Comments on: Mass Transit And Freeloaders http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/ News For Drivers Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:16:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Spacenavigator http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-14571 Spacenavigator Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:10:10 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-14571 RE: Bonnie Sesolak, NMA Development Director I do not know where this individual lives, probably either in a smaller area or on the moon In the DC area, commuting up and down 95 is a nightmare and no one wants to drive a car to DC every day. The publically operated Virginia Railway Express (VRE) has changed to double decker 8 car trains that run often including a few mid-day trips to and from town. The intent is to get cars and pollution off the roads and most employers offer vouchers for using public transportation vs fees to use their parking lots. There are also many bus lines and van pools as well as Metro. The reason is to get cars off the roads and to provide cheaper mass transit. Road construction costs far more than public transportation. RE: Bonnie Sesolak, NMA Development Director

I do not know where this individual lives, probably either in a smaller area or on the moon

In the DC area, commuting up and down 95 is a nightmare and no one wants to drive a car to DC every day.

The publically operated Virginia Railway Express (VRE) has changed to double decker 8 car trains that run often including a few mid-day trips to and from town. The intent is to get cars and pollution off the roads and most employers offer vouchers for using public transportation vs fees to use their parking lots.

There are also many bus lines and van pools as well as Metro.

The reason is to get cars off the roads and to provide cheaper mass transit. Road construction costs far more than public transportation.

]]> By: Roy http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-6441 Roy Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:45:32 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-6441 "...remember the largest chunk of government handouts go to that piece of concrete below your tires. Those on the train still pay for the road (though possibly less due to less gas tax to them)." While it is true that the largest portion of the transportation budget goes towards roadways, I would hardly call it a "handout". The government at all levels taxes motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuel in order to pay for those roads, and if 100% of that tax went towards those roads, they would pay for themselves. Additionally, those on the train do *not* pay for the roads. Indeed, it is just the opposite. They don't even pay for the train. The money taken in by the fuel taxes gets used by government to subsidize the public transportation system, and without those subsidies, those systems would go broke. Please don't misunderstand me. I am aware that the users of public transport pay a fare. However, in all but a few cases, this fare does not even come close to covering the costs of the system. Thus, that system has to be subsidized from other sources - mostly the road use and fuel taxes. Back in the early '90's - in Portland Oregon I believe - a study was done comparing the amount of human traffic handled by a light rail public transport system verses a single lane of urban interstate. The expressway lane was, running away, the most cost effective in terms of "people moved per unit time". There are many reasons to have and to use a public transportation system. Cost per person moved is *not* one of them. “…remember the largest chunk of government handouts go to that piece of concrete below your tires. Those on the train still pay for the road (though possibly less due to less gas tax to them).”

While it is true that the largest portion of the transportation budget goes towards roadways, I would hardly call it a “handout”. The government at all levels taxes motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuel in order to pay for those roads, and if 100% of that tax went towards those roads, they would pay for themselves.

Additionally, those on the train do *not* pay for the roads. Indeed, it is just the opposite. They don’t even pay for the train. The money taken in by the fuel taxes gets used by government to subsidize the public transportation system, and without those subsidies, those systems would go broke. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am aware that the users of public transport pay a fare. However, in all but a few cases, this fare does not even come close to covering the costs of the system. Thus, that system has to be subsidized from other sources – mostly the road use and fuel taxes.

Back in the early ’90’s – in Portland Oregon I believe – a study was done comparing the amount of human traffic handled by a light rail public transport system verses a single lane of urban interstate. The expressway lane was, running away, the most cost effective in terms of “people moved per unit time”.

There are many reasons to have and to use a public transportation system. Cost per person moved is *not* one of them.

]]> By: Dan http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-6432 Dan Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:03 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-6432 Absolutely correct! My father was the chair of the public transit committe in a small Washington city, and we had this arguement several times. Government subsidies must have a means test! If a service in the private sector doesn't generate enough revenue to cover it's costs plus make a profit for the effort of running it, it goes out of business. Only in the public sector do we here people demand we take a neighbor's money to pay for our elderly, poor, transportation, food, or drugs. It's just wrong and should be confined to only the most needy if implemented at all. Unfortunately, government seeks to expand just like any organization, but government only costs the economy (ergo all producers) rather than generates GDP that enriches those that work. Absolutely correct! My father was the chair of the public transit committe in a small Washington city, and we had this arguement several times. Government subsidies must have a means test! If a service in the private sector doesn’t generate enough revenue to cover it’s costs plus make a profit for the effort of running it, it goes out of business. Only in the public sector do we here people demand we take a neighbor’s money to pay for our elderly, poor, transportation, food, or drugs. It’s just wrong and should be confined to only the most needy if implemented at all. Unfortunately, government seeks to expand just like any organization, but government only costs the economy (ergo all producers) rather than generates GDP that enriches those that work.

]]> By: MrNA http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-5305 MrNA Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:08:05 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-5305 Your argument missing some important points: 1. When debating the welfare given to the transit "freeloaders," remember the largest chunk of government handouts go to that piece of concrete below your tires. Those on the train still pay for the road (though possibly less due to less gas tax to them). 2. By pushing people off of mass transit you will find less need for radar detectors. You will never be able to drive faster than 5 MPH to work. Your argument missing some important points:

1. When debating the welfare given to the transit “freeloaders,” remember the largest chunk of government handouts go to that piece of concrete below your tires. Those on the train still pay for the road (though possibly less due to less gas tax to them).

2. By pushing people off of mass transit you will find less need for radar detectors. You will never be able to drive faster than 5 MPH to work.

]]> By: Blacque Jacque Shellacque http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-5287 Blacque Jacque Shellacque Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:56:15 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-5287 <i>Look how well the demand for energy is being met by private industry.</i> An outfit providing energy can't be as responsive as they would like when they're being regulated by some <a href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/" rel="nofollow">government entity</a>, not to mention the sundry groups that routinely object to any sort of construction of large power-generation facilities to satisfy demand... Look how well the demand for energy is being met by private industry.

An outfit providing energy can’t be as responsive as they would like when they’re being regulated by some government entity, not to mention the sundry groups that routinely object to any sort of construction of large power-generation facilities to satisfy demand…

]]> By: Midnight http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-5276 Midnight Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:03:50 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-5276 This is one time you missed the boat. Private transportation would just accommodate the busy routes, leaving the necessity of driving and parking to reach the new private routes. Moving people is not like moving bits and bytes on the Internet, keep in mind the telephone and cable systems providing service to non-economical areas were already in place because of regulations similar to public transit. As bad as it is, it would get a lot worse under private ownership. Look how well the demand for energy is being met by private industry. Free enterprise doesn't always work in all situations This is one time you missed the boat. Private transportation would just accommodate the busy routes, leaving the necessity of driving and parking to reach the new private routes. Moving people is not like moving bits and bytes on the Internet, keep in mind the telephone and cable systems providing service to non-economical areas were already in place because of regulations similar to public transit. As bad as it is, it would get a lot worse under private ownership. Look how well the demand for energy is being met by private industry. Free enterprise doesn’t always work in all situations

]]> By: Hubcap http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-5275 Hubcap Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:17:07 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-5275 Speaking of welfare, how about the huge corporate welfare handouts to the airlines? They get tens of billions in government subsidies, yet they still manage to screw their employees and run their businesses into the ground (so to speak) apparently in exchange for allowing the TSA to treat their customers like Gitmo prisoners. Speaking of welfare, how about the huge corporate welfare handouts to the airlines?

They get tens of billions in government subsidies, yet they still manage to screw their employees and run their businesses into the ground (so to speak) apparently in exchange for allowing the TSA to treat their customers like Gitmo prisoners.

]]> By: Hubcap http://blog.motorists.org/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/comment-page-1/#comment-5274 Hubcap Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:09:14 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/helpful-information/mass-transit-and-freeloaders/#comment-5274 I've lived in the west all my life. A couple years ago, I had the opportunity to vacation in DC. I was absolutely amazed at the subway system there. Unbelievably fast, inexpensive, and easy to use. Here in San Diego, we have basically no public transit. There is the trolly which really doesn't go anywhere I ever need to go, and a pathetic bus system that operates on a "whenever" schedule. I could ride the bus to work, but it would turn a 30-minute commute into a 3-hour, 2-transfer nightmare, and at the end of it all, not only would it still cost more than the gas, but I would STILL be sitting in traffic. Only now I would be on a noisy, smelly, uncomfortable bus and if I had to pee there's nothing I can do. Given the probably trillons that a decent public transportation system would cost, it just isn't going to happen. I think bio-diesel and electric cars are about the only alternative. Don't even get me started on this country's piss-poor excuse for a rail system. I’ve lived in the west all my life. A couple years ago, I had the opportunity to vacation in DC.

I was absolutely amazed at the subway system there. Unbelievably fast, inexpensive, and easy to use.

Here in San Diego, we have basically no public transit. There is the trolly which really doesn’t go anywhere I ever need to go, and a pathetic bus system that operates on a “whenever” schedule.

I could ride the bus to work, but it would turn a 30-minute commute into a 3-hour, 2-transfer nightmare, and at the end of it all, not only would it still cost more than the gas, but I would STILL be sitting in traffic. Only now I would be on a noisy, smelly, uncomfortable bus and if I had to pee there’s nothing I can do.

Given the probably trillons that a decent public transportation system would cost, it just isn’t going to happen.

I think bio-diesel and electric cars are about the only alternative.

Don’t even get me started on this country’s piss-poor excuse for a rail system.

]]>