Congress plans to reauthorize federal transportation spending some time in the next 18 months, and to help people understand the issues, the American Dream Coalition has published a Citizens’ Guide to Transportation Reauthorization. For those who want to print the guide on a black-and-white printer, a color-free version is also available.
However, in a person with severe erectile dysfunction, the partner too tends to lose her interest and certainly brings down to http://amerikabulteni.com/2018/02/22/abdde-silaha-karsi-liseli-isyani-yayiliyor/ viagra online a fight amongst them which leads to improper erections. IVF remains more complicated for Obese Women and they require different medication amerikabulteni.com online sales viagra doses than normal weight women. It is called purchase levitra online by the nick name of levitra. A super levitra medicine which is very well known and effective is called kamagra oral jelly.
The eight-page guide includes twenty charts explaining such issues as where gas taxes are spent, highways vs. rail, and the best ways to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The paper suggests a variety of questions people should ask about any proposal for federal reauthorization, and presents its own recommendations for what Congress should do.
The text is documented with numerous citations, and the guide also lists a dozen other papers for further information.
That was just 8 pages of hate mongering & fear mongering.
Why do Cato, Reason, etc. hate & fear mass transit so much?
Making things auto dependent, is more about control, than freedom.
Making things auto dependent, is more about control, than freedom.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Mimizhusband wrote:
“Instead of no earmarking, I think that every project should be earmarked, so that Congress itself can actually be held responsible for this spending. ”
I would divide projects into two kinds – federal and non-federal. A federal project would be the interstate highway – very expensive, and something which crosses the continental USA. Putting in a tram or bus route only applies to the state area, and is non-federal. Why don’t the states pay for it? None is so poor that they couldn’t raise the money if it was important to do so.
Spending federal money on state projects encourages people to treat the money as free, and hence be more wasteful with it. The EU is slowly moving from a confederate system of government to a federal system of government – yet even now, auditors can’t get the numbers to add up right.
American Dream Coalition wrote:
“Meanwhile, says University of California planning Professor Robert Cervero, the idea that new roads “induce†demand is a myth”.
No. If a road runs more freely, the generalised cost of each trip goes down, and the number and length of the trips goes up.
Also, development can only happen if there is sufficient road capacity to accommodate the associated traffic. Following road improvements, there is now a case for the latent development requests to be approved. Bang! there goes the extra capacity.
See ‘Newbury Bypass’ for a classic example of this.
“One of the biggest misallocations of funds has been to rail transit construction. Transit is important for those who lack access to an automobile or prefer not to drive. But the idea that spending billions of dollars on new rail transit lines will significantly relieve congestion or save energy has been disproved by decades of experience.”
When the transcontinental railroads were considered, British engineers opined that it was impossible. It would cost too much to buy high quality lumber, and to provide a properly graded gravel bed for the sleepers to lie on. The transcontinental railroads were built, because they used the timber they had to hand (and used more of it, where the quality was suspect), and by laying the sleepers onto the bare earth.
If there is a mismatch between transit costs, patronage, and income, this doesn’t mean that transit is not important. What it means is that the projects need to be rethought.
“Rail transit is far more expensive than alternatives while the service it provides is inferior to that of buses.”
Not true. Rail provides a superior service. It has proper platforms, with multiple doors for fast loading and unloading of passengers. It is usually electric, smooth and quiet. The question is whether it is the most appropriate system.
Figure 2 of this web-link shows the most appropriate form of transit in different circumstances:
http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/PublicTransport/AdvancedBuses/AdvancedBuses.htm
“Moreover, under Obama’s fuel-economy standards, the average car on the road will be more energy efficient in 2025 than the most energy-efficient transit systems in the nation.”
Is this a comparison of predicted fuel efficiencies, or is it a comparison of observed transit efficiencies against theoretical car efficiencies?
I never see anything regarding externalities of automobiles, except a small blurb you mentioned. In Oregon in 2008, fatal crashes alone had a 700 million dollar economic price tag:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/07/oregons_deadly_need_for_speed.html
The “induced traffic demand” is fact! Just like the induced fire fact (build a fire station and more houses will catch on fire). Same goes for induced food stuffs fact (build a grocery store and it fills up with food).
These are all valid claims! (Can’t possibly be such a thing like meeting latent demand.)
WS: Remember that these externalities of automobile use are also shared by transit. If you extrapolate deaths per passenger mile to transit, (remember the recent deaths on commuter/passenger rail) you will probably find more people getting killed by transit including railroad crossings. Some data I have seen suggest light rail is most dangerous of all.
Close Observer said: The “induced traffic demand†is fact!
THWM: As in retail, people will buy more of some thing if it’s on sale.
gene_weeks said: If you extrapolate deaths per passenger mile to transit, (remember the recent deaths on commuter/passenger rail) you will probably find more people getting killed by transit including railroad crossings.
THWM: That makes no sense. Some one driving their car in front of a train at a crossing is an auto fatality.
gene_weeks:
I wasn’t talking about safety. I was talking about externalized economic cost. Just a tid-bit from a recent ODOT study on fatal wrecks.
As I’l say again in an aphorism that functions as an all-purpose debunking of The Other Mike’s “philosophy” (and for some cockamamie reason, he thinks is an all purpose ad hominem attack–perhaps it does, but not in a way clear to me…but I digress):
The economy is like sex. It is essential but is only part of life.
There are valid reasons to consider the economy and market in the great sausage factory that is “policy development” for transportation and most other things in Washington, D.C. The economy and market are important but hardly the only considerations.
Take this logic as something people like The Other Mike won’t ever get, or perhaps refuse to get. Kinda like the Darwinian fact that people indeed do function as individuals, always in relationship with other people. Indeed, the latter is the fundamental building block of groups, tribes, collectives, and many other entities of collective human action, from the family on up.
msetty: Debunking. I do not think this word means what you apparently think it means. None of what you just posted debunks even the first syllable of Objectivism.
But enjoy your collectivist delusions. Their endpoint is known, though when it will be reached is still yet to be seen.
The Other Mike:
…Collective delusions…??
No, “Objectivist” delusions. Tens of millions of Ayn Rand books have been sold around the world since World War II, according to some sources, “second only to the Bible” according to the same sources. But serious “Objectivists” number perhaps a few tens of thousands. If Objectivism is so compelling and useful in everyday life, you’d think it would have orders of magnitude more membership, and very wide influence than, say, the Libertarian Party of the U.S.
Please explain the piss poor “conversion rate”
The Other Mike
You might want to objectively (sic) review the articles at this link, if you really understand “rationality” (sic) as it really is, i.e., a tool, nothing else.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.htm
A Geocities site? Yeah, pass. I’m sure it’s a paragon of credibility, but I’m going to go ahead and take my chances by missing out on its wonderful revelations.
I don’t require your approval for my philosophy to work. As such, I see no need to prove anything to you. Or even argue anything, as it is clear you made up your mind long ago. I will continue advocating those things I know will work, while you continue pushing things that never have and never will. Eventually you will wear out your welcome.
Oh, and for the benefit of other readers, re: the “piss poor” conversion rate of Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism:
Most people are not schooled in philosophy. The vast majority of people see life as an interconnected web of concretes, and take a pragmatic approach to fixing problems. Such a person reading Atlas Shrugged is going to simply trend Republican (excepting the devoutly religious, for whom Rand’s atheism is a dealbreaker). Those who are politically schooled but not philosophically schooled will take one step further and be Libertarians. Those who understand the aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemologies of philosophies, meanwhile, can render the contents of Atlas and other Objectivist texts into their underlying abstract principles. These people take a principled approach to a problem even when it is not a pragmatic solution. The principle is the absolute, and the world is indeed a black-and-white moral place. These people become Objectivists. They are a minority of people overall, and thus are a minority of those who read Rand’s work, though likely not as great a minority in that subset.
What gets me the most is that Atlas Shrugged isn’t even the first time a novel has been, at heart, a freethinker’s creed of individual rights and the moral purpose of life. Rand’s literary idol was Victor Hugo, and Hugo’s fingerprints are all over Rand’s novels. Les Miserables was Atlas Shrugged done 100 years early. (And again, I am speaking of the underlying abstract principles. A typical person thinking in concretes will not agree with this assessment, while it stands out clear as day to a free-market capitalist, freethinker, or Objectivist.) Les Mis sold huge numbers just like Atlas did, but there wasn’t as much of a political knee-jerk against it because the poison of socialism had not yet pervaded French society.
So about that “conversion rate?” It’s everywhere. Every segment of society that is struggling to free itself of the government’s tendrils is acting upon Atlas’s underlying abstract principles. Objectivism is not a religion and abhors the notion of faith, so “adherents” that self-identify will be limited to the philosophically-taught as noted above. Others call themselves independents, constitutionalists, Republicans, and even Democrats in some instances, and they may not be entirely consistent with Objectivist principles, but they have made a mental connection with some facet of those principles and are holding onto it for dear life against a hostile tide of statism under Bush and now under Obama.
And, sometimes a rose is just a rose. Rand’s sales figures, even half a century after the novels were published, speak for themselves. The buyers can’t all be haters, because it’s obvious as a neon sign that most leftist/statists have not read them. (or failed to comprehend what they read… or more likely, evaded those aspects of the books that illustrate flaws in their entire belief system.)
To sum up Objectivism in one sentence, “Don’t lie to yourself.” If you examine the core of what most leftist/statist/socialists want to do, on some level, they have allowed themselves to believe something untrue because they wish it to be true. For example, they have allowed themselves to believe that light rail will turn their neighborhood into a neo-modern utopia, because they want it to be so. They figure if they just want it badly enough, it can happen.
The sky-high cost, low ridership history, and documented environmental and economic impact of building light rail are things that the leftist/statist/socialist evades by pretending they aren’t there. They lie to themselves that those facts aren’t facts and that their wish is all that matters, so they mislead, misdirect, and obfuscate the public from those facts so that the public will let them build the rail anyway.
I grew up as one of those pie-in-the-sky utopians who thought I could change the world with a protest sign. I learned that when you don’t lie to yourself, life becomes infinitely better… and morality becomes infinitely clearer.
A Geocities site? Yeah, pass.
So what? If I didn’t like the ISP that Randal uses, by your reasoning Randal is also not credible. For someone so “rational” this is quite stupid. And this is a “smoking gun” where you prove you are a utopian, closed-minded crank whose debating style hardly constitutes “good faith.”
In the end, the essay you disdain because its on Geocities has this conclusion about your ilk:
Results and Conclusions
There is no possibility that the Objectivist philosophy could ever be implemented in a free society. It is too full of contradictions and naive assumptions. It is too much of an orthodox belief system with a complete set of devotees, factions, and ousted renegades to be taken seriously by any but camp followers. What it could do, if it were embraced by a significant number of persons, is contribute toward undermining the confidence in existing democratic governmental institutions, cause a breakdown of governmental authority and a disintegration of the nation’s spirit. This it may have already done, to some extent. It’s sloganeering serves as a seductive shorthand solution for problems that can only be dealt with through broad awareness and mature understanding. If, as was stated above, the influence of Atlas Shrugged in the lives of individuals was second only to the Bible, these ideas hold sway over at least as many minds of the better educated in our society as Marxism did in the 40’s and 50’s.[YEAH, PEOPLE LIKE ALAN GREENSPAN and many “Masters of the Universe” that helped bring our financial system down, among others].
Rand’s philosophy appeals to those self-centered leanings that are present in all of us — leanings that struggle for ascendency in all our consciousnesses, and that all too often easily and even eagerly embrace a philosophical system that will justify them and reinforce them. While it is a self-assuring philosophy, it is not a transforming and uplifting one. It does not inspire gratitude, generosity and magnanimity, but rather self-seeking, opportunism and a disregard for others.
Objectivists generally find their critics to be very ignorant of Objectivism and to be unqualified to form a judgment on it. To a large extent, they are probably right. But what such Objectivists fail to realize is, a philosophy is not a thing to itself, a doctrine of secret knowledge to be appreciated only by a group of cognoscenti. If it is to influence public policy if, indeed, it is to become the public philosophy, its purpose is not reserved for discussions between philosophers; it should consist of ideas for public consumption and for solving social problems. If philosophy has any value at all, it explains to us the deeper meaning of the world around us, and it does this in a way that imparts insight and wisdom to all seekers, not just to a select group. In other words, it must enter the free marketplace of ideas and demonstrate new and insightful understandings on public issues. It must deal with the facts that man faces in his ordinary life. The idea that “only an Objectivist can say what Objectivism is” is an absurdity for a philosophy that is supposed to become the central idea of a whole nation of people. Contrast that with Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:
“I know my own principles to be pure and therefore am not ashamed of them. On the contrary, I wish them known and therefore willingly express them to everyone. They are the same I have acted on from the year 1775 to this day, and are the same, I am sure, with those of the great body of the American people.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1798.
Also, the author of the Thomas Jefferson essays I’m quoting appears to be extremely well-educated on his chosen subject, as summarized at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/jeffpers.htm
So, it appears Mr. Coates (the author) was able to offer many insights into Objectivism as contrasted with Thomas Jefferson’s writings and philsophy. Unlike most people, Coates undoubtably took the time to learn the key details of Rand’s smelly little orthodoxies.
As I suspected, Msetty, your site has, in the words of Mr. Miyagi, “facts mixed up.” I was right not to waste my time on it. To name just one: Alan Greenspan hung out with the Objectivist crew once upon a time, but he sold it out. His monetarism is directly counter to the economic fundamentals embraced by Objectivism, and it is no surprise that it failed. He is “Robert Stadler,” which you would understand if you ever read Atlas yourself.
You know what? I’m not even going to continue. That entire quote you put up there is basically wrong in every single sentence. Demonstrably so. However, it’s not my job to hold your hand through it, and anyone else who is interested in learning the facts can do so themselves if they are capable of recognizing them. Suffice it to say that Objectivism is open to everybody and is 100% transparent, and is not dependent on the subjective assessment of any one person or group of people.
You’re confused. “Atlas Shrugged” is FICTION. FICTION. As in “NOT REAL.” As in, the author can ignore reality all he/she wants, for the sake of story. It has nothing to do with “truth.” I don’t base my beliefs on a dense, fundamentally unreadable novel by the crankiest crank of the 20th Century.
I’m now bored with this bullshit from over-schooled, but undereducated cranks like you.
You freaking idiot. I can say that now, because I finally remembered what had been on the edge of my mind since I saw your cut-n-paste above… that I had seen it before. That, indeed, people who know nothing about Objectivism but are leftist idiots like to cut-n-paste it as part of a message board argument. But let me defend my insult even further:
The CONCRETES of Atlas Shrugged are fiction. The characters are made up and the events of the story never happened. The ABSTRACTS of Atlas Shrugged are very real, apply to the very real world we live in, and constitute the first major exposition, through the device of a novel, of Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Rand further developed the philosophy through later writings.
Since your understanding of this world is through a concrete-based epistemology, you had no idea how to reckon such things, and thus committed the epic fail in your last post.
Of course, you haven’t read Atlas, so you wouldn’t know one way or the other. How you think you can argue a thing you clearly know nothing about, using cut-n-pastes from websites (Geocities pages, even) as the sum total of your substantive position, is pretty much prima facie proof you are an idiot, because only idiots do those things.
Since you are an idiot who tries to argue about things you know nothing about, it’s a waste of my time to even respond to you, and nobody else is reading this, so that’s about it, isn’t it? I was going to demonstrate how even the slightest scrutiny causes that cut-n-paste to fall apart, but anyone capable of recognizing that will make the necessary cognitive developments on their own, and nobody else is reading this anyway.
Mike,
Remember. Do not feed the trolls. They’ll go away.
Of course msetty hasn’t read Atlas Shrugged. Nor has Dan read it (as evidenced by a previous comment for which I’m too lazy to go searching). They share the same brain. They critique that which they have never experienced.
That should tell you a great deal about their level of contribution to these “discussions”.
Remember: DNFTT!
Frank,
Every so often I “feed the trolls” in an quixotic effort at trolling myself. It is quite entertaining but quickly becomes a bore.
This is the last post in my arguing with Objectivist loons for a long while, I hope. Yawn!
Well, one last shot, I hope this is…
Since you are an idiot who tries to argue about things you know nothing about, it’s a waste of my time to even respond to you, and nobody else is reading this, so that’s about it, isn’t it?
So WHY are YOU responding, TROLL? A few others seem to be reading this thread, why I can only speculate. Goodbye, asshole.
When it comes to trolls let’s not over look Mr.Karlock.
Be it about some thing in Portland OR or in San Antonio TX, he’s pretty much complaining for nothing, over nothing!
Well, Frank, you’re right. I suppose it was like a train wreck. You don’t want to stare, but you just can’t look away. 🙂
Sounds more like rubber necking with a wreck along a highway.
Of course msetty hasn’t read Atlas Shrugged. Nor has Dan read it
Another dipsh– moronic wrong assumption, moron. Anyone with half a brain read that and Fountainhead in high school. And moved on to avoid third-rate novels in the future and the dim-bulbs who fetishize them.
Of course some dim-bulbs here are impervious to the blatant fact of how many times it is pointed out their dim-bulb arguments are flat wrong, and won’t get the lesson here. Too bad, but at least they are self-marginalized and don’t get access.
DS
“Why do Cato, Reason, etc. hate & fear mass transit so much?” – Highwayman
Do you have a specific passage that would illustrate this alleged hate for transit?
prk166,
Highman never has anything specific or concrete to uphold whatever he is pretending to say.
Then why do you hate and/or fear mass transit so much?