Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 182

Thread: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

  1. #101
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    You've yet to prove anything of the sort. All you've done is found someone (a very questionable someone) who agrees with your assertion, but who, like you, doesn't seem to have any numbers or detailed studies of his own to back it all up. This just isn't enough for me, I'm afraid.

    I ask again, do you have any actual data (numbers, statistics, reports, documented studies/evidence) to support your assertion that "rail actually increases traffic?"
    See, where as I give you a theoretical argument, you offer nothing. You don't realize that the people who are on the trains are usually just people that previously were on the bus. As such, you're not really taking people off of the road, but increased development and higher pedestrian activity will lead to higher auto congestion.

    The Contribution of Highways and Transit to Congestion Relief: A Realistic View

    What I gave you before was a summary of a paper, and since you can't seem to realize that, there's the link to a paper. Everything you need is there.

    You have to realize that the point of rail is to give people option to commute, not to reduce traffic (because it will never accomplish that). However, since I point out the falsehoods in your argument about reducing traffic, you want to set up a straw man to make me look like I'm against rail. I'm not. I think the way that we have designed cities is stupid because it has been all cars without any attention given to rail or bikes or walking.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  2. #102
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    No, the govt's reason for existence is to protect our rights.

    No, it's to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

    They had bigger things in mind then solely securing our rights, which is why there is even a Bill of Rights ... it got added on later.

  3. #103
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    No. What I'm saying is the government's entire reason for being is to provide public services.

    Like all the things listed in the Constitution.

    And what of those things not enumerated?



    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #104
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    No, it's to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

    They had bigger things in mind then solely securing our rights, which is why there is even a Bill of Rights ... it got added on later.

    I think you are having a severe lack of understanding in comprehension if you think that the words:

    "In order to form a more perfect union..." meant in any way that it was to carry on to the will of the people to vote themselves treasure, and goodies from the public wealth.

    Also, define "Justice" for me.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #105
    Guru
    BWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez
    You have to realize that the point of rail is to give people option to commute, not to reduce traffic (because it will never accomplish that). However, since I point out the falsehoods in your argument about reducing traffic,
    Rail doesn't reduce traffic?


    ...what would happen if the New York City subway system didn't exist.


    New York would need the equivilent of 76 Brooklyn Bridges, or in lieu of that, a 228 lane Brooklyn Bridge. It would also have to turn a whole bunch of Manhattan and Brooklyn into a parking lot.

    [...]

    from 8:00AM to 8:59 AM on an average Fall day in 2007 the NYC Subway carried 388,802 passengers into the CBD on 370 trains over 22 tracks. In other words, a train carrying 1,050 people crossed into the CBD every 6 seconds.

    [...]

    At best, it would take 167 inbound lanes, or 84 copies of the Queens Midtown Tunnel, to carry what the NYC Subway carries over 22 inbound tracks through 12 tunnels and 2 (partial) bridges.


    New York City Without A Subway Would Be A Giant Parking Lot
    Now I don't think this is some beltway 'think tank' with their calculators and pocket protectors trying to make a serious argument about anything. I know it's a pretty simplistic approach to make a point, so I'm not delving into methodology or anything like that, just offering food for thought.

    Though I must admit, I'm impressed with the amount of people they can move in an hour.
    “We just simply don’t know how to govern” - Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) a member of the House Budget Committee

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    No. What I'm saying is the government's entire reason for being is to provide public services.

    Like all the things listed in the Constitution.
    What "public service" is enumerated in the Constitution? Could you post them here for our review.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    No, the govt's reason for existence is to protect our rights.
    Slight correction: the Constitution states that the Federal Governments role as being the defense of the nation and to administer our laws.

    Of course, part of that law part can be argued to include protecting our rights; but those rights are enumerated and they don't include "Government services" as the Libruls keep arguing for.

  8. #108
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    See, where as I give you a theoretical argument, you offer nothing.
    On the contrary, I gave you a thoroughly documented study, complete with verified research done by a host of qualified experts working for a trusted state agency.

    In response, you offer the criticisms of an anti-rail mouthpiece, and a lot of "theories." I'm still not seeing any sort of research, documented studies or evidence that proves "Rail actually increases traffic." (As a side note, the entire paper is not presented and the footnote links do not work; perhaps Cox's own study on how "rail actually increases traffic" is in the missing Methodology portion...)

    To begin with, Mr. Cox's entire base premise is laughably incorrect:

    Transit plays an important role in America ... which is to provide mobility for those who do not have a car available.
    If his understanding of public transit is this biased and myopic, any assumptions he makes based on that flawed premise can be called into question.

    Oddly enough, your own view of public transit is terribly skewed (perhaps that's why you champion Cox's essay):

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    the people who are on the trains are usually just people that previously were on the bus.
    From this narrow view, I can only assume you've never lived or worked in a large metropolitan city, nor regularly commuted via rail for any reason whatsoever.

    It appears that Mr. Cox's primary solution to ever-increasing traffic and congestion is... more/better roads. (Big shock, that.)

    intelligent highways on major busy roads. Such highways would include sensors that detect and control cars, with computers that automatically steer, accelerate, and slow cars in tandem. This would allow much higher traffic flows per lane than are currently seen, perhaps quadrupling the capacities of a given highway space.

    Many automobiles today have cruise control, and some newer models sense when a car ahead slows down and automatically slow in response. The Toyota 2004 Prius will self-steer. All that will be needed is to connect self-accelerating, self-braking, self-steering cars to an intelligent highway network.
    While this "solution" sounds very nice, Cox gives no indication of what this design model would actually entail: what building these intelligent highways would cost, what it would cost to retrofit all vehicle manufacturing plants and replace all existing vehicles with self-accelerating, self-braking, self-steering cars, how the roads would be built/retrofitted so as not to further impede traffic and increase congestion, and how long this road-building / "smart car" replacement process would take. (Again, no documentation or realistic alternative solutions, just a lot of nutty "theories").

    Then, Cox tosses this gem of critical thinking out there:

    Hybrid-electric cars such as the Prius also virtually eliminate air emissions and greatly reduce energy consumption. Thus, most of the reasons cited for heavy investments in rail transit--saving energy, reducing air pollution, and solving congestion--are being taken care of at a much lower cost without attempting to force people who can drive to use less efficient mass transit.
    For this nutty idea to bear fruit, every car on the road would have to be a hybrid-electric vehicle. Oh, and nobody is trying to "force" people who can drive to use mass transit. Nice hyperbole.

    Finally, this bolded portion of Cox's anti-rail screed is a flat-out lie, and I know this because I live along I-5, 30 miles from Portland:

    Portland is also obsessed with rail transit at the expense of auto driving. A major bottleneck in the region is located on Interstate 5, which runs north and south from Washington, through Oregon and into California. A crucial segment of the highway runs through the city of Portland but has only two lanes each way and is heavily congested. For 50 miles to the north and south of this segment, Interstate 5 is at least a six-lane highway, much of it in rural areas.
    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I think the way that we have designed cities is stupid because it has been all cars without any attention given to rail or bikes or walking.
    On this we can agree. However, your friend Mr. Cox has plenty of complaints about the second-most bike-friendly city in the world - Portland OR - and its efforts to address the needs of pedestrians and bike riders. Evidently, he believes people on bikes and on foot are just as much his enemy as public transportation is.

    What Does Not Work
    Many urbanized areas have reduced traffic signal coordination; changed one-way streets to two-way (effectively eliminating signal coordination); placed barriers in roads (euphemistically called traffic calming but more accurately titled congestion building ); and spent transportation funds that could be used to reduce congestion on unrelated activities. Supporters of these steps include a congestion coalition of planners, urban environmentalists, transit agencies, and transit builders who hope to gain when people agree to build rail transit out of desperation.

    Portland, Oregon, is a leader in this movement. Local officials have put speed bumps in collector streets and eliminated lanes from minor arterials. The regional transportation plan for the Portland area calls for turning many arterials into boulevards --the planners' term for fewer lanes and wider sidewalks--with the aim of increasing walking and bicycling at the expense of driving.
    In conclusion, Mr. Cox's premises are egregiously flawed, his "solutions" are either wildly impractical and/or utterly impossible to implement, his principle sources of funding remain troublesome, and he has not produced a valid study that clearly contradicts the work that TTI has been doing for decades.

    I'm afraid your "rail actually increases traffic" argument remains unproven.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Meanwhile back to the thread topic; rail programs in almost ALL cases require massive tax supported subsidies in order to keep them in business because the consumers do not wish to deal with the inconvenience of such travel and the times involved.

    In other words, it costs far more to support such Government programs than the value they provide.

    Carry on.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    I love Amtrak. Great way to travel.
    Fine.

    Start paying what your ticket actually costs and come back and tell us then how much you love it.

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •