Originally Posted By mawnck >>I think it is EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE for the government to commit tens of billions of dollars to a project that has no hope of ever being "deficit neutral".<< Like roads.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Our economy depends on cars and trucks and airplanes and trains" No, no, no. Our economy does not depend necessarily on cars. Trucks are very, very important (though I would like to see more freight shifted to rail), ambulances are important, police cars are important, but *your* car is not. There is no need for the government to subsidize your ability to take off and drive at a moment's notice. Roads are a public good. *You* are not. If we required all forms of transportation to cover their costs, *including environmental and social costs*, mass transit might just come out ahead. Right now you are only paying roughly 60% of what highways cost to build and operate (<a href="http://www.subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/" target="_blank">http://www.subsidyscope.com/tr...funding/</a>). You are paying nothing for the pollution you emit into the air and the low property values and blighted urban communities (which have historically been non-white) your highways created and sustained. Never mind the highway patrol agencies that secure and observe these highways. There is death and destruction caused by drivers, and I'm not entirely sure that insurance covers it all. The statistical value of a life (the value of someone you do not know), has been estimated to be 6-8 million dollars. You run over some poor bastard, as long as you weren't proven to be drunk and as long as you don't flee, you are free to murder as many people as you wish on the road. Speeding? Hard to prove. Inattentive? Oh, he darted out in front of me. Cyclists? F' em! These cyclists are road users that are often treated dangerously by drivers yet they have every right to the road as drivers do. Drivers can't even share their taxpayer-subsidized roads! Keep in mind that the development of an auto-centric society negatively impacts those who cannot afford a car or cannot physically operate one. Why should you get the subsidy and not them?
Originally Posted By ecdc Fantastic post, Spokker. Especially your last two lines. The invention of the automobile and the explosion of suburbs and subsequent "white flight" decimated urban centers and left the poorest of the poor stranded and unable to compete in this auto-centric society. Ironically, the very people who say "You ain't takin' my car from me!" are the same people that chide the poor for not getting better jobs. Our public transit system is often so lousy that those who can't afford cars are restricted to jobs and opportunities within a very small radius, compared to those with autos. And then, of course, there's the real ignorant people who wondered why the poorest in New Orleans didn't just pack up the family SUV and head out of town with James Taylor in the CD player and the seat warmer keeping you nice and cozy.
Originally Posted By hopemax Has anyone seen any polling on attitudes based on age/region? I just wonder if high speed rail is going to be another thing that changes once the Baby Boomers are out of the way. I only know, anecdotally, that the younger people are more open to alternative methods of transportation. But they're mostly from granola loving, tree hugging west coast areas. I know we, purposely, moved to a metro area with good bus transportation, and existing light rail. We chose to buy a house in a community where light rail is planned. I just wonder if young people have the same "don't take my car" attitude as their parents/grandparents.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones hopemax, what community is that? "I just wonder if young people have the same "don't take my car" attitude as their parents/grandparents." But nobody is taking their car. Even commuting one or two days a week on transit if it's feasible can be a good thing.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But nobody is taking their car.<< You act as if the facts matter. Some of these same people are the "keep your government hands off my Medicare" crowd.
Originally Posted By DAR It depends where you live. Chicago it's better to take public transport. Milwaukee a car will be more convienent.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Milwaukee a car will be more convienent.*** <--wondering whether DAR just missed post #22 entirely, or is choosing to simply ignore it
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Our economy depends on cars and trucks and airplanes and trains (cargo trains, that is) and people and cargo being shipped back and forth. Plus airports are revenue generators and are therefore great investments for cities.<<< But this is environmentally irresponsible. Rail is much cleaner and safer. Sure, I love my car, but I use public transport because it is ethically a better choice and cheaper too.
Originally Posted By DAR Again where I live light/high speed rail would be of no use to me because I can get to where I'm going much quicker in my car.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed, in the frozen north, there is little need. But on the West and East coast, there is great need.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Again where I live light/high speed rail would be of no use to me because I can get to where I'm going much quicker in my car.*** Even in Japan, people who live in the middle of nowhere use cars too.
Originally Posted By hopemax So DAR, it would really be preferable for you to drive to Chicago than take a train? Or if a quick and easy, and reasonably priced train route were available, you wouldn't take advantage of it more than you currently make the drive?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Again where I live light/high speed rail would be of no use to me because I can get to where I'm going much quicker in my car.<< Yeah, cause this is all about you. Scrap the plans! It's too inconvenient for Dar, everybody.
Originally Posted By DAR Once again I stated I understand the reasons for it existing in cities like Chicago, NY, LA, Boston. They should have them. Milwaukee doesn't need it because getting around by car is much easier around here. A few years back they introduced a trolley car sytem to get people around downtown. It runs only in the summer and the thing is always empty and the reason is the city did a poor job of advertising it was out there.
Originally Posted By DAR <<So DAR, it would really be preferable for you to drive to Chicago than take a train? Or if a quick and easy, and reasonably priced train route were available, you wouldn't take advantage of it more than you currently make the drive?>> Last time I was in Chicago was to fly out of O'Hare about three years ago.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Milwaukee doesn't need it because getting around by car is much easier around here." They probably won't be building 220 MPH high speed rail to Wisconsin anytime soon, but 110 MPH rail would fit nicely there. An upgraded Hiawatha service should be in the works. <a href="http://www.amtrakhiawatha.com/" target="_blank">http://www.amtrakhiawatha.com/</a>
