Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  1.  

    Anonymous

    Sure, but then a self-driven vehicle is much better than a taxi, and cheaper since it doesn’t have the cost of the driver! Nothing precludes non-car-ownership models from relying on self-driven cars.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  2.  

    laughtiger

    Taxi!

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  3.  

    Joe R.

    I’m not a fan of cars and yet I still see self-driving cars as a good thing. Unfortunately, due to the way a lot of the country is laid out cars aren’t going anywhere for a while. Yes, it looks like their overall numbers will go down but we’ll still need them. That being the case, I strongly prefer to get the human driver out of the loop. That will have all the positives you mention. We’ll probably also be able to remove lanes from roads without reducing capacity. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past. We should also be able to greatly increase travel speeds on expressways. Combine self-driving cars with electric drive and you remove the two things about cars which cause the higher number of deaths/injuries. So yes, bring on driverless cars (and electric cars) as soon as it’s feasible. It’s much better than what we have now.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  4.  

    Joe R.

    I’m not a fan of cars and yet I still see self-driving cars as a good thing. Unfortunately, due to the way a lot of the country is laid out cars aren’t going anywhere for a while. Yes, it looks like their overall numbers will go down but we’ll still need them. That being the case, I strongly prefer to get the human driver out of the loop. That will have all the positives you mention. We’ll probably also be able to remove lanes from roads without reducing capacity. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past. We should also be able to greatly increase travel speeds on expressways. Combine self-driving cars with electric drive and you remove the two things about cars which cause the higher number of deaths/injuries. So yes, bring on driverless cars (and electric cars) as soon as it’s feasible. It’s much better than what we have now.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  5.  

    Joe R.

    I’m not a fan of cars and yet I still see self-driving cars as a good thing. Unfortunately, due to the way a lot of the country is laid out cars aren’t going anywhere for a while. Yes, it looks like their overall numbers will go down but we’ll still need them. That being the case, I strongly prefer to get the human driver out of the loop. That will have all the positives you mention. We’ll probably also be able to remove lanes from roads without reducing capacity. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past. We should also be able to greatly increase travel speeds on expressways. Combine self-driving cars with electric drive and you remove the two things about cars which cause the higher number of deaths/injuries. So yes, bring on driverless cars (and electric cars) as soon as it’s feasible. It’s much better than what we have now.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  6.  

    Joe R.

    I’m not a fan of cars and yet I still see self-driving cars as a good thing. Unfortunately, due to the way a lot of the country is laid out cars aren’t going anywhere for a while. Yes, it looks like their overall numbers will go down but we’ll still need them. That being the case, I strongly prefer to get the human driver out of the loop. That will have all the positives you mention. We’ll probably also be able to remove lanes from roads without reducing capacity. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past. We should also be able to greatly increase travel speeds on expressways. Combine self-driving cars with electric drive and you remove the two things about cars which cause the higher number of deaths/injuries. So yes, bring on driverless cars (and electric cars) as soon as it’s feasible. It’s much better than what we have now.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  7.  

    Joe R.

    I’m not a fan of cars and yet I still see self-driving cars as a good thing. Unfortunately, due to the way a lot of the country is laid out cars aren’t going anywhere for a while. Yes, it looks like their overall numbers will go down but we’ll still need them. That being the case, I strongly prefer to get the human driver out of the loop. That will have all the positives you mention. We’ll probably also be able to remove lanes from roads without reducing capacity. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past. We should also be able to greatly increase travel speeds on expressways. Combine self-driving cars with electric drive and you remove the two things about cars which cause the higher number of deaths/injuries. So yes, bring on driverless cars (and electric cars) as soon as it’s feasible. It’s much better than what we have now.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  8.  

    Anonymous

    I like the new TOD planned community of Daybreak (http://www.daybreakutah.com/), which sits at the end of one of the new light rail extensions. It is an example of how you can plan, promote the benefits and market TOD without resorting to the usual heavily partisan discourse that accompanies such projects.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Salt Lake City: How a Remote Red-State City Became a Transit Leader
  9.  

    Anonymous

    Transportation should be ONLY about that: transportation.

    Since the dawn of mankind, technology has been developed to make human activities requiring less and less physical effort.

    It is a blessing that we can now exercise at our pleasure, when and where we want to sweat (such as in gym), instead of having to put strenuous efforts for menial activities.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  10.  

    Anonymous

    What about the instances where a personal use vehicle is truly effective, such as unusual/odd trips (that would require circuitous routes with transit taking much longer), shopping for large items you can’t carry with you, moving when you are physically disabled (temporarily or not for whatever reason), going to some far-away destination, traveling in the middle of the night after going out etc?

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  11.  

    Anonymous

    This is a third-World logic: build a system as cheap as possible, no matter how much safety, comfort or else is damaged. It is a logic that appeals to the lowest income groups of a city, but if transit is to be transportation more than a social program for the extreme poor, it shouldn’t abide by that logic.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Salt Lake City: How a Remote Red-State City Became a Transit Leader
  12.  

    Anonymous

    Much of the problems of transit advocacy is that is shift focus to ancillary/collateral effects, such as “promoting healthy lifestyles” (by walking), when it should be all about transporting people from A to B with comfort, speed and safety – within a reasonable cost.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  13.  

    Anonymous

    This is a red-herring. Technologies that replace human input on repetitive tasks are not entirely fail-proof, but often orders of magnitude safer. From airplanes to ICUs.

    I think if self-driven cars can be proven to reduce even by 50% the rate of serious accidents, they will be embraced. Moreover, there is an extremely powerful network effect: once more and more cars are self-driven, accidents will plummet.

    I’m sure there is a way for a sophisticated camera system to distinguish an human being from an object, and maybe even measure the likely mass of the object and whether it should impact or swerve or brake.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  14.  

    Bruce Nourish

    Another obstacle is the crappiness of Phoenix’s bus system. METRO light rail is good (not great — evening headways of 20 minutes put it below the threshold for convenient travel) if you can organize your life to lie along its one axis, but unless you’re a student, your life isn’t likely to be that simple. The same recession that forced rail headways to be cut to the point of inconvenience caused headway and span of service on most bus routes to be cut to a basic level, little better than lifeline service. If everyone in this new TOD ends up having to own a car to get around off-peak or away from the train, you haven’t built TOD.

    Phoenix is awash in underutilized and brownfield land, connected by a grid of fast, wide, mostly uncongested arterials: it’s an insanely easy place to make surface transportation work well. Upzoning land on streets with stations that run perpendicular to the light rail, using TIF or a LID to pay for bus improvements, could dramatically broaden the geographic and socioeconomic cross-section of the city that could be well-served by transit. This would multiplying the utility of the rail backbone, without taking away from the money needed to extend it, and make transit a more realistic alternative to the car in Phoenix.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Can Phoenix Reinvent Itself as a Transit City?
  15.  

    Anonymous

    I’m amused at how many people will automatically slam and bash self-driving open-road vehicles reflexively, as if anything that made cars safer, easier to drive or more comfortable was inherently evil.

    I think people should all think a bit outside the box here. Let’s assume the self-driving technology becomes cheaper on scale (a reasonable proposition, it is essentially a set of cameras and other sensors and computers that control a relatively simple mechanic device). Several positive outcomes could result. First and foremost, we can imagine a scenario where road vehicles can be much lighter and driven with greater precision because computers are just so much precise than humans.

    It would be an immense paradigm shift of road safety towards crash avoidance instead of crash survival, if one is to assume a city where the majority of the fleet is self-driven.

    Then, we can think of multiple possibilities. The most obvious is greatly eliminating last-mile problems, facilitating a shift on transit focus to major high-volume/high-frequency segregated routes (rail/maglev/monorail/whatever) where it is most effective.

    It would also open a new world of automated deliveries. Imagine small-sized freight vehicles carrying packages from an out-of-town warehouse to your home in less than 1 hour, enabling almost-instant online purchases of items meant for same-day consumption.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  16.  

    Ian Turner

    Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston can all easily rival Phoenix’s reputation for sprawl.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Can Phoenix Reinvent Itself as a Transit City?
  17.  

    Charles_Siegel

    I agree with the goal, but I think the method is wrong. There are walkable suburbs as well as walkable city neighborhoods, but this proposed standard would categorize all suburbs as auto-oriented. I believe they say they 80% of all streets are in suburbs, so only a small minority of streets would become safer.

    I suggest that that they come up with categories like:
    – Rural
    – Auto-Oriented Urban
    – Walkable Urban
    Let each city and suburb choose whether it wants to be auto-oriented or walkable. I think that there would be a strong movement toward walkable.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  18.  

    Jack Jackson

    I went to a school out of zone. Option was parent ride or 1 hour bus ride

    My parents were idiots how again?

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  19.  

    E.A. Cameron

    You are right. Developers are scrambling these days to provide more housing. They are planning to add around 1000 new units in the next two years.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Placemaking to Make Friends: The Case of Cleveland's East 4th Street
  20.  

    Jeff

    This is well-intentioned, but wouldn’t we all be better served if instead of creating a new category of road, we simply reformed the urbanized classification? Suburbs aren’t going away anytime soon, and most of them are in desperate need of the same design recommendations as proposed for “Urban Areas.” Advocates in dense cities will continue to fight uphill battles for transportation reform until the suburban voters that are kowtowed to start seeing and understanding these improvements in their own communities.

    June 11, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  21.  

    Anonymous

    There is a theory that turn lanes are dangerous. Apparently people are unable to left turn so hence they need to go. I saw one proposal to replace them with U-turn lanes. Which are somehow safer. I’ve also heard about replacing them with roundabouts. I don’t think either is likely.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  22.  

    Nate Hood

    Thanks for sharing Angie.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  23.  

    Anonymous

    Brilliant. I’ve already signed.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  24.  

    Devan

    The walkability of cities like NY and San Francisco are overrated. The problem is the streets are too wide, and the speed limits too high. They’re like freeways, or racetracks. Wide streets encourages people to drive fast, which creates more noise and more stress for everyone. Urban streets are designed to move and prioritize car traffic not people. The tremendous noise of the traffic congestion make it a very unpleasant and stressful experience for people who are walking or biking.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  25.  

    Alen Teplitsky

    NYC streets are already walkable. i always see people walking on the street instead of the sidewalk

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  26.  

    mark

    I get the problem with slip lanes, but why are turning lanes bad?

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  27.  

    Susan Donovan

    I don’t think people dying while walking to the grocery store is something that we just need to “accept” about modern life. Although, I live in NYC now I grew up in Cleveland and many neighborhoods in my hometown suffer from poor street design. I hope thtat future planners will think of pedestrians more often and maybe this can help!

    By the way have we ever done one of those petitions to the white house where they have to respond after X many signatures? Is that a good idea?

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Petitioning U.S. DOT to Recognize That City Streets Should Prioritize Walking
  28.  

    Mamacita

    Now that his “Creative Class” theory has been proven wrong, Prof. Florida has moved on to another dumb idea- like seniors flocking to Detroit.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Richard Florida: Seniors Want Vibrant, Livable Cities Too
  29.  

    East Bank DC

    Peyton, Bravo–that CaBi report is very well done, though we have a very different way if interpreting the findings. My elitist comment came only after you indicated that cycling was a good choice for families living in poverty. Would it be too much to ask for transit leaders to speak to persons in these communities and ask what they need rather than assuming? A $7 daily membership is not cheap, many low income families are unbanked, and many live at the edge of crisis so planning ahead for a yearly membership is just not possible. Also, cycling through some communities is not safe or sadly it risks a different kind of profiling by law enforcement, especially for young men of color. That is also connected to the results in the Sierra Club report and part of why I think it is problematic: the statistics they cite are picking up cycling habits in U.S. regions with poor to no public transit, particularly in southern cities and the rural south where there has been a major influx of Latinos working in industrial and agricultural economies. A bike may be the only viable way of getting around, unless one can afford a car. I would hope that the liberal response would be to seek to expand public transit, and not to celebrate these major transit equity gaps in communities of color. Whether it is a lack of understanding of the context of the demographics or knowing and deciding to exclude such nuances by the report’s authors, both are troubling to me. Perhaps naive might have been a better term than elitist. Second, you assume much by stating that it is best to plan for the 80 percent than the 20 percent (and, honestly, I do not even know how to respond to these comments which are so thoroughly anti-democratic). That 80 percent includes women, seniors, the disabled and others who are not well-served by current cycling infrastructure. Once again, planning for certain men is not planning for all. As I have stated before, making many groups an afterthought in planning is simply more of the same. An assumption of neutrality while trends, surveys, and statistics state otherwise is really trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Women, children, families, communities of color have different transit needs. Is it too much to ask for city officials to plan based on that? Thirdly, the way in which some of the data is presented in the Sierra Club report–stating “increases” and doubling without citing the actual raw numbers–is mere polemics. Finally, a cultural criticism-related lens shines a light on the images used in the report. Using images of persons of color, especially women of color, all over the report while the actual data shows low overall cycling use compared to other groups, is truly maddening. And worse, a friend likened the images to Latino ‘the domestic’ caricatures and African-American ‘mammy’ caricatures. In this case, happy brown people on their bikes. You may not see it; many people do. Don’t schools of planning teach Marsha Ritzdorf’s work any more?

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Cyclists of Color: Invisible No More
  30.  

    Alan Thompson

    Agreed, but the liability issue remains.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Guerrilla Crosswalk Painter Arrested by Vallejo Police, Cheered By Neighbors
  31.  

    thomas

    Only if you make it affordable for me to live near my job in downtown SF.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Bi-Partisan Lawmakers Push Permanent Tax Equality for Transit Commuters
  32.  

    Rick

    According to Randal O’Toole and Joel Kotkin they all want to live in seniors-only retirement suburbs in the sunbelt and drive everywhere they go.

    June 10, 2013
    in response to Richard Florida: Seniors Want Vibrant, Livable Cities Too
  33.  

    Jerry Walters

    As coauthor of the MXD research Reid Ewing describes and as a member of ITE, I’d like to clarify a few points. ITE is aware that the Handbook methods are insufficient and is attempting to improve them. We only wish they could move faster, as it’s been over four years since we submitted the MXD research to ITE for review. So, as new urbanists and multi-modal transportation planners are working toward the same goals, I suggest we focus on achieving those goals rather than questioning ITE motives.

    While the current ITE Handbook methods account for some trip reduction, they still overestimate traffic generation by 35%. The MXD method reduces that overestimate to 4%, essentially removing the bias against mixed-use while retaining a reasonable safety factor. The newest MXD version combines the EPA research with research from the Transportation Research Board (NCHRP 684), and it explains 97% of the variation in traffic among different types of mixed-use sites. We feel it’s a long-overdue means of removing the traffic study bias against mixed-use and other forms of smart growth development.

    In addition to the approvals Reid mentions, the MXD method has been tested and approved by the San Diego Association of Governments, and my firm, Fehr & Peers, has used MXD for over a dozen approved environmental documents in the western US. The method’s been peer reviewed and has been published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Association of Environmental Professionals, and the American Planning Association. The APA Planning Advisory Service memo was published in May for PAS subscribers: http://www.planning.org/pas/memo/ . In mid-June, I’ll be able to send the latest information to non-subscribers who contact me at j.walters@fehrandpeers.com .

    June 10, 2013
    in response to How Better Traffic Models Can Lead to More Mixed-Use Development
  34.  

    M.A.D.

    I applaud Cardenas for taking an extreme step in the name of public (especially pedestrian) safety. Vallejo has many reckless drivers who have no regard for traffic laws, let alone the safety of others and their own. If a petition (or movement) is started to repair and maintain the streets for the sake of safety of the public, I’m on board. It will take the citizens of Vallejo to take the city back before it all gets out of hand. Some dont know how privileged they are to live in such an historic city. Gun violence, loitering, vagrancy, and sideshows are a whole other story…

    June 9, 2013
    in response to Guerrilla Crosswalk Painter Arrested by Vallejo Police, Cheered By Neighbors
  35.  

    No name

    You’re an idiot. Cars need to be treated better than people.

    June 9, 2013
    in response to Do We Treat Our Cars Better Than We Treat Ourselves?
  36.  

    RealityCheck

    “Don’t want to drive” , I doubt it. More like, “Can’t AFFORD a New Car”!

    June 8, 2013
    in response to Ford Still Trying to Get Millennials to Like Them
  37.  

    Anonymous

    We can only be “fair”, right? I heard that word a lot in communist Russia. Now when I hear it here it makes me very afraid.

    June 8, 2013
    in response to Bi-Partisan Lawmakers Push Permanent Tax Equality for Transit Commuters
  38.  

    Anonymous

    Agree on the parking subsidy, which is truly perverse, but there’s so many subsidies in place for driving already that providing a boost to transit isn’t such a terrible thing. Ideally all externalities are balanced with taxes and all subsidies are removed, making “walking to work” the preferred mode. But we’re so far from that, the place to start isn’t to go after transit.

    June 8, 2013
    in response to Bi-Partisan Lawmakers Push Permanent Tax Equality for Transit Commuters
  39.  

    Dodge Ram Wheel Hub Assembly

    The car goes on sale in 2013, for a cool $1,150,000. Its name is
    derived from the South American Quechua language, and means ‘wind God’.
    Check out its sleek, aerodynamic shape and you’ll get it.

    June 8, 2013
    in response to Study: Electric Cars Not So Green Unless Powered by Renewables
  40.  

    Foobar

    Also, we could remove both programs entirely and discourage people from residing long distance from their place of employment.

    June 8, 2013
    in response to Bi-Partisan Lawmakers Push Permanent Tax Equality for Transit Commuters
  41.  

    Sprague

    This common sense act would help ensure long term stability for transit commuters and commute benefit programs.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Bi-Partisan Lawmakers Push Permanent Tax Equality for Transit Commuters
  42.  

    Miles Bader

    People shouldn’t be driving their kids to school period.

    The solution to school traffic jams is for parents to stop acting like idiots.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  43.  

    Joe R.

    I think most of those on this site agree but unfortunately cars aren’t going anywhere for a while. That being the case, I’d rather they all be self-driving (and electric). Those two things mitigate most of the problems associated with auto use. We’ll still unfortunately have to deal with obesity, and land used for roads/car storage. Self-driving cars can reduce the latter two things a bit if they encourage people to hire cars when needed, as opposed to owning them outright.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  44.  

    jimsey

    As a former E 4th resident, and a CWRU grad I enjoyed this little write up. The occupancy rates for Maron’s properties is through the rough as more and more people want to live downtown Cleveland. I think in aggregate its somewhere at or above 95% and its a supply problem. Still, to this day, most big name developers and banks still don’t want to take “chances” on Cleveland, while that leaves all the fun to be had by Maron. Haven’t lived in Cleveland for a few years, so I may be a little out of date on this.

    See Also: what Dan Gilbert is doing in Detroit.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Placemaking to Make Friends: The Case of Cleveland's East 4th Street
  45.  

    Kevin Hooper

    Contrary to statements made in the blog, the current ITE Trip Generation Handbook contains a recommended method for reducing overall ITE vehicle trip estimates based on internal capture between land uses within a mixed-use development. The current method does not explicitly take into account walking and transit because of limitations in the data on which the method was developed. This limitation is clearly explained in the ITE handbook and it recommends that the user make adjustments if the development is not in a suburban, stand-alone setting.

    ITE is currently in the process of updating the trip generation guidance. Several new methodologies from various sources, including EPA, are under consideration. The new ITE procedures for estimating trip generation for mixed-use development (as well as for urban infill and transit-oriented development) are planned to be published for public comment in the fall of 2013.

    As a note, ITE is always receptive to receiving new data sources, especially for mixed-use, urban infill, or transit-oriented development. Better data will lead to better methods which in turn will lead to better applications.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to How Better Traffic Models Can Lead to More Mixed-Use Development
  46.  

    Sean Rea

    Meanwhile if you bike, enjoy a paltry $240/year that virtually no benefit providers offer.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Bi-Partisan Lawmakers Push Permanent Tax Equality for Transit Commuters
  47.  

    Derek Brown

    I don’t think self-driving cars will be a good things, as it is just increasing the amount of laziness in today’s society.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?
  48.  

    Anonymous

    UTA should really be called UCTA – Utah Commuter Transit Authority. They’re only interested in carrying people to work between 7 and 9 a.m., and home again between 4 and 6 p.m. I live 4 miles from the University of Utah, but my closest bus, half a mile away, only runs once an hour and the round-trip fare is $5. It’s much cheaper to buy a parking pass and drive to my class twice a week. The zoo doesn’t have bus service. Airport service only runs during daytime hours, so don’t plan on using it for a red-eye flight. Until UTA stops building and starts concentrating on service, it’s pretty much unusable unless you’re going a long distance and staying for 8 hours or so.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Salt Lake City: How a Remote Red-State City Became a Transit Leader
  49.  

    Anonymous

    It’s interesting how it doesn’t mention how the Utah Transit Authority CEO makes 3 times what the Utah governor makes, and nearly as much as the President of the United States.

    That money is coming straight from taxpayers into his pocket. UTA spends more, and not in a responsible way. They also don’t mention that their bus fares are constantly going up. It used to cost .25 to ride the bus, and that was only 15 years ago. Sure it was on an older bus, but it went everywhere I needed it to go, and I was never stranded, so I could care less about whether or not the bus was new or not. Now the fare is $2.50! That’s right, the rate has gone up by 10 times!

    The article also doesn’t mention that their new Frontrunner commuter train does NOT run on Sundays. Their buses and light rail still do, so this makes NO sense.

    UTA needs a complete overhaul of their administration, and lowering of salaries and compensation across the board!

    I don’t even bother with them anymore, because they are so corrupt. I wish I could stop feeding the beast by not paying them with tax money. What a crock they are.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Salt Lake City: How a Remote Red-State City Became a Transit Leader
  50.  

    laughtiger

    Good point. It is a suburban vision for a suburban world.

    June 7, 2013
    in response to Magic Cars and Silver Bullets: Will the Self-Driving Car Save the World?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9