Effort In Bill To Help Rail Deleted

[MontroseNeighborhoodCafe]

Feb. 13, 2005, 2:44AM

EFFORT IN BILL TO HELP RAIL DELETED

Proponents question whether 2 congressmen still oppose plan

By LUCAS WALL

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Language that would have sped up Metro's light rail expansion got stripped out of a massive appropriations bill in the last Congress, prompting a debate about whether two Houston congressmen are still blocking the city's rail plan.

The deletion came to light last week after the Federal Transit Administration left Metro's Northline and Southeast rail extensions out of its annual funding recommendation report to Congress.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, offered a rider to the Senate version of the appropriations bill that would have forced the FTA to accept the Metropolitan Transit Authority's nontraditional financing proposal. House staff members said they inadvertently inserted similar language in the House version, but it was deleted during frenzied conference-committee negotiations days before Thanksgiving. A similar rider for a San Francisco light rail project was not deleted and is now law.

The deletion has infuriated rail proponents, especially in light of the success of San Francisco, represented by U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Metro and its supporters contend that completion of the next four light rail lines will be postponed.

"It's an affront to the citizens of Houston," said Ed Wulfe, chairman of the Main Street Coalition, who has promoted development along the 7 1/2-mile light rail line that opened last year. "Somebody is putting their personal agenda ahead of what the people want."

After voters approved a November 2003 transit referendum authorizing an 80-mile rail network, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, said they would drop their objections to federal funding for MetroRail.

Hutchison's amendment would have authorized 100 percent federal funding for the Northline and Southeast extensions in exchange for Metro funding two later rail lines solely with local tax dollars. While DeLay and Culberson say they had nothing to do with the deletion of the amendment in the final version, they say they opposed Hutchison's rider, which by authorizing full federal funding, exempted Metro from federal law requiring at least a 20 percent local contribution on each rail segment. The typical local share is more like 50 percent.

"Culberson is the only Texas member of the transportation appropriations subcommittee," said Robin Holzer, chairwoman of the Citizens Transportation Coalition, a grass-roots organization that promotes more public transit in Houston. "The committee conferees would defer to the Texas delegation on this matter, especially the representative from Houston. "

Hutchison's proposal "would have changed the way we've funded rail projects," DeLay said Friday while attending a Fort Bend County Republican Party dinner. "Metro wanted 100 percent funding, and I don't agree with that. It's the wrong thing for Metro to see if they can get full funding from Congress. They should come up with some matching funds."

Culberson said Friday that Metro asked him in October to support the amendment. He sent letters to the chairmen of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Don Young, R-Alaska, and the House transportation appropriations subcommittee, Ernest Istook, R-Okla. Both responded they strongly objected to the exemption Metro sought.

Given those reservations, Culberson, the region's only member on the House Appropriations Committee, told Metro he could not endorse the amendment, which he also personally opposed.

"What Metro was asking for is illegal and utterly inappropriate because all 200 rail-transit projects across the country would then ask for the same 100 percent full funding deal," Culberson said. The conferees "should have struck it, you bet."

DeLay and Culberson both repeated their pledge last week not to block MetroRail funding once the FTA recommends it. Metro hopes to get its FTA rating no later than July so it will be eligible for money in the fiscal 2006 appropriations bill.

First line locally funded

Rail supporters note that Metro built the $324 million Main Street line with only local funds after DeLay put a rider in a 2001 appropriations bill banning the FTA from granting federal dollars to Metro for light rail. They also note that Metro would pay for all of the$160 million Harrisburg line and the $439 million Westpark line.

If the federal government paid for the $356 million Northline extension and the $424 million Southeast line, that would represent only 44 percent of the rail system's total $1.7 billion cost.

Metro proposed the unusual funding plan as a way to accelerate construction of the Harrisburg and Westpark lines. If no federal money is used on those projects, the authority could bypass the FTA's lengthy review process.

Frank Wilson, Metro president and CEO, said all four rail extensions could be under construction simultaneously if Congress agreed to the waiver -- opening a year or two ahead of the 2012 goal set in the referendum.

"I certainly want to help give the maximum flexibility to the transit authority," Hutchison said Friday in Houston.

House Republican aides said the deletion of Hutchison's amendment was not made by party leaders.

"The language was inadvertently included because of staff error and was removed," said John Scofield, House Appropriations Committee spokesman.

Chris Paulitz, Hutchison's spokesman, said the senator succeeded in getting another rider into the bill to help Metro. Congress approved language exempting Metro from the preliminary study required by the FTA for all future rail lines that were part of the 2003 referendum. That will help expedite the projects and save money, he said.

"The senator does not think you need to spend $10 million of hardworking Texans' taxpayer money just to reaffirm what they already said at the ballot box," Paulitz said. "We are willing to look at every avenue to make this a faster project and process."

Culberson said he supported that amendment.

Deal granted to other cities

Other lawmakers question why Culberson would vehemently oppose flexibility for financing, and why he'd vote for a bill giving such flexibility to San Francisco but not Houston.

"We have been providing these light rail funds to cities that are half our size," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston.

"It seems like we as a delegation ought to quit fighting old battles and get together."

Green said Metro is not asking for anything unprecedented. San Francisco for years has obtained a waiver for its Third Street light rail line, the first section of which is under construction solely with local funds.

The FTA will then pay for most of the second phase, which is being designed. Other cities have obtained similar financing deals from Congress.

"We are short-changing our own constituents," Green said. "We are picking cities around the country who we would rather appropriate transportation dollars to than our own neighborhoods."

Mayor Bill White said he spoke Friday with Culberson and Hutchison to stress the need for Congress to expedite MetroRail expansion.

"I do not know why any member from Texas would have opposed the original language proposed by Senator Hutchison," White said. "It's fair to require a substantial local match, but the form of the local match should be flexible and practical so to allow construction as soon as we can."

Culberson said he doesn't know why the San Francisco waiver went through while the Houston waiver got spiked.

"Just because San Francisco was able to sneak illegal and inappropriate legislative language into the final omnibus bill doesn't make it right for Houston," he said. "We shouldn't change the law to let one guy rob the bank."

Metro Chairman David Wolff said it's appropriate to ask Congress for financial flexibility, and he wishes Culberson and DeLay would have supported Hutchison's rider.

"This is the time for them to show the people of Houston they strongly support money coming to Houston rather than going to Dallas, New York or other cities," Wolff said. "That's what a congressman is supposed to do.

"It's very difficult to get federal money without the cooperation of Congressman DeLay and Congressman Culberson."

Chronicle reporters Gebe Martinez in Washington and Anne Marie Kilday and Rad Sallee in Houston contributed to this report.

[KinkaidAlum]

We really need more than a two party system because as long as there is an ® next to their names, goons like these two will continue to be elected.

This is shameful. Culberson has been caught red-handed. The same "criminal" application that he speaks of with regards to METRO, he approved for San Francisco! Un-friggin-believable.

Kudos to Kay Bailey Hutchinson. She will be the next Republican that I vote for (the last being Weld for Governor in Massachusetts).

[ssullivan]

You know the more I think about this the madder I get about it. Not only was the San Francisco application for a light rail line, but much of that particular new line is grade level, street-running light rail in the median just like what Metro wants to build here. Yet for some odd reason the same technology doesn't get approved for Houston. And Culberson says he's not trying to delay Metro's implementation of the Solutions plan that we approved last year (which by the way was about a lot more than just light rail -- there's a lot of bus, transit center, and park and ride expansion in it as well). Yeah right.

I've never been a big fan of Kay Bailey Hutchinson but in this case I give her kudos for doing the right thing and trying to help Houston out. As I'm drafting my letters of disapproval to DeLay and Culberson, she will be getting one of thanks for at least trying to get us the funding we need. I think she's also highly responsible for the rapid speed at which the DART rail system in Dallas was expanded after it first opened.

[debmartin]

houston got the first section of light rail up and running with local funding, yet we're still fighting for our fair share of federal funds - fighting with the two morons who represent our interests in washington! its clear that we'll never get a fair shake until we get rid of these two good ol' boys. why is this so hard for people to understand?

debmartin

[jt16]

Well... because people vote for reasons other than rail. I'd speculate that ranks almost dead last in issues voters think about. That said, I've already sent emails to both voicing my displeasure as a young conservative in favor of rail in Houston.

[ssullivan]

Well yes people do vote for more than just rail. But the fact is I have a very hard time finding other reasons to vote for either DeLay or Culberson. Now I know that my political views are not in line with the average Texas voter but with the ethics charges that have been brought against DeLay, and his meddling with the Texas Congressional redistricting two years ago, and everything else, I don't get why it is that people think he must be some sort of god because of his party affiliation. Even if rail wasn't an issue at all I don't think I'd vote for either of these guys because they've always been far more interested in advancing their own careers and personal wealth than really representing this region well.

[Talbot]

Hopefully soon, most will realize the motives behind these two shady characters and one day, we will be blessed with them not being elected.