Posted on 05/11/2011 9:42:03 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
“archaic, 19th century technology like trains”
False. Trains are the best high tech way to move heavy freight, which is precisely why AMTRAK and highspeed nostalgia should get the h out of the way.
If we truly had competent central planning, the central planner would plan to get the heavy trucks off the highways where they are pounding the pavement and requiring frequent rebuilding.
The real problem with central planning is that it always becomes pressure group du jour planning. In contrast the invisible hand does the same thing that competent central planning would do while avoiding the overhead of the central planners and avoiding the costs of the pressure group du jour.
Mark
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make. Time was, the progressive cry was "Workers of the world unite!" or "Power to the people!" Now it is less resonant: "All aboard!"
Certain forms of public transit make sense in certain places. The left think trains belong everywhere regardless of cost ,ridership or needs of the majority of people.
My son and I love to ride the public bus on weekends.
I would to take DA BUS from where I lived at Three Tables to my job as a dish washer ( one of those jobs that the rats say Americans wont do.) at Pat's at Punalu’u for a quarter each way.
I had a car but it was cheaper to take DA BUS.
That said I still drove to town (Honolulu) in my car when I
need to go there.
Even though the same quarter on the same bus I took to work would take me to town.
The reason is I wanted to go where I wanted to when I wanted to.
No public transportation pays for itself, ELIMINATE ALL OF IT!!!
If the government wants to start a venture it should require 25% investment of private money. If private money cannot be rasied, then I don't want public money in it. It Warren Buffett won't invest in it, neither should we.
When I was stationed in West Berlin, I used public transportation all of the time when I was off duty. The buses and subways were cheap, convenient, safe, and clean.
I don’t use public transportation here because it is expensive, inconvenient, sometimes dangerous, and usually filthy.
Makes sense if you live in London. Or maybe if you live in the North East Coast “metroplex.”
But not if you live 40 miles from the Atlanta suburbs and seven miles from the nearest grocery store.
“And, BTW, do you have a theory about why the government does not subsidize bus companies?”
Maybe not Greyhound but all local bus transportation is subsidized very heavily!
While trains are the best way to move freight they still won’t remove trucks from the highways. The problem is that trains lose the economic advantage over distances shorter than a couple of hundred miles.
Better to have a rail to road transfer point every 1000 miles with trucks able to radiate out 500 miles from there in all directions.
I used public transportation for several years and learned several very valuable life lessons in the process. As long as it pays for itself and is one of several equal options (i.e. no government-sponsored incentives), I have absolutely no problem with it.
Public transit is in a sense public building on wheels, i.e, a magnet for taggers.
Mass transit is not cost effective......When I see city buses running at 11 p.m. all summer long with no more than three people on board each night?.....POLLLEEEZZZZ!
Why Democrats are blue areas and why Republicans are Red areas on the map.
Posted on November 6, 2004 11:21:07 AM EST by april15Bendovr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1272763/posts
The largest revenue source for any operation is the best customer. In the case of transit systems, this would be the Federal Government. Typically less than 25% of the money comes from the rider. These contributes to poor rider service. The purpose of transit is income transfer, and political patronage. They just happen to have buses, as an excuse to look busy. If the program should ever come close to breaking even, the managers will do WHATEVER, and I mean WHATEVER it takes to lose money.
I have no problem with mass transit where it works and makes sense. Tokyo and even New York would not work without mass transit. Forcing me into funding unworkable systems like the one in Portland, OR or forcing me out of my car by government policy or edict is what I oppose.
My problem with mass transit has always been the vast quantities of my money they want for it, and the negligible positive effect it has on my life. I don’t ride it because it sucks, most folks who can afford to not ride don’t because it sucks, so the effect on traffic is zero, and meanwhile we still sink tons of tax dollars into it.
Dirty, inconvenient, slow, noisy, limiting, ultimately no cheaper than private transport, DIRTY—what’s not to love?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.