2/4 Hey dimwit, I'm subsidizing for your wasteful LA freeways, what
would you have to say if LA roads were toll roads like in the
People's Republic of New England?
\_ Go for it. We're headed there anyway. The carpool lanes are
well on their way to becoming toll lanes. Maybe they won't
have potholes once someone is concerned about them. I'm
subsidizing BART which does nothing but lose money. How about
we make it pay for itself, too?
\_ How about we accept that there are some social goods (the ability
to travel without having to be rich) that outweigh our fiscal
investments?
\_ The motd keeps telling me all these fees and taxes are for
the services I get from local government. Now I'm told they
are just a social good. Which is it? I don't have kids,
should I pay school taxes? I do use the freeways which you
say is a social good and thus should be free, but the op says
they are wasteful and should be usage-fee-based which is
contrary to your claims of free travel being a social good
we should pay for with everyone's taxes. Which is it?
\_ School taxes: yes; an educated populace beats an uneducated
populace and has social side-effects that translate into
less expenditures down the line. I'm saying that some
things are worth paying for, no matter that they don't pay
for themselves, BART and Amtrak included. -!op
\_ Why is BART worth paying for if it can't pay for itself?
Why not buy everyone a car, or a donkey, or a bike,
or a helicopter?
\_ Are you being disingenuous?
Rail is the most space-efficient and
energy-efficient way to transport large numbers
of people over significant distances. BART itself
is pretty fucked up, but public funding of rail
in urban areas is way more obviously of public
benefit than public funding of freeways. -tom
\_ Rail is really inefficient if you have to go
somewhere without rails nearby.
\_ gee, so are roads. That's why you build
infrastructure. -tom
\_ Roads are cheaper infrastructure than
building rail to the driveway of my house.
\_ The freeway, the surface street, the
residential street, and your driveway
draw funds from several different
sources. Mix and match and see what cost
you come up with.
\_ I'm sure it's cheaper than rail
if only because I don't have to
buy a train. If you advocate that
we each buy our own train then I
don't see how it's any better
than what we have now.
\_ Rail is much cheaper on a
per-passenger basis. And enough
with the straw men. -tom
\_ These are not straw men. This is
reality. I need to get from
my house to my office. My
neighbor needs to get from
his house to his office.
Rail is not a good way to
solve this problem unless
we are both going to offices
very close to each other.
Even in Europe, with great
public transit, buses are vital.
If you're going to use buses
then you need roads, so what is
the point of rail? I actually
think rail is the least
efficient solution. Rail is
great to get large amounts of
goods (or people) from point A
to point B, but that's not often
the problem that needs solving.
\_ Are you really this stupid?
Buses feed rail arteries.
Obviously you still need
local streets; it's not at
all clear that you need
freeways. Certainly
freeways are far less
efficient than rail. -tom
\_ Are freeways really that
expensive compared to the
miles and miles of local
roads which we need
anyway? Replacing all
freeways with rail sound
freeways with rail sounds
rather stupid to me. Even
the Germans have the
Autobahn. You are
projecting your love of
bike here against
common sense.
\_ The ROI on dollars
spent on high-speed
rail infrastructure
is higher than dollars
spent on freeway
infrastructure.
More passenger-miles
per dollar, fewer
emissions per dollar.
That's common sense.
-tom
\_ Your ROI depends on
the problem you are
solving. Taking
1500 cargo
containers from a
port to a warehouse,
sure. Taking 1500
people from their
homes to 1500 places
of employment maybe
not. As I said,
even in Europe
and Japan they have
roads and freeways.
Rail is just an
additional cost to
add to that. It can
help eliminate
congestion at
certain times, but
your ROI argument
leads me to believe
that congestion is
not your main issue
and that relief
comes with a high
price you refuse to
acknowledge.
\_ That's because
the price isn't
high, relative
to the costs of
building and
running a
freeway and all
the cars on it.
-tom
\_ But you
acknowledge
we need roads,
so why pay
more for rail,
too?
\_ How the
hell did
your brain
get stuck
in binary?
\_ A helicopter? That's a truly great idea! I always
wanted a helicopter. If you ran for office on the
"helicopter on every pad!" platform you'd have my
vote! I don't need a donkey or a bike, though.
\_ Suppose there were 300K more cars on the road in
the Bay Area. One thing you're paying for is your
commute not to be even worse than it is.
\_ I don't live in the Bay Area, so I'm really
paying for not much of benefit to me.
\_ You aren't paying for it then either, since
BART is mostly funded by fares + the 1/2 cent
regional sales tax.
\_ "mostly"
\_ Yes, 100% of the operating costs, in
fact. Not sure how much of the capital
costs, less than 100% though.
\_ Bart subtracts 300K cars? Says who? How are they
distributed? What else might those resources have
been used for?
\_ It's hypothetical. You can base it on the
average weekday ridership of >300K if you
like. Point is, do you remember what traffic
was like the last time there was a major
BART outage?
\_ "No, I was in LA and it didn't affect
me at all, therefore your argument is
weak." -pretending to be dimwit
\_ Another way of thinking about it is
to imagine Bay Area traffic being like
LA traffic.
\_ Or even worse, Seattle. |