This HAIF thread (scroll down to post #2532) has some reactions from people who attended the Thursday town hall meeting of Rep. Culberson's at Rice University. A brief sample, from "Quinlan":

It was a pretty full house and there was quite a bit of tension in the air. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro "Rail on Richmond"---I would say upwards of 80%. Culberson made many attempts to steer the conversation away from rail, but the crowd kept bringing the topic back to rail. There were many outbursts from the crowd, showing an obvious frustration with his, as one attendee put it, "pandering", and it seemed like many in the crowd had decided that he no longer deserves enough respect to keep these things civil and orderly. There were many times when Culberson, even with his microphone, could not make himself heard over the raucous crowd.

Culberson kept repeating, ad nauseum, that he was only respecting the intent of the voters in the 2003 election, by insisting on his designated route that only has "slight modifications" from the map allegedly put before voters. It was pointed out to him that the map he had on hand as his prop was not accurate and that the language on the ballot proposal included that the "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." All of this went in one ear and out the other (unsurprisingly, with incredible speed).

[...]

Some of my thought about Rail on Richmond after reflecting on the meeting:

*Even if his so-called map is the map voted on by the voters in 2003, why should he get to decide what "slight modifications" should be permitted to it?
*What really is his agenda here? It's obvious that it isn't to "respect the actions of the voters". He breaks that tenet on a nearly daily basis. It is also fairly clear that the majority of his constituents favor Rail on Richmond. What political purpose is served by his continued opposition to Rail on Richmond?

He wasn't interested in having a meaningful discussion on the issue. He even categorized the issue as moot from the beginning. And when he did speak, it was nothing but constant contradictions:

"I'm a fiscal conservative", then "my option isn't much more expensive and the ridership will be nearly the same".
"I'm for control at the local level", then "I'm going to protect you from Metro".
"The voters approved Westpark only and we have to abide by that", then "my slight modification runs it inside the freeway".

He kept pointing at a map that he claimed was part of the ballot (it wasn't) and said that we all had to abide by that map, but then promised to block Metro from using the public easement illustrated on the map and again championed his 59 option, which was never on any map prior to the election.