What you're talking about is theft, not chairty.

Actually, its neither. I pay taxes, probably more than most, and I am free to lobby my government representatives to spend it in ways that I see fit. I am also free to argue for my views on government spending in public forums. Its called freedom dude.

Our government is currently spending money on a great number of things that I do not support. But thats life, and it would be childish to portray it as "theft".

I for one, am happy to see some of my tax dollars go to those who are less fortunate than I or who are where my grandparents were when they first got off the boat. A far better use, in my view, than the giveaways to billionaires that Bush is so fond of.

You just continue with your obsession that everyone wants to get into your wallet, which I suspect is not thick enough to be of much interest to anyone.

How about proving this statement?

Logic time:

The real costs involved with light rail systems are much higher than the fares would indicate, else they'd not be in our collective pocketbooks for their daily needs. Raise the fares to cover those costs, and the poor wouldn't be able to support them.

A weak response.

A kindness, actually.

Do you have metrics on the average cost per rider per mile for mass transit systems in this country?

And why would that be needed? The bottom line they all remain with one hand in my pocket, and wouldn't survive otherwise. Clearly, whatever it is they're not profitable.

What about a poor person who is frugal and hardworking? Maybe he just wants to get across town to see his Grandma. To hell with him? Don't know about you but I am willing to pony up a few bucks to make transportation available to all, even if there is a subsidy for the poor

Fine then you go ahead and make arrangements for it... outside of government and without demanding the taxpayers support it. What you're talking about is theft, not chairty.

And thereby can't afford to pay a fare that's high enough to keep the light rail rolling, either

How about proving this statement?

Do you have metrics on the average cost per rider per mile for mass transit systems in this country? Can you prove that someone who can't afford a car cannot pay the average fair? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

What about a poor person who is frugal and hardworking? Maybe he just wants to get across town to see his Grandma. To hell with him? Don't know about you but I am willing to pony up a few bucks to make transportation available to all, even if there is a subsidy for the poor. I am happy to help someone who has less then me and I can still afford to keep my 350z on the road :)

More than you've got time to read, I suspect.

A weak response. I will make time. Show me where I am unreasonable. Your little quips simply show that you have not got much to offer in the way of substance. Put up or shut up...

A ways back in this thread you said mass transit failures were due to to "government involvement". So which excuse is it to be?

Do you consider the reasons listed to be mutually exclusive?

What is unreasonable in this?

More than you've got time to read, I suspect.

but there were then and are now a great many people who either cant afford cars,

And thereby can't afford to pay a fare that's high enough to keep the light rail rolling, either. Thus do we have yet another tax to add to automotive fuel. I suppose you can't imagine how those issues are connected?

Try exhibiting some.

I would be curious to hear your definition of reason. I am a Democrat, but Republican Chuck Hegel was my first choice for president. In fact, I was a member of the GOP who voter for Reagan twice before the Bush family ruined the party.

I oppose the war in Iraq, but strongly support our action in Afghanistan. I favor universal health care, but support welfare reform. I think we should exhaust all other possibilities before we go to war. I want to minimize damage to the environment.

What is unreasonable in this?

Problem of course was, nobody wanted to ride the thing

A ways back in this thread you said mass transit failures were due to to "government involvement". So which excuse is it to be?

Light rail was popular and enjoyed a high ridership in Calif after the before and after the war.(ww2) Certainly market penetration by automobiles is a factor, but there were then and are now a great many people who either cant afford cars, or would prefer to use public transportation if a decent form were available. The fall of light rail and rise of buses was not based on a lack of ridership.

I said a BETTER mass transit system. We are stuck with crappy city busses because your friends at Chevron got rid of most of the light rail systems we had in large cities, mass transit that actually worked.

The history of the RTC I cited earlier is emblematic; It was set up because the bigger cities had them. Problem of course was, nobody wanted to ride the thing. Blame Chevron if you like, but it won't wash. It's called 'voting with your feet', and the people did just that.

But I don't really regard you as someone who is open to reason...

Try exhibiting some.

mass transit is impossible outside major, well populated cities

Define "major" city. Des Moines seems to have a fairly well developed mass transit system, and it is not urban coastal.

http://www.desmoineswa.gov/serv_res/transportation.html

It's interesting to read about the history of mass transit in Iowa. A bit of reading also gives lie to Bit's claim that "government involvement" was responsible for the failure of mass transit. At least in the case of Iowa, there were private trolley lines which had a tendency to fail:

History of Public Transit in Iowa
Public transit has been serving Iowa since before statehood was achieved. Keelboats and paddle-wheelers carried passengers up and down the Mississippi River, stopping at river towns along the Iowa territory, while stagecoaches carried passengers overland.

Local transit operations got their start in the late 1860s with street railway systems springing up in many of the larger communities of the time. (Dubuque's Dubuque Street Railway system, founded in early 1868 was the second public transportation system west of the Mississippi, and the first of many springing up in Iowa.) These generally involved horse or mule-drawn trolleys running on metal tracks laid in the dirt streets. They offered operating speeds of up to six miles per hour. They gave city dwellers the chance to get around town much quicker than one could walk, especially at times when the streets were full of mud or dust. Even for those with access to their own horses or wagons, the street railways offered increased convenience by avoiding the chores of saddling or hitching up horses for short errands or visits.

The development of steam engines and electricity quickly ended the reliance on animal power for public transit. In 1888 Des Moines became the second city in the nation to have electric rail service with the opening of the Broad Gauge Railway Company running along Locust Street and Grand Avenue.

During the 1890s and early 1900s, most of the existing street railways were either converted to or replaced by electrified streetcar lines. New lines were also developed through the first couple decades of the 1900s. Often a town would have several different companies providing service, each with its own line serving certain parts of town.

In many communities real estate developers established trolley lines to support new outlying neighborhoods which were beyond easy walking distance of the central business district. Others developed trolleys to carry people to amusement parks developed outside of town. In many cases these lines were not profitable in and of themselves, but contributed to the overall success of the developer's projects.

Over time many of the individual trolley lines failed. In some communities this was the end to public transit. In most communities, however, the various electric rail lines were consolidated under a single operator, which was often the local electric utility company. Since the trolley systems tended to be among the heaviest users of electricity, this made some sense as a form of vertical integration. It also made sense to treat public transit service as a utility. But probably the main reason the services ended up being consolidated under the electric utility had to do with the tendency of the trolleys to go out of business owing very large electric bills.

>I don't think anyone is arguing that rural hamlets should build mass transit. Of course I am more familiar with the issues where I live. I can tell you for sure that there is widespread support for a high speed train running SF-LA-San Diego. Yet we can't seem to do something that Europe and Japan did decades ago. There is a reason for this, and I smell oil...

Look, how many empty amtrak trains, how many empty city busses

I said a BETTER mass transit system. We are stuck with crappy city busses because your friends at Chevron got rid of most of the light rail systems we had in large cities, mass transit that actually worked.

Which of course, is why you keep responding.

I like to argue about politics. But I don't really regard you as someone who is open to reason...

It beats the politician's stupidity that a windfall profit's tax will cause conmpanies to develop more energy.

Really.

Look let's see a show of hands, here. Here we are Again, ....according to CNN Money, Exxon total “profits” if you don’t count exploration costs, were $40BUSD, in 2007. Their taxes, however, were $100BUSD.

Now, who among us really thinks, in their heart of hearts that increasing the taxes on oil companies still further is going to bring down the cost of fuel?

Policy no doubt affects the price of oil. But ANWR? That's way, way down the list.

Perhaps. But it IS at least rather symbolic for our reluctance to drill where needed.