The Political Environment: Freeway Expansionists Back Old Technology

Monday, April 1, 2013

Freeway Expansionists Back Old Technology

Wisconsin is spending billions on 'freeways' to serve a 19th-century technology while killing high-speed rail and blocking modern light rail, too. Go figure.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...: Well - if that link doesn't pushi a few buttons - I don't know what will. :); April 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: The Gilded Age is their ideal, after all.; April 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Reagan's Disciple said...: The trains are the 19th century technology. Although there are different claims, the general consensus is that trains were invented, and certainly came into the mainstream before cars.

As a society we have advanced from trains to the automobile and there is really no need to go back in time. I'll give you the point that trains may serve a purpose in high population density areas, but Milwaukee is certainly not one of those.

Why do people think that everyone should pay for something like a train that very few would actually use? It seems rather selfish to me, but then again, the liberals will probably seek to have subsidized air travel in the future as well.; April 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Unknown said...: Ah yes! The Gilded Age. Laissez faire capitalism and Haymarket Square for "union thugs." Sharecroppers and child labor. Now thar's what made America great.; April 1, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Dave Reid said...: " the liberals will probably seek to have subsidized air travel in the future as well." Umm it is.; April 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: Air travel IS subsidized.; April 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: "
The trains are the 19th century technology."

The sheer stupidity of that argument, RD, is why it's becoming impossible to be an engineer and a disciple of Reagan nowadays.

The internal combustion engine is 19th century.

The pneumatic tire is 19th century.

The flattop road dates back to the Romans.

The difference between American automobile dependence and the alternatives has nothing to do with the timestamp on the first development of these technologies (both trains and cars have continued to evolve) and everything to do with their inherent properties:

Train tracks last.
Roads don't.

Train rolling stock lasts.
Automobiles don't.

Train vehicles can be powered by anything and everything.

Road vehicles require liquid fuel.; April 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Reagan's Disciple said...: Air travel IS subsidized.

It is not subsidized to the levels of public bus service or Amtrak which was the point.

Your utopia of getting on a train and paying $5 for a trip to Madison has to be paid by someone.

But then again, as long as it is other people's money, right?; April 2, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Reagan's Disciple said...: @ Anon

You forgot a few...

Trains have fixed schedules and are not conducive with today's families and time commitments/schedules.

Oh, and people actually use cars.

Perhaps a nice quarter horse would better suit your needs and ideals.; April 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow, RD, so you're actually going to claim that a family that is used to getting to school on time, to work on time, to appointments on time, to the plane on time, is somehow so unable to bear the burden of getting to a train on time.

So unable, that is, that the country should continue to put itself in hock building a far more expensive, far more polluting and far less resilient infrastrucutre, one that leaves us far more vulnerable to the price of oil.

There was once a time when Repubclians had too much self respecto to come anywhere and say things that are that moronic.; April 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: "But then again, as long as it is other people's money, right?
"

My money pays to repave your street. And the main drag you drive on. And your highway. My money pays to filter your motor oil drippings out of the water supply. Not that you care about that.; April 2, 2013 at 11:48 AM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: It is not subsidized to the levels of public bus service or Amtrak which was the point.

That's not even close to what you said. Nice try walking it back.; April 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM
zombie rotten mcdonald said...: Before I started my own firm and had to make regular daily site visits and meetings, I rode the bus to/from my job downtown.

If I was ever late, it wasn't due to the bus schedule.

Also, apparently nobody in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, or San Francisco is ever on time. That is an interesting claim.; April 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Reagan's Disciple said...: Thanks for making the point. Milwaukee is not, nor should ever be compared to NYC, Chicago, Atlanta or San Francisco. If you can't see the difference, than you must be blind. And no... Adding a train will still not put us even close to those cities. Apparently by riding the bus you haven't got to travel much.; April 2, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: "

Thanks for making the point. Milwaukee is not, nor should ever be compared to NYC, Chicago, Atlanta or San Francisco."

Yes, there is a big difference:

Milwaukee is surrounded by a people who actively wish ill for the city and work to frustrate any and all attempts to rehabilitate the place.

For example, you.

Don't worry. Everyone here knows this. Doesn't matter if you drive or take the bus between Milwaukee and Madison.; April 3, 2013 at 9:28 AM