<?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: A Republican Returns to Congress With A Map to Transportation Reform</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/29/a-republican-returns-to-congress-with-a-map-to-transportation-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/29/a-republican-returns-to-congress-with-a-map-to-transportation-reform/</link>
	<description>Covering San Francisco&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:38:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/29/a-republican-returns-to-congress-with-a-map-to-transportation-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-55591</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=75711#comment-55591</guid>
		<description>I really like the idea of putting roads, and transit on equal footing economically (though I would add pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which tend to shine in comprehensive cost-benefit analyses), but I&#039;m not confident that any political process will be able to really comprehend how deeply roads are actually subsidized.  That would require a broad-spectrum analysis that would consider parking and land use patterns as well as easier targets such as construction costs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really like the idea of putting roads, and transit on equal footing economically (though I would add pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which tend to shine in comprehensive cost-benefit analyses), but I&#8217;m not confident that any political process will be able to really comprehend how deeply roads are actually subsidized.  That would require a broad-spectrum analysis that would consider parking and land use patterns as well as easier targets such as construction costs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomtakt</title>
		<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/29/a-republican-returns-to-congress-with-a-map-to-transportation-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-51901</link>
		<dc:creator>tomtakt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=75711#comment-51901</guid>
		<description>Interesting that nobody has commented on this, but I would say it sounds like this guy might really know what he is talking about. The &quot;mode-neutral&quot; approach is the kind of common sense transportation funding and planning that has been embraced to a healthy extent in Germany (despite their own powerful road lobby) and some other European countries. But the really important point is that transportation, land use and other policies all desperately need to be coordinated. Such coordination would be very difficult to achieve anywhere without federal or state level changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting that nobody has commented on this, but I would say it sounds like this guy might really know what he is talking about. The &#8220;mode-neutral&#8221; approach is the kind of common sense transportation funding and planning that has been embraced to a healthy extent in Germany (despite their own powerful road lobby) and some other European countries. But the really important point is that transportation, land use and other policies all desperately need to be coordinated. Such coordination would be very difficult to achieve anywhere without federal or state level changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

