When Robert Eckels stepped down as
county judge in February, he closed out
10 years as chairman of the eight-county
Transportation Policy Council. The new
judge, Ed Emmett, won't chair that
council, but will be an important
member, with as broad an expertise in
transportation as anyone at the table.
The former state representative worked
on freight rail and maritime issues as
an Interstate Commerce Commission
member, headed a transportation industry
group for 10 years and more recently has
been a railroad consultant. Emmett spoke
with Chronicle reporter Rad Sallee about
the county's mobility needs and
priorities.
Q: County
commissioners in Texas can build roads
as they please in their own precincts,
but the county judge doesn't even have a
precinct to build in. What's your role
in transportation?
A: As the face of
the county, I get to use the bully
pulpit. There has to be somebody who
drives the overall vision.
Q: What projects do
you especially want to push through?
A: The completion of
the Grand Parkway (outer freeway loop)
has got to occur, and the northeast
section of Beltway 8, and the Hardy Toll
Road into downtown. Also, we need a toll
road on U.S. 290, and if we don't talk
about commuter rail there, we're making
a big mistake. We need commuter rail to
Fort Bend County too, and we have to
relocate some of our freight rail.
Q: Because
interstate commerce is involved, there
are limits to what local government can
do with railroads, but you've worked
closely with them. How would you
approach the freight rail issue?
A: I'm tired of
seeing kids crawl under trains. The very
first thing has got to be to alleviate
rail congestion in the East End. That
will require adding a second track to a
bridge just north of the Turning Basin
and identifying the most critical grade
crossings, the ones that affect schools.
Some proposals to relocate railroads
just won't work, but double-tracking
here and there and grade separations
here and there would make a big
difference. We need to get cracking on
those.
Q: One aspect of the
Trans-Texas Corridor concept that has
received little notice is the idea of
moving some freight tracks out of urban
areas, such as Austin. That won't work
here?
A: The Union Pacific
would probably like to get off of Mopac
(as Texas 1 is called along the former
Missouri Pacific tracks in Austin), but
in most other places, railroads are not
going to just pull up and move. They
have customers they have to serve.
A lot of our rail system has been
around for more than 100 years and the
city has grown up around it. The Union
Pacific line that comes through Memorial
Park was put there years ago to be way
out in the country.
If you tried to get all the freight
traffic out of Memorial Park or Sugar
Land, where would you take it? I'm not
going to be a party to any relocation
that puts even more trains and traffic
into the East End.
Q: Metro's plan
approved by voters calls for commuter
rail to the northwest out U.S. 290 and
to Fort Bend County along U.S. 90A. A
line toward Galveston out Texas 3 has
also been discussed. How do you rate
those?
A: The U.S. 290 rail
corridor is underutilized, and U.P. has
said they're perfectly willing to have
that one looked at for a commuter line.
I don't think a line toward Galveston
has high feasibility right now, partly
because coming in from the east you get
mixed up in heavy freight traffic pretty
quick.
Q: The Texas House
of Representatives just passed a
two-year moratorium on big privatized
road projects like the Trans-Texas
Corridor (a proposed statewide network
of tollways, railroads and pipelines).
What do you think of the corridor idea
generally and of plans for TTC-69
through East Texas and Houston?
A: When the Texas
Department of Transportation and Gov.
(Rick) Perry rolled out the idea, they
overstated it. They showed every
possible corridor in the state, which
totally angered a lot of people
needlessly.
And remember those schematics showing
toll lanes and truck lanes and railroads
and pipelines all together? If what they
really wanted was to build a private
toll road, it should have been touted as
a private toll road.
Q: Will TTC-69 be
built?
A: The piece around
Houston will have to be built, the way
we're growing. But nobody's going to pay
a toll down around Victoria. You have a
four-lane divided highway right now, and
there's not enough traffic to justify a
toll facility.
I was disappointed when I heard that
(the proposed) Interstate 69 was going
to be designated a Trans-Texas Corridor.
I knew that was going to cause us more
trouble politically than any potential
benefit.
In East Texas, a lot of people think
I-69 is going to be a serious upgrade of
U.S. 59, but if they're going to build a
whole new corridor — watch out.
I don't want to go to their town hall
meetings when they start talking about
taking people's land to build it, and
taking business away from U.S. 59.
Q: Do you get along
with Metro?
A: I've worked well
with Metro so far — a whole month! Do I
agree with everything they're doing?
Absolutely not. Do I question some
things? Of course.
Q: What do you think
of Metro's ventures into
transit-oriented development? (The
agency recently agreed to buy property
from a developer with the expectation
that he'll buy it back for
transit-friendly projects adjacent to
the Main Street rail line.)
A: Transportation
projects clearly are "If you build it,
they will come." In Washington, D.C.,
every Metro stop has a town built up
around it, and I think you're going to
see the same thing here.
Q: Everybody has an
opinion about light rail on Richmond.
What's yours?
A: If the entire
Westpark corridor had been preserved as
it was originally, maybe they should
have put the rail there, but I think
there are issues now that the Southwest
Freeway has been rebuilt.
When I hear politicians say they are
opposed to a transportation improvement
because the people most directly
affected don't want it, I have a
problem. The reason has to be more
transportation-related than that.