On Monday, the Washington Post published a devastating critique of high-speed rail written by journalist Robert Samuelson. In fewer than 800 words, Samuelson blows up just about all the arguments put forth in favor of rail. An 8-word summary: costs are too high and benefits too low.
One person who remains unconvinced is the popular innumerate, Matthew Yglesias. Normally I would not personalize an issue by calling attention to someone’s disability, in this case Yglesias’ inability to deal with simple arithmetic. But by describing me as a “car-subsidy shill,” Yglesias shows he is math challenged.
Apparently, if you believe, as I do, that all modes of transportation should be paid for by users, and not by tax subsidies, then you, too, are a “car-subsidy shill.” Here is a simple lesson in arithmetic: if users pay for all of something, then subsidies are zero. That makes me a “zero-subsidy shill.”
Yglesias further demonstrates his innumeracy when he concludes, after a mere three or four paragraphs of analysis, that $1 trillion is somehow a cheap price for high-speed rail. His analysis, such as it is, comes down to two points. First, the Antiplanner opposes high-speed rail, so therefore it must be good. Second (proving he can at least run a mortgage calculator), at 4.1 percent interest for 30 years, $1 trillion is only $58 billion per year. Somehow, in Ylegsias’ universe, $58 billion per year sounds like “a bargain.” “Let’s do it!” he concludes. Does he even have any idea how much money $58 billion is?
I’ve never met Yglesias, so he probably doesn’t know that I personally love trains and hate driving. But as a numerate economist, I have to ask a couple of questions when someone proposes to spend upwards of a trillion dollars on anything–questions that never seem to occur to Yglesias. First, what are the benefits? Second, what do you have to give up to pay the cost?
The answer to the first question is: negligible. High-speed trains will carry less than 10 percent of the number of passenger miles carried by the Interstate Highway System (all the cost of which was paid out of user fees), and virtually no freight (interstate highways not only carry 20 percent of all passenger travel but about 15 percent of all freight in the United States).
The history of transportation shows that new technologies are successful when they are faster, more convenient, and less expensive than existing technologies. High-speed rail is slower than flying, less convenient than driving, and (based on Amtrak’s Acela) at least five times more expensive than either. That means, as Samuelson says, “High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do little else.”
order levitra There are certain minor side effects which include anxiety, pain in the stomach, head ache and a blurred vision too. Here, it focuses mainly on delivery overnight viagra increasing the blood supply near regenerative area. Bananas Banana is an excellent source of potassium, a beneficial mineral that is crucial for the clients to handle their industrial air conditioning unit. buy viagra online in The true explanation australia viagra behind ED include: vascular (vein) illness — Erections happen when blood accumulates in the post of the penis. Moreover, really successful new transportation technologies significantly increase mobility. Yet Florida predicts that only 4 percent (see p. 13) of the riders on its 168-mph trains would be new mobility. California’s 220-mph trains would create even less new mobility: the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s latest estimate predicts that less than 1 percent (see p. 9) of its ridership would be new mobility. Here’s an arithmetic lesson for Yglesias: something that creates almost no new mobility, and merely substitutes high-cost transportation for a few marginal travelers previously using low-cost modes, is not a good deal.
Nor is high-speed rail an environmental answer to anything. The environmental costs of construction are high, while the environmental benefits of operations are low, leading Florida to conclude in its environmental impact statement that “the environmentally preferred alternative is the no build alternative” (see p. 2-38). In fact, both cars and airplanes are becoming more energy efficient so rapidly that, by the time a national high-speed rail system could be built, rail would be the brown form of passenger travel.
On the cost side, Yglesias only asks whether the Antiplanner’s $1 trillion estimate, which is “based on the costs estimates of the California system,” is valid considering that “California is an above-average cost jurisdiction.” That’s a legitimate question that would have been answered if he had bothered to read the footnoted reference. (I divided routes into low-cost and high-cost routes and used different estimates for each.) But I was not the first to use a $1 trillion estimate; that was Matt Rose, the CEO of the BNSF Railway, who probably knows a little more about rail costs than either Yglesias or me.
Beyond that, only someone who is innumerate could conclude that $58 billion per year is a low price for anything. Where is this money going to come from? Not the states, most of which are financially strapped. Perhaps we could cut all federal spending on primary and secondary education–but that was only $53 billion in 2009. Perhaps we could cut all other federal spending on surface transportation–but that was only $54 billion in 2009. I know: let’s pass a health care law that will save money. But we already did that, and now federal health-care costs are projected to rise by $58 billion between 2009 and 2011. Darn–there goes the money for high-speed rail. (All these numbers are from page 69 of the 2011 federal budget historical tables.)
High-speed rail riders aren’t going to pay $59 billion per year–they won’t even pay the operating costs of high-speed rail, which Yglesias managed to forget about. Amtrak claims its Acela trains earn a profit (not counting capital costs), but the Acela shares a lot of its operating costs with other Boston-to-Washington trains, which lose money. Between the two of them, they barely broke even in 2009 (see p. C-1). No other high-speed rail route in this country is likely to do as well.
By the way, in order to break even on Boston-to-Washington trains, Amtrak charged Acela riders 72 cents per passenger mile. That’s more than five times the average air and bus fare. Fares on Amtrak’s low-speed trains are only twice air and bus fares.
Maybe Matt Yglesias isn’t really innumerate; maybe he has a reason for not asking hard questions about whether it makes sense to spend $1 trillion on trains that only a few people will ride. But there is no doubt that high-speed rail be a high-cost burden on taxpayers.
The good news is that voters in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin appear to have elected governors who are skeptical of–and in some cases have promised not to build–high-speed rail. The bad news is that voters in California elected a high-speed rail enthusiast as governor. But California voters also turned down proposition 23, so that state’s economy will remain in such trouble that it will probably never be able to afford to build Yglesias’ high-speed rail fantasy.
The Autoplanner: Apparently, if you believe, as I do, that all modes of transportation should be paid for by users, and not by tax subsidies, then you, too, are a “car-subsidy shill.†Here is a simple lesson in arithmetic: if users pay for all of something, then subsidies are zero. That makes me a “zero-subsidy shill.â€
THWM: The street in front of you home is there regardless of the automobile.
Although, O’Toole you’re paid to produce bunk.
Yglesias wrote: “And keep in mind that this is a policy brief from a guy who’s entire job is to talk smack about federal investments in rail.” That sounds to me like a not unreasonable description of the Antiplanner. Just like it applies to 95% of all the facts cited in newspaper columns, and just like it applies to 100,000+ people in DC.
I dislike the analytical approach of Yglesias when he compares the cost of high speed rail to the Defense Department budget or the nation’s GDP. That is the worst kind of budgeting — comparing the cost to a huge expense and saying it is not close to that, so don’t pay attention to the cost of the project. People who think that way eat out at expensive restaurants, order appetizers and expensive booze, then can’t make their mortgage payment. The whole credit card industry is built around these people.
Another big weakness in Yglesias’ argument is that he pretends the high speed rail projects are “shovel-ready” and can take advantage of current low interest rates and low employment. Given government planning and environmental review processes, these projects are 10-30 years from being completed.
Niiiiice. Randal is implying auto users pay 100% of their way. Let me bookmark that LOLZ-worthy sentiment.
DS
Of course, rail users basically pay almost none of their way, so Dan’s little jab is completely irrelevant (ie, he doesn’t actually care if there is a subsidy or not…his kind simply wants control). No surprise that troll Dan and lunatic highwayman came in here to pick at any little problem they could find with Randal’s analysis. Waah waah poor babies!
I dislike the analytical approach of Yglesias when he compares the cost of high speed rail to the Defense Department budget or the nation’s GDP.
This is similar to a claim I hear often from HSR enthusiasts, that if we can afford to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan then we can surely pay for a bunch of HSR lines across the country.
Our defense budget is probably too high, and we can probably afford to secure our borders for considerably less than we are currently spending, but this is not an argument in favor of high-speed rail. Both types of spending must prove that they provide benefits in excess of their costs in order to be continued. There is another related point here, too. We may eventually end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when was the last time a major federal transportation spending program was discontinued?
The good news is that voters in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin appear to have elected governors who are skeptical of–and in some cases have promised not to build–high-speed rail.
But how could you overlook the upset defeat of House Transportation Committee Chair, legendary pork-barreler and staunch HSR advocate, Jim Oberstar in Minnesota?
RE: Defense v. HSR
In all transportation projects, dishonesty and/or ignorance, always seems to cloud proper decision making. Here in Austin, both light rail and toll roads have been sold as congestion reducing projects. At this point both the toll roads and commuters rail have actually made congestion worse.
If Austin transportation advocates were honest about what these projects were for, rail would have been sold as a transportation alternative, toll roads would have been sold as a way to stimulate development. That was the point of each project, but if honesty were the policy, voters may not have supported such projects.
I do find it interesting that Yglesias is coming under fire from Antiplanners for essentially saying, in his opinion, the bloated defense budget should/could be better spent (on rail). Every day we hear the same argument from Antiplanners, saying rail dollars could be better spent. Again, I’m not sure vilifying your opponents tactics, while using the same tactics, is a wise strategy.
Suppose that roads get some non-direct, say 10-20%. Thta does not mean that a transit project which needs 60-80% of subsidizing, should get built. It does not take away from all the other analysis in HSR which have a conclusion of being way too costly per passenger-mile.
Assume that there no automobiles?
How & why would roads even be built?
Why assume that? The economy would be much worse, worse than African nations, <10% of now.
Buildings cannot exist without roads.
“Suppose that roads get some non-direct, say 10-20%.”
No. Let’s not suppose anything. Lets use the actual numbers, analyze those numbers along with an analysis of need, create plans with alternatives and let our representatives or democratic processes use this information to make wise decisions.
Let’s be honest about how much our infra/superstructure costs, how financing is leveraged, what benefits each proposed project has, and what setbacks the projects have.
Claiming that auto users pay their own way is utter b.s, as this conversation has been beat to death on this blog. The “arithmetic” to justify HSR is b.s too.
We are spinning our wheels.
IMO, a huge problem with mobility in America is not due to the lack of capacity and investment in the user-funded highways, it’s the lack of capacity and investment in non-user funded streets and roads. What good is a user-funded highway if all the access streets royally suck? (see:ATX)
One thing that Antiplanner didn’t notice or glossed over en route – the assumption of 4.1% interest. The historical average is closer to double that, I should have thought. What banker would lend at 4.1% over the next 30 years?
$58 billion is nothing if other people are paying for it. Our latest effort in London is called ‘Crossrail’, and will cost £16 billion (approx $25 billion). We have heroically survived without it for decades, but now apparently it is essential. And it won’t cost the transport minister anything – someone else will pay for this folly – namely myself, and the other taxpayers of the UK. Yet what happens if you want a better local bus service? Sorry, no money. We’ve spent it all.
You truly have to marvel at the rapier-like assaults by Dan and the Highwayman. Way to cut him to ribbons guys.
bennett wrote:
> In all transportation projects, dishonesty
> and/or ignorance, always seems to cloud
> proper decision making. Here in Austin, both
> light rail and toll roads have been sold
> as congestion reducing projects. At this
> point both the toll roads and commuters
> rail have actually made congestion worse.
I have never visited Austin (Texas, right?), so I am not familiar with the highway and mass transit networks there. Here in Maryland where I live, opponents of the Md. 200 (InterCounty Connector, ICC for short – now under construction after more than 50 years of planning and debate) toll road project have repeatedly claimed that the ICC will “make traffic worse” and “increase traffic congestion,” claims that I reject.
Could you elaborate how the toll road(s) have made congestion worse?
bennett wrote:
> Let’s be honest about how much our
> infra/superstructure costs, how financing
> is leveraged, what benefits each proposed
> project has, and what setbacks the projects have.
Isn’t that what the planning phase of a project (including the preparation of an environmental impact statement) is supposed to be about
> Claiming that auto users pay their own way
> is utter b.s, as this conversation has been
> beat to death on this blog.
Compare and contrast with what the users of rail transit systems pay toward the costs of construction and operation, highway users pay a lot – and in most parts of the U.S., those highway users contribute generously to building and operating transit systems of all kinds.
> The “arithmetic†to justify HSR is b.s too.
Agreed.
Benett, can you elaborate on your point about non-user funded roads? I haven’t heard that point here before.
“Could you elaborate how the toll road(s) have made congestion worse?”
The most insidious way is on “Loop 1” just north of town where they have timed the lights on the existing road so you catch every red light. The first tiem down the existing road it’s actually somewhat comical stoping every block. Before the adjacent toll road was built the lights were synced the opposite way. But that’s not really the toll roads fault, it’s dirty, unethical, scandalous, and political traffic engineering.
Another problem was the lack of attention to the intercepting streets during the planning phase. If you’ve been to TX you no doubt seen that our highways have double the footprint of most. An 8 lane highway will have 8 lanes of frontage road. Streets that once crossed a road with 4 lanes and one light, now must cross 16 lane and 2-3 lights.
The problem is not for those who choose to pay for the toll roads. Their commute has marginally shortened at the expense of the commuters who do not use the tolls. The simple gas tax payers have seen their commute significantly lengthened.
C.P.
I should also say that I’ve been to other cities where toll roads work well (Dallas being one of them), and they may very well work in MD. What makes the not work very well is Austin has a lot to do with politics.
“…can you elaborate on your point about non-user funded roads? I haven’t heard that point here before.”
I’ll use Austin as an example again. Austin is a relatively small city. We have loads of highway capacity. We have 3 very large toll roads (1, 45, and 130). We have terrible traffic (http://www.newgeography.com/content/001444-new-traffic-scorecard-reinforces-density-traffic-congestion-nexus
“Among the large metropolitan areas, Washington, DC had the second worst Average congestion delay, at 22.4%, followed by San Francisco, at 21.5%, Austin at 20.7% and New York at 19.7%.”).
The problem is that there is no forgiveness in the road system. To get anywhere you have to use the highways. There is very little connectivity of the non-highway roads. In fact, many people don’t want connectivity (you know the people will drive on the roads in their neighborhood).
The traffic engineering solution is often too much of a plumbing solution… Bigger pipe. I’m concerned that the focus in America is always to increase capacity, sometimes only for those who pay a premium, and there is too little of a focus on an integrated and efficient system of roads. And that’s before we even start talking about multiple modes.
Again, I’m not sure vilifying your opponents tactics, while using the same tactics, is a wise strategy.
There is a difference. I can provide evidence for the claim that “rail dollars can be better spent” (or not spent, as the case may be). Yglesias does not provide evidence — certainly not convincing evidence — that spending money on high-speed rail (which he prefers) is necessarily more beneficial than spending it on foreign conflicts, or again not spending it at all.
bennett wrote:
> The most insidious way is on “Loop 1? just
> north of town where they have timed the lights
> on the existing road so you catch every
> red light. The first tiem down the existing
> road it’s actually somewhat comical stoping
> every block. Before the adjacent toll road
> was built the lights were synced the
> opposite way. But that’s not really the
> toll roads fault, it’s dirty, unethical,
> scandalous, and political traffic
> engineering.
Which leads to a few more questions:
(1) Who is in charge of the traffic engineers that set the signal timings? Municipal government? County government? State government? The entity that owns and operates (and collects the tolls from) Loop 1? Has anyone discussed this with the elected officials that oversee the traffic engineers?
(2) Is it possible that signal timings were altered because it was a legitimate effort to give more intersection capacity to roads crossing those that run parallel to Loop 1 instead of the “free” alternative to Loop 1?
(3) Is it possible that the timings were altered to encourage truck traffic to use Loop 1 and not the “free” alternatives? Maybe to keep the trucks off of surface streets and roads? Consider that trucks usually pay higher tolls than 4-wheeled vehicles.
> Another problem was the lack of attention to
> the intercepting streets during the
> planning phase. If you’ve been to TX you no
> doubt seen that our highways have double
> the footprint of most. An 8 lane highway
> will have 8 lanes of frontage road. Streets
> that once crossed a road with 4 lanes and
> one light, now must cross 16 lane and 2-3
> lights.
I am familiar with the (common in Texas) “frontage” roads. I have seen them in a few other places, including the District of Columbia (though not nearly as wide as in Texas), Pennsylvania (a portion of I-95 in southeast Pennsylvania has them) and New Jersey (sections of the tolled Garden State Parkway in North Jersey has frontage roads).
> The problem is not for those who choose to
> pay for the toll roads. Their commute
> has marginally shortened at the expense
> of the commuters who do not use the tolls.
> The simple gas tax payers have seen their
> commute significantly lengthened.
I wonder if commutes running perpendicular to Loop 1 have improved?
bennett wrote:
> The problem is that there is no forgiveness
> in the road system. To get anywhere you have
> to use the highways.
To some extent, that is true all over the U.S., as well as in other nations. Through traffic and heavy traffic volumes should be on roads designed for same. What’s bad about such assumptions is more about network redundancy (or lack thereof) – when the only way to get someplace involves one freeway that handles lots of traffic, then the results are bad if that one freeway has a problem.
> There is very little connectivity of
> the non-highway roads. In fact, many people
> don’t want connectivity (you know the people
> will drive on the roads in their neighborhood).
This is correct. Getting back to Maryland, one of the so-called alternatives raised in the previous (1990’s) InterCounty Connector study was called “upgrade existing roads” (instead of building the toll road). That alternative had plenty of opposition (including opposition from me), because it was incredibly unfair to people along the roads that were promoted as needing to be “upgraded.”
> The traffic engineering solution is often
> too much of a plumbing solution… Bigger pipe.
Better that than social engineering.
> I’m concerned that the focus in America is
> always to increase capacity, sometimes only
> for those who pay a premium, and there is
> too little of a focus on an integrated
> and efficient system of roads.
Integrated and efficient means (in my opinion) a system where the little roads serve local traffic (and short trips) where the larger roads serve “through” trips and longer trips.
> And that’s before we even start talking
> about multiple modes.
Well, I am not an enthusiast for rail transit, as I think it costs far too much (to build and to operate) and still primarily serves that segment of the travel market that needs to go to or from the downtown area of a region.
Most cities in the American West generally have a grid of major roads one mile apart, which provides a lot of connectivity and alternate routes. Why didn’t Austin develop that way? I see that its streets don’t generally run N-S or E-W.
C.P,
To answer your first set of questions, the local newspaper seems to think that it’s the governor, who cashed in a lot of political favors to get the toll roads built, who is responsible for the lighting scenario. TXDOT claims something like “that signal timings were altered because it was a legitimate effort to,” accommodate the toll roads, but the traffic engineers at the city of Austin (off the record of coarse), don’t agree.
Side note: Similar to how this blog blames “planning” for politics, contentious traffic engineering decisions are often not the best alternative according to the local T.E’s. I unfairly give T.E’s a hard time (many are my close friends) when many of the traffic problems in ATX are do to local and TXDOT officials NOT heeding their advice. I think that similar planners find themselves in the same context in Austin, all the time. For example, many transportation planners were leading the charge against our new commuter train to nowhere.
“I wonder if commutes running perpendicular to Loop 1 have improved?”
I’m not sure about citywide data, but my commute runs perpendicular to a new toll road and it has been made marginally longer, due to having to cross the massive thing with 3 lights (used to be 1). But I’m talking 3 minutes more max.
Borealis said:
“Most cities in the American West generally have a grid of major roads one mile apart, which provides a lot of connectivity and alternate routes. Why didn’t Austin develop that way?”
I think the answer is twofold. First is geography. The areas in west Austin are very hilly and rocky so the Denver/Phoenix type grids are out of the question.
Second is that Austin is really not a city, it’s an amalgamation of relatively autonomous and politically powerful neighborhoods. Because of this the city’s street network is fragmented because each section of town exercises their power to accomplish different ends.
Austin is funny this way. Everyone is for rail transit, as long as no stations are in their neighborhood. Austinites all want street connectivity and long as people don’t start driving through their neighborhood. We are the self proclaimed “Live Music Capitol of The World” but want to shut down music venues because of the noise and traffic on a Friday night. We talk the talk down here, but…
I’m always surprised that the Antiplanner doesn’t focus more on planning failures in Austin. There are so many.
P.S. A third reason that I should mention is Austin is still dealing with the damage done by development patterns created in the era of segregation. Many cities are dealing with this and it’s broad topic for another day.
Interesting, bennett. Please elaborate on development patterns created in the era of segregation whenever you have time. I haven’t heard of that.
Redlining.
DS
I don’t see how redlining changes the major streets in a city. But maybe Dan knows far far more than the average person and can explain how that happens.
There is an entire (albeit small) sub-discipline with its own literature on urban form and redlining – sort of like detective-meets-sociologist-meets neo-food-desertologist. It is in the same vein as ‘gendered space’, but the underlying intent of redlining is more purposeful.
DS
Wow. Thanks for the references, Dan.
I never knew that race and sex based critical academic theory reached so far in the 70s and 80s. It would be fun to discuss them, but it would turn into name calling very fast on the internet.
No surprise here. Dan pulls all the bs, fancy studies out to confuse his opponents. Typical liberal planner strategy.
bennett,
For your comment at 9.
Actual figures? Gas paid for the interstates. I gave you leeway. Why did you weasel out?
Why don’t you care to discuss the justice in the amount of user paying for what they need. You flat out said “no” “on suppose”.
Do you want 100% of roads being user financed?
Don’t forget that property tax does justifiably include some for roads.
Is a 70% figure for highways bad? (it’s better than than that)
Regardless, you have a huge double double standard for transit being only ~35% user paid. It’s extra huge than just the multiple, because of such low % of regular riders (<4%).
You are neglecting the fact that 85%+ of adults drive. You think that those 15% pay much for roads? Maybe <3% of non-using road cost.
Using your method, for user pays 100%, applied to all, then government would be about 1/4 of the size as now. Many people would starve & I don't know how a per person tax (for some gov expenses) would be collected from many.
You called it, Borealis.
all the bs, fancy studies out to confuse his opponents. Typical liberal planner strategy.
Props to this performance artiste. You nailed it.
DS
Scott,
One of the reasons I often avoid engaging you directly is your uncanny ability to miss the point. I’ve already said this on this thread, but a huge problem with mobility in America is the lack of investment in non-user funded roads. In fact most of the comments I’ve made on this thread have been about how to better plan for CARS. My comments are not about what is more expensive, but being honest about what the expenses and needs are, and using analysis, opposed to ideological chest pounding, to help make decisions (and I’ve made it perfectly clear this criticism applies to rail advocates too).
You should try reading more than the first line of each comment, getting all excited, and reacting with your herkey jerkey, incomplete sentence, “excited” writings.
Believe it or not, I actually appreciate your presence on this blog and wish I could talk to you directly more often, but I feel like a reporter trying to ask a politician a question during a camping. You have your response ready before you even know what the question is. This is what it’s like to me:
Bennett: “Scott, what’s your favorite food?”
Scott: “Purple.”
Scott is one of the only ones who hits the nail on the head. He understands that roads are a necessary public good, and even if minor subsidies are required, the utility of highways and roads makes it worthwhile. Most of the other commentators here are closeted (and sometimes not so closeted) HSR and light rail fans who whine about the 15% subsidy to a service used by over 80% of Americans, but somehow a 100% subsidy to a “service” used by 2% of the population is A-OK. Pure hypocrisy.
metrosucks said: Scott is one of the only ones who hits the nail on the head. He understands that roads are a necessary public good, and even if minor subsidies are required, the utility of highways and roads makes it worthwhile. Most of the other commentators here are closeted (and sometimes not so closeted) HSR and light rail fans who whine about the 15% subsidy to a service used by over 80% of Americans, but somehow a 100% subsidy to a “service†used by 2% of the population is A-OK. Pure hypocrisy.
THWM: Yes, you can live in a house with out windows, but not in a house with out a door.
Roads are there by default, but that default also loads the transportation policy deck.
You also want rail to exist on a profit or loss basis while you want roads to be socialism.
Also no one is asking for 4,000,000 miles of rail line be built in the USA either.
Well then here is the perfect road for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Allee
Rail does exist in a for profit form when carrying freight. There simply isn’t a market for passenger service, honestly. But I wouldn’t expect a shill for high speed rail to understand this. What Fraudman is really saying is that since roads receive a minor subsidy, it’s imperative that “high” speed rail receives a 100% subsidy. Wow, what have you been smoking?
bennett, Black calling kettle?
Self-projection onto others of your own lack of communication?
Before I get to that, you have completely avoided the previous topics on highways & funding. Although, you did quote yourself, a huge problem with mobility in America is the lack of investment in non-user funded roads. but it contradicted a position of yours,
Here’s what I mean, about the opening paragraph, & your contradictions:
You claim that I am missing the point. That is way off. I’ll concede that maybe I miss some of your understanding, but I do address what I read, not using fallacies or irrelevancies. Maybe you get confused on consequences & background material that I might bring up. Without specifics, I can’t tell where the shortcoming in your comprehension lies.
My responses are far from pre-prepared, not based upon certain items (principles yes), or similar to politicians.
Your lack of any evidence, in not referring to any of my comments, is a good indicator of how you are not perceiving correctly. Many of your comments are very general & vague, lacking substance & meaning.
As for you typing,You should try reading more than the first line of each comment, getting all excited, and reacting with your herkey jerkey, incomplete sentence:
I read whole posts. I might be commenting mostly on one point , since each sentence, that I respond to, has so much incongruence & lack of seeing the forest [rather than just trees].
Not sure how you perceive emotion, as in “excited.â€
I don’t know exactly know what herkey jerkey means. I do skip around, trying to space accordingly & do address multiple points. My line occasional line breaks for sentences within paragraphs are to help facilitate quicker reading & gathering meaning. I could be more comprehensive, in triple the amount space.
I’m not aware of grammar mistakes. There could be fragments, but meanings should be there. I can type lengthy, but still try to be brief & concise. Should I elaborate more? If there’s a point, that’s not understood, then address it. I don’t recall any attempts to ask for clarification. I ask for others’ meaning occasionally (particular for Dan & Highman, since they’re almost total nonsense) or just point out the lack of content or meaning.
Your example of me answering about a color, when the category is food, is completely off; no analogous closeness, at all. Where I have typed anything similar, such as referring to roofing material when the topic is mpg? Perhaps close-minded thinking does not realize all the interconnectedness. Don’t really know what you’re referring to, without examples.
Highman,
What do you mean about windowless doors & a door?
Are you describing the facility that you live in?
Seriously, what’s you point?
Roads are not there by default! That is way wrong.
What do you mean by default?
How & why would roads be built without vehicles?
Do want to go to horses, oxen & pure labor to build things?
The over-riding theme for roads is user-financed transportation. Why do you keep claiming socialized roads?
Why are you opposed to any general, non-user, non-property-connection, tax support of roads? Neglecting too, that 85% of adults are drivers & that the remainder benefit directly too.
Conversely, why are you in favor of general taxes to support most (~2/3) of transit, which is used by <4% of commuters, and handles <2% of all passenger-miles?
Why don't you see your contradiction?
Your double standard is off by a factor of 15-20, based upon the non-user related taxes differential, on a per passenger-mile basis of highways vs. transit.
Why are even mentioning 4 million rail tracks?
Having rail tracks parallel each road would be ridiculous. What kind of substances are you taking?
This is the problem with you far right/left people, you don’t want others to exist.
There’s no middle ground what so ever with you, you’re just full of rage & hate.
My points are not far right.
What are trying to refer to?
What gives you an ideas that I don’t want others to exist?
Right, I want Earth to have a population of one, me.
Neither have I shown any rage or hate.
What gave you any indication of that?
What “ground” are you referring to, & that there is no middle?
Transportation funding by user? OMG, that’s so extreme!
How can there even be personal, consumer goods & services that are paid for directly, upon purchase, by the user?
Why do keep making crap up & avoid the topics?
A starting place would be to read what I type, then respond directly to points, including my questions.
Highwayman is paid to smear any opposing views on this blog. Or he’s some 80-IQ moron who performs maintenance on a choo-choo train somewhere and feels threatened by the actual thinking going on here. Trying to reason with him is pointless. To him, disagreeing with the theft of tax dollars for the pork-laden installation of useless choo-choo trains is an “extreme” position.
Wow, you guys are like a scarry/crazy/evil/funny combo.
Highman, there’s nothing “scarry/crazy/evil/funny” about what Metrosucks or me have type.
What points/sentences do you perceive as such?
Oh, yeah. You never connect with any of items that you have your personal bias, just slinging mud & nonsense around.
We are clearly discussing the merits & justice in transportation, including the morality & efficiency for proper funding.
If you would only do some reading.
You guys sure are not “live & let live” types of people. Yikes!
What makes you think that we want you to live?
Can 100% of workers, live without paying for 65% of the transit, used regularly by <4% of the population (w/40% of them in the NYC area)?
This is about rail, in relation to a Biden blunder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DanCsvCmrMk&p=27D1E3768B3B107B&feature=BF&index=72
Who knows this rail trivia?
Reverse form
A: the northern transcontinental route (BNSF)
Q:
Hint: has to do with capitalism & private ______.
Answer in clip
Besides O'Toole & me, I doubt very few others ever heard of the point that I'm referring to.
Additional info not in clip: great rail service, town stops were better used for businesses.