Comments on: Cleantech Link Drop

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 04:36:28 +0000

Can’t address the topic without expressing my sadness over the disheartedness of the progressive movement. This condition is evident on these circuits also, Zac; like all espects of the enthusiasm that just not too long ago inspired hundreds of responses to articles like yours. With all due respect, Barack promised the “change the we can believe in” but he he did not believe in us. We, the very base and support who organized and fought for the changes that we believed in, would have supported his idealism on the streets had it came to that point. An opportunity of a century for real changes – I think – we let slip away, when it was so, so darned close…

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:45:41 +0000

Hello Roger, very simply, as you note, transportation options within a city serve a completely diff purpose than transp. options between cities. You need roads in a city and you definitely need roads between cities. the same is true for more efficient transportation options like hs trains. and like light rail & streetcars help cities economically, inter-city rail is shown to do the same. bcs they help in different ways but based on the same concept of efficiency

By: Roger Lauricella

Roger Lauricella — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:54:16 +0000

Hey Zach: Something I finally agree with you on: You state the following:, “One key way to increase density is to provide good mass transit that people will use instead of cars. Attractive, modern mass transit that follows a specific, dedicated line (e.g. streetcars and light rail) is actually as much of a development tool as a transportation option. Building such transit lines results in high-density development, especially near the transit stations, which, for many, means a better city and a better quality of life. (Of course, it is also important to coordinate such transportation planning with with land use planning, but that is a subject for another day.)…” Good statement of fact and good acknowledgement of where the transit money should go because of the benefits. But. how does this statement of yours match up with your clear disagreement with the Wisconsin Governor rejecting the large amount of money and the high speed rail proposed. I would be interested in how you could justify a very expensive high speed rail system between two cities when clearly your statement and facts beyond support more effective transit options within (not between) urban cities as means of job and life style development. Seems maybe the Wis governor might agree with you that the high speed funds are not a well spent measure when other measures (such as urban transit) might be the better measure. Just think Zach if maybe California spent the 40 billion proposed for high speed rail instead on urban transit improvements in LA, San Fran, San Diego, San Jose, and Oakland how those cities sprawl and traffic problems might be improved. People would certainly use those systems if convenient and priced reasonably, as opposed to high speed rail between long distances that will eventually be priced significantly higher than the original projects.