Waste, corruption, and liberal wishful thinking instead of
Topics: Transportation
13 Jul 2010
From: Ervan Darnell
--00163630f4d13704eb048b4b62d5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
"Under new rules, announced by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, cost
effectiveness loses its dominance over decision makers and a new livability
criteria takes into account environmental impact and economic development."
[1]
The old rule was that before the federal government would fund local
projects, the proposal had to show the project was at least as cost
effective as buses. This is already a weak standard because buses are
almost never cost effective, but at least it was something, and it was
geared to showing that projects actually helped. The economic reality is
that rail is usually far more expensive than it's benefit, but it somehow
appeals to a fanciful view of how the world should be, by people who aren't
paying the bill.
Having the feds pick up any of the cost for local transit is already a bad
idea. Why should Texas be forced to subsidize San Francisco? Beyond that,
by artificially reducing the apparent price, people over consume.
Regardless, Obama and his team, with their consistent contempt for any
understanding of economics, just threw out cost-benefit analysis and
replaced it with liberal whim, i.e. "livability" is just a euphemism for
"we're going to force you to live like we want no matter the cost." That
means higher taxes, longer commutes, smaller homes, and higher real estate
prices. Oh, yes, you are supposed to thank them for making your life more
"livable".
-----------------
[1]
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/transit-funding-takes-a-new-look-at-livability/#ixzz0tbCCrMv1
"
--
Unsubscribe: kelvinistragnar+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/kelvinistragnar?hl=en
--00163630f4d13704eb048b4b62d5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Under=A0new rules, announced by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, =
cost effectiveness loses its dominance over decision makers and a new livab=
ility criteria takes into account environmental impact and economic develop=
ment." [1]
The old rule was that before the federal government would fu=
nd local projects, the proposal had to show the project was at least as cos=
t effective as buses. =A0 This is already a weak standard because buses are=
almost never cost effective, but at least it was something, and it was gea=
red to showing that projects actually helped. =A0The economic reality is th=
at rail is usually far more expensive than it's benefit, but it somehow=
appeals to a fanciful view of how the world should be, by people who aren&=
#39;t paying the bill. =A0
Having the feds pick up any of the cost for local trans=
it is already a bad idea. =A0Why should Texas be forced to subsidize San Fr=
ancisco? =A0Beyond that, by artificially reducing the apparent price, peopl=
e over consume.
Regardless, Obama and his team, with their consistent c=
ontempt for any understanding of economics, just threw out cost-benefit ana=
lysis and replaced it with liberal whim, i.e. "livability" is jus=
t a euphemism for "we're going to force you to live like we want n=
o matter the cost." =A0That means higher taxes, longer commutes, small=
er homes, and higher real estate prices. =A0 Oh, yes, you are supposed to t=
hank them for making your life more "livable".
--
Unsubscribe: kelvinistragnar+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
http://g=
roups.google.com/group/kelvinistragnar?hl en
--00163630f4d13704eb048b4b62d5--
Home