Houston Chronicle - Editorial  - September 22, 2007


Viewpoints, Outlook

 

Make it a bike trail and spare us from light rail

By Roy R. Reynolds

ouston Mayor Bill White took to the skies a couple of weeks ago to scope out traffic problems created by at-grade rail crossings. As the mayor's helicopter swooped around the city, he saw for himself how "arrogant" rail operators seemed when blocking intersections and creating long queues of cars.

He could have saved the 45-minute helicopter ride and just walked a few blocks from City Hall to see the same problems created by Houston's own light-rail system.

Though the light-rail trains don't often sit still to clog streets, the right-of-way hogs do stifle traffic through downtown and Midtown each day. If the leaders of the Metropolitan Transit Authority have their way, Richmond Avenue will also soon be nearly impassable during rush hours.

Compounding the error of light rail by expanding it down Richmond has led to a most vitriolic debate pitting property owners against those who believe that such projects improve quality of life.

There might be a simple resolution. Metro recently backed away from buying land for a commuter rail line, the plans for which surely await a future ballot filled with muddled language when the city of Houston revealed plans for a city-installed bicycle trail along that route.

So property owners along Richmond worried about Metro's plans to carve out a rail line, here's the answer: Plan a bike path right down the middle of the street. Maybe the board members at Metro have more fear of the ten-speed crowd than they do zeal for their light-rail land grab.

Light rail and bike paths are but two examples of the current push to shape Houston in the vision of urban planners and civic leaders who hate Houston's now 171-year tradition of organic growth. A debate on such matters has been carried out in this newspaper since urban expert Joel Kotkin told the Greater Houston Partnership early this summer that Houston's embrace of free-market planning was a great example for other cities.

Outsiders like Kotkin seem to have a pretty good view of Houston's workings these days, perhaps even better than its residents.

The New York Times, which so often whiffs at attempts to explain Houston to the nation, highlighted the downtown tunnel system recently in a feature story that illustrates how the city works best.

"(The tunnel system) was not centrally planned; it just grew," wrote Houston-based reporter Ralph Blumenthal. "And, befitting Texans' distrust of government, most of it is private."

Indeed, like the tunnels, Houston wasn't planned so much as it just grew into the nation's fourth-largest city. Now, many would like to see Houston turn its back on the very strategy — that is, nonstrategy — that made the city great.

Alas resistance, as they say, is futile. Metro recently held public hearings that allowed opponents of the Richmond rail route to voice their dissent. But surely all those attending the meeting know any words of discord fell on deaf ears.

Seemingly nothing can be said that will convince Metro's leaders of anything other than the plan they're forcing on Houston. Those who live and operate businesses along Richmond are told to sacrifice for the "greater good."

Houstonians are inundated with projected ridership figures aimed at showing how useful a rail line cutting through an already-busy part of town would be.

But those dubious numbers, which must come from some bureaucrat's crystal ball, are designed to secure federal funds. That way, Metro can force a whole nation to pay for a rail system that will serve only a handful.

Never mind that the light rail can't get commuters from the suburbs to their jobs. Or that Houston's decentralized population and wide geographic reach vastly reduce the utility of a static mass transit structure.

Logic hasn't dissuaded Metro in the past. Nor have various political scandals. So don't expect the rights of property owners along Richmond — the same kind of people who created a city of opportunity — to make a difference.

But maybe Metro would respect a competing stab at improving life in Houston. A bike path would be less costly than rail and present minimal disruption to traffic flow. And probably take around the same number of cars off the street during rush hour.

Metro would have to sacrifice: The agency would be forced to place their rail along Westpark, where it secured a 55-mile-long path 15 years ago.

But after all, it's for the greater good.

* * * 
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle