|
I am a conservative and I use mass transit when possible usually for work. It seems that too many opponents of mass transit are just self centered. |
|
The demise of mass transit occurred primarily because people prefer control over where and when they can go somewhere versus where and when the government permits you to go.
I grew up in New York City and was satisfied with the subways and buses that were available because I didn't know any better. After I moved to Los Angeles where you absolutely need a private vehicle I quickly saw what I had been missing.
It also became obvious to me why liberals (and now conservatives) were pushing mass transit. It creates a feeling of dependency. By comparison an individual vehicle creates a feeling of being in control. As for a sense of community: try riding a New York subway at 1:00 AM, you'll quickly learn just what kind of community you live in when someone with a knife asks for a donation to that community.
I also noted in Lewis's article that no mention of cost was made. Every form of passenger rail traffic is subsidized at least 50% and closer to 80% in some places. Gas taxes more than pay for roads so the question of public subsidy of roads is grossly misleading since gas taxes reflect both amount of use and the kind of vehicle driven. If there has ever been a fair tax then the gas tax is certainly it.
Mass transit is for the masses. Americans are individuals and usually choose personal control over government permission. |
|
|
|
|
too, but only when it fits my schedule. Nice to have the car for those unscheduled things. Because, get this, life isn't rush hour. |
|
|
of mass transit and deregulate. People will use it and it will make a profit. |
|
Every developed country in the world has vastly better mass transit than the U.S., not to mention transit across the country. Try to get a train from Washington D.C. to Nashville some time.
Now, are all those train systems around the world making a profit? Doubtful. Are they contributing to the economy? You bet.
Here is an example of the triumph of ideology over reality:
"The demise of mass transit occurred primarily because people prefer control over where and when they can go somewhere versus where and when the government permits you to go." |
|
|
occurred when we so developed our road systems and vehicles that driving was far more convenient and cheaper. I ain't seed nothin' to change that. In DC, where mass transit is a necessity 'cause you just don't want to drive here, the Metro is broke. In LA, where no one but the insane would drive, there IS no mass transit to speak of. Care to explain? |
|
|
It's nice to agree with Matt Lewis once in a while. |
|
"The demise of mass transit occurred when we so developed our road systems and vehicles that driving was far more convenient and cheaper."
What does it cost to move a ton of material by truck? What does it cost by rail?
Also, when you say "we" developed our road systems, who is "we"? |
|
you may have missed this yesterday; the usuall whiners starting blogging about Olympia Snowe you favorite psychopath Paddy got in the first post where he basically wished an Early death on Senator Snowe-you will be pleased to know that moderators without any prompting then deleted the post-so good for them.
On the other hand apparently that's not a banning offense so it also speaks volumes about the credibiity of the site and the other so called conservative Quislings who sat idly by.
But you were so right about Paddy being the single most offensive fool on this board-good and solid call my friend.
Enjoy your afternoon.:-) |
|
This is a thread about transportation, dear. The complaint department is down the hallway.
Watch your step, sweetie. |
|
although what you were saying about "maineconservative"' was dead on as well; like the babbling idiot he is he just sat there like a "murderous enabler"-no wonder he's so bitter-he's not represented by anybody from maine!
Good Job Olympia-I think I'l donate to her campaign fund.
Chow bella. |
|
Huh? I sat by while someone was murdered?
Care to explain that one?
Oh, never mind, it wouldn't be any more coherent than your regular posts anyway, so you can call me a murderous enabler if you wish. No one pays much attention to you anyway. |
|
SJA and Cicero claim that all liberals own all comments by other liberals, but they all become deaf and blind when Town Hall conservatives spout hatred or stupidity or both. MaineConservative, on the other hand, kicks liberals in the nuts and then gives heartfelt, sincere sermons on why we should all play fair.
Meanwhile, back on topic, are you following the thread that runs through the topic story and some of the comments, about whether it's "conservative" to support mass transit or not? In other words, let's not look at something and decide whether it's a good idea or not, let's make up a definition of "conservative" and then decide if something fits the definition or not. |
|
"Good Job Olympia-I think I'l donate to her campaign fund."
Send her your head, her office needs a new door stop. |
|
|
Not having rate tables memorized or anything, but it's a bit problematic to get that railcar of toilet tissue into the Giant warehouse when tracks don't run right up to it. We. Us. And the mouse in your pocket. |
|
"In other words, let's not look at something and decide whether it's a good idea or not, let's make up a definition of "conservative" and then decide if something fits the definition or not."
Vlad-does this surprise you? Matt Lewis is having a pretty rough time trying to straddle the line between being reasonable and pandering to his base for instant karma which is why so many so called "conservatives" on this site have stopped reading his blogs. He's trying to have it both ways.
And as for "mainecon" that sanctimonious fool- he's so silly. I stopped responding to his posts weeks ago but he continues to read mine and then says who cares what you say? I mean how demented is that? Cicero may be a fool but at least he's showed some integrity by ignoring my posts and jsut going on with his life. Mainecon is just so embarrased that I made a compete and utter fool out of him that he follows me around, reads my posts, then says he doesn't. That's pretty pathological.
Anyways I've gotten under cottoneyes skin so badly that you can be sure he's going to be mentioning my name in every one of his posts for the next few weeks! But hey, that's townhall for ya-no shortage of village idiots it would seem.
|
|
There is not a single government operated mass transit rail system on the planet that does not destroy more wealth than it creates. Not one.
If you have figures to dispute this, then by all means provide them and the source. Otherwise, my claim stands.
Triumph of ideology over reality? That's pretty funny considering how many mass transit systems lose money and no private companies are interested in building them.
Roads on the other hand have dozens of companies interested in building and operating them. Pay roads are the future of transportation and will be cheap and profitable if the government will get out of the way.
|
|
Bethesda, Maryland, used to be a quiet little suburb of Washington, DC. Today, it's all high rises and retail outlets. What changed? The DC Metro put a station in. Tell me again how mass transit destroys wealth.
"Roads on the other hand have dozens of companies interested in building and operating them."
Really? Tell us about a few of them. And tell us what's involved in "operating" a road once it's built. |
|
|
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ocregister/fevered-dreams.html
From the article:
"Rail theologians talk about the ugliness of car-driven sprawl, but never mention the ugliness of transit-driven urbanization. Try hopping on a train from New York City's Grand Central Station to Westchester some time, and look out at the abandoned high-rises that define the Bronx landscape. As a longtime transit user, I can attest that the transit-dependent world planners are recreating is a dreadful dystopian place of shuffling, huddled masses filing into train cars and buses, building their lives around other people's schedules and other people's preferences." |
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/schmidt5.html
"...the "more efficient" public ownership of the system commenced, and a scant five years after the first fare increase yet without any need to pay dividends to exploitative capitalist owners, the fare rose again, to 15 cents."
For some reason, I am reminded of the arguments for government to take over the health care industry, because it can "run it more cheaply" than the private free market. |
|
"The Interstate Highway System was built without a dime of subsidy, being funded entirely with gas taxes and other highway-user fees."
Something that's paid for by taxes isn't subsidized? How do you figure that?
Who pays for repairs and improvements?
What's the point here, we should cut gas taxes and make all interstates toll roads owned by private corporations? Good luck with that. |
|