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.
So we should shame companies that don't offer telecommuting? That doesn't make much sense, wouldn't it be more effective to promoting telecommuting and offering incentives for companies to offer telecommuting to their employees when they can?
It's leftists who think the climate is in a state of emergency. Clearly you don't believe it either.
This is just one of many areas where leftist pols show they don't believe the warming hype that they pay other leftists to produce.
It's leftists who think the climate is in a state of emergency. Clearly you don't believe it either.
This is just one of many areas where leftist pols show they don't believe the warming hype that they pay other leftists to produce.
I don't follow your conclusion, I am pretty sure I agreed with you. We should promote telecommuting and have shown that we do, so not sure how you figured we don't and that we don't care about climate change.
It's only odd to you because it hasn' t been included in your talking points.
The warmers will foam at the mouth about carbon 'pollution' from cars.
..
So we have gone from mass transit to telecommuting to global warming. Isn't promoting telemarketing a way to promote the reduction of carbon emissions?
Particularly rail. Rail made much more economic sense when a huge percent of the population worked 8 to 5 and commuted to a central location. Today, more and more people work from home, travel, work odd hours or work from a remote location. Rail takes you from a location of it's choosing to a location of it's choosing. You can choose to move close to a rail station, but most people don't. The "if you build it, they will come" philosophy has been a total failure. Most of us just shake our heads in wonder as we watch mostly empty light rail cars go by.
Meanwhile, tax payers watching the half empty rail cars are sitting in traffic jams because they have no choice. Politicians believe if they make driving more painful (by slowing funding for roads) then people will shift from cars to rail. The problem is that most people have no choice. They don't commute to a central location every day.
So despite hundreds of billions of dollars invested and hundreds of billions of dollars from tax payers, ridership per capita continues to decline and has done so for decades. But it's politically correct to continue to invest in rail even though a huge majority of tax payers will never board a train.
A huge majority of taxpayers will never use roads near you, either. Should they have to pay a cent for them?
If you combine all the gas taxes, tolls, and vehicle registration fees you get just 20% of the yearly cost to maintain the existing road network without building a single new road or paying off a single penny of previous bonds used to build older roads. That means 80% of the cost, I.E. the vast bulk of the total cost, getting paid for out of the general fund or by state or local taxes. If you wanted user fees to pay just to maintain the existing road network then everything (tolls, gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, etc...) would have to increase 500% over night and that would just pay regular maintenance costs but to pay down the existing bond obligations (I.E. the capital costs) then you'd have to go even higher. Probably up to 1000% just to pay the minimum balance due each month.
Not surprisingly, you're completely wrong, as usual. The surprising thing is that you keep being wrong over and over again on the SAME TOPICS as you never seem to learn from your past mistakes. What does that say about you and your lack of intellectual inquisitiveness or even just basic honesty?
It's only odd to you because it hasn' t been included in your talking points.
The warmers will foam at the mouth about carbon 'pollution' from cars.
..
Huh?
Full disclosure: I worked from home for many years. Saved lots of money on gas and wear and tear on my vehicle. It was a good arrangement. It did increase my personal energy usage and associated costs so like everything else, it was a trade-off.
I now work in an office setting because that is what my employer felt was the optimal solution. From a team perspective, it is the right choice for our organization. In exchange for making going to the office every working day a condition of employment, my company subsidizes my public transportation costs 100%.
As I noted earlier in the thread, I live in an area where there has been, and continues to be a huge investment in public transport.
The reality is that there are professions where it will likely never be feasible for everyone to work from home. And even if that were possible, again, there will still be a trade-off as there will be greater need for local energy supply, etc.
The best I think we can hope for is continued investment in public transportation that meets the needs of greater segments of the population not just because it will reduce our carbon footprint but because it will also improve quality of life for many commuters who have no choice but to sit in traffic for hours on end.
To sum up: I am 100% in favor of extending light rail lines. I am 100% in favor of telecommuting when it works for both employer and employee. I am 100% in favor of reducing our carbon footprint by utilizing those and other solutions.
I am pragmatic enough to understand that there is no one-size fits all solution nor should there be.
Also pragmatic enough to understand that to dismiss any possible solution out of hand, as so many are wont to do, is sheer stupidity.
I know rail projects can be political, it is just you didn't try and tie it to anything specifically political. You are welcome to do so if you think this is a political topic.
Actually you did not provide any facts that showed ridership has been in decline, you just stated an opinion. I would however like to see where that fact comes from that you are stating.
Here is the site I used. They have total ridership. You need to calculate using population growth.
year /Ridership (millions) / population(millions / ratio
"Ridership on public transportation last year grew 1.1% to 10.7 billion trips, the highest total since 1956, according to new data from the American Public Transportation Association."
Yes, but meanwhile the population doubled. So ridership per capita has declined as I said.
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.
