Combined Fox Valley transit system (Madison, Green Bay: trains, automobile, station)

[Hotbug]

Originally Posted by Jesse276

Why not just have toll roads?

Good suggestion and will have to ponder that one, but off the top of my head it would lead to not being economically viable for anything but city to city transit of people/goods. Roads develop areas/regions, sort of like giving the railroads free mineral rights out west if they'd build railroads out there.

Sounds like you're all for big government when you're at the trough.

I don't know where you got that I'm a liberal/progressive. I'm not.

[Hotbug]

Originally Posted by saykinriseo

those that hate public transit.

Why do leftists continually proclaim things, attribute emotions to others?

They seem to think that not owning a car is a choice one makes.

Sometimes it is. Like living in large urban areas. Or even not that. I lived in madison for 4 years w/o a vehicle.

Or that people can just pick up and move to where the buses are (i.e. large urban areas).

So everyone in the US should pay for people living in mosinee that do not have a car to have a bus run there on a regular basis? And from where shall that trip start? And Darlington? And, well, just how many little towns are there in WI?

A lot of leftists are extremely isolated in their affluent experiences. If they'd ever ride a bus in the rural south, it stops at every little town. Well, used to--I don't know if it still does, but I'd imagine it would.

[quote]In this society, one usually can't find a job near their home or home near their job.[quote]
Then all the more reason for them to move to a large city, where they can get some POS apartment where there are bus lines.

Many areas 'downtown' have apartments that also have grocery stores. Heck, I even would see shopping carts in front of houses that were pushed back, and of course, the always people waiting for a taxi cab. Some places even have groceries delivered. I don't know if any of that happens in the town of madison though because it's really just a government money sponge.

But really, in cities the above stuff happens.

But the point is, would a combined transit system in the Fox Valley work? I think it could work.

If there are enough people in actual need of it and actually willing to take it....then pay the price necessary to make it economically feasible, then it would.

There. I just gave you a methodology to find out if public transportation where you desire it would "work" or if it'll just be another stealing of money from everyone to benefit a very very few.

Nothing outside of a gigantic SUV is going to please them.

silly.

For the casual transit hater

see last comment.

[Hotbug]

Originally Posted by Devitron5000

I've been waiting to make my reply until after Hotbug responds to this.

Originally Posted by Devitron5000

your POV is driven entirely by partisan political hackery.

OK....um, er, ah, yeah.

[saykinriseo]

Originally Posted by Hotbug

Why do leftists continually proclaim things, attribute emotions to others?

Like calling me a leftist?

Sometimes it is. Like living in large urban areas. Or even not that. I lived in madison for 4 years w/o a vehicle.

And most of the time it isn't. Just because YOU have the money to buy and maintain a vehicle doesn't mean others do.

So everyone in the US should pay for people living in mosinee that do not have a car to have a bus run there on a regular basis? And from where shall that trip start? And Darlington? And, well, just how many little towns are there in WI?

A lot of leftists are extremely isolated in their affluent experiences. If they'd ever ride a bus in the rural south, it stops at every little town. Well, used to--I don't know if it still does, but I'd imagine it would.

Many people that live in small rural towns have cars because of where they live. Very rarely will someone without a car live in an area inaccessible to them. Just because you don't use buses doesn't mean they aren't needed. Not every poor person in a leech trying to "steal your tax money". In fact, most poor people I know are working their a**es off to make ends meet. A car simply isn't in their budget. If the grand capitalist model is work hard+contribute=success and that model is failing them, then the conservatives should be waiting in line to help them out (i.e. public transit)

Then all the more reason for them to move to a large city, where they can get some POS apartment where there are bus lines.

Many areas 'downtown' have apartments that also have grocery stores. Heck, I even would see shopping carts in front of houses that were pushed back, and of course, the always people waiting for a taxi cab. Some places even have groceries delivered. I don't know if any of that happens in the town of madison though because it's really just a government money sponge.

But really, in cities the above stuff happens.

Again, you fail to grasp the concept of the inability to move without money. If you are so for the concept of moving poor people to urban areas, I suggest you do something about it. How about paying for their bus ticket? Or U-Haul?

If there are enough people in actual need of it and actually willing to take it....then pay the price necessary to make it economically feasible, then it would.

There. I just gave you a methodology to find out if public transportation where you desire it would "work" or if it'll just be another stealing of money from everyone to benefit a very very few.

I think it would work because it would provide better transit to the citizens of the Fox Valley and Green Bay. God forbid we help anyone who can't help themselves. Have you ever received any help in your life? Don't you have even the slightest bit of empathy?

[Hotbug]

Originally Posted by saykinriseo

Like calling me a leftist?

liberal/progressives are all about government transportation for all, in spite of its continued failures and black holed-ness-dom.

Just because YOU have the money to buy and maintain a vehicle doesn't mean others do.

Sometimes I didn't...so I took buses. When I lived in a rural area and didn't have a vehicle, I went to the city, got a cheap apartment and went from there, riding my bicycle or taking the bus.
This stuff really isn't rocket science.

In fact, most poor people I know are working their a**es off to make ends meet. A car simply isn't in their budget.

So they work harder, live cheaper, and take buses.
No rocket science.

[Jesse276]

Originally Posted by Hotbug

Good suggestion and will have to ponder that one, but off the top of my head it would lead to not being economically viable for anything but city to city transit of people/goods. Roads develop areas/regions, sort of like giving the railroads free mineral rights out west if they'd build railroads out there.

It's the same thing with mass transit and rail, they need the same subsidy as roads. They allow cities/regions to develop like roads do, but without adding auto traffic.

As for your railroads out west example... I don't see the contradiction. Those railroads wouldn't have been built without a government subsidy, just like the freeways.

Originally Posted by Hotbug

I don't know where you got that I'm a liberal/progressive. I'm not.

I didn't say that you were a liberal/progressive, I said you were for big government when it benefitted you. Freeways aren't free and a small gas tax sure isn't paying for them.

[Hotbug]

Originally Posted by Jesse276

It's the same thing with mass transit and rail, they need the same subsidy as roads.

Wrong.
The construction costs per ft/mile vs. maintenance/use/benefit are completely different. Then, there isn't any ancillary trains going from train station X a few miles away to home B or village Y.

Trains can only exist in high density areas or between high density areas. OK, scratch the latter as amtrak can't exist outside of the NY/DC corridor. heck, I think there's an amtrak station in columbus WI, but I've never seen anyone get off it, on it, or know of anyone that did or knows anyone that did or knows anyone...

They allow cities/regions to develop like roads do, but without adding auto traffic.

Now that could be a valid argument if one ignores the fact that the cities in the US have already pretty much established. Until the star trek transporter is invented, any other areas coming into being will be driven by the automobile.....just like it's been since, well, after WWII.

Those railroads wouldn't have been built without a government subsidy, just like the freeways.

I think the subsidy wasn't one at all. They build the transportation there and they can have all the mineral rights there. It was just a piece of paper, no currency. Of course there was demand for such transportation to go out west though by the settlers/miners, it just wasn't economically feasible for the railroads to build it (that cost/mile thing).

I said you were for big government when it benefitted you.

Could you please quote me where I said I was "for big government"?

Freeways aren't free and a small gas tax sure isn't paying for them.

You're right--their maintenance is turning out to be little more than a "jobs program" for some contractors....that use a very few people and a lot of machinery. The great thing tho is that they then put "Paid for by the Stimulus Recovery Act".

[bananamana]

Originally Posted by Hotbug

The 'problem' with mass transit is it takes a certain population density in order for it to be economically feasible, rather than most in the US where non-users are taxed to support the lifestyle of those that take it.

The exception is in the 'early' cities of the US, like NY for example.

So if someone wants to take taxpayer paid transportation, they should move to a city with a population density deep enough to make it at least partly economically feasible.

Population density plays a part, but there are also cultural, social, and economic issues that involved as well. A community of 1000 people with an age distribution of the United States probably wouldn't want to pay, nor argue for a mass transit hook-up unless the route between two larger communities passes near them (see Columbus, WI). But, if you change that distribution to a higher percentage of youth or non-driving elderly (like Japan) or a higher percentage of poverty (like Moscow), giving them the mobility to participate in our economy becomes a priority. Saying that a mass transportation network is dependent only on density or people to "live like rats" is inaccurate.

Creating mass transportation networks throughout the US is in our best interest because the aging baby-boomers will not be capable of driving for their entire lives. Building mass-transportation to allow them to operate in the existing commerce model we have makes the most sense to me.

Originally Posted by Hotbug

I think a lot could be accomplished, discussion wise, here by posting economic principles/links:
1. Fixed costs
2. Cost per mile.

Then subtract "revenue" from users (not those elsewhere that have their monies taken from them to pay for it via 'taxes').

The reason mass transit works in europe is due to density....look at how they live like rats, stacked upon each other, shared walls, etc.
It ain't America as we came of age at a much later time with a heck of a lot more room.

It doesn't come down to just density. Age, environment, earned pay, etc. are also necessary. I would also argue that with the constant and growing competition from India and China for fossil fuels, driving your car to different locations will only become more expensive. As people spend more money on fuel, they will have less to spend on whatever they want to buy.

[bananamana]

Originally Posted by Hotbug

But other than that.....it's just a pure socialistic folly.

Mass transportation has existed far longer than socialism. It's more cost effective to transport a large amount of people to a shared destination than it is for individuals to break apart and go at it on their own. If these people spend money in the areas of departure and arrival, it also provides an economic boost on a local and regional scale.

Originally Posted by Hotbug

Low income people live where they can afford to (or where we give them our earned money to live off of), thus they live in urban areas. And there are buses there. When I was poor, I lived downtown along the bus lines so I could get to/from work. I don't think one needs to live in green bay and work in, say oshkosh. It'll be more empty buses moving back and forth, just like a lot of the 'trains' outside of the old east coast and downtown chicago.

False. Income varies throughout your life. Additionally, rural and semi-urban (example: Mosinee/Oshkosh) also have a sizable proportion of low income families. As you've demonstrated, mass transit opponents "forget" about them because it makes their ideas more believable. Working in Green Bay and living in Oshkosh is pretty time intensive. I don't know anyone with their own car who does that. However, for the guy living in Menasha or Kimberly without a car, having accessible options in Oshkosh and Green Bay keeps him more easily employed and more capable of surviving outside of the welfare system. I think killing all of the transport systems in this area would actually push more low income individuals onto welfare (thereby costing the state more) because we would take their only way of getting to work away.

Originally Posted by Hotbug

Yeah. And the rationale for that is what you eat, drink, wear, watch, use, materials for maintaining where you live, etc. all got to you to consume BECAUSE there were roads.

Unless you've discovered some star trek transporter. If so, please PM me as I can get some people together with some money to invest. We can finally put the internal combustion engine out of service for good!
Oh, and kill urban sprawl.*

I don't think anyone is arguing that roads are unnecessary, but the point is valid. If people, not goods, were expected to pay a toll to use a road in an effort to "come out ahead", as you've suggested mass transit should, many states would be unable to cope. The loss of jobs in Wisconsin in the tourism industry alone would wreck havoc over the northwoods. I don't have a job there but I know that that loss would domino into me at my job. Saying that the subsidies for highways are good while the subsidies for mass transit are bad is hypocracy. In the end, the person who rides the bus to work/shop/go to school benefits from the system and the system then benefits from them.

[bananamana]

Originally Posted by Hotbug

Wrong.
The construction costs per ft/mile vs. maintenance/use/benefit are completely different. Then, there isn't any ancillary trains going from train station X a few miles away to home B or village Y.

Trains can only exist in high density areas or between high density areas. OK, scratch the latter as amtrak can't exist outside of the NY/DC corridor. heck, I think there's an amtrak station in columbus WI, but I've never seen anyone get off it, on it, or know of anyone that did or knows anyone that did or knows anyone.

Yes, the construction costs are different, but as roads continue to be widened, maintained, and eroded and costs continue to rise, it leads people to look at other options. Ancillary mass transit exists throughout the world in the form of high speed train to local train to subway. You could also do high speed train to bus to bike or local train to bus to walking. When building a mass transit network, people need to focus on all options.

I'm not arguing with the density thing again. Here's a link to my source for Columbus, though. Now, if only that train ran through Madison...

Originally Posted by Hotbug

Now that could be a valid argument if one ignores the fact that the cities in the US have already pretty much established. Until the star trek transporter is invented, any other areas coming into being will be driven by the automobile.....just like it's been since, well, after WWII.

Yours could have been a valid argument if someone ignores the fact that the car-centric model of transportation that was birthed after WW2 is also failing the US now. The percentage of each paycheck in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that went to transportation was miniscule compared to what it is today. As we have more and more competition from developing nations, fuels wil only become more difficult to obtain. As our population ages and is no longer willing to/capable of driving, we need to look at different ways for people to have access to the market. As the price of cars continues to rise at all steps of the process, lower and lower-middle income people will be less and less capable of getting a car.

Nobody is saying that we can't have cars in the US anymore; but, we need to diversify our methods of transportation to keep our economy growing.

Originally Posted by Hotbug

You're right--their maintenance is turning out to be little more than a "jobs program" for some contractors....that use a very few people and a lot of machinery. The great thing tho is that they then put "Paid for by the Stimulus Recovery Act".

As far as road construction and maintanence in southern Wisconsin goes, you could also say "Paid for through contributions to the Scott Walker election campain".