Looks like it may hit a bump in the road. And this maybe a potentially big bump.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6438868.html
Bill sets off alarm for Metro light rail
Agency warns limits on eminent domain could kill expansion project
By MATT STILES
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
May 24, 2009, 7:37AM
AUSTIN — Legislation working its way through the Capitol could curb the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s ability to take property for its planned light rail lines, potentially imperiling the plan, agency officials say.
The proposal, which still faces an uphill battle in the final days of the legislative session, was quietly attached last week to a loosely related bill by House lawmakers.
“It effectively kills the light rail program,” said George Smalley, Metro’s vice president for communications and marketing.
The new restrictions, if enacted, would limit the agency’s eminent domain authority, needed to buy property for the rail lines, if a route differs from the 2003 referendum that authorized the light rail program.
The restrictions mirror the rhetoric of rail critics, who say the location of the controversial University Line down Richmond and Westpark doesn’t conform to the referendum.
“If you lose a line like the University Line because you lost the power of condemnation, then the whole thing is at grave risk,” Smalley said.
Could threaten network
Agency officials said the restrictions could cause significant cost overruns, legal battles and perhaps the elimination of the program altogether. The five-line, $2 billion plan— and its funding — are all tied together, they say.
The legislation would only affect the University Line, but it could threaten the entire planned rail network. The line is centrally located and expected to connect other routes on the west and east. And, any changes to the overall system would alter ridership studies that federal transit authorities used when approving it.
State Rep. Joe Pickett, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, said he added the new restrictions at the request of rail critics by amending another bill, which regulated fare enforcement by mass transit agencies.
The El Paso Democrat said they convinced him that the transit agency hadn’t complied with the referendum. He said he hadn’t talked with the agency, though, before adding the language.
At issue is whether it’s lawful to build a line partially on Richmond when the ballot described it as being on Westpark.
The agency says the largest share of the line would, in fact, be on Westpark, adding that the ballot referred to a general location, the details of which should be based on federally required cost and ridership studies. Those indicate that a segment should be on Richmond.
Pickett said he is open to changing the language.
“If … they intend to meet their promise that they made, then they shouldn’t have a problem,” he said. “It was pretty clear that there was a referendum that did state where (the line) was going, and we were just asked to ratify that.” The legislation came to light just as agency officials were hopeful that, after years of debate and uncertainty, they would have the funding and political support to move forward.
Construction on three lines, the north, southeast and East End lines, is scheduled to begin soon, and federal officials have promised more than $900 million in funding.
“Never before have all the elements lined up so well,” Smalley said.
While the agency is concerned about its implications, passage of the legislation is far from certain.
The bill had been planned for a local and consent calendar reserved for non-controversial or limited measures that draw little debate, perhaps on Wednesday. But the controversy appeared likely to force the measure to be considered like any other complex legislation.