The missing FAQ
I imagine we’ll see a lot of press coverage on Richmond rail in the next few days; more than 40 people are signed up to speak to the METRO board tomorrow, and rail opponents are holding a protest on Richmond this morning.
But we haven’t been seeing a whole lot of good information. The METRO Solutions website is, frankly, pathetic. I don’t think they’re trying to hide anything — I’ve interviewed METRO staff for numerous Cite articles, and they’ve been quite forthcoming — but they really need to do better in letting the public know what’s happening.
The opponents, by contrast, have been very forthcoming with bad information. What I’ve seen and heard from them, like this flyer, is full of hyperbole, factual errors, and, most of all, premature conclusions. Claims such as that METRO will remove esplanades, take away traffic lanes, AND demolish businesses are not only false (there’s no need to do all three- if you widen the street by taking land, you have room for lanes and greenery and rails; if you take the greenery you can fit the rail and the lanes without taking land, etc.) but they’re implying that decisions have been made that have not been made. METRO hasn’t even started an engineering study; there’s no decision yet on which street the line will follow, let alone how that street will be modified. And some of the other claims in this flyer — that the line will not be useful to the poor, elderly and disabled, for example — are plainly ridiculous: how can better connections from neighborhoods to jobs, educational institutions, retail centers, and the Texas Medical Center NOT help those who can’t drive?
The businesses along Richmond have some very real concerns. Businesses did suffer from Main Street construction. Richmond is narrow in portions, and fitting in rail wouldn’t be easy. But I’d like to see them talk about this issues and to engage METRO in a dialogue, not a political confrontation. And I’d like to see METRO reach out to them with good information, with opportunities to participate, and with measures to minimize the impacts.
David Pogue has a series of computer books called the “Missing Manuals,” the premise being that software makers no longer include the documentation they should. So I’ve made the “missing FAQ,” a list of the questions I hear asked about rail that METRO ought to be answering. Check it out here. And email me at cspieler@ctchouston.org or post in the forums.
The bottom line is that there are issues with putting rail in a dense urban corridor, and there are ways to address those issues. That’s what a study process is for. More at:
———————
UPDATE:
METRO has put out a press release with a restated commitment to a complete study, a commitment to work with the c ommunity to address its concerns, and a specific timetable.