Amendment 190 sparks debate over public outreach

by Erika McDonald

Some environmentalists are calling amendment 190 to the Houston-Galveston Area Council’s Transportation Improvement Plan the first step toward implementation of several dozen projects that could have serious environmental impacts. So why have most people never heard of it?

What is amendment 190?
The amendment was proposed by the Texas Department of Transportation and, once approved by H-GAC’s Transportation Policy Board, would allow the agency to begin right-of-way activities including right-of-way mapping and acquisition, utilities adjustments and relocation assistance for various roadway projects included in the 2022 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Many of the projects listed in the amendment have not been approved by an appropriate permitting agency or been assessed for environmental impacts.

Amendment 190 includes projects that face intense opposition from area environmentalists such as the Bolivar Bridge, I-10 expansion and segments of the Grand Parkway.

Brandt Mannchen, chair of the forestry committee for the Houston Sierra Club said that by bundling so many projects, some of which are hotly contested issues, TXDOT was intentionally trying to confuse the public. He accused H-GAC of attempting to “rubber-stamp” projects before following environmental procedure or receiving public input.

“I guess they thought this was no big deal,” he said. “It really seems like somebody was trying to slip one past us.”

At press time, a TXDOT official said he planned to meet with H-GAC staff to rescind amendment 190. Carol Nixon, director of planning for TXDOT, said that he regretted any confusion caused by the bundling of so many projects and said the department would pursue right-of-way acquisition in a format that was more straightforward.

“(Amendment 190) may have been an unfortunate way of doing things, but it seemed appropriate at the time,” he said. “We don’t want to do anything that would be adverse to our standing in the community.”

Mannchen said he was pleased TXDOT planned to rescind the amendment but said he remained skeptical.

“In my eight years of experience (with H-GAC’s Transportation Policy Board) I have never seen them back off of a proposal – no matter how much public opposition it received,” he said.

Who knew?
The bundling of controversial projects was not the only problem with amendment 190. Environmentalists also complained the amendment, and a public hearing held Dec 16 to discuss it, were poorly publicized.

Polly Ledvina, an organizer with the Katy Corridor Coalition, a group against the proposed I-10 expansion plan said that few people knew about the meeting or the public-comment deadline and none of the residents or citizens’ groups that represent affected neighborhoods were directly contacted.

Though the meeting was advertised in the Houston Chronicle and announced on H-GAC’s web site, no mention was made as to which projects the amendment included.

“People in the various corridors would have no way of knowing the amendment affected them,” Ledvina said.

Pat Waskowiak, a spokesperson for H-GAC’s transportation department said the Council responded to citizens’ complaints. The public comment period for amendment 190 was extended from Jan. 6 to Feb. 5. New ads were placed in the Chronicle and the entire amendment was posted on H-GAC’s web site – not a common practice according to Waskowiak.

Citizens’ requests to hold a second public hearing were denied.

Waskowiak insisted H-GAC was not trying to keep the amendment a secret, or limit public comment. She said H-GAC employed the same methods it normally does for publicizing hearings.

“If this is ‘normal’ H-GAC procedure for publicizing meetings, we have a serious problem,” Ledvina said.

Time for a change
Some environmentalists and at least one elected official pointed to the problems with amendment 190 as evidence of a need for H-GAC to revamp its public outreach program.

Mannchen said the Sierra Club submitted comments to H-GAC requesting the Council improve its efforts to involve stakeholders in transportation policy decisions. The club’s suggestions included holding meetings at varying times and in several locations to include residents in outlying counties.

Sierra Club also suggested longer public comment periods and contacting citizens groups and community organizers directly about meetings and deadlines.

“We want to see H-GAC develop a first-class program to represent labor, minorities, seniors, children, the disabled – all the people who have needs that can be addressed by transportation,” Mannchen said. “Transportation can be used to help people, not just develop land.”

U.S. Rep Nick Lampson of Houston echoed the Sierra Club’s suggestions, saying H-GAC should employ aggressive and creative strategies to increase community involvement.

Lampson and his staff plan to meet with H-GAC transportation planners to discuss improvements in public outreach and education.

Waskowiak said the Council’s public outreach plan was “not static” and she would be open to suggestions for improvement.

“We’re never going to reach the level where everyone is happy, but we will never stop trying,” she said.

Case in point
Transportation and Environmental Justice was a compilation of case studies published by the U.S. DOT and the Federal Highway and Transit Administrations in 2000. Peter Tyler, a Lampson staff member, said he would like to see Houston agencies model their community outreach efforts after the strategies employed by some of the cities highlighted in the book.

In Madison, Wisconsin heavy community involvement resulted in the completion of a needs-based assessment of congestion problems from road-user perspectives including pedestrians, cyclists and transit users. WisDOT made a deliberate effort to reach out to predominately low-income, African American neighborhoods by hosting more than 70 public meetings (free transportation and child care provided) and producing and distributing a video that described the needs-assessment study. The highlight of WisDOT’s public outreach program was a partnership with a local middle school through which their staff trained students to conduct traffic counts and speed studies, interview community residents and take inventory of transportation facilities.

In Oakland, California, the Fruitvale Transit Village was borne out of contentious debates between the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority, which proposed construction of a multi-level parking garage, and the Unity Council, a citizens’ group that objected to the project they said would exacerbate crime and pollution. By partnering, the two groups redesigned the proposed garage and developed the Transit Village, addressing neighborhood revitalization issues and integration of local businesses. In 1993, U.S. Dot awarded the Unity Council a $470,000 grant, which the group used to fund community workshops and economic, traffic and engineering studies.

A hard copy of the case studies can be obtained through H-GAC by contacting Pamela Mohammed at 713-627-3200. Contents of the report can also be viewed on the web at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm.