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: TimF who wrote (452671)	1/30/2009 7:33:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575784

templetons.com

To: TimF who wrote (452671)	1/30/2009 8:51:39 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575784

At this point, we may have exceeded 1960 ridership levels So we just possibly might finally have some real growth after a period of time of of almost 50 years, in which the population has increased by over 70%, and highway miles driven have increased by over 300%. That's right. Our leaders, mainly GOPers have encouraged car ownership and usage. Everything has been done to encourage the use of cars at the expense of mass transit. And this lack of growth is NOT due to not spending money on transit. A lot of money is being spent on transit. Bull. Mass transist gets the droppings off the table. The GOP has made damn sure of that. A much larger percentage then the percentage of passenger miles transit moves. That's particularly true outside of the densest cities. (In those cities transit does makes sense, and I've already said as much.) Cities like Portland, OR who have systems at a critical mass have very high passenger ridership. Why should the cost of an existing road be attributed to light rail? Because its using the resource. Bull. Its already paid for.......its primary usage was for cars. Light rail has been added as an after thought. Light rail needs to pay for new signage and traffic light fixtures. That's it.