I loved Guns Germs & Steel, and it strikes me in future that people will look back on the US's current underwhelming space program with the same puzzlement we feel at the fact China didn't accomplish more in the 15th century with their giant exploration fleets. Internal political disputes doomed the program, and all the giant ships ended up being dismantled.
Things sure would have turned out differently if the Chinese had colonized the Americas. Or if the US had colonized the moon? The Chinese learned from their mistake, they are planning manned space flight to the moon. When will we wise up?
The Shuttle and Space Station provide the appearance of action, but no benefits. All our magnificent ships are in museums. I hope China gets their act together to put the fear of a Red Solar System into all those fossils who see no return on space investment.
Your last sentence is the flaw in your argument. Engineers dont decide on the rail count, the politicans do. That's why Seattle's regional transit agency, Sound Transit, decided on a light rail system. The only problem with that is that is that Seattle A) Has lots of hills and B) Has no unused railroad lines to commandeer.
So the system runs mostly in tunnels, which has lead to billions in cost overruns. The completed system will have some of the world's deepest stations ($$$) yet also runs on the street through one of the city's poorest, most diverse neighborhood, which means accidents, less speed and capacity, and lots of property acqisitions.
Mass transit development is *always* politically driven. No one ever got fired for selecting two rails, because its the safe, conventional choice. Monorail is a much better technology than light rail in the city. It can run along arterial streets without displacing any traffic lanes. It can climb steeper hills than lower traction steel wheel trains. It is quieter, and a lot more visually appealing than elevated rail systems like Chicago's. It is cheaper than putting rail in a tunnel.
Conventional rail is great for cities like Minneapolis or Dallas that are flat and/or have old rail lines to use. In crowded, hilly areas like Seattle or Osaka or Kuala Lumpur, monorail has real cost advantages. Monorail was seriously considered for the BART system in the Bay Area, but rejected on political grounds. New transit monorails are under construction in Malaysia and Japan, and the Seattle monorail will (voters willing) join the Las Vegas monorail by 2007.
Monorail is a proven technology, with real cost and safety advantages. Cities that already have large light rail/subway networks, monorail is not appropriate for. Cities like Seattle and Las Vegas that developed with no thought being given to transit are building monorail.
This is why station car/flexcar programs need to be pushed. Mass transit is good at getting you *close* to where you want to go, but it ususally gets dramatically more incovenient when you need to go somewhere in the suburbs.
It will never be convenient to ride the bus in most suburbs, because there are too many cul-de-sacs and not enough arterials. We need to bridge the "last mile" gap to get to the less accessible suburban destinations. Providing electric cars that people on errands can rent by the hour with their smartcard transit pass, or commuters can lease leverages the existing investment in roads.
Sure, this doesn't solve traffic problems on suurban arterials. But it is a much more productive use of park and ride lots than providing parking for single occupant SUVs. Commuters drop them off in the morning, workers and people on errands drive them all day, then different commuters take them home at night. One (smaller) space serves many more people.
Since electric cars are dead simple and low maintance, the programs are profitable! The government should provide low interest loans to build garages for these commerical programs to operate over existing P&R lots. They would attract a lot of commuters leasing them as second cars, and provide access to cars for those unable to afford to drive. You could allow SOV Flexcars in the Carpool Lanes also, to provide added incentive to switch to transit.
A global minimum wage makes no sense at all. Companies employing workers in developing nations generally pay more than prevailing local wages to attract the most productive workers. This may not meet with your First World standard of a "fair" wage, since the average incomes are much lower. However, the cost of living is correspondingly lower in the developing world.
Demanding that companies pay people a first world salary no matter where they live would put millions of (compartively) poor people out of work. There would be no reason to employ less productive Indian programmers when they cost the same as Americans. Even if there were, the Indian economy would experience hyperinflation as the suddenly rich employees of multinationals would push up everyone elses wages, etc. Look at Germany between the wars to see where that would end up.
Your last statement gives away the basic premise that underlies all the hot air about "fair" trade and "fair" wages. It is protectionism, plain and simple. It is disingenous how all the WTO protesters claim to be helping the Third World when they are trying to cripple free trade, the best route to prosperity for developing countries.
Just look at Japan's boom after World War II, or South Korea or Chile. Market economies oriented toward export produce economic growth. Low labor costs are the only advantage that a place like Pakistan has. Over time, the standard of living rises and labor intensive textile and agriculture jobs go elsewhere. Japan used to be synonomous with cheap crappy products in the 1960s. Now a 'Made in Japan' label indicates high quality, and that cheap Panasonic VCR is made in Malaysia. Countries evolve, and "fair trade" tries to prevent it by not allowing poor countries to utilize their competitive advantage of low labor cost. It's bad policy if you actually want to help poor people.
I'm sorry, but that's naive. The only city in the US that has been repsonsible about growth is Portland. It has the strong community voice calling for keeping rural areas rural AND a legislated urban growth boundary that ensures the people's desires are carried out.
Portland has plenty of sprawl, but it is slowly getting more dense around the transit corridors destined to be urban centers. Portland is a great place to live, and if you don't like it, move to LA and enjoy suburban bliss in the San Fernando Valley. Just don't try to breathe.
Here in Seattle land trusts are buying up large portions of the Cascades to keep them undeveloped, and we have a (less effective) growth boundary. Both approaches are needed to ensure growth happens at a manageable pace, without sprawl.
Slashdot Mirror
I loved Guns Germs & Steel, and it strikes me in future that people will look back on the US's current underwhelming space program with the same puzzlement we feel at the fact China didn't accomplish more in the 15th century with their giant exploration fleets. Internal political disputes doomed the program, and all the giant ships ended up being dismantled.
Things sure would have turned out differently if the Chinese had colonized the Americas. Or if the US had colonized the moon? The Chinese learned from their mistake, they are planning manned space flight to the moon. When will we wise up?
The Shuttle and Space Station provide the appearance of action, but no benefits. All our magnificent ships are in museums. I hope China gets their act together to put the fear of a Red Solar System into all those fossils who see no return on space investment.
Dale Cooper
Your last sentence is the flaw in your argument. Engineers dont decide on the rail count, the politicans do. That's why Seattle's regional transit agency, Sound Transit, decided on a light rail system. The only problem with that is that is that Seattle A) Has lots of hills and B) Has no unused railroad lines to commandeer.
So the system runs mostly in tunnels, which has lead to billions in cost overruns. The completed system will have some of the world's deepest stations ($$$) yet also runs on the street through one of the city's poorest, most diverse neighborhood, which means accidents, less speed and capacity, and lots of property acqisitions.
Mass transit development is *always* politically driven. No one ever got fired for selecting two rails, because its the safe, conventional choice. Monorail is a much better technology than light rail in the city. It can run along arterial streets without displacing any traffic lanes. It can climb steeper hills than lower traction steel wheel trains. It is quieter, and a lot more visually appealing than elevated rail systems like Chicago's. It is cheaper than putting rail in a tunnel.
Conventional rail is great for cities like Minneapolis or Dallas that are flat and/or have old rail lines to use. In crowded, hilly areas like Seattle or Osaka or Kuala Lumpur, monorail has real cost advantages. Monorail was seriously considered for the BART system in the Bay Area, but rejected on political grounds. New transit monorails are under construction in Malaysia and Japan, and the Seattle monorail will (voters willing) join the Las Vegas monorail by 2007.
Monorail is a proven technology, with real cost and safety advantages. Cities that already have large light rail/subway networks, monorail is not appropriate for. Cities like Seattle and Las Vegas that developed with no thought being given to transit are building monorail.
Dale Cooper
This is why station car/flexcar programs need to be pushed. Mass transit is good at getting you *close* to where you want to go, but it ususally gets dramatically more incovenient when you need to go somewhere in the suburbs.
It will never be convenient to ride the bus in most suburbs, because there are too many cul-de-sacs and not enough arterials. We need to bridge the "last mile" gap to get to the less accessible suburban destinations. Providing electric cars that people on errands can rent by the hour with their smartcard transit pass, or commuters can lease leverages the existing investment in roads.
Sure, this doesn't solve traffic problems on suurban arterials. But it is a much more productive use of park and ride lots than providing parking for single occupant SUVs. Commuters drop them off in the morning, workers and people on errands drive them all day, then different commuters take them home at night. One (smaller) space serves many more people.
Since electric cars are dead simple and low maintance, the programs are profitable! The government should provide low interest loans to build garages for these commerical programs to operate over existing P&R lots. They would attract a lot of commuters leasing them as second cars, and provide access to cars for those unable to afford to drive. You could allow SOV Flexcars in the Carpool Lanes also, to provide added incentive to switch to transit.
Dale Cooper
A global minimum wage makes no sense at all. Companies employing workers in developing nations generally pay more than prevailing local wages to attract the most productive workers. This may not meet with your First World standard of a "fair" wage, since the average incomes are much lower. However, the cost of living is correspondingly lower in the developing world.
Demanding that companies pay people a first world salary no matter where they live would put millions of (compartively) poor people out of work. There would be no reason to employ less productive Indian programmers when they cost the same as Americans. Even if there were, the Indian economy would experience hyperinflation as the suddenly rich employees of multinationals would push up everyone elses wages, etc. Look at Germany between the wars to see where that would end up.
Your last statement gives away the basic premise that underlies all the hot air about "fair" trade and "fair" wages. It is protectionism, plain and simple. It is disingenous how all the WTO protesters claim to be helping the Third World when they are trying to cripple free trade, the best route to prosperity for developing countries.
Just look at Japan's boom after World War II, or South Korea or Chile. Market economies oriented toward export produce economic growth. Low labor costs are the only advantage that a place like Pakistan has. Over time, the standard of living rises and labor intensive textile and agriculture jobs go elsewhere. Japan used to be synonomous with cheap crappy products in the 1960s. Now a 'Made in Japan' label indicates high quality, and that cheap Panasonic VCR is made in Malaysia. Countries evolve, and "fair trade" tries to prevent it by not allowing poor countries to utilize their competitive advantage of low labor cost. It's bad policy if you actually want to help poor people.
I'm sorry, but that's naive. The only city in the US that has been repsonsible about growth is Portland. It has the strong community voice calling for keeping rural areas rural AND a legislated urban growth boundary that ensures the people's desires are carried out.
Portland has plenty of sprawl, but it is slowly getting more dense around the transit corridors destined to be urban centers. Portland is a great place to live, and if you don't like it, move to LA and enjoy suburban bliss in the San Fernando Valley. Just don't try to breathe.
Here in Seattle land trusts are buying up large portions of the Cascades to keep them undeveloped, and we have a (less effective) growth boundary. Both approaches are needed to ensure growth happens at a manageable pace, without sprawl.