Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (150756)	9/2/2002 2:36:22 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1586013

I don't understand your evaluatin but large amounts of evidence do exist.. I've seen the claim a lot but never with anything that I would call real evidence attached to it let alone "massive evidence". do you think people came to these conclusions from something they smoked? I think they mainly come to the conclusion to support their ideological biases. Secondarily they can't point to places where roads and highways where built but where traffic has gotten worse, ignoreing the fact the roads where merely insufficent to solve the problem, not a contributer to the problem. We stopped building freeways because they were not solving the traffic problems not because of environmental laws. We never did stop building freeways, but new building has decliend greatly because 1 - The planned interstate system is pretty much finished, 2 - enivronmental regulations and MIMBY protestors greatly increase the difficulty, cost and time involved in building new roads. There is no keeping up with the traffic.....many households now have 3,4, and 5 drivers and cars per household Which supports the idea that we can keep up with future traffic increases, households are not getting bigger and we've almost reached the saturation point in terms of cars per household. BTW did you know that GM bought up many urban light rail systems in the country in the '50's. and tore them up so people would buy cars instead.. That is at best an exageration. There was some buying of the sort you discribe in LA. The main reason that such systems declined was because of their inflexibility and the fact that a richer population could afford cars. the good ole boys really stuck it to us, and that's why the laws had to be created to keep them from sticking it to us some more. Teh government can and does stick it to us a million times harder then provate companies did or do. I know things would not have been built at such low densities which is the leading cause of sprawl. There are many large European cities without nearly the traffic problems that our cities have. I've also been in some of them that have really bad traffic. Also the countries have a greater overall population density and many other differences (normally less money, particuarly for years after WWII meant that they could afford less cars, is just one example). In places like Mpls and Portland They have their own problems. What are their problems and how are they worse that DC's? reason.com reason.com According to the American Lung Association, from 1998 to 2000, DC averaged 50 days of unhealthy air due to Ozone contamination; Fairfax 51 days and Baltimore 93 days. That doesn't conlflict with what I said. Also according to your inlik DC had 4 red days and Fairfax 6. and DC is on the EPA's nonattainment list in regards to Ozone pollution: Again this does not conflict with the statement that "Its only really bad a few days a year", let alone the statement "The air isn't like an old East German factory town." ___________ reason.com