<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Danger: Journalist With Windshield Perspective Ahead</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/24/danger-journalist-with-windshield-perspective-ahead/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/24/danger-journalist-with-windshield-perspective-ahead/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Think_twice</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/24/danger-journalist-with-windshield-perspective-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-66977</link>
		<dc:creator>Think_twice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5970#comment-66977</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s another one from CNN&#039;s Drew Griffin.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/03/16/griffin.high.speed.rail.cnn&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Derailing $8B for trains&quot;&lt;/a&gt;

If the link doesn&#039;t work then copy/paste this: &quot;http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/03/16/griffin.high.speed.rail.cnn&quot;

After watching this I sent him an email where I asked if this was a report or a commentary. And if it was a report, then next time spare us the snide, dismissive tone. I thought I was watching Fox News.

Drew Griffin was definitely drinking the Hatorade when he put out this whiny litany of cons for high-speed. His &quot;expert&quot; from USC didn&#039;t put out any specific alternatives. Drew couldn&#039;t be bothered to explore (even a little bit) how automobile and oil interests may have lobbied to undermine the 1965 High-speed Rail Act.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s another one from CNN&#8217;s Drew Griffin.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/03/16/griffin.high.speed.rail.cnn" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Derailing $8B for trains&#8221;</a></p>
<p>If the link doesn&#8217;t work then copy/paste this: &#8220;http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/03/16/griffin.high.speed.rail.cnn&#8221;</p>
<p>After watching this I sent him an email where I asked if this was a report or a commentary. And if it was a report, then next time spare us the snide, dismissive tone. I thought I was watching Fox News.</p>
<p>Drew Griffin was definitely drinking the Hatorade when he put out this whiny litany of cons for high-speed. His &#8220;expert&#8221; from USC didn&#8217;t put out any specific alternatives. Drew couldn&#8217;t be bothered to explore (even a little bit) how automobile and oil interests may have lobbied to undermine the 1965 High-speed Rail Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gecko</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/24/danger-journalist-with-windshield-perspective-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-66921</link>
		<dc:creator>gecko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:44:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5970#comment-66921</guid>
		<description>There are considerable asymmetries in perceptions of &quot;serious&quot; transport in terms of size, power, expense, complexity, etc. even in the recent, very important, and highly laudable New York City report on public bicycle systems:  &quot;Bike-Share Opportunities in New York City, 2009&quot;, since scale and technology development (none) recommendations fall significantly below what a &quot;serious&quot; cost-benefit analysis could potentially indicate good economic sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are considerable asymmetries in perceptions of &#8220;serious&#8221; transport in terms of size, power, expense, complexity, etc. even in the recent, very important, and highly laudable New York City report on public bicycle systems:  &#8220;Bike-Share Opportunities in New York City, 2009&#8243;, since scale and technology development (none) recommendations fall significantly below what a &#8220;serious&#8221; cost-benefit analysis could potentially indicate good economic sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

