|
Posted by Matt W. Barrow on March 30, 2008, 5:38 pm
>> In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
>> your last sentence).
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf
>>
>> Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
>> DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
>> reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
>> that).
>>
>>
>>
>
> It is called "traffic calming." 1. They say you need connected parallel
> streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
> roads.
>
> 2. Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
> to a crawl.
>
> 3. The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost"
> due
> to too much traffic.
The University of Texas (Houston, I think) did a study 20 years ago and
found we waste 20-25% of our annual gasoline usage to such traffic systems.
Think how much fixing THAT would contribute to "conservation" and "energy
independance".
> 4. Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert
> to
> a "walking city."
Dig into Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his "noble savage" to see the basis of
the society they want to instill. Essentially, it's primitive tribalism.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap