This article should clarify things but it seems like the reporting is being decidely divisive. The “opponents” of the plan aren’t actually opposing the streetcar.
The statement that “backers of the proposal agree that the longer progress is delayed, the lower the chances that a streetcar line will be built.” is only true if there is reason for it not to be built, which isn’t true, if it is well planned and not rushed through.
In my opinion, the opposition wants to insure that the streetcar works well and not just built, not even that it doesn’t get built.
3 responses so far ↓
Mike // March 12, 2008 at 9:56 am
If Qualls and Cranley really want to study the uptown route, why did they both vote AGAINST spending the money to study that connection? Cranley says he is for public transit and even for streetcars, but he has never voted to support such initiatives. His actions betray his words.
justforview // March 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Wasn’t Qualls originally trying to get the funding for the additional study? I don’t understand yesterday’s voting.
Sean // March 22, 2008 at 12:22 am
Monzel is a rank and file Republican who would never place public expenditure on mass transit, and Cranley has been anti-transit since 2002’s Metro Moves vote. I would be willing to place a pretty good sized bet that neither of them have an interest in getting any sort of mass transit built.
Qualls on the other hand I can’t quite figure out. First she says that she want to revamp the plan to make sure it goes uptown, but when the vote comes for the environmental impact analysis, she votes against it. Weird.
Leave a Comment