Rad Sallee has a story today about a topic I keep going back to: should Metro hold another referendum since it has changed Metro Solutions, specifically (in this case), because the original ballot said “Westpark” and not “Richmond”?
Chris Seger of the Afton Oaks Civic Club played the referendum card last week when he told the Metropolitan Transit Authority board: “We are serious, we are well-funded and we are totally committed to bringing this question before the people once again if necessary.”
Seger said he and others in the subdivision, located along Richmond just east of the Galleria, like light rail.
They just want to see it on Westpark — the route approved by voters in a 2003 referendum.
“We intend to make Metro honor the results” of that vote, Seger said, prompting applause from many in the packed boardroom Thursday.
The ballot proposition specified 64 miles of future light rail in six corridors, one of them explicitly named “Westpark.”
But Metro officials say a route on Westpark, which has fewer attractions than Richmond and is farther from the Uptown shopping district, could have trouble enticing riders and might not qualify for federal funding.
Metro officials should have thought of that when they created the original Metro Solutions that voters barely approved.
Metro president and CEO Frank Wilson said last week that Metro is doing “precisely what the referendum requires” in considering both routes.
Actually, it is relying on a single paragraph, repeated three times in the referendum text:
“Note: Final scope, length of rail segments or lines and other details, together with implementation schedule, will be based upon demand and completion of the project development process, including community input.”
“Demand” would seem to let Metro consider projected ridership in its decision. But does choice of route fall under either”scope” or “other details?”
Metro cited the same paragraph last June when the idea of another referendum surfaced briefly in response to the news that Metro would initially use Bus Rapid Transit in four transit corridors, instead of the light rail approved by voters.
The paragraph also covers Metro’s decision to combine parts of what appeared on the ballot as the Southeast and Westpark lines into a single route labeled University.
Voters approved the transit plan by a majority of just 51.7 percent. Those fighting the Richmond option argue that if it, and not Westpark, had been on the ballot, the measure would have failed.
Again, former Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter reassured voters that they would be able to hold Metro accountable with future votes. Does Metro not believe in honoring the word of its former chairman?
