By pitting PRT against BRT and other transit options, both are hindered.
If our political discourse were rooted in reality (which is politically incorrect, I know) we could have a discussion about how best to serve transportation needs with the best use of energy and material now, while also funding a variety of projects to explore the best way to design future transportation.
In reality, our current transportation infrastructure uses too much of the earth's energy and materials and also creates far too much pollution. It is designed to devour the very resources it depends on, while also poisoning the very people it is supposed to serve. Meanwhile, the current system enriches and empowers a few while enraging most of the other folks on the planet. 95% of people do not live in the United States of America, and would like just some of the resources, too.
So our current transportation is well into three devastating crashes: environmental, geopolitical, and economic. We have to spend more on brutal weapons and techniques to oppress poor people so we can drive more and waste more resources per mile while we do so -- that is exactly the trend, in spite of the hype about the tiny number of hybrid cars and such. Our mileage gets worse each year, we drive more, and we pollute more as well. To replace our current fleet of cars and trucks with hybrids would cost too much and demand too many materials and too much energy -- we would bankrupt ourselves trying. We need to maximise the best of the old system -- bikes, pedestrians, and mass transit. We need to minimise the worst of the old system -- design for reliance on one occupancy cars.
I encourage folks to do real research on these topics -- Transit for Livable Communities, The Post Carbon Institute, Museletter, Culture change, EnergyBulletin, Community Solutions, DieOff, and Peakoil.com are just some websites to jump off from.
Or google "peak oil" or "population overshoot" or "Olduvai Theory" and see where that takes you. Scientists have studied the human population explosion from the standpoint of "net energy available per person" and the outlook is very bleak. By 2030, we will only be able to make as much energy per capita as we were making worldwide in about 1930.
With a larger population to feed, house, clothe, and provide clean water and medical care, we are likely to see resource wars which no one will survive unless we learn to do much more with less, cooperate, and spend our precious resources on research for peaceful, sustainable living. Sustainability is no longer a niche market for rich people. It is a matter of survival.
For a good read on how current Neocon paradigms impact us, check this out:
"Who Are the Neocons? Neo-conservatism is the intellectual offspring of Leo Strauss (1899-1973), a Jewish scholar who fled Hitler's Germany and taught political science at the University of Chicago. According to Shadia Drury in 'Leo Strauss and The American Right' (Griffin, 1999) Strauss advocated an essentially Machiavellian approach to governance. He believed that:
* A leader must perpetually deceive those being ruled.
* Those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
* Religion is the force that binds society together, and is therefore the tool by which the ruler can manipulate the masses (any religion will do)
* Secularism in society is to be suppressed, because it leads to critical thinking and dissent
* A political system can only be stable if it is united against an external threat, and that if no real threat exists, one should be manufactured."
For more read Heinberg's "Powerdown" starting on page 68. Strauss taught Paul Wolfowitz, and second generation students are: Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas, Irving Kristol, William Bennet, John Ashcroft, and Michael Ledeeen of the American Enterprise Institute, and who also advises Karl Rove.
Our political-religious leaders in the White House and the State House will do all they can to make variations of their heresy of "Christian Dominionism" bankrupt us for War spending, while presenting the idea that "there is no money" for peaceful research for, say, PRT. How many fighter jets would pay for one PRT working research project in Minneapolis-- anyone out there know? We should tell our Senators to cut that number of fighter jets or nuclear bomb projects, and divert the money to PRT research to create jobs and to create a peaceful, sustainable project to be integrated -- profitably, sustainably -- into urban design around the world.
More later, but perhaps this gets the idea across. We alleged "grown ups" are pissing away what precious little time we have on political nonsense, while marching as fast as possible into catastrophe for us and our children. Our current political paradigm is a good way to create Hell on earth, and real fast, too. Perhaps we might reconsider?
-- pedaling off to work, riding into a world of peace and ecojustice, which is still possible.... from Lynnhurst, for now -- Gary Hoover
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
