tvashtarkatena

Yet another generalizing ass who doesn't have a clue as to what they're talking about weighs in.

There are only 2 pea brains on this forum who could have come up a CAFE = Prohibition analogy. Congratulations.

As usual, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Have you checked out the sales figures for Priuses lately?

According to the New Yorker, the Ford Model T got better than today's average of around 20 mpg for U.S. made vehicles. Think about that next time you hear an auto executive argue against more ambitious fleet mileage standards because they're "too technically difficult to achieve"

"Gimme some more o' that frog juice"

Prole, Prole...the invisible hand is taking care of this. Remember the conservative's mantra: Reaction, not prevention.

from Uranus

Does that constitute hitting a cow?

I could swing a 40.8 lb cat in a crowded room and not hit a Bush supporter, so I gotta ask: Who the HELL are the 31%?

At least they got the milk for free.

I you can dispense a can of Coke for 75 cents automatically and make a hefty profit, I would think you could dispense a ticket and at least break even. We all know what happens when such systems become free. The freeloading population quickly destroys it. Roads are different; you're not using the state's vehicles, and its really hard to vandalize a road. You have to charge something to ensure the system has enough capacity for those who actually need it.

Brit: Now there's one hole that hasn't been dry in a long, long time.

Every net loss per rider study I've come across conveniently omits both the cost of building and maintaining alternative transportation infrastructure as well as the productivity cost of traffic delays that would have resulted had the system not been built. I'm not sure if there is a light rail system in the U.S., including the NY Subway, that actually makes money when these huge costs are omitted, but I'm quite sure that every system that has been built in the U.S. to date has turned out to be a success when these avoided costs are accounted for.

That would be a much needed fistulation, to be sure.

Not taking sides on the Seatac line (remember, the line services a much larger area than just the airport. The 3000 is the in and out of the airport only). Just providing some figures, that's all. I'm in favor of light rail because such comprehensive systems have been great successes everywhere they've been built in the U.S, it is an environmentally sound alternative to driving, it's the fastest, most efficient way to travel through a developed area, and because it spurs urban density where transportation and services are already available (also environmentally sound), not out in east bumfuck, which is a formula for unsustainable, environmentally wasteful growth.

I.e: "Hey! Things just got a tiny bit less shitty!"

For KKKY's sake, since he don't read so good: I stated that a single light rail line can replace twelve lanes of freeway, not that the Seatac line will. I'll do the math real slow like so certain units can follow along: A light rail car carries 130 passengers. The system can handle 4 cars per train. The system is designed to handle a train every 2 minutes (although, obviously, this is maximum capacity). That's 15,600 passengers per hour, or about 6.5 lanes of freeway, each way. Multiply by two (directions). You can do that on your own, can't you KKKY? At more leisurely and realistic rate of a train every 10 minutes, that's still enough capacity to replace a lane of freeway each way per line.

Do groupies have a union?

Go ahead and laugh, but when They come for your water, don't come knockin on my door to use the shower.

Fuckin IT assholes.

JayB pontificating and touting his expertise about a type of organization that he's had no personal experience with whatsoever? I just don't believe it.

Sound Transit estimates that 3000 riders a day will use the airport link by 2020, according to the Seattle Times: Article It's interesting to note that one light rail line has a carrying capacity equivalent to about 12 lanes of freeway traffic (at a commonly used carrying capacity of 2400 people/hour/lane). The tough part, of course, is to balance all parts of the regional transportation system. The one thing that makes this task much easier is to reduce the number of cars on the roads. I'd say we've just barely scratched the surface, public policy-wise, in this area. Higher gas taxes, tolls for bottlenecked areas (using automation to eliminate toll booth generated traffic jams) and more alternative transportation options and incentives are needed. Using congested roadways must simply cost users more. A lot more. Expanding roadways will only move the bottlenecks elsewhere, increase emissions, and increase the installed base of infrastructure that we increasingly can no longer maintain effectively.

WHAT, YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY????!!!!!

You honestly expect us to believe this cock and bull story?

Agreed. Linking the two was a big mistake. The proposal pleased no one.