1 1 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2 UNIVERSITY CORRIDOR PUBLIC FORUMS 3 MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 4 MARRIOTT COURTYARD 5 3131 WEST LOOP SOUTH 6 HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 6:30 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Transcript provided by: 19 The Captioning Company 20 P.O. Box 441179 21 Houston, Texas 77244-1179 22 (281) 684-8973 (phone) 23 (281)347-2881 (fax) 24 mbryant5@houston.rr.com 25 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 4 MS. HOLM: Good evening. Good evening. 5 Let's go on and get started. I'm Pam Holm, and I'm the 6 council member for District G, and I want to thank all of 7 you for being here tonight and welcome you as we have the 8 sixth of eight meetings that are being facilitated by your 9 city council representatives, including myself. In District 10 C is Council Member Clutterbuck, and in District D is 11 Council Member Ada Edwards, as well as METRO is here with 12 board representatives. I see the chairman of the board, 13 David Wolff, has just arrived. I know George DeMontrond is 14 here. George, if you want to raise your hand. Any other 15 board members that I've missed? 16 So thank you all for being here tonight. I once again 17 applaud you and thank you for being so conscientious. I 18 feel like District G is about ten months ahead of some of 19 the other segments of the rail line because we've had so 20 many meetings already. So this evening as we go forward, 21 there is going to be opportunity for each one of you to 22 either give us a card with questions on it or address us at 23 the mic, and we'll go over the ground rules in a minute. 24 But let me recommend something to you. Through all the 25 meetings, it is really clear, I know the consensus in this 3 1 area is that you do not want rail on Richmond in this 2 segment. The mayor knows it. METRO knows it. So tonight, 3 what I would really like us to encourage each other to do is 4 ask specific questions. Let's get information and let's not 5 spend our time -- you know, this will continue. This is an 6 ongoing process, but let's not reiterate a feeling that we 7 have. We have the message and that is a key and important 8 part of this evening. 9 So if we'll keep it to questions, but I will tell you 10 what we're going to do is before we start it, we're going to 11 have some words from the president of METRO, Frank Wilson, 12 who is here this evening and he will be having a brief 13 opening statement, and then we will get on with the period 14 of comment and questions and answers. There are a lot of 15 boards around which he will share with you of what's going 16 on, and he will also talk to us about the way the meeting 17 tonight -- the purpose of it and what we will get from it. 18 I am here tonight as the facilitator of the meeting, 19 and I am going to ask you to be very respectful of each 20 other. Each of us has our own questions and they are of 21 value, and they need to be heard, and I am going to ask you 22 to please honor your own time and respect the time. We're 23 going to limit it to two minutes per person to speak in 24 order to be able to allow everyone that wants to address an 25 issue, and we're also asking METRO to answer precisely and 4 1 to also keep within that time frame so that as many people 2 as possible can be able to get their questions answered and 3 get us on as we move forward in this process. 4 This meeting tonight that I'm facilitating is about 5 District G. The other council members -- I will tell you -- 6 we are very close. We work together and talk together. We 7 have a very good consensus, and we each honor and respect 8 that each council member will be able to facilitate their 9 portions of the district. 10 District G starts on the east side at the railroad 11 tracks. The west side is 610. The south side is 59 and the 12 north side is 10, Interstate 10, which goes way over. So 13 the portion that we're really talking about, the segment, 14 while we're talking comprehensively about the plan and about 15 what's happening, the segment and the issues that we really 16 want to address tonight -- a lot of it in your information 17 needs to be in the area of District G because that's the 18 only one that I really have -- facilitate and represent. 19 And I respect my other council members very, very much, and 20 I want them to be able to be allowed to talk and visit with 21 and build consensus within their own community. 22 I think -- is there anything else we need to do? With 23 that, I'll ask Mr. Wilson to come on and let's get started, 24 and hopefully at the end of this evening we will -- because 25 the room -- the space on this room is limited, we will be 5 1 wrapping up at eight o'clock and out of here. Thank you. 2 MR. WILSON: Good evening, everyone. This is 3 a bit of a homecoming for me. My very first meeting to 4 discuss this project with you happened in this room. 5 (Laughter). 6 MR. WILSON: It seems like four lifetimes 7 ago, but just a few months back. As a matter of fact, we're 8 making progress because the last time I was here, just half 9 this room was full. So apparently we're doing something 10 right, a lot more of you showed up. 11 I also want to thank you for letting METRO into your 12 neighborhood. It was rather easy getting in. I hope it's 13 just as easy getting out tonight. I heard some sinister 14 ha-has. It's a rare opportunity not just to get to spend an 15 evening with you folks, but finally I get to speak for my 16 chairman. Usually you don't ever speak for your boss, you 17 let him speak for himself, but he asked me to deliver a 18 message for you tonight, and that message was that he's very 19 pleased to be with all of you, but also out of respect for 20 this process and the leadership that Council Member Holm has 21 provided even though he has other commitments, he had to be 22 here for a bit. I think he leaves when the tough questions 23 start and that's when I get to stay and spend the rest of 24 the evening. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? 25 MR. WOLFF: That's fine. 6 1 MR. WILSON: I was only kidding about the 2 tough questions. 3 In some respects, this is the best of times or the 4 worst of times. You know who said that and why he said it 5 and where he said it. The best of times -- let's say why is 6 it the worst of times for us? Our timing in some respects 7 couldn't be worse. If you look at this chart -- you don't 8 have to read the words. I'm going to point where we are in 9 this process of defining and shaping what this project is. 10 Here. This says "scoping -- range of alternatives." As you 11 can see -- 12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear you. 13 MR. WILSON: I'll get back. As you can see, 14 there is a tremendous amount of work effort to the right -- 15 to your right of that diagram. In that respect, there are a 16 lot of legitimate questions that you have. They are very 17 specific and need specific responses. It's difficult this 18 evening to give you those specific responses because we are 19 at the far left of this process. 20 It is the best of times because we're at the far left 21 of the process. In other words, we've not gone ahead with 22 one year's worth of effort without talking to you, without 23 involving you, without being open and transparent about what 24 we're doing, how we're doing it, why we're doing it. In 25 that respect, this is an ideal time to be involved in the 7 1 process. 2 What we'd like to do is keep touching base like this 3 throughout the course of this effort. There is no timeline 4 on that, but you can say pretty much from front to back it's 5 nine months to a year. So we're about a month into the 6 process. 7 One final note, on Thursday of last week, the METRO 8 board approved the award of five contracts, engineering and 9 planning contracts, that will enable METRO to do the 10 evaluations necessary to answer all these questions in a 11 very specific way. As you heard the rules, I as well as you 12 are under tight timelines, and so I want to start practicing 13 very short, concise pithy responses to your questions by 14 giving you a short, concise pithy opening. I'm finished. 15 MS. HOLM: Thank you. Before we get started 16 with the actual questions, as we've gone through this 17 process and with the evolution of it, the homeowners and the 18 property owners around this area have really built consensus 19 under the leadership of your homeowner's association. And 20 as an elected representative, I will tell you that is a very 21 valuable tool to be able to organize and share your 22 conversations and your feelings concisely and to have it 23 organized. And for that reason, because one, I told you 24 that we know your feelings overall in this community about 25 it, also while we've had many meetings, this is the first 8 1 one that really everything is recorded. All of our comments 2 will be recorded verbatim by a stenographer so that we know 3 what is going on, and for that reason I'm going to let the 4 introduction record the background and start with your 5 president of the Afton Oaks Homeowner's Association, Richard 6 Whiteley, and he'll give us a brief backup of where we are 7 now to express your feelings so that it gets recorded for 8 us. Thank you. Richard... 9 MR. WHITELEY: Thank you, Pam. Can everyone 10 hear me? 11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. 12 MR. WHITELEY: I'm not the president of Afton 13 Oaks anymore. I just rolled off. I'm the past president. 14 Billy Bragan is the president. And I have some questions, 15 but before that, like you said, there is a stenographer here 16 tonight, and I want to go through some of the background of 17 how we've built a consensus and what we've been through at 18 this end of Richmond. 19 And I'd like to just talk about all the meetings that 20 we've had. The first one was June 21st, 2005 at the 21 Redstone Building with George DeMontrond and John Sedlak. 22 The second meeting was on July 25th, 2005, town hall 23 meeting with Mr. Wilson at this exact venue as he alluded 24 to. Next we had an August 11th, 2005 meeting with 25 Mr. Wilson at METRO. A November 16th meeting, 2005, with 9 1 Mr. Wilson at METRO, and then we went to the METRO board 2 meeting on February 16th, 2006. 3 Also on March 20th, 2006, we had a town hall meeting 4 at St. Luke's, and then in April we've had a slew of 5 meetings. There was one on April 5th, April 6th, 6 April 10th, April 11th and April 12th. There was 7 actually two on April 12th, one was a town hall meeting 8 with John Culberson, our congressman, at Rice University. 9 And now we have the thirteenth meeting tonight. 10 We have gone through a very long process. We are tired 11 of meetings. We have built a strong consensus, but we feel 12 like that METRO has not listened to us. We've asked a lot 13 of questions, and we have not received any answers for all 14 these 13 meetings that we've had. 15 Congressman Culberson said at the meeting last week 16 that I alluded to that the opposition on this end was 17 vehemently opposed to light rail down Richmond, and he also 18 said that the referendum was a contract with the voters to 19 put light rail on Westpark. Tonight I want to challenge 20 METRO to follow Congressman Culberson and to make a 21 commitment not to run light rail down Richmond and to put it 22 on Westpark like the voters said. 23 Now, I know that the answer to that question is going 24 to be -- or that challenge tonight is going to be, we 25 haven't studied all the routes and we haven't made a 10 1 decision yet. Well, respectfully so, I disagree with that. 2 During the entire time that we have been talking with METRO 3 and meeting with METRO, we understand that METRO has been 4 meeting with Hines down the street at Post Oak and Richmond 5 to negotiate buying land there for a station. They've been 6 negotiating with Union Pacific to cross the railroad tracks, 7 and this morning in the paper there was an article about a 8 note for the board that was attached to the 9 40 million-dollar contract that was recently mentioned that 10 said that the preferred route was to come down Richmond. So 11 I ask how can we believe you that you haven't made a 12 decision yet? Everything that you say to us, you turn 13 around and you do something differently. We feel like 14 everything has been lip service. 15 Additionally, I know that you're going to respond to me 16 and you're going to say that we need to study to find out 17 what's going on. There have been so many studies of these 18 different corridors. There has been a study in 1979 and 19 Richmond was dismissed then. There was -- because of the 20 environmental impact. The same thing happened again in the 21 early 1990's. Richmond was dismissed again because of the 22 environmental impact. And it was studied again prior to the 23 referendum and dismissed. That is why the ballot says 24 Westpark. In fact, if you go back and look at the Houston 25 Business Journal, October 3rd, 2003, shortly before the 11 1 referendum, Arthur Schechter, METRO's leader at that time, 2 says that the studies involved nearly -- it has involved 3 nearly two years of intense work by transit professionals 4 including METRO staff and nationally renowned transit 5 consultants. Congressman Culberson said that Arthur 6 Schechter told him the routes had been studied, and Westpark 7 was the route that was going to receive federal funding, and 8 we want to hold you to that. We don't think it's right to 9 waste $40 million studying a route that is illegal according 10 to the referendum. 11 Some of our questions tonight are going to be who gives 12 you the powers as an unelected board to tell us what to do 13 with our lives, our homes, our property and our livelihood? 14 One of the other answers that I hear at some of these 15 meetings is that light rail should go where the people are. 16 And that's a great sound byte. Unfortunately, the people 17 are oftentimes in very fragile neighborhoods and setting a 18 light rail through the middle of those neighborhoods will 19 destroy them. Also it doesn't make sense to go where the 20 people are when the people didn't vote for it, and it also 21 doesn't make sense to go where the people are when the 22 people don't want to ride it. Thank you. 23 (Applause). 24 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: I think that you had so many 25 questions it's really hard to address the whole plethora of 12 1 them. 2 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You've got a stenographer, 3 read it back. 4 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: I'm going to ask for 5 courtesy here tonight. I think I deserve it and I expect 6 it. 7 You made some misstatements, and there have been a lot 8 of misstatements made, and I can only address some of those 9 that you made. For example, you said we were negotiating 10 with Hines to buy land. That's incorrect. It's a 11 misstatement. Now, it's difficult when you're trying to 12 deal with an issue like this and respected people and 13 respectable people come up and say things that are not true. 14 We understand your concern, and we're here to listen to 15 you, and we want to hear what you have to say. I met with 16 Chris this afternoon for about -- an hour and a half, Chris? 17 And what we were trying to do is what is best for the city, 18 trying to take into account everything that is best for the 19 neighborhoods. You may think that it's a simple issue and 20 that it does not deserve a study. Incidentally, the money 21 that's being spent is being spent on five corridors. You 22 said why spend this money on a corridor that's already been 23 studied. So to correct you, that's money to study five 24 corridors because a lot of corridors in this city want 25 transit. 13 1 And we understand that people in Afton Oaks do not want 2 it through Afton Oaks, and we're working to see if we can 3 come up with a good alternative, but you don't just snap 4 your fingers when you're spending hundreds of millions of 5 dollars of public money, and so I want to defend our 6 necessity of doing this study. We have to study the 7 economic impact, the environmental impact, the ridership, 8 the cost, and you're a lawyer and I believe that you prepare 9 yourself very carefully before you go to court. We want to 10 prepare ourselves. 11 My commitment to the people here is that we will do 12 this study in a professional and upfront way. We will share 13 the results with you. It will be transparent. Any 14 questions you have, we respect your ability and your right 15 to ask them, but we think that we should do this study. We 16 think we should do it thoroughly, and we're trying to do the 17 best that we can. So thanks for letting me come here and 18 speak to you tonight, and we will answer any questions that 19 you have, and we take -- we appreciate that you're here to 20 speak with us. Thanks a lot. 21 MR. WHITELEY: I'm glad that you pointed out 22 my misstatements. I stand by my statements and my 23 allegations, and that's what -- I have already said what I 24 meant to say. 25 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: Could you be specific? As a 14 1 lawyer could you say who made an offer to Hines to buy land? 2 MR. WHITELEY: I believe you have been 3 negotiating with Hines to buy land. I know that for a fact. 4 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: You know, at the meeting we 5 had -- 6 MR. WHITELEY: I don't think it's a good idea 7 for you to ask me for specifics here tonight. 8 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: I can tell you because I 9 know what I do and you don't know what I do and you're 10 wrong. And I will bet you a thousand dollars that I'm right 11 and that you're wrong. I had somebody come up to me after 12 the meeting that we had at St. Luke's and tell me that they 13 understood the reason that I was trying to put rail on 14 Richmond was that I owned land on Richmond. I owned a part 15 of the HISD property. And I asked the lady what her source 16 of information was, and she said, "Well, I can't tell you." 17 I said, "Well, you're accusing me of something unethical and 18 illegal and you're insulting me, and you won't tell me what 19 your source of information is?" And I said, "You're wrong. 20 I do not own any land on Richmond." 21 MR. WHITELEY: I'm not making those 22 allegations. Maybe you can tell us -- 23 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: You're making an allegation 24 that I negotiated with Hines about buying land for METRO. 25 MR. WHITELEY: I didn't say you, I said 15 1 METRO. 2 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: METRO did not meet with 3 Hines about buying land for METRO. I think you said that I 4 did when I asked you the first question. 5 MR. WHITELEY: I'm not going to get into 6 semantics, but we want answers from you; and why don't you 7 tell us exactly what you've done with Hines and what you've 8 done with Union Pacific and what this in the paper this 9 morning was all about. 10 MS. HOLM: You'll answer that question and -- 11 MR. WHITELEY: In the interest of moving on 12 with other people to talk. 13 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: In terms of what has 14 happened with Hines, we have talked with Hines about land 15 that they own that might be an alternative if we come on 16 Richmond to see what would be available. So that is not the 17 same as talking about -- 18 (Multiple Speakers). 19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Who has a thousand dollars? 20 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: There is no intention of 21 talking to Hines about buying that land. They have offered 22 the land if we wanted to put a terminal there just as we're 23 studying where -- when you're studying corridors, you have 24 to look at land that is available. We're also looking at 25 land if we put it on Westpark as to where we would put a 16 1 terminal. If you're studying alternatives, you have to look 2 at those things. That doesn't mean you're making an offer 3 to buy. You're looking at what is available, what could be 4 done there. That's a responsible way of planning a transit 5 corridor. 6 (Applause). 7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Got off to a good start. 8 MS. HOLM: As an elected representative of 9 the City of Houston, and as a personal native Houstonian, I 10 believe we need transportation options. However, this 11 administration and this mayor has said from the beginning, 12 and part of the reason that I rejoice that I'm a part of it, 13 is that the quality of life of all Houstonians is the first 14 and most important thing. That includes mobility. That 15 includes transportation. That includes how we live. In 16 order to get to consensus, I agree with you and I understand 17 there has been so much under the bridge. There is so much 18 baggage, but it does us no good tonight to argue back and 19 forth. 20 Let's ask specific questions. I would ask that we 21 answer those specific questions. I allowed Mr. Whiteley to 22 make his comments on behalf of the residents in the 23 consensus building process. We are now going to start with 24 specific questions and answers. We're going to keep to the 25 two minute line. If you would like to address it from the 17 1 microphone, you may come forward, and we're going to 2 alternate between the microphone and questions on cards. 3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You want us to come one at 4 a time or line up? 5 MS. HOLM: As long as the line doesn't get 6 too long, I'm happy for you to line up. You may. You're up 7 there. 8 MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you very much. My 9 question will be -- relates to a letter I wrote on 10 April 9th to the board and that hasn't been very long ago, 11 and it was a letter that requested that the board reaffirm 12 Resolution 83-36 eliminating your powers of eminent domain. 13 So my question would be there, do you have an idea or a 14 timetable of when you'll be able to research it enough to 15 give us a response? My letter of April 29th (sic) went to 16 all the board members as well as elected officials. 17 The other thing that concerns me, although I'm a 18 supporter of a world class transit system, and I really want 19 to see it happen. I've been a supporter since 1960. I'm 20 concerned about this misinformation that's out there that 21 METRO hasn't studied Richmond or hasn't studied Southwest 22 Freeway and we haven't done adequate analysis in the past. 23 And in line with keeping everyone well informed, which we 24 all need to be, I want to point out in 1979 when you started 25 the alternatives analysis, and that was a publication that 18 1 ended up looking like this, the METRO Alternatives Analysis. 2 That was a four volume set. Volume 1 was summary. Three 3 volumes were citizen participation that came up with the 4 conclusion that Richmond should not be the alignment and 5 that the priority should be the Southwest Freeway/Westpark 6 Corridor. 7 (Bell ringing). 8 MR. RICHARDSON: In 1980, you had another 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and it talked about 10 the same things and it looked at the Southwest 11 Freeway/Westpark Corridor and studied numerous alternatives 12 on light rail and heavy rail. Of course, light rail was not 13 proposed. Heavy rail was. It failed. But every one of 14 these red marks in this document is a reference to a place 15 where METRO says that the Southwest/Westpark line is going 16 to be where we think it is. And we just can't live with 17 this notion that Westpark means Richmond. It just doesn't 18 get it. 19 (Applause). 20 MR. RICHARDSON: In 1983 when the 21 environmental supplemental -- Draft Environmental Impact 22 Statement was done -- the same thing, red marks, and there 23 are maps, diagrams, details. In 1990 you did the drawing of 24 the overpass on Richmond that concerns us. So there has 25 been a lot of work done, and we're very concerned about it. 19 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: Thank you. You asked two 3 questions. One had to do with eminent domain. I don't 4 think at this time we're going to review our abilities on 5 that. We've not been abusing it. I know I saw a circle 6 here 1500 feet around every station. When you're building a 7 transit system, I think you have to maintain a right of 8 eminent domain just as you do with a pipeline. I think we 9 have to be very careful not to abuse it. We have no 10 intention of doing so. 11 With regards to the studies -- I think we live in a 12 city that has been through a series of missteps when it 13 comes to improving our transit system. 14 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. 15 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: We're so far behind other 16 cities now. We're so far behind all those cities with whom 17 we're going to be competing over the rest of this century -- 18 Denver, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix. They are cleaning our 19 clock. They are taking all the federal dollars that should 20 have come to Houston, that were prevented from coming to 21 Houston. It's very difficult to go transit in this city. 22 This city is sort of dysfunctional when it comes to transit. 23 There have been a lot of studies that have been done 24 and it's been voted down. Should we give up? Do we want to 25 rely solely on the automobile? Do we want to rely solely on 20 1 expanding the Katy Freeway even further? I don't know those 2 of you who have been out on Katy Freeway, I consider it to 3 be a tragedy. I consider it the freeway that ate the city. 4 It destroyed entire neighborhoods, YMCA's, hotels, and so 5 we're dedicated to doing the best job we can; and I'm sorry 6 about these studies that have happened in the past. I'm 7 sorry that it hasn't succeeded, but we're doing our best to 8 do a transit system now and to learn everything we can and 9 to do the best job that we can, and we're trying to work 10 with people. We're not doing this for ourselves. We're 11 doing it for the future of our city because we're going to 12 see gasoline going to five dollars a gallon and people are 13 not going to be able to afford to get to their jobs or get 14 to their hospitals, and they'll say why don't we have a 15 transit system? And I don't want to be answering that 16 question 20 years from now the way that people have to 17 answer the question why isn't there rail on the Katy Freeway 18 today? 19 MR. RICHARDSON: I agree with everything you 20 said. My point is that Richmond really has not changed that 21 much except for the improvements that have been made and 22 landscaping. Lower Richmond is still little houses and 23 little businesses. Greenway Plaza is still there. It was 24 there before. Post Oak is still there. There is still too 25 much traffic for too small a street. Afton Oaks, Boulevard 21 1 Oaks, all these subdivisions are still there. We learned a 2 lot in '83. There was a lot of citizen participation. It's 3 well documented. And rather than spend the money on 4 Richmond, which I believe to be contrary to the election, 5 let's spend it on a world class design, creative design and 6 creative engineering to make Southwest Freeway and Westpark 7 work, and it can be done. 8 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: I don't think Southwest 9 Freeway is an alternative anymore. It's been rebuilt, and 10 they're not going to let us on there. Now we're talking 11 about light rail. Some sections of Richmond are in favor of 12 light rail, some are not. I think it's worth doing a study 13 because this is an investment of hundreds of millions of 14 dollars. And, you know, times have changed over the last 20 15 years. Some things have changed and some are the same. 16 We're just trying to do the best we can. Thanks for your 17 thoughts. 18 MS. WINSTON: Oh, don't go away. I hope I 19 have a simple question because -- I'm Karen Winston and I 20 live -- well, I have a home in Afton Oaks and Weslayan 21 Place, so I have a double investment. This is something 22 that I just can't grasp to think about this project. I want 23 to know two parts to it. First of all, who are you moving 24 and where are you moving them to? And then it looks like 25 you're stopping at Sage if I'm right on this map. I'm not 22 1 exactly sure, but what happens to people when they get off 2 at Sage? Where do they go? 3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Bum a ride. 4 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: Well, I should have all 5 these numbers in my head, but there is something like 6 240,000 trips a day in and out of the Uptown/Galleria area. 7 In the neighborhood of 160,000 trips a day in and out of 8 Greenway Plaza, and of course many trips similar that -- I 9 think 175,000 trips a day into the Medical Center, probably 10 even more than that into downtown. 11 So we're talking about moving all of these people -- 12 because this University Corridor of course connects to the 13 Main Street Line. So it started at the University of 14 Houston and it would serve the 35,000 or so students at the 15 central campus. It would serve Texas Southern University, 16 which has 12,000 students. It would intersect with the Main 17 Street Line in which people would go down to the Medical 18 Center and go to Midtown, go to downtown. It would come out 19 to serve the University of St. Thomas, come out the Richmond 20 corridor or the Westpark corridor, wherever it goes to serve 21 those people to -- come on, folks -- it would come out and 22 serve the people that live along that corridor, some of whom 23 you know. 24 When I was talking to Chris this afternoon and with 25 Robert, they were saying we think the studies that have been 23 1 done show that you would only have people doing leisure 2 trips on this. You know, I think that a lot of people who 3 live along this corridor would like to have an alternative 4 way to get to the Medical Center, to get downtown, to get to 5 the museums. I think there are a tremendous number of 6 people to serve, all the people who work here, the people 7 who shop in the Galleria, the people who live here. 8 You know, the Main Street Line has been a tremendous 9 success. It's the most successful light rail line ever 10 developed in the United States. It carries 40,000 people a 11 day, which was the projection that it was not supposed to 12 reach 35,000 people a day until the year 2020. The demand 13 is there for transit. People in Houston want transit if 14 it's done properly, and it's there to serve people and it's 15 doing very well. 16 MS. WINSTON: What about that second part 17 though when they get off at Sage, who are they and where are 18 they going? 19 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: Well, I think there are a 20 number of alternatives. Let me give you one, and these are 21 the answers we're trying to develop. If, for example, we 22 did a transit center at Westpark and South Rice that would 23 connect into the Westpark tollway so we can have express 24 buses that would come in the Westpark tollway into the South 25 Rice transit center and go out to serve the people in 24 1 Westchase, Mission Bend, out at Grand Parkway. It would 2 connect into our bus -- you know, when we had a transit 3 center, if you've been down to the Medical Center, we have 4 how many lines going into the Texas Medical Center 5 transit -- 11? We have 11 bus lines that feed into a 6 transit center so that people get off the light rail on to 7 buses. It's a great question and I hope I answered it. 8 MS. WINSTON: I know I need to stop but you 9 did answer it for Westpark. I was curious about Richmond, 10 how you were thinking about -- 11 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: If there were a transit 12 center somewhere there, it would have to be placed where we 13 would interchange buses. We intend to have a line that goes 14 uptown, goes up Post Oak Boulevard, serving the Galleria, 15 going up to the West Loop, then up to our Northwest Transit 16 Center, which is at the intersection of I-10 and 610, and 17 hopefully up to 290 where we're thinking we may have 18 commuter rail some day. So it would be a nexus of all these 19 systems. 20 MS. WINSTON: Buses will take off from there. 21 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: Buses and guided rapid 22 transit and perhaps commuter buses going out the tollway. 23 MS. HOLM: Before we go any further, I'd like 24 to welcome with us tonight, we have from Congressman 25 Culberson's office, Nick Swyka. Nick, raise your hand back 25 1 there in the back. Thanks for being here. From 2 Representative Wong's office, we have Patricia Sheldon. 3 Where are you, Patricia? There you are sitting right in the 4 back. Thank you for being here. And from Council Member 5 Clutterbuck's office, Tim Douglass is here. Tim, where are 6 you? There you are. Thank you all for joining us. 7 As the next speaker comes forward, I will ask one -- a 8 question from a card. Why the name change? I don't know 9 what that means. I'm sorry, from Westpark I assume to 10 University Line. Got it. 11 MR. ZIEMNICKI: I'm Gerry Ziemnicki. I'm an 12 Afton Oaks resident for ten years. I'm here this evening 13 just to ask a very simple question. And I want to get back 14 to the referendum and as Congressman Culberson said, he 15 views it as a binding contract between the voting citizens 16 and METRO to provide light rail in the Westpark corridor. 17 And all of a sudden, as I walked in today, I see we have the 18 University Corridor, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to 19 suddenly change the name when the referendum said we're 20 voting for light rail on Westpark. And I understand that 21 there are other issues on the east end, but I think in light 22 of Congressman Culberson saying that he thought the new 23 board was more transparent, was different from the old one, 24 I think a good start in terms of getting us to believe in 25 you a little bit more is to drop this reference to the 26 1 University Corridor and add back in the Westpark Corridor 2 with something else. And I think that will go a long way, 3 and I will ask that you consider doing that. 4 MR. WILSON: Was that your question? 5 MR. ZIEMNICKI: Yeah, why the name change 6 from the Westpark Corridor to now the University Corridor 7 when the University Corridor is a small fraction and in fact 8 wasn't even considered when we voted in the referendum? 9 MR. WILSON: Well, you're using the term 10 corridor and it's a correct term. If you want to refer to a 11 broad area as a corridor, Westpark is as good as any. What 12 the reason for the change was -- 13 MR. ZIEMNICKI: And we voted on the Westpark 14 Corridor. 15 MR. WILSON: You asked a question and I'm 16 trying to answer. 17 MR. ZIEMNICKI: Okay, fine. 18 MR. WILSON: The name change to University 19 was as David Wolff had said, when you look at the major 20 traffic generators, the fact that with this line and the 21 Main Street Line, you can connect all the major 22 institutions, including some you didn't mention, which is 23 community college as well. It struck me as that was as good 24 a name as any to use. 25 MR. ZIEMNICKI: Instead of Westpark? 27 1 MR. WILSON: Let me talk about Westpark for a 2 minute. You keep saying Westpark Corridor, and I would 3 agree wholeheartedly with you. It's the Westpark 4 Corridor -- 5 MR. ZIEMNICKI: Which is the name on the 6 referendum. That's why I keep coming back to it. 7 MR. WILSON: If I can answer your question 8 and give you an answer within my two minute allotment -- you 9 keep taking my two minutes and you're going to get half an 10 answer. 11 MR. ZIEMNICKI: Please. 12 MR. WILSON: If you use the term Westpark 13 Corridor, I could agree with you completely. If you use 14 Westpark as a specific alignment, then I'm going to ask you 15 to go back and read that referendum again and read the 16 language that supports the referendum and you show me an 17 Uptown Street, you show me a North Hardy Street. You can 18 show me a North Hardy Corridor. You can show me an Uptown 19 Corridor and as Westpark is fine as a corridor. When you 20 make it a street and a specific alignment, I think you run 21 afoul of the referendum. 22 Now, let me answer the question why are we looking at 23 something other than Westpark? Because I think that's 24 nested in your question and it's an important issue as well. 25 And I had to go back to a question that was asked right from 28 1 the very beginning, who gave us the right to change the name 2 or to change the alignment? I think the more proper way to 3 ask that question or I'll answer the question as who gave us 4 the obligation to look at other locations? It's the 5 referendum. 6 Now, in that referendum, you will find words that say 7 you will have the federal government as your funding 8 partner. You must get half the funding from the federal 9 government. And if you're going to force us to take a 10 partner like that in the referendum, you've got to look at 11 that language, too, because they in their infinite wisdom 12 have decided there is no fate accompli here. There is no 13 statement that says you're going to be in this alignment or 14 that alignment. You must -- not you should or you shall -- 15 you must evaluate other corridors. We took an excerpt on 16 one of these charts here, but I'll show you the chart. We 17 took an excerpt out of the federal law that says when you go 18 through this process, you must look at alternative 19 corridors. So we think we're simply complying with what the 20 language said in that referendum, but it's all the language 21 in the referendum. You've got to read it all together. You 22 can't cherry-pick parts of it and come up with the right 23 answer. So what we've done is said let's step back from 24 this. Let's not make any decisions about whether it's 25 Richmond or Westpark or a combination thereof. Let's do 29 1 what the referendum said we must do, go after the federal 2 dollars. Once you've done that, now you've got to follow 3 the rest of it. Let me show you -- I don't know if I can 4 get this to stand up here. 5 Read these two paragraphs there. You probably can't 6 see it in the back. Basically what it says that in order to 7 get the first dollar of federal money, you've got to do what 8 is called an environmental impact statement. You can't get 9 money unless you do one. That says you must look at 10 legitimate alternatives to the project you're proposing to 11 build. Let's say for a moment -- let's say for a moment 12 that the referendum could be read as Westpark as the street 13 or as the road. 14 MR. ZIEMNICKI: It could be 15 Westpark/University for that matter. 16 MR. WILSON: Let's not play with words. 17 Let's say our project was Westpark. You've got to look at 18 alternatives to that. That's what this says, and I can't 19 get federal dollars, 50 percent of this, if I don't do it. 20 MR. ZIEMNICKI: Understand. 21 MR. WILSON: So some look had to be done at 22 other arrangements or other alignments that might work. At 23 this point, we don't know whether Westpark will get better 24 or worse than Richmond or a combination thereof. That's why 25 I said in the beginning it's the best of times or the worst 30 1 of times for us. I'd love to be able to say here is the 2 proof, this is where it needs to be, but I can't. 3 Now, that won't always be true because we're starting 4 work as we speak. And in a matter of a few short months 5 we're going to start learning a lot more about which 6 corridors work and which corridors don't work so well and 7 whether or not I can get the funds to do it. Let me say 8 this -- you didn't ask, but I'm going to offer this. It may 9 be -- I hope it never comes to that -- it may be that we 10 can't get through this federal process with any alignment. 11 Whether it be cost or ridership, it is not a fate accompli. 12 It is not a decision that's been made. We couldn't have 13 possibly made a decision because we don't know what the 14 analysis shows once you crank it through the federal rules 15 and regulations. And so therein lies the rub. We're being 16 accused of making a decision when we actually could not make 17 a decision. 18 MR. ZIEMNICKI: I didn't accuse and infer, 19 but the best thing to say is we'll wait and see how you 20 work -- 21 MR. WILSON: That's all we're asking. 22 MR. ZIEMNICKI: Because we'll be asking. 23 MR. WILSON: Don't just wait and see, keep 24 participating. 25 MR. ZIEMNICKI: We certainly shall. 31 1 MS. HOLM: As the next speaker comes up, 2 following up on that can I just ask, you know, some of the 3 questions that keep running through I know a lot of people's 4 mind and mine as well, you keep talking about exploring 5 different options and the obligation to do so. How and who 6 determines what viable options are? 7 MR. WILSON: I'm going to say something that 8 might offend you. I don't mean to offend you, but in many 9 respects when the referendum asked us to go get half this 10 funding from federal dollars, in effect what it did is move 11 control from all of us to Washington. And here is how it 12 happens: They have taken us out of the game so to speak. 13 There is a long -- if you think your tax forms are difficult 14 to understand, you ought to see what it's like to go through 15 this process. It is barely intelligible in normal language. 16 But basically what they say is we're going to compare you to 17 everyone else in this country, and we're going to evaluate 18 your project based on a formula and based on a model that 19 everybody has got to use. And when you look inside the 20 model, it will do certain things. It will say what's your 21 population? What's your employment? How many trips are 22 going to be generated in this area you're going to build? 23 And the line moves to where the jobs are and where the 24 people are. 25 This little chart here was done -- you obviously can't 32 1 see this, but maybe you can see the color. You can see 2 yellow and you can see pink. In effect, what we did is this 3 blue line running across here is the Southwest Freeway. And 4 we looked at the Richmond line and 1500 feet on either side 5 of it. We looked at Westpark and 1500 feet on one side of 6 it because it only can be fed by one side easily, and we 7 looked at how many jobs and how many residents are in there. 8 And that begins to define for you what's logical and what's 9 sensible. 10 Within this band, you can put it anywhere, and that's 11 why we've said all along if you've got ideas of where this 12 should go, then by all means tell us. I mean the group 13 we've been working with initially put together four or five 14 different ways to hook up these two, and it's just a matter 15 of pure judgment then as to which one is going to work the 16 best, but it's basically driven off of population and 17 employment. That's how it works. 18 MR. SPALDING: My name is Norm Spalding. I 19 live at 24 Lana Lane which is off Mid Lane between Richmond 20 and Westheimer. First I'd like everybody that's with METRO 21 or a government agency or George DeMontrond or -- raise 22 their hand. I want all those people to raise their hand in 23 this room. That includes you associated. Okay, I want -- 24 everybody that has your hands up that's with METRO or these 25 things, did you -- if you rode a bus tonight to get here, 33 1 put your hand down, but those of you that drove here, keep 2 your hand up. Did anybody from METRO -- did you ride a bus 3 here tonight? 4 MR. WILSON: You said keep your hand up. 5 MR. SPALDING: So you didn't. 6 MR. WILSON: I follow orders real well. 7 MR. SPALDING: My question is you want us to 8 ride light rail. You want us to do this, but there is buses 9 that go down every day Westheimer, Richmond, the frontage 10 road here along 610. None of you rode the bus to get to 11 this meeting, but you want other people to take light rail. 12 (Applause). 13 MR. SPALDING: Second of all, let me get my 14 two minutes worth and you can answer. Two minutes worth -- 15 there has been a lot of accidents along the Main Street 16 corridor with the light rail. You know along Richmond how 17 many schools are along there, how many of our kids are along 18 there? How many people have gotten hit on the Main line? 19 Are you going to do a study when you do Richmond that we 20 assume 14 kids will get hit per year? 21 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: Since you're asking 22 questions, let me ask you a question. How many people are 23 killed each year in traffic in Houston? How many? 24 (Applause). 25 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: How many -- 700. How many 34 1 accidents are there every day in Houston in traffic 2 accidents? 242. How many are there in a year? 75,000. We 3 live in a city that has an accident rate at least two and a 4 half times the national average. Are you going to change 5 it? I can't change it. There are lots of traffic 6 accidents. 7 Now, people do ride the light rail. And if light rail 8 is built to serve people in this corridor, I believe they 9 would ride it if it's safe, clean, attractive. We run those 10 trains on six minute headways, 40,000 people a day riding 11 it. I haven't seen anybody forced on there at gun point. 12 So people do ride it. It's a good question that you asked, 13 but the answer is a lot of people do ride the light rail, 14 and we do have a lot of accidents in this city. 15 MR. SPALDING: Okay. Second part is your 16 METRO Solution map here you said this is current as of 17 March, but I'm looking up here close at 610 and 59. And it 18 doesn't look like you show the new federal dollars that were 19 paid or the state dollars to have the frontage road come 20 from Bellaire up into this area, the improved track flow, 21 and now when you put the light rail in across Richmond, 22 you're going to cause problems at Richmond and the West Loop 23 because you're going to start having backup from the trains 24 that go across there like you do along Main Street. 25 Next thing, I work half the time here and half the time 35 1 in New York City, and there is 3 million people as you know 2 that ride their subway system. And on their system the 3 north/south corridor along Manhattan is essentially three 4 lines of subway and the distance apart from Manhattan with 5 the ocean on the one side to inside the other part is two 6 miles. And they have three corridors. People walk in New 7 York to get to the light -- to get to their subway system. 8 And if you take what we have here that agrees with what 9 you show along Westpark and that, people would walk 10 1500 feet each way because you take your own Main line and 11 you take downtown where it goes along Main Street, 1500 feet 12 only gets you to Austin on the one side and Smith on the 13 other side. So it works downtown being 1500 feet away. It 14 should be able to work out here that you do it along 15 Westpark. 16 (Applause). 17 MS. HOLM: Let me do a card first as we 18 rotate if you don't mind. We're going to rotate a card and 19 an open mic. So I'll do a card next. The referendum 20 specified Westpark. The voters were given assurances METRO 21 and HL&P could coexist on the right of way south of 59. 22 Currently there is approximately 30 plus feet of right of 23 way from Mandell to Montrose, between the sound wall and the 24 adjacent properties in which TxDOT can be seen operating 25 heavy equipment. This is easily seen from the south 36 1 crossings at the Mandell, Graustark and Montrose bridges. 2 This is where METRO says there is no right of way. Please 3 explain. 4 MR. WILSON: I trust you. I guess the 5 explanation is anything is possible if you spend enough 6 money on it, and what we're trying to do is stay competitive 7 to spend the least amount of money to carry the most amount 8 of riders. Can it be run in that -- well, somebody last 9 week called it a ledge. Can you run it on a ledge? Well, 10 yeah, you can, but you've got to stack the trains one on top 11 of another. You can't really run it side by side, there is 12 not enough space. But think about it for a minute, if we're 13 able to stack them one on top of another running through 14 that area, and you accomplish that feat, how do you get 15 people to it? You build it so people can use it. You've 16 got a long way to run without a station. You're not doing 17 the balance between spending a lot of money and carrying a 18 lot of riders. What doesn't work is if you spend a lot of 19 money and carry too few riders then that pretty much sounds 20 a death knell to a project because we're in this federal 21 competition. So that's the real reason why we'll look at 22 it. We're not opposed to looking at it, but if you ask for 23 a sort of instinct to say the costs are rather high because 24 it's a lot of structure. 25 MS. HOLM: Yes, sir. 37 1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a couple of short 2 questions if maybe you want to stay at the mic. I don't 3 mean to work you out too hard. 4 MR. WILSON: I could use it. 5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: First, do we know or maybe 6 you have the answers -- what would the pollution levels in 7 the future be if more riders used this as opposed to less 8 riders using it? What would the pollution levels be in the 9 future once we have 3.5 million more people here in the next 10 ten or fifteen years? 11 MR. WILSON: Lower. But that's not an honest 12 answer. The fact of the matter is highway travel is growing 13 faster than we'd like to admit. That's where all the 14 mobile -- I'm sorry -- that's where all the emission 15 pollution sources are. Let me just say this for now, this 16 engineering work we're doing will answer that question 17 specifically in terms of particular ozone and nitric oxides 18 which is the way you measure the pollution. 19 Let me just say this, one of the primary reasons why 20 you can get in your car and drive where you like and why a 21 few more million people can come in and drive with complete 22 abandon is because you have METRO here. I'll tell you how 23 that happens, because we committed to burning what they call 24 low or ultralow sulfur fuel in our buses. Of course the 25 trains pollute even less. We qualify this region -- just 38 1 think about this -- we qualify this region to get more 2 highway dollars so you can drive more and pollute more. If 3 your transit company went away, you wouldn't see one penny 4 of federal dollars in Houston, not at all. And so all that 5 driving we all love to do would come to a screeching halt 6 because there wouldn't be one penny of federal dollars 7 coming to this region. So just think how incongruous this 8 is. Your little old transit company that is running nothing 9 more than a bunch of buses and seven miles of rails is 10 keeping this region qualified to receive federal highway 11 dollars. And you wonder why there is not enough people 12 using transit? Well, there has been no investment in the 13 transit system. So more investment gets you more. 14 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That kind of goes to my 15 next question, why aren't people using buses? 16 MR. WILSON: They don't go everywhere. They 17 don't go everywhere all the time. 18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Are they as efficient as 19 light rail? 20 MR. WILSON: They're not near as efficient as 21 light rail. 22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: They're not close to as 23 efficient as light rail. Who has the highest pollution in 24 the country right now -- Houston or Los Angeles? Houston. 25 MR. WILSON: It's a trick question, isn't it? 39 1 Houston. Houston, obviously. We're close, pretty darn 2 close. 3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. 4 MR. WILSON: It's a scary proposition. We're 5 going to grow up to be L.A? 6 MS. HOLM: I also would like to recognize at 7 this time Karen Domino is here with us from Senator Ellis' 8 office. Karen, where are you? Thank you so much for being 9 here this evening. 10 I have a question from the cards that says do you 11 sincerely believe that the majority of people who go to the 12 Galleria and Uptown will ride the train? 13 MR. WILSON: Absolutely not, but I sincerely 14 believe they want to. 15 MS. HOLM: Yes, sir. 16 MR. ANGULO: Hi, my name is Geoff Angulo. 17 I've lived in Afton Oaks for about a year now. I moved to 18 Afton Oaks from Weslayan Plaza just the other side of the 19 railroad tracks. I'm opposed to the rail on Richmond, and 20 I'm going to tell you why. Recently traffic is a nightmare 21 on Westheimer and Richmond. Those are the north and south 22 borders of my neighborhood, and I'm also blocked in by the 23 Loop and by Weslayan, and if y'all go through there at rush 24 hour, it's a nightmare. Saturday is even worse. Making the 25 problem worse recently, after our old neighborhoods voted 40 1 against it, somebody pulled a fast one and they blocked off 2 Drexel and Suffolk. You cannot turn right into that 3 neighborhood from Westheimer. So basically from Mid Lane 4 all the way to Weslayan you can't turn right to get off of 5 Westheimer to get into those neighborhoods. 6 My concern, having personal experience from going 7 downtown to the med center in the car and on the train, you 8 can't turn left a lot of the time. How am I going to get 9 into my neighborhood, assuming this goes through and y'all 10 put that train through Richmond? You're basically going to 11 landlock me for most of the business day and most of the 12 weekend. What's your proposal if this goes through, how are 13 you going to think through that and get that fixed? 14 MR. WILSON: I can't answer specifically. 15 Generally we're not able to landlock -- we're not going to 16 be able to landlock anyone, and in fact, I think the biggest 17 challenge -- there is a lot of challenges in this project, 18 but the biggest challenge we face is making the entire 19 traffic network work better. And I don't think the issue is 20 Westpark or Richmond in terms of traffic. I think it's the 21 entire area that has got to work better when we're finished 22 wherever we go. 23 The reason I say that is that, you know, the rail line 24 doesn't act independent of everything else. The roadways 25 don't act independent of the rail line. They all work 41 1 together so all the movements can be made. It is clearly 2 the highest challenge we've got, the biggest challenge we've 3 got. I would submit this to you though, because of where 4 this neighborhood is and because of what's going on around 5 it and because of some of the things we learned from your 6 neighbors and friends here, development is happening even as 7 we speak and METRO is not here. I mean, the rail line is 8 not here. If the rail line never comes to either alignment, 9 you still are going to have one heck of a traffic issue to 10 deal with. So I would submit to you that we should and 11 could be used as a force to make the entire traffic network, 12 the entire grid work better. If we don't, we've lost an 13 opportunity we've got to run in and you've lost an 14 opportunity. 15 MR. ANGULO: I've lost more than an 16 opportunity. 17 MR. WILSON: Of course you've lost your home, 18 but if we go away, these same issues still have to be 19 addressed and resolved. 20 MR. ANGULO: But part of all the studies 21 you're doing -- 22 MR. WILSON: Absolutely. 23 MR. ANGULO: I've been through this process 24 before at city council, and we voted and they said no, and 25 somebody pulled a fast one and damn if that thing didn't 42 1 show up against everybody's wishes. That's part of what I'm 2 concerned about. 3 MR. WILSON: We have to look beyond the 4 limits of our corridor and rail line to solve the traffic 5 issues. We will be doing that. 6 MR. ANGULO: One follow-up question. You 7 talk about the 40,000 riders on the Main Street Line. Are 8 those people who have cars, who don't have cars? Do you 9 have any statistics on that? 10 MR. WILSON: I guarantee you those people 11 have cars as well as not have cars. There is -- there are 12 three peak periods during the day not two. There is a 13 peaking during the day. There are trips being made that 14 were never made before by people who drive into the city and 15 choose not to get out of the parking lot and drive down to 16 the Medical Center for an appointment or to spend a lunch 17 because they're on a diet at a museum and get on the rail 18 line and go back. It's just too darn inconvenient to have 19 to park and unpark all the time. We know for a fact that 20 whether you've got a car or don't have a car, you're going 21 to use the line because it's too convenient not to. 22 MR. ANGULO: And you've seen reduced 23 automobile traffic along those corridors? 24 MR. WILSON: Actually, we have, but let me 25 explain how that works and you'd understand why that 43 1 happens. When we built the rail line, we also reconfigured 2 our bus routes so that we can feed traffic into the transit 3 centers. We did that so we could remove 600 bus movements a 4 day or at the peak period from the city streets. When you 5 take 600 -- a bus is 40 feet. There is 600 of them, and in 6 effect what we've done is created maybe two lanes of traffic 7 on every north/south, east/west street in the city because 8 now our buses aren't in it anymore. That made more room 9 available for the general traffic to operate, that plus the 10 fact that the signalization has been upgraded and changed. 11 The capacity on downtown streets that carry vehicles has 12 been significantly improved, whereas physically we didn't 13 have to do anything. So it's the antithesis of I-10 where 14 we're just blowing out the roads and the lanes just to carry 15 a few more cars. The transit investment in Main Street 16 unlocked all that to happen. That's why we look at this 17 area and say, well, we've got to look for the same kind of 18 benefit. 19 MR. ANGULO: All right, so the capacity has 20 been increased but has the actual car count -- 21 MR. WILSON: The car count can be higher now, 22 yes. 23 MR. ANGULO: It can be -- I guess my question 24 is -- 25 MR. WILSON: I don't know. 44 1 MR. ANGULO: -- has it gone up or down? 2 MR. WILSON: I know our movements went down. 3 We took 600 buses off the street. 4 MR. ANGULO: Has the rest of our car 5 movements gone down? My question simply is that is rail 6 displacing cars? 7 MR. WILSON: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 8 That I can say. 9 MR. ANGULO: Thank you for coming. It's a 10 tough job y'all are doing. 11 MS. HOLM: While the next speaker is coming, 12 we have a question from the card. If the rail does go down 13 Richmond, will METRO need additional land beyond the three 14 lanes of traffic on each side plus the median? Will they 15 take land from or houses from homeowners that face Richmond? 16 MR. WILSON: This may sound really naive, and 17 I don't mean it to sound naive. I mean it sincerely. What 18 we're trying to do is solve sort of a Rubic's Cube puzzle. 19 When you have limited right of way to build in, we need the 20 grand sum total of 27 feet out of the roadway. And the 21 width -- the question is on Richmond or on either? 22 Richmond. On Richmond, the width of the street varies 23 considerably from one end -- from the east end to the west 24 end, the east end being narrower. 25 MS. HOLM: The rail line and 610, just Afton 45 1 Oaks. 2 MR. WILSON: There is three lanes on either 3 side, right? So the first thing we would look to do is to 4 see if we could keep the esplanade or keep as many of the 5 trees in that esplanade, and look at, first of all, not 6 taking any properties, but looking at what lane width is 7 there. I'm not certain what lane width we have -- 8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Eight feet. 9 MR. WILSON: Eight feet in the curb lane, but 10 the other two lanes I bet you are wider than eight feet. 11 I'll bet you they are. Maybe 11 feet. So it doesn't sound 12 like much, but if you pick up a foot or two on each of the 13 lanes and you've got six lanes, you've solved half your 14 problem right there. Then you're looking at how else do you 15 do this? How far on either side of the curb do you have to 16 take? And we're looking at less than ten feet, maybe five 17 or six feet. So you keep the trees, you keep the homes and 18 you start dove tailing this line in. 19 Can it be done? I'm standing here trying to create a 20 picture for you because you asked the question. But our 21 very highly skilled engineers have got to look at that 22 question specifically and determine every step of the way 23 whether it can be done without taking properties. So that 24 answer is coming. 25 MR. BAUMGARTNER: Hi, my name is Gary 46 1 Baumgartner. I'm the president of St. George Place Civic 2 Association. I'm not here to cause trouble, and I 3 absolutely respect and understand this neighborhood's 4 position and rightfully so. What I've handed the leaders up 5 front is a detailed demographics that show the exact same 6 equivalent land that's between 610 and the railroad tracks, 7 flop that to the west towards Chimney Rock and the number of 8 homes and residential there is over nine times how many 9 folks are on the other side. 10 So to answer the young lady's questions, if that rail 11 line were to come down Richmond and end at Sage, who would 12 go to it? It's dead center right in the face of everyone. 13 There are tons of new residential that's been built in that 14 area in the last four years. It is night and day different 15 from where it was in 2000. There are tons of -- I've 16 counted over ten that I can just find on the map alone and 17 driving through my neighborhood of high rise office 18 buildings that people work in, that area could be used as 19 the dead end of that route. 20 The folks in St. George Place have met. We are -- and 21 the folks in Larchmont have met as well. We are for rail 22 coming down Richmond because we do see it as benefiting us 23 tremendously. But to address the concern, I guess one of 24 the questions I have is, is it possible to address the 25 concerns of the Afton Oaks folks? And maybe it's not 47 1 possible, I'll ask that it be considered, that instead of 2 diverting all the way to Westpark to get -- or all the way 3 from Richmond to Westpark to get away from the controversy 4 that seems to exist, could that come down just to the north 5 feeder along 59, the bottom end of Afton Oaks in essence, 6 and then avoid it basically and come back up? 7 And the reason I ask that to be considered is because 8 the moment you put that rail line down on Westpark, you've 9 just shot any chance of anyone ever going to walk across 10 Westpark and use that line either to go to it from our 11 neighborhood or anyone on it to walk across to any of the 12 Galleria area businesses. So consider -- if you're going to 13 try to come up with a compromise to address everyone's 14 concern, consider whether you can't just come to the south 15 of Afton Oaks and then come right back up to Richmond where 16 you would need to end up. Thank you. 17 MS. HOLM: Thank you for your comments, and 18 on behalf of -- because I'm an elected official and 19 ultimately there will be some decisions that will be made, 20 especially if our public streets will be used for either 21 rail line or a guided bus line, there absolutely is -- that 22 is why it will be studied, I assume, comprehensively, but it 23 will be looked at in segments also, and I encourage you to 24 work with your council member. And I assume I'm saying that 25 -- this is what the mayor -- 48 1 MR. WILSON: That's why we're doing this. 2 MS. HOLM: Absolutely. What we are looking 3 for and what we need in this city is a transportation system 4 that not only serves our needs today, but also serves our 5 needs tomorrow. And it cannot be just connecting -- 6 MR. BAUMGARTNER: And the city as a whole. 7 MS. HOLM: But it cannot be connecting two 8 dots and just running generally down it. We have to look at 9 all the options, and we have to make sure that when we're 10 doing this transportation system that it is not at the 11 expense of the quality of life of our citizens, the very 12 people we are supposed to be building it for. Yes, ma'am. 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I don't know if someone 14 from METRO can maybe address some of the points they made. 15 Are they valid? Are you all aware of the things I brought 16 up? 17 MR. WILSON: Actually that is a suggestion -- 18 I don't mean to steal your thunder, but someone already -- 19 it might be a solution and we're happy to look at it. 20 MS. HOLM: You know, before we go any 21 further, can you just help me -- I understand everybody is 22 kind of looking and I'm going to go back to my viable 23 options again. When we talk about viable options, I'm going 24 to say again, who is it that decides what the viable options 25 are? You know, I'm hearing north of 59. First we heard it 49 1 was going to be Westpark. Then we expanded it to Richmond. 2 Then it was expanded to Westheimer. Then Westheimer was 3 removed. No one has said that we're going to consider the 4 north side of 59. What are the options, the viable options, 5 and who is determining them? Who puts them on and who takes 6 them off? 7 MR. WILSON: The chart -- well, the chart was 8 to your right. The box that said scoping or basically 9 defining the alternatives is done with all of you. And as 10 they come off, they are done so in full view of everyone who 11 is involved in the process. 12 MS. HOLM: Westheimer? 13 MR. WILSON: That's just the early -- that's 14 just the early thinking, and if Westheimer wants to go back 15 on, if people think they need to be back on, we'll put it 16 back on to examine it. 17 MS. HOLM: That's my point. If it's so easy 18 if you want it on or you want it off, take this segment off. 19 MR. WILSON: Take which segment off? 20 MS. HOLM: (Inaudible). I mean, that is my 21 whole point, Frank, if it is -- 22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Use the microphone. 23 MS. HOLM: My whole point is your answers 24 keep being subjective. You don't tell us the real criteria. 25 If there is a specific process for putting it on, what is 50 1 it? If there is a specific process for taking it off, what 2 is it? If it's just the people on Westheimer, if they want 3 it back on, we'll put it on. That implies that you took it 4 off because they don't want it, and I'm telling you this 5 room doesn't want it. 6 (Applause). 7 MR. WILSON: It's not quite that flexible. 8 MS. HOLM: That's all I'm asking. 9 MR. WILSON: The process begins with these 10 scoping meetings. This is sort of the early reconnaissance 11 of gathering information and intelligence. The actual 12 official meetings that we'll have that we document and make 13 decisions from happen from here on, and at those meetings, 14 you will find a blank piece of paper, and you'll find at 15 least the couple of alternatives we've looked at here just 16 to begin the process. But anyone involved in those meetings 17 can add and subtract to it and out of those discussions, 18 meetings like this, there is a consensus drawn that, yeah, 19 it doesn't make any sense to continue considering these. It 20 makes sense to continue considering those, and that's what 21 we take forward. That's got to be documented just like 22 we're doing tonight. There is a record taken and each of 23 those then undergo a detailed evaluation and analysis. 24 When we had looked at Westheimer, we looked at the same 25 kind of impacts we did here and said is it reasonable to 51 1 assume that we can do any better on Westheimer than either 2 of these two routes? The answer was no. And so before this 3 official process began, we said okay, then why encumber the 4 discussion and the evaluation? We don't see any marginal 5 benefit of doing that. But just because we don't see it, it 6 doesn't mean that in the official process this group 7 couldn't say, well, whether you see it or you don't see it, 8 show us. Document it. Evaluate it. And we would be 9 obliged to do it. 10 So there is a formal structure that you need to follow. 11 We're doing some advanced thinking and sort of scoping 12 ourselves. You've got to start somewhere, and the 13 referendum was a good start. And so we looked at a couple 14 of alignments that seemed to fit under the language in the 15 referendum. Westpark is an offshoot of that. Some people 16 looked at it and said there is Highland Village and new 17 development here and maybe we can do that. Well, after 18 looking at it, it was very marginal. So we decided to take 19 it off for now, but it could come back into existence 20 because the scoping meeting, which is the official way you 21 define it, says, hey, I want it evaluated. 22 MS. HOLM: And I want you to know I do not 23 mean to be disrespectful in any way. I appreciate every 24 time I have talked with Mr. Wolff, to Frank, to George 25 DeMontrond, to any of them. They are always responsive and 52 1 answer my questions, but I think I just have to share with 2 you that I understand the frustration of a community when it 3 continually sounds like it is very subjective decisions that 4 are being made and we don't know who is making them. Is 5 it -- you know, does the board approve everything? 6 MR. WILSON: Yeah, absolutely. 7 MS. HOLM: Do you just wake up every morning 8 and say, today I had a good idea last night? I'm serious. 9 I'm not trying to be flippant. 10 MR. WILSON: Well, now, Council Member, now 11 hold on. We met with your group and the group said, well, 12 gee, if you're going to do some on Richmond and some on 13 Westpark, why don't you evaluate the connection here between 14 here and here. Our response was -- 15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, you told us those four 16 and we evaluated them in response to your request. 17 MR. WILSON: And you came up with a fifth. 18 We never asked you to evaluate Edloe. We didn't say no. 19 We'll take a look at Edloe. If you want to be involved in 20 the process, then you have input to it, and then don't 21 criticize the process that's flexible enough to say, okay, 22 that's what you want us to evaluate, that's what we'll 23 evaluate. 24 Now, at the end of the day when all the suggestions are 25 taken, when all the evaluations are done, it is the 53 1 responsibility of the METRO board to make a decision as to 2 which way they are going to put this thing through the 3 federal process. So it is very formalized. It is very 4 structured, but at the front end of it, it is very flexible 5 and open so that these meetings mean something. No sense of 6 you sitting here if we can just sort of do this in the back 7 room. 8 MS. HOLM: What does this meeting mean? What 9 does it mean? 10 MR. WILSON: This meeting, as I said before, 11 is sort of the conditioning and making sure everybody has 12 the background and understands what we're doing, why we're 13 doing and when we're doing it. The official meeting is when 14 we call for a scoping session, and we have -- it's a work 15 session. It's not a meeting like this where we're talking 16 with you and one another, and the express purpose of that 17 meeting is to come out of it with one to ten, one to 100 if 18 you like, possible alternatives where you start the 19 evaluation and the screening and from there on it's neck 20 down to the precious few, and then ultimately the one we 21 want to go forward with. That is a very formalized process. 22 And it is very much controlled. So it's not fast and loose. 23 It's not back room dealing. These meetings are happening 24 because people want issues addressed. They want to make 25 sure we're concerned when we start the studies that we don't 54 1 forget to note the landlocked people, that we don't forget 2 not to take their property, don't forget to preserve the 3 trees. So you're already preloading the analysis and the 4 evaluations by virtue of conditioning our thinking as to 5 what's important to you. That's what this is for. 6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have one quick question 7 to what you just said. 8 MS. HOLM: Get in line. 9 MS. DEMELO: My name is Elba DeMelo. I live 10 at 4647 Richmond. That is between the railroad tracks and 11 610, and my mother also has a house there, one house down 12 from mine. I have a few questions, but I've lived in 13 Houston 45 years. I have lived in Afton Oaks for 16, and I 14 thought this was going to be the house where I was going to 15 be buried at. I'm not a 25-year-old, and I'm thinking about 16 my future. What's going to happen? 17 Now, first of all, I do agree on public transportation, 18 and I understand that the goal of the public transportation 19 company in the United States is to obtain higher ridership 20 and give the best service to those who really need it. 21 Okay. Now, I reinstate my vote for the public 22 transportation as it was on Westpark. As a voter, I feel 23 downhearted because if my vote doesn't count, what's going 24 to count? The same thing is happening with all of the votes 25 that I put in that ballot box. They don't mean anything to 55 1 me. That bothers me, okay? 2 Number two, some of the most important points why the 3 rail should go through Westpark is the thousands of 4 residents that live near Westpark between the 610 Loop and 5 Beltway 8 are transit needed, lower income residents that 6 need the rail to go to work. Most of the families don't 7 have a car. Now, if we're bringing this rail to Sage, 8 what's going to happen to the people that really need it 9 from there on? They could tie up with the Westpark toll all 10 the way to Grand Parkway. 11 Now, has a study really been done on the buses on 12 Richmond? I live on Richmond. Sometimes I sit there since 13 all of this mess started and count heads on the buses. 14 Yesterday I counted six. Ten people were the most in each 15 bus, okay? Let's leave that for now. 16 My big question, if push comes to shove and you're 17 going to buy my property -- because there were some flag 18 markings two weeks ago in front of my house. There was 19 16 feet, okay, from the curb to my house. Two trees goes 20 down, two trees that have been there 170 or some more years 21 old. 22 MS. HOLM: Wrap up your question. 23 MS. DEMELO: My question is who is going to 24 buy my house and how much are you going to pay for it? Is 25 it the appraisal value or the market value? I just want to 56 1 know so I can get out and sell it to you and leave. 2 Otherwise, I want peace of mind because I've lived there too 3 long. I've put too much money in my property. My 4 investment in two houses is very high. And not only that -- 5 MS. HOLM: Please. 6 MS. DEMELO: One more thing. 7 MS. HOLM: Ma'am, please. Will you answer? 8 MS. DEMELO: Go down Richmond tomorrow at 9 four o'clock. I would really appreciate it and see the 10 mess. 11 MR. WILSON: I don't want you to be offended, 12 but I don't necessarily want your house. The reason for 13 that is our agenda and your agenda line up. You don't want 14 to move and I don't want to have to buy you out. It's 15 costly to buy property and relocate people, and to the 16 extent we can avoid it, we don't want to do it. 17 MS. DEMELO: But my living room would be on 18 the lane, on the sidewalk. 19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You'll get used to it. 20 MR. WILSON: Okay, then we're partners. 21 MS. DEMELO: And no (Inaudible). 22 MR. WILSON: There is a legitimate way of 23 going about it if you have to because you're making 24 infrastructure improvement in the city and it's a public 25 works project, there is a legitimate way of acquiring 57 1 property. It's very, very prescribed. There are appraisals 2 that are gotten. You get one. I get one, and we both agree 3 on the third one, and so the market value is what you get 4 and you get relocation costs and on and on. So there is a 5 process. We just don't come in and knock on the door and 6 say you're going today. You'll know well in advance. 7 MS. DEMELO: And I heard you were not buying 8 houses in the last meeting with John Culberson, so I wanted 9 to be sure. 10 MR. WILSON: Not that I know of. 11 MS. HOLM: Please know I'm not trying to be 12 rude. I'm just trying to give everybody an opportunity. I 13 have a question from a card. I believe it is flawed logic 14 to say that people north of 59 would not ride the light rail 15 if it was south of 59. Therefore, you should adjust your 16 study to include these populations and business centers. 17 Will you commit to doing this? 18 MR. WILSON: I have to do what the 19 forecasting and the models tell us to do or I can't count 20 the ridership to get the federal money. And if it's a long 21 circuitous route, then the model picks that up and it 22 says -- it adds a penalty. So will people north of it use 23 it if it's on Westpark? Yes. Will more people use it than 24 others? Who knows. That's what the model has got to tell 25 us, and that's why it's hard for us to say and hard for us 58 1 to hear we've already made a decision. I've got no 2 information to make a decision. That's what we're in 3 pursuit of. Yes, we'll evaluate it, and I suspect that some 4 people will actually make that trip. 5 MS. SIKES: My name is Stella Sikes. I live 6 at 4634 Richmond Avenue and have for the last 28 years. My 7 house is in Afton Oaks between the railroad tracks and Loop 8 610. I've got two questions: First one is last summer when 9 we had the meeting here, I asked the question when the 10 alignment would be decided on, and you said that there was a 11 drop-dead date of November 1st, and that you had to have 12 the alignment figured out by November 1st last year. And 13 then November 1st came and there was no alignment decided 14 on. And then I read that, well, it's going to be another -- 15 it will be into -- well into 2006. And now you're saying 16 it's going to be another nine to 12 months from now. So 17 it's going to be into 2007 at least, probably, before we 18 know anything. And how did you come up with that drop-dead 19 date of November 1st last year? Why did you bother saying 20 that? 21 MR. WILSON: Because you asked the question 22 and our best information at the time was November. That is 23 based on assumptions that drive every schedule. It just 24 drives your own personal life. Some of the assumptions that 25 were made didn't get delivered. One of the things that 59 1 didn't get delivered until very much later was a commitment 2 to pursue federal funding for the project in a sufficient 3 amount that could pay for the project. The other thing that 4 didn't get made in time was this federal process. And so 5 when you are subject to decisions being made by others at a 6 long distance, all you can do is plan and have a schedule 7 and keep updating that as events unfold. 8 What our plan is now, now that we've gotten a 9 commitment for funding, while we're still arguing with the 10 federal government as to whether or not this project can 11 proceed into the environmental stage, we control the 12 decision. Within six to nine months we're through, but 13 remember, we're only one party to the decision. The agency 14 that holds the dollars is really the trump card, it is their 15 timetable and their schedule, and it's hard to move them on 16 our schedule. I'm not being defensive or making excuses. 17 I'd love to control this thing. We would already have met 18 November, but there are other forces that have got to be 19 reckoned with here to make it happen. 20 MS. SIKES: My other question is if you did 21 take the rail down Richmond, how would you plan on getting 22 underneath Loop 610? Because there is no room for a train 23 there. There is barely room for all the cars. 24 MR. WILSON: Well, that's where it was -- at 25 least for now planning on going and solving who gets to use 60 1 what lanes and what turning movements, that's all part of 2 the work that's begun last Thursday. 3 MS. SIKES: Okay. 4 MR. WILSON: Quite a challenge. 5 MS. HOLM: I need to just clear one thing you 6 said. You just said that for now it's planned to go down 7 Richmond under 610? 8 MR. WILSON: If it went there, that's the 9 alignment. 10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's what he said. 11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Their mind is made up. 12 That's what he said. 13 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: He didn't say for now. He 14 said if it were to go on Richmond, that's the way it would 15 go. 16 MS. HOLM: I want to make sure we get that 17 clear. 18 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: We thought we would tell 19 everybody -- 20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear you. 21 MS. HOLM: Mark. 22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Any question? 23 MS. HOLM: Go ahead. 24 MR. WORSCHEH: I'm Mark Worscheh and I live 25 on Staunton Street in Afton Oaks, and I just have a couple 61 1 of questions. Maybe first just an opening statement. I'm 2 very confident about the future of Houston as well and 3 believe that there is an overall transit plan that can solve 4 our needs. I don't believe that we're behind Dallas and 5 Atlanta and other cities, and I don't know that rail 6 necessarily makes us world class or not. 7 I concur in that the challenge of transit is a 8 difficult one, but it's a multiphased one, and whether rail 9 happens in this corridor or not, I'm not sure it's going to 10 make a difference one way or the other. I think we're a 11 great city with or without it. 12 Now, I have questions about just the data and the 13 process because what I hear is that the federal government 14 basically determines what route I have to pick based on this 15 chart right here, and then the model gets to determine how 16 many riders are on right here. So I guess I share Council 17 Member Holm's frustration in trying to figure out where your 18 judgment comes into play in all this and how we can 19 participate or at least understand how this alternatives 20 process is really going to work for you. 21 I share the question that why does 1500 feet north of 22 Westpark not count? There is easily a way to either tunnel 23 with a pedestrian tunnel -- many transit systems have 24 pedestrian tunnels. I used to walk through some in one of 25 the major cities I've worked. That would take you right in 62 1 the heart of Greenway Plaza. There is the 60,000 people 2 that work there that you well know from your studies it 3 would seem that there is a way to try to do that without 4 disrupting all up and down Richmond and staying in the 5 spirit -- certainly the spirit of the election that we all 6 voted for if not for the letter of the law. I mean, I think 7 we're prepared to argue what the letter of the law holds. I 8 think people expected it to go down Westpark. 9 So how do we participate in this process of analysis to 10 ensure that the quality of the data that you're looking at 11 isn't skewed in favor of an alternative? When, frankly, 12 last summer, Mr. Wilson, you came and basically said you saw 13 Westpark as a desert. So you can't help and blame us for 14 being skeptical that you don't really, really want it to go 15 down Richmond. 16 (Applause). 17 MR. WILSON: It's a good question and here is 18 the answer to how you participate and how we get this done 19 and who makes the decisions. The issue gets resolved 20 around -- basically it all boils down to after you consider 21 all the things we talked about, it comes down to two 22 factors: One is how many riders you can attract, and two is 23 at what cost. So I concede to a former question about will 24 somebody walk from north of Southwest Freeway to Westpark? 25 Yes, somebody will do that. You actually suggested that 63 1 maybe we sort of bore through and under Southwest to make it 2 easy. Well, that's a very expensive rider because you've 3 got to put a hole through there and maybe many holes through 4 there. So it's a tender balance. How many more people do 5 we get to attract at what cost? 6 And when you look at, say, Richmond, you can attract 7 either side and investment of that is just about that, zero. 8 Because people can use the streets that are already in 9 existence. So your gut tells you, just your instincts, you 10 don't have to do much engineering and evaluation. That if 11 you have to make Swiss cheese out of the Southwest Freeway 12 in order to get people from north to come south, you're 13 doing it at a price that makes you less competitive. 14 Remember you've got ridership and you've got cost. The 15 objective is to spend the least amount of cost and get the 16 most amount of riders. 17 So last year when we were here, absent the data, yeah, 18 I said exactly what you said, but the context from it was 19 that, you know, given what knowledge we have, which is next 20 to nothing, but it's instinct and it's experience. It is 21 going to be less competitive to attract users from here to 22 here than what you've got here, and it's just how you get to 23 it. You walk over city streets or you've got to go through 24 tunnels. I won't even debate with you the fact that some 25 people don't feel quite so comfortable in the evenings 64 1 walking through a tunnel that's well lit, guarded, 2 attractive, you name it, but they just don't feel that 3 comfortable doing it. 4 Let's set that aside and say no one has a fear of the 5 tunnel. It's just costly to do it, and that's going to get 6 us in a point where we've got to strike that tender balance. 7 The reason for doing it is -- so you understand what goes 8 into why we make judgments and why the analysis will turn 9 out what it does so that these meetings are good for that. 10 We're not at the point yet where we start drawing the lines 11 on here and come up with ideas. When you do, you're going 12 to hear us say that gets us good ridership or that gets us 13 heavy cost or vice versa and that's really where the 14 trade-off is. 15 MR. WORSCHEH: When does that and how does 16 that happen? 17 MR. WILSON: It happens, again, at these 18 first official scoping meetings that's called a scoping 19 meeting. It is not a general community town house meeting 20 where we're here to learn about how the community works and 21 how it operates. We're getting a good education on that. 22 We should be beyond it at that point. Now we've got to come 23 in and start buckling down and short sleeve working and say 24 this is going to be evaluated and this will not. Those are 25 work sessions. 65 1 MR. WORSCHEH: As Pam said at the very 2 beginning of the meeting, the consensus is it is not wanted 3 on Richmond, and if that is the consensus, then why are we 4 wasting all this time arguing about it when the consensus is 5 already made? 6 (Applause). 7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Because they don't care 8 what you think. 9 MR. WILSON: You know, I wish I made that 10 speech because I actually believe what you're saying myself. 11 I think if left alone, we could sit in this room in the 12 amount of time we just spent and come up with the answer. 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We've got the answer. 14 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Wait a minute. 15 MR. WILSON: But I tried to explain earlier 16 this evening, we're not -- we -- not METRO, we are not in 17 control of the final decision. We didn't decide to do it 18 this way. The referendum said you will get half the money 19 from the federal government and you march to their 20 instructions if you're going to get their money. It's their 21 process that brings us here. It's their process that forces 22 us to look at all these ideas and options, not the 23 referendum, not our better judgment. As I said, I wish I 24 had made the statement you made because it is frustrating. 25 MR. CRAIG: My question segues into that 66 1 comment if I might, and it's a 30 second question with I 2 hope a very specific answer. I'm not here to debate mass 3 transit, light rail, heavy rail. I'm here for one reason 4 only and I'm here publicly. My name is Allen Craig. I'm an 5 Afton Oaks resident. I'm interested in the decision whether 6 rail goes down Richmond or Westpark, from the railroad 7 tracks to 610. 8 I have very specific questions. I would like the names 9 of three individual supporters of rail down Richmond, and I 10 would like the names of three individual opponents of rail 11 down Westpark. We're here publicly. I would like to know 12 other -- is it Afton Oaks versus METRO or are there other 13 interests that are supporting Richmond and opposing 14 Westpark? 15 MS. HOLM: For that specific segment? 16 MR. CRAIG: For that specific segment. 17 MS. HOLM: Just the segment. 18 MR. WILSON: I can't stand here tonight and 19 give you three names either way. 20 MR. CRAIG: So the only opposition you 21 have -- 22 MR. WILSON: No, I did not say that. 23 MR. CRAIG: Why can you not give me three 24 names each way? 25 MR. WILSON: Because I did not come prepared 67 1 to answer that question. 2 MR. CRAIG: To your knowledge, which three 3 have approached you? 4 MR. WILSON: If you'd like an answer to that 5 question, I'd be happy to get it for you. 6 MR. CRAIG: I'd like to know right now in the 7 presence of all these people without any resource why -- 8 MR. WILSON: I'll say that in all candidness, 9 I spoke with someone last week who said I'm from Afton Oaks. 10 I'm four blocks off of Richmond. I want the rail on 11 Richmond. I do not remember his name. 12 MR. CRAIG: I don't want individual names. I 13 want groups of significance. 14 MR. WILSON: I thought you said three 15 individuals. 16 MR. CRAIG: No, three individual private 17 entities, yes, rather than an individual. We are here as a 18 group. Are there groups that are opposing Richmond? Are 19 there groups that are opposing Westpark? Are there groups 20 that are supporting Richmond? 21 CHAIRMAN WOLFF: St. George Place was here 22 tonight. 23 MR. CRAIG: Other than the two -- 24 MS. HOLM: I think where we're getting is 25 specifically -- and before we go any further, I just need to 68 1 say, Peter, you are the last person. We're already over, 2 and we are going to respect that you've been in line so 3 long. 4 But I think where we're getting at is we keep hearing 5 these different proposals and yet it keeps coming down to 6 it's either all of Richmond or all of Westpark or all up. 7 If it can be divided up and segmented into phases, and if 8 the community which -- and I'll address that in just one 9 second -- has built consensus that this particular segment 10 is not supported and for various reasons in addition to just 11 I don't like it. This administration has supported quality 12 of life in neighborhoods. It would be hard to get across 13 the railroad tracks, the south side of Afton Oaks and be 14 landlocked if there is rail down it. I mean, there are some 15 significant reasons to remove this segment. And the 16 question I think that everyone continues to ask, why are you 17 so determined to throw it in? What criteria is there other 18 than connecting two points? Is that not basically the 19 question? 20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well put. 21 MR. CRAIG: And I'll step down, but I want to 22 ask for three names. 23 MR. WILSON: Why are we determined to throw 24 what in? 25 MS. HOLM: I'm not determined to throw 69 1 anything. 2 MR. WILSON: Why are we so determined to 3 throw something? 4 MS. HOLM: Why are you so determined to keep 5 this little segment in the study? It doesn't prohibit you 6 from doing everything you want to do, going anywhere you 7 want to go, a study of every other corridor and possible 8 viable option, but why can't this particular segment -- what 9 criteria warrants keeping this segment in other than 10 connecting two dots? 11 MR. WILSON: Ridership. 12 MS. HOLM: There is no -- 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Come on. 14 MS. HOLM: That is good to know. No, but 15 that's it. Okay. Those are the kind of questions though 16 that I think we need to know is what it is. 17 MR. RAYNES: My name is Scott Raynes. I've 18 spoken at a couple of these. Basically I'm one of the folks 19 that's going to be landlocked along with 180 other 20 properties if it goes down Richmond. I live on Ingersoll. 21 If it goes down Richmond, and you talked about all the 22 considerations that you had, and my question to you is, is 23 one of those considerations the fact that we're trapped 24 while this is being studied? There is a cloud hanging over 25 all of our properties that we are looming to be landlocked, 70 1 and we thought in July the drop-dead date as was alluded to 2 earlier was November for a decision, and now we're being 3 told that the decision is going to happen later. Meanwhile, 4 there is for sale signs going up on our street. The 5 properties are not being sold. We're stuck. We don't have 6 anywhere to go. Eminent domain may be our only way out, and 7 that's, you know, something some of the other folks fear, 8 but that may have to be our salvation, but we don't know 9 when that's going to come. So when is the decision going to 10 be made and can you make it quickly so that those of us can 11 go on with our lives? 12 MR. WILSON: Our collective decision should 13 be made no later than the end of this year -- our decision. 14 When the decision is going to be made, your guess is as good 15 as mine because the federal government is going to control 16 it. Either the analysis we do or the alternative we come up 17 with makes it or it doesn't make it, and that decision will 18 happen sometime after, let's say, the end of this year. We 19 should conclude our work together. We should be able to 20 hammer out something that works for all of us certainly by 21 that time period. 22 MR. RAYNES: Go ahead. 23 MR. WILSON: So that we've got this on the 24 record and we don't hear back again, you said I said that 25 the federal government's acceptance or rejections will 71 1 happen after that time period, but at this point it's hard 2 to know when they'll render that opinion. Now, it depends 3 on the results of the evaluation we do, either we score 4 highly or we don't. 5 MR. RAYNES: Thank you. 6 MS. HOLM: While the next speaker is coming 7 up, since I am against light rail on Richmond or Westpark, 8 will it mess METRO up when I contribute to help fund the 9 lawsuit against rail on Richmond? 10 (Applause). 11 MR. WILSON: No. 12 MR. BARNUM: My name is Dan Barnum. I am a 13 resident of Midtown. I live on Austin Street. I have a 14 business on Weslayan at Alabama. I have a couple of 15 questions. Will you put the Weslayan/Westheimer route back 16 on the table as one of the options? Because I think it is 17 the one that makes the most sense, and I would like to see 18 it studied. The other thing that I would like to say -- the 19 question I have is will you please explain to these people 20 that the rail line will not landlock them and that the rail 21 line will not negatively modify their quality of life? 22 Thank you. 23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You can have my house if 24 you want it. 25 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Buy my house. 72 1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'll give you a good deal 2 on it. 3 MR. WILSON: You said there was two 4 questions. When would we put the Weslayan/Westheimer back 5 on? If that's the consensus of the scoping sessions we 6 have, sure, we'll put it back on. Number two, will it 7 landlock them? Number two, will it landlock them? If so, 8 we've not done our job, which means that the project can't 9 work. We've got to find a way to make sure nothing gets 10 landlocked. Can we do it? I can't stand here tonight and 11 say we can. That's why we've got these engineering firms. 12 That's why we're going to work, but obviously it's the 13 objective. You can't landlock a community and expect to 14 build a project. That's just not feasible. 15 MS. HOLM: Okay, while Peter is coming up -- 16 and, Barry, if you'd like to write down -- we've announced 17 earlier that Peter was the last mic speaker. 18 We are the people in the north side of the Southwest 19 Freeway. Why don't you ask us if we would use rail if it 20 was on Richmond? Will you please show hands if it were on 21 Richmond, would you use the rail system? Thank you. Peter. 22 MR. POPKIN: Thank you, Pam. I had not 23 planned to speak tonight. I've been to enough of these 24 meetings and spoken a few times, but the hair on my neck 25 stood up a few times tonight and I felt like I just had to 73 1 say something. I feel like we're involved in a smartest guy 2 in the room syndrome tonight. I don't feel like that in 3 spite of all the rhetoric, we're not here tonight getting 4 information on how we can successfully help you build a line 5 on Westpark. We're here tonight to try to tell you for the 6 umpteenth time why we think Richmond is a no deal. I feel 7 like the family decided to go out for dessert and everybody 8 voted to go eat ice cream and dad took us to the doughnut 9 shop. Okay? A little corny, I know, but that's how we 10 feel. You've got a whole -- I believe you've got a whole 11 room full of people that feel that way. 12 You know, you think about walking to the train, when 13 you go through the airports of the world, you walk a great 14 distance typically to get through the airport, to get 15 through the security, to get out on the concourse, a 16 significant distance, significantly greater than probably a 17 quarter of a mile, which by definition is the number that 18 you all have used in talking about how far people will 19 travel to get from their home or their office or whatever to 20 the train station. Is that correct, a quarter of a mile? 21 MR. WILSON: Yes. 22 MR. POPKIN: So I think it's clearly 23 demonstrated that everybody in this room has traveled 24 somewhere and others surely if you've got a nice air 25 conditioned space where you can carry your bag or roll it 74 1 now as they do with elevated walkovers, I know a tunnel 2 under the freeway is probably out of the question, but 3 walkovers from Greenway and wherever else is deemed 4 appropriate to the Westpark line would seem to be 5 appropriate. And once people know it's there and want to 6 ride the train, I think it's pretty simple to say that they 7 will use it. I don't think they're going to have to be 8 trained. I think they'll use it just as they go out to the 9 far terminals at Intercontinental, but I just don't 10 understand why we're not here tonight trying to find the 11 consensus in the room. If you want to build it on Westpark, 12 I think everybody in this room would stand up and lend a 13 helping hand and try to help you figure out how to make it 14 successful. Build it on Richmond, and we're going to fight 15 you tooth and nail. 16 MS. HOLM: If a study had not been done to 17 determine the best route for the new rail, why did the 18 ballot presented to the voters name Westpark already? Will 19 the rail be on any part of Westpark? 20 MR. WILSON: The ballot talked about Westpark 21 the same way they talked about the other four alignments. 22 They gave end points and said that this corridor needs to be 23 served as part of the city, and there were end points that 24 were mentioned in the ballot measure. And for the most 25 part, every corridor was treated the same way. Will this 75 1 project be on Westpark at some point? Obviously that's what 2 we're looking at and obviously it is still a possibility. 3 And it becomes a -- you know, I'll grant you this 4 because we're trying to do -- kind of a thankless position 5 to be in because we can't admit to and can't have actually a 6 bias one way or the other no matter where you go, but I'll 7 say this, if you're looking to balance cost and ridership, 8 Westpark certainly does have an advantage, and advantages on 9 the cost side. And if you want to be honest about it, look 10 at it on Richmond or at least parts of Richmond have an 11 advantage on the ridership side. The trick is can you blend 12 the two and get the least cost and the most riders and 13 that's the objective. The objective is not to go through 14 this and fail and come up with something that's too 15 expensive or doesn't carry enough people to win the day and 16 get federal support. Then we'll have nothing. 17 So the issue is the pursuit of where is the solution? 18 And to presuppose it's all on one or all on the other is 19 kind of sophomoric. It's kind of naive. There is probably, 20 you know, a combination that lowers the costs and gets you 21 as much riders as you can possibly get. That's what we need 22 to go find and that's where we need your help. That's why 23 all options are on the table, and that's why I say, well, 24 it's likely that some part of this may be on Richmond. Why? 25 Simply because of cost considerations, and equally you look 76 1 at the other side, is it likely part of it is going to be on 2 Richmond? Probably because that's where a lot of the riders 3 are going to be and it's going to be easy to get them. 4 Therein lies the challenge we face. 5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is it possible for us to 6 get the language on that ballot, the express language on the 7 ballot? If we could get it to Mr. Seger -- 8 MR. KLEIN: I've got a copy and I'll give you 9 one later. 10 MS. HOLM: We have one final comment on a 11 card. Please point out that the 2003 election proposition 12 does not mention the word corridor; and, two, the decision 13 to build rail is only METRO's. The feds only decide if they 14 want to help with the funding. 15 In conclusion tonight, I want to thank all of you one 16 more time for your patience, for being a part of the 17 process. I will tell you it is very frustrating for me, and 18 I think one of the reasons is because of our level of 19 communication and our terminology. I, like you, for much 20 time, a long time, believed that we were going through a 21 consensus building process as a part of the process. What I 22 have come to find out -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that 23 this is simply public comment, and so basically all we have 24 done for the last ten months is reiterated over and over and 25 over again what it is that we do or we don't personally 77 1 want. That becomes very frustrating. 2 It also becomes very frustrating to me as much as I 3 will tell you I think we have a great METRO board that 4 really is committed. I think we have a good leader in METRO 5 that really has the experience to build the right system. 6 But it still -- everything I hear tonight and it's one of 7 the things, with all due respect, that keeps disturbing me, 8 is it is a process that they go through with a business 9 mind. And for me, as much as I believe that we need a 10 transit system, there are a lot more components that go into 11 it than just meeting federal criteria, and I am searching -- 12 (Applause). 13 MS. HOLM: I am searching to find out what 14 that process is. And one of the things that I hope you know 15 about me, I am pretty darn persistent. And we're gonna get 16 to it. We will -- if we have a rail system, and I believe 17 we need it in the years to come without question as our city 18 grows, and I believe Westpark is going to be just as dense 19 as Richmond at some point in time. In finding that right 20 system, it must be a decision that is based on getting the 21 federal dollars. However, it cannot be at the expense of 22 the neighborhoods that are the -- of the most importance to 23 this city. There are very few single-family neighborhoods 24 like Afton Oaks and West Lane and Mid Lane inside Loop 610. 25 They are the core of why and how our city was developed. It 78 1 is the charge of our city to protect the integrity of those 2 neighborhoods while providing a transit system. 3 And I will tell you, I am still very confused when as 4 your council member and as we've listened and because I 5 don't know the process and I am going to continue to pursue 6 it, I do not understand if we cannot build consensus on this 7 one segment, if we cannot protect our neighborhood, if we 8 cannot allow mobility, if we can't cross the railroad track 9 at grade without restoring, I am baffled as to why we are 10 going through this segment of it. I understand exploring 11 options, but just as you take credible options off and put 12 credible options on, I don't understand why you can't take 13 credible segments off. The conversation will go on. 14 One more time, I thank you. Your patience, your 15 frustration levels I know have been exceeded, but hang in 16 there. We will get there and you have the assurances, the 17 ultimate decision and the ultimate will be on the funding 18 from Washington, and you have the assurances from your 19 congressman that he hears you. Before the streets of 20 Houston can be used for anything, it is a vote of -- it 21 comes through city council, and your mayor said at the 22 meeting at St. Luke's and your council member has said it 23 will not be at the expense of our neighborhood that we will 24 do that. So we're going through the process. Please bear 25 with us. Try to find something fun to do for a little while 79 1 to get us past this and distracted as we begin to go 2 through. 3 One of the questions as we dismiss, but one of the 4 questions I do have is now that we've selected an engineer, 5 who gives them their instructions? What is their charge? 6 Who are they accountable to? And will the public or will 7 the elected officials have any input with them? 8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: There is five of them. 9 200,000 bucks a day. 10 MR. WILSON: The engineers do what they are 11 instructed to do, and this process provides the 12 instructions. So they are not off working on their own. 13 They're not self-supervised. They work at the direction of 14 the METRO organization which has taken on you as partners in 15 this process to evaluate each of the succeeding next steps. 16 So it's not done in a vacuum. It's done out in full view. 17 And if nothing else, you know, we apologize for the unending 18 meetings, but better that we have come to you early in the 19 process and not surprised you with decisions that are 20 already made and couldn't be undone. So I think you can 21 rest assured that these engineers are not going to go off 22 and design something that we have no -- we have no interest 23 in. 24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tell us what he said, Pam. 25 AUDIENCE MEMBER: What was that name again? 80 1 MS. HOLM: Thank you all very much for 2 coming. 3 4 (Meeting adjourned). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25