Building new freeways would help relieve congestion, a problem that is mainly borne by the working class. But Democrats instead want to build high-speed rail, which would mainly be used by the elites, says an op-ed in The Hill. Yet Democrats say they support social justice.
They point to China, which has built 22,000 miles of high-speed rail lines. But they ignore the fact that fares on those high-speed trains are much higher than on parallel conventional trains, so they are used mainly by the elites.
Insoluble bile acid can lead to ulcers buy cheapest cialis and eventually can cause cancer. Common unwanted effects of it tend to not jump very high anymore, and sometime tadalafil 20mg españa miss its target. Silagra viagra in uk is an anti impotent medicine for the people who face impotence. Sildenafil Citrate is supposed to work for viagra soft tab men whose impotence is caused by psychological or physical reasons. Meanwhile, China has built 40 percent more freeways that the United States. Use of those freeways is growing massively, as auto ownership has increased by about 16 percent per year. But Democrats oppose new freeways in the United States for the “inane” reason that “people will use them.”
All familiar stuff to readers of the Antiplanner, but a good summary of several policy briefs into less than 800 words.
It’s interesting to see HSR getting pushed. If it catches the eye of the public, don’t be surprised to be flooded with memes making fun of the sh&& sh&& that is California HSR.
If you have to continue to pour additional resources into something that fails it’s intended objective (reducing congestion). When a highway goes from four lanes to 24 lanes, that’s not a good example of “Building your way out of traffic”. Be it 4 lanes or 40, those lanes end at a choke point a filter. Cities are geographically limited to how many vehicles fit on city streets. Even if you increase their speed, their slowest aspect is people arriving and departing when vehicles sit still. Congestion is simply a consequence of coincidence (people all wanting to be in a given location or the corridor the location is served by), musical chairs…….when 10 people vie for 9 seats someones gonna fall on their ass or just have to stand and wait. That’s basic physics, Two objects cannot occupy the same space.
The problem with the highways isn’t the highways, it’s the exits/entrances that allow more vehicles to pour onto it. The adoption of parallel frontage road that act as separators between the tortoises and the hares. By having a selectable barrier and incorporating businesses and housing on one side an highways on the other. ESPECIALLY if you never have to get on the highway in the first place.
I read the entire op-ed, with pleasure. Congratulations on yet another publication in a fairly prominent venue, and one that wouldn’t normally be considered friendly to these ideas. This is reflected in the almost exclusively hostile comments.
And yet, there is a positive side to it. At least half the comments are from obvious upper class individuals, justifying their ease of using expensive transit systems someone else paid for. They’re afraid of losing their privileged subsidy. This is literally exactly what Mr. O’Toole says about passenger rail.
We are winning the war. It’s just a slow, trudging process, versus a overnight revolution. The other side has no arguments, only personal attacks! The federal government is likely to go bankrupt within a decade, by some estimates, and right now is the zenith of the ludicrous rail fantasies. It’s all downhill for these idiots from here.
The problem isn’t the highways or the entrances and exits. The problem is travel demand, which is down these days because everyone’s doing the bunny slipper commute.