yeah...i think that all starts tomorrow. i know the legislature is spending tons of time sorting all that out right now. yep...just fly around. hey...make your first trip a little jaunt right over the white house!! won't that be funny??!!! yeah. see how that works out.
yeah, I'd be much more in favor of spending the money on the TGV. i thought the airlines lobbied extensively against it?
yeah, i think you're right. i remember that too. been about 13 years since i remember any debate on that issue, though.
Actually, I've often been impressed with how safe driving is, despite it killing thousands upon thousands every year. When you think about it, you've got a system where you have millions of people going here and there and each of them has a block of metal that weighs a couple of tons and can get moving at and over 100 mph, and we expect them to be able to go 4 abreast, weave in and out among each other and even cross in front of each other at perpendiculars, relying mostly on people's sanity and adeptness at handling the things -- you have all that, you'd expect the whole society to be in an absolute shambles. But, it isn't. The system works. Driving on the freeway is like a ballet (either on the stage or in the seats, depending on the time of day), each driver gracefully dodging among all the others so that he and everyone else can get where they're trying to go.
The idea sounds stupid to me. Also, why is there never a Plan B or C. It seems like, even though hiring someone to do all the research would be more costly, that it would be better to say, "we have a problem, here are 3 viable options, each with their advantages and disadvantages." Also, I think before flying cars, we may be more likley ot see smart cars / highway systems. That is, systems where you don't have to do the driving, just input your location and sit back. Computerized cars linked to computerized roads and highways do the rest. At a base level, all you really need is a car that can automatically sense an object or car all around it (in front, back, left, right, etc.) and to be wirelessly linked to the road to be on schedule with lights and speed limits.
Americans driving fewer vehicles than we have now is highly unlikely. Hybrid cars will likely pick up the slack for our commuter nation. We'll pay probably as much for a full tank then as we do now (~25-30 dollars)... I find ironic that Texas environmentalists and property rights owners are working side by side. They've been bitter rivals ever since it was legal to take land at the first sign of an Endangered species.... The US government has traditionally opposed the toll system because its clout on individual states is reduced dramatically without highway funds to threaten policy issues. The Fed usually spends dollar for dollar that the state spends on highways. They threaten to cut back funding whenever a state becomes disobedient, like a lowered alcohol age limit or greenhouse emissions. I guess Bush is supporting it now because his military industrial complex has gotten to big for him.... To top it off, a portion of our federal funds for roads is wasted on national parks and reserves for the purpose of giving private mining and logging interests a subsidized boost at the expense of aging public roads. Roads are built whenever a mine or logging area is found, even on privately bought locations. If there are hints of corruption and excess in the TTC, it's already going on on the Federal level. Federally funded roads aren't free. Congress wants to spend 250 billion dollars for highways when it cost around 219 billion after inflation to build them in 1952. Pork barrel tactics still apply, so your tax dollars might not net the same benefit you'll get from these highways. Big states pay more in taxes and get less from funding than smaller states. A major downside is that the corridor will be environmentally destructive, but if the urban sprawl continues, then new roads will be contructed regardless of how its funded. It's a stall tactic from the private interests against the toll road. Environmentalists can not realistically deny the construction of a highway if the demand exists. It's how our law is worded. A privatized toll system theoretically reduces the Federal burden and gives drivers a choice in convenience or price. It also reduces government waste because its usage will directly effect the funding it receives. There's the possibility for economic gains that offset the revenue local stop spots will lose. Most of those gains will indirectly benefit the public as a whole from increased trade and spending to an increased tax revenue for the government. Other big states will continue to explore toll roads because our current system is becoming pricey and excessive.
I agree with this point. Why are we spending billions to expand the roads in the countryside which don't have traffic problems now? Around the city is where the problem is. They credit themselves for thinking 50 years ahead. How so? It's building a new highway. Great innovation! How about building a mass transit between cities. You'll never be able to build enough lanes of freeway to keep up with the population growth.
I've often driven from Austin to Dallas, and Austin to Ft. Worth - and the traffic is usually light. The only times this change are 1) Around cities, 2) OU-Texas weekend, 3) If there's an accident. Building a BFH isn't going to change things at all and an idea that was conceived in the 50's isn't really foward thinking. Building free bypasses, and cheaper and more mass transportation options in the triangle should be the top priority.
