Is light rail to Beach
a bad joke?
 |
| Mayor Will Sessoms having a light rail epiphany |
Don’t believe everything that you read, especially this
nutmeg of news.
That Mayor Will Sessoms and the city of Virginia Beach
received a proposal from a private developer to extend light rail five miles
from Newtown Road to Rosemont Road.
No names were attached to the proposal. Nor were there any
more details about financing or time frame.
“Sessoms said he had few details about the proposal,” the
Virginian-Pilot article said.
But no name? There had to be a name.
At first, it seems like bunkum.
But, on second thought, maybe there’s something else buried
between the lines.
Two key words: “private” and “developer.”
Which makes me think that the proposal includes not only
extending light rail to Virginia Beach but also developing some of the land
around the I-264 interchanges, which the city dubs strategic growth areas.
But Norfolk, the Feds and the state got off cheap with The
Tide at $43 million a mile in construction costs.
Some cities paid from $60 to $80 million a mile several
years ago. Think what the per mile costs will be if and when construction actually
begins.
Extending light rail to the ocean front would cost $807
million while and just to the Town Center, $254 million, according to studies
commissioned by Hampton Roads Transit.
Light rail advocates like to boast that the cost of building
one mile of rail is cheaper than constructing one mile of highway.
True. But one must consider that one mile of highway carries
more travelers going in several different directions.
Do some research and you will find that most mass transit
systems in the world have been financed, operated and maintained by governments
or government entities.
If there was so much potential in extending light rail from
Norfolk to Virginia Beach, Norfolk Southern Corp. would still be owner of the
tracks.
But here’s the real issue.
Would it be named The Tide after it crossed the
Norfolk-Virginia Beach border? Or maybe it will be called the Tidewater
Virginian.
AP drops bombshell
The nabob of news, the Associated Press, will stop referring
to “illegal immigrants” as “illegal immigrants” in their copy.
 |
| Today's Media |
It makes me wonder if the AP is negotiating a deal with
several Spanish language media outlets.
“The stylebook no
longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to
describe a person,” said AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in a blog post,
as reported by the LA Times.
“Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only
an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.”
It always amazes me that media outlets adopt the ambiguous
language of the law when they want to cover their buttocks.
The new AP policy notes that "illegal" refers
to the action, not the person, the LA Times said.
"Acceptable variations include living in or entering a
country illegally or without legal permission," the AP wrote.
In discussions, no doubt heated, descriptions such as
“undocumented,” were discarded by AP executives.
Why? Because it is not precise, they decided.
A person may have
plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence, the
AP
said.
Which developer do you think it is, Phil?
ReplyDeleteWhen do you think the media will start calling Pro-lifers "Pro-Life" instead of "anti-abortion advocates". Never, because the state controlled media only kotows to the left.
ReplyDeleteSo much to say and so little time. Three thoughts...
ReplyDelete1) With the Tide extension, yes, I'm sure it is tied to some housing development planned for Rosemont road. I'm sure the math is pretty simple: the additional value of the development when it's tied to a light rail line exceeds the additional cost of extending the line (think higher rents, etc). It's good business. And I promise you that the extension of the line will cost private developers much, much less than if the government did the job. Why? sometimes the profit motive actually works. There will be incentives to keep costs as low as possible. So no sweatheart deals, no requirements for minority contractors, etc. There will be open bidding on the project, and I guarantee you that a lot of firms would be happy to lay track for considerably less than $43M per mile.
2) With all due respect to the previous commenter, obviously the state doesn't control the media. If it did, then "pro-life" and "pro-traditional family" would be used every time social conservatives controlled the state house. Given the views of our current govenor and given that we only see terms such as "anti-abortion" and "anti-gay rights" in the press - it's obvious that your theory doesn't hold water. HOWEVER....
3) The change to the AP style book does explain why there is so much group think in the mainstream press. The verbiage used by every newspaper in the nation reflects the preferences of a small group of people, namely the AP style book committee. No wonder we have no diversity of thought. If any writer wants a chance of their story being picked up nationally, then they have to follow the AP rules.
Keep in mind that the name of at least one of the developers was leaked to The Pilot - Philip Shucet. This is the gentleman that saved Norfolk's light rail from severe cost over-runs. If anyone can figure how to build rail on a budget, he's the man.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, if the previous commenter doesn't think the state has de facto control over most of the media, I'd like to see examples of "mainstream" outrage over the administration's actions about something other than not being allow to watch the president play golf with Tiger Woods.
ReplyDelete