METRO promises a lovely world of crape myrtles; Chron applauds
On August 15, the Chronicle ran a letter from Robert McClain, who owns a business on Richmond and opposes rail on that street. Here is the letter in its entirety:
LIKE many in the coalition who oppose a Richmond rail line, I supported the 2003 referendum in which Houstonians voted for a commuter rail system on Westpark, connecting to the suburbs and supposedly to take cars off of our freeways. Now the Metropolitan Transit Authority has ignored the will of voters and converted the original plan to an "urban" system which reduces mobility. Metro proposes adding 50 new traffic lights along this rail alignment.
On peak days, 60,000 cars cross Richmond Avenue at Kirby, Shepherd and Buffalo Speedway. Yet Metro's own study said a Richmond line will create unacceptable congestion at 31 intersections - in short, expect near gridlock.
As for clean air, it will only be worse with thousands of cars jammed along Richmond Avenue intersections and increased commuter traffic on the Southwest Freeway.
The Main Street line has not removed any cars from our roads. Even the Environmental Protection Agency rejected Houston's application for pollution credits, concluding that the rail line did not reduce auto traffic.
After five years of construction, the loss of hundreds of mature trees, increased flooding, relocation of countless utility, phone and water lines, here is the punchline: It will most likely not even be rail. As in the other "rail" corridors that have been approved, it will be rubber-tired, diesel-powered, glorified buses going down a dedicated lane of traffic. It was just another "switch and bait."
Why not spend our tax dollars in ways that would really improve traffic mobility. Improve the bus service and get cars off the freeways with commuter rail; help preserve the quality of life of the entire city.
Although most of McClain's points are pretty solid, his assertion that the Richmond line will "most likely not even be rail" is an overstatement. All indications are that METRO intends that corridor to be rail, although technically it is still considering other options.
While it is not unusual for the erratic Chronicle letters editor to run letters that sometimes overstate matters (or that sometimes are just wrong), it is unusual for a Chronicle columnist to devote a significant portion of a column to debunking a reader letter. Nonetheless, that's how Chron transportation columnist Rad Sallee chose to lead his column on Monday:
Similar suspicions were raised by others who, like McClain, oppose Metro putting the route on Richmond. Metro officials emphatically deny any retreat from their light rail commitment.
"That's the wildest rumor and untruth that I've heard in a long, long time," said president and CEO Frank Wilson.
"There never has been any question that the University Corridor will be light rail," board chairman David Wolff said Thursday.
Metro spokeswoman Sandra Salazar said analysis in the voluminous Draft Environmental Impact Statement, or DEIS, for the line justifies light rail as cost-effective.
So what's the basis for doubt? That same environmental statement, according to three of the opponents.
Let's take a look.
•Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT for short, is one of four transit options examined in the DEIS. The BRT buses look somewhat like trains and would run in a guideway that Metro says is exactly like the one for rail tracks.
"Why is BRT-Convertible being seriously studied at this late date?" asks Afton Oaks resident Ted Richardson.
First, it's not as if Metro were slipping that option in at the last minute. A brief search turned up slide presentations from March and June 2006 that include BRT among the choices to be evaluated, and it was, no doubt, considered even earlier.
Why is it still one of the options? Because the evaluation process required for federal funding is still going on. If Metro wants light rail instead of BRT, it needs to justify the added expense, and the DEIS analysis is part of that case.
Including BRT also is a prudent hedge, because if the cost/benefit numbers turn out to not justify light rail, they might at least support BRT.
[snip]
There are things in the DEIS that do raise questions — and some, such as the 197 median trees to be removed, that raise major concern. Also, its ridership forecasts show only a modest advantage for light rail over BRT, given rail's considerably higher cost.
But evidence for a bait and switch on the mode of transit seems slim to zero.
At this point, nobody knows that outcome.
Evidence of an intentional "bait and switch" is slim at this point. However, Sallee concedes that "[i]ncluding BRT ... is a prudent hedge." That would seem to be evidence that BRT is an option on the table. So, while Chronicle letter writer McClain may have overstated his case, he's not completely out in left field to suggest that the Richmond-rail folks could get stuck with BRT, just like the people in other corridors who thought they were getting light rail (and not BRT) as a result of the 2003 vote.
Surely METRO appreciated a Chron columnist putting a Chron letter writer in his proper place, though. How dare the public question METRO!
Here is some of Sallee's other METRO promotional work from the last week:
Q: Some who live or work along Richmond fear that the actual number of trees lost will be much larger than 197 when you add trees on each side of the street to those in the median. What's the real total?
A [from METRO "tree guy" Burt Ballanfant]: I don't know the actual number, but it will be less than the one in the DEIS report because we're very much committed to transplanting and replacing trees.
Q: A lot of people will see the loss of mature oaks as a huge negative. Two sets of tracks and boarding platforms take up space, and the trains need room overhead for the power line. How can you avoid taking out a lot of trees?
A: Some will have to be removed, but with others you may be able to go in and have professional pruning done so the wires can go underneath them. A lot of trees may need to be picked up and moved 10 or 20 feet, but they will stay in the corridor to keep the feeling of greenery and shade and beauty.
Q: We're talking about live oaks, with deep roots and massive trunks. How can you transplant those?
A: Some may be too big to move, but trees larger than you might think can be transplanted. I have two live oaks in front of my house that came from the parking lot in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, and they're probably 12 inches (in diameter).
Q: Oaks take years to reach maturity. What will the street look like at first?
A: We'll be planting different species. In some places you may have to use something like crape myrtle, and in others you may need a tree like a pine that will grow vertically rather than widely. The thrust of this is to make sure that when rail is built along the Richmond-Westpark corridor, it is more attractive after we're done than it was to begin with.
Lovely Oak Trees along Richmond,
via my Flickr account
Here's one more snippet from Sallee's work this week, the conclusion to his story on METRO's recent public comment session:
Robin Holzer said that despite their differences, "many on both sides share the same concerns" but are separated by "a difference of trust."
Holzer urged Metro, in moving forward, "to work with neighborhoods and involve us in the planning."
Sedlak said Metro would.
The first quote from Holzer (who does not live or own a business on Richmond) is nonsensical. Seriously, if anyone can parse it intelligibly, please do so in the comments.
It's the sort of quote a journalist works in when he wants to quote a certain person, and wants to conclude his story a certain way.
And Sallee has been doing that sort of thing enough lately that we can't help but wonder if he is capable of covering this issue objectively. It wouldn't be the first time such questions have been raised about the Chronicle's ability to cover METRO objectively.
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport (and here).
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/29/07 10:25 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.