Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Obama Administration Out of Touch

More jesuitical crap from Washington, D.C., the city that lets transport be subverted by the super elite:
La Hood, who wants to track the general public with mileage tax GPS


Obama’s Transportation Secretary Says He Wants to ‘Coerce People Out of Their Cars’
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told a group of reporters at the National Press Club on Thursday that he wants to “coerce people out of their cars.”

In Newsweek magazine last week, nationally syndicated columnist George Will published a piece critical of Lahood, entitled, “Ray LaHood, Transformed--Secretary of Behavior Modification.”

“He says he has joined a ‘transformational’ administration: ‘I think we can change people's behavior,’” Will reports that LaHood said over lunch.

LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Peoria, Ill., has become a champion of using the Department of Transportation and federal transportation spending to get people to take trains, busses, and ride bikes instead of driving cars.

At the National Press Club on Thursday he attempted to respond to George Will’s column and to explain his vision for using the power of government to change people’s transportation behavior and to change the nature of American residential communities.

“We want to really--and notwithstanding the fact that George Will doesn't like this idea--the idea of creating opportunities for people to get out of their cars--and we're working with the secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, on opportunities for housing, walking paths, biking paths,” said LaHood. “If somebody wants to ride their bike, if--to work or to the place of employment or to other places--mass transit, light rail--creating opportunities for what we call livable communities.”

The moderator of the press club event asked LaHood: “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.

“Yeah,” he continued, “I mean, look, people don't like spending an hour and a half getting to work. And people don't like spending an hour going to the grocery store. And all of you who live around here know exactly what I'm talking about. You know, the dreaded thing is to have to run an errand on a weekend around here or to try and get home at 3:00 in the afternoon or even 5:00 in the afternoon.

“Now, look, every community is not going to be a livable community. But we have to create opportunities for people that do want to use a bicycle or want to walk or want to get on a streetcar or want to ride a light rail,” said LaHood.

Lahood suggested to the reporters that George Will is the only person opposed to using the government to promote mass transit and bicycling over driving a car.

“And the only person that I've heard of that objects to this is George Will. Check out Newsweek magazine,” said LaHood.

Lahood then made a joke about the fact that some conservatives believe that the way he wants to use the Department of Transportation represents an increased government intrusion in people’s lives.

“Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it's an example of government intrusion into people's lives,” said the moderator. “How do you respond?”

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”


Note that the elites' idea is of making it harder to drive rather then making the alternatives easier. Also lacking is any talk of constructing linear cities along existing commercial corridors that could accommodate future population growth ... as such elites really oppose population growth with their designs of depopulation.


If it were about saving energy, will LaHood ask President Obama to downsize his jet for at least some trips, or even send out for food rather then send a Presidential entourage to go out for hamburgers?


Could it be that LaHood, and our U.S. president, are members of a masonic elite?





Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Romish-Masonic Religious Drive Against New Vehicular Highways?

Transportation Network Subversion-
against any new vehicular grade separated highways
environ-elitist
with a reoccurring Masonic symbolism

From within Australia:







And within the U.S.:





And stuff as:

http://www.planetizen.com/transportation



http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2007/10/beholden-doctrine.html



For a contrary point of view:

http://www.commuteroutrage.com/

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Parochialist Subversion of Urban Road Tunnels?!

San Francisco, 1964




The proposed Pacific Heights Tunnel would have connected the 101 Central Freeway with the approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge, via a diagonal route via moled tunneling. It was a baby of San Francisco City Council member William C. Blake, an opponent of the primarily double deck elevated freeways.

Its most prominent detractors included those who feared its construction would undermine the foundations of their mansions above, owing to the soil conditions and the contemporary development of such tunnel excavation. Amongst these persons mentioned were Roman Catholic Church Archbishop Joseph T. McGucken, and Episcopal Bishop James Pike.

The newspaper depicting Council member Blake with a hole in his head is the San Francisco Examiner, established in 1865, and starting cir. 1887 was owned by notoriously pro-Vatican William Randolf Hearst.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

What Obama Needs For N.Y. Long Island Transportation Security



http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2007/12/build-cross-sound-tunnel.html

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2007/11/build-cross-brooklyn-tunnel_02.html

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Syracuse N.Y. I-81 Tunnel Proposal

Friday, January 16, 2009

Seattle 99, WA: It's A Bored Tunnel!

In land bored tunnel route minimizes construction disruptions
allows existing viaduct use to maintain traffic





Outboard portals in foreground for the express bored tunnel
Inboard portals distant for the Battery Street Tunnel to Alaska Way

Culminates years of planning.


Is a single bored, two deck tube, rather then two separate single deck tubes of WDOT's 2008 planning, with full 16.5 foot vertical clearance within a 54 foot diameter.

As an express tunnel with two lanes in each direction without intermediate entrance or exit ramps, local traffic is routed through the Battery Street Tunnels to a new waterfront boulevard with the existing three lane in each direction viaduct removed.

Has the advantages over the waterfront cut and cover tunnel concept insofar that the bored tunnel is constructible while maintaining the existing viaduct and its traffic flow. Its reduction in capacity relative to the 6 lane viaduct is roughly commensurate with the split of this corridors through city traffic and local traffic, with this project providing ample accessibility by the waterfront boulevard, through with a sacrifice in speed- unless later supplemented with the cut and cover tunnel.

Has the disadvantage of less local accessibility then the cut and cover tunnel, though conceivably the advantage of serving as a straight express shot, with the local traffic diverted via the Battery Street Tunnel to the waterfront boulevard, physically conceivably with a cut and cover tunnel built later.

Talk about better connecting this reconstructed 99 corridor to I-90 and I-5 should acknowledge capacity addition stage ability, with interchanges accommodating future connections, with the Seattle 99 corridor eventually encompassing an express bored tunnel supplemented with a local access cut and cover tunnel along the waterfront.

With the parallel I-5 in need of additional capacity yet constrained via its air rights Convention Center, additional capacity for the 99 freeway as a means of I-5 relief seems to evade official planning.

At least one Seattle group calls for this bored tunnel to have 3 lanes in each direction, with others calling for an 8 lane viaduct, which would be less expensive but have far more construction disruptions then a bored tunnel first, with or without a parallel waterfront boulevard atop a cut and cover tunnel.

It does not appear that planning will accommodate reducing the cost of doing so via constructing the waterfront boulevard with prefabricated surface street deck segments partially pinned upon the new bulkhead walls with a shallow excavation, this first completing the waterfront boulevard and maintaining it as the tunnel beneath is excavated and fitted as a subsequent stage.

What about additional federal funding for such extra capacity as part of a deal designating it something like I-190?

The idea of better connecting it to the interstate highways, easing its use as an I-5 bypass/relief is promoted by this private citizens' group's proposal for a 6 lane (3 x 3 twin bore with a lower level for trains).


Thursday, December 11, 2008

"E" Groups - neglect highway capacity increase

From Greater, Greater Washington;
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1492

"... a coalition of 17 environmental groups, including [jesuitical] Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, NRDC, Environmental Defense, Greenpeace, and many more, released a list of 78 projects that could spend $145 billion over the next 12 months on immediate economic stimulus. (See the summary table or detailed list.) On transportation, the list includes fixing existing roads and bridges, operating grants to keep up transit service and current fares, and fully funding all New Starts transit projects that are in the pipeline, but no new lane miles of highways.

Transportation is responsible for a third of global warming pollution and more than 60 percent of domestic oil consumption. To mitigate this, we need a comprehensive transportation sector investment strategy that includes substantial build out of public transportation and other alternative transportation resources, rehabilitation and maintenance of existing roads and bridges (which creates more jobs than investments in new road capacity), investment in next generation alternative fuels, and acceleration of increases in vehicle efficiency. Meeting these needs can reduce our dependence on oil, reduce global warming pollution, and create millions of good jobs by investing in low-carbon transportation projects.

We recommend at least $58.8 billion investment in transit, other transportation alternatives, environmental mitigation, road and bridge maintenance, and vehicle and fuel technologies ...


We also strongly oppose spending any portion of an economic stimulus package on highway projects that include new capacity. Adding road capacity has been shown to induce additional vehicle use, leading to increased oil consumption, greenhouse gasses, and traffic congestion in the long term. These projects also promote sprawling land development patterns that further exacerbate these problems and require future infrastructure investments to mitigate. Any spending on highways and roads (including bridges) should be based on Fix-It First principles of asset management.


The list also includes funds for alternative energy research and starting up production of non-corn biofuels, worker training for green jobs, energy efficiency tax credits, weatherization for households, schools, and local governments, incentives for energy efficient appliances, purchasing foreclosed land for conservation, maintenance in national parks and wildlife refuges, solar panel deployment on public and private buildings, energy transmission grid upgrades, dam repair, coastal restoration from Long Island Sound to the Great Lakes to the Mississippi delta and coastal Louisiana, and more."

The 'e" groups completely ignore time savings and reduced pollution from reduced congestion via promoting a myopic view that ignores variables, for doctrine they would not apply to anything else.

To their credit they did include non corn biomass, but what do they say about improving the electric grid for powering the new transit?