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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (454663)	2/7/2009 3:02:48 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576163

Ted, > What it means is that freeways are a lousy way to deal with mass transit; that you can never build a freeway big enough. Sure, there's the whole capacity problem of freeways. The alternative, of course, is to pack people into moving sardine cans, which explains the "near infinite" capacity of rail. You clearly have not ridden in one of the trains..light or heavy. They are not "sardine cans" as you put it. In fact, I wish planes were half as roomy. It's a huge jump in capacity but also a huge drop in transportation flexibility. It all depends on where you live, and making rail successful usually requires some amount of social engineering (except for already dense cities like NY and LA). That's why residential nodes are developing around lite and heavy rail stations. Ride Amtrak from the OC to LA.....note the development around the stations. I don't know where things stand at Union Station in LA but there was talk of building thousands of housing units around the station when I lived in LA. In Portland, a whole residential neighborhood has sprung up around its train station. As for NY and LA......how do you think they got so dense [actually LA's density is fairly recent.......in the last 15 years]? In fact, its mass transit that encourages urban density.....not freeways.