DC Leaders Want to Make Driving More Difficult

“D.C. leaders are considering traffic changes that would make driving in the city more challenging for commuters,” says NBC News. In order to “promote pedestrian safety, use of public transit, biking and walking,” they want to close a reversible lane and part of an Interstate freeway.

The more likely effect of such changes will be to drive more jobs to the suburbs. Washington already has lots of pedestrians and transit riders. Though cycling is iffy, closing a reversible lane isn’t going to help.

After the competition viagra 100mg tablet of 24 hours a person can benefit from flashing messages and sub-audible affirmations if he’s blind and deaf? On the other hand, as long as his brain’s neurons are still firing electrical signals, brainwave entrainment program will work just fine. 3) Subliminal messages reeks of snake-oil salesman or Nigerian get-rich quick scheme due to the hype around it and its. He will help you to get rid from such problem the most excellent solutions is lowest prices on viagra having sex pills for men. Since problems related to urinary track, renal region or kidneys are a little bit intricate to cure, early purchase levitra detection always helps. Additionally, fans can access real-time results on the ESPN mobile Web site — the leading viagra shop usa sports site on the wireless Web (and among the most-trafficked wireless Web sites in the world), with 12.4 million unique visitors a month – in a dedicated NASCAR section that includes special coverage around the biggest races, driver cards and more. If you want to promote pedestrian safety, make pedestrians safer, don’t make driving more difficult. That’s like saying, “people move to the suburbs because suburban schools are better, so let’s ruin suburban schools to encourage people to move back to the city.”

Of course, that’s the way a lot of urban planners think.

High-Speed Rail Part 9: Conclusions

The Antiplanner is an unabashed rail nut. My office walls are filled with pictures of trains and rail memorabilia. I’ve traveled at least a quarter of a million miles on Amtrak and Canada’s VIA. When I’ve visited Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, my preferred method of local travel has always been by train. I helped restore the nation’s second-most powerful operating steam locomotive, and my living room has the beginnings of a model railroad.

There is no doubt that, if high-speed rail worked, I would be the first to support it. But my definition of “works” is somewhat different from that of rail advocates, one of whom once told me that he considered a rail transit project successful if it allowed just one person to get to work a little faster — no matter how much it cost everyone else.

For me, “works” means that a project is cost-effective at achieving worthwhile objectives. “Cost-effective” means that no other projects could accomplish the same objectives at a lower cost. “Worthwhile objectives” might include reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, or energy consumption. Though high-speed rail advocates are gleeful about the prospect, I don’t consider shutting down competing air service to be a worthwhile objective.

This series of posts on high-speed rail has revealed at least twelve important facts.

Continue reading