Interesting Tinklenberg comments at Dump Bachmann

Stemming from this piece.

Check it out!

Tinklenberg supports Avidor's PRT propaganda, which is absolutely no surprise since Tinklenberg actually owns a rail consulting firm!That's right, Tinklenberg is head of "The Tinklenberg Group", a company which has received several hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer money to study rail.And - surprise surprise! - he's virulently opposed to PRT. He certainly doesn't want a promising technology like PRT to kill his cash cow, and therefore he's willing to spread Ken's propaganda. More evidence that the anti-PRT movement is more about money than the public good.FOLLOW THE MONEY!A Transportation Enthusiast Homepage 01.12.08 - 4:47 pm #

I thought the interview was very well done. It covered a number of issues: Transportation, Iraq and Mortgage crisis and health care.Eva Young Homepage 01.12.08 - 9:57 pm #

Apparently some others have major problems with Tinklenberg:http://www.google.com/search? hl=...com+tinklenberg
http://zaetsch.blogspot.com/2007...-no- better.html
And yet, despite serious baggage and a distinct conservative streak (he opposed gay marriage!), the DumpBachmann interviewer lobs softballs. This interview is little more than a campaign commercial for Tinklenberg.Why not questions on his conservative record? Or his sketchy record at the DOT?Or how about this: two years ago DumpBachmann itself questioned Tinklenberg's ties to highway construction firms:http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com...ng-ties- to.htmlSo obviously the interviewer had questions about Tinklenberg, yet none of this came up.Could it be that the interviewer chose not to attack Tinklenberg's transportation record because Tinklenberg now has clearly come out in support of rail and against PRT? Did Tinklenberg get a softball interview because he now passes the anti-PRT litmus test?DumpBachmann needs to answer why these questions weren't asked. At the very least, you should perhaps clarify your concerns about Tinklenberg's ties to SEH.A Transportation Enthusiast Homepage 01.13.08 - 12:37 am #

Why didn't Ken ask Tinklenberg about his ties to Short Elliott Hendrickson?According to Ken's talking points, SEH links to Taxi 2000 Corp., which links to Edwin Cain, which links to -- BACHMANN!Mr_Grant Homepage 01.13.08 - 1:00 am #

For his uptake interview, Ken Avidor asked Tinklenberg about transportation issues. I asked Tinklenberg about gay issues. http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com...with- elwyn.htmlEva Young Homepage 01.13.08 - 2:34 pm #

1) SEH gave money to Taxi 2000 before the lawsuit in 2005. A documents in the lawsuit says SEH tore up its memo of understanding with Taxi 2000. The SEH logo was removed from the Taxi 2000 website. As far as I know, SEH no longer supports PRT. It recently worked on a report for the city of Mpls about streetcars.2) SEH's lobbyist is Ed Cain and Bachmann has a picture of Ed Cain on her congressional website.If you search for Ed Cain on the DB blog, you'll learn that Ed Cain is also the lobbyist for Taxi 2000.If you have any further questions, you will have to ask someone else.Avidor Homepage 01.13.08 - 3:00 pm #

Ken, you miss the point.I know you know of all this background on Tinklenberg's transportation work, which includes collaboration with SEH. Aside from SEH's past PRT work (consistent of you to keep telling only one side of the story on that), there looms the much larger issues of Tinklenberg's work with SEH on highways, and his benefiting from no-bid contracts.And Wikipedia says Tinklenberg was for aggressive highway construction.Not one probing question from you on these obvious (one would think) transportation-related Tinklenberg issues.Mr_Grant Homepage 01.13.08 - 4:53 pm #

Eva,Yes, you are correct in saying that you discussed gay issues with Tinklenberg. I hadn't seen part 2 of your interview when I posted that earlier message.(However, if I were to be nitpicky, I would say that I think you may have been a little too accepting of his responses - obviously he has had different views in the past, so it seems a little strange that he has completely changed sides on the kinds of issues where people are usually entrenched... but overall I do agree you confronted him on those issues - I concede that point, and I apologize for implying you hadn't)As for transportation, I still fail to see how Ken could have NOT asked Tinklenberg about SEH and the no bid contracts - he's the one who raised the issue in 2006, back when Tinklenberg was not firmly in the anti-PRT camp! This is wildly, comically inconsistent. When SEH was associated with PRT they were evil road warriors conspiring to kill transit with PRT - now that they are associated with pro-rail Tinklenberg, they are suddenly without guilt, completely absolved of all past highway-building offenses? One more thing... I have to ask: does SEH's association with LRT mean that LRT is a stalking horse for the highway industry to kill PRT? After all, we all know how much SEH loves stalking horses. A Transportation Enthusiast Homepage 01.13.08 - 10:34 pm #