Early Tuesday morning, Congressional leaders agreed on a 2011 budget package that zeros out funding for high-speed rail and rescinds $400 million in 2010 funding that remains unspent (transportation begins on p. 404). The package has the support of Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Speaker Boehner, and House Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers.
The budget plan, now more than six months overdue, also cuts Amtrak’s budget by $80 million and rescinds 2010 highway funds that remain unspent by the states. But the federal government will continue to spend money on highways, transit, and Amtrak. The real significance is that the budget plan is probably the death knell for Obama’s ambitious plan to spend more than $500 billion extending high-speed rail to most major American cities.
History shows that rail projects are never truly dead as long as rail nuts and rail contractors work together to keep them alive. The Florida high-speed rail plan, for example, was approved by voters in 2000, rejected by voters in 2004, approved by the governor in 2009, and rejected by a new governor in 2011.
Erectile dysfunction is an enormous fear of men levitra fast shipping pdxcommercial.com everywhere, of any age. Butterbur studies purchase female viagra have shown an association between Butterbur and a decrease in the number of headaches suffered. Imagine viagra sans prescription it’s the 9th inning, the bases are loaded and one run can win the game for your team. Once cialis prescription prices the blood enters in these chambers, it helps you get erection.
Since Obama’s own budgets never envisioned spending more than 10 percent of that amount during his administration, it is clear his strategy was to build a couple of demonstration lines, such as Tampa to Orlando, and hope they would spur political demands for a more complete system. That dream died when Florida Governor Rick Scott killed the Tampa-Orlando train.
With the Florida train dead and California train starved for funds, it is likely that Obama’s high-speed rail legacy will be limited to slightly faster trains in Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington state. These projects offer only slight speed gains over existing Amtrak service.
The Washington plan, for example, will spend at least $750 million to increase average Seattle-Portland speeds by 2.7 mph and increase the number of daily round trips from 5 to 7. The Illinois plan spends billions to increase average Chicago-St. Louis speeds by 5.7 mph and increase the daily trips from 5 to 8. State taxpayers will be obligated to subsidize these operations for 20 years or the states could be liable to repay part of the capital grants to the feds.
It’s about time! Too bad the Washington and Illinois plans couldn’t be stopped, too. They both represent a sheer waste of money. Why don’t people understand this? 750 million to increase average speeds by 2.7mph? It’s not just stupid, it’s a downright criminal and fraudulent use of taxpayer money.
Now the “evil car users should pay for Amtrak” crowd can start with the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
metrosucks posted:
Now the “evil car users should pay for Amtrak†crowd can start with the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
A motor fuels tax dedicated to funding Amtrak deficits (not sure if it was to fund operating or capital deficits) was proposed about 10 years ago by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who rode Amtrak most days from his home in Delaware to Washington, D.C.
The process couldn’t be more frustrating from my perspective. Every politician has their pet projects and ideological issues and hold on to them with their political death grip. It’s probably time to rethink HSR (and just about every other issue), but those in DC, and many in state and local governments too, seem more concerned with political point scoring. Look at every news outlet in America the day after the budget deal was brokered. Each one was asking which party “won.” It’s a mockery as watching CSPAN is akin to watching a football game these days.
Rail could be funded by a 10% ticket tax to provide an infrastructure trust fund (maybe combined with a small gas tax amount to annually eliminate or improve by signalization as many dangerous grade crossings with highways as posisble), and regular funding by way of a tax credit to the actual owners of Amtrak, the nation’s freight railroads.
Railroad tickets were taxed at a 10% rate from 1942 to 1962, but receive no benefit from it other than government subsidized competition – the money was redirected to highways and airports and the like. The railroad’s federal certificates of operation in the public convenience and necessity once committed them to providing haulage of passengers on their lines, which they were only partially relieved of statutorily through the formation of Amtrak. If this is something that is felt to be in the national interest which politically still appears to be the case, it could be paid for by way of a tax credit against their coprorate income tax to pay for any losses incurred by operations on their lines.
Andrew:
Rail could be funded by a 10% ticket tax to provide an infrastructure trust fund (maybe combined with a small gas tax amount to annually eliminate or improve by signalization as many dangerous grade crossings with highways as posisble), and regular funding by way of a tax credit to the actual owners of Amtrak, the nation’s freight railroads.
A nickel per gallon would be sufficient reparations to pay to rebuild out passenger rail network, in recognition of the unarguable facts that (1) government encouragement and SUBSIDIES of the competition, mostly the Stalinist road system starting 90 years ago; and (2) NONE of the ticket tax went to improve rail passenger services in the same manner that “user fees” (sic) went to road construction. Even after subtracting Amtrak subsidies since 1971, this amount must be several tens of billions of dollars, with interest and inflation.
A nickel per gallon would be sufficient reparations to pay to rebuild out passenger rail network
Oh, WOW! Talk about delusional libtards. Reparations? You’ve got to be out of your frigging minds! Let me explain it for you in terms you may be able to understand. Everyone drives cars now, instead of shuffling on the progressive-favored pork-rail because cars are better and offer a higher degree of mobility. Got it? Now go cry in the corner like all the other progressives.
You should know, in case you don’t, that it was the communists, naturally enough, who pioneered “smart-growth” style development, and the light rail and subways to serve these mid-rise buildings. The idea back then was to stack everyone like sardine cans so they’d be easy to watch. What’s the progressives’ excuse this time around?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/20656.html
metrosucks wrote:
“Everyone drives cars now, instead of shuffling on the progressive-favored pork-rail because cars are better and offer a higher degree of mobility.”
Better – that’s subjective!
Higher degrees of mobility – until they get stuck in traffic jams, because cars don’t scale well – it’s just a basic problem with cars. It’s worth observing that MIT’s engineers, who are really rather smart, are not proposing traditional cars for the future.
http://www.fastcompany.com/pics/reinventing-automobile#2
Many of the tower blocks were built in the UK under (right wing) Conservative Party governments. Light rail and subways were around before communism.
The reason more carriages are not provided is because a) carriages are expensive, and b) because although there are peaks on the rail units, for a large proportion of the time the carriages run empty and would run more empty if there were more carriages.
Back to the opening topic.
It seems like sanity has returned. That’s not to say that high speed rail has no place in the USA or the UK, but each task requires the appropriate tool, and the idea that high speed rail is the answer to all problems is like using an expensive screwdriver to open a paint can. Or using a claw hammer to knock in a screw.
metrosucks:
You should know, in case you don’t, that it was the communists, naturally enough, who pioneered “smart-growth†style development
No, the communists favored sprawl. Plank 9 of the Communist Manifesto reads: “9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”
They also wanted state control of transportation. Plank 6 “6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.”
American’s generally are blind to the government control they endure through driver’s licenses until they lose their through a DUI or other offense. They are utterly clueless that atomized development in identical (EQUAL!!!) houses and transportation alone in government controlled cars make it impossible to carry on normal social interaction with their neighbors and fellow citizens, leaving them beholden to the government controlled and monitored and licensed radio and TV stations and internet. They would be absolutely thrilled by the relentless sameness of American suburban development, both commercial and residential.
Communism is a system of mind and life and property control. It needn’t involve grinding poverty at least in theory, and in fact, the goal of communists was a rich wealthy society with the wealth was enjoyed in a mostly equal manner and commonly held by the people (the communists would be quite happy with things like pensions and 401K’s and the like which democratize the ownership of corporations and also permit control of the corporations to a select few licensed by the government with their CFA’s and CPA’s running the mutual and pension funds – they would be most unhappy with corporations like Bechtel or Cargill or the dread Koch Industries “selfishly” held by private individuals apart from government control and regulation).
Liberty, on the other hand, means being free to interact with our fellow human beings without needing government permission and to do with our property as we please without harming others. If you need a government license to travel to see a friend or colleague, you are obviously not free, but under the thumb of the government that grants you that license. Its impossible for their to be true freedom with the present arrangement of our transportation system. You will discover that if you don’t know it now the day you lose your driver’s license or have your car seized for what is supposedly a minor misdemeanor like unpaid parking tickets or speeding tickets.
Andrew, you speak as if driver’s licenses and the government tyranny imposed on drivers is somehow an integral part of driving. It only looks that way because government has seized control of all transportation in this country.
If you believe in freedom, you will eschew arguments about what’s “better” for people and allow them to decide, as free actors. And the communists may have talked about “sprawl” in their manifesto, but in practice, their ideology more closely resembled that of “smart growth”. We know that cars were relatively scarce and difficult to get in the communist regimes.
Mr.Setty: A nickel per gallon would be sufficient reparations to pay to rebuild out passenger rail network, in recognition of the unarguable facts that (1) government encouragement and SUBSIDIES of the competition, mostly the Stalinist road system starting 90 years ago; and (2) NONE of the ticket tax went to improve rail passenger services in the same manner that “user fees†(sic) went to road construction. Even after subtracting Amtrak subsidies since 1971, this amount must be several tens of billions of dollars, with interest and inflation.
THWM: Well roads aren’t Stalinism, they’re just plain old socialism.
As for the 5 cents per gallon of gas to rebuild rail lines for freight and passenger use. That’s a good idea.
msetty posted:
mostly the Stalinist road system starting 90 years ago</cite:
Speaking of Stalin, here are some images from the Stalinist East Germany (look at the housing and (empty) streets:
Stalinallee
Berlin-Lichtenberg
In East Berlin, enormous modern buildings
What is the root of the progressive’s delusional obsession with choo choo trains?
Speaking of Stalin, here are some images from the Stalinist East Germany (look at the housing and (empty) streets:
While the smart growth crowd may have updated its designs to make them look more palatable to the public, the underlying ideas are basically the same. Anti-car, anti-mobility, stuff them all in mid-rise apartment buildings, take from to and from work on a slow, inefficient trolly of some sort, and be sure there is nothing to buy at the end of the day (that evil consumerism!).
metrosucks:
What is the root of the progressive’s delusional obsession with choo choo trains?
Not being a progressive, I can only surmise that they think it is environmentally friendlier and useful to the poor. That seems to be most of what progressives talk about. Its also a heavily unionized industry, so there is another angle.
Let me ask another question. What is it with conservative ire, ignorance, and dismissal of the rail system as backwards and antiquated? They only discovered a love for the freight railroads as great capitalist enterprises in the past 4-5 years. Steve Forbes just dismissed further development of the rail system as a “bridge to the 19th century”. Would any conservative seriously talk like that about the mining or steel industries?
Speaking as an investor, conservatives certainly weren’t on board for the tremendous run up in railroad stocks from the mid 1980’s to present because you never saw a reccomendation for a buy in the industry from them despite the history of fat dividends and price appreciation. There was certainly little love for the system from the modern conservative movement in the period from 1950 to 2005 as government interference in transportation was wreaking havoc with these private enterprise’s bottom line as with no other industry. Clarence Carson’s book of classic conservative analysis of the situation, “Throttling the Railroads”, is barely known (its available ont he website of the Freeman). Conservatives have no idea who George Hilton, John Kneiling, or William Middleton are, although they also wrote great analyses of the decline of the rail system from a conservative economic approach.
You clearly like trains, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I like trains too. So does Randal. But that’s different from attempting to translate a personal preference into workable policy. In today’s world, the inflexibility of rail, and the often extraordinary expense related to its implementation, makes it highly inappropriate for most corridors.
While rail is highly useful as a private enterprise, for the carrying of freight, it simply doesn’t have an important place for carrying passengers. I am unaware of any metropolitan area in the world where public transit carries a majority of commuters. The car won this fight because of its convenience and the mobility factor. Many want to blame rail’s slide on the government subsidizing the car, but let us remember that the government subsidizes many things, most of which turn out to be spectacular failures. In other words, the car would have won in the end, subsidies or not.
I find it especially disturbing that anyone would discuss absolutely ridiculous ideas such as high speed rail between, say, Bakersfield and Fresno, with a straight face. No one seems to have even asked if the idea made sense in the first place. I find the same attitude prevalent in many of these proposed, so-called high speed rail corridors.
Now let me be clear. If private companies want to invest money in high speed rail and go at it with hopes of profits, by all means, be my guest. But this is not the place or time for public monies to be expended on a highly dubious venture, one with a proven track record of cost overruns, under-performance, and political cronyism.
My point about reparations to repair out intercity passenger rail systems stands, despite the harrumphing of bellowing Regressives like Metrosucks.
Now, in a quite odd coincidence, I happen to agree with the Regressive harrumpher in this thread that the HSR proposal between nowhere south of Fresno and nowhere north of Bakersfield makes no sense.
What actually makes sense is to use the same money to build the missing passenger rail link between Bakersfield and Santa Clarita, and then into L.A. via upgraded existing tracks. There actually would be enough money between the existing federal money earmarked for California HSR (despite the temporary HSR cuts in the current budget deal, which actually has done those of us supporting sensible HSR development a HUGE favor!) and the state bonds for this to build the Bakersfield-Santa Clarita link, upgrade the existing San Joaquins route to full double track and electrifcation, and upgrade the commensurate extensions into the Bay Area and to Sacramento.
This would increased San Joaquins patronage by 5-6 fold, put it in the black, and reduce running times to about 4 1/2 hours from LA to SF or Sacramento.
In the longer run, an incremental 220 mph link could be constructed down the middle of I-5 between Bakersfield and Tracy, reducing the above travel times to less than 3 hours, e.g., the goal of the HSR plan in California.
An excellent article describing this incremental strategy is available at http://www.calrailnews.com, link to April 2011 issue.
Ooops! It was the January 2011 issue…but the latest has some very interesting perspectives as well.
My point about reparations to repair out intercity passenger rail systems stands, despite the harrumphing of bellowing Regressives like Metrosucks.
Of course it stands. You’re delusional. I suggest that your next step be to compare rail’s defeat to the Holocaust or slavery. That might make more sheeple sympathetic to your fantasy of choo choo for everyone.
The best way to travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles, for regular commuters, is by airplane. And those who find this commute necessary can no doubt afford to pay for the tickets. There is no need for the taxpayers to subsidize their commute via an exceedingly expensive and unnecessary high speed rail.
I just visited that http://www.calrailnews.com, and now I see why msetty likes it. It reflexively supports all rail programs, agitates against automobiles, and spread FUD about cars. I especially like this quote from their “positions” page:
…do nothing but add credence to the even more wasteful automobile lobby whose activities are both sapping the economic vitality of the country and severely damaging its environment.
Uh huh
msetty wrote:
An excellent article describing this incremental strategy is available at http://www.calrailnews.com, link to April 2011 issue.
A source of information with an alternative point of view can be found on Martin Engle’s High-SpeedTrainTalk blog.
Oh, yeah, Metrosucks, Martin Engle and other U.S. Regressives are oh, so sane, while the rest of the world is insane.
Talk about American Exceptionalism! Yeah, U.S. Regressive politics is exceptional alright. Exceptionally insane and brain dead.
Poor baby, just have your tantrum OK? It’ll be all right, we promise.
metrosucks:
The auto had about 90% of the travel market by the pre-WWII 1940-1941 period due to the convenience factor and the government spending billions (which was a lot of money at that time) on what is now the US Highway system. This change killed off the interurban, branch line locals, and most trolley systems.
The full decline of intercity passenger rail and big city commuter systems after that came about from (1) the jet airline taking the long distance market between circa 1953 and 1966 and (2) the emptying out of jobs from the urban core and the introduction of urban freeways taking away the commuter market.
I disagree that there is no place for passenger rail unless a private corporation wants to undertake the task. We don’t expect that of roads but instead expect them to be there for our convenience on demand as a public utility and close to our front door or driveway or property. In constrained high volume corridors and commutersheds, commuter rail, subways, and intercity rail makes plenty of sense to me as an alternative to driving and the construction of more freeways. Obviously politicians of all stripes agree with this based on the popular and voter approved programs of construction ongoing in Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and elsewhere, as well as the support that exists for the old east coast/Chicago/San Francisco systems and Amtrak.
In my town of Philadelpha, there is certainly nowhere for the 250,000 daily rail riders to go on the existing freeway system. The 300,000 in Boston have no place to go either. Similarly, the 400,000 rail riders each in Washington or Chicago could not be handled by the roads there, nor could the 3 million around New York City.
Its not that a Metro area of 5+ million can’t exist without rail. Houston is perfect proof it can. Its just that our older big metro areas are not and never will be built like Houston is, and many newer areas like Dallas and Denver have decided they don’t want a fully motorized transportation system to be their only option of transportation apart from walking.
This doesn’t mean we need a trolley down every main street again and it certainly doesn’t justify any rail line someone dreams up.
Andrew wrote:
“The auto had about 90% of the travel market by the pre-WWII 1940-1941 period due to the convenience factor and the government spending billions (which was a lot of money at that time) on what is now the US Highway system. This change killed off the interurban, branch line locals, and most trolley systems.”
Not really. The trams died quickly, because their passengers also wanted cars. Their passengers saw the cars as an opportunity for freedom. In their mind’s eye, the state would build enough road space for everyone to drive their cars as much as they wanted. This process stopped when people no longer wanted motorways rammed through their neighbourhoods, and indeed I believe to this day there is a section of motorway which just ends in mid-air when the political support ran out.
If by “US Highway System” you mean the Interstate, that was post-war under Eisenhower. The trams were, mostly, long gone by then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
metrosucks wrote:
“I am unaware of any metropolitan area in the world where public transit carries a majority of commuters.”
Some areas of London have very high mode shares for public transport, including rail, bus and taxis.
As an aside, in Groningen, the modal share for bicycles is 57%, and cars are very much in the minority.
The Harrumphing Regressive spouted:
…It’ll be all right, we promise.
Thanks for your pledge. Yes, things will be much better when the temporary Regressive majority in the House gets voted out in 2012, if you believe some recent polls.
Hey msetty, go take your meds, OK?
To Andrew and Francis: I am glad we are having this constructive discussion. Yes, I fully agree that rail makes sense in certain areas/corridors. You won’t get an argument from me there. However, the corridors under discussion, such as Washington or California, are not corridors that make sense. I am sure there are other areas where the money would make more sense, whether it is rail or highway construction.
That’s a bad case of internet cojones. There’s a name for people that will say things on the web that they’d never dream of saying to someones face (see: bitch).
This ought to annoy the Harrumphing Regressive even more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFbI_I6nFs&feature=player_embedded#at=13. Put out by Ray LaHood’s blog.
All I saw at that link was a disturbing propaganda piece with no basis in reality. Anyone who considers themselves a reasonable, informed individual, yet supports the current streetcar delusion and all the lies driving it, needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
Francis King:
The US Highway system are the original federal aid highways that blanketed the country before the interstates. From US 1 on the east coast to US 101 on the west, and from US 2 up north to US 80 down south, and including the famous US 40 and US 66 through the middle.
Francis:
Thanks for pointing out those exceptions to the rule. Again, extremely dense areas are areas where cars don’t do as well.
I understand that these streetcars and trams were privately owned and used to promote real estate sales. Which is why it’s weird that after they stopped being useful, government is now agitating for their reconstruction, often pretending that these streetcars were somehow “stolen away” from their users by evil car companies/etc.
Here’s a question I pose to both antiplanners and New Urbanists alike: In Roger Ebert‘s recent review of ATLAS SHRUGGED, he (somewhat?) sarcastically chides the libertarian-themed film for its infatuation with trains:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/REVIEWS/110419990
But…having never read ATLAS, I am curious if Ayn Rand chose to feature trains prominently for a reason — was she skeptical of the future of air travel or other transportation methods? Did she like trains and thought heavy-handed regulation would soil their awesomeness? What gives with the train motif?
On a related note, can anybody tell me if the film focuses on trains because, as Randal has blogged, the left seems to be quite fond of them? Or is just a case of the film being true to Rand’s vision?
Lastly, I’m fairly certain Rand dug rumpy-pumpy, just as liberals do, but I’m curious what others think.
“In constrained high volume corridors and commutersheds, commuter rail, subways, and intercity rail makes plenty of sense to me as an alternative to driving and the construction of more freeways. Obviously politicians of all stripes agree with this based on the popular and voter approved programs of construction ongoing in Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and elsewhere, as well as the support that exists for the old east coast/Chicago/San Francisco systems and Amtrak.”
Andrew, I’m not sure why you’d use Denver as an example. Yes, Fastracks did pass in the 2004 referendum. It was popular in that sense. But recent polling by groups that love the project like Coalition for Smart Transit, show that a doubling of the tax to give them less and later than promised in 2004 is not popular amongst the people of Metro Denver. Or if you measure popularity, I’m not sure it’s ever been popular. For example, in the I25 in the Tech Center Corridor “ridership” on I25 is @250k / week day versus @35k / week day for the parallel Southeast LRT line. So where people have a choice, driving is 8 times more popular.
“Speaking as an investor, conservatives certainly weren’t on board for the tremendous run up in railroad stocks from the mid 1980?s to present because you never saw a reccomendation for a buy in the industry from them despite the history of fat dividends and price appreciation. ” – Andrew
I’m not sure what railroads had fat dividends during this period of time. I didn’t see anything from SP, SF, UP, BN, et al. that I’d consider fat.
What really matters is the return on investment, both in terms of return on divedends and stock price appreciation. No one was excited about railroad stocks because their rate of return as an investment was worse than that of of the DJIA and S&P 500 during the same amount of time through 2006. It’s only when taking into account the last couple of years that they keep even with those indexes. When you’re not a better investment than simply dropping some money into a S&P500 mutual fund (or more recently ETF), you’re not going to get much attention from investors.
It’s great to see the big boys have the run up up in stock that they’ve had and seeing them doing well as companies. They’ve come a long, long, long way since the Staggers Act. But keep in mind what happened the last time their stock prices hit this level, within @6 months, 3 1/2 years of gains were wiped out.
Good points from prk166. To hold the Denver light rail system as an example of success is to be completely unaware of the utter failure it actually is. However, the Denver area transit authority continues its rail lunacy unabated, and unhindered by reason, a need to keep its promises, or accountability. Kind of like Trimet.
Guys, don’t worry if the RTD or TriMet doesn’t make money.
Roads don’t make money either!
Metrosucks; I suggest that your next step be to compare rail’s defeat to the Holocaust.
THWM: Well the Holocaust(genocide/ethnic cleansing) is actually a very good analogy about our transportation policy. Today the USA has 100,000+ miles of rail line missing for nothing.
Even the most far right wing extremists will fight for socialism when it comes to road, air & water transport. Though not when it comes to maintaining rail.
Why I am not surprised.
@Metrosucks, thanks. I was trying to be more diplomatic and simply point out there are different ways of measuring popularity. As you mentioned, success is another one of those that gets used and yet measured in all sorts of ways.
Unfortunately far too often the media simply uses the measurement presented to them in a press release. I don’t mean to imply that it’s the wrong one but that it’s the media’s job to help us explore a few of those, not just the one handed over to them on a silver platter.
“Guys, don’t worry if the RTD or TriMet doesn’t make money.
Roads don’t make money either!” – THe HIghwayman
Guys? I wasn’t talking about RTD making money. Maybe you meant to refer to Metrosucks? But he wasn’t talking about RTD making money.
As for roads not making money, I’m not sure what you mean by that.
Roads are a public service that are largely paid for out of user fees. Their benefits are felt by every single person, both those who drive, and those who don’t.
On the other hand, public transit, especially light rail, street cars, and the like, cater to a small segment of society and don’t provide benefits to anyone besides the vocal minority they serve. Buses are the most effective use of public transportation dollars in most markets. Exceptions exist, mostly on the east coast.
So let’s recap. If MAX light rail disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change. No economic disaster, no change in congestion on local freeways. No one would notice. If the roads disappeared, life would cease to exist as we know it.
Therefore, roads are worth a small subsidy, due to their universal usefulness. Wasteful trolley and light rail systems aren’t worth the huge, almost 100% subsidies they require. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Metrosucks, you only see transit as being waste, because you want to.
It isn’t important to you, though it is to other people in society.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Prk166; As for roads not making money, I’m not sure what you mean by that.
THWM: It means just that. Roads don’t exist on a profit of loss basis.
MS;Roads are a public service that are largely paid for out of user fees. Their benefits are felt by every single person, both those who drive, and those who don’t.
THWM: No Metrosucks. Even O’Toole has said, roads are there regardless of economic conditions. Roads are mostly paid for by property taxes.
MS; On the other hand, public transit, especially light rail, street cars, and the like, cater to a small segment of society and don’t provide benefits to anyone besides the vocal minority they serve. Buses are the most effective use of public transportation dollars in most markets. Exceptions exist, mostly on the east coast.
THWM: Every one benefits from public transit in society directly and indirectly. Wheather they realize it or not.
Also trams have lower operating costs than buses in busy areas.
MS; So let’s recap. If MAX light rail disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change. No economic disaster, no change in congestion on local freeways. No one would notice. If the roads disappeared, life would cease to exist as we know it.
THWM: Freeways could not exist & there would be no economic disaster for that matter. Though they only make up less than 2% of roads in the USA.
I’m not saying don’t have roads, though the deliberate trashing urban rail systems did have a negative economic impact on cities.
MS; Therefore, roads are worth a small subsidy, due to their universal usefulness. Wasteful trolley and light rail systems aren’t worth the huge, almost 100% subsidies they require. What’s so hard to understand about that?
THWM: Roads not having to exist on a profit or loss basis is a huge subsidy in it self.
Again trams cost less to operate than buses.
Now Metrosucks, why don’t you want to understand that?
This brings to mind the thing about arguing with fools. Only I’m not so sure it’s a fool I’m arguing with, as much as it’s a raging ideologue.
Thanks Metrosucks, but I already know that you’re raging ideologue.
Oh, so you’re the fool, OK got it.
Sheesh!