http://disqus.com/by/bdiscoe/enMon, 23 Feb 2009 21:15:54 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/4939#comment-6536888<p>Actually - if you were educated and had been to places like Europe or Japan you might know - nearly everyone _can_ use bicycles _except_ the truckers. Commercial trucks are among the only vehicles that made sense to be on the roads. The rest of US traffic is personal cars that are the result of poorly-designed cities, poorly-designed transit, or poor personal choices. With better critical bicycle infrastructure, we move incrementally away from the personal-car scenario with all its problems.</p>bdiscoeMon, 23 Feb 2009 21:15:54 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/9663#comment-6536675<p>Actually, Kiss, i agree with you completely. Airports and freeways ARE both objectively not a part of our future. You don't need to deliberately close the freeways (they can support the transition to a sustainable future by continuing to carry road traffic for as long as it is viable) but you certainly don't need to build any MORE of them, as motorized vehicle traffic continues to shrink. You might forsee the post-peak world as Dark, but there are some silver linings, as long as it looks less like Mad Max, and more like the Amish. Since collapse is inevitable, why not be optimistic about the best parts to come. As long as we invest in a smooth transition. Airports are not part of that.</p>bdiscoeMon, 23 Feb 2009 21:03:27 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/7925#comment-6441204<p>10 million buys a lot of gas: That's EXACTLY the point. It's critical that we do NOT spend that money on gas - which would be basically throwing the money away, draining our economy by sending it overseas. Instead, spend the money on American jobs to create long-term infrastructure that further reduces our oil dependency, which helps all the families and businesses you mention.</p>bdiscoeFri, 20 Feb 2009 16:36:31 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/7925#comment-6441084<p>That's really obvious. Where do you think 10 million on trail construction goes? Hiring people: jobs, economy. And even beyond the immediate stimulus, the existence of a bikeway supports less driving, which means less gas bought, less oil imported, less American money leaving the country. This is really painfully obvious, but apparently not to the people voting against it.</p>bdiscoeFri, 20 Feb 2009 16:33:40 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/9101#comment-6303638<p>Q: What's more environmentally clueless than an airport?<br>A: A parking lot expansion AT an airport.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:15:41 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/1953#comment-6303630<p>A small town of population 10,000. Airport - why?</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:14:32 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/4289#comment-6303620<p>You have got to be kidding. The airport, the city, the travelers, the rental car companies - ANYONE else paying for this would make more sense than the federal government.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:12:40 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/4290#comment-6303608<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:11:12 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/10332#comment-6303601<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:10:10 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/3571#comment-6303569<p>As an environmentalist, i might like a solar array ... but at an airport? Airports are evil.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:05:12 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/13077#comment-6303533<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:43 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/12111#comment-6303527<p>Wow, that much money for an EA? I'll save you $368,421 and point out that there is NOTHING environmentally acceptable about airports - not the planes, the emissions, the jet fuel, the parking lots, the freeways that lead to them, nothing. I've saved you money. You're welcome.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 07:00:09 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/10896#comment-6303502<p>Carbon emission targets, rising costs and a shrinking economy are reducing air travel. Why on earth would taxpayer money be spent on _adding_ capacity?</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:57:00 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/7474#comment-6303487<p>Don't worry, it'll get quieter as carbon emission targets, rising costs and a shrinking economy reduce air travel.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:54:26 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/15809#comment-6303477<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:52:33 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/9661#comment-6303463<p>56 million dollars for a _fence_? for an airport that already has a fence?</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:49:53 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/11207#comment-6303454<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:48:18 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/7476#comment-6303443<p>Don't worry, it'll get quieter as carbon emission targets, rising costs and a shrinking economy reduce air travel.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:47:20 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/9597#comment-6303432<p>Solar panels _might_ have some environmental benefit ... if this wasn't for a PARKING LOT ... at an AIRPORT. That blows it.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:45:50 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/9662#comment-6303420<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:43:19 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/9663#comment-6303418<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:43:00 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/9665#comment-6303413<p>Airports are not environmentally sustainable, and air travel is (thankfully) already shrinking because of the economy. Not one penny of tax money for airports!</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:42:32 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/13079#comment-6303397<p>Q: What's environmentally worse and dumber than an airport?<br>A: A huge parking garage AT an airport.</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:40:15 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/14256#comment-6303374<p>28 million dollars for a small amount of road maintenance on some minor airport roads?</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:36:31 -0000http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/14248#comment-6303366<p>That's gotta be a typo. 200 million dollars for a single train connection?</p>bdiscoeMon, 16 Feb 2009 06:35:27 -0000