The headline screamed out:
"Rail foes: stray current may harm water line".
Here's the gist of the story by Rad Sallee:
Richmond rail opponents claimed today that an August 2006 study by a consultant for the city warns that stray electrical current from the planned University light rail line could cause "catastrophic failures" in a 66-inch water line runs underneath the street.
The news conference in front of McClain Gallery on Richmond near Kirby was timely, since the Metro's board meets at 9 a.m. Thursday to vote on a route for the line. The item is on the agenda as "Adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) for METROSolutions."
Gallery owner Robert McClain and other opponents of rail on Richmond, including Afton Oaks resident Chris Seger, noted that the study by Lockwood Andrews & Newnam (LAN) said "relocation of the existing transmission line away from the new rail system is warranted."
The study also estimated it would cost more than $25 million and cause disruption in the neighborhood to relocate the line.
Seger also cited a 1986 document from the American Society for Testing and Materials, that describes failure of pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe as "spectacular bursts scattering shards of concrete and resulting in a hole reminiscent of a bomb crater."
At the time there was a "blurb" that Metro hadn't responded.
Well...I'm guessing they responded.
The headline now reads:
"Metro disuptes rail foes' stray current claims"
and the text has changed to read as follows:
Richmond rail opponents claimed today that an August 2006 study by a consultant for the city warns that stray electrical current from the planned University light rail line could cause "catastrophic failures" in a 66-inch water line runs underneath the street.
Metro spokeswoman Raequel Roberts and city Public Works Director Mike Marcotte said the line, if built on Richmond, would be protected against damage from current leaking into the ground from the rail line.
Roberts called the opponent's statements "scare tactics" and Marcotte said they "very significantly mischaracterize the report."
The news conference in front of McClain Gallery on Richmond near Kirby was timely, since the Metro's board meets at 9 a.m. Thursday to vote on a route for the line. The item is on the agenda as "Adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) for METROSolutions."
Gallery owner Robert McClain and other opponents of rail on Richmond, including Afton Oaks resident Chris Seger, noted that the study by Lockwood Andrews & Newnam (LAN) said "relocation of the existing transmission line away from the new rail system is warranted."
The study also estimated it would cost more than $25 million and cause disruption in the neighborhood to relocate the line.
Seger also cited a 1986 document from the American Society for Testing and Materials, that describes failure of pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe as "spectacular bursts scattering shards of concrete and resulting in a hole reminiscent of a bomb crater."
However, a report by a Metro engineering consultant, TCB, said the pipe will be protected from the effects of stray current and that there are "no anticipated adverse effects" from building rails over it.
The opponents said the TCB report was misleading and failed to adequately address the alleged hazard.
However, a "summary of investigations" of the issue from March through December 2006, indicates that several other firms also did not find a hazard.
A letter from LTK Engineering said the water line's current cathodic protection and measures such as rubber "boots" around the rails and steel mats beneath them "will mitigate any stray current issues." The summary said similar conclusions were reached by V&A Consultants, Professional Corrosion Services and Dannenbaum Engineering.
It also mentioned a Nov. 8, 2006, meeting with Metro at which LAN "stood by its report's conclusions and the way it was prepared without Metro's knowledge."
Metro's Roberts said the agency has "built safely around these utilities for years."
"It's done all the time, here and in other cities," she said. "We've known about this water line for a long time. Obviously, we've talked to the city about it."
Is it just me? Or should the original report and Metro's rebuttal be seperate stories? At the bare minimum the original text should be available on-line unaltered. By totally removing the groups claims, and then printing a revised version that treats Metro's explenation as fact its obvious what side the Chron is taking in this dispute.
While I don't necessarily buy the groups claims of a "bomb-like hole" I DO think that there are some legitimate stray current concerns that Metro is trying to downplay.
At the very least an "update" should be posted to the story instead of a total revision of the original piece. That would be intellectually honest. Give the reader both sides (both the coalitions' AND Metro's) and then let them decide who they want to believe. By erasing the first story and replacing it with this story (which allows Metro to pick and choose their responses, but doesn't allow the anti-rail group a rebuttal) the debate is muddled and one-sided.
Not that the Chron has an agenda in regards to MetroRail or anything. I'm sorry, but past actions have shown them to be incapable of being granted the public trust on this issue. Further censuring of the side with which they are opposed only further abuses the trust they are given.
EDITED TO ADD: I should point out that this post should in no way be taken as a slap to the journalism chops of Rad Sallee. I firmly believe that he (along with Matt Stiles) are doing some of the better reporting at the Chron today. My beef is with the editorial decisions and NOT with the story itself.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment