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.
And while I understand the appeal of lower developed areas for those older (though disagree myself) I don't see what transit has to do with people disliking the area. Bettering it provides people much needed options, can take the strain off the infrastructure, helps the elderly and disabled get around, and yes, attracts some development. Its true you have the right, but why would you be against something that could help people and won't cost you anything? Its just appaling to me...
While I'm not against mass transit, it's appalling to me that you think that it doesn't cost anyone money. Mass transit in all but the most densely populated areas are never remotely profitable, and will always require a very large subsidy from the tax payers.
Mattee, I don't think you've understood my posts. I just read them over. They seem clear to me. I prefer to let the market dictate and supply the need ,not the government. As I said there are plenty of organizations that provide transportation for the elderly and they will increase as the demand increases.I myself feel satisfaction in knowing this since I may need the services in the distant future (I am not old BTW). Because I am not a fan doesn't mean I will make it my hobby to prevent the ability of those in need transportation. But if it comes to a vote I will likely exercise my right and vote against it.
While I'm not against mass transit, it's appalling to me that you think that it doesn't cost anyone money. Mass transit in all but the most densely populated areas are never remotely profitable, and will always require a very large subsidy from the tax payers.
And that's the problem with having the government take over. I would rather see a company own and operate it than city or county. The current local systems are inefficent and riddled with problems. If the problems with the current system was addressed then you would not see such a pitfall.
A good business doesn't operate on essentially longer bank hours, shut out its best business because of weekends, and give hour waits while idlying at a gas station half an hour.
Mattee, I don't think you've understood my posts. I just read them over. They seem clear to me. I prefer to let the market dictate and supply the need ,not the government. As I said there are plenty of organizations that provide transportation for the elderly and they will increase as the demand increases.I myself feel satisfaction in knowing this since I may need the services in the distant future (I am not old BTW). Because I am not a fan doesn't mean I will make it my hobby to prevent the ability of those in need transportation. But if it comes to a vote I will likely exercise my right and vote against it.
I doubt something like this will come to ba vote though. That has become the problem with this country, everybody demanding that everything must go to a vote when in a true republic you can't allow voting on things that have the potentially to negatively disenfranchise a minority
I doubt something like this will come to ba vote though. That has become the problem with this country, everybody demanding that everything must go to a vote when in a true republic you can't allow voting on things that have the potentially to negatively disenfranchise a minority
I think this discussion(for instance do we still live in a true republic) has moved closer to one best made in the politics forum, one I rarely visit. I've done my share of political discussions online with little satisfaction or pleasure. Thank-you for the exchange though.
And that's the problem with having the government take over. I would rather see a company own and operate it than city or county. The current local systems are inefficent and riddled with problems. If the problems with the current system was addressed then you would not see such a pitfall.
A good business doesn't operate on essentially longer bank hours, shut out its best business because of weekends, and give hour waits while idlying at a gas station half an hour.
The problem with this logic is that no business can make a profit unless they charge many times more than normal mass transit prices.
You want mass transit that doesn't cost the taxpayers any money, but you also don't want to pay $10 for a bus ride downtown. Unfortunately I don't see this as a reality.
While I'm not against mass transit, it's appalling to me that you think that it doesn't cost anyone money. Mass transit in all but the most densely populated areas are never remotely profitable, and will always require a very large subsidy from the tax payers.
If you are not a taxpayer, then all this government stuff is free for the taking.....
The problem with this logic is that no business can make a profit unless they charge many times more than normal mass transit prices.
You want mass transit that doesn't cost the taxpayers any money, but you also don't want to pay $10 for a bus ride downtown. Unfortunately I don't see this as a reality.
Not true! Increase efficnecy and ridership and you don't have those problems. They also would likely get tax breaks and credits etc. I'm sure this is what you were talking about before which I understand and am okay with. People won't ride if it can't be affordable. The point is they don't have to have direct government control.
I don't see the need yet. When there is a need it will come.
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.