Comments on: Putting the American Commitment to High-Speed Rail in Context

By: nate

nate — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:06:59 +0000

good story…but what did the american public really realistically think would happen after the federal government bailed out the auto giants…of course the government is going to buy into road work after they are the controlling owner/majority shareholder of GM…yeah we all see the positives of mass transit and want it…but be realistic…politics and beaurocrats are just hidding behind the newest pop words “Green” “sustainability”…Even if HSR and mass transit ever got off the ground and got started outside of major metropolitan centers of our country it would be decades before we see the positive effects of the spending…Who knows what opportunities for corruption would present themselves through all the spending! Sorry I’m not as optimistic as others…I wish I could be but it seems more prudent lately to be a realist rather a optimist!

By: Spokker

Spokker — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:03:43 +0000

Nah, it wasn’t Phil Hendrie.

This host is obviously playing it up for the air but he is a conservative guy and thinks LA traffic could be fixed by widening the freeways and getting the slow buses off the roads. He’s on KFI 640 AM now and has become even more conservative for them.

By: allen

allen — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:34:34 +0000

@Nathanael, the only reason they remain popular is that the alternatives are even worst?

Geez, that sounds a bit like “he’s an anti abortionist” or any the twisted rhetorical ways the PR folks use to try to spin something their way.

So what you’re saying is that they only reason they use cars is that they’re the best choice that’s available? Or is that not allowed?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:22:07 +0000

Spokker, is this the radio guy who plays absurdly offensive characters and gets calls from listeners who aren’t in on the joke? Or is this guy actually serious?

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:16:24 +0000

You forget the vast number of areas in China which have poor rail service. And in India, it’s even worse; the rail lines are in terrible shape, while the roads are actually not that bad.

As for Europe, again, there are still vast numbers of places with dreadful rail service.

And frankly, if people in rural areas get and use cars routinely, this is not a problem; it’s more sensible for them to use cars than to extend train service. Those cars *must* be electric, of course, thanks to global warming, but companies are working on that.

But in congested, busy areas, cars are stupid. The only reason they remain popular in places like Delhi is that the alternatives — including public transit — are even worse.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:14:00 +0000

No. In most of the world the masses don’t particularly want a car. They just want to be able to get where they’re going quickly and effectively.

In places where the roads are good and public transit isn’t, that means a car.

Where the roads are garbage and the rails are good (few places nowadays) that means a train.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:12:00 +0000

That’s about right. Cars are great for going places where nobody else wants to go, when nobody else wants to go, when it’s too far to walk.

Rail is great for going places where lots of other people want to, when they want to.

Air is great if you need to go a long distance, probably over an ocean, fast.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:10:24 +0000

Honestly, the undemocratic US Senate is the single biggest problem with the country today.

Majority rule in the Senate would be a major improvement (though the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming as many votes as California makes it still absurdly undemocratic, at least it would be better). The 60 vote garbage MUST STOP.

And yes, I said this during the Bush administration too.

By: Gordy

Gordy — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:32:23 +0000

I’m sure there are *some* people who don’t want cars, but “the masses” certainly seem to want them. Look at the skyrocketing growth of car sales in newly-industrializing countries like China and India. Even in Europe, the number of cars per capita keeps growing. It’s hard to see how this is “anti-car.”

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:45:43 +0000

Gordy, I’ve traveled to 14 different countries outside North America and have found that this isn’t the case at all. Many people who could afford a car don’t want one, because they have adequate public transit and walkable communities. A car is just a added burden.