Re: shuttle disaster
Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:31:31AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:24:41PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > How much are the city/state/feds subsidizing TriMet?
> > >
> > > Right now, about half. Normally, nearly nothing or less. TriMet only
> > > goes net-loss and extra subsidy when it's building new rail lines, but
> > > usually makes headway for a year after that to then break roughly
> > > even. Yellow Line is expected to open in May, IIRC.
> > >
> >
> > To add to that, how much of the US Interstate Highway system is
> > currently subsidized by city/state/fed governments?
> >
> > To answer my own question, I believe the figure is pretty close to
> > 100% (correct me if I'm wrong). What's more, I believe less than half
> > of the funding comes from fuel taxes.
> >
> > Does this make the Interstate Highway system a failure that should be
> > done away with?
>
> If the purpose of the Interstate Highway system was to provide
> citizens with a fun way to drive around the country, yes.
>
My point exactly. Doing away with useful projects just because they use
government money doesn't make sense. It's also hypocritical to suggest
doing so when you yourself (not necessarily referring to you, the typer
of the above words) use and support a project that gets just about all
its funding from the government.
> However, there's ample evidence that the Interstate Highway System
> (wait: make that the _Eisenhower_ Interstate Highway System) was
> designed for two, maybe three purposes:
>
> 1) Provide a robust road network for national defense purposes. This
> probably made a lot more sense in 1950.
>
I believe "providing a fast way to evacuate cities in case of attack" is
the way I've heard that phrased. Fast Interstate is sort of an oxymoron,
nowdays and the system probably wouldn't support the above stated use
(just take a look at some recent movie like Deep Impact).
> 2) Give the government something to spend money on as the post WWII
> economy was not the best.
>
Spending money on public transit works just as well.
> 3) Give Dwight D. Eisenhower something to put his name on; here in the
> plains states that seems to be an overwhelming success.
>
As much as I cringe at the thought of riding the "George W. Bush
Interstate Railway System," I'd take it over nothing.
> Most everyone knows this, but it's very probable that if Eisenhower
> hadn't been so impressed with the German Autobahns and if he hadn't
> become president, the push to quickly create a nationwide highway
> network would not have come so quickly to fruition.
>
Kind of ironic, isn't it?
<snip Interstate comments>
Agreed.
Reply to: