Re: Rail Transit
TuNnl, I find your rebuttal as short sighted as your initial comments. Let's compare the 'first phase' of the west Oahu campus to the 'first phase' of the rail transit system, instead of apples to oranges, eh? Now, which is manini?
Let's compare the traffic effect of the west Oahu campus to the traffic effect of the rail transit system - the first moves some jobs and students away from congested traffic routes; the other depends on MORE people using the currently congested traffic routes in order to justify it's construction. Let's see, there's no time savings, there's no cost savings - why exactly do we need a rail system, again? So 'someone' can supposedly drive their car to work faster because the 'other guy' is gonna take the train? Why shouldn't rail supporters be required to get signatures of people who intend to use this system on a daily basis, so we can see if there is any demand for it?
My 'instead of' suggestion has more relevance than you admit or imagine. Rail is a distracting, expensive boondoggle; money and effort spent on it detracts from any important issues we could be addressing. Your arguments work only as long as you retain a narrow, linear focus on the pro-rail agenda.
TuNnl, I find your rebuttal as short sighted as your initial comments. Let's compare the 'first phase' of the west Oahu campus to the 'first phase' of the rail transit system, instead of apples to oranges, eh? Now, which is manini?
Let's compare the traffic effect of the west Oahu campus to the traffic effect of the rail transit system - the first moves some jobs and students away from congested traffic routes; the other depends on MORE people using the currently congested traffic routes in order to justify it's construction. Let's see, there's no time savings, there's no cost savings - why exactly do we need a rail system, again? So 'someone' can supposedly drive their car to work faster because the 'other guy' is gonna take the train? Why shouldn't rail supporters be required to get signatures of people who intend to use this system on a daily basis, so we can see if there is any demand for it?
My 'instead of' suggestion has more relevance than you admit or imagine. Rail is a distracting, expensive boondoggle; money and effort spent on it detracts from any important issues we could be addressing. Your arguments work only as long as you retain a narrow, linear focus on the pro-rail agenda.
Comment