Arlington naysayers shift their criticism to city transit study

Arlington naysayers didn’t wait long after their 20-point loss in the new Rangers ballpark election to find something else to oppose.

Recent news accounts of the early work of the Arlington Transportation Advisory Committee have brought a renewal of declarations to once again contest any use of public funding to improve the mobility needs of the city’s residents and the growing millions of its visitors.

Even though there is no real surprise in the behavior of those who regularly resist almost every initiative to improve the city, there are still a couple of odd things about their latest venting via the social media in the past several days.

First are declarations from some in the ballpark opposition group that they were voting no on the Rangers proposal specifically because there was no public transportation available to support it.

It would be folly, some suggested, to build a new stadium with no rail, no bus, or anything else other than personal cars and trucks stuck in traffic jams as a result.

Now, it seems, planning for a solution is a bad idea.

The second thing that is confusing are criticisms about the formation of a citizens committee assigned to address the needs and possible solutions to the mobility challenge.

Among the first complaints from challengers of the new ballpark project when it was announced was the lack of citizen participation in negotiating the deal with the Rangers.

Why wasn’t there an opportunity for the public to join the discussions in working out the agreement to keep the Rangers in Arlington, they asked.

There were even shouts of “fascists” hurled at City Council members at their meetings when they voted to put the measure on the ballot for a public vote.

Now some among those voices are complaining about the council appointing a citizen’s committee to even study public transportation issues.

Instead, the suggestion has been made that the elected body should show “leadership” and forget about considering any sort of public transit.

Does that mean those nine elected officials would not be guilty of denying public discussion of today’s transportation needs 15 years after the last election was held on the issue?

None of the current council members were serving at that time. The city had about 25,000 fewer residents then.

About 7 million more visitors are coming every year than there were before. Likely their numbers would be even greater if there were a more convenient way to get to Arlington.

The 31 citizen members of the committee are from all areas of the city, representing its diversity and variety of interests.

Their chairman, Bill Verkest, is an excellent choice in that he is immensely qualified as a retired transportation and public works professional having served in both Arlington and Fort Worth.

The committee is actively inviting public input at every one of its meetings as they work through their assignment to advise the council.

They have been given no specific instructions of what to come up with. Theirs is a “blank canvas” for them to work on, says Mayor Jeff Williams.

Such an effort could take up to a year or so, giving abundant opportunity to hear from anyone and everyone — even those who think committee members’ service is a waste of time.

As usual, the pessimists and complainers are on the wrong side of history and the city’s future.

There should be a vision for that future that includes every potential transportation solution, including new possibilities, new technologies and new methods.

Good things will come from this initiative. Count on it.

This story was originally published December 2, 2016 at 6:20 PM with the headline "Arlington naysayers shift their criticism to city transit study."