The Atlantic is a somewhat highbrow monthly that is decidedly establishment in its point of view. I mention that only because the latest edition (March 2008) contains a couple of startling pieces touching on transportation issues of the future. Both suggest the limits of urban sprawl may be upon us.
The mass movement into suburbs over the past half century was made possible by the rapid construction of freeway systems heavily subsidized by the Federal government. This was an unforeseen consequence of the Interstate Highway program which was conceived as a means of quickly moving commerce about the country. The system is perhaps the fondest achievement of the Eisenhower administration. Ike was so impressed by the German autobahns during the World War II campaign there that he brought the idea home. As a booster to commerce and the economy the Interstate Highway program was a smashing success and the enabling of suburban growth was long seen as a side benefit. Today, however, fierce opposition to expanding commute highways have converted them into bottlenecks not only to commuters but to the flow of commerce originally envisioned. One of the Atlantic articles cites an academic study which quantifies the economic loss wrought by highways, mainly in urban areas, which are operating at volumes above capacity. This is reported to be nearly $50 billion annually.
Another article reports on how the rising costs, both in money and time, of commuting by automobile as well as the sterile environment of many suburban places have driven a rebirth of urban living. It goes on to predict that some of the suburban developments of recent years featuring large homes on large lots are already beginning to resemble urban slums with an excess of vacant buildings and an increase in crime. It foresees a future where suburbia will be the home of crime and poverty, a 180-degree change from recent history. For myself, the peaceful middle class suburb where I grew up has already made this conversion with plenty of vacant buildings and a general sense of menace in public spaces.
In today's global economy the United States is competing with Europe, the Pacific Rim, China, and, increasingly India. All of these places are well ahead of us in building diverse transportation systems designed to move both commerce and people efficiently. In general, this means a separation of the two. Travel to London, Shanghai, Tokyo. or even Mexico City and your trip from the airport to the commercial district will be rapid and relatively stress free. Compare that to arrival at Kennedy or LAX. The difference is that in America you are competing for travel room in heavy traffic.
The time is coming where we will have to change our relationship with the automobile. We're not going to be able to afford them sooner than we all think. But, of course, we are not making any rational or even different plans. Let's hope we don't wait too long.
We should get behind ideas like hefty penalties for driving into certain congested areas, development of high speed electric train systems both local and regional, and separations of commercial and individual traffic. But we have done little of this. In California proposals have been made to address each of these areas and have died in a storm of protest from the keepers of the status quo. We are very much like addicts who realize that we should cease our behavior but haven't the fortitude to do so.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Not Infrastructure
Try as I might I find myself unable to ignore the Presidential election campaigns now running at full speed. After seven plus years of the worst President in my lifetime (stretching back to Roosevelt), there is a feeling that this particular election is very important.
As a consequence of the younger Bush's administration and the knee jerk Republican Party, the prestige of the United States is at a low ebb, our economy is in serious jeopardy, our multiplying enemies are emboldened, and our people are fixated on the personal foibles of witless celebrities. This last is important because many many of our people don't care about the rest of the world, think they'll win the lottery soon, and believe we can and should smash our enemies, widely viewed as the females and non-whites of the world, any time. Meanwhile they're off to Wal-Mart or checking out the latest with Brittany.
Right now the presumptive Republican candidate is Senator John McCain of Arizona who is running on the notion that he was one of the few Republicans who occasionally opposed Bush and that he was a Prisoner of War for some five or six years during the Viet Nam war, which we are encouraged to think noble of him. In fact he is a conventional Republican, very closely attuned to the corporate agenda including lower taxes, particularly for the well-off and the corporations, strong doses of imperialism, free trade when it suits his corporate friends' needs, and reduction of government services so government policing can be increased. He will pay lip service to the so-called conservative social agenda which means opposition to any significant change in the patriarchal status quo. One senses that he's pretty indifferent to the latter, however.
McCain can be counted on to appoint judges who are not interested in protecting individual rights, to cut taxes for the well-off, and, by the way, to continue and expand our imperial incursions into the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere. I believe he will run on pretty much the Bush agenda but promise competent management of it. He will likely jettison some of its more ludicrous aspects such as the environmental degradation and stifling of scientific inquiry the Bushies are so fatuously proud of. But he will run against Bush, not his program.
The Democrats on the other hand have reached an interesting point in their history and, I would suggest, will likely die as a national party if they don't win this one. First off, their nominee will almost certainly be either a woman or a black man, two categories of individuals thought impossible to elect a short generation ago. Both will start off with a sizable number of people who will vote against them strictly on the basis of their gender or racial identity. That's a good reason to think they'll lose in November right there.
But the two are engaged in an extremely close chase to the nomination, closest since Kennedy/Johnson in 1960, that feature what we might call the old party and, just maybe, the new. The old is represented by Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the woman. Her claim to fame is being the wife of Bill Clinton, the President immediately prior to Bush the younger. She has also been in the Senate since 2000 where she has pretty much established herself as a separate entity from her husband. Even so, if elected she will probably be a lot like Bill, triangulating on key issues, moving cautiously into new initiatives. She will appoint safe judges and play the imperialism cautiously. Corporations do not fear her.
The new is represented by Seator Barack Obama of Illinois. His father was a black African, his mother a white from Kansas. He has established himself as a charismatic speaker during a meteoric career which includes a lot of high achievement both inside and outside of politics. How he would govern is not clearly predictable due to limited experience in Washington. His campaign has been long on ideals and short on particulars. He has promised an end to divisiveness and the old class warfare rhetoric. His followers (full disclosure - he's my choice) are very enthusiastic over his intelligence and charisma. He has built a staff that has proven quite capable.
Who ends up with the Democratic nomination is truly anyone's guess at this point. It is entirely possible that the decision will not be made until the convention, so a compromise or brokered candidate is also possible, although unlikely. It's odd because you'd think the Republicans would be in total disarray given the Bush disaster, but they're looking good right now. So the question becomes, will we miss the national Democratic party? And can we survive four more years of a Republican President?
As a consequence of the younger Bush's administration and the knee jerk Republican Party, the prestige of the United States is at a low ebb, our economy is in serious jeopardy, our multiplying enemies are emboldened, and our people are fixated on the personal foibles of witless celebrities. This last is important because many many of our people don't care about the rest of the world, think they'll win the lottery soon, and believe we can and should smash our enemies, widely viewed as the females and non-whites of the world, any time. Meanwhile they're off to Wal-Mart or checking out the latest with Brittany.
Right now the presumptive Republican candidate is Senator John McCain of Arizona who is running on the notion that he was one of the few Republicans who occasionally opposed Bush and that he was a Prisoner of War for some five or six years during the Viet Nam war, which we are encouraged to think noble of him. In fact he is a conventional Republican, very closely attuned to the corporate agenda including lower taxes, particularly for the well-off and the corporations, strong doses of imperialism, free trade when it suits his corporate friends' needs, and reduction of government services so government policing can be increased. He will pay lip service to the so-called conservative social agenda which means opposition to any significant change in the patriarchal status quo. One senses that he's pretty indifferent to the latter, however.
McCain can be counted on to appoint judges who are not interested in protecting individual rights, to cut taxes for the well-off, and, by the way, to continue and expand our imperial incursions into the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere. I believe he will run on pretty much the Bush agenda but promise competent management of it. He will likely jettison some of its more ludicrous aspects such as the environmental degradation and stifling of scientific inquiry the Bushies are so fatuously proud of. But he will run against Bush, not his program.
The Democrats on the other hand have reached an interesting point in their history and, I would suggest, will likely die as a national party if they don't win this one. First off, their nominee will almost certainly be either a woman or a black man, two categories of individuals thought impossible to elect a short generation ago. Both will start off with a sizable number of people who will vote against them strictly on the basis of their gender or racial identity. That's a good reason to think they'll lose in November right there.
But the two are engaged in an extremely close chase to the nomination, closest since Kennedy/Johnson in 1960, that feature what we might call the old party and, just maybe, the new. The old is represented by Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the woman. Her claim to fame is being the wife of Bill Clinton, the President immediately prior to Bush the younger. She has also been in the Senate since 2000 where she has pretty much established herself as a separate entity from her husband. Even so, if elected she will probably be a lot like Bill, triangulating on key issues, moving cautiously into new initiatives. She will appoint safe judges and play the imperialism cautiously. Corporations do not fear her.
The new is represented by Seator Barack Obama of Illinois. His father was a black African, his mother a white from Kansas. He has established himself as a charismatic speaker during a meteoric career which includes a lot of high achievement both inside and outside of politics. How he would govern is not clearly predictable due to limited experience in Washington. His campaign has been long on ideals and short on particulars. He has promised an end to divisiveness and the old class warfare rhetoric. His followers (full disclosure - he's my choice) are very enthusiastic over his intelligence and charisma. He has built a staff that has proven quite capable.
Who ends up with the Democratic nomination is truly anyone's guess at this point. It is entirely possible that the decision will not be made until the convention, so a compromise or brokered candidate is also possible, although unlikely. It's odd because you'd think the Republicans would be in total disarray given the Bush disaster, but they're looking good right now. So the question becomes, will we miss the national Democratic party? And can we survive four more years of a Republican President?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Something Happening Here?
The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is thinking about running for President this year as an independent. Like every candidate does these days, he's going through the "exploratory" phase of his campaign meaning that he's trying to figure out if he has any chance to win. I don't think he'll run unless he feels like he's got a reasonable chance to win. This differentiates him from the last two, rather notorious,independent candidates, Poss Perot and Ralph Nader. Both of those guys had huge egos that needed massaging and both of them, inter alia, assured victory for the candidate who would have likely not won if they had stayed home, Clinton in 1992 and W Bush in 2000. Neither Perot or Nader had any chance of actually winning their election and, unless one or both of them are unusually delusional, a possibility too grim to contemplate, they knew it.
Bloomberg is different though. First off he's got more money by far than all the Republican and Democratic candidates combined and second of all he actually has some experience as an elected government official, to wit Mayor of New York. Of note is the fact that his regime has won plaudits from a broad spectrum of political commentators. His approach is to identify problems and apply practical solutions to them with little regard to whose political ox gets gored. From him you hear very little rhetoric about supposed social ills. He carries almost no political baggage. He seems to have a knack for understanding the problems of a lot of people, not just those of his class, or those belonging to groups that have supported his election. In other words we may be looking at a genuine breath of fresh air here.
He recently gave a de facto campaign speech wherein he criticized the Federal government's neglect of infrastructure over the past several decades, pointing out very effectively how our decaying infrastructure is already taking a toll on the economy that can only get worse if the neglect continues. He's right of course. We don't seem to fully appreciate the value of good infrastructure and instead squander our money on some pretty silly pork barrel project which are designed more to reward political contributors than serve us well.
In the 1950s we started the Interstate Highway Program and in the 1970s the Clean Water Program. Both were remarkably successful. But the infrastructure we built with these programs will not last forever and needs attention right now. Right now our airports are badly overcrowded, our rail system a relic in near ruins, and our ports falling behind. The need has become urgent. Go Bloomberg!
Bloomberg is different though. First off he's got more money by far than all the Republican and Democratic candidates combined and second of all he actually has some experience as an elected government official, to wit Mayor of New York. Of note is the fact that his regime has won plaudits from a broad spectrum of political commentators. His approach is to identify problems and apply practical solutions to them with little regard to whose political ox gets gored. From him you hear very little rhetoric about supposed social ills. He carries almost no political baggage. He seems to have a knack for understanding the problems of a lot of people, not just those of his class, or those belonging to groups that have supported his election. In other words we may be looking at a genuine breath of fresh air here.
He recently gave a de facto campaign speech wherein he criticized the Federal government's neglect of infrastructure over the past several decades, pointing out very effectively how our decaying infrastructure is already taking a toll on the economy that can only get worse if the neglect continues. He's right of course. We don't seem to fully appreciate the value of good infrastructure and instead squander our money on some pretty silly pork barrel project which are designed more to reward political contributors than serve us well.
In the 1950s we started the Interstate Highway Program and in the 1970s the Clean Water Program. Both were remarkably successful. But the infrastructure we built with these programs will not last forever and needs attention right now. Right now our airports are badly overcrowded, our rail system a relic in near ruins, and our ports falling behind. The need has become urgent. Go Bloomberg!
Monday, October 29, 2007
California Water
Looks like Arnold, the Chamber of Commerce yahoos, and the building trades unions are teaming up to push the peripheral canal and a spate of new dams. This is in wake of the first low rainfall winter in the past ten years. For the purposes of their campaign this is referred to as a drought.
It isn't any such thing of course, it's simply a below average rainy season, but there are clearly some powerful interests that would like to leverage it into more cheap water for agriculture, another quarter century of suburban sprawl, and a bunch of high paying union jobs.
A short history lesson here, the peripheral canal was to be built around the Bay in order to convey high quality water from the California Water Project to the southern part of the state. As it sits now, that water goes into the Bay to replace water of lower quality pumped out for shipment south. The canal is actually a good idea in terms of providing higher quality water for the masses who take it into their bodies. It was on the ballot in the 70s and was expected to routinely pass as a fairly non-controversial item. But, in fact, the nascent environmental movement was able to convince people like me that it was actually a water grab. Nothing surer to arouse a Northern Californian than the idea that the south will steal our water again. Bottom line was 5% approval in the Bay Area and the project was rejected. It must be said that the environmentalists' campaign was very misleading.
But now it's back and Arnold is burning political capital pushing it. It's the other part of the campaign, the push for more dams and an expansion of water storage that's the real interest here. The C of C types and the unions are predictably in favor for reasons not entirely altruistic but the ones who stand to benefit the most are the corporate agricultural interests who are the ones getting squeezed by the increasing demand for an essentially fixed supply of water. It's fascinating to watch this industry at work politically. They are almost exclusively Republican and mouth all the rhetoric of free market wonders. Now that the free market is running them out of business, however, they are crying for massive government intervention.
Such frauds the Republicans can be.
This is somewhat of a watershed event, if they don't sell this slightly tainted bill of goods to the voters, you will probably see the end of the California agriculture industry within 50 years. And this is why I oppose this measure, corporate agriculture should die here, it's wasteful and outmoded. The Southwestern states and Mexico are already taking the lead as it should be. Corporate agriculture can longer afford the land and, absent the short term reprieve, the water to continue.
It isn't any such thing of course, it's simply a below average rainy season, but there are clearly some powerful interests that would like to leverage it into more cheap water for agriculture, another quarter century of suburban sprawl, and a bunch of high paying union jobs.
A short history lesson here, the peripheral canal was to be built around the Bay in order to convey high quality water from the California Water Project to the southern part of the state. As it sits now, that water goes into the Bay to replace water of lower quality pumped out for shipment south. The canal is actually a good idea in terms of providing higher quality water for the masses who take it into their bodies. It was on the ballot in the 70s and was expected to routinely pass as a fairly non-controversial item. But, in fact, the nascent environmental movement was able to convince people like me that it was actually a water grab. Nothing surer to arouse a Northern Californian than the idea that the south will steal our water again. Bottom line was 5% approval in the Bay Area and the project was rejected. It must be said that the environmentalists' campaign was very misleading.
But now it's back and Arnold is burning political capital pushing it. It's the other part of the campaign, the push for more dams and an expansion of water storage that's the real interest here. The C of C types and the unions are predictably in favor for reasons not entirely altruistic but the ones who stand to benefit the most are the corporate agricultural interests who are the ones getting squeezed by the increasing demand for an essentially fixed supply of water. It's fascinating to watch this industry at work politically. They are almost exclusively Republican and mouth all the rhetoric of free market wonders. Now that the free market is running them out of business, however, they are crying for massive government intervention.
Such frauds the Republicans can be.
This is somewhat of a watershed event, if they don't sell this slightly tainted bill of goods to the voters, you will probably see the end of the California agriculture industry within 50 years. And this is why I oppose this measure, corporate agriculture should die here, it's wasteful and outmoded. The Southwestern states and Mexico are already taking the lead as it should be. Corporate agriculture can longer afford the land and, absent the short term reprieve, the water to continue.
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Big Figleaf
One of the better underreported infrastructure stories in recent years is the construction of the freeway tunnel in Boston, Massachusetts, commonly referred to as "The Big Dig". There has been much news about the death of a woman last year due to a sudden and catastrophic failure of a bolt holding up a concrete ceiling slab, but little of the culture that led to this event.
This is a potentially huge story that could bring about fundamental changes in the way large Engineering projects get built. This project of massive scope has been so poorly managed that the Program Managers, a consortium of Bechtel and Parsons-Brinkerhoff appear to be willing to spend "somewhere north of $300 million to settle all disputes and avoid litigation.
Let's deconstruct that for a moment. The total project cost was to date is just short of $12 billion. Aside: this is a couple of orders of magnitude above its original estimate. On budget not. A program manager should cost no more than 5% of project cost. However the oligarchs have done an excellent job of getting more than that in recent years so, just for laughs let's say they were paid 10%, I have no idea what the real number is. Ten percent of a lot of money is a lot of money, in this case about $1.2 billion. Getting a 10% profit on program manager contracts is tantamount to highway robbery, given how low the risk is, but it's also the high end of the norm. So Bechtel and P-B may have seen a profit of over $100 million. That's probably best case speculation. So they are willing to give all their profits at least twice over to avoid the publicity that would come from a full on trial. And, incidentally, this does not include any amount they are paying to buy off the family of the woman who was killed.
My.
So we can be pretty sure that there's much they just as soon wouldn't want aired. The information I have received over the years regarding the Big Dig, the "word on the street" as it were, said that the project was built with little regard for the quality of the work or the cost. Everything had to be done as quickly as possible so that a thin fiction of staying on schedule could be maintained. Other scuttlebutt includes plenty of work sub-contracted to incompetents based on their political connections or relations with executives at Bechtel or P-B. I really have no way of "knowing" that this is the case in a strict legal sense, but from my years of experience I'd bet a lot on it being so. Program managers, particularly the big firms, are little more than public relations firms, their employees are scolded at every turn to be "team players" meaning they are not to question things.
A typical person running a program managers' operations will be short on engineering skills but long on his ability to abuse employees and charm politicians. So keep an eye on the proceedings at the Big Dig. See how much they pay to keep their pefidity hidden.
This is a potentially huge story that could bring about fundamental changes in the way large Engineering projects get built. This project of massive scope has been so poorly managed that the Program Managers, a consortium of Bechtel and Parsons-Brinkerhoff appear to be willing to spend "somewhere north of $300 million to settle all disputes and avoid litigation.
Let's deconstruct that for a moment. The total project cost was to date is just short of $12 billion. Aside: this is a couple of orders of magnitude above its original estimate. On budget not. A program manager should cost no more than 5% of project cost. However the oligarchs have done an excellent job of getting more than that in recent years so, just for laughs let's say they were paid 10%, I have no idea what the real number is. Ten percent of a lot of money is a lot of money, in this case about $1.2 billion. Getting a 10% profit on program manager contracts is tantamount to highway robbery, given how low the risk is, but it's also the high end of the norm. So Bechtel and P-B may have seen a profit of over $100 million. That's probably best case speculation. So they are willing to give all their profits at least twice over to avoid the publicity that would come from a full on trial. And, incidentally, this does not include any amount they are paying to buy off the family of the woman who was killed.
My.
So we can be pretty sure that there's much they just as soon wouldn't want aired. The information I have received over the years regarding the Big Dig, the "word on the street" as it were, said that the project was built with little regard for the quality of the work or the cost. Everything had to be done as quickly as possible so that a thin fiction of staying on schedule could be maintained. Other scuttlebutt includes plenty of work sub-contracted to incompetents based on their political connections or relations with executives at Bechtel or P-B. I really have no way of "knowing" that this is the case in a strict legal sense, but from my years of experience I'd bet a lot on it being so. Program managers, particularly the big firms, are little more than public relations firms, their employees are scolded at every turn to be "team players" meaning they are not to question things.
A typical person running a program managers' operations will be short on engineering skills but long on his ability to abuse employees and charm politicians. So keep an eye on the proceedings at the Big Dig. See how much they pay to keep their pefidity hidden.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Contracts
There's been some stir lately about how contracting for Engineering services in government agencies is being abused. I don't think abused is the right concept. What's really happened is that the people involved have developed a well oiled system that maximizes profits while minimizing risk. I'd call it a conspiracy, emphasis on piracy.
Agencies and consultants will both insist that contracts are procured competitively. But it's not really competition, it's a beauty show. Well trained and rehearsed marketeers strive to convince agency people, government workers in the main, that they should be hired for a particular project. They dissemble, usually with a flashy power point program and sleek graphics, about their experience, dedication, and abilities. Sometimes they even lie. What always amuses me is how similar these presentations are. There's really nothing of substance on which to make a decision, so the race usually goes to the best theatrical show.
After the big decision is made, the marketeers generally are replaced by the financial types. Remember this: cost is not a factor in determining who gets selected. A selection is made and then the cost is negotiated. This racket still is protected by law in many states. The rationale is that the services are so specialized that there is only one firm who is best qualified to do the work. Price competition gives the managers heartburn. Contracts are usually negotiated on a cost reimbursement basis, in other words any costs incurred by the consultant must be reimbursed. These include all overhead costs. Consultants prefer to negotiate billing rates for their workers, thereby keeping their true costs hidden. A contract negotiated between a skilled consultant and a uninformed government employee can yield profits as high as 25%. Other times actual, verifiable cost plus a fee, another word for profit, are what is paid. The consultant is virtually assured a profit no matter how well or poorly he performs.
And it gets worse. I many cases consultant has a positive incentive to run up costs, particularly if billing rates are used. Since each unit billed increases profits, the more units, the more profit. Items purchased by the consultant are often also marked up for no reason other than to increase profits.
This is a lucrative business. Is it any wonder that Haliburton moved into this from riskier oil exploration?
Finally the actual contract itself generally shields the consultant from liability for all except the most egregious mistakes. Frequently, negligence is the measure that trips liability. Just know this: among the three large engineering firms active in Iraq, Haliburton, Bechtel, and Parsons, over $20 billion was billed to the U.S. government and precious little was actually built. Of that amount, at least a billion, and probably a lot more was pure profit. In previous wars, profiteering on this scale was considered treasonous and dealt with accordingly. This has not been the case under this administration in this war.
Agencies and consultants will both insist that contracts are procured competitively. But it's not really competition, it's a beauty show. Well trained and rehearsed marketeers strive to convince agency people, government workers in the main, that they should be hired for a particular project. They dissemble, usually with a flashy power point program and sleek graphics, about their experience, dedication, and abilities. Sometimes they even lie. What always amuses me is how similar these presentations are. There's really nothing of substance on which to make a decision, so the race usually goes to the best theatrical show.
After the big decision is made, the marketeers generally are replaced by the financial types. Remember this: cost is not a factor in determining who gets selected. A selection is made and then the cost is negotiated. This racket still is protected by law in many states. The rationale is that the services are so specialized that there is only one firm who is best qualified to do the work. Price competition gives the managers heartburn. Contracts are usually negotiated on a cost reimbursement basis, in other words any costs incurred by the consultant must be reimbursed. These include all overhead costs. Consultants prefer to negotiate billing rates for their workers, thereby keeping their true costs hidden. A contract negotiated between a skilled consultant and a uninformed government employee can yield profits as high as 25%. Other times actual, verifiable cost plus a fee, another word for profit, are what is paid. The consultant is virtually assured a profit no matter how well or poorly he performs.
And it gets worse. I many cases consultant has a positive incentive to run up costs, particularly if billing rates are used. Since each unit billed increases profits, the more units, the more profit. Items purchased by the consultant are often also marked up for no reason other than to increase profits.
This is a lucrative business. Is it any wonder that Haliburton moved into this from riskier oil exploration?
Finally the actual contract itself generally shields the consultant from liability for all except the most egregious mistakes. Frequently, negligence is the measure that trips liability. Just know this: among the three large engineering firms active in Iraq, Haliburton, Bechtel, and Parsons, over $20 billion was billed to the U.S. government and precious little was actually built. Of that amount, at least a billion, and probably a lot more was pure profit. In previous wars, profiteering on this scale was considered treasonous and dealt with accordingly. This has not been the case under this administration in this war.
Air Travel
It's now official. A story running in all the mainstream media outlets reports how air traffic delays are at an all time high. Don't you just love it when they report something that most people already know?
One wonders when the other shoe will fall. One thing that apparently is going to happen is they are going to a new air traffic control system. I suspect this is what's behind all the new found mainstream attention. Of all the fears associated with flying, the fear of dying in a crash has to be number one. New air traffic system? You can count on some published reports on how it will compromise safety and so forth. Thus a preemptive strike explaining how it will eliminate or a least reduce delays.
I don't really think the new system will compromise safety at all. Look at the way air traffic dropped after 9/11 and you will understand that the industry most certainly does not want any air crashes tied to it. So the new system (tied to GPS will likely deliver on what is advertised and help cut delays.
But they will come back. Air travel pretty much has a monopoly on public transit these days and it will only increase as the population does. My perception is that the delay problem is worse in Europe, even with a functioning rail network, largely because population is much more concentrated there. Why then do we not put resources into developing a rail network here?
One wonders when the other shoe will fall. One thing that apparently is going to happen is they are going to a new air traffic control system. I suspect this is what's behind all the new found mainstream attention. Of all the fears associated with flying, the fear of dying in a crash has to be number one. New air traffic system? You can count on some published reports on how it will compromise safety and so forth. Thus a preemptive strike explaining how it will eliminate or a least reduce delays.
I don't really think the new system will compromise safety at all. Look at the way air traffic dropped after 9/11 and you will understand that the industry most certainly does not want any air crashes tied to it. So the new system (tied to GPS will likely deliver on what is advertised and help cut delays.
But they will come back. Air travel pretty much has a monopoly on public transit these days and it will only increase as the population does. My perception is that the delay problem is worse in Europe, even with a functioning rail network, largely because population is much more concentrated there. Why then do we not put resources into developing a rail network here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
