Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this
postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to
[email protected]. Thanks for your patience.
Dear Editor,
I lived in Houston while their rail system was under construction [“
A Great Big Bundle of Rail and Roads,” News, Aug. 8]. Much of downtown was a huge mess from 1999 to 2004. Many businesses closed because customers had too much difficulty reaching them during construction. When the rail was completed, every bus that ran through downtown had to be rerouted to accommodate the rail. Trips that used to be possible on one bus now require multiple buses, or a bus and a train. Hundreds of collisions occur annually between cars and trains. When Houston voters later approved an expansion route on Westpark Drive, Harris County Metro ignored the ballot language specifying a route. Only massive public opposition stopped the new rail line from being built on Richmond Avenue instead of Westpark Drive. As someone who rides public transit daily, I think Houston was a better place to live before it had a rail system. Austin City Council now wants to force rail on us by structuring the ballot so that to oppose urban rail one has to vote against all transportation bond funding. They are cynically counting on the fact that because of Austin's traffic congestion problems, many people who are not rail supporters will support the bond package anyway. Capital Metro went from having $200 million to being too broke to pay its debts to the city of Austin mostly because of a relatively modest commuter rail. What do we expect to be the financial results of a much more ambitious urban rail system?
Dear Editor,
The
Chronicle’s support for the rail/road bonds is unfortunate [“
Point Austin: More Connected Than Thou,” News, Aug. 8]. This project is designed for development interests and out-of-town commuters (who would not pay either the property tax or the sales tax for operations). Current ridership does not justify it, so they estimate 2030 ridership, which would be moderate at best. It is not cost-effective to build for future ridership – it takes money from other transit projects that would better serve current and long-term needs.
The transit advocates who oppose the project are volunteers who are concerned about transportation in Austin. Most of us have some technical understanding, and a couple are professional transportation planners. Paid staff and consultants can use data to come to a conclusion that is desired by those in power. Mr. King criticizes transit advocates for questioning the outcomes for that reason.
The
Chronicle has criticized Mayor Leffingwell's support for developers and lack of concern for affordability, but Mr. King mocks opponents' concern that the project is designed to serve developers.
To suggest that only a small group of transit advocates oppose the bond measure is inaccurate. Council candidates have told me that the vast majority of people they meet oppose it. The supporters listed are mostly business interests and UT, which will directly benefit, but is not contributing a dime. The Sierra Club endorsement was made without outreach to the community; many environmental advocates oppose it.
It is not right for the government to spend money to promote a project (as opposed to education). The Lege passed a law making it illegal, but Perry vetoed it. Mr. King says that transit advocates are "anti-tax," but we understand that transit requires an investment and would not oppose a tax for a worthwhile project. Mr. King would be happy if the bond measure passes. But developers and out-of-town commuters would have the last laugh.