Comments on: If Europe Can Do It Why Can’t We?

By: Big G

Big G — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:09:54 +0000

I for one do not believe you can build your way out of congestion with roads, the most common example that gets used is the city of Atlanta and the lessons learned there. Interesting article on how the National Highway system was funded and built, also who the political party was that opposed it and who is credited with breaking the logjam to make it happen, Al Gore Sr.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/01/26/358835/index.htm

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:48:33 +0000

No problem with solar or other forms of “renewable” or alternative energy sources, as long as they are economically viable and not subsidized to get there. There have been some pretty significant advances in solar the past few years.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:16:38 +0000

There is a lot of ambigious science behind climate change. Thus the right solution is to address it in economically sound ways just in case it is real.
I am very excited about solar spray on cells.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html
Sharp is investing $700 million in a solar cell factory. What does that tell you?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:13:14 +0000

Shoe. We went through this before. I already told you about the TTI report. ANd it said that both transit and roads must be part of the solution, both! Not one without the other. You are welcome to read the report again if you want.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:54:43 +0000

Again, the ignorance of the populace is no verification of whether an idea is sound or not…again I’ll take you back to each of the states whose populace voted to secede so as to maintain slavery. It’s the same ignorance that is bringing us down the path of Gorebal warming solutions like carbon credits which do nothing but reallocate imaginary “costs” between industries that some government group likes and ones they don’t.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:34:58 +0000

If the voters vote to build them, then build them.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:21:47 +0000

The same argument could be made about the public university system.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:21:00 +0000

So what if they don’t pay for themselves? their purpose is not to make money, their purpose is to reduce road pressure.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:33:19 +0000

Amtrak is only one example. The last time I looked, there is no mass transit system in the US that supports itself through its fares. And now you have the catch 22 of a need to raise fares just to keep the subsidy at the current level and that is going over like the brown log in the punch bowl.
As to high speed trains, they could fill a niche, mostly along the NE corridor with a couple of outliers but in the scheme of things would not change oil consumption much and would likely be just as driven by the air congestion in that part of the country.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:38:06 +0000

Sean rumor is that the Japanese found a way to make their high speed trains self-funding. If this is true then we should study their model. It’s true that in many areas we are still low density but that is changing as more people move into the city and as old shopping mall and old cookie cutter subdivisions in the suburbs become replaced by mixed use developments.

By: Sean Hackbarth

Sean Hackbarth — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:43:50 +0000

Amtrak can’t make money in the most dense part of the country, the Northeast Corridor. If it can’t do it there where can it make money?

I take mass transit around Washington, D.C. It sure beats the hell of driving. But the transit authority mismanages funds and ends up raising fares. They’re on their way to raising them so high it will be cheaper for people to drive and deal with the traffic. That helps no one.