Chuck Plunkett, a member of the Denver Post‘s editorial board, has a few choice words to say about light rail. Words like “obsolete” and “a transportation option that our environment can no longer afford.”
The Post must have joined the Antiplanner in the pockets of big oil. As recently as a year ago, Denver’s largest paper was an enthusiastic supporter of rail transit. Plunkett himself says he has “long been a fan of rail.” But after reading the Antiplanner’s analysis of light rail and greenhouse gases, and replicating that analysis using the latest available data, Plunket concludes that “further expanding rail in metro Denver would be an outrage.”
Plunkett’s article contains two mistakes, both of them attributed to rail supporters. First, he notes, rail advocates argue that I am “hostile to light rail.” Not true; I love trains. I am only hostile to government waste.
Second, he quotes an RTD executive who claims that my analysis is misleading because I only looked at 2008 cars and not “the actual mix of cars on metro streets.” This is simply false. My analysis was based on the average car on the road in 2006. The only 2008 car I even considered was the Prius.
Even accepting these erroneous claims by rail advocates, Plunkett says he hasn’t “succeeded in debunking” the Antiplanner’s “central findings.” If, on one hand, Xcel Energy (which supplies the electricity for Denver’s light rail) meets its renewable energy targets, and on the other hand, auto manufacturers meet Obama’s fuel economy targets, Plunkett finds that by 2030 light rail will be generating far more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than automobiles.
In some more choice words, Plunkett calls this the “Prius effect.”
Your doctor can identify and buy cialis viagra correct the underlying immune system dysfunction that causes the problem. Modulation: Every time buying cialis in uk each of three grams of boiling water, three times a month. It also tadalafil tablets india improves semen volume and sperm count. The emphasis should be on lifestyle buy cialis pill change, education about proper diet, exercise, and behavior modification.
To be honest, the Antiplanner isn’t quite sure that the extra greenhouse gases emitted by light rail are as “dangerous” to the environment as Plunkett contends. But Plunkett skewers those who claim that light rail will play any role in preventing global climate change.
Meanwhile, another recent article in the Denver Post describes a new study, commissioned by Denver’s metropolitan planning organization, that finds that RTD — Denver’s transit agency — is still overly optimistic in its projections of sales tax revenues. In 2004, the agency persuaded voters that, if they raised sales taxes by 0.4 percent, it would have enough money to build six new rail lines by 2017. Now, it says it needs another 0.4 percent sales tax increase to build the system by 2017.
The increase is needed partly because of higher construction costs and partly because RTD overestimated the revenues it would get from sales taxes. RTD assumed that revenues would rise by at least 5 percent per year forever — when in fact sales tax revenues had actually fallen in the two years prior to the election.
Now RTD says sales taxes will rise by at least 4.5 percent per year forever after 2012, and even if sales taxes rise by only 2 percent per year forever, it will be able to keep up the payments on the loans it takes out to build the rail lines.
The problem is not that RTD assumes too high of an average growth rate. The problem instead is that it assumes that growth will continue at that rate forever. In fact, we know that in some years revenues grow and in other years they decline. When revenues decline, you can’t tell your mortgage company, “I will pay you less this year, but don’t worry, over the long run my average payments will cover the loan on my house.” Neither can transit agencies, so when revenues decline, they are often forced to make drastic cuts in operations.
A better analysis would ask, “Is there any time when a decline in revenues would have serious consequences for the transit system?” But RTD has studiously avoided such questions.
Dan,
By “ecosystem goods” do you mean those resources usually called by the legal term of art “fugitive resources?” I’m not sure one could argue that ecological resources existing on private property would be public goods (“ecosystem goods”) as they would not considered “fugitive” in the legal sense, but I would buy an argument that such resources existing on public property, in international waters, or unclaimed land (if any such land still exists) may be.
In the era of the city-state, unclaimed land was a fact of life. Reach the barbarian wastes beyond the range of civil sentinels, and you were on your own, and it was truly finders-keepers. These days, we can hardly be sure moons or other planets aren’t already dibbed out, let alone Earth. (I don’t have the link, but I recall reading something about Bush’s oddball push to fund the exploration of Mars being at heart an attempt to assert an American property prerogative over the planet. That might have happened anyway, but he chose a clumsy way to go about it.) As such, I am guessing that “ecosystem goods” would be fugitive resources that by definition exist on public land or under international waters, as that’s what is left.
Public property in the abstract can be legitimate. (The anarcho-libertarian crowd that would “privatize EVERYTHING” are whiffing on this particular fastball because they accept as axiomatic some principles that should instead be determined empirically.) It could be in the best interest of protection of individual rights for a government to possess a given parcel of property. For example, the government tends to build naval bases at shoreline locations that are defensible and well-suited to deployment of military assets. Public ownership of that property is in the best interest of the individual rights of all citizens, which the military protects. The allocation of ecosystem resources on public land legitimately possessed would necessarily require governmental intervention as well — specifically, the civil court system that would settle the concurrent and overlapping rights simultaneously held by multiple individuals over that land.
Unless the possession of public property serves the legitimate government purpose of protecting individual rights, however, that property should and ought to be sold to private individuals. At that point, allocating any ecological resources thereon becomes a more straightforward exercise. Contract with the owner on mutually-agreeable terms, or don’t acquire the resource.
I won’t reach far into the information asymmetry issue here because I’d rather stay on point with this. Health care has information asymmetry issues, but imposing government controls is not necessarily a solution either in principle or as a practical matter. The petroleum industry’s exploitation of information asymmetry, which wouldn’t be wrong in the abstract, has in fact involved collusion and other forms of fraud that are within the legitimate scope of government to prevent. It’s totally fine to make a profit by knowing how much more cheaply you can make a good than the market is willing to pay for it. It’s not totally fine to create a cartel that uses arbitrary (non-market) means to prevent new entrants from offering the product at a more competitive price.
Ecosystem services such as pollination, oxygen creation, currents, evapotranspiration, biogeochemical nutrient cycling, fisheries, clean water, and a brazilian other things cannot be constrained by private property. Thus the ‘non-excludable’ bit. (BTW, a function of an institution such as a gummint is to protect excludability (ownership) for markets).
Neoclassical econ admits this problem and has tried to fill this hole in the theory for decades now, to no avail (foregoing the non-rival portion of the discussion. That is: markets can efficiently allocate rival and excludable goods and services, and pure public goods by definition are non-rival and non-excludable).
DS
Mike: “The best way to address AGW is to maximize the freedom of individuals to act in their own interests. If a global ice age began TOMORROW, worldwide, the freer markets were, the more readily individuals could acquire necessary goods for survival. Local “greedy capitalist†gouging on firewood? With a maximally free market, anyone who owns wood (or property with trees) is free to undercut that “greedy capitalist.†They won’t have to own a business license or pay a VAT tax or be forbidden from chopping down a treetop cuddly-bear habitat.
ws: I’m making this argument for fun, so don’t analyze it too much or even at all. But no, I think if there would be a disaster like global ice age, then anarchy would prevail, not “free markets”. Do you think someone would care about someone’s private property if they needed firewood? Great, so you have a gun, so do the people taking your firewood!
Anyways, now that we are on hypotheticals, answer me this for fun: Let’s assume you are a politician (say the Democratically appointed leader of the World) and it became known (100% scientific fact) that at this point in time people would need to reduce their Anthropogenic GHG emissions substantially in order to prevent a climate change disaster from occurring in the next 5 years. Emissions would need to be reduced 50% across the board in order to prevent disaster, and you are fully aware that any reductions would severely hamper the economy.
If nothing is done, in the next 5 years, the worst case global warming disaster would occur such as flooded cities, land conflicts, and 25% world deaths. Immediate action is required, but there is a bit of time to discuss and implement your stance. There is no technological panacea or technically possible solution other than lifestyle changes. What would you do?:
A) Do nothing and let people do as they wish. You assume individuals are smart enough and have the best interest of the situation. Your constituents are informed that they should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 50% or climate change will occur, however, no one is told how they can accomplish that goal nor are they advised to change their ways that may be a heavy burden on GHG emissions.
B) Draft a fairly top-down plan for people to reduce their emissions willingly knowing full and well that if everyone did not abide by it, it could mean serious disaster. This plan is not fully enforced through any regulation, public policy, or law, but is suggested to people.
C) Create an involved top-down plan and make serious efforts for people to reduce their emissions. These plans would require, to a reasonable degree, “behavior modification”. The plans are fairly well done and quality of life is still to some degree maintained, but drastically different from previous lifestyles of the world.
D) Create and enforce a very harsh, top-down plan that makes people reduce their emissions. Anyone not doing so will be locked up and forced to watch Becker re-runs (from solar powered TVs, of course).
ws said: It’s impossible to know all sources/sinks. Scientific studies have concluded that about 40% of human’s emissions get absorbed into natural sinks.
JK: They add up known sources and known sinks, then assume all of the build up is due to man. That proves nothing because of the underlying assumptions that you ignore:
1. They know of all sinks and sources.
2. They know them accurately.
ws said: You assume that everything in science is 100% proven and nothing is based on theory.
JK: You are the one assuming the data is accurate enough to many you conclusion valid – it isn’t.
ws said: Sorry, but if we waited for actual, unequivocal proof of everything in the known world, we would never have scientific or medical breakthroughs as so many advances in society are based off of preconceived suppositions and theories.
JK: You don’t even have proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.
1, Antarctic ice cores show CO2 DID NOT cause warming.
2. Numerous other studies show CO2 follows, not leads, temperature. See http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2climate.html
ws said: If we wait for everything to be proven in the scientific world without a reasonable doubt, we will not have progress. Something you are not familiar with (as noted by your out-of-date HTML skills on your webpage).
JK: How is this relevent?
ws said: It is not erroneous to use the numbers for sinks/sources that I have used as there is good background information proving these numbers. Are they 100% accurate? Probably not, but nothing is.
JK: The error bands are greater than you conclusion. The fact that you cannot understand this indicates you are operating on emotion, not logic.
ws said: JK:“Sorry for presuming that the readers of that page would exhibit above a grade school level of thinking ability. My point of using that NASA graphic was to show that man’s portion of CO2 emission is a tiny amount of the total. The chart accomplishes that. It does not show what you want to show.â€Â
ws said: ws:If it’s not proven, why would you use it? Are you admitting you are displaying non-proven data on your webby site? You should apologize for the 4 people who read your website.
JK: As I said before: My point of using that NASA graphic was to show that man’s portion of CO2 emission is a tiny amount of the total. The chart accomplishes that.
Why do you have trouble understanding simple concepts that the averae grade schooler can grasp?
ws said: How do you know what’s a “tiny†amount? 3% of all emissions does not sound like a lot, but is it? Where is your proof that it is not substantial in relation to the earth’s carbon cycle?
JK: It is up to you to prove new ideas. Your side has never proven this.
ws said: MY proof is that it adds about 2 PPM CO2 to the atmosphere every year, which is substantial esp. when compared to past climate models.
JK: B.S. Show the proof, starting from accurate observations. You can’t because observations sufficient for your proof do not exist.
ws said: ws:The question is: If anthropogenic climate change cannot be backed up with solid science, does it mean it does not exist?
JK: It is your job to show that it exists. You have not done that.
ws said: Where’s the smoking gun, 100% proof there isn’t Anthro GW?
JK: It is your job to show that it exists. You hve not done that.
ws said: It works both ways, Jim. At best, the anti-global warming movement has just as much evidence (not really of course) as the pro-global warming movement – but the #1 argument the idiots on the “other side†use is there’s is no solid evidence – and then they point to non solid evidence themselves!
JK: My side does not need to prove anything. It is your side that claims billions of people must sacrifice their standard of living for your unproven postulate, therefore it YOUR job to provide solid proof. It is also your side’s job to provide solid proof before expecting people to accept your postualte.
ws said: Hello, can we insert logic anywhere into this discussion?
JK: That is what I am trying to do. Why don’t you start with some proof.
ws said: You keep saying climate change needs more evidence. That’s fine, it definitely does. But then you completely say it’s not real (without a doubt) and base your opinion off of marginally accurate evidence yourself.
JK: A splendid display of illogic on your part – it is your job, not mine to provide solid evidence. You obviously have no understanding of science or logic.
Thanks
JK
JK: “As I said before: My point of using that NASA graphic was to show that man’s portion of CO2 emission is a tiny amount of the total. The chart accomplishes that.
Why do you have trouble understanding simple concepts that the averae grade schooler can grasp?”
ws: Define “tiny”. What’s a tiny amount in relation to our carbon cycle?
JK: “B.S. Show the proof, starting from accurate observations. You can’t because observations sufficient for your proof do not exist.”
ws: Observations of what? 600 ppm CO2 is considered a major issue. A growth rate of 1.9 ppm per year would reach that mark in a few decades.
JK: “It is your job to show that it exists. You hve not done that.”
ws: In order to debunk something, shouldn’t you be the one showing proof as well? I could search out decent evidence that contradicts many of your website’s graphics and what not, but would that really matter to you?
JK: “My side does not need to prove anything. It is your side that claims billions of people must sacrifice their standard of living for your unproven postulate, therefore it YOUR job to provide solid proof. It is also your side’s job to provide solid proof before expecting people to accept your postualte.”
ws: Both sides need to show proof, Jim. Stop the psycho-babble. If this were the court of law, your side – the defendants – would need to display contradicting evidence against the accusers.
JK:That is what I am trying to do. Why don’t you start with some proof.
ws:I have! On previous occasions and previous threads. You keep pimping your website out when an argument is made, with your pre-arranged asterisked listed talking points pasted into any comment that is made.
Do us a favor, and stop linking to your crappy website. I keep clicking it and jacking up your hit count.
JK:“A splendid display of illogic on your part – it is your job, not mine to provide solid evidence. You obviously have no understanding of science or logic.”
ws: I will be the first to admit my knowledge of this topic – while better than the average person – is not good at all. Though, you must be conducting major climate science studies in your basement *cue JK with a lab coat and protective glasses mixing baking soda with vinegar in a beaker* Is it Dr. Karlock by now?
ws said: ws: Define “tinyâ€Â. What’s a tiny amount in relation to our carbon cycle?
JK: 3% CO2 is man’s of 30% (max CO2 part of total greenhouse effect) = 1%. one percent is usually considered tiny
ws said: ws: Observations of what? 600 ppm CO2 is considered a major issue. A growth rate of 1.9 ppm per year would reach that mark in a few decades.
JK: First you have to show that growth is man’s CO2. They you have to show that 600 ppm will cause dangerous warming.
ws said: ws: In order to debunk something, shouldn’t you be the one showing proof as well? I could search out decent evidence that contradicts many of your website’s graphics and what not, but would that really matter to you?
JK: I repeat: “My side does not need to prove anything. It is your side that claims billions of people must sacrifice their standard of living for your unproven postulate, therefore it YOUR job to provide solid proof. It is also your side’s job to provide solid proof before expecting people to accept your postualte.â€Â
ws said: If this were the court of law, your side – the defendants – would need to display contradicting evidence against the accusers.
JK: You do not have to defend yourself in a criminal case – it is the prosecution’s job to prove the case. You have not even come close to that.
ws said: Do us a favor, and stop linking to your crappy website. I keep clicking it and jacking up your hit count.
JK: What’s the matter – too many peer reviewed papers, links to realclimate, links to NASA, and court decisions (that found Al Gore lying) for you?
ws said: I will be the first to admit my knowledge of this topic – while better than the average person – is not good at all.
JK: Then why are you pestering us instead of learning? You don’t even learn from the NASA chart or the peer reviewed papers I link to. Spend some time at these sites to see what the skeptics are saying:
wattsupwiththat.com/
climateaudit.org/
icecap.us/
junkscience.com/
sustainableoregon.com/
jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Thanks
JK
Here’s what cap and trade has in store for the world:
Seven arrests in suspected £38m carbon credit fraud
“Seven people have been arrested and 27 addresses raided over an suspected £38m fraud involving the trade of carbon credits to avoid paying value-added tax (VAT).”
Thanks for the links, Jim. I’ll be sure to learn from junkscience.com founder Steve Milloy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
It took Milloy only 3 days after 9/11 to say that the towers would have lasted longer if they had asbestos – even though his claims were completely unfounded and lacked evidence.
What a class A prick.
Human evolution to him? Nonexistent!
DDT? He says it’s good for you, builds healthy teeth and bones.
Smoke and heart disease correlation? Na, smokers have a poorer diet!
Radiation? There’s more on Capitol Hill.
But he sounds trustworthy, you know – trustworthy enough to cash that fat check he gets from Exxon and the Tobacco companies and other special interest groups. He has Cato Institute ties as well. Real shocker there! Thanks for the chuckle, JK.
Hey ws, quit showing your ignorance. You prick.
Dan,
Those are most definitely fugitive resources, there for the seizing. Not meaning to oversimplify or anything, but I’m wondering if the ecological theorists who encapsulated the concept you’re illustrating took the time to read through a first-year property law casebook. These are, to some degree, solved issues.
I’m not suggesting that the law is always right, or that there’s nothing that could be done to improve the way the law allocates those resources, only that there is, in fact, precedent for the privatization AND in other cases for the continuing public holding of the types of resources you have named.
WS,
I think you give people too little credit. People will look to their own survival before anything else — I think we can agree on that. The scenario you describe with people conducting armed raids on someone’s land for firewood is implausible in that they aren’t zombies out of a Resident Evil video game who will press in heedless of their own losses. Even gangs of bandits don’t lemming their way to death against an armed position.
With the amount of starvation, disease, and injury that would occur in the wake of global economic collapse, your average looter’s life expectancy would drop sharply. Meanwhile, those who value life and are willing to respect one another’s mutual self-interest will be in a good position to defend and stay alive much longer. And yes, I have thought about this at length. Setting aside the climate scenarios, the idea of a hyperinflation-driven economic collapse (a la Argentina 2001) is very real in the US today, and even that “lesser disaster” would be… unpleasant.
In answer to your question, which I have to preface by saying is an INCREDIBLY scientifically-implausible hypothetical, I would choose A. It is true that there would be general upheaval and a period of unrest, but individuals in their own self-interest have instituted governments (and cooperated to mutual individual benefit) under such scenaria before, and would do so again. The freer they are to implement the means of their own survival, the better. To name only one example, wise individuals would stockpile resources at defensible locations, and would consolidate their family(ies) there.
These are, to some degree, solved issues.
Agreed.
We solved them decades ago by admitting neoclassical economics and markets cannot provision pure public goods.
Which is why we moved on and developed ecological economics to attempt to place a valuation on ecological goods and services ignored in neoclassical econ. I’d link you to a website that aggregated such ecolecon work (~1-2 dz./week), but it appears it recently went down. So I’ll refer you to the set of journals instead.
None of this is to say that it has replaced capitalism’s preferred economics so it can continue to exploit, but still.
DS
Dan,
I guess we see the solution as having occurred in different ways. I was suggesting that the free market HAS solved the allocation of ecological resources on its own. I guess we’ll find out who was right when the Apocalypse cometh.
I was suggesting that the free market HAS solved the allocation of ecological resources on its own.
Anyone having an education in the natural resources would see the italicized as sadly incorrect, knowing both the literature and news reports as well as the situation in reality.
Most educated in some sort of econ over and above neoclassical econ would note the same thing.
DS
JK:“Hey ws, quit showing your ignorance. You prick.”
ws: I admit full and well for giving you a hard time in a very sarcastic way, but I can’t recall resorting to this type of name calling.
Mike: Thanks for your response. I thought you might have chosen B, but I was wrong!
but I can’t recall resorting to this type of name calling.
Some folk get that way after buyer’s remorse, or finding out someone/something they trusted played them for a rube.
Nonetheless, I agree with Mike and A) (but scenarios more plausible after realization of a hard or soft landing is imminent), although I know someone who has attended a workshop by The Military that explored scenarios in the future if man-made climate change got bad enough to cause population shifts and resource scarcity. Meaning I doubt that folk will be allowed to Mad Max and hoard against the hordes…
DS
ws: ws: I admit full and well for giving you a hard time in a very sarcastic way, but I can’t recall resorting to this type of name calling.
JK:</b. You appear to have a memory too. from a few messages above:
ws: What a class A prick
JK,
I was referring Steven Milloy, the author of junkscience.com, to which that whole diatribe was directed towards. If I wanted to call you a “prick”, I wouldn’t say what a… I would say you are…
Once again, I was calling STEVEN MILLOY A PRICK. In fact my whole post in #58 had nothing to do with you other than making fun of the “reputable” link you gave me and its author.
Will you care to apologize to me for calling me a bad, derogatory name?
Realize the facts:
The past CO2 increase, lagged by an average of 800 years, after warming. Warmer oceans cause release of CO2. Now humans cause more CO2. So what? Get it? Two ways to increase CO2, at least. The past: warmer oceans outgassing of CO2 resulting from Milankovitch cycles &/or sun output variances; current CO2 increase is from human civilization. The cause & effect as claimed by ALgore & others is reversed. According to them: umbrellas cause rain. Yes, CO2 is a GHG, but it has diminishing returns. Most of its power is within the first ~100ppm. It’s similar to if I was to try to slap some sense into a leftist, after the initial blow, they couldn’t get any more deaf. They don’t listen anyway, just believing what they want.
Based upon ice core, over the last 800,000 years,
the CO2 varied between 180ppm & 280ppm & temps varied by 21F.
Now, CO2 is up to 387ppm.
If CO2 was as powerful of a GHG as claimed, temps should be up a lot.
However, since 150 years ago, temps are up about 1.7F, and 1/3 of that increase is before much increase in CO2 (pre-industry).
It should be settled, AGW is not a problem.
Yet, the scaremongering & alarmism goes on, for reasons such as: political, financial, statist, feel-good, anti-wealth, anti-capitalist, anti-development, jealousy, nannyism, behavior-control, ego, greenism, new markets, power, ……
Good point earlier about Repubs probably gaining power over the leftists by 2010 & it would be easier if they could get away from this belief in a supernatural magician in the sky. Also allow a woman to destroy a growth in her uterus.
Will you care to apologize to me for calling me a bad, derogatory name?
Place your bets. Plaaace your bets! Side bets, side bets? Wagers close in 5 minutes!
————
Scott, your talking points remind me of the old joke:
What does this have to do with Scott’s comment @ 68? His talking points are so old and refuted so long ago, the planet has numbered them to save time and given them point values for our amusement. Since denialists never do anything but repeat the same refuted arguments, it is better just to use their number to save time.
IOW: 11! Silence.
But I got 137 points for Scott’s typing! Hooray! Funny! Haha!
Climate legislation vote soon! Whoo-hoo! Faces of coal! Haha!
Fake astroturf letters and fake Town Hall meetings staged by Big Oil.! Snicker. Haw!
DS
We already have tipping fees for dumping garbage at landfills, why shouldn’t we have tipping fees for dumping garbage into the atmosphere that we all breath?
THWM why shouldn’t we have tipping fees for dumping garbage into the atmosphere that we all breath?
JK: OK, lest start with those coal power plants that urn most light rail lines.
Then fine particles from those diesel power commuter trains and buses.
Care are pretty much clean except for those Gore zombies that think CO2 pollutes. But buses emit more CO2 per passenger-mile than cars -so we if we care about CO2, we have to start there.
ws said: Once again, I was calling STEVEN MILLOY A PRICK.
JK: What do you have against him ,except you don’t like his religion?
I stand by my earlier statement.
Collect your winnings everyone! Collect now! Paying at 2:3! 2:3 everyone!
DS
Then Mr.Karlock are you using a gas powered computer?
the highwayman said: Then Mr.Karlock are you using a gas powered computer?
JK: No. It is powered by fish, nukes, coal and a few birds, just like MAX. (hydro, nuclear, coal and a little wind power.)
Thanks
JK
JK: No. It is powered by fish, nukes, coal and a few birds, just like MAX. (hydro, nuclear, coal and a little wind power.)
THWM: How about some geo-thermal then, by tapping into Mt.Hood?
Dan, & any others,
You have not refuted anything. Just referring to an old joke, that has no bearance. I could deconstruct (in fact, you made no relevance) your individual points.
You are believing the myth of AGW. Can you refute anything that I said about AGW not happening?
You ignorant people. This proAGW is political.
Look at the facts: past 800,000 years, until 150 ago: CO2 varied 100ppm & temps varied 21F. Now CO2 is up 100 pm & temps, 1.4F. Hello! Do the math.
You see, CO2 is a GHG, but it has diminishing returns (each additional amount creates less absorption of wavelength) & these orgs/groups have many motivations to curtail civilized nations.
Regardless, this super-zoning is not needed. Sure, some separation of uses of uses is needed, but not “no use” on hillside, farms & other. This restriction of supply just drives up price. And then occasional drops, which started our recession.
Anyway, what’s your point? You live in a dense area, a few mile from your job?
Good for you! Make others do the same & pay much more for having a car.
You have not refuted anything. Just referring to an old joke, that has no bearance. I could deconstruct (in fact, you made no relevance) your individual points.
No, you couldn’t. Surely it would have no…snork bearance on the relevantness of the pro-political zoning cage law.
DS