In this particular case, OP said none of the others met their needs. I would like to know what new functionality this one has to know if it’s something I’m interested in or not. It’s not a critique - it’s helping me understand if I want to check it out or not.

Isn’t this the one on I71 between Cincinnati and Columbus? I drive that route a ton and see it every time. There may be another on I75, but I don’t drive it as much.

Your first comment made it sound like they are hitting you on purpose. This comment makes it sound more like the infrastructure is not conductive to cycling and therefore it’s dangerous to cycle in your area. I grew up in northeast Cincinnati and am an avid cyclist, and the second comment lines up with my experience while the first, that reads as if people are actively trying to hit you, doesn’t line up with my experience. I think that is why you are getting down voted.

It depends on what you feel about the future of technology. Most productivity growth comes from advances in technology. We haven’t hit a maximum yet, so it’s a question of if you think technology will or won’t enable us to do more in the same amount of time for the indefinite future.

Constant productivity growth could allow it without constant population growth, as long as products growth exceeds impacts from population decline. This report is basically saying they don’t see that happening.

Even if the cost was an impossibly low 10% of MSRP, that’s still $30 trillion dollars based on the math above and well more than he has.