Bob Jones almost had it right. Allow me to edit. A vote against rail is vote for the freedom, mobility, economic prosperity and a cleaner environment that busses and automobiles bring. A vote for the rail system brings urban jungles, more taxes, more government control, and more pollution.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Wow. Ridiculousness Reaches New High
You have to read it to believe someone actually said it: A Vote Against Rail is a Vote for Freedom and Prosperity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
My e-mail to Kimo Hana:
Dear Kimo,
With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am an urban planner and almost everything you said about rail is incorrect.
Not only that, your views are completely America-centric. Please visit Barcelona, any Japanese city, or even China to get a proper view of rail based transit and its salutary effect on urban areas. I am from Canada, but both our countries are the same: being completely left behind on the world stage when it comes to transportation trends. Cities with rail are better to live in, with less of a destructive effect on the natural environment.
I urge you to do some investigation regarding rail in countries other than the USA and reconsider your views.
No need to reply to my e-mail.
Kind regards,
Corey
Vancouver, Canada
If a vote against rail is a vote against freedom, where does that leave people who don't want to own a car? Isn't freedom all about having options? This guy is really something...
Absurd as this guy's hyperbole is, there's a tiny kernel of truth in all of it. When he thinks of transit, he might well think of his own local bus, which runs once an hour, weekdays only, until 6 pm. And that really is a form of transport that denies freedom. But it need not be that way: back in the 1910s, even in Wilkes-Barre, PA, the interurban trolley ran all night, on 90-minute headways. If we want people to take transit, we have to provide transit that's actually useful and actually available, and not just a commuter service during commute hours.
I found it absurdly lame also. Kimo Hara selects the "best" car example, a small hybrid car, when the large majority of car drivers have much thirstier cars.
Furthermore, electricity can be obtained from a variety of sources, including on-the-spot renewables such as wind. Given that Hawaii does not have much of an economic base outside of tourism, it is surprising that Hawaiians have not made more investment in such sources.
And his caricatures of the Left and the Right seems rather Limbaughian. I've seen a lot of right-wingers defend SUV's, and at least one right-winger, Rush Limbaugh, sneer at the Toyota Prius.
Just about all general-access flat roads are built and maintained by governments, including his beloved High Occupancy Toll roads. I haven't seen many companies doing all the work of building flat roads these days, including acquisition of the land to build on.
And as to the supposed villainy of highrises, he ought to check what some highrise condo apartments go for some time -- some people must be willing to spend a LOT of money on getting one. Furthermore, highrises are MUCH less sprawled than single-family houses, enabling more of Hawaii to be a tropical tourist trap.
As to rail-construction contracts being no-bid, what a big load of hooey. And if anything, it's oil that's a big drain of money to other countries.
Just to point out, ridiculous is spelled with an 'i'. Maybe you were doing it on purpose, though. I'll take spelling mistakes over horrific anti-rail public policy any day.
Heh. Thanks Anon. I thought something looked a bit funny. I wish the title frame had a spellchecker. It should be fixed now.
Post a Comment