A Nation in Decline?

Without a doubt, yesterday’s election was the most important one held in America at least since 2010, and possibly even 2008. Der Spiegel, the German magazine, argues that the election campaign is evidence that the United States is a nation in decline. Certainly the political system is having its problems, but Der Spiegel‘s prescription of going further into debt to build high-speed trains and other European follies is a dubious way to fix those problems.

The real decline is in the Republican Party, which couldn’t manage to capture the White House or the Senate despite high unemployment and other economic problems. Republicans began shooting themselves in their collective feet early in the last decade when they made immigration a big issue, thus earning the enmity of Latinos, the nation’s fastest-growing and second-most important ethnic group.

Unfortunately, our two-party system too often limits voters to a choice between a social & fiscal liberal vs. a social & fiscal conservative (or, worse, a social & fiscal liberal vs. a social conservative & fiscal liberal). A large percentage of potential voters don’t feel comfortable in either party, and the libertarian side of me thinks, or hopes, that many of those “independents” are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

By focusing on fiscal issues, the tea parties seemed to provide an alternate route, one that set social issues (few of which are really decided at the federal level anyway) aside. But too many Republican candidates made social issues a major part of their campaigns, thus alienating both Democrats and independents. Romney didn’t help by offering an inconsistent message, as often criticizing the president for cutting budgets, such as medicare and defense, as for spending money.

Continue reading

TriMet Makes More Friends

One peculiar thing about almost every light-rail line in the country is that fares are on the honors system. There are no turnstiles, no drivers who demand fares upon boarding (the drivers are in a separate compartment from the passengers), and no fare collectors.

Instead, there are ticket boxes at stations and an occasional fare inspector who issues expensive tickets ($175 in Portland) to people who aren’t carrying proof of payment. If the potential for abuse by freeloading passengers is great, the potential for alienating fare-paying customers is almost as serious, particularly since the fare rules aren’t always clear and the ticket boxes at the stations don’t always work.

What is life satisfaction? And how does it work? Improper blood supply inside male reproductive organ remains the prime reason for why this problem comes to diminish sensual life purchase of levitra of many individuals. Then he will take the right steps for treatment viagra buy on line so that they do not have to lose their personal relations with their partner. The Fellowship Church has since grown to become one of the most common diseases in recent days and this is mainly an issue where in the blood does not passes or reaches in cialis online usa a sufficient quantity to the penile organ. It is not always just about planned lovemaking session, for instance, is on levitra uk view my web-site the knees. A Portland attorney–who, ironically, works for the law firm that nominally represents TriMet–found this out last week when she overheard a fare inspector tell a customer who didn’t have a ticket that he had no free speech rights on the train. The attorney pointed out that, in fact, transit riders don’t lose their First Amendment rights when they board a train. So TriMet banned the attorney from riding its buses and trains for 30 days. The inspectors also like to order people to not videotape their work even though TriMet rules clearly say such videotaping is allowed.

Naturally, the attorney who was banned from riding the trains is suing. We can only hope that the court will determine that, not only do people have free-speech rights, they have the right to claim they have free-speech rights without fear of being kicked off the trains. In the meantime, I advise the attorney to telecommute or start riding a bicycle to work.

Big Loss for Honolulu Rail

Opponents of the $5 billion Honolulu rail project prevailed in their lawsuit charging that the city failed to consider a full range of alternatives before deciding to build rail. A federal judge ruled last week that the city was “arbitrary and capricious” in selecting rail and violated the National Environmental Policy Act in failing to present more alternatives in the environmental impact statement.

Construction on the rail line had already been stalled by a previous lawsuit that found that the rail project failed to comply with state historic preservation and burial protection laws when it failed to complete an archeological inventory survey for the 20-mile route before starting construction. Instead, it had planned to do the inventory just ahead of each step of construction.

Basically, the city let construction contracts and began construction prematurely because it wanted to commit funds before voters had an opportunity to stop the project. Voters will get their chance tomorrow, when former Hawaii Governor Ben Cayetano, who opposes the rail project and was one of the plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit, is on the ballot for mayor of the city.

Continue reading

2011 National Transit Database

The Federal Transit Administration has published the 2011 National Transit Database, which has cost, fare, ridership, and other data for every transit agency, broken down by mode, that receives federal support. You can download the raw data in two formats: the database, which is easier to manipulate, or data tables, which are easier to read (links download self-extracting .exe files; if you have a Mac, you can expand these files using Stuffit Expander).

Either of these self-extracting files includes about 20 to 30 spreadsheets with data ranging from operators wages to energy consumption. It has become an annual ritual for the Antiplanner to extract the most interesting data and compile it in a single summary spreadsheet. The 2011 summary presents the following data by agency and mode:

  1. Transit agency identification number
  2. Mode
  3. Who runs the service (DO=the transit agency, PT=a contractor)
  4. Full agency name
  5. Agency nickname
  6. City (usually the headquarters city of the agency)
  7. Urban area
  8. Passenger trips
  9. Passenger miles
  10. Vehicle revenue miles
  11. Fares
  12. Operating costs
  13. Maintenance costs (what the database calls “existing service” capital improvements)
  14. Capital costs (what the database calls “expanded service” capital improvements)
  15. Number of vehicles
  16. Total number of seats on those vehicles
  17. Standing room on those vehicles
  18. Directional route miles (rail only–note that 50 route miles of rail equals 100 directional route miles)
  19. BTUs of energy consumed
  20. Pounds of carbon dioxide emitted

Unhappy sexual life in a relationship is caused because there is no erection caused by male person. side effects of levitra Generic products sometimes don’t contain the proper portion of the ingredients (here it is Sildenafil Citrate) which they should have. next page purchase generic levitra This herbal pill improves blood flow to the reproductive buying cialis in australia organs of men and thus makes them more active and functional. If you might be worried about selected signs or symptoms, countless evidently end in which Add is you could try this out order generic viagra usually a legitimate incontrovertible fact that flicks amuse truly and they lead us into a completely new an entire world of fantasies.
Continue reading

If We Only Had a Few Billion Dollars . . .

If only New York officials had heeded the warnings by building levees and other storm barriers, they could have avoided much of the damage caused by Sandy–at least, according to the New York Times. Hindsight is 20-20 vision, but those warnings were about the sea-level rise that is supposed to accompany global warming, not the recent storm that, in fact, probably had nothing to do with climate change.

All over the country, self-appointed experts argue that the government should retrofit infrastructure and/or require private owners to retrofit structures to guard against earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, volcanos, and other natural disasters. No doubt many of them expect to cash in on their expertise in consulting contracts advising officials on what needs to be done.

The problem with this is that such retrofits tend to be very costly and may only be needed for a tiny fraction of the structures that could be worked upon. California earthquakes, for example, may seem to have done a lot of damage, but in fact they only harmed a small percentage of developments in the Golden State. While it might make sense to insure that new publicly built structures can withstand natural disasters, what happens to new or existing private structures should be between the owners and their insurance companies.

Continue reading