"According to the state DOT, the city based its initial analysis of the impacts of rail on an outdated airport layout plan. That plan was drafted in the mid-1990s and had not been updated to reflect a 1994 change in runway protection zones."
That seems to be more than a little interesting. Several questions:• Exactly how long had the plan been out of date?
• Who is responsible for updating the plan?
• What is the requirement to update the plan?
• Did the outdated plan leave safety issues unaddressed?
• When was the plan eventually rewritten?
• What does the FAA say about the failure to update the plan?
• Is the failure to update the plan responsible for the current confusion about rail's alignment near the airport?
Based on the buried lead of this story, maybe this is a better headline: Airport space plan was years out of date
The State Department of Transportation presumably is responsible for the plan's upkeep, but we don't know for sure, because the Advertiser's reporter apparently didn't ask these questions and seems not to care.
5 comments:
Another blow by Doug for misdirection!
Not sure how to interpret that, but let's publish it anyway.
Typical anti-rail mentality. Ignore asking questions that could reveal more detail.
Supposedly, the RPZ specs date back to 1989. Yet the 2006 doc shows the state airport division endorsing and preferring the current alignment. The state also has the authority to override the FAA on what can or can't be built in the RPZ. Who knows what the state told the city back then.
Sean Hao doesn't know how to write objectively or in an unbiased tone. He hates rail and his main mission is to highlight anti-rail chatter and burry the true story so that it doesn't see the light of day.
The question is...will the new owner of the Honolulu Advertiser keep a biased reporter who doesn't serve the community where he reports the news on rail?
He needs to get his pink slip, now.
I totally, totally, totally agree, Sean "Say No To Rail" Hao needs his pink slip when that merger takes palce.
How can anyone be so biased, stanted, non-objective, premeditated, conspriacy-theory-driven, anti-this & anti-that, hides details, and filled with one-sided story-telling and still call themselves a real reporter?
It makes me sick.
Post a Comment