They went on to remove my QB-3 knight with their bishop, then their queen took a pawn from the same square. Oh well. It was doubled anyways. Things got worse. They snatched my rook with their queen.
I calmly castled, knowing that even after they snagged another pawn, my QR-2 square was not a good place for their queen. And neither of their rooks nor knights had even moved yet. On the other hand, I was down a rook and two pawns only ten moves into the game.
I harrassed the queen and pinned what few pieces they did manage to get out on the board. Their kingside knight went to R-3 and stayed there for the whole game, useless.
Eventually I won the queen by throwing my other rook into its maw, and I anchored a knight on Q-6 which checked his king and kept it in the middle of the board. I scooped up their minor pieces and they resigned a move away from checkmate.
Nice freeway but where are all the cars and trucks?
Nowhere in this article about a plan to relieve New York City traffic congestion is "peak oil" even mentioned, let alone fully considered.
"Congestion pricing" means charging drivers a toll to use roads at times and places where demand exceeds capacity. It also has been imposed on congested downtown streets in Singapore, as well as in London and Stockholm, in recent years. In London and Singapore, you must pay a toll (electronically) to enter the central business district on weekdays. Congestion pricing can also be used on specialized toll lanes on expressways, as in the half-dozen high-occupancy-toll lane projects in various U.S. cities.
[snip]
There are two major flaws in the mayor's initial proposal. First, the proposed tolls are too low to significantly reduce congestion. Since bridge and tunnel tolls would be deducted from the $8 daily charge, most drivers entering Manhattan would pay little. Hence, the plan is projected to reduce traffic by a minuscule 6 percent, far less than the 15 percent to 20 percent achieved in London and Stockholm. And the net revenue would be only a few hundred million dollars per year, not enough to fund much in the way of better transportation infrastructure. So it's hardly surprising that there was so little political support.
I'll bet.
And only two "major flaws?!" Right.
The whole "plan," (delusion would be a better term,) is based on the assumption that traffic will continue either to increase or stay near present levels of crowding.
Feh. Nagonnahoppin.
The same kind of "planning" goes on here in The Valley. More highways. There are actually considerations being made to knock down part of Ahwatukee for a freeway and widen the highways here already.
In the 20-year plan, the Southeast Valley would see several freeway widening projects on U.S. 60, Loop 202 and Loop 101, including extra general-use lanes and carpool lanes. Williams Gateway Freeway, which would extend off the Santan Freeway in southeast Mesa and stretch eastward into Pinal County, is scheduled to be built about 10 years from now.
Newsflash: the earth's center does not consist of a divine ever-renewing reservoir of cheap sweet crude oil.
In a short period of time gasoline prices will certainly top $10 per gallon. There will be scarcities and pump shutdowns.
And as much as I just love the idea, the light-rail project just may, as in maybe just a little bit may, be insufficient to move 4 million people around the Valley a couple times a day. Even ten such light-rail lines won't be enough.
It's really time to do some realistic planning, and get other pieces into play.
No comments:
Post a Comment