U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2008, 04:20 PM
 
11,973 posts, read 27,618,634 times
Reputation: 4569

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
The term "best" is subjective. To me, a radical anarcho-capitalist, the best "public" transportation is none at all: I prefer free competition of private (non-governmental) roads, rental vehicles, taxis, buses, etc, etc, etc. Rail transport is an inflexible relic of the 20th century kept alive by government interventionism, especially in the fields of energy production. In a purely free market, we'd probably all be flying around in huge hover-trailers by now! So, to answer your question, I'd have praise for cities with good airports, roads, and taxi companies. I hear a company in Singapore is looking into helicopter buses / taxis, which I think is just awesome!
This is preposterous. Why do you completely ignore the massive government expenditures on highways and other roads? Oil industry subsidies and wars to keep the supply flowing are equally outside of any "free market". Give me a break. The automobile is so heavily subsidized by the government that people take it for granted.

 
Old 12-29-2008, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,851 posts, read 5,588,387 times
Reputation: 1723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout Kid View Post
This is preposterous. Why do you completely ignore the massive government expenditures on highways and other roads? Oil industry subsidies and wars to keep the supply flowing are equally outside of any "free market". Give me a break. The automobile is so heavily subsidized by the government that people take it for granted.
So True. For some reason a lot of conservatives attack government spending on public rail as being socialist or leftist liberal policy. But, they don't get upset about state, local and federal government every year spending billions and billions on public roads, highways, and bridges. Not that anythings neccesarily wrong with that spending, but if you find that in certain areas it's better to move people by rail, what's so wrong about the government spending money on that?
 
Old 12-30-2008, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,732 posts, read 12,150,182 times
Reputation: 2774
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest View Post
Johnatl,

I don't think MARTA is older than Metro.
Not sure how old Metro is, but MARTA's first rail line opened in '79.
 
Old 12-30-2008, 08:42 AM
 
4,953 posts, read 8,537,792 times
Reputation: 2067
BART opened in 1972 and Metro opened in 1975!
 
Old 12-30-2008, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,732 posts, read 12,150,182 times
Reputation: 2774
Thanks, DC! I love trivia, and have already "stored" this factoid away.
 
Old 12-30-2008, 11:21 AM
 
60 posts, read 153,342 times
Reputation: 33
I think Boston has a great system. It is hard to find an area in the city that doesn't have bus or T connections.
 
Old 12-30-2008, 11:40 AM
 
5,858 posts, read 14,046,541 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galounger View Post
So True. For some reason a lot of conservatives attack government spending on public rail as being socialist or leftist liberal policy. But, they don't get upset about state, local and federal government every year spending billions and billions on public roads, highways, and bridges. Not that anythings neccesarily wrong with that spending, but if you find that in certain areas it's better to move people by rail, what's so wrong about the government spending money on that?
Agreed. Plus the fact that, prior to the 1970s, most transit systems were privately owned. They were basically hobbled by the GOVERNMENT's post-WWII interstate highway projects to the extent they could no longer compete. The government then had to step in and subsidize them, as they do to this day. It wasn't the market that decimated mass transit in the US, it was the government.
 
Old 12-30-2008, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Omaha
2,716 posts, read 6,214,776 times
Reputation: 1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnatl View Post
Thanks, DC! I love trivia, and have already "stored" this factoid away.
You're lucky. I don't bother to "store" much anymore, as a night of drinking usually empties my storage bins.
 
Old 12-30-2008, 01:30 PM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,369,908 times
Reputation: 10924
I think it's funny how the thread about the WORST transit systems in the country had page after page after page discussing Chicago, New York and DC.

The thread about the BEST system in the country keeping talking about Atlanta, Houston and Dallas.



Not implying that the latter are by any means the worst, but still kinda funny how topics evolve...
 
Old 01-24-2009, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Irvine,Oc,Ca
1,423 posts, read 4,230,565 times
Reputation: 671
1.NY(Great Pub Trans)
2.Chicago(^^)
3.San Francisco(Most Walkable City)?
4.Boston
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top