Anyway, he said that it took him 3 hours to return from Chicago . . . once. An hour longer than normal. Then claimed you'd make better time on a bike.
OK. I know crankers can travel at speeds of 30mph. But, his assertion would work only if a cyclist could maintain that speed for the entire journey. They can't. While there are back roads that provide long stretches of road to go fast on, the truth is, a person on a bike would have to deal with city streets. Assuming they're law abiding, they would be slowed by lights, signs, and traffic.
But, that's not really the point of this post. Kane uses his experience to preface the need for light rail. But he says something that defines and has defined him for many years:
In Milwaukee, the anti-light rail crowd often seems more intent on limiting, rather than expanding, the ability of inner-city residents to find jobs.
To be honest, this pisses me off . . . bad. How dare he blatantly categorize the anti-rail crowd. My opposition to light rail has never, NEVER had anything to do with inner-city residents in any fashion whatsoever. Could it be that:
I oppose light rail because I don't want to see tax dollars going to subsidize transportation that about 1% of the population will use?
I oppose light rail because the basic premise of wanting it is flawed? That it won't stop "urban sprawl"? That it won't get people out of their cars?
I oppose light rail because it will increase congestion rather than decrease it?
I oppose light rail because we've just learned that it could lead to more congestion therefore higher emissions?
What a f*ckin' bigot. I'm sorry. But, his reasoning is so far out there it's beyond laughable. It's insulting.
The whole stupid article.