Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
Did you read his whole thing? When it comes to things like the ring-road and some other infrastructure he says he won't use he decides to still pay 1/2 of the cost to him. So he is not completely eliminating it from his personal calculation.
Pretty sure he was just trying to make a point, and show how ridiculous the whole cost of the bridge thing got.
A couple of the quotes:
|
I thought his offering to pay 1/2 of his share for the large projects was quite hilarious. Even if he doesn't drive on them himself, He'll use other big roads that have built in the past, plus he'll purchase countless goods that will have been transported on the roads he says he'll never use. That he's saying he's being generous by paying 1/2 of his share for the roads is actually quite comical.
The main point of the article, that the cost of the peace bridge is just a tiny portion of the total infrastructure spending, that I can agree on.
He dreams of a car free city? I suppose anyone can dream, but how exactly are any goods going to be transported, at least for any kind of remotely reasonable cost? If you want to triple the price for everything, then fine.