The west seattle blog has an article about the water taxi to west seattle. It discusses some issues regarding funding and the creation of a King County Ferry district, which apparently includes a possible UW-Kirkland route. Hell yeah!
When I was in Sydney, one of the best aspects of their public transportation system was that it was either on rails (trains) or on water (ferries). The ferries ran everywhere, because the water was everywhere. Seattle's very similar, but doesn't actually have all that many ferries. Plus none of the Sydney ferries carried cars.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Aggregation
Right now there are many services out there which aggregate votes for web pages, and place the highest-voted pages on a nice list. Digg originated this model (or at least made it popular) but Slashdot's firehose is the same thing, really. A lot of websites now place little icons you can click on to vote or share each of their articles, like this article about bad computers from PC World. Notice that PC World has icons for Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, and Newsvine. What about all the other social media sites out there? (Reddit, simpy, the list just goes on and on.) If they were to add an icon for all the competitors for these sites, they wouldn't have any room left for the article itself.
I think what is needed is an aggregation service, where you click a single icon on the article which posts your vote to the aggregation service, which in turn knows who you are and what social media sites you subscribe to, and relays your vote to them. This way content publishers do not have to keep up with the latest social media sites. The readers don't have to click six links to add or vote for the content on the six sites they use. The only losers are the established social media sites such as Digg who already have such a big market share that content publishers who want to link to only a few social media sites will link to Digg before they link to one of Digg's less popular competitors.
I think what is needed is an aggregation service, where you click a single icon on the article which posts your vote to the aggregation service, which in turn knows who you are and what social media sites you subscribe to, and relays your vote to them. This way content publishers do not have to keep up with the latest social media sites. The readers don't have to click six links to add or vote for the content on the six sites they use. The only losers are the established social media sites such as Digg who already have such a big market share that content publishers who want to link to only a few social media sites will link to Digg before they link to one of Digg's less popular competitors.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Digital Rights Management
Digital Rights Management, or DRM for short, is just a fancy way of limiting what you can do with media like music or movies in digital form. The general idea is that copyright law doesn't allow you to share music with your friends. So if I download a song, I can't give you a copy. It wasn't ever legal for me to give you a copy, but back in the days of cassette tapes, it was pretty easy for me to buy a blank tape and stick it in my dual-deck boombox, and make a copy. Some boomboxes even had a high-speed copy mode so that you could make copies faster. Even though this wasn't legal, it was really hard to enforce, so what the music industry did is it went to congress and got itself a tax placed on every blank media (think: cassette tape, vhs tape, blank CD) which went to the industry, to help "offset" the losses in music and media sales from copying.
Today, however, even though that tax still exists, with digital media DRM comes into play. Basically the content is encrypted, and when you buy a copy, your computer gets a license to play it, which is really a decryption key for the content. It's specific to your computer or your iPod, so if you share it with another person, their computer or iPod can't play it. There are many different types of encryption so there are many different types of DRM. Microsoft has one called Plays4Sure, which ironically doesn't work on the Zune. Apple calls theirs FairPlay and that's what iPod and iTunes use.
Of course, because your iPod knows how to decrypt the music, some smart people have broken pretty much every DRM scheme that there is. But to prevent this, the media industry went to congress in 2000 and passed the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) which says that if someone tries to put DRM on their content, it's illegal for you to try and break it (it's also illegal for you to break it). One of the many problems with the DMCA is that it doesn't have any sort of strength threshold for the DRM being used. So if I use an "encryption" scheme of flipping the first bit of each media file, unflipping that bit is just as illegal as cracking a state-of-the-art RSA encryption scheme. So just because some DRM is very weak and easy to break, it's still illegal to break it.
Another problem is that copyright law allows you, once you have bought some content, to make a copy of it as long as you don't share it. The idea behind this is that you might lose your CD, but you already paid for it, so you should be allowed to have a backup copy. Copyright law also allows you to take an excerpt of that CD and play it on your talk show as part of a review of that CD -- as long as your excerpt is not a significant chunk of the CD. Most DRM doesn't let you do this (though some companies, like Apple, will allow you to copy your music on up to N devices. In apple's case, you can authorize 5 computers if I am not mistaken).
The biggest problem behind DRM isn't that my iPod can't play your Zune songs, and your Zune can't play mine. It's that my iPod can't play the songs I bought from Rhapsody, thus buying an mp3 player has locked me into one DRM scheme (so I have to buy from iTunes). Of course, the iPod can play DRM-free music (like just plain mp3s) but if my iPod breaks and I decide I want a Sansa music player instead, I'll have to re-purchase all the songs I already own from Rhapsody, since the Sansa music player doesn't play the iTunes songs.
I think eventually two things will happen. First, although it's illegal, utilities to remove various DRM schemes will become more common and user-friendly, which will allow more users to switch DRM schemes and music players without having to re-purchase all their music. Second, small-time iTunes competitors are already coming out and selling DRM-free songs. As soon as a major record label allows their music to be sold DRM free, the party's over and everyone else will follow suit. It's just too much of a competetive advantage for others not to do so.
Fundamentally DRM will eventually fade out because people want to watch their media on multiple devices, not just the one supported by the store you bought your media from.
Today, however, even though that tax still exists, with digital media DRM comes into play. Basically the content is encrypted, and when you buy a copy, your computer gets a license to play it, which is really a decryption key for the content. It's specific to your computer or your iPod, so if you share it with another person, their computer or iPod can't play it. There are many different types of encryption so there are many different types of DRM. Microsoft has one called Plays4Sure, which ironically doesn't work on the Zune. Apple calls theirs FairPlay and that's what iPod and iTunes use.
Of course, because your iPod knows how to decrypt the music, some smart people have broken pretty much every DRM scheme that there is. But to prevent this, the media industry went to congress in 2000 and passed the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) which says that if someone tries to put DRM on their content, it's illegal for you to try and break it (it's also illegal for you to break it). One of the many problems with the DMCA is that it doesn't have any sort of strength threshold for the DRM being used. So if I use an "encryption" scheme of flipping the first bit of each media file, unflipping that bit is just as illegal as cracking a state-of-the-art RSA encryption scheme. So just because some DRM is very weak and easy to break, it's still illegal to break it.
Another problem is that copyright law allows you, once you have bought some content, to make a copy of it as long as you don't share it. The idea behind this is that you might lose your CD, but you already paid for it, so you should be allowed to have a backup copy. Copyright law also allows you to take an excerpt of that CD and play it on your talk show as part of a review of that CD -- as long as your excerpt is not a significant chunk of the CD. Most DRM doesn't let you do this (though some companies, like Apple, will allow you to copy your music on up to N devices. In apple's case, you can authorize 5 computers if I am not mistaken).
The biggest problem behind DRM isn't that my iPod can't play your Zune songs, and your Zune can't play mine. It's that my iPod can't play the songs I bought from Rhapsody, thus buying an mp3 player has locked me into one DRM scheme (so I have to buy from iTunes). Of course, the iPod can play DRM-free music (like just plain mp3s) but if my iPod breaks and I decide I want a Sansa music player instead, I'll have to re-purchase all the songs I already own from Rhapsody, since the Sansa music player doesn't play the iTunes songs.
I think eventually two things will happen. First, although it's illegal, utilities to remove various DRM schemes will become more common and user-friendly, which will allow more users to switch DRM schemes and music players without having to re-purchase all their music. Second, small-time iTunes competitors are already coming out and selling DRM-free songs. As soon as a major record label allows their music to be sold DRM free, the party's over and everyone else will follow suit. It's just too much of a competetive advantage for others not to do so.
Fundamentally DRM will eventually fade out because people want to watch their media on multiple devices, not just the one supported by the store you bought your media from.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Cost Of Living
Recently I took a weekend ski trip to Whitefish, Montana. Although the skiing was great fun, it's the nightlife I want to talk about. The first night we went to a bar where the drinks were $3 each -- except for fine scotch which was $4. I'm not just talking about cheap beers, but hard liquor too.
The last night we went to happy hour at a bar where you got a free pizza, enough for a meal for two or a good snack for four, when you bought a pitcher of beer for $8. We spent four hours in that bar while waiting for the train, having three or four pitchers of beer, four glasses of scotch, dinner, nachos, darts, foosball, pool and tator tots. All told, we spent $60. In Seattle you could get 6 drinks for that price.
The last night we went to happy hour at a bar where you got a free pizza, enough for a meal for two or a good snack for four, when you bought a pitcher of beer for $8. We spent four hours in that bar while waiting for the train, having three or four pitchers of beer, four glasses of scotch, dinner, nachos, darts, foosball, pool and tator tots. All told, we spent $60. In Seattle you could get 6 drinks for that price.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Gas Prices
Summer is coming soon, and according to CNN, gas prices just spiked two weeks ago by 20 cents per gallon to an average of $2.55. The most expensive gas is $3.10/gallon in San Fransisco, and the cheapest can be found in Anchorage at $2.22/gallon.
I suspect we'll see gas in the $3.50 range in Seattle this summer (it's currently around $2.70), and the media will be full of articles covering how many hybrids are selling and how the big trucks (think: American cars) aren't selling well.
I suspect we'll see gas in the $3.50 range in Seattle this summer (it's currently around $2.70), and the media will be full of articles covering how many hybrids are selling and how the big trucks (think: American cars) aren't selling well.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Chuck Norris of Photography
You have to be a really big photo geek:
- Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
- When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
- Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
- Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
- Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Last Chair
via BackcountryBlog.blogspot.com, I came across this short missive on riding the last chair. Admittedly, I am a patroller, and I can (and do) get last chair quite often, but the real joy is when I'm the closing leader and all the other patrollers head down the mountain to close it down and make sure everyone is off. (The closing leader stays on top where all the gear is, just in case someone injured is found). When the mountain is empty and all the other patrollers are standing around at the bottom waiting for me, having that last run with the entire mountain all to myself is just wonderful.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Fairness
Violent Acres has a very interesting article on lies, but inadvertantly comes across as one of the fairest viewpoints I've read:
The Democrats want me to believe that anyone who doesn’t support government sponsored programs that promote a victim mentality (such as welfare and social security) is a cruel, intolerant, selfish asshole.
The Republicans want me to believe that anyone who is an Atheist possesses no morals and will someday commit a crime.
Voter Turnout
The SeattlePI has this nice visual aid of voter turnout by area:
Compare with Zillow's heatmap:
Notice how the areas with the most money have the most turnout. Is it because of the demographics, or because the richer people have more in taxes at stake? Or because poorer areas don't care as much?
Compare with Zillow's heatmap:
Notice how the areas with the most money have the most turnout. Is it because of the demographics, or because the richer people have more in taxes at stake? Or because poorer areas don't care as much?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Problems with Podcasting
Reading a written article is nice because you can pace yourself. The headline is what draws your interest, but you can quickly glance at random spots in the article to see if it is interesting to you. Skip the material if you don't care at all, skim it if you don't care much, or read carefully if you're really interested.
The problem is that podcasting (both audio and video) has such a nice cachet to it these days that everyone is trying it. I'm not saying it doesn't have its place -- I really enjoy Ze Frank's The Show (sadly over as of 3/17/2007). The problem comes in when a publication you expect to read in text form, say Slate.com, tries to do a podcast as a replacement for a column.
Specifically, I really like their idea of reader-submitted euphanisms for various topics which change monthly, but I don't like their podcast. It's too much of a discussion, and what I really want is a list of the top 25 euphanisms which I can skim through, pick out the gems for myself, and move on with my day.
The problem is that podcasting (both audio and video) has such a nice cachet to it these days that everyone is trying it. I'm not saying it doesn't have its place -- I really enjoy Ze Frank's The Show (sadly over as of 3/17/2007). The problem comes in when a publication you expect to read in text form, say Slate.com, tries to do a podcast as a replacement for a column.
Specifically, I really like their idea of reader-submitted euphanisms for various topics which change monthly, but I don't like their podcast. It's too much of a discussion, and what I really want is a list of the top 25 euphanisms which I can skim through, pick out the gems for myself, and move on with my day.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Microsoft Live
What's wrong with Microsoft's Live initiative?
Hold that thought. Let's skip back a few years to the era of ".net". Do you remember how the next version of Windows (codenamed Longhorn, now officially Vista) was Windows.net? How the office.net website stated how all your documents would live "in the cloud" and be accessible from anywhere? Internally, hundreds of applications were renamed to "application.net".
.net, its annoying name aside, was simply Microsoft's common language runtime, supporting managed C++, C# and "VB.net", or better known as VB6 (maybe VB7?) Yet Microsoft took this name and tried to apply it to hundreds of different products; it became more of an amorphous brand than a concrete name for something. The end result? A lot of confusion.
Let's skip back to the present day. What's "live"? We have Windows Live Search. How is that different from msn search? We have Windows Hotmail Live. How is that different than Windows Hotmail, MSN mail, or just Hotmail? Microsoft has a branding problem.
They didn't have a branding problem when they released Word as a competitor to WordPerfect 5.2, which was the last commercial word processor I used other than Word. The secret? They called the program "Microsoft Word". Corel's name didn't appear anywhere. That's branding.
Unfortunately Microsoft is now so big they feel that branding things "Microsoft" doesn't provide enough differentiation. They want XBox to be their gaming brand. Everyone knows it's still made by Microsoft, but they like it a little better. I used to work in a ski shop, where everything we sold was separated by ski or snowboard. Goggles, sweaters, boots, you name it. Why? Because, supposedly, snowboarders felt more comfortable when they didn't have to look at ski stuff, and skiers could browse their $350 Dale of Norway sweaters without having to glance over $50 hoodies.
Personally, I can see the XBox brand, because it refers to the gaming system and its components. MSN was a fine brand too, for an internet provider. Now that Microsoft is branching out into the traditional "Web 2.0" things, they're looking for a different brand. Unfortunately "Live" is confusing because XBox Live already exists. Another problem is that MSN started morphing from the "ISP" brand into the "Internet" brand that Live is now trying to be with the release of "MSN Search". Finally, Live is being applied to Windows, as in "Windows Live". It's one thing to have a brand, but Microsoft is applying "Live" to everything left and right. Why not just leave it as "Microsoft"? It'll be a heck of a lot less confusing to customers, and a heck of a lot more effective.
Not surprisingly, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Hold that thought. Let's skip back a few years to the era of ".net". Do you remember how the next version of Windows (codenamed Longhorn, now officially Vista) was Windows.net? How the office.net website stated how all your documents would live "in the cloud" and be accessible from anywhere? Internally, hundreds of applications were renamed to "application.net".
.net, its annoying name aside, was simply Microsoft's common language runtime, supporting managed C++, C# and "VB.net", or better known as VB6 (maybe VB7?) Yet Microsoft took this name and tried to apply it to hundreds of different products; it became more of an amorphous brand than a concrete name for something. The end result? A lot of confusion.
Let's skip back to the present day. What's "live"? We have Windows Live Search. How is that different from msn search? We have Windows Hotmail Live. How is that different than Windows Hotmail, MSN mail, or just Hotmail? Microsoft has a branding problem.
They didn't have a branding problem when they released Word as a competitor to WordPerfect 5.2, which was the last commercial word processor I used other than Word. The secret? They called the program "Microsoft Word". Corel's name didn't appear anywhere. That's branding.
Unfortunately Microsoft is now so big they feel that branding things "Microsoft" doesn't provide enough differentiation. They want XBox to be their gaming brand. Everyone knows it's still made by Microsoft, but they like it a little better. I used to work in a ski shop, where everything we sold was separated by ski or snowboard. Goggles, sweaters, boots, you name it. Why? Because, supposedly, snowboarders felt more comfortable when they didn't have to look at ski stuff, and skiers could browse their $350 Dale of Norway sweaters without having to glance over $50 hoodies.
Personally, I can see the XBox brand, because it refers to the gaming system and its components. MSN was a fine brand too, for an internet provider. Now that Microsoft is branching out into the traditional "Web 2.0" things, they're looking for a different brand. Unfortunately "Live" is confusing because XBox Live already exists. Another problem is that MSN started morphing from the "ISP" brand into the "Internet" brand that Live is now trying to be with the release of "MSN Search". Finally, Live is being applied to Windows, as in "Windows Live". It's one thing to have a brand, but Microsoft is applying "Live" to everything left and right. Why not just leave it as "Microsoft"? It'll be a heck of a lot less confusing to customers, and a heck of a lot more effective.
Not surprisingly, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Amazon Web Services
There's an open secret about Amazon Web Services (AWS). Everyone's using it, but not everyone admits it. You can see an official list on Amazon's website, but lots and lots of other companies, especially startups, are using the services.
What is it? A set of small, standalone services which can replace the need for a datacenter. Need some extra CPU cycles? EC2 is your answer. Need more disk space? S3 charges you $.10 to upload a gigabyte, and $.10 per month of storage. Amazon wins because people don't all need 100% CPU all the time, so one box can be shared among many different companies. Startups win because they can have datacenter quality uptime and easy scalability without actually renting a datacenter. That lowers their expenses, and makes them more likely to succeed.
Of course, most of these startups were doomed to failure since before the business plan was written, but for the few that succeed, Amazon is a core part of their infrastructure, and a company doesn't want to stop innovating during growth just to migrate their fully functioning infrastructure, and if a company isn't growing, it doesn't have the money to migrate. So essentially Amazon locks them into AWS.
Most people think Amazon is a store. It is, but there's a lot going on underneath the hood. The stock price, in my opinion, is far too low given what's coming, but I guess most analysts don't really see that yet, since most of the companies using AWS are small startups and don't drive a lot of revenue to Amazon's bottom line.
Of course, Dare Obasanjo writes a conflicted post on AWS. On one hand, he likes the idea of not having to re-invent hosting every time a new startup comes alive, but he expresses concerns about the SLA of AWS which, apparently, is not posted anywhere (and Smugmug has reported some problems, albeit small).
What is it? A set of small, standalone services which can replace the need for a datacenter. Need some extra CPU cycles? EC2 is your answer. Need more disk space? S3 charges you $.10 to upload a gigabyte, and $.10 per month of storage. Amazon wins because people don't all need 100% CPU all the time, so one box can be shared among many different companies. Startups win because they can have datacenter quality uptime and easy scalability without actually renting a datacenter. That lowers their expenses, and makes them more likely to succeed.
Of course, most of these startups were doomed to failure since before the business plan was written, but for the few that succeed, Amazon is a core part of their infrastructure, and a company doesn't want to stop innovating during growth just to migrate their fully functioning infrastructure, and if a company isn't growing, it doesn't have the money to migrate. So essentially Amazon locks them into AWS.
Most people think Amazon is a store. It is, but there's a lot going on underneath the hood. The stock price, in my opinion, is far too low given what's coming, but I guess most analysts don't really see that yet, since most of the companies using AWS are small startups and don't drive a lot of revenue to Amazon's bottom line.
Of course, Dare Obasanjo writes a conflicted post on AWS. On one hand, he likes the idea of not having to re-invent hosting every time a new startup comes alive, but he expresses concerns about the SLA of AWS which, apparently, is not posted anywhere (and Smugmug has reported some problems, albeit small).
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Viaduct Results
Sad as it may be, my predictions hold true with 100% of the precincts counted (with a total of 30% voter turnout):
70% of voters do not want a tunnel.
55% of voters do not want to rebuild the viaduct.
I had said more people don't want a tunnel, and that both options will lose. Woot.
The voters have spoken in this special nonbinding election. They'll speak again at the normal, binding election. Your move, idiot politicians, but tread lightly.
70% of voters do not want a tunnel.
55% of voters do not want to rebuild the viaduct.
I had said more people don't want a tunnel, and that both options will lose. Woot.
The voters have spoken in this special nonbinding election. They'll speak again at the normal, binding election. Your move, idiot politicians, but tread lightly.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Seattle's Viaduct Election
Seattle's viaduct replacement election is coming up this Tuesday. I voted no and hell no, though I'm not sure that was entirely correct. The tunnel is definitely a bad idea. First, tunnels in general are expensive and often overrun the cost. Second, the way the mayor proposes to pay for the tunnel involves residents between Spokane St. and Denny. That's just too narrow. The people who are going to benefit most are the people in West Seattle and in Ballard. I'd be much less opposed to the tunnel if:
1. Finance the tunnel 100% by selling the land on top to developers. We all know that's what will happen eventually anyway, so at least make them pay for it. The land underneath the current viaduct is some of the most potentially expensive land in Seattle. Sell it.
2. Ditch the stupid "is-it-a-shoulder?" shoulders. It's either a lane, an exit ramp, or a shoulder. It shouldn't be all three at different times. That's just going to be a mess. We need a 6 lane tunnel, not a 4 lane tunnel. A four lane tunnel is going to be just like the 520 bridge is. Those of you who commute across it feel my pain.
So, like I said, definitely no on the tunnel. The viaduct proposed is going to be bigger than the existing viaduct. I like the existing one just fine. It has great views, but I worry those might go away if the new tunnel requires solid concrete barriers unlike the current visually light-weight barriers. The anti-viaduct campaign has scared me a little about the size (good for you guys!) but I really don't like the surface street option either.
Here's what wrong with the surface street option:
How is the surface street option any better than the proposed new viaduct, shown below?
It isn't. Sure, there are pretty flowers and all, but a 6-lane road isn't going to make things nice for pedestrians. It's still noisy and unpleasant to walk around. And it will be unpleasant to drive on due to the traffic lights. Maybe make it a surface highway, with a number of sky bridges for pedestrians to cross overhead?
Another problem is that the state is guaranteeing 2.8 billion dollars in funding for a new viaduct. If we get the same amount of money for public transportation if we don't build anything, then I'm all for it. But the surface street option means we'll see maybe $120 million, and Seattle will get screwed over so the state can send our viaduct money elsewhere. I hear Renton needs a new basketball arena, and Kitsap needs a new racetrack.
I love light rail. Let's use the $2.8 billion for more light rail, sooner. Or, here's a wild idea: replace the viaduct with one word: monorail.
Ultimately, I have some predictions about the results of the election:
1. The tunnel will have less support than the viaduct.
2. The viaduct and tunnel will have less than 50% support.
3. The mayor is going to ignore the election results, unless both options have less than 25% support.
4. If the mayor tries to build a tunnel, he won't get the funding.
5. If the governor tries to build a viaduct, she'll get wrapped up in red tape when the city refuses to issue permits.
6. The mayor will not be elected again.
7. The governor will struggle to get re-elected.
1. Finance the tunnel 100% by selling the land on top to developers. We all know that's what will happen eventually anyway, so at least make them pay for it. The land underneath the current viaduct is some of the most potentially expensive land in Seattle. Sell it.
2. Ditch the stupid "is-it-a-shoulder?" shoulders. It's either a lane, an exit ramp, or a shoulder. It shouldn't be all three at different times. That's just going to be a mess. We need a 6 lane tunnel, not a 4 lane tunnel. A four lane tunnel is going to be just like the 520 bridge is. Those of you who commute across it feel my pain.
So, like I said, definitely no on the tunnel. The viaduct proposed is going to be bigger than the existing viaduct. I like the existing one just fine. It has great views, but I worry those might go away if the new tunnel requires solid concrete barriers unlike the current visually light-weight barriers. The anti-viaduct campaign has scared me a little about the size (good for you guys!) but I really don't like the surface street option either.
Here's what wrong with the surface street option:
How is the surface street option any better than the proposed new viaduct, shown below?
It isn't. Sure, there are pretty flowers and all, but a 6-lane road isn't going to make things nice for pedestrians. It's still noisy and unpleasant to walk around. And it will be unpleasant to drive on due to the traffic lights. Maybe make it a surface highway, with a number of sky bridges for pedestrians to cross overhead?
Another problem is that the state is guaranteeing 2.8 billion dollars in funding for a new viaduct. If we get the same amount of money for public transportation if we don't build anything, then I'm all for it. But the surface street option means we'll see maybe $120 million, and Seattle will get screwed over so the state can send our viaduct money elsewhere. I hear Renton needs a new basketball arena, and Kitsap needs a new racetrack.
I love light rail. Let's use the $2.8 billion for more light rail, sooner. Or, here's a wild idea: replace the viaduct with one word: monorail.
Ultimately, I have some predictions about the results of the election:
1. The tunnel will have less support than the viaduct.
2. The viaduct and tunnel will have less than 50% support.
3. The mayor is going to ignore the election results, unless both options have less than 25% support.
4. If the mayor tries to build a tunnel, he won't get the funding.
5. If the governor tries to build a viaduct, she'll get wrapped up in red tape when the city refuses to issue permits.
6. The mayor will not be elected again.
7. The governor will struggle to get re-elected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)