The Cato Institute reports (and my calculations back them up as well) that if you want to do something for the environment, prudent policy would be to take measures to encourage people to drive more efficient cars, and to build the lanes to reduce congestion.
On the other hand, if you want to trash the environment, increase money for transit. When you count the capital energy costs (energy needed to build the infrastructure needed), it turns out that light rail is more or less worse than having everyone drive an SUV to work.
Oh, and one more thing; if they could make roads just a little wider on each side--say a nice 2-3' shoulder past the white line--that creates some awfully nice bike lanes, plus a safe place for disabled vehicles to pull off. Not always possible or advisable, but awfully nice.
The DFL: Bouncing The Rubble Of Rural MN Healthcare
-
Canny observers have been pointing out for years that the DFL protests too
much when it comes to Big Pharma. Particularly Angie Craig, who perennially
face...
13 hours ago
1 comment:
Ah, but light rail is "Progressive".
It make Liberals feel all goodly inside!
The "little people" ride the busses and trains!
After all, Paul Wellstone arrived in a Bus!
...well except for that one time.
Post a Comment