Ted Poe vs. John Culberson

[Slick Vik]

Poe emerges as new rail line champion

By Dug Begley

August 1, 2013

A long-discussed, fiercely disputed light rail line between the University of Houston and the Uptown area remains shelved for lack of funding, but the project gained an important ally Tuesday in Washington.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, whose district shifted earlier this year to include portions of the area where the planned University Line would run along Richmond Avenue, said door-to-door canvassing by his staffers as well as phone and online responses demonstrate his constituents support the line.

In remarks Tuesday on the House floor, Poe said 604 respondents to a Facebook solicitation supported the rail line, compared to 340 opposed to it.

"We're not saying it is scientific, but it does help let me know what people are thinking," Poe said. "I believe the area I represent wants light rail."

Poe's district includes Richmond from Main Street to Shepherd Drive. The alignment west of Shepherd lies within the district of Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, one of the rail line's most formidable and implacable foes.

Culberson said the line is unaffordable and Metro has told him as much.

Further, he said the line voters approved did not include a long segment down Richmond. The 2003 ballot information described the line running along the Westpark corridor.

"If Metro ever gets to the point where they can afford it and they follow the will of the voters, I think then we can talk about this," Culberson said.

16 stations planned

As currently designed, the University Line would stretch from the main UH campus to the Hillcroft Transit Center near the U.S. 59/Westpark Tollway split.

The line would run mostly along Alabama Street, Richmond Avenue and Westpark Drive. Construction west of Main Street, where the city's only light rail line operates, would be the first phase.

Sixteen stations are planned along the 10-mile line, which according to earlier estimates will cost $1.3 billion.

Though some early plans received a favorable environmental review by the Federal Transit Administration, Metro board chairman Gilbert Garcia said the agency's priorities are focused now on opening the three lines under construction and developing bus rapid transit along Post Oak Boulevard.

"We have our hands full," Garcia said, noting that Metro isn't seeking federal funds for the University Line at this time.

Garcia said Poe's encouragement left the door open to securing federal funds, although it might be years before Metro gets to the point of asking for them.

Supporters of the University Line welcomed Poe's support.

"This is an opening and movement to getting something built," said David Crossley, director of Houston Tomorrow, a nonprofit that advocates for light rail expansion.

Crossley called Poe's support a "wise and important contribution to this very long debate."

That debate hasn't always been supportive of rail, especially along Richmond.

Donna Smith, who lives near Richmond, told Houston planning commissioners on July 19 that plans to designate the street a "transit corridor" to restrict further building close to the street would destroy the area's character. "Our neighborhood is walkable today," she said.

A strong supporter

Other local property owners supported the transit corridor designation. Lawrence Katz, who owns a business along Richmond, told planning commissioners the benefit of rail would outweigh losing some businesses, which will be compensated for the loss.

"I feel badly for small businesses that might go out of business," Katz said. "But we are a major city and we deserve a major transit system."

Those opposed to rail along the route have a strong supporter in Culberson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee.

According to a recent study by Culberson's office, 81 percent of property owners along Richmond oppose the rail plan, while 17 percent favor it. Two percent were unsure.

Culberson in June inserted a provision into the appropriations bill for transportation, housing and urban development barring the Federal Transit Administration from granting money to any rail project along Richmond west of Shepherd, or along Post Oak Boulevard north of Richmond.

He also inserted language in the House version asking for a federal audit of the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

"Why are we continuing to have this conversation?" Culberson asked. "Our nation is living on borrowed money and we keep talking about spending more money we don't have."

Poe said he respects Culberson's position, but wants to find a solution so Houston doesn't lose its chance at rail service that many residents want.

"The money is going to come to Houston," Poe said, referring to potential transit grants. "If Houston rejects the money, then it will go somewhere else …

Those cities hope we reject it."

Poe said his focus is seeing Houston leaders come to agreement and not allow its transit money to "end up in New York City."

"If Houston can put people on the moon we can figure out where to put eight miles of light rail," Poe said.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Poe-emerges-as-new-rail-line-champion-4699470.php?t=cc9476d430fff79964

[nativehoustonion]

Culberson is nothing but a devil.  The highway builders are paying him off.  Him and Delay lost us so much Federal grants and they went to Dallas.  Mr. Culberson drives his Mercedes Benz to his office in Memorial.  He has made himself into a money maker politician.  We need to get him out of office.  He does not care about Houston trying to expand our light rail.  In fact as we all know Congress has done nothing all year.  They need term limits!    

[Slick Vik]

Him and Delay lost us so much Federal grants and they went to Dallas. 

 

Don't tell Redscare that.

[nativehoustonion]

They spent more than $2 billion on the Katy Freeway, and now they are doing 290.  I live in Upper Kirby District.  Why didn't we to vote on that.  I never go to Katy, but they built this 22 lane freeway that already has congestion!   

[mikehouston]

Any guesses as to how this plays out?  Culberson still represents a significant portion of this line, correct?  And he just introduced this amendment in June.  How does this amendment realistically get removed if Culberson sticks to his position?

[Moore713]

Question How does this affect the propsed BRT line ? I wonder if this is a tactic to stall that project as well, by bring the LRT into play and saying " No don't do that we might be buidling a LRT" Knowing this fight will take years to work thru.. could they really be that clever?  Or do you think poe is saying if we are going to do it lets do it right ?

[nativehoustonion]

The Uptown BRT line already has funding.  The design of it down the middle of Post Oak can always be replaced with LRT in the future.

[trymahjong]

At Neartown as the discussion concerning designation of Richmond Ave went on---It was brought up that Culberson sent a representative to speak at that public meeting-even though he no longer represents that area.

 

[totheskies]

I for one hope that if they do secure funding for the University Line, they should at least have the decency to do some grade separation.  Given how dense and populated this area is compared to the other lines, we really need to elevate it. 

[Slick Vik]

At Neartown as the discussion concerning designation of Richmond Ave went on---It was brought up that Culberson sent a representative to speak at that public meeting-even though he no longer represents that area.

 

Interesting.

[Spacecityroller]

I for one hope that if they do secure funding for the University Line, they should at least have the decency to do some grade separation.  Given how dense and populated this area is compared to the other lines, we really need to elevate it. 

 

I agree, they should either have the rail go under or over Shepard and Greenbriar. Maybe similar to what they have in the medcenter intersections of Main/Holcomb and Holcomb/Fannin.

[KinkaidAlum]

The bigger question is, why should a politician from Humble represent anyone living Inside the Loop, especially those living Southwest of downtown?

 

COMMON SENSE must return to redistricting. It's reason #1 why nothing gets done in DC and Austin. 

[Naviguessor]

I agree, they should either have the rail go under or over Shepard and Greenbriar. Maybe similar to what they have in the medcenter intersections of Main/Holcomb and Holcomb/Fannin.

 

Good Idea, actually.  Shepherd Square could be...reimagined (sorry-had to say it)... as an above grade transit station/public parking facility.  Maybe the tracks could continue elevated over Kirby then back to grade to go through Greenway. 

[august948]

They spent more than $2 billion on the Katy Freeway, and now they are doing 290.  I live in Upper Kirby District.  Why didn't we to vote on that.  I never go to Katy, but they built this 22 lane freeway that already has congestion!   

 

The congestion is much improved since they widened the Katy Freeway.  Far more people use that on a daily basis than would use a lrt down richmond.  Widening well-used freeways is such a no-brainer that it doesn't require a vote.

[Slick Vik]

The congestion is much improved since they widened the Katy Freeway. Far more people use that on a daily basis than would use a lrt down richmond. Widening well-used freeways is such a no-brainer that it doesn't require a vote.

Sounds like you'd love Robert Moses

[august948]

I love practicality and good decision making. It's up to the denizens of NYC to decide if Robert Moses gave them that.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I'd be happy to start with a light rail that stays out of Culberson's district.

Rail from Shepherd to UH through the Montrose, Midtown and 3rd Ward would be sweet for UH students.

[mfastx]

The congestion is much improved since they widened the Katy Freeway.  Far more people use that on a daily basis than would use a lrt down richmond.  Widening well-used freeways is such a no-brainer that it doesn't require a vote.

 

Well, you must also remember that we have spent many times the amount that Richmond rail would cost on the Katy freeway, including multiple reconstructions.  So it makes sense that something that we invest upwards of 4 or 5 billion dollars is going to have more riders. 

 

If we build 5 billion dollars worth of heavy rail, then as many people would use that too. 

[august948]

Well, you must also remember that we have spent many times the amount that Richmond rail would cost on the Katy freeway, including multiple reconstructions. So it makes sense that something that we invest upwards of 4 or 5 billion dollars is going to have more riders.

If we build 5 billion dollars worth of heavy rail, then as many people would use that too.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that if we were to spend 5 billion on rail, of any sort, that just as many people would be moved over the route on a daily basis as are moved over the Katy freeway?

[scarface]

At Neartown as the discussion concerning designation of Richmond Ave went on---It was brought up that Culberson sent a representative to speak at that public meeting-even though he no longer represents that area.

 

Several years ago, i think i read someone on here state that he no longer had any jurisdiction over the transportation , but when the issue comes up regarding the ULine, he always raises his ugly head. I'm starting to think these claims are just ways to catch rail supporters off their game

 

The Uptown BRT line already has funding.  The design of it down the middle of Post Oak can always be replaced with LRT in the future.

 

Do you really think this will happen? Knowing Houston's traditional  "Cheaper route" method?

[august948]

Do you really think this will happen? Knowing Houston's traditional "Cheaper route" method?

It's quite likely to happen, though I would guess it will be after the brt line has been running for quite a while. This will be our first experiment with brt, so who knows, it might catch on.

[august948]

I'd be happy to start with a light rail that stays out of Culberson's district.

Rail from Shepherd to UH through the Montrose, Midtown and 3rd Ward would be sweet for UH students.

What would really be sweet for UH students, given the heavy commuter component, would be P&R buses coming in from the various outlying P&R lots.

[mfastx]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that if we were to spend 5 billion on rail, of any sort, that just as many people would be moved over the route on a daily basis as are moved over the Katy freeway?

 

Potentially, yes.  For example, Washington DC invested about as much (or an equivilent to that much back in the 70s) on many heavy rail lines.  And now they have over 800,000 boardings a day.  It's certainly possible if built in the right areas. 

[livincinco]

Well, you must also remember that we have spent many times the amount that Richmond rail would cost on the Katy freeway, including multiple reconstructions.  So it makes sense that something that we invest upwards of 4 or 5 billion dollars is going to have more riders. 

 

If we build 5 billion dollars worth of heavy rail, then as many people would use that too. 

 

That's really a logical fallacy. You can't assume that if you spend 5 billion on heavy rail and 5 billion on highways that you're going to end up with the same number of riders on both. 

 

The problem with making the comparison between heavy rail and the Katy freeway is that it's based on an assumption that the majority of people that use the Katy Freeway during rush hour are going to downtown and I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.  I think that there's probably a large number of people that use the Katy Freeway to go to the Energy Corridor, Westchase, Uptown, Greenway Plaza, etc.  Those people are considerably less likely to use heavy rail than people that commute to downtown.

 

That's the problem with the Washington comparison as well.  Washington is heavily centralized - Houston, despite the wishes of many on this board, is not.  Traditional rail is most effective in a heavily centralized area.

[ig2ba]

Potentially, yes.  For example, Washington DC invested about as much (or an equivilent to that much back in the 70s) on many heavy rail lines.  And now they have over 800,000 boardings a day.  It's certainly possible if built in the right areas. 

 

I think it's possible to come close under the right conditions, but it's not usually the case. The question posed was whether it's ever possible. Sure, I suppose it is possible, but it's unlikely even under ideal conditions in a sunbelt city.

 

Granted, the 800,000/day exceeds the 328,000/day max on the Katy freeway, but it's apples and oranges. 328,000 is simply the number of vehicles (not people) traversing I-10 at Kirkwood on a weekday, not the total number of people who use I-10 between 610 and the Katy Freeway. Perhaps this number would be higher, maybe 500,000??

 

Also, I think the historical construction cost estimates are off. I'm having trouble finding the total costs, but just the 1.7 billion appropriated in 1979 would be 5.5 billion today, and that's not for the whole system.

 

As we all know, construction costs for these types of projects have risen more quickly than general inflation. Just look at the Silver Line extension, Phase I proposed for the Washington Metro. 28 miles worth will cost about 7 billion. Expected ridership is 40000 people/day. The increase in Katy freeway traffic count alone is more than this, plus ALL people benefit from quicker commute times (which take 2/3 as long as they used to).

 

So even if Houston were to react exactly the same as Washington DC to commuter rail (which wouldn't happen), I don't think you'd see the same payoff per dollar spent.

 

Edit: This is not to say I'm totally opposed to commuter rail or that others should be. In fact, I am in favor of grade-separated transit. But I think we need to be clear about what commuter rail could do and couldn't do.

[mfastx]

That's really a logical fallacy. You can't assume that if you spend 5 billion on heavy rail and 5 billion on highways that you're going to end up with the same number of riders on both. 

 

The problem with making the comparison between heavy rail and the Katy freeway is that it's based on an assumption that the majority of people that use the Katy Freeway during rush hour are going to downtown and I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.  I think that there's probably a large number of people that use the Katy Freeway to go to the Energy Corridor, Westchase, Uptown, Greenway Plaza, etc.  Those people are considerably less likely to use heavy rail than people that commute to downtown.

 

That's the problem with the Washington comparison as well.  Washington is heavily centralized - Houston, despite the wishes of many on this board, is not.  Traditional rail is most effective in a heavily centralized area.

 

The basic thing I'm trying to say is that the Katy Freeway has so many riders because we have invested so much money into it, making it many lanes wide and adding a tollway in the middle.  It's reasonable to conclude that if we invested similar amounts of money on our freeways (Katy freeway is just one freeway, there are so many others in Houston and we are talking about tens of billions of dollars invested in all of them) on public transportation, then there would be a lot more transit riders.  It doesn't have to be rail investment, but the original point I made was that you cannot expect hundreds of thousands of people to take one rail line that cost about a billion dollars.  It takes a lot more investment to get that kind of ridership.

 

And BTW, yes there are many employment centers but ideally you'd have them all connected by fast transit.  I am not suggesting to build many rail lines that converge downtown, but rather to buld a few strategically placed rail lines that gets commuters to all of the major employment centers.  As long as it's fast, commuters won't mind transfers.

 

IMO it's also unreasonable to conclude that the line is inneffective because it has fewer riders than the a major freeway paralleling it, as we have invested a lot more into the parallel freeway. Which was why I made the point to begin with.

 

And ig2ba, you make some great points and I agree with you.  A rail system in Houston would obviously look much different than in DC, in DC all the rail lines converge in the central city, in Houston you would have different lines converging on different employment centers. 

 

And I also agree that grade-seperated transit is optimal.   While I am in support of the University line as proposed, I would much rather it have more grade seperations than the current proposition.

[livincinco]

The basic thing I'm trying to say is that the Katy Freeway has so many riders because we have invested so much money into it, making it many lanes wide and adding a tollway in the middle.  It's reasonable to conclude that if we invested similar amounts of money on our freeways (Katy freeway is just one freeway, there are so many others in Houston and we are talking about tens of billions of dollars invested in all of them) on public transportation, then there would be a lot more transit riders.  It doesn't have to be rail investment, but the original point I made was that you cannot expect hundreds of thousands of people to take one rail line that cost about a billion dollars.  It takes a lot more investment to get that kind of ridership.

 

And BTW, yes there are many employment centers but ideally you'd have them all connected by fast transit.  I am not suggesting to build many rail lines that converge downtown, but rather to buld a few strategically placed rail lines that gets commuters to all of the major employment centers.  As long as it's fast, commuters won't mind transfers.

 

IMO it's also unreasonable to conclude that the line is inneffective because it has fewer riders than the a major freeway paralleling it, as we have invested a lot more into the parallel freeway. Which was why I made the point to begin with.

 

And ig2ba, you make some great points and I agree with you.  A rail system in Houston would obviously look much different than in DC, in DC all the rail lines converge in the central city, in Houston you would have different lines converging on different employment centers. 

 

And I also agree that grade-seperated transit is optimal.   While I am in support of the University line as proposed, I would much rather it have more grade seperations than the current proposition.

Makes sense.  I agree that far too many of the transit plans that are presented are a traditional hub and spoke model which I just don't think is well suited to Houston.  IMO, the end measurement is door to door time and if rail can be competitive in the door to door transit time for people, than they're willing to use it.  If it can't, then you're probably not going to get high ridership.

 

To your point, I don't think that people mind transfers as long as they're reasonably linear, however if you're asking people to go from the west side to downtown to then transfer back to uptown.  That's going to be a tough battle to fight.

[ig2ba]

IMO it's also unreasonable to conclude that the line is inneffective because it has fewer riders than the a major freeway paralleling it, as we have invested a lot more into the parallel freeway. Which was why I made the point to begin with.

 

And ig2ba, you make some great points and I agree with you.  A rail system in Houston would obviously look much different than in DC, in DC all the rail lines converge in the central city, in Houston you would have different lines converging on different employment centers. 

 

And I also agree that grade-seperated transit is optimal.   While I am in support of the University line as proposed, I would much rather it have more grade seperations than the current proposition.

 

I wish more people could admit to this, because I suspect that most intuitively agree with it. I think too often it's relatively inconsequential arguments about LRT/BRT or whether bikes are allowed. Or if it is mentioned, it's only mentioned at the extreme ends of the spectrum - LRT with no grade separation (e.g., the Southeast Line) vs. a subway which is entirely underground from Sugar Land to downtown.

 

Even if we go with an LRT option - that is, 35 mph max speed, stops every 1/2 mile to mile, 2 cars max - I would love to see a few more strategic intersections where it does not interfere with the existing auto traffic. My preferences would be, with special consideration to already congested intersections:

• Below grade at Westheimer and Post Oak (heck, maybe the whole Galleria area)
• Below grade at Buffalo Speedway, Kirby, and Shepherd
• Below grade at Texas Avenue/U.S. 59

 

I would be willing to defer each rail line 3-4 additional years to give Metro (or whomever) time to get additional funding to make this happen. Why build something quickly if it's not beneficial or even potentially harmful to existing mobility?

[Slick Vik]

Makes sense.  I agree that far too many of the transit plans that are presented are a traditional hub and spoke model which I just don't think is well suited to Houston.  IMO, the end measurement is door to door time and if rail can be competitive in the door to door transit time for people, than they're willing to use it.  If it can't, then you're probably not going to get high ridership.

 

To your point, I don't think that people mind transfers as long as they're reasonably linear, however if you're asking people to go from the west side to downtown to then transfer back to uptown.  That's going to be a tough battle to fight.

 

Here's the issue though, Dallas made a system that pretty much is a suburban feeder system, but what people have found out is, once it gets into town, there isn't really an easy way to get around. Would it be better for a commuter system to feed into a light rail, or have the commuter system bypass the light rail, but also letting people get on it if they wanted, kind of like express vs. local? It sounds good but I'm not sure that is the plan except for Galveston, it seems that they want to build commuter rail out of hillcroft transit center and NW transit center right now.

[mfastx]

Makes sense.  I agree that far too many of the transit plans that are presented are a traditional hub and spoke model which I just don't think is well suited to Houston.  IMO, the end measurement is door to door time and if rail can be competitive in the door to door transit time for people, than they're willing to use it.  If it can't, then you're probably not going to get high ridership.

 

To your point, I don't think that people mind transfers as long as they're reasonably linear, however if you're asking people to go from the west side to downtown to then transfer back to uptown.  That's going to be a tough battle to fight.

 

This is very important.  And it exposes the limitations of light rail as a regional solution.  Light rail can work very well in shorter areas, say for example the inner loop only, but when you try to extend it to the suburbs, ridership falls dramatically.  And you see the same thing with the local bus system.  You'll notice that ridership on bus routes fall the further they go out.  At relatively slow speeds people are not going to get out of their cars.  If a large amount of suburban areas are going to be well connected by transit, it most likely won't be through light rail. 

 

At this point, it isn't really a problem.  The suburban areas outside the loop are sparse enough that transit is not really a key issue.  Inside the loop is a lot closer to it being an issue IMO.

 

I wish more people could admit to this, because I suspect that most intuitively agree with it. I think too often it's relatively inconsequential arguments about LRT/BRT or whether bikes are allowed. Or if it is mentioned, it's only mentioned at the extreme ends of the spectrum - LRT with no grade separation (e.g., the Southeast Line) vs. a subway which is entirely underground from Sugar Land to downtown.

 

Even if we go with an LRT option - that is, 35 mph max speed, stops every 1/2 mile to mile, 2 cars max - I would love to see a few more strategic intersections where it does not interfere with the existing auto traffic. My preferences would be, with special consideration to already congested intersections:

• Below grade at Westheimer and Post Oak (heck, maybe the whole Galleria area)
• Below grade at Buffalo Speedway, Kirby, and Shepherd
• Below grade at Texas Avenue/U.S. 59

 

I would be willing to defer each rail line 3-4 additional years to give Metro (or whomever) time to get additional funding to make this happen. Why build something quickly if it's not beneficial or even potentially harmful to existing mobility?

 

Yeah that would certainly be optimal.  Unfortunately it looks like it'll be awhile before METRO can get enough funding for the current version of the University Line, much less a more grade-seperated version.  And the local politics are going to be tough to get by, people are not going to like the cost to go up any more than it already is.  Hopefully in about 10 years METRO will be in a better position to improve the University line and get enough backing to build the damn thing already.  The connection from Uptown to Downtown is an extremely low hanging fruit that seems like a no-brainer.