METROrail suffers 106th collision; METRO calls it #100 (Updated)
There was yet another accident involving the METROrail tram today, and most media outlets reported it as collision #100.
Readers of John Gaver's website and my personal weblog already know that we passed 100 collisions some time ago. The best reconciliation of accidents reported by the media and accidents reported by METRO puts the number of collisions at 106.
Indeed, Rich Connelly of the Houston Press started making a few phone calls last week about the discrepancy in numbers, and got this response from METRO's spokesman:
Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton says his agency's count of 99 includes only incidents where police have been called out, which would include any collision between a train and either a car or a pedestrian. Gaver's count includes "minor derailments in rail yards," Connaughton says, which affect nobody but must be reported to federal authorities. Those incidents then end up on the Metro summary reports Gaver uses.
In the Chronicle, Rad Sallee characterizes today's crash as follows:
A sedan and a MetroRail train made local history of sorts at 1:45 p.m. Wednesday in the Texas Medical Center. Their meeting was the 100th collision by Metro's count since the 7.5-mile light rail line began test runs in November 2003.
Later in the story, Sallee notes Gaver's count:
The Web site www.actionamerica.org, maintained by Kingwood businessman John Gaver, includes an unofficial list of MetroRail collisions on which the latest accident would be No. 106. Gaver says the 100th happened July 19.
Gaver, who describes himself as "a reluctant government watchdog," said he counts "basically any accident that a reasonable person would consider an accident if his car were involved."
Connaughton said Metro logs only accidents that result in a police report. Metro has previously described these as usually involving injuries or property damage over $1,000.
Which is it?
Does METRO only log accidents that result in a police report (i.e. accidents involving injuries or property damage over $1,000, which as Lucas Wall once reported, is how the state of Texas defines a reportable motor vehicle incident)? Or does METRO also log accidents that include "minor derailments in rail yards?" Or does METRO log accidents for FTA purposes when they involve injuries or property damage over $7,500 (as Lucas Wall also once reported)?
It can get so confusing when METRO spokesmen answer questions from the press, especially when the answers don't seem to be consistent!
Perhaps our intrepid local media -- who really have been behind bloggers and citizens availing themselves of public information requests on this story -- could ask Mr. Connaughton which six collisions on Gaver's database should be removed because they aren't "real" collisions, because so far as I know none of them are "minor derailments in rail yards."
We are pleased that Rich Connelly started making phone calls around town last week, and that it apparently prompted Rad Sallee to do a little research himself on the discrepancy in crash figures.
We're not so pleased to see public officials like Connaughton engaged in what seems like deliberate obfuscation.
ANNE LINEHAN ADDS: Is there any better example of the media filter? I don't think so. Here we have a tangible thing -- MetroRail accidents. Yet Metro has decided that its definition of an accident has...conditions that must be met, and local media has followed Metro's lead, instead of just reporting the facts.
News consumers don't want the media to tell us what we should and shouldn't consider an accident. We aren't stupid. We KNOW what an accident is!
Why are blogs and alternative media outlets becoming more popular? Here's a prime example. Local media won't report with any consistency or accuracy MetroRail's accident rate, which makes people start wondering what else local media aren't telling us if we can't even get a correct accident count out of the "professional" media.
UPDATE (08-11-2005): The Chronicle's Rad Sallee emails us the following comment:
I contacted Mr. Gaver before the Press item appeared, but held his comments until the triggering event Wednesday afternoon.
Anyone who has the time and energy to do so is welcome to keep his or her own list, but reporters need a reasonably reliable source to cite. Unless it becomes clear that Metro intends to deceive, it makes sense to me that Metro - which investigates these incidents - should be that source. This says nothing against the validity of other people's lists.
Anybody keeping such a list needs criteria for inclusion, and one can argue legitimately that Metro's are too restrictive, but a 6 percent difference doesn't look like a cover up to me. If they were claiming 40 collisions, that would be a difference worth fussing over.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/10/05 10:03 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.