I wanted to comment on Bob Geary's piece from February 15th, "Sleeper cars, Wake, Orange mull their options on transit tax and regional light rail." While I thought the piece was informative, some of the terms were a bit misleading or confusing and an important and necessary discussion of environmental concerns and local preferences were missing or not thoroughly fleshed-out.
-The piece's discussion of the LRT's routing, titled, "54-Meadowmont" doesn't delineate them more clearly and for the record as "C1" (cutting thru the Little Creek, a Significant Natural Heritage area and then Meadowmont) and "C2", which runs down George King Road and then down Hwy 54, avoiding significant environmental damage; this is an important distinction and doesn't confuse the reader, not to mention is reflective of the more official route titles;
-Even more importantly the MPO has already chosen C2 as the locally preferred alternative and this central development is not fleshed-out in the article, which provides further support for that route over C1; and, most importantly,
-The article does not provide a fully-balanced viewpoint by outlining the significant environment damage that C1 would cause to the Little Creek Bottomlands and Slopes, a Significant Natural Heritage area (in the piece, the "Meadowmont" route) would require.
All of the above would help frame the situation more clearly for the reader while also employing terminology that reflects the official record.
Geoffrey Daniel Geist, Chapel Hill
Friends of the Little Creek Bottomlands and Slopes
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation