Charlotte’s light-rail system is a money pit. Put money toward other solutions.

Light-rail system is a money pit

Regarding “City Council approves $50M contract for Silver Line design work,” (Nov. 13):

Rail systems are 19th century solutions that are proving to be ineffective at solving 21st century transportation problems.

They are particularly ineffective when compared to 21st century solutions such as autonomous vehicles, ride-sharing, smart roads, scooters, electric bikes, telecommuting, and pedestrian-friendly cityscapes.

Average weekday ridership on the light-rail system is about 27,500 riders, far below CATS’ initial projection of 38,300 average weekday riders.

We could help these people and many more for the money we’re throwing into the light-rail money pit. It’s time for Charlotte to get off the train.

Warren Smith, Charlotte

Editorial went too easy on one side

Regarding “A sad display at the Free Expression Tunnel,” (Nov. 14 Editorial):

There was indeed a sad display at the Free Expression Tunnel and another when the Observer did not offer harsher criticism of those who showed up to prevent free expression.

I’m glad it didn’t turn physical, but if it had I’m certain there would have been a description by the editorial board of how the Turning Point students attacked the socialist’s fists with their noses.

Richard Price, Midland

Bishop wrong to out whistleblower

My father used to say that politics is a dirty business. In “outing” the whistleblower, Dan Bishop shows that he is not a leader, merely another minion seeking to curry favor with those with narrow focus. (“US Rep. Dan Bishop of NC names alleged whistleblower in tweet,” Nov. 14)

The identity of any whistleblower is of little consequence. What matters is the documents and actions that either support or refute allegations of wrongdoing. Protecting whistleblowers’ identity is key to encouraging people who might fear retribution to speak out.

Tom Dorsey, Matthews

Does GOP really want future like this?

After watching the first day of the impeachment hearings, I wonder why, if he’s innocent, President Trump continues to obstruct Congress by refusing to release documents and ordering others not to testify.

Is there no one who can offer a defense of his actions? All I saw were Republican congressmen pretending that what happened is no big deal, that it’s just Democrats trying to overturn an election.

Abuse of power and obstruction of justice are real and serious behavior by any president. Do Republicans really want all future presidents to behave in such a manner?

Of course, they’ve shown that they have a different set of rules for Democrats — i.e. not allowing President Obama to name a Supreme Court justice or House-passed bills to reach the Senate.

Dianne Mason, Matthews

Blooomberg: A political superhero?

The political landscape in America has become much like a vitriolic childish cartoon strip: “The Republicans did it, no the Democrats did it.”

True, Donald Trump does not speak the King’s English but, like it or not, he did win our presidential election legally and, I believe, without the help of the Russians.

So do we now need a superhero like Popeye with his can of spinach to save us from our political discourse? Perhaps, superhero Michael Bloomberg will finally rescue us from our political vicissitudes.

Barry Marshall, Charlotte

Haley’s exoneration logic is baffling

Trump loyalist, Nikki Haley, has weighed-in on the Ukraine affair. She reasons that Ukrainians got their military aid and the president didn’t get them to announce an investigation into his political rival, so all’s well that ends well. No impeachment needed.

Isn’t that a lot like telling a failed assassin, “Your gun jammed and your would-be victim escaped uninjured, so you’re exonerated. Have a nice day”?

Geoffrey A. Planer, Gastonia

Ignoring science will cause more damage

Regarding “Ex-government health chief joins warnings about EPA proposal” (Nov. 13):

When dogma is contradicted by scientific facts, it is time to change the dogma. The current administration’s Environmental Protection Agency has decided on another approach. They plan to limit how much science can be used to set their policies.

These policies have already resulted in rollbacks of clean air and water regulations and other environmental protections.

What more damage does the so-called EPA plan to accomplish by ignoring facts?

Vincent Keipper, Concord