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.
Everyone agrees it is in the public interest to subsidize the roads. After all, everything in your home or office got there by truck. Why mass transit should be subsidized is a tougher sell. But first of all, fewer cars on the road. Less oil use. Mobility for those who don't want to drive. Better access to employees.
Everyone agrees it is in the public interest to subsidize the roads. After all, everything in your home or office got there by truck. Why mass transit should be subsidized is a tougher sell. But first of all, fewer cars on the road. Less oil use. Mobility for those who don't want to drive. Better access to employees.
NY MTA: Suburban Passengers Get $7 Subsidy Per Ride, Subway Riders, A Buck
Everyone agrees it is in the public interest to subsidize the roads. After all, everything in your home or office got there by truck. Why mass transit should be subsidized is a tougher sell. But first of all, fewer cars on the road. Less oil use. Mobility for those who don't want to drive. Better access to employees.
Ahh, yes mass transit; the ultimate waste of tax payer money after entitlements.
That is great when you choose to ignore highway and road subsidies, if mass transit is the ultimate waste of tax payer money after entitlements, I would hate to see where highway subsidies fall.
But aren't you the one whining about trivialties?
While you sit in your car on a subsidized road with subsidized fuel.
And you're whining about trivialities while you sit in your seat in a subsidized subway train that runs on a subsidized track. I don't see how highway subsidies are so much more evil than mass transit subsidies, especially considering that us drivers pay for our own cars, pay for our own gas, and pay a tax on that gas that goes mostly to highways with the remainder going to mass transit. The real story is more complicated than that, with various revenue streams streaming where they're not supposed to go, but that's my whole point - drivers aren't getting any free ride, especially when compared to transit riders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilaJones
So, you guys would rather sit in cars or trucks that physically prevent you from splaying out, than just be respectful of strangers?
Just what do you drive? A subcompact? Or maybe a shoebox? There are cars that allow plenty of spreading-out room in a private environment, and they used to be much more common than they are now (c.f. the Panther cars and other full-sizers). If your driving experience consists of small, constricting cars no wonder you prefer public transit - I would too if that was all I could get.
Everyone agrees it is in the public interest to subsidize the roads. After all, everything in your home or office got there by truck.
I don't. Drivers (both commercial and personal) should pay their own way. Increased transport costs will be passed on to consumers of course, but it makes more sense there than in an income or property tax bill.
And you're whining about trivialities while you sit in your seat in a subsidized subway train that runs on a subsidized track. I don't see how highway subsidies are so much more evil than mass transit subsidies, especially considering that us drivers pay for our own cars, pay for our own gas, and pay a tax on that gas that goes mostly to highways with the remainder going to mass transit. The real story is more complicated than that, with various revenue streams streaming where they're not supposed to go, but that's my whole point - drivers aren't getting any free ride, especially when compared to transit riders.
Just what do you drive? A subcompact? Or maybe a shoebox? There are cars that allow plenty of spreading-out room in a private environment, and they used to be much more common than they are now (c.f. the Panther cars and other full-sizers). If your driving experience consists of small, constricting cars no wonder you prefer public transit - I would too if that was all I could get.
They aren't any different, that was the point of the poster's response. The OP was just whining about one form of subsidy while ignoring the one for highways. They both require subsidies to function, plain and simple.
Everyone agrees it is in the public interest to subsidize the roads. After all, everything in your home or office got there by truck. Why mass transit should be subsidized is a tougher sell. But first of all, fewer cars on the road. Less oil use. Mobility for those who don't want to drive. Better access to employees.
Step back from "everyone." It's certainly not true. Society would be just fine if highways were private and tolled.
They aren't any different, that was the point of the poster's response. The OP was just whining about one form of subsidy while ignoring the one for highways. They both require subsidies to function, plain and simple.
+1
A subsidy is a subsidy. The trick is to find which provides the biggest benefit to society.
A subsidy is a subsidy. The trick is to find which provides the biggest benefit to society.
Both mass transit and highways are important to society.
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.
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.
