^Wow, that's just sad. I can't believe how ridiculous these people are.

How about this gem? Where do these people come from!! This guy draws two government paychecks yet calls out public investment in HSR....

 

Another Viewpoint: Rail is for freight, highways for people

Published: Friday, February 25, 2011

By Bruce Landeg

 

Another Viewpoint is a column The News-Herald makes available so all sides of issues may by aired. Bruce Landeg is Lake County's chief deputy engineer and an officer in the Ohio National Guard. He lives in Mentor.

 

"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem." — Albert Einstein

 

The Obama Administration has placed an emphasis on building high-speed rail (HSR) to connect communities and economic centers across the country.

 

As with many government programs, the brainstorming on this one was limited to the idealistic benefits and did not consider the financial realities or the practical risks to all Americans. The security environments of the 21st Century dictate that this vision for passenger rail will have major unintended consequences.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/02/25/opinion/nh3677734.txt

How about this gem? Where do these people come from!! This guy draws two government paychecks yet calls out public investment in HSR....

 

Another Viewpoint: Rail is for freight, highways for people

Published: Friday, February 25, 2011

By Bruce Landeg

 

Another Viewpoint is a column The News-Herald makes available so all sides of issues may by aired. Bruce Landeg is Lake County's chief deputy engineer and an officer in the Ohio National Guard. He lives in Mentor.

 

"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem." — Albert Einstein

 

The Obama Administration has placed an emphasis on building high-speed rail (HSR) to connect communities and economic centers across the country.

 

As with many government programs, the brainstorming on this one was limited to the idealistic benefits and did not consider the financial realities or the practical risks to all Americans. The security environments of the 21st Century dictate that this vision for passenger rail will have major unintended consequences.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/02/25/opinion/nh3677734.txt

 

What a moron.

How about this gem? Where do these people come from!! This guy draws two government paychecks yet calls out public investment in HSR....

 

Another Viewpoint: Rail is for freight, highways for people

Published: Friday, February 25, 2011

By Bruce Landeg

 

Another Viewpoint is a column The News-Herald makes available so all sides of issues may by aired. Bruce Landeg is Lake County's chief deputy engineer and an officer in the Ohio National Guard. He lives in Mentor.

 

"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem." Albert Einstein

 

The Obama Administration has placed an emphasis on building high-speed rail (HSR) to connect communities and economic centers across the country.

 

As with many government programs, the brainstorming on this one was limited to the idealistic benefits and did not consider the financial realities or the practical risks to all Americans. The security environments of the 21st Century dictate that this vision for passenger rail will have major unintended consequences.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/02/25/opinion/nh3677734.txt

 

What a moron.

I was happy to see that most of the comments on the article were calling him out on his ignorance.

Feel free to add your own comment! ;)

Feel free to add your own comment! ;)

Way ahead of you.

How about this gem? Where do these people come from!! This guy draws two government paychecks yet calls out public investment in HSR....

 

Another Viewpoint: Rail is for freight, highways for people

Published: Friday, February 25, 2011

By Bruce Landeg

 

Another Viewpoint is a column The News-Herald makes available so all sides of issues may by aired. Bruce Landeg is Lake County's chief deputy engineer and an officer in the Ohio National Guard. He lives in Mentor.

 

"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem." — Albert Einstein

 

The Obama Administration has placed an emphasis on building high-speed rail (HSR) to connect communities and economic centers across the country.

 

As with many government programs, the brainstorming on this one was limited to the idealistic benefits and did not consider the financial realities or the practical risks to all Americans. The security environments of the 21st Century dictate that this vision for passenger rail will have major unintended consequences.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/02/25/opinion/nh3677734.txt

 

What about bridges?  Those seem pretty vulnerable to me. You can wreak major, long-term havoc by taking out a few bridges.

Someone else made the point to me that most of the terrorist attacks involve car bombs or suicide bombers driving cars, vans or trucks into targets. And I seem to recall vans and trucks used "successfully" twice in America in back-to-back years (1993-World Trade Center; 1994-Oklahoma City) plus some unsuccessfully including the Times Square attempt last year.

 

No dedicated high-speed rail system in the world has yet to have a fatality, despite Japan's bullet train system being in continuous operation since 1964. Hundreds of millions, if not billions of people have ridden high-speed rail in the 47 years since then.

Europe's two big post-9/11 terrorist acts focused on their rail system (3/11 in Spain and 7/7 in England).

The two "successful" terrorist acts. You're forgetting two unsuccessful ones.... Where did the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber get on their planes?

A quarter of the victems in London were on the bus, not the train.

Stupidity on a grandiose scale.

 

High Speed to Insolvency

Why liberals love trains.

 

Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.

 

more at:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/high-speed-to-insolvency.html#

I heard about that article. I heard that the article is full of inaccuracies. I didn't want to read it because I didn't want to go on a Texas Chainsaw Massacre and start hacking up some highway zombies.

 

Sure, America can retain its individualism -- as the lone country still addicted to oil that we become the Mad Max of the world....

 

 

 

 

Actually, that article is so far out in right field that I think it helps bring the undecideds over to more rational thinking. Hopefully.

I wonder when and how the meme developed--apparently on both sides, with very few exceptions--that passenger rail is somehow a partisan issue.  Maybe it's as simple as that people who want to see big new spending projects gravitate naturally towards the Democrats, but that dynamic doesn't generally hold with transportation infrastructure; Republicans are happy to spend on highways, airports, bridges, and the like.  It makes for a very isolated existence being a conservative rail supporter, even a qualified one (I'm more bullish on local rail than intercity regional/HSR).

You're not as isolated as you may think....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan/i-in-the-public-interest_b_781488.html

 

Interesting that George Will was for high speed rail before he was against it.  See this op-ed of his published in October 2001:

 

 

Getting serious about our solutions

 

...Third, build high-speed rail service.

 

Two months ago this columnist wrote: "A government study concludes that for trips of 500 miles or less -- a majority of flights; 40 percent are of 300 miles or less -- automotive travel is as fast or faster than air travel, door to door. Columnist Robert Kuttner sensibly says that fact strengthens the case for high-speed trains. If such trains replaced air shuttles in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, Kuttner says that would free about 60 takeoff and landing slots per hour."...

 

 

...The lesson to be learned is not defeatism. Security improvements can steadily complicate terrorists' tasks and increase the likelihood of defeating them on the ground. However, shifting more travelers away from the busiest airports to trains would reduce the number of flights that have to be protected and the number of sensitive judgments that have to be made, on the spot, quickly, about individual travelers. Congress should not adjourn without funding the nine-state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.

 

Each of these three proposals was sensible before Sept. 11. And it is hardly unpatriotic to seize this moment of unusual seriousness to get serious about agendas that languished when, until three weeks ago, the nation had a seriousness deficit

 

 

Full article at:  http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100101.asp

 

 

My letter to Newsweek:

 

George Will was for high speed rail before he was against it (Why Liberals Love Trains, Newsweek, 2/27/11).  In a post 9/11 editorial in Jewish World Review (Getting Serious About Our Solutions:  http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100101.asp, 10/1/01).  Will speaks in favor of high speed rail.

 

Now he's suddenly against it and gives quite ridiculous reasons too.  For example, he complains that most rail lines don't make a profit but ignores the fact that our highway and aviation systems don't either.  Nor have their respective trust funds of fuel taxes and user fees ever covered all of their costs.

 

His reasoning that liberals want to increase "collectivism" through high speed rail is as laughable as it is ignorant.  No one is out to replace the private automobile.  He forgets that liberals love the idea of electric and hybrid cars as much as they love the idea of high speed rail.  Furthermore, in the dozen or so states that currently fund intercity passenger trains, people are choosing of their own free will to ride them, and the ridership just keeps going up.  If anyone wants collectivism, it's people like George Will who want to keep travel options for Americans as few as possible, keep our aging population and car-less households less mobile, and keep us chained to the gas pump and at the mercy of rising oil prices.

 

 

Well written! and good find. Maybe Newsweek will publish your letter...

I wonder when and how the meme developed--apparently on both sides, with very few exceptions--that passenger rail is somehow a partisan issue.  Maybe it's as simple as that people who want to see big new spending projects gravitate naturally towards the Democrats, but that dynamic doesn't generally hold with transportation infrastructure; Republicans are happy to spend on highways, airports, bridges, and the like.  It makes for a very isolated existence being a conservative rail supporter, even a qualified one (I'm more bullish on local rail than intercity regional/HSR).

 

Note also that George Will was for HSR before he was against it.  If there is any doubt about the real political agenda of hard-line conservatives over their current opposition to high speed rail, this should dispel that doubt:

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100101.asp

I have no idea what you mean by the "real political agenda" of opponents; I don't know what you think you're seeing.  What I see is simply rail infrastructure projects getting caught up in the poorly aimed animus against spending that is the defining feature of the new political Zeitgeist.  I think that putting rail infrastructure in the crosshairs is poorly thought out even though I agree with the general sentiment that government spending is far too large a share of the economy.  Why rail projects have gained such particular salience, I don't know.  Possibly it's because conservatives know that they still don't have the political capital to target the real drains on the budget--excessively generous entitlements for the elderly and the misconception of medical care as a right rather than something that must be earned.  Maybe they think they need to be seen attacking all other publicly visible spending initiatives to build up credibility to later say that they've tried everything else and that the entitlements are the only things left to cut.  I honestly don't know what the thinking is (or even how much real "thinking," even thinking I'd disagree with, has been transpiring).

I have no idea what you mean by the "real political agenda" of opponents; I don't know what you think you're seeing.  What I see is simply rail infrastructure projects getting caught up in the poorly aimed animus against spending that is the defining feature of the new political Zeitgeist.  I think that putting rail infrastructure in the crosshairs is poorly thought out even though I agree with the general sentiment that government spending is far too large a share of the economy.  Why rail projects have gained such particular salience, I don't know.  Possibly it's because conservatives know that they still don't have the political capital to target the real drains on the budget--excessively generous entitlements for the elderly and the misconception of medical care as a right rather than something that must be earned.  Maybe they think they need to be seen attacking all other publicly visible spending initiatives to build up credibility to later say that they've tried everything else and that the entitlements are the only things left to cut.  I honestly don't know what the thinking is (or even how much real "thinking," even thinking I'd disagree with, has been transpiring).

 

I think it's because they know it is easy to talk a conservative suburbanite (or rural folk) into being against those "scary trains".

The real political agenda of conservatives is no secret: it is to preserve and perpetuate the status quo just as it has been the agenda of the progressives to change the status quo. In its basic, this has been what has differentiated progressives and conservatives for a very long time.

The real political agenda of conservatives is no secret: it is to preserve and perpetuate the status quo just as it has been the agenda of the progressives to change the status quo. In its basic, this has been what has differentiated progressives and conservatives for a very long time.

 

Like most pieces of conventional wisdom, I think this is more conventional than wisdom.

 

Conservatives have many, many things they are trying to change.  Progressives have many, many things they are trying to preserve.  Indeed, I would say that conservatives are generally less happy with the status quo than progressives, which is why progressives are willing to raise taxes to preserve that status quo and conservatives want to seize the day to finally reform it.

 

Rail happens to be one lone data point on which conservatives do appear to want to preserve the status quo.  As you noted yourself, though, within the past decade, even that data point was data at a different point.

I'm thinking more in terms of transportation and market shares. When railways were dominant, conservatives supported them and opposed highways as "social engineering." Highways were supported by progressives in the 1910s to rein in the power of the railroads over farmers, small businesses and promote bicycling among the working class (they hadn't yet imagined cars as something the working class would ever use or afford). Now, conservatives support the dominant highways and view public support for railways as social engineering, as progressives view railways as a means of reining in highways because of their perceived cause of social inequities, pollution, oil dependence, etc.

 

Comprende?

The real political agenda of conservatives is no secret: it is to preserve and perpetuate the status quo just as it has been the agenda of the progressives to change the status quo. In its basic, this has been what has differentiated progressives and conservatives for a very long time.

 

Like most pieces of conventional wisdom, I think this is more conventional than wisdom.

 

Conservatives have many, many things they are trying to change.  Progressives have many, many things they are trying to preserve.  Indeed, I would say that conservatives are generally less happy with the status quo than progressives, which is why progressives are willing to raise taxes to preserve that status quo and conservatives want to seize the day to finally reform it.

 

Rail happens to be one lone data point on which conservatives do appear to want to preserve the status quo.  As you noted yourself, though, within the past decade, even that data point was data at a different point.

 

Sorry to take this more off track (KJP is right about this re: transportation/rail), but you bring up interesting points. This is one of the reason today's "conservatives" really aren't conservative at all! They are advocating massive, massive changes to the status-quo. Just look at this anti-union flare-up for a prime example. There is no consensus I see on the progressive side, so it's hard to say there is no advocacy for change on that end (I don't think many are claiming the solution is simply to raise taxes to pay for union bennies), but there is nothing conservative about the movement on the right. In many ways, the roles here are reversed. IMO, it shows how radical today's populist right is.

The real political agenda of conservatives is no secret: it is to preserve and perpetuate the status quo just as it has been the agenda of the progressives to change the status quo. In its basic, this has been what has differentiated progressives and conservatives for a very long time.

 

Like most pieces of conventional wisdom, I think this is more conventional than wisdom.

 

Conservatives have many, many things they are trying to change.  Progressives have many, many things they are trying to preserve.  Indeed, I would say that conservatives are generally less happy with the status quo than progressives, which is why progressives are willing to raise taxes to preserve that status quo and conservatives want to seize the day to finally reform it.

 

Rail happens to be one lone data point on which conservatives do appear to want to preserve the status quo.  As you noted yourself, though, within the past decade, even that data point was data at a different point.

 

Sorry to take this more off track (KJP is right about this re: transportation/rail), but you bring up interesting points. This is one of the reason today's "conservatives" really aren't conservative at all! They are advocating massive, massive changes to the status-quo. Just look at this anti-union flare-up for a prime example. There is no consensus I see on the progressive side, so it's hard to say there is no advocacy for change on that end (I don't think many are claiming the solution is simply to raise taxes to pay for union bennies), but there is nothing conservative about the movement on the right. In many ways, the roles here are reversed. IMO, it shows how radical today's populist right is.

 

That's assuming that the definition of "conservative" as "opposed to change" was really the right one in the first place.  I'm not sure about that.  When you say that there is nothing conservative about the current movement on the right, which conservatives of yesteryear that were more about preservation of the status quo are you comparing them to?  On the economic front, restraining and rolling back government intervention in the economy has been a conservative fight basically since the New Deal, at least on paper.  The fidelity of various ostensible conservatives to that ideal throughout the past three generations is open to question, of course, but the purists among the movement have generally been steady in wanting to make a dramatic change in the country's direction since that time.  While Clinton co-opted the policy, it was largely conservative economists advocating on behalf of free trade agreements as the modern WTO regime took shape.  On the social front, the bag is again mixed.  Conservatives want less change on gay rights, but liberals want less change on abortion rights.  Conservatives were significant advocates for change in favor of greater protection of Second Amendment rights; on that score, it may be progressives who *now* want more change, in the sense of rolling back the two big Second Amendment Supreme Court decisions of the past couple of years, but whether progressives or conservatives are the ones advocating more change vis-a-vis where we are today is still an open question.  And, of course, today, conservatives are the ones pushing for significant changes in government spending levels and public employee collective bargaining rights.

 

I don't think "change" vs. "status quo" is the right axis on which to divide progressives and conservatives.  The correlation just isn't high enough.

 

In terms of transportation and rail, KJP is right as of 2011.  He himself noted above that things were different in 2001, however.  They could be different again in 2016 or 2021.  There are certainly a number of conservatives who sincerely believe in reducing American dependence on foreign oil as a genuine goal in its own right, not just as a pretext for opening up untapped American fossil fuel reserves.  Those voices may gain more power and authority as fuel prices rise (which will happen even if the Middle East became a land of peace, harmony, and stability tomorrow).  After all, not only do the conservative and progressive movements advocate different changes in society; they also change themselves from year to year and decade to decade.

Apparently Congressman LaTourette is too forward thinking for some of his defeatist, extremist constituents who want America to withdraw in so many ways....

 

www.portagecountyteaparty.com/.../ohio-congress-members-seek-lake-erie-high-speed-rail-corridor.html

(Dead link?)

 

Commentary: Rail haters should take a hint from Warren Buffett

Curtis Tate

McClatchy Newspapers

 

It's been a good year so far for rail haters

 

New governors in Wisconsin and Ohio made good on their campaign promise to kill passenger train projects in their states. Florida's new governor soon followed.

 

In the wake of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, all three governors rejected billions of dollars in federal funding that would have created thousands of new jobs building, operating and maintaining high-speed trains.

 

Not everyone scoffs at rail investment, though.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/07/2693225/commentary-rail-haters-should.html?story_link=email_msg#ixzz1Fwo08Ri1

A good article, but it admits its own key weakness: BNSF is a freight carrier.  A number of the "anti-rail hitmen" are more accurately anti-passenger rail, not anti-rail altogether.

True, he doesn't quite draw the connection between investment in freight and investment in passenger, but he blows holes in the critics who mistakenly view rail as some kind of ancient technology for moving freight and people.

No, but many who argue against passenger rail argue that all rail is an irrelevant relic. If the age of something determined its value, then the elderly parents of many rail-haters should be nervous, and rightly so.

 

I do agree that government grants to railroads, be it for operating or capital costs, or for passenger or freight, is a slow, cumbersome approach that turns one of the railroads' greatest strengths into one of its greatest weaknesses. That is that the rail industry in all its forms -- transit, commuter rail, conventional passenger, high-speed, freight -- is uniquely responsible for its own right of way. No trucking company owns its own road. No bus company has its own highway. No barge company has its own waterway. No airline owns its own airport and air traffic control system.

 

Public policies have NEVER acknowledged that uniqueness of the rail industry. The railroad-owned right of way is a powerful piece of collateral that privately owned railroads use to leverage private-sector financing and lease agreements for locomotives, railcars and other business investments. If Class 1 freight plus transit/passenger railroads were allowed to take federal income tax credits for capital investments and certain right-of-way operating costs that their competitors aren't responsible for (such as traffic control, policing/security, liability insurance, etc) plus public-benefit activities (right of way preservation, electrification, hike/bike trails and passenger rail).

 

Because railroads own their rights of way, they could carry out capital improvements and expansions with much greater speed, more private sector financing and less government involvement than any other mode -- IF they were allowed to capitalize on their strengths.

March 1, 2011, 6:36 pm

Trains and Freedom

Paul Krugman

The New York Times

 

A bit more on this subject — not serious, just a personal observation after a long hard day of reading student applications. (My suggestion that we reject all applicants claiming to be “passionate” about their plans was rejected, but with obvious reluctance.)

 

Anyway, my experience is that of the three modes of mechanized transport I use, trains are by far the most liberating. Planes are awful: waiting to clear security, then having to sit with your electronics turned off during takeoff and landing, no place to go if you want to get up in any case. Cars — well, even aside from traffic jams (tell me how much freedom you experience waiting for an hour in line at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel), the thing about cars is that you have to drive them, which kind of limits other stuff.

 

Read more at: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/trains-and-freedom/

The Slate: POLITICS

Off the Rails

Why do conservatives hate trains so much?

By David Weigel

Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2011, at 7:30 PM ET

 

In the movie version of Atlas Shrugged, there is a scene in which Ayn Rand's libertarian heroes defy all odds, deploy some untold amount of private funding, and launch the fastest high-speed train in history over rails of experimental metal. "The run of the John Galt Line is thrilling," wrote the libertarian federal judge Alex Kozinski. "When it crossed the bridge made of Rearden Metal, I wanted to stand up and cheer."

 

That's in the fantasy world. In the real world, libertarians aren't cheering for high speed rail but rather trying to stop it from being built. They are succeeding. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich campaigned against a high-speed rail line funded by the stimulus, got elected, and turned down the funding. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker did the same thing, only more so—his anti-train campaign even had its own Web site. In Florida, the state Supreme Court has just approved Gov. Rick Scott's decision to reject $2.4 billion of federal funds to build a Tampa-Orlando rail line; the state was being asked to contribute only $280 million to finish it off. The funding was originally agreed to by Charlie Crist, one of the Tea Party's archenemies, so Scott's victory could hardly be any sweeter.

 

But it could hardly make less sense to liberals. What, exactly, do Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians have against trains? Seriously, what? Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"?

 

Read more at:  http://www.slate.com/id/2287539/

Of course we have Euro envy. One trip to Europe and you realize what fat sloths we Americans are, in architecturally dull soulless cities, and isolated in our cars and exclusionary-zoned neighborhoods. No wonder you encounter more religious nuts in America where they seek to fill a lack of happenstance social interaction just from walking down the street, or filling the general emptiness in their daily lives and want everyone else to 'fear' God, too. America does have its conveniences (drive through windows, parking right by the front door, elevators in every building, air conditioning everywhere), but all of those carry costs in energy and lack of exercise. And after a week in Europe you just don't notice their absence anymore.

Seriously, I cannot understand how any single thought in that paragraph flowed to the next, and the only thing I could think when I finally made it to the end was "OK, train cultist, moving on."

 

Of course, I don't buy the Euro-envy argument, either (any more than I would buy a related, and more visibly risible, argument about "China-envy" ... hey, they're building HSR, too, you know).

Have you been to Europe? If you had, you might realize what ties all those thoughts together -- the general silliness of America.

 

And, if you've been to other parts of the world, you'd realize that those who defend America's goofy post-war lifestyle represent the cult. We like to think the rest of the world wants to be like us. They like some things we have, but not to the extremes that we've gone.

I've been to Europe multiple times, including one long-term stay for study abroad.  Add unjustified assumptions to unjustified prejudices on the list of things that compromise your advocacy.

The Euro-envy argument is kind of funny.  A Cincinnati anti-bike-lane person even brought up the idea of Portland-envy.  It's as if we're supposed to be happy with a shitty existence, and to aspire to anything greater is somehow un-American.

I've been to Europe multiple times, including one long-term stay for study abroad.  Add unjustified assumptions to unjustified prejudices on the list of things that compromise your advocacy.

 

To each his own. But the fact is that America has relinquished its undisputed lead in the world due to its unwillingness to act responsibly and make difficult choices. And all the trendlines show Europe and the Pacific Rim will surpass us in the next 30 years in economic output per capita, educational performance and life expectancy.

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/03/04/gps.hans.rosling.cnn

"Act responsibly" and "make difficult choices" are empty buzzphrases; they mean wildly different things to different audiences.

Then, now you know that don't I write my messages only to you.

OK, but then you also don't write them to any recognizable audience with an eye towards establishing a consensus for action, either.

 

"Act responsibly" and "make difficult choices" meant Prohibition in another era.

Au contrare. Generalities are a great way to develop consensus and then focus the constituent to an agenda. Ever listen to a politician's speech at election time?

Florida governor now targets SunRail   

Monday, March 14, 2011 

 

Not content with detaching Florida from any involvement in high speed rail, Gov. Rick Scott has put central Florida’s $1.2 billion Sunrail regional rail project on hold, at least until July. Scott says he wants to examine the project to see if it meets his criteria of providing taxpayers an adequate return on their investment.

 

The postponement means no action will occur until after the state legislative session ends, with the legislature pondering up to $2 billion in tax cuts requested by Scott. Tax cuts aside, critics of the governor speculate that the postponement allows the governor to kill SunRail after the legislature adjourns, minimizing any potential political backlash.

 

 

Read more at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/florida-governor-now-targets-sunrail.html

I've been to Europe multiple times, including one long-term stay for study abroad.  Add unjustified assumptions to unjustified prejudices on the list of things that compromise your advocacy.

 

Honestly, I can't figure out why you spend so much time on this site. 

I've been to Europe multiple times, including one long-term stay for study abroad.  Add unjustified assumptions to unjustified prejudices on the list of things that compromise your advocacy.

 

Honestly, I can't figure out why you spend so much time on this site. 

 

To challenge groupthink and the notion that urbanists must be leftists?  Because I'm a glutton for punishment?  Because there are people on these boards who post interesting development news about my local area?  Who knows.

What use is a forum without divergent views?  This isn't a church service.

Hallelujah!

 

Regarding Rick Scott, these so-called fiscal conservatives are such hypocrites. Where is the the return on investment examination of highways? Pretty tough to get it when your governor is a whore of the highway lobby.

I've been to Europe multiple times, including one long-term stay for study abroad.  Add unjustified assumptions to unjustified prejudices on the list of things that compromise your advocacy.

 

Honestly, I can't figure out why you spend so much time on this site. 

 

To challenge groupthink and the notion that urbanists must be leftists?  Because I'm a glutton for punishment?  Because there are people on these boards who post interesting development news about my local area?  Who knows.

Thank you for being here. I appreciate your opinions even when I disagree with them because you often justify your reasoning and make me think.

 

 

Where is the the return on investment examination of highways?

Where are the voices demanding it?