DaninDC

Many geologists believe that we are at, or slightly past, the global oil production peak. Saudi Arabia has been resorting to less-than-prime wells to extract oil, which is an indicator they are not as flush as before. Couple that with exponential demand from China and the reckless, oblivious car culture we have created in the U.S., and the oil will run out within the next 20 years. Hubbert's Peak was dead-on with the U.S. oil production peak in the 1970s--there is no reason to suspect he would be drastically off on global oil production. Mind you, Hubbert made his calculations in the 1950s, and no one believed him until the U.S. actually passed peak oil production. Who's going to invent this new fuel of which you speak? Will the production costs of this fuel be low enough to allow for the current rate of fuel consumption? As a technical person, I find it hysterical when the masses think that scientists will magically dream something up to satisfy our own greedy desires. God forbid we actually simplify our own lives. The reality is that the most productive farmland is near our existing urban centers--which is part of the reason our cities were settled where they were in the first place. We are constantly engaged in needless paving of these areas, driving farmers out of business by artificially raising the value of their land, and driving food production to greater distances from our residences, driving up the cost of food. We subsidize farmers to offset the massive subsidies and lax regulations placed on the enormous factory farms. Since the factory farms are large businesses, and thus tend to have Congressmen in their pocket, they enjoy numerous advantages that the traditional familly farmer does not, which applies increasing price pressure on the small farmer and when combined with his artificially overvalued land, leaves him no choice but to sell his property to Wal Mart or Pulte Homes. The fact that you find this "stupid" tells me you could not possibly comprehend the complex web of subsidization that created modern suburbia.

Cleveland has already done a fantastic job of sucking pedestrians off the street with Tower City. Why would you want to sound the death knell of foot traffic downtown?

Well, despite telling everyone in America not to be afraid of the "t'ehrists", our elected leaders both on the Hill and at 16th and Penn live in constant fear of truck bombs. 'cause, you know, a six-foot thick masonry wall is just so flimsy.

No--it's to protect the Monument (and its visitors, apparently) from "t'ehr". It's kind of tough to get pork barrel money when you don't actually have a voting member in Congress.

Normally, there are snow fences on the Mall during the winter. The Washington Monument has been fenced off for some time, as they are building a new underground visitors center there. As far as the geese and landscaping are concerned, the Mall is intended to remain pastoral, and is used more for recreation than ornamentation. The portions where the grass has been worn down are merely a testament to heavy patronage.

No, the debate is pretty much resolved by anyone who has even casually researched the topic. States like Ohio have ever-increasing tax burdens and infrastructure, schools, and healthcare suffer because resources are spread too thinly over too large a geographic area. For example, Ohio has one of the ten highest tax burdens in the nation, but is 40th in per-capita education spending and has zero passenger rail. Meanwhile, the paved areas keep growing larger while the population remains relatively stagnant. How is this possibly positive? I don't have a problem with people having big yards and single-family houses. I do have a problem publicly subsidizing these things for people who can afford it regardless. The truth is, we are running out of space. The best farmland in the nation is constantly being paved over, adding incredible costs to our food supply. Some of our most beautiful and valuable natural and historic areas are being exploited for mining, drilling, foresting, and development of low-rent motels and tourist traps. Sprawl is based on an assumption of a never-ending supply of cheap oil, and when it runs out, the results will be nothing but apocalyptic.

While this thread isn't about education, per se, it's disingenous and oversimplified to cite "better schools" in the suburbs as the primary factor driving sprawl. How are nonexistent schools in undeveloped areas any better if they aren't built yet? As sprawl relates to education, it becomes a matter of the symptoms of concentrated poverty that results from the subsidized flight of the upper and middle classes.

I rent and live paycheck-to-paycheck! No car, though. Sorry.

Wow. Truly horrid promotional material! My favorite was an ad in the Washington Post for a new condo building touting its proximity to the Metro. In the ad, the developer used a stock photograph that was decidedly NOT the Metro--it looked more like a subway from Seoul or Japan.

"Growth" or "displacement"?

Or the migration to the sun belt? If it were due to migration only, you would more likely see a linear relationship between population growth and developed land. I can guarantee you that North Carolina has a geometric relationship between the two phenomena. That, my friend, is Sprawl.

CAPITOL HILL, DC (20003) Single Family Homes only » Wallet-Friendly on top of Metro WASHINGTON, DC 20003 $679,000 3 Bed, 3.5 Bath 0.02 Acres Lot is 842 sq. ft., Year Built: 1911 WASHINGTON, DC 20003 $1,149,000 4 Bed, 3 Bath 2,800 Sq. Ft. 0.05 Acres Lot is 2090 sq. ft., Year Built: 1890,

Houston = vacation wonderland

Um, Wilbon is a pretty well-respected sportswriter--on the RIGHT coast. I wouldn't be so quick to judge, either. I joke that half the people in DC are from New England, and the other half are from Ohio. Many of your so-called "elitists" are more than aware of what Cleveland is really like. Signed, An East Coast elitist from Cleveland

Just remember--not all the publicity Detroit is getting is good, either. This is one of the things that still cheeses me off about Cleveland--a general "can't-do" attitude. Where's the blue-collar toughness that everyone in NEO is so proud to claim? Instead of worrying about what's happening in Detroit this weekend, I think Clevelanders need to worry about making their town a better place to live. Too much energy is expended worrying about how Cleveland compares to other cities. I say, just do the hard work to improve Cleveland, and the image will take care of itself.

Big deal. If you want to define your city based on whether or not you can host a Super Bowl, then there are bigger problems afoot. Look at other cities that have hosted the Super Bowl--some multiple times--New Orleans, Miami, Jacksonville, Houston, Pasadena, Pontiac, Atlanta, Minneapolis, San Diego, Los Angeles. Has the Super Bowl made or not made any of these places? The crapholes have remained crapholes, and the "good" cities have remained "good" cities. Do you see Chicagoans boo-hooing over Detroit hosting a Super Bowl? Cut it out with the inferiority complex already--there are more important ingredients to a city than hosting one big-time sporting event. Hell, would you want Cleveland to have Detroit's current $300 million budget deficit too? What about all the abandoned buildings, horrific transportation system, and extreme racial segregation? After this weekend, Detroit *will* go back to being largely forgotten, just as Jacksonville and Houston have the past two years.

Who says you have to leave the city when you have kids, anyway? In my opinion, suburbs (especially the newer ones) are terrible places to raise kids. I think in a city, the kids have more social interaction with a diverse array of people, and learn independence a lot better. Never mind the cultural and recreational opportunities that just don't exist in your typical subdivision or strip mall.

The Nati--the "awesome Dep't building" is the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, or the Old Executive Office Building. It's used by White House staffers. The rowhouses across from the White House on Lafayette Square are also occupied by the Executive Branch. Looks like you had a great time while you were here, and got to see quite a bit. Next time, you'll have to head into some of the neighborhoods. DC is very underappreciate because most people come here and only do the touristy stuff (Washington), without actually seeing the very cool hoods where people live (DC). Seriously. You people need to start stopping by when you're in town. If you give me notice, we'll go for beers on the Hill.

Photography is allowed on the Metro--it's a good way to figure out who the tourists are!

Of course, I'm sure all the paving over in the Carolinas has nothing to do with the massive freeway expansions currently underway in NC.

Light rail = streetcars. The only difference is one of semantics. Streetcars, by definition, typically operate in roadways or in a laterally-separated median. Light rail can operate in streets, in railroad rights-of-way, in subway tunnels (as in downtown Boston), and on aerial structures. The DC streetcars are primarily an effort from the District Department of Transportation, bypassing the regional transit agency (Metro). There is coordination with Metro, though, because bus routes will have to be adjusted, and the streetcars will feed into existing subway stations. ..and if you must know, I think Detroit takes the cake for worst public transit in a large city.

I understand what you're saying, KJP. It *is* a method of obtaining a large amount of capital at once. It doesn't help, though, that people in Columbus decide to "invest" in a 3rd lane each way on I-71 instead of rehabbing a rail line. There's still fat that can be trimmed to obtain large amounts of capital. I just don't like the idea of introducing inefficiencies and waste (profit to private companies) for a one-shot deal. It's not unlike using a rainy day fund to balance a budget. I know that there is only one lease payment, up front. You have to account for the opportunity cost of not being able to collect the tolls for 99 years, hence the averaging. I suppose from the perspective of collecting a lot of capital at once, it's a feasible idea. I'm very queasy about privatizing things like infrastructure, which, as even Alexander Hamilton argued, was one of the two primary functions of federal government.

Anyone interested in marching to the offices of Voinovich, DeWine, Kucinich, and/or Tubbs-Jones, you are more than welcome to crash on my couch.

So this is something you're advocating, KJP? To take the example of the Chicago Skyway, $2 billion for 99 years. That's only $20 million a year in present dollars--a drop in the bucket for a city the size of Chicago. Aside from a sudden influx of cash, what do they get? Is the road surface any better? Are services better? Is road plowing and salting better? The only difference is that a company is making profit off drivers. I argue that if it's profitable to operate roadways, then the states should just raise the tolls and keep the money for other state projects. It doesn't make sense to throw money at private companies when it could be put into other infrastructure projects. You know as well as I do that transportation is inherently an unprofitable enterprise unto itself. Why, then, are we seeing so many companies frothing at the chance to pay billions to build and operate toll roads? Could it be because the states are introducing externalities (read: inefficiencies) into the market which make it possible to generate these profits?

No, the part that worries me (other than ODOT's stubornness to depart from a pre-ordained solution) is the reference to a cable-stayed bridge as "graceful" and the reference to a steel truss bridge as "bland". Bias, anyone? Seriously. The State of Ohio, and ODOT in particular, do not have their crap together at all. They have no idea what it takes to build and maintain a functioning metropolis, which is ironic, considering how many large cities Ohio has. The 1950s are over, people.