CTC stands up for John Q. Public...sometimes
Something has been gnawing at blogHOUSTON for a while now: citizen advocates who fight for the public's right to have a say in road projects, yet fight against the public's right to have a say in mass transit projects.
You know what I'm talking about.
The Citizens Transportation Coalition has done terrific work in making TxDOT and HCTRA more open and accountable to the public who are impacted by their projects. Specifically TxDOT's I-45 widening project and the Grand Parkway come to mind. In fact, here are a couple of ways the CTC wants toll roads to be more accountable to citizens:
# The State of Texas must certify that a new toll road authority funded project has gone through a robust public citizen review process. This would include public meetings held at least 60 days after a public announcement of the meeting and the public release of information and plans detailing the proposal.
# Citizens can petition for the right to approve or disapprove a new toll road authority funded project by ballot initiative.
However, when it comes to Metro's University Line, the folks at CTC are critical of those who oppose a light rail line down Richmond Avenue. Robin Holzer and Christof Spieler want Richmond to be studied and considered no matter what the citizens who live and work along Richmond want, and never mind that the 2003 vote didn't say anything about Richmond Avenue. In fact, Holzer thinks the democratic process is victorious when the public DOESN'T have a say in a Richmond Avenue line:
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!
That's quite a contrast to the stand she takes when dealing with TxDOT:
Dear I-45 and North Corridor Coalition leaders:
It appears that TxDOT is keeping citizens, stakeholders, and elected leaders along the I-45 corridor in the dark again...
Follow the link to read the rest, plus you can read a series of posts in the CTC's forum that show how the CTC will go all out for public accountability when it comes to roads.
And then we get to last weekend's op-ed by David Crossley and Christof Spieler. In it they say that in Houston people are willing to walk and that with the right kind of public transit, people will give up their cars. Okay, sure there are some people who will do that, but enough to justify spending billions of dollars? Color me skeptical. And no matter how many people ride transit, it is highly probable that it will always have to be heavily subsidized by taxpayers. People LIKE their cars, and the freedom their cars give them. That will not change.
At the end of their op-ed, Crossley and Spieler write:
Urban transit has the potential to make our city a better place to live and work. But we have to do it right. We have to protect our neighborhoods. We have to build something that will be an amenity, not an eyesore. And above all, we have to put the stations where the people are, in our dense urban fabric. That makes sense in terms of building a better Houston. But it also makes simple economic sense.
Apparently, asking the people who live in those dense urban areas what they want isn't a part of the grand plan. If this was a road or freeway they were talking about, you can bet this op-ed would have a completely different focus.
It is surreal to see the same self-described citizen advocates who are all about public accountability when it comes to roads, do a complete 180 when it comes to a world-class vision of mass transit for all.
They lose a whole lot of credibility in the process.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: Many of the pro-Richmond-rail advocates have tried to pull off an interesting dance. On the one hand, they contend they just want a fair process that determines the "best" route for the Westpark rail line. On the other hand, they insist that the "best" route is not Westpark, but Richmond -- whatever people who actually live/work/drive along that street may think.
Certainly, citizens and groups enjoy the right to argue for/against particular policies. But it's increasingly clear that some pro-Richmond-rail groups aren't really arguing in favor of process or accountability or popular sovereignty (whatever rhetorical homage they may pay to those things), but in favor of a particular placement for the Westpark rail line driven by a certain vision of urban development and mass transit. There's certainly nothing with that, but as Anne points out above, the advocacy doesn't always match the rhetoric used to dress it up.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 05/05/06 08:29 AM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
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.