Tell DC we want Rail

[Slick Vik]

Well, apart from avoiding the question posed to you, "zero resistance" isn't always a good thing. We would have a freeway running straight through Harrisburg if there was "zero resistance". Of course, that's for a freeway, and we all know how freeways are always bad and light rail is always good.

As for the 2003 referendum, do you honestly not know (it's okay if you don't) or are you trying to distort information? Or both?

I've read the referendum. Have you?

[IronTiger]

The 2003 referendum was extensive but ambitious.

It did promise the new lines plus $640 million in bonds to finance them, but also a range of other goals like vastly expanded bus service. But while that is all fine and good, METRO way undershot construction costs (a reason why I doubt METRO's numbers). $467 million of that bond was spent on the North Line extension, the remainder for the Southeast Line to U of H.

So where does Culberson come in? He says that METRO spent $1 billion from 2003 to 2012 with little to show for it. "Yeah, because of Afton Oaks!" you say, but also that East End overpass and even a spat with U of H. But even with that, that's a large number. So is he right? Well, most of us would say no, but he does have a point...and he certainly doesn't actually break the 2003 referendum. So, what do we do? You either wait it out (years) or gut METRO like a fish and replace it with new people.

[livincinco]

Just to clarify. The bond measure authorized $640 million to build the four lines. The $640 million was not sufficient to build them, thus they ran out of funds and could not complete.

[IronTiger]

Just to clarify. The bond measure authorized $640 million to build the four lines. The $640 million was not sufficient to build them, thus they ran out of funds and could not complete.

That's a good "tl;dr" version. That's basically it.

[mollusk]

Side note:  MayorBob may have done a bunch to impede building rail, but he was long out of office by 2003.