pitchblende

Yes I'm aware of all that. I'm well versed on biofuels. However, you are wrong about diverting arable land from food production. You can make biofuel and food from the same harvest depending on what is being used. This being the US we have a lot of alternatives including Sweet sorghum, waste products, TDP, methanol, and algae to name a few. Sugar cane is currently the best energy crop because the amount of ethanol it produces is 3-4 times that of corn and you can use the waste product to create electricity. Brazil uses about 0.33% of their arable land to create all the ethanol they make which is enough for 40% of their domestic fuel consumption along with electricity generation by what is left offer. Biofuels aren't a catch all solution but they should be implemented in some forms and they should be implemented correctly.

The only biofuel that is hurting our food supply is corn ethanol. I wish people would recognize that and use biofuel made from sugar cane or one of the other energy rich crops that aren't a staple food to everyone's diet.

10 Things You Can Like About $4 Gas http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1819594_1819592,00.html

I live in this district and I didn't even know the name of the guy that was running against LaTourette. I'd like to see some more of his policies. LaTourette has been a decent representative but he continues to side with the President instead of being the true moderate he was before Bush came on board.

I've brought my own booze on board the train to Chicago before. They usually don't mind on the long distance routes, but I hear they sometimes crackdown on the shorter routes.

Modern Conservatism was founded by Nixon and implemented by Reagan. If you look at historic conservatism they were never opposed to government spending just doing it in an efficient manner. Teddy Roosevelt funded the National Park Service and wanted to fund Universal Health Care, Lincoln the trans-continental railways, and Eisenhower the Interstate Highway System. It's disappointing that they've gone from one political idealogy of progressiveness to one that only wants to fund a military-industrial complex. The truth is that government should be small but also large. I seriously fear for when this country goes into another great depression and we don't have the infrastructure, services and support to quickly overcome such a devastating occurrence. The fact that some still strongly oppose Amtrak or rail passenger service in general shows that they are truly in the pockets of other interests or just generally misinformed.

Privatized Rail, Roads, and Transportation in general doesn't really work. Look at the UK for example that just privatized some of their rail operations. What happens is that a particular carrier buys up all the leasing for a specific route so that no competitors remained. When they tried to regulate the services, they reduced profits of certain carriers and they complained. So basically, what you have in England is a nationalized railroad infrastructure system and several privatized carriers. Most people just ride on the national carrier that still exists because it provides a better service. The country is working towards nationalization once again instead of continuing the leases. We had privatized rail service in the country before, it served 700 million people in 1946. The system was highly regulated though almost to a point that put the railroads out of business. If they would have unregulated it, prices would have been unaffordable on under served destinations. We are a long ways away before we can even though about operating privatized rail services again in this country. There is reason that Amtrak was formed in 1970. The railroad companies were losing passengers to cars and planes. Even at over 200 million annual passengers in 1964, they couldn't make a profit. We barely have 30 million passengers now.

That's a scam, don't fall for it.

Yea I've read that, but it seems strange that it wouldn't follow the existing median on the road. As far as going to Randall Park Mall, it would be a great idea since its closing. The whole mall can be redeveloped with TOD in mind.

I added the new potential route to my google maps hack of what I want for future rail service in Cleveland. Check it out, it doesn't include the necessary commuter rail service though :) http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109978057279629123261.00044c4b657ef7079cfa7&ll=41.45585,-81.649361&spn=0.220256,0.541077&t=p&z=12

You hiring? That would be like a dream job :) Although, I'm concerned that they consider 110mph as high speed rail, they should be introduced to the TGV in your picture :) Although, I guess it's best for the country to take baby steps, we can't develop infrastructure too quickly like those in Germany, Japan, and China, that'd be too close to socialism.

Wasn't really a question, but more of a statement :). Ridership projections are never accurate and even that should account for a transit method. There are so many other things that could be calculated such as development around the area, increase in population in the future, the number of people that stop using their car and so on and so forth. What ever level of ridership a rail system would have had would also help contribute to the long term growth of the city. Like I've said before BRT is not a long term solution and even the pioneers of BRT are giving into Rail cause it has a lot more benefits.

I have no doubt it will get decent ridership, but BRT is not a long term solution. Even the cities that use BRT in Brazil are upgrading to rail just cause it's not worth it in the long term. South Pittsburgh, 1978 – The South Busway, projected to carry 35,000 weekday rider-trips, actually attracted only 20,000 rider-trips initially, and that level has now dropped to about 14,500, less than pre-busway ridership in the affected corridor. Meanwhile, a parallel LRT upgrade has attracted approximately fifty percent more passengers. [7] · East Pittsburgh, 1983 - The East Busway was originally projected to attract 80,000 weekday rider-trips, but the actual service initially attracted only about 30,000. The system actually lost 25 percent of bus riders as the busways were further developed. [7] · Pittsburgh, 1999-2000 – The West Busway, with a capital cost of approximately $55 million per mile, was originally projected to attract 50,000 weekday rider-trips. However, initial ridership of only 5,400 has grown modestly to about 9,500 (19% of original projections); in part, this may be temporary, as repairs to a parallel bridge in the corridor initially delayed motor vehicle traffic and have given a temporary ostensible advantage to the busway.

I know it's been probably stated a thousand times before, but RTA should have made this a streetcar line instead. I know funding was an issue, but I think service is going to suffer because its still a bus no matter what they want to call it.