[All] Fwd: Cambridge Times Article: "$265M fed funding for LRT"

[Robert Milligan]

FYI -- sorry for the oversight, but I intended to include GREN as a Cc  
to Paul

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
> Date: September 10, 2010 11:05:58 AM GMT-04:00
> To: Paul Langan <plangan107 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Cambridge Times Article: "$265M fed funding for LRT"
>
> Paul,
>
> In order to respect the privacy of your specific communication (see  
> below) but to give you credit as the ''in effect" source, I  
> expressed it the way I did. Were you below not referring to the  
> article that I referenced? If you were, why the fuss?!! And to be  
> very precise, I did not actually say that you sent me the article.  
> But I do very much appreciate the reference. And if you are saying  
> that you were referring to an even better article, then please let  
> me know very specifically so that we don't mess up the intended  
> message.
>
> Keep up your excellent rail transportation public interest work.
>
> Robert (Creatively tough but fair & reasonable)
>
>
> On 10-Sep-10, at 8:52 AM, Paul Langan wrote (after receiving a bcc  
> version):
>
>> how about Vrbanics piece that was "special" to cambridge times.
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/8/10, Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
>> Subject: Burrett's Irrational LRT-hate Relationship
>> To: "* GREN" <all at gren.ca>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 10:38 PM
> On 10-Sep-10, at 10:24 AM, Paul Langan wrote:
>
>> I didnt send you that article........
>>
>> --- On Fri, 9/10/10, Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
>> Subject: Cambridge Times Article: "$265M fed funding for LRT"
>> To: "* GREN" <all at gren.ca>
>> Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 7:04 AM
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This article (thanks to Paul Langan) that that captures a few more  
>> comments from local leaders. Notice that Ken Seiling is still  
>> trying to justify the exclusion of Cambridge (BRT only 'til 2036+?)  
>> despite Cambridge's inclusion being so necessary. (Why? To give the  
>> LRT sufficient length to make it sufficiently useful to middle  
>> class drivers who live in KW but work in Cambridge and vice  
>> versa!)  Doug Craig in response to Ken's (not sufficiently thought  
>> out) position is in effect saying (for fairness sake), if we don't  
>> get LRT, then KW shouldn't either -- especially with Cambridge  
>> taxpayers helping to pay for it (no benefit, no taxes)!
>> http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/869209--265m-fed-funding-for-lrt
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100910/5e6ed8c5/attachment.html>