sallee takes a closer look at the recent changes:
Ever since the massive 2004 revamping to coordinate bus service with the new MetroRail which replaced all the buses on Main Street critics have accused the agency of cutting bus service and forcing riders onto the light rail to boost its ridership.
At first glance, the current changes do look like a cut in bus service. As Metro describes them in capsule summaries, 18 say "discontinue trip" and another 10 say "remove service."
On the plus side, seven of the changes "add a trip," two "extend trips" and one will "increase frequency."
Another 10 are described with the neutral term "adjust." The reasons given include "to match ridership demand," "for more effective service," "to eliminate passenger overloads," "to operate directly to downtown," and yes "to allow connection with MetroRail."
Overall, there will be fewer bus hours on weekdays and Sundays and more on Saturdays, for a modest net increase of 20 hours a week, [METRO spokeswoman and former Chron staffer Raequel] Roberts said. The sum includes the new Cypress Park & Ride.
Those numbers seem a bit unusual, since Roberts is effectively saying METRO has cut bus hours systemwide six days of the week, but has increased bus hours systemwide enough on one day (Saturdays) for an overall weekly increase.
In any case, it seems far short of METRO's promise in the 2003 referendum to boost bus service by 50%. Of course, METRO doesn't always see the need to stand by its promises to voters, instead letting real-estate developers and other special interests drive the area's transit policymaking.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/29/07 10:28 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (6)
27 January 2007
Local Congressmembers want promised light rail, not bus rapid transit
The Chronicle's Rad Sallee reports that two area Democratic members of Congress are pushing for federal money to fund light-rail lines that METRO promised voters in the 2003 referendum:
As Metro began negotiations with a contractor to oversee construction of four planned bus rapid transit lines, two local members of Congress said Thursday they will push for federal money to fund light rail lines instead.
Metro said last year it would build the lines with rail in the ground and operate buses in their own right-of-way separated from other traffic along the track until ridership grows enough to justify switching to trains.
Some residents who voted for light rail in a 2003 referendum have objected to that, and Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green, both D-Houston, said they would work with the Democratic majority in Congress to get the rail funding.
We do not often print the following words, but Reps. Jackson Lee and Green are correct.
The 2003 referendum specified light rail (not bus rapid transit) routes, and it promised a 50% increase in bus service. Minority communities such as those represented by Reps. Jackson Lee and Green were targeted by pro-rail advocates, and likely provided the winning margin in the referendum vote.
Since then, those communities have seen cuts in bus service (called service improvements!), and bus rapid transit lines substituted for the promised light rail lines. There has also been an effort to route the Westpark light rail line away from Westpark (which would best service riders in the impoverished Gulfton area) to areas that are favored by Galleria-area real-estate developers, architects whose firms hope to capitalize on certain types of projects, bloggers who live in the Heights, and other special interests.
At some point, we would expect some communities that are more dependent on mass transit than others to ask what METRO is doing for them.
UPDATE: In a semi-related story, Bennett Roth of the Chronicle's vestigial D.C. bureau speculates that new Congressional rules on earmarks may or may not affect funding of Houston projects, including transit projects.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/27/07 04:16 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (1)
11 February 2007
Shocker: Northsiders complain METRO deceived them
Earlier this week, the Chronicle's Rad Sallee reported that northside business owners and residents are complaining that METRO has not been forthcoming about its plans for the North line:
Several business owners on North Main and Fulton said Thursday that the Metropolitan Transit Authority misled them about how much land it will condemn to build its North Bus Rapid Transit line.
[snip]
Several owners said they had not spoken with Metro recently about its plans but were concerned after seeing their properties listed in the thick environmental statement released Dec. 29 as among those to be acquired.
The statement was a hurdle Metro had to clear to qualify for 50 percent federal funding of the $275 million, 5.4-mile line. On Aug. 23 the Metro board approved the route, from the University of Houston-Downtown to Northline Mall.
Metro spokeswoman Sandra Salazar said the actual number of properties needed will probably be much smaller than the 114 entire parcels and 85 partial ones listed in the document.
Actual, probably -- who really knows? The METRO modus operandi all too often seems to be obfuscation and ambiguity in pursuit of the "world class" preferences of real-estate developers and other special interests. Why expect any specificity or accountability, ever, from the organization?
One of METRO's biggest blog boosters had an illuminating (if naive) bit about the Westpark Line in a recent post:
Heres what you need to know about Gulfton and the University Line:
- Gulfton has the highest population density in the Houston region. East of Greenway Plaza, there are more people along Richmond than along Westpark. West of Greenway, there are more people along Westpark. A 1 mile circle around the corner of Westpark and Chimney Rock takes in 34,000 people. The same sized circle at Richmond and Chimney Rock takes in 24,000. Moreover, the population at Westpark is poorer median income of 29,000 vs. median income of 40,000 at Richmond so a larger percentage would use transit.
- All three options for the University Line west of Main run right alongside Gulfton, within walking distance of huge apartment complexes.
- METRO isnt showing any stops in Gulfton.
The last point, obviously, makes little sense. But we can change it.
It makes perfect sense, if you view the Westpark Line from the perspective of real-estate developers, "world class" utopians, architects who hope to benefit from expensive development along the rail line, and other special interests who may not want "those Gulfton people" sharing the fancy, world-class rail line so easily with the really cool kids.
But no, if viewed from the perspective of the largely poor, transit-dependent masses of the Gulfton area -- whose votes certainly were critical in passing the 2003 referendum -- it doesn't make much sense at all. As far as the notion "we can change it" -- good luck! Maybe two bloggers who have regularly corresponded with METRO on how to sell its Richmond plans in light of significant opposition have more pull with the organization than normal people.
Interestingly, plans for the Uptown line are proceeding apace, with very little conversation about the impact along the anticipated route. Given the heavy traffic congestion already in the Galleria area, one suspects the Uptown district isn't too keen on more Main Street style transit that steals traffic lanes, causes accidents, and worsens congestion. Will large portions of that route be elevated in response? What will that do the expense? It's hard to find those answers on METRO's website, but surely the real-estate developers have it mostly figured out. After all, real-estate development is an important component of transit policy in the Houston area -- seemingly more important to some people than mobility.
UPDATE (02-12-2007): Rad Sallee posts additional information relevant to the Northside story in today's Move It column, writing that space concerns limited his earlier reporting. A Chron.com transit blog might be handy for those sorts of matters!
BLOGVERSATION: Off the Kuff.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 02/11/07 01:37 PM | Houston Transit | Technorati | Comments (2)
SEARCH
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.