Re: Sydney Light Rail Fails New Years Eve Challenge

[rffergus@socs.uts.edu.au]

In article <36a73c75.17264829@news.bigpond.com>,
  billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org (Bill Bolton) wrote:
> rffergus@socs.uts.edu.au wrote:
>
> > The reason why SLRC insisted that both extensions were to be built as an 'all
> > or nothing' package was because they weren't relying on taxpayer assistance,
> > and felt the CBD extension necessary in order to attract an appropriate
> > ridership.
>
> Just because you keep saying it over and over again doesn't make it
> so.

Just because I keep saying it over and over again doesn't make it so, just
like you making your point over and over again doesn't make that so. What
makes it so was that SLRC publicly made the offer, and CGEA publicly
confirmed the offer having being made. I have provided some evidence. You
haven't.

>"Ambit claim" offers that lack any real detail and are never
> intended to be commercially tested mean nothing.

If you accept that the offer to construct both extensions at no cost to
taxpayers was SLRC's "ambit claim" then you must accept that, had the CBD
extension been approved, the actual agreement may have included SLRC making
franchise payments to the Government. Of course the notion that this was an
"ambit claim" is nonsense.

>
> > Yes, they certainly can. Spare copies can be found cut up into small sheets
> > within arms reach of Carl Scully's ministerial toilet, along with the PTAC's
> > Light Rail Strategic Plan.
>
> The paucity of your position is clear.

Clear to you maybe, but as you don't have anything to back up your rather wild
claim, you are hardly in a position to make such a judgement.

>
> Bill
>
>


Rob

Sydney (Australia)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own