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.
Actually, at least where I live, the facility that builds streetcars and LRVs gets their shipments primarily via rail. Many of the tomatoes that come from California get shipped out via rail too. And, again, it isn't an either/or thing--I realize that roads are useful, and use them sometimes, which is why I don't understand why the foes of transit flip out about supporting transit that they don't use but, as I have clarified above, does benefit them indirectly.
The only way to "privatize" roads efficiently would probably mean putting a LoJack device in everyone's car, to allow real-time monitoring of how many miles you drive on the privatized roads and accurately assess billing. Of course, that involves a level of invasion of privacy that people would absolutely blow a gasket over if the government wanted to do it (and rightly so!), so I'm not sure whether having private businesses do it would go over well or not; do those who would privatize roads think it's okay for business to do such things, but not government? And how much infrastructure and staffing would be needed to accurately charge customers by increment of road use?
All in all, public roads might be simpler and even cheaper. Just lay them down, and don't worry about tracking people's travel.
How did the materials for the train that the Bostonian rides get to the manufacturing plant? Via roads? How do those winter tomatoes that the Bostonian eats from rural southwest Arizona or southern Florida get to the supermarket? Via roads. How do the clothes that the Bostonian buys get to the department store? Via roads.
Just because someone in Boston commutes solely by public transportation doesn't mean that they don't benefit significantly from the presence of a road system. We all pay into a system that nearly all of us get some benefit out of. Still, I wish that roads were privatized as well so that what people pay is a true reflection of use and benefit. I take the same stance with public transit.
Actually more goods get transported by rail than road. (43% by weight x distance is rail vs 31 % trucks)
In any case, I didn't mean no roads would be useful, just that most of them wouldn't (I gave examples of some that wouldn't be in the previous post).
Go blind, and have your drivers license taken away. Then, see how much you depend on public transportation. People never think that things like that can happen to them...macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy. When was the last time you went to the eye doctor for your vision checked? Vision Impairments is one of the leading causes of having to give up driving...look at your lifestyle, where your home is, could you manage without driving?
VERY good point. I didn't even think of this until you brought it up. Some jackoffs just think none of these things can happen to them. THEY CAN!
A DUI can happen at the drop of a hat.
Simple minded observations? I don't how making the suggestion that transit be privatized is simple minded at all. I am tired of subsidizing people taking transit. If 30 million people take public transit daily, there should be more than enough incentive for the private sector to take over.
Americans are realizing that we pay too much for other people's choices. If you want or need to take transit then you need to be responsible for the cost. It is as simple as that.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement that shows where the 'neo-liberal economically rational' credo breaks down. It pains me to say this because I consider myself libertarian conservative, but rhetoric like this makes absolutely no sense. You say each person needs to be responsible for the cost-- how in living hell could we pay for anything? You wouldn't have roads, bridges, sewer systems, dams, railroads, aqueducts-- zilch, none of that infrastructure is possible without public money. You complain about public transit-- consider that many other things are publicly subsidized. Has your quality of life suddenly plummeted because a marginal portion of our tax dollars is going to build new transportation alternatives? Stop with the selfish ideological crap.
I agree. No one is saying we should stop subsidizing roads or ban cars. This is good acknowledgement that multi-modality in the form or roads and rail are good for our freight network. The problem is personal work and non-work trips; how many trips are taken by car that don't need to be taken?
New2colo talks about Casper, WY subsidizing Boston transit commuters-- this is just a red herring; that's the framework or federal revenues, not a problem of public transit. Where do your payroll and Medicare taxes go?
Nobody is disputing the virtue of freight trains, though they sure block traffic. But there are two articles of faith that do not add up. First, that building more lanes is always less expensive than providing rail service. Not necessarily. Look at the North Central Service in Northern IL: 4000 riders in peak periods, about what a highway lane can manage. Average trip 30 miles. Based on some recent highway projects in the area, it would cost about $400 million to add that lane. It only cost about $250 million to get the rail service running. Second is that since gasoline is taxed it covers the entire cost of road construction and maintenance. The recent "stimulus" package, the major source of construction jobs in the last two years, included a lot of road projects, yet the gas tax was not raised even a penny. Here in Illinois, a capital plan for road construction was financed largely with liquor and gambling revenues.
Last edited by pvande55; 01-01-2011 at 07:53 AM..
Reason: Spelling
Sorry to bring up an old thread but I wanted to contribute.
To the OP; whether you realize it or not, there are still people out there who have chosen not to own cars because in their region, they can get from point A to point B by other means of transport. If they don't own a car, why should their tax dollars be used to pay and upkeep roads?
Seriously, why on earth isn't public transit totally free? This is the example of the selfish 'why should I do this because it doesn't affect me?' mentality that is KILLING the planet. The VERY LEAST motorists can do for destroying the environment is to balance it out by helping out public transport.
I'm very pro-transit...but I definitely don't think it should be free. That would invite homeless people to ride on it all day long, and probably other abuses as well. People tend to misuse and abuse anything that's free, unfortunately.
I'm very pro-transit...but I definitely don't think it should be free. That would invite homeless people to ride on it all day long, and probably other abuses as well. People tend to misuse and abuse anything that's free, unfortunately.
Does the NYC subway system and the Long Island Rail Road have problems such as these? Only mentioning them because they're both run 24 hours a day.
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.
