Why San Antonio Shouldn’t Spend More on Transit

“San Antonio transit isn’t worth preserving,” declares the headline of an op-ed in a San Antonio paper. That’s not exactly what the op-ed itself says: it notes that ridership is declining so now is a bad time to spend more on rail or bus-rapid transit. Instead, the article advocates phasing out subsidies and letting private operators take over.

The Antiplanner is still on the road, speaking in Sacramento tonight. It is also referred to as a weekend away with their partner. soft viagra tablets Other procedures of plastic surgery are lip enhancement, levitra generic india liposuction, butt augmentation, Rhinoplasty, hair restoration, Botox fill and pediatrics. If you find any sort of allergic reaction due to pill cheap viagra no rx then immediately talk to the doctor about it. Fat cells are engaged in the switching of testosterone viagra generico mastercard into estrogen in males, which plays the responsibility of preserving bone solidity. The air here is filled with smoke from the Camp fire. I hope to take a closer look at this fire and report on it either Friday or early next week. In the meantime, have a happy and safe Thanksgiving.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

One Response to Why San Antonio Shouldn’t Spend More on Transit

  1. LazyReader says:

    Behold the wildfires aren’t the result of the Earth’s temp rising a degree. California’s wildfires are the result of two things, it’s land management practices and water management are what exacerbated the fire problem. Fire has always been a circumstance in Mediterranean climate regions. It’s part of the regenerative ecology that keeps invasive weeds out of the ecosystem, it also recycles nutrients back into the soil that could not be obtained in other ways. While we think of Mediterranean as “Europe” the word in ecology encompasses a broader geographic region. Generally located between 30 and 43 degrees latitude North/South, Situated below the cool wet oceanic influenced climates of Pacific Northwest or Great Britain and Above the equatorial dry regions. Vegetation is very scrubby, short and seldom do trees grow above 50 feet. It’s perfect beach and bum weather.

    For the last 100 years, the big cities and agriculture business have pulled water from the Colorado river, diverted other rivers, dug the Sierra Nevada mountains and sub surface wells and springs which have been tapped to accommodate domestic water consumption so LA County residents and suburbanites can have jungle plants in a xeric climate. Combine a drastic reduction in the natural ground water, the replacement of native vegetation with weedy, invasive (and oil rich plants like Eucalyptus) is a recipe for disaster. So the subsurface water has been depleted; California’s forests have lost significant ground water they often depend on for the summer season; soil moisture has heavily declined, the plants thus have little reserves so they dry up or die making them perfect kindling.

    Add onto that, the federal and state government, 57% of the states forests owned by the feds. Both federal and state regulators were making it more and more difficult for loggers and forestry experts to do their jobs. As a result, timber industry employment gradually collapsed. Timber permits grew in cost, people who felled trees and planted them for a living looked for work elsewhere. Plus forestry workers who’d otherwise set prescribed fires or contract to extract dead wood (unlike wood in the Eastern US, they biodegrade at a much slower rate thanks to the dryness) Combustible fuel wood built and built to a level, that a catastrophic blaze was inevitable… California spends 10 times more money subsidizing electric cars than clearing flammable brush. California’s energy policy and air quality laws also played their part. Before, Wood waste like twigs, branches and leaves/needles unusable for timber were burned as a fuel source for electric power; Since it was a renewable resource, burning it for power seemed like the wise option but burning wood is cleaner than coal, it’s energy density is inferior and thus more had to be burned; wood is also not as clean as natural gas. Once prevalent in the state, when the state and feds started enforcing stricter air pollution laws burning wood in general became a huge wag of the finger. Also the state started subsidizing renewable power, namely solar and wind to the tune of billions, the artificially deflated solar power and wind power replaced wood burning plants as a source of electricity the demand for wood fuel collapsed. With no need to consume tree waste for fuel and the demand for timber satiated by imports, there was no demand to extract wood and the available fuel grew in volume, instead of burning safely in power plants the fuel now burns horribly in the wild. The policies enacted reduce the economic value of the forest to zero. And, with no intrinsic worth remaining, interest in maintaining the forest declined, and with it, financial resources to reduce the fuel load. And Now, it’s all burning up in one go.

    But like I’ve said before the way we govern in the US requires a true crisis or disaster for people to care enough to act. So expect more houses and acres to burn until California decides what priorities are essential. Having Tesla’s on our highways or keeping houses from going up in smoke. I don’t know how much CO2 is saved driving a Tesla over a Toyota, but I can probably guess 10 million acres of wood going up in flames more than makes up for it.

Leave a Reply