I wouldn't want to be paying the fuel costs for the new A380. Nor would I want to be going somewhere where that many folks would like to arrive at the same time.
Come on, could you imagine deplaning in a major tourist location with that many other folks clutching their tour guides and toting their digital cameras itching to get a snap shot of any of the toursim icons?
There is big, and then there is the behamoth. Think of it like the Hummer of the Sky. Sure, we can build it, and we have the technology, but is it a good developement? Like the proliferation of prefab, fiberboard housing developments that are eating up our open space - named for places they've replaced (e.g. Elm Grove Homes, or Abbeywoods, etc...): Just because it can be classified as development doesn't mean that it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should build something. In todays climate of shrinking resources and shrinking arable land, what is the thinking process here? Is everything based on profit first and consequences second?
"Peak Oil" - as in, "take a peak at that last drop of oil, there won't be anymore."
Size counts
If you're an airline interested in saving money, then bigger is better. It reduces your fuel cost. A bus is a bus is a bus. They burn a lot of fuel, but not a lot per passenger mile. A Humvee with a full load of passengers is no problem. The problem is when they aren't used that way.
Little boxes on the hillside
''Research by Colorado State University found that in Colorado, 'dispersed rural residential development costs county governments and schools $1.65 in service expenditures for every dollar of tax revenue generated.' ''
When people stop having sex the problem will be solved. That's about as likely to happen as reforming zoning regulations that force people out into the countryside. No one wants to drive an hour to work but what's their other choice?
''Fiberboard'' housing
If the three little pigs built their houses in an earthquake zone, which one would survive his house falling on him?
A house's useful life is about 50 years before the value of the land exceeds the value of the house. When teardown time comes, which house represents the lowest cost option?
Post a Comment