Climate change follies: Score one for the good guys!

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
Some major cities are banning autos from downtown areas. Do you know what happens? The air gets much cleaner, breathing is better and people's health improves. https://www.businessinsider.com/citi...stion-charge-7

More likely, with most cities, the downtown dies and people move elsewhere. Think about it for a minute. If you couldn't drive into a downtown area and were faced with walking blocks in what was a car-centric downtown, would you do it or would you move your business elsewhere--particularly if you could still perform everything you did before from the new location?

Of course you'd move. Why stay where it is inconvenient for you, or where you are forced onto crowded public transit, or have to walk in bad weather frequently? The Left does these things because they don't consider consequences of their actions.

Here's a thought: Public transportation. People pay taxes for it anyway, so might as well work on making it more efficient. Resident New Yorkers spend way more time walking, using subways and buses than using cars....less cars, better traffic for buses, people.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's a thought: Public transportation. People pay taxes for it anyway, so might as well work on making it more efficient. Resident New Yorkers spend way more time walking, using subways and buses than using cars....less cars, better traffic for buses, people.

The only way to make it work economically and efficiently is to privatize it. That's going to happen in the near future (1 to 3 decades) with driverless cars. Most bus systems will become obsolete with widespread use of those connected to AI that routes them in an efficient manner. Subways and rail (light and heavy) will only survive in the highest population density corridors and cities (eg., few in the US).

What you need to make light rail, subways, etc., work are high population density nodes along the routes they cover. Without those, they are going to be huge economic losers. For example, in the Phoenix metro area, light rail currently only has two nodes that barely, if at all, meet those criteria: The ASU university campus and downtown Phoenix. Neither has more than a very specific population that would use the system and neither truly has the sort of density necessary to make it profitable. Outside of that, the routes amble along stretches of low population density city. Worse, bus routes run parallel to the light rail taking some of the passengers away from the later.

Weirdly, the system runs to two very large, now nearly totally abandoned, shopping malls. I'm not sure what the planners intended there other than giving the system potentially large amounts of free parking for riders, in that neither mall has been revitalized by the presence of light rail.

Like it or don't, something like 98% of US cities and towns are far too low density to make public transit of virtually any sort workable. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Cities like NYC are the outlier exceptions, not the rule in the US. For the same reason, passenger train systems fail in the US. The distances between cities is simply too great to make them viable compared to air travel.

 

[Nordberg]

More likely, with most cities, the downtown dies and people move elsewhere. Think about it for a minute. If you couldn't drive into a downtown area and were faced with walking blocks in what was a car-centric downtown, would you do it or would you move your business elsewhere--particularly if you could still perform everything you did before from the new location?

Of course you'd move. Why stay where it is inconvenient for you, or where you are forced onto crowded public transit, or have to walk in bad weather frequently? The Left does these things because they don't consider consequences of their actions.

As normal. you just start typing. https://medium.com/@jaysgeronca/cit...sterdam,, cyclists, and public transportation.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As normal. you just start typing. https://medium.com/@jaysgeronca/cit...sterdam,, cyclists, and public transportation.

Just because Leftist governments running--ruining?--cities does something, it doesn't mean that it's smart or thought out.

A Car-Free Neighborhood In Tempe, Arizona
Real estate developer Culdesac, a cool name BTW, is developing a car-free neighborhood/community. They have retail spaces, garages for e-bikes, and thousands of bike racks. If you need a car, they have designated EV, ride-share, and car-share pick-up zones. But immediate basic needs are within walking distance or a short trip from the community. They partnered with Lyft to give residents a discount. They are also connected to the local light rail system. The Tempe community targeted the start of turnover in 2023. It will have over 600 homes upon completion. They raised $200 million of real estate capital in 2022. They also started building in other parts of the United States. There are other car-free communities and vacation destinations in the country, like Mackinac Island, Michigan, and Bald Head Island, North Carolina. But Culdesac markets itself as the first community in the country designed to be car-free. It comes from a larger trend.

For example, from your article. If you look at Google maps, if you chose to live there, you are literally screwed trying to go just about anywhere in the metro Phoenix area. Without a car, a good 90% of the city is all but inaccessible. Walking or biking? Yea, when about 70% of the year you see 90 degree + temperatures and often 100 degree + ones. Isn't happening. Even the nearest 'grocery' store--a small market more like a big convenience store is over a mile away. Good luck with that...

Culdesac is on E. Apache Blvd in Tempe. The only immediate access you have from it to public transit is light rail. It's literally miles from anything resembling an area with actual amenities in place, the nearest probably being Mill Ave about 6 miles away.

I know that several high rise condos downtown have to some extent tried this (no parking for residents) and went belly up when nobody would buy, so I doubt this time will be a charm. City North is another so-called "livable" development like Culdesac, it too is largely a failure as it bankrupted the developers.

Massive CityNorth project primed for Phoenix office, apartment development
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix...-primed-for-office-apartment-development.html

Since this experiment hasn't really had time to be fully tried, it'd be best to come back to it in a year or so after it almost certainly fails.

 

[Nordberg]

Just because Leftist governments running--ruining?--cities does something, it doesn't mean that it's smart or thought out.

A Car-Free Neighborhood In Tempe, Arizona
Real estate developer Culdesac, a cool name BTW, is developing a car-free neighborhood/community. They have retail spaces, garages for e-bikes, and thousands of bike racks. If you need a car, they have designated EV, ride-share, and car-share pick-up zones. But immediate basic needs are within walking distance or a short trip from the community. They partnered with Lyft to give residents a discount. They are also connected to the local light rail system. The Tempe community targeted the start of turnover in 2023. It will have over 600 homes upon completion. They raised $200 million of real estate capital in 2022. They also started building in other parts of the United States. There are other car-free communities and vacation destinations in the country, like Mackinac Island, Michigan, and Bald Head Island, North Carolina. But Culdesac markets itself as the first community in the country designed to be car-free. It comes from a larger trend.

For example, from your article. If you look at Google maps, if you chose to live there, you are literally screwed trying to go just about anywhere in the metro Phoenix area. Without a car, a good 90% of the city is all but inaccessible. Walking or biking? Yea, when about 70% of the year you see 90 degree + temperatures and often 100 degree + ones. Isn't happening. Even the nearest 'grocery' store--a small market more like a big convenience store is over a mile away. Good luck with that...

Culdesac is on E. Apache Blvd in Tempe. The only immediate access you have from it to public transit is light rail. It's literally miles from anything resembling an area with actual amenities in place, the nearest probably being Mill Ave about 6 miles away.

I know that several high rise condos downtown have to some extent tried this (no parking for residents) and went belly up when nobody would buy, so I doubt this time will be a charm. City North is another so-called "livable" development like Culdesac, it too is largely a failure as it bankrupted the developers.

Massive CityNorth project primed for Phoenix office, apartment development
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix...-primed-for-office-apartment-development.html

Since this experiment hasn't really had time to be fully tried, it'd be best to come back to it in a year or so after it almost certainly fails.

European countries have been doing long it a long time. https://www.fastcompany.com/90321627/these-8-cities-are-taking-bold-steps-to-get-rid-of-cars Coming to a city near you.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

European countries have been doing long it a long time. https://www.fastcompany.com/90321627/these-8-cities-are-taking-bold-steps-to-get-rid-of-cars Coming to a city near you.

And, every one of them is double or more the population density of virtually any US city. It might work in Asia. It might work in Europe. It won't work in the US. You need population densities several times what US cities now have to make public mass transit work at anything approaching cost effectiveness.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Here's a thought: Public transportation. People pay taxes for it anyway, so might as well work on making it more efficient. Resident New Yorkers spend way more time walking, using subways and buses than using cars....less cars, better traffic for buses, people.

The only way to make it work economically and efficiently is to privatize it. That's going to happen in the near future (1 to 3 decades) with driverless cars. Most bus systems will become obsolete with widespread use of those connected to AI that routes them in an efficient manner. Subways and rail (light and heavy) will only survive in the highest population density corridors and cities (eg., few in the US).

What you need to make light rail, subways, etc., work are high population density nodes along the routes they cover. Without those, they are going to be huge economic losers. For example, in the Phoenix metro area, light rail currently only has two nodes that barely, if at all, meet those criteria: The ASU university campus and downtown Phoenix. Neither has more than a very specific population that would use the system and neither truly has the sort of density necessary to make it profitable. Outside of that, the routes amble along stretches of low population density city. Worse, bus routes run parallel to the light rail taking some of the passengers away from the later.

Weirdly, the system runs to two very large, now nearly totally abandoned, shopping malls. I'm not sure what the planners intended there other than giving the system potentially large amounts of free parking for riders, in that neither mall has been revitalized by the presence of light rail.

Like it or don't, something like 98% of US cities and towns are far too low density to make public transit of virtually any sort workable. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Cities like NYC are the outlier exceptions, not the rule in the US. For the same reason, passenger train systems fail in the US. The distances between cities is simply too great to make them viable compared to air travel.

Two points:

I agree with you that public transport systems must be corrected in order to handle changes in population geographic changes.

I disagree with you that "something like 98% of US cities and towns are far too low density to make public transit of virtually any sort workable " You don't use a "one size fits all" approach. Combinations of trolleys, monorails, subways, "greyhound" type buses, etc. It can be done. https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities

I differ with application of private enterprise only. There must always be oversight or alliance with gov't to ensure and insure things are done right by the people.

I'm not advocating for total removal of personal auto travel or car services. Just pointing out that you can greatly reduce traffic jams and smog contribution.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Two points:

I agree with you that public transport systems must be corrected in order to handle changes in population geographic changes.

I disagree with you that "something like 98% of US cities and towns are far too low density to make public transit of virtually any sort workable " You don't use a "one size fits all" approach. Combinations of trolleys, monorails, subways, "greyhound" type buses, etc. It can be done. https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities

I differ with application of private enterprise only. There must always be oversight or alliance with gov't to ensure and insure things are done right by the people.

I'm not advocating for total removal of personal auto travel or car services. Just pointing out that you can greatly reduce traffic jams and smog contribution.

Most US cities are half or less of the population density of cities in Asia or Europe. They developed primarily in the 20th century and were built around the automobile.

I'm not against public transit when it's reasonably efficient and cost effective, but in the US that's very rare.

Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...merican-mass-transit-so-bad-it-s-a-long-story

‘Unique in the world’: why does America have such terrible public transit?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/14/book-lost-subways-north-america-jake-berman

This is a major reason why:

The Phoenix metro area where I live is continuous urban area over roughly a 75 x 75 mile area of central Arizona. It takes you an hour + to traverse it on freeways. Doing it on what mass transit is available would take you 4 to 6 hours minimum. If you draw a 75 mile circle around London, for example, you encompass most of southern England in it. Mass transit wouldn't work there either covering those distances.

Mass transit fails in the US for the same reason trains fail in the US: Things are just too spread out.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Most US cities are half or less of the population density of cities in Asia or Europe. They developed primarily in the 20th century and were built around the automobile.

I'm not against public transit when it's reasonably efficient and cost effective, but in the US that's very rare.

Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...merican-mass-transit-so-bad-it-s-a-long-story

‘Unique in the world’: why does America have such terrible public transit?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/14/book-lost-subways-north-america-jake-berman

This is a major reason why:

The Phoenix metro area where I live is continuous urban area over roughly a 75 x 75 mile area of central Arizona. It takes you an hour + to traverse it on freeways. Doing it on what mass transit is available would take you 4 to 6 hours minimum. If you draw a 75 mile circle around London, for example, you encompass most of southern England in it. Mass transit wouldn't work there either covering those distances.

Mass transit fails in the US for the same reason trains fail in the US: Things are just too spread out.

You just reiterated your bottom line WITHOUT PROVIDING PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. Note your Bloomberg article is peppered with "most likely". Also, the competitive market regarding personal autos for all purposes has run it's coarse, as increased population does not accommodate century old urban street design.

As the Guardian points out, bad planning is what screws up mass transit. As I've alluded to, their has to be structural changes via new construction. It can be done, we as a society just has to put private enterprise profit slightly aside to obtain it, because as it stands our current directions is not working out.

Oh, and listing world population cities is irrelevant, as we are talking about America.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You just reiterated your bottom line WITHOUT PROVIDING PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. Note your Bloomberg article is peppered with "most likely". Also, the competitive market regarding personal autos for all purposes has run it's coarse, as increased population does not accommodate century old urban street design.

As the Guardian points out, bad planning is what screws up mass transit. As I've alluded to, their has to be structural changes via new construction. It can be done, we as a society just has to put private enterprise profit slightly aside to obtain it, because as it stands our current directions is not working out.

Oh, and listing world population cities is irrelevant, as we are talking about America.

The Guardian is only partially correct. In the US, urban sprawl was commonplace in the 20th century with everybody having an automobile. The US led the world in ownership of cars well ahead of any other nation. Zoning and setback rules for construction are two examples of how the US isn't going to suddenly up urban density.

Again, applying Phoenix. The tallest apartment building that can be built in most parts of Phoenix is six stories. That's it. Zoning regulations would have to change for that to change. Setbacks on lots for buildings, and parking requirements ensure that buildings spread out far more. That requires lots of changes to building codes to alter.

World population and size by land area of world cities gives you a comparison. US cities are simply too low density and spread out to make mass transit efficient and work.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You just reiterated your bottom line WITHOUT PROVIDING PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. Note your Bloomberg article is peppered with "most likely". Also, the competitive market regarding personal autos for all purposes has run it's coarse, as increased population does not accommodate century old urban street design.

As the Guardian points out, bad planning is what screws up mass transit. As I've alluded to, their has to be structural changes via new construction. It can be done, we as a society just has to put private enterprise profit slightly aside to obtain it, because as it stands our current directions is not working out.

Oh, and listing world population cities is irrelevant, as we are talking about America.

The Guardian is only partially correct. In the US, urban sprawl was commonplace in the 20th century with everybody having an automobile. The US led the world in ownership of cars well ahead of any other nation. Zoning and setback rules for construction are two examples of how the US isn't going to suddenly up urban density.

Again, applying Phoenix. The tallest apartment building that can be built in most parts of Phoenix is six stories. That's it. Zoning regulations would have to change for that to change. Setbacks on lots for buildings, and parking requirements ensure that buildings spread out far more. That requires lots of changes to building codes to alter.

World population and size by land area of world cities gives you a comparison. US cities are simply too low density and spread out to make mass transit efficient and work.

Again, personal supposition and conjecture does not equate to facts. Never has.

YOU introduced the Bloomberg article as a slam dunk. I merely point out that it wasn't.

Like it or not, the OP stands pat ... your attempt to dilute it non-withstanding.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Again, personal supposition and conjecture does not equate to facts. Never has.

YOU introduced the Bloomberg article as a slam dunk. I merely point out that it wasn't.

Like it or not, the OP stands pat ... your attempt to dilute it non-withstanding.

Density

Nothing matters as much to making transit useful and successful as population density. Every mile of transit costs money to build and operate. Fundamentally, the usefulness of that mile is a based on simple math: how many people will that mile of transit reach? A mile of route puts roughly a square mile of area within reach of transit. If 100 people live in that square mile, there are 100 potential transit riders; if 10,000 people live in that square, there are 10,000 potential transit riders.

Multiple research studies have attempted to quantify density thresholds for transit. At somewhere around 3,000 people per square mile, it makes sense to operate some level of infrequent local bus service. This level of density is common in US cities, both in prewar neighborhoods and postwar car-oriented suburbia. Here, while an hourly bus will get ridership, transit will never be the most convenient mode, and most people will choose to drive. Somewhere around 10,000 people per square mile, though, transit reaches a tipping point. Here, the sheer number of people are enough to justify frequent service. Moreover, walking and biking become useful for short trips, which makes it easier for people to live without cars and makes transit more desirable. As densities further increase, more and more transit is justified. The transit- oriented neighborhoods of older cities have over 15,000 people per square mile, and even newer car-oriented cities like Los Angeles and Houston have some neighborhoods at these densities.
https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/excerpt-many-cities-have-transit-how-many-have-good-transit

Can the Densities of Some Neighborhoods Be too Low for Transit to Work?
https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/...-neighborhoods-be-too-low-for-transit-to-work

Outside of NYC, US cities don't have the population density to support mass transit systems.

How Your City’s Public Transit Stacks Up
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/

Dense concentrations of people and jobs around transit stations are particularly important. Outside of Manhattan, Chicago’s Loop, and a few other urban pockets, however, most Americans dislike density. Many loathe it. For them, the “D” word means traffic congestion, crowded sidewalks, packed schools, long lines at the grocery store, and high crime rates. Without density, however, high-capacity transit tends to attract too few trips to offset the high price tag.
https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2012/transit-d-word/

US cites are simply too low density and too spread out to make mass transit cost effective, viable, and readily available to potential users. If you have to wait 20 minutes for a bus after walking the better part of a mile to a bus stop, you're not likely to use a bus system if you have any alternative to it. It simply becomes too time consuming and costly for you to use it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Density

Nothing matters as much to making transit useful and successful as population density. Every mile of transit costs money to build and operate. Fundamentally, the usefulness of that mile is a based on simple math: how many people will that mile of transit reach? A mile of route puts roughly a square mile of area within reach of transit. If 100 people live in that square mile, there are 100 potential transit riders; if 10,000 people live in that square, there are 10,000 potential transit riders.

Multiple research studies have attempted to quantify density thresholds for transit. At somewhere around 3,000 people per square mile, it makes sense to operate some level of infrequent local bus service. This level of density is common in US cities, both in prewar neighborhoods and postwar car-oriented suburbia. Here, while an hourly bus will get ridership, transit will never be the most convenient mode, and most people will choose to drive. Somewhere around 10,000 people per square mile, though, transit reaches a tipping point. Here, the sheer number of people are enough to justify frequent service. Moreover, walking and biking become useful for short trips, which makes it easier for people to live without cars and makes transit more desirable. As densities further increase, more and more transit is justified. The transit- oriented neighborhoods of older cities have over 15,000 people per square mile, and even newer car-oriented cities like Los Angeles and Houston have some neighborhoods at these densities.
https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/excerpt-many-cities-have-transit-how-many-have-good-transit

Can the Densities of Some Neighborhoods Be too Low for Transit to Work?
https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/...-neighborhoods-be-too-low-for-transit-to-work

Outside of NYC, US cities don't have the population density to support mass transit systems.

How Your City’s Public Transit Stacks Up
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/

Dense concentrations of people and jobs around transit stations are particularly important. Outside of Manhattan, Chicago’s Loop, and a few other urban pockets, however, most Americans dislike density. Many loathe it. For them, the “D” word means traffic congestion, crowded sidewalks, packed schools, long lines at the grocery store, and high crime rates. Without density, however, high-capacity transit tends to attract too few trips to offset the high price tag.
https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2012/transit-d-word/

US cites are simply too low density and too spread out to make mass transit cost effective, viable, and readily available to potential users. If you have to wait 20 minutes for a bus after walking the better part of a mile to a bus stop, you're not likely to use a bus system if you have any alternative to it. It simply becomes too time consuming and costly for you to use it.

My man, you can play this over and over, six ways to Sunday....AND YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO PASS OFF A THEORY AS BONIFIDE FACT.

You fail.

Pay attention: The whole point here is that (1) The OP stands valid no matter what other cases were lost...that's why I say score ONE for the good guys. (2) History show transportation to rural areas with lesser population can be done if there is a will of the people via their congress. It's just a matter of putting people first and profit second. THAT is the main issue. Case in point: the architect of Long Island, Nassau County in New York purposely structured the urban landscape so public transportation to the beach from predominantly minority areas would be difficult at best.....despite ample population and location. Yet you have an expensive rail system to certain towns where the well-to-do professionals and such live that is NOT as well populated as the rest of the island.

Get it now? If not, then you'll just stubbornly repeat your assertion to the point of insipidness as usual.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

My man, you can play this over and over, six ways to Sunday....AND YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO PASS OFF A THEORY AS BONIFIDE FACT.

You fail.

Pay attention: The whole point here is that (1) The OP stands valid no matter what other cases were lost...that's why I say score ONE for the good guys. (2) History show transportation to rural areas with lesser population can be done if there is a will of the people via their congress. It's just a matter of putting people first and profit second. THAT is the main issue. Case in point: the architect of Long Island, Nassau County in New York purposely structured the urban landscape so public transportation to the beach from predominantly minority areas would be difficult at best.....despite ample population and location. Yet you have an expensive rail system to certain towns where the well-to-do professionals and such live that is NOT as well populated as the rest of the island.

Get it now? If not, then you'll just stubbornly repeat your assertion to the point of insipidness as usual.

So, in effect what you are saying is that mass public transit can be forced on the population by government fiat disguised as "(the) will of the people," and that government can force the general public to pay through the nose to subsidize it if it can't make a profit. How utterly authoritarian and fascist of you. Kim Jong Il would be proud of you.

 

[QP!]

So, in effect what you are saying is that mass public transit can be forced on the population by government fiat disguised as "(the) will of the people," and that government can force the general public to pay through the nose to subsidize it if it can't make a profit. How utterly authoritarian and fascist of you. Kim Jong Il would be proud of you.

I have not read this thread but must point out that, as is often the case and Terry ALWAYS IGNORES, many cities lost their public transit or saw it greatly diminished, or unable to expand based on gov't fiat, often deployed due to ICE manufacturer bribes to politicians, that they passed off as "the will of the people".

That is the type of authoritarian and govt intervention Terry ALWAYS applauds as he has done with support for all historical and current ICE and Oil and Gas subsidies, while screaming against EV and Green Energy ones.

Terry is perfectly consistent in this area, so i give him that credit. All his views come down to, 'if i support the area then i want all the gov't subsidies, in any form and i will deny they are actually subsidies. If i do not support the area, than any gov't dollars given should never be done as they impact the market'. He is consistent in his hypocrisy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have not read this thread but must point out that, as is often the case and Terry ALWAYS IGNORES, many cities lost their public transit or saw it greatly diminished, or unable to expand based on gov't fiat, often deployed due to ICE manufacturer bribes to politicians, that they passed off as "the will of the people".

That is the type of authoritarian and govt intervention Terry ALWAYS applauds as he has done with support for all historical and current ICE and Oil and Gas subsidies, while screaming against EV and Green Energy ones.

Terry is perfectly consistent in this area, so i give him that credit. All his views come down to, 'if i support the area then i want all the gov't subsidies, in any form and i will deny they are actually subsidies. If i do not support the area, than any gov't dollars given should never be done as they impact the market'. He is consistent in his hypocrisy.

Well, maybe you should read the thread because I pointed out the wrongness of Firestone and GM colluding to do that to the Big Red system in LA, as one example. On the other hand, I also showed how the city of Detroit worked to take over the streetcar systems there from private owners and finally in 1920 managed to do it only to almost immediately cause the system to run at a loss that became so big they had to dump the whole system. So, you are, once again, full of shit.

 

[QP!]

Well, maybe you should read the thread because I pointed out the wrongness of Firestone and GM colluding to do that to the Big Red system in LA, as one example. On the other hand, I also showed how the city of Detroit worked to take over the streetcar systems there from private owners and finally in 1920 managed to do it only to almost immediately cause the system to run at a loss that became so big they had to dump the whole system. So, you are, once again, full of shit.

Nope, sorry Terry as once again you are wrong. I do not even need to get in to your examples to know you are wrong, as being able to cite an example in one area does not mean it never happened anywhere. And reread my post as it was not entirely about about ICE's push. Another key factor is zoning and urban sprawl, which again, is a choice by gov't that ends up impacting public transit.

So it is your premise Terry that all of this, when it goes the direction you support, is all just free market, free of gov't finger on which way things go, when that is NOT TRUE and is especially not true on any of the areas you support (ICE, O&G) and where you deny they have been amongst the biggest subsidy takers in American history, and yet you claim neither industry has ever received any form of subsidy.

that is the extent of how ridiculous you are Terry. You actually claim neither ICE nor Oil and Gas has ever received any form of subsidy, while EV has based on your supporting one (ICE and O&G) and not supporting the others (Ev, Renewable energy).

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
My man, you can play this over and over, six ways to Sunday....AND YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO PASS OFF A THEORY AS BONIFIDE FACT.

You fail.

Pay attention: The whole point here is that (1) The OP stands valid no matter what other cases were lost...that's why I say score ONE for the good guys. (2) History show transportation to rural areas with lesser population can be done if there is a will of the people via their congress. It's just a matter of putting people first and profit second. THAT is the main issue. Case in point: the architect of Long Island, Nassau County in New York purposely structured the urban landscape so public transportation to the beach from predominantly minority areas would be difficult at best.....despite ample population and location. Yet you have an expensive rail system to certain towns where the well-to-do professionals and such live that is NOT as well populated as the rest of the island.

Get it now? If not, then you'll just stubbornly repeat your assertion to the point of insipidness as usual.

So, in effect what you are saying is that mass public transit can be forced on the population by government fiat disguised as "(the) will of the people," and that government can force the general public to pay through the nose to subsidize it if it can't make a profit. How utterly authoritarian and fascist of you. Kim Jong Il would be proud of you.

In effect you just parrot some right wingnut "anti-gov't" BS to avoid the basic real life historical facts in order to maintain your "I'm right" comfort zone. Bottom line: you worship at the altar of private enterprise/profit, yet THE QUALITY OF LIFE YOU ENJOY IS A RESULT OF GOV'T OVER SIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY. When it fails, it's a disaster (case in point; Flint, Michigan). I gave you an example as to how just one bigoted individual can pioneer bad things for whole sections of honest, tax paying citizens. Look up the history of Levittown, NY for an example.

Now STFU with your authoritarian/psuedo-fascist clap trap (of which you are too ignorant...willful or genuine...to realize).

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
Well, maybe you should read the thread because I pointed out the wrongness of Firestone and GM colluding to do that to the Big Red system in LA, as one example. On the other hand, I also showed how the city of Detroit worked to take over the streetcar systems there from private owners and finally in 1920 managed to do it only to almost immediately cause the system to run at a loss that became so big they had to dump the whole system. So, you are, once again, full of shit.

Nope, sorry Terry as once again you are wrong. I do not even need to get in to your examples to know you are wrong, as being able to cite an example in one area does not mean it never happened anywhere. And reread my post as it was not entirely about about ICE's push. Another key factor is zoning and urban sprawl, which again, is a choice by gov't that ends up impacting public transit.

So it is your premise Terry that all of this, when it goes the direction you support, is all just free market, free of gov't finger on which way things go, when that is NOT TRUE and is especially not true on any of the areas you support (ICE, O&G) and where you deny they have been amongst the biggest subsidy takers in American history, and yet you claim neither industry has ever received any form of subsidy.

that is the extent of how ridiculous you are Terry. You actually claim neither ICE nor Oil and Gas has ever received any form of subsidy, while EV has based on your supporting one (ICE and O&G) and not supporting the others (Ev, Renewable energy).

An excellent deconstruction of what is a-typical hypocritical/double standard blather from MAGA/neocon/teabagger/fibbertarian folk.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In effect you just parrot some right wingnut "anti-gov't" BS to avoid the basic real life historical facts in order to maintain your "I'm right" comfort zone. Bottom line: you worship at the altar of private enterprise/profit, yet THE QUALITY OF LIFE YOU ENJOY IS A RESULT OF GOV'T OVER SIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY. When it fails, it's a disaster (case in point; Flint, Michigan). I gave you an example as to how just one bigoted individual can pioneer bad things for whole sections of honest, tax paying citizens. Look up the history of Levittown, NY for an example.

Now STFU with your authoritarian/psuedo-fascist clap trap (of which you are too ignorant...willful or genuine...to realize).

Public water systems like that in Flint, and for that matter much of the Eastern US still have lead pipes because of government incompetence. In Flint, even as the water system--by the way the same thing happened in Tucson for the same reason--operators for the city fucked away a switch in water supply that resulted in a crud burst that wrecked many of the older piping systems in the city.

Interestingly, hydro-engineers, including the one I use in Tucson, TOLD the city that would happen when they switched and recommended a gradual change mixing supplies. The city didn't listen. In the Phoenix metro area there are numerous private companies that run water supply systems with no problems. The only on I know of that's bad was Johnson. They got smacked down hard for it too. But government systems? They can fuck up all they want and are unaccountable for all intents.

So, STFU because you're talking out your ass about something you know nothing about.