Over the years, I have been active in many local conservative causes; however, for the last ten years, the fight against rail on Richmond Avenue has garnered the majority of my attention. I was surprised by Congressman Ted Poe’s involvement in this fight because Metro has all but abandoned the idea of Richmond rail. Since the idea of Richmond rail has arisen from the dead, I thought that it would be helpful to provide history and context for voters – because they have already decided this issue.
Referendums
In 2003, voters did not approve Richmond rail because the ballot language did not include Richmond Avenue. Even though the voters did not approve rail on Richmond, a group of mass transit zealots and former Metro CEO Frank Wilson, a man clouded by successive scandals, decided to move the proposed rail from Westpark to Richmond.
In 2012, voters were given the opportunity to speak again on the light rail issue. Voters overwhelmingly voted to maintain the general mobility payments to the member cities and Harris County by 78.8{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}. This result meant that voters did not want Metro spending the general mobility funds on additional light rail lines. For decades, these payments have been used for road maintenance. As any Harris County driver knows, we have an unlimited number of potholes that demand repair. Some, if not all, of the member cities of Metro have become very dependent on this money and some use the money entirely for road improvements, maintenance, and storm drain repairs. As member cities, Metro subsidizes budgets in Bellaire, Memorial Villages, West University, Southside Place, Katy, and Missouri City. Missouri City residents, for example, pay no property taxes due to these disbursements. Another member city, the City of Houston, received 90 million dollars this year in general mobility payments. In 2012, mass transit fans thought they could usurp the general mobility payments for light rail and they were wrong. Score one for the good guys.
Metro
In 2010, immediately upon taking office, Annise Parker appointed Gilbert Garcia as Chairman of Metro. This is the smartest decision that Parker has made while serving in elective office. While Gilbert and I disagree on the value of light rail, he is an honest businessman. An investment banker by trade, Gilbert quickly realized that the cost of rail put Metro into a horrible financial situation. As an aside, the City of Houston (mayor) controls five of the nine Metro board seats with the remainder controlled by the county (Commissioner’s Court).
Richmond Rail/University Line
For years, a talented group of lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, activists, business owners, and property owners worked together to fight rail on Richmond Avenue. While the reasons for participating varied, one thing was clear – the voters did not approve rail on Richmond. Local media folks seemingly fell in line with the rail zealots and I believe that it was because Metro runs a 5 million dollar a year public relations department that includes former employees of the Chronicle and Television media outlets, Jerome Gray being the latest. The thing about rail advocates is that they want rail…in someone else’s backyard. For years, the overwhelming position of business and property owners on Richmond was that rail would destroy their business and property value. Exhibit A: Red Line.
I challenge each reader to ride the Red Line and see what you think about the idea of rail in your backyard. If the goal of rail is to move people, take cars off the road, and create business around the rail line, the existing and planned rail does nothing to accomplish these objectives. Instead, businesses cannot stay open and the Red Line is filled with homeless folks looking for air conditioning and shelter. The only cars that are taken off the road are the ones involved in accidents with the rail cars.
These armies, Metro v. Anti-Richmond Rail, have been off the battlefield for the last few years because it was clear that Metro did not have the financial stability to continue building light rail around town. My team remains ready to jump into the fight whenever necessary. There are several anti-rail warriors on constant vigil watching and waiting for an opportunity to begin an attack. Metro has disengaged, primarily because they are out of bullets – money. Also, Gilbert and the board members have their hands full with fiscal issues and the Post Oak Line. Other potential problems are looming, including cost overruns involving the existing three lines under construction and the 150 people needed to maintain the new lines. To be clear, there is no money for the University Line.
Ted Poe
So, why did Poe kick over this ant hill? There are two rumors but only the congressman knows for sure. The first theory involves the new owners of Greenway Plaza. I am not sure that I believe this because Greenway Plaza is in Congressman John Culberson’s district. Ted Poe, an experienced prosecutor and judge, is not going to pick a fight with a senior appropriations member over a constituent not in his district. A second theory is that Poe just wanted to stake a position in opposition of Culberson for fundraising purposes. This idea makes a little more sense because the rail zealots love to team up with political economic opportunists (engineers) to promote ideas that put money in their pockets. Remember Proposition One?
Future Plans
Where does all of this leave us? I have been speaking with Chairman Garcia and I share his belief that the next extension to be built will mostly likely be 90-A. This route was originally part of the 2003 referendum and will follow the existing freight rail line out Main Street en route to Missouri City, Sugar Land and Fort Bend County. Congressman Al Green, Fort Bend County, Missouri City, and others have been pushing for this line for several years. Commuters theoretically would use this line to come into the city via the Fannin Street station. Heavy rail would be utilized and another track could be placed alongside the existing freight rail down the 90-A corridor. John Culberson just might support this route for these reasons.
I am a light rail opponent so I oppose any light rail in Houston because it does not remove cars from the road and damages businesses and property rights. Basically, there are no benefits of light rail in Houston.
Heavy rail also known as commuter rail is different from light rail because of its use of a regular train configuration and is grade separated from existing streets. Bill King has long talked about the need for grade separation and the pit falls of putting light rail lines on city streets. Without grade separation, the rail competes with cars, which creates more congestion and, even worse, trains hit things more frequently when they are mixed with cars. Also, light rail uses an expensive electrical overhead power source. Light rail construction demands the roadbeds must be totally reconstructed removing existing major utilities from underneath the road.
John Culberson
From the beginning, Congressman John Culberson was involved in the rail fight. Culberson has secured 46 million dollars in federal funding for the north and southeast light rail lines, and seven million dollars for exemplary bus service. John was also instrumental in obtaining reimbursement for the Red Line, a line that was built without Federal funds. Congressman Culberson’s position on light rail and his reasoning for his position on the Richmond line is clearly articulated. The congressman placed language in the 2003 referendum that the referendum could not be altered. You now know that Metro authorities attempted to change what the voters approved.
In 2003, voters believed they were voting for heavy rail lines running along I-10, Westpark, and I-45. Bill White and Frank Wilson decided to go against the vote and altered the plan. They created a light rail system inside the loop that took no cars off the road. Moreover, they misled the public by misstating the costs: 622 million versus the real cost, 4 billion.
I do appreciate elected officials who force local bureaucrats to keep it real. This is exactly what Congressman Culberson has done. If you want to see what Culberson can do, drive down I-10 from downtown to Katy. Just as many commuters use interstate 10 than use all of Metro to put it in perspective.
Conclusion
After years of poor leadership, there is cause for optimism at Metro. With the addition of Gilbert Garcia, Metro seems to be on the right track. I hope the direction sees 90-A as the next alignment built rather than Richmond Avenue, which would be a debacle. Going forward, we need to assess our current rail situation and determine if rail actually makes sense for Houston. We must review traffic studies, business reports, and tax revenue and develop a cost-benefit analysis for the light-rail program. We are out of money at the Federal level and precious resources need to be used for road building and expansion, it is imperative we keep up with growth. Building more rail lines in the hope people will ride it is nonsense. Los Angeles built 18 billion dollars’ worth of light-rail and has the worse traffic in the world. LA neglected their road building needs and it cost them dearly.
It sickens me every time I hear the argument that we need to build rail because Houston is growing. No, we need to build roads and expand existing major corridors because the Houston area is growing. 98{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of Houstonians use public roads and less than 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} use mass transit. Let’s apply what we learned from the Red Line, which is that rail kills businesses and jobs. We currently have 3 new light-rail lines under construction and we need a fair assessment of their vitality after operations begin. We can then have a more informed debate about the need for more rail vs. road expansion. If we are going to have a very expensive transportation option, we need to make sure that it works.
