MUSLIMS
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Posted on 05/11/2011 9:42:03 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I agree, so do I - which is like never. My new 'local line' built at great expense on an old freight line runs frequently, and empty most of the time. Why? Because it carefully avoids most shopping centers and other centers of activity along its route. One exception, a loop that goes to the local university, or at least to within 2 or 3 hundred yards - clever planning!
One end of this local line actually connects with the 'main line.' Where does that go? Well it certainly does not go anywhere near, or stop at any of the 4 airports - really good planning eh?
As I said, I use it when it makes sense for me.
P.S. Has anyone flown into Frankfort or Heathrow airports - those are examples of convenient mass transport connections.
Wasn’t there a time when “public” transportation was done by private companies?
What happened?
I’m for that being the case again.
LOL! No, the real problem with central planning is that it doesn't work.
The 70 year experiment with central planning ended in the late 80's, a total failure with more than 100 million people dying from central planning in the last century alone.
Seehs, what an idiotic post you put up.
I don’t have a problem with mass transit when it is being used. I live near Green Bay and when I see the buses going down the road with one or two people riding in them, it is obviuosly a waste of money.
What is needed is a regional trains from Tampa to Atlanta.
Then you would just love it where I live. I live in a TN town of about 40,000 with a University. One of our tidbits from the stimulus package was grant money for a public transportation system. We were told how great it would be; students wouldn't have to walk a mile to shopping, the poor could get free rides to where they needed to go (there is already a service for that, but hey, its free, right?), etc. So now we have two (green energy burning) buses circling the city all day. riderless. We had a piece in the local rag recently praising the program because it's ridership had increased 50% in just a few months.
Problem is, the increase was from like 400 riders per month to 600. Wow. Ten riders per day, per bus. And not all even pay for it. I've heard that they are now secretly hiring college kids to ride the bus so it doesn't always appear empty. I was going to make it a project to get this program killed but I've learned that the department in charge is like the local mafia. You mess with them, and your utilities get accidentally cut off, that sort of thing.
Govt. policy--taxes and labor--ruined the railroads.
Because it is a massively expensive Government boondoggle that accomplishes none of the things it claims to do while creating yet another constant drain on the taxpayer's checkbook
Here in DC, the buses drive me insane during the work week. They fail to adhere to the basic rules of the road (written and unwritten), and essentially slow down traffic. And I'm not talking about tour buses, which deserve their own circle of hell.
I understand NYC is planning dedicated bus lanes. That's probably a good, and workable, idea.
Absurd nonsense fantasy. Train goes from A to B, to get to the dozens of other places the materials need to go, you put them on trucks. Trains only work as long as the tracks go where you need to be. For the other 99% of the freight hauled in this country, you need trucks.
MUSLIMS
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
I always take the Underground in London. Much cheaper - and faster - than taxis.
I’m perfectly fine with mass transit that is privately owned, and operates in a free market without subsidy. There are plenty of places where this is the case, and it used to be common in US cities.
I’m also tolerant of government-run transportation systems (including highways) as long as the full cost is paid for by the users or clear beneficiaries. (And that doesn’t mean that drivers who enjoy slight congestion reduction should be forced to pay an unlimited subsidy of public transit users).
I took it to get around London and enjoyed it. Much better than driving or taxis. I don’t know how people drive cars in London, much less those double-decker buses. Doesn’t seem like there’s a inch of room on the streets.
But doesn’t it seem a bit ancient and patched? I really enjoyed looking out the windows at the infrastructure - signals, tunnels, cables, etc. Sort of a cross-section of the technology of the London Underground.
Mind the gap!
And Willie Green is still deeply saddened.
I don’t ride city buses because of the feral thugs that infest them. It isn’t safe.
“How about a very simple reason? Mass transit costs me more to use in terms of time and money than a car does for where I need to go.
Of course, if I worked in a city where parking was expensive and traffic was awful, I would most likely use transit. “
First, your latter statement makes economic sense.
“Free” roads vs. mass transit is a false dichotomy.
1. They are both publicly funded mass transit programs paid for through taxes.
I used to file motor fuel tax returns for Amoco many years ago. The returns were hundreds of millions of dollars per month, just for *state* motor fuel taxes, not including federal. That’s not “free” and it’s not cheap. Roads and roadway related taxes aren’t limited to motor fuels taxes, either. We can’t count on the price of a gallon of gas to clue us in on the true cost of driving a car. Our faithful politicians have successfully shielded us from that burden.
Just because we don’t see the full cost of our trips every time we get into our cars doesn’t mean we aren’t paying for them.
2. There are alternatives to publicly funded mass transit systems. The public/private tollway here in Houston (which I opposed) has been pretty successful. If you want to drive in a faster lane, you have to carpool or pay more. A lot of folks pay. My company buys our bus tickets to free up parking downtown, which costs them a lot more. If it makes economic sense to take a bus in a city, someone will start routes. The government should not make regulations to stop them.
If we oppose mass transit on principle, we should oppose mass transit, including public roads. However, given the choice of “mass transit” by bus and train or mass transit by car and road, I’m not sure the latter is the cheaper of the two in most cases. Car payments, inspections, repairs, licenses, insurance and tax on much of the above all increase the cost of driving.
The real travesty here is the hidden nature of the costs of transit when the government runs the show. As in healthcare, the consumer never faces the economic consequences (or, more accurately, never directly sees the consequences) of their decisions.
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.