Post by Pathttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion
school
Post by Warm WormPost by Warm WormPost by Tadej BrezinaPost by PatPost by george conklindistrict, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it
'turned
pays
Post by Warm WormPost by Warm WormPost by Tadej BrezinaPost by Patpart and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big
college
Post by PatPost by Warm WormPost by Warm WormPost by Tadej BrezinaPost by Pattown (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,
because
Post by Warm WormPost by Warm WormPost by Tadej BrezinaPost by Patit doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to
foot
Post by Warm WormPost by Warm WormPost by Tadej BrezinaPost by Patpart of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."
Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.
George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.
The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many
more
Post by Warm Wormgroups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are
irrelevant to
Post by Warm Wormthe financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as
they
Post by Warm Wormthink they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.
Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...
The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle. A
lifestyle few enjoy.
I think you're wrong on both counts. For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort". It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car.
-----
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but popular.
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.
Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.
Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle. But
alas, that's not the case. I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.
Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality. You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism). But in reality, its much more than that. It is a
social program. It is a political issue. It is a anti-poverty program/
issue.
---
When I post about the solutions (illegal) worked out by people at low cost,
you get upset and ignore that.
The other thing, George, is that the argument for or against the
economics of transit depends nearly entirely on how you calculate
costs.
------
All I hear here is "secret subsities" and other nonsense.
One can argue anything you want and be right, as long as you
ignore everything else. Unfortunately, one cannot take all costs,
factors, issues and un-intended consequences into account because its
way too complex.
If you look at the operating costs of transit v. a car, you get one
answer. It is neither right nor wronig, it's an answer. Just an
answer and nothing more.
If you take into account subsidies, you get another answer.
If you take into account the fact that you need less lanes of roadway,
you get another answer.
If you take into account the roadway demand for peak hours (when it's
most critical), you get another answer.
If you take into account acid rain pollution v. solids, you get
another answer.
If you take into account externality such as off-site pollution, you
get another answer.
If you take into account additional access to health care, you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to employment you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to education you get
another answer.
If you take into account people owning cars to get to transit you get
another answer.
If you take into account peoples' time you get another answer.
George, there is no "right" answer. There is not "single" answer.
The answer depends on your perspective -- and do some extent it
depends on what you want the answer to be. And it depends on who you
are. The answer is different for a rich person or a poor one.
You-all need to expand your horizons and look at the bigger pictures.
So here's the next question, what's better: a hamburger or a veggie
burger? What's better, McDonalds or Burger King? Yankees or Mets.
Cubs or Bears?
-----
So you are back to lifestyle, Yankees or Mets. If I say that you get
upset, yet you end with that very statement.