Chron offers underrepresented view on METRO service; METRO complains
Several days ago, the Chronicle ran a surprising article by Leslie Casimir on the challenges faced by some named commuters who do not have cars, and who must rely upon METRO to get to/from various points that do not always include downtown or the Medical Center.
Various complaints raised by real METRO customers in the story include:
* Slow commute times (10 minute drives by private car can take 2 hours using METRO)
* Lack of service outside the loop
* Multiple transfers
* "Service improvements" that mean discontinuation of bus routes crucial to some customers
None of these complaints will be new to blogHOUSTON readers, as we have regularly questioned METRO's increasing focus on expensive light rail in our spread-out, low-density city, as well as its focus on inner-loop real-estate development -- and whether there are enough resources to build the sorts of world-class trinkets favored by comparatively affluent activists/bloggers and people in the industry while still serving the transportation needs of less affluent people spread all over the city who rely on transit to get to work and the doctor and the grocery store and elsewhere, and can't just hop in the minivan to pick up some veggies from the Discovery Green farmer's market when the whim strikes on any given Saturday.
Generally, however, that perspective is NOT one that we see in Rad Sallee's stories, or that we generally have seen from many of his colleagues at the Chronicle, who have generally been cheerleaders for expensive light rail that may not be in the best interests of many people who rely upon METRO. So the Chronicle deserves credit for finally presenting the perspective of real users of METRO that have long been underrepresented in Chron transit stories.
Interestingly, METRO media relations official Raequel Roberts is not at all pleased at this underrepresented perspective getting the play it did this one time in the newspaper. Her letter to the editor is reproduced below the [Read More] link (since it may disappear). If the Chronicle hadn't been a METRO cheerleader for so long, Roberts' concerns about balance might resonate more. However, given the frequency with which the Chronicle uncritically reports on METRO -- almost sounding as if Ms. Roberts is providing the copy -- and the fact that one rarely hears from everyday users of METRO and their problems with the service -- it's harder to take Ms. Roberts complaints about balance seriously. In a sense, Casimir's story is some needed, and overdue, balance.
Around the local blogosphere, Cory Crow has posted some sensible thoughts on METRO's core mission failures, Tory Gattis questions whether Houston has its transit priorities in order, and Neal Meyer suggests that jitneys could be one solution to some of our transit woes (if they were not so heavily regulated -- good luck getting Yellow Cab, er, Council to ease up on that). Please feel free to add your thoughts to the discussion.
***
Letter to the Chronicle by Raequel Roberts:
Metro: Article was imbalanced
In my 20 years of journalism I learned a few principles about what it takes to produce a balanced story.
One that was particularly drilled by my editors? If you are criticizing a person or agency, you include some response from that person or agency in the vicinity of the first five or six paragraphs of the story.
Readers of the Chronicle's Thursday Page-One story "So near, yet so far ... and so long" had to navigate to the very back of the story before getting a statement from Metro, and it was scant, at best, for such a serious topic.
We spent an extensive amount of time with the reporter of this article, explaining how Metro develops routes and why we need to maximize our services and deploy buses where demand is greatest.
We also talked about one route in particular, the 89 South Park Circulator, a topic of this story. Here, the reporter failed to include the measures we took to keep the route. These included meetings we had with residents in that area and our efforts to work with them to boost ridership. The reporter also failed to note that Metro's average passenger subsidy is about $2, while the subsidy on the 89 South Park was more than $9 on weekdays, $24 on Sundays.
Metro does not start or stop a route without taking a very careful look at the impact on our customers. We wish the reporter and her editor had been equally as careful in how they presented it.
RAEQUEL ROBERTS
senior director of media relations and corporate communications, Metro
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/10/08 10:22 PM | Print | Comments (12)
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.