Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[d8alterego]

You are so very correct, yet so am I. You are arguing that it is your money (the private user) that gets collected by the government and then funneled back to the user in the form of a highway, thus it is not payed for by the government but by the user. I can see that, but my point is that it is still the government and not a private company inwhich that transaction takes place. What would happen if everyone stopped driving? There would be no funds from the tax and thus all road and highway construction would end right? That's my point, all highway construction and maintainence comes from the government regardless of what tax funds it. Private companies do not and would not want to build roads/highways themselves; at least not at the extent to which they are now.

Your arguement:

user tax --> government agency funnels the tax --> road/highway (user pays for highway)

My point is that if it were this way:

user fee --> private company --> road/highway (no government in the mix)

then the highway system would not be as massive or nice as it is because the capital is simply not there because private companies are risk averse, unlike the government. Remember that bridge to nowhere? It was not built by a private company because it sure as hell would have lost a lot of money!

I'm all for not driving except for the fact that our towns, cities, and nation are built around the car. If we change up that paradigm, I'd be the biggest advocate for not having a government fuel tax that pays for roads and highways.

Did I just argue for the conservative principal of little government? Yikes, I think I may have to stop arguing this point while I'm still ahead.

The USER pays the tax, the government does not pay, it collects the tax from the USER (ie person/company that buys license plates and fuel) and returns it to the highway agencies to construct and maintain the highways. Private companies either own their own trucks that pay the USER taxes or hire companies with trucks that pay the USER taxes.

Back in the 20's the farmers in MI graded the roads in front of their property in lieu of property taxes. The Good Roads movement converted the tax from a property tax base to the user tax we have today.

If you don't want to fund highways, quit driving.

[Veloise]

...The Good Roads movement...

was one of the raison d'

[crinzema]

My family owned 7 vehicles for 5 people and yet we claim to be conservatives. I believe that this region could be a leader in transportation because of the very thing that many see as a downfall to this region. If you remind conservatives of their conservatism, they will conserve their money by buying small vehicles instead of their 4x4's and buying less of them, which will make their liberal hippy counterparts happy. Different agendas, same solution.

Conservatives value personal freedom over money though. And that is why this BRT line will fall sort on voting day. I can tell you in my own experience that when i talk about these transit proposals to my dad, being the hard nosed conservative that he is, claims the government wants to take over all our transportation needs and take over our lives and that they want to control what I drive yada yada yada. Much like a purposal of a ban on guns increase sales in guns, the more the government tries to pry us from the modern day vehicle, the more conservatives will get hard nosed and buy SUV's. It might sound crazy and irrational but its true.

EDIT: To clarify, if the government increase the tax on fuel to fund government transportation solutions and to get people out of their large vehicles into small tiny cars, expect the conservatives to retaliate by buying large vehicles. But if we run a advertising campaign reminding people about the benefits of conserving, in terms of transportation, they can be your best friend.

Edited April 28, 2009 by crinzema

[JoeSchmo]

I am coming to light with your view, d8alterego. You point out that its not necessarily that we don't have enough money to maintain and build roads, but simply put - we have built a road network that is simply TOO big and TOO expensive. The US has one of the largest road networks. We have taken our roads for granted and if we have to walk anywhere we just complain like a baby. For example people circle parking lots outside stores so they can walk 20 or 30 ft less.

Nonetheless I am a supporter of additional fuel tax simply to discourage people from driving and in addition promote technological development through capitalism rather than cheap consumption.

The idea of privatized roads is intriguing to say the least as our road network and our cities would look incredibly different although I am unsure if it would necessarily be for the better. You would get into areas of special interests leaving neighborhoods who cant afford quality roads in rough alleyways and possibly patches of unfinished road.

BTW

Heres a picture of a European city...I cant see a single car in the picture....I dig it.

http://www.strixsystems.com/images/press/G...rtini_Tower.jpg

Edited April 28, 2009 by JoeSchmo

[fotoman311]

My family owned 7 vehicles for 5 people and yet we claim to be conservatives. I believe that this region could be a leader in transportation because of the very thing that many see as a downfall to this region. If you remind conservatives of their conservatism, they will conserve their money by buying small vehicles instead of their 4x4's and buying less of them, which will make their liberal hippy counterparts happy. Different agendas, same solution.

Conservatives value personal freedom over money though. And that is why this BRT line will fall sort on voting day. I can tell you in my own experience that when i talk about these transit proposals to my dad, being the hard nosed conservative that he is, claims the government wants to take over all our transportation needs and take over our lives and that they want to control what I drive yada yada yada. Much like a purposal of a ban on guns increase sales in guns, the more the government tries to pry us from the modern day vehicle, the more conservatives will get hard nosed and buy SUV's. It might sound crazy and irrational but its true.

EDIT: To clarify, if the government increase the tax on fuel to fund government transportation solutions and to get people out of their large vehicles into small tiny cars, expect the conservatives to retaliate by buying large vehicles. But if we run a advertising campaign reminding people about the benefits of conserving, in terms of transportation, they can be your best friend.

The government already controls your transportation needs and where you go. They are the ones who control where the roads and expressways are built. I do not see this as being that much different. They are building transportation infrastructure to move people around. A BRT or LRT just does it in a different way, moving more people in a smaller footprint.

It's similar with bicycle lanes and bicycling infrastructure (you knew I was going to go there, right? ). A slide in one of the presentations at the Bicycle Summit illustrates this wonderfully using Portland, OR. As they have increased their bicycle infrastructure and network of bicycle lanes, they have seen traffic over the four bridges over the river increase right along with it. It's no accident that lots of people in Portland ride their bicycles, it's because they have incentivized it by providing the infrastructure and creating the culture.

Another graph showed how this transportation shift to bicycle (this doesn't mean all Portlanders give up their cars, just that more trips are made by bicycle, even among those who own vehicles) had meant that in 2003, Portlanders spent 15.1% of household income on transportation, 4% below the national average and even further below the 21.5% that the avg. Detroit resident spent.

Of course if we continue spend billions of dollars to build and maintain our huge freeways, lots of people are going to spend hours of their lives in their cars each day, because we have been trained that this is the most convenient way to get around and not been given other options. And, many people have invested a lot of money in housing in the suburbs.

Instead of viewing roads in the "how can we move the most cars" mindset, we need to view it as, "how can we move people where they need to be" in a way that promotes health, reduces congestion and pollution, gives them multiple options, accomodates all citizens (including the 33% who cannot drive), and makes the community a thriving place where people WANT to live.

Edited April 28, 2009 by fotoman311

[Allison Slater]

BTW

Heres a picture of a European city...I cant see a single car in the picture....I dig it.

http://www.strixsystems.com/images/press/G...rtini_Tower.jpg

2 Cars

1 Vespa

~50 or so people

[d8alterego]

That is exactly it. The more we build, the more expensive it will be to maintain and the more it propagates a car-oriented society.

Here is something I want everyone to think about, especially those conservatives that will say no to the Silver Line upgrade:

By investing in mass transit you reduce the need for new construction and maintainence on other road/highway projects in your state. For example: if people take the BRT instead of driving their cars on Division Ave. or other roads to get to downtown, that means less tax money will have to be spent upkeeping other roads and highways. Put into equation form:

less roads/highways + less cars = drastically less construction and maintainence costs for roads/highways (is that not a conservative idea?)

I am not advocating that everyone abandon their cars or live in a big city, but SUPPORTING AND RIDING MASS TRANSIT and other multi-modal transportation types benefits everyone; regardless of rural or urban living. Saying no to save money now will only cost you more in the long run. You could also look at it from this angle: the better quality product you buy (mass transit), the longer it lasts and more efficient it is. Thus, it will save you money.

Ironically, I feel as if I am becoming more and more conservative with each post I make on transit. You conservatives are a tricky bunch.

I am coming to light with your view, d8alterego. You point out that its not necessarily that we don't have enough money to maintain and build roads, but simply put - we have built a road network that is simply TOO big and TOO expensive. The US has one of the largest road networks. We have taken our roads for granted and if we have to walk anywhere we just complain like a baby. For example people circle parking lots outside stores so they can walk 20 or 30 ft less.

Edited April 28, 2009 by d8alterego

[Veloise]

... we have built a road network that is simply TOO big and TOO expensive. The US has one of the largest road networks. We have taken our roads for granted and if we have to walk anywhere we just complain like a baby. For example people circle parking lots outside stores so they can walk 20 or 30 ft less. ...

Here is the Freep's initial release about the PUMA thing. Some of the comments are excellent (not just moi's). http://www.freep.com/article/20090407/BUSINESS01/904070334/

One of the promoters' sales points: you can park it remotely, and you don't have to walk from a parking place. That's just wrong. (Here's where Jeff adds a link to the "parking pron" photos...)

Michigan may have put the world on wheels (the infernal combustion engine type); that doesn't mean we can continue down the primrose path of drive-drive-drive everywhere.

[GRDadof3]

My family owned 7 vehicles for 5 people and yet we claim to be conservatives. I believe that this region could be a leader in transportation because of the very thing that many see as a downfall to this region. If you remind conservatives of their conservatism, they will conserve their money by buying small vehicles instead of their 4x4's and buying less of them, which will make their liberal hippy counterparts happy. Different agendas, same solution.

Conservatives value personal freedom over money though. And that is why this BRT line will fall sort on voting day. I can tell you in my own experience that when i talk about these transit proposals to my dad, being the hard nosed conservative that he is, claims the government wants to take over all our transportation needs and take over our lives and that they want to control what I drive yada yada yada. Much like a purposal of a ban on guns increase sales in guns, the more the government tries to pry us from the modern day vehicle, the more conservatives will get hard nosed and buy SUV's. It might sound crazy and irrational but its true.

EDIT: To clarify, if the government increase the tax on fuel to fund government transportation solutions and to get people out of their large vehicles into small tiny cars, expect the conservatives to retaliate by buying large vehicles. But if we run a advertising campaign reminding people about the benefits of conserving, in terms of transportation, they can be your best friend.

No one's trying to force anyone to use transit. Picture downtown Chicago and its myriad of transportation options: freeways, subways, Metra, buses, bicycles, etc.. And still half the 500,000 people traveling into downtown Chicago every day use transit. I believe the Silver Line is anticipated to serve 1600 riders/day in its first year, and grow from there. That's maybe 5% of the people traveling into downtown from the South Side on 131, a far cry from total government takeover of transportation on that side of town. It provides another viable option for people to consider. There is no single solution. One thing is for sure, the Silver Line will be faster and better than the current route on South Division. Will it be fast enough to pull people off of 131? That's the million dollar question.

Are you suggesting that, because your Dad and others are a bit overzealous in their beliefs, that we should not propose any kind of transportation solutions?

[GR_Urbanist]

The problem is that the Silver Line is not an investment. It doest run to a population center. It runs to a sparsely populated corner of nothing. Its route is up a road that has NOTHING on it but low-rent strip malls, dying businesses, and fast-food joints. Look at Google street view. You are not going to find mixed-used town centers anywhere on this route.

Where are the hard numbers that show the massive numbers of people that live south of 60th street that are going to park and ride in DT on this thing? Where are the numbers that show people on S. Division desperately need this?

What should have been proposed was a BRT route that ran from DT GR to DT Grand Haven via M-45, with a stop in Allendale, and a commuter lot stop outside of Grand Haven. Ottawa county is one of the fastest growing areas in W. Michigan, and lots of those folks commute to GR to work. On top of that is the massive population of students from GVSU that would use it. And even on top of that are the people from GR that will use this line to go directly to the lakeshore for day trips. Plus FEWER cars on that busy stretch of road.

M-45 doesn't have the ease and speed of the highway, so people may just opt for a BRT rather than a stressful, but short highway trip as is the case with a routh next to US-131.

And the best part is that it would be introducing mass transit to an area that is still very rural, so there is an excellent chance the type of mixed-use town center developments would take hold along this route.

I can vote for that. It would be cheaper and easier to put together and federal funds would not be needed.

And it would be a real investment.

[crinzema]

Are you suggesting that, because your Dad and others are a bit overzealous in their beliefs, that we should not propose any kind of transportation solutions?

My point is, is that if the government tries to speed up the process to get people out of their ford super duties into puttering euro cars or public transportation in an artificial way, conservatives will over-glance their conservative roots by buying more large vehicles because they see it as a threat to their freedoms or independence. How else can you explain why "conservatives" are anything but conservative when it comes to transportation, in regards to the vehicles they own? I'm telling you one reason why hard nose conservatives would shoot this proposal down. Especially when this kind of system gets light priority, it sends a message to the point where it almost resinates with me.

Basically what I'm saying is, is that to get a conservative community to back anything regarding transportation, it must not be seen as a threat to their independence or freedoms. When a transportation system gets placed on a busy road, eats up a lane, gets light priority, seen as wealth distribution, and cost an exorbitant amount in the depths of the largest recession this county has seen in decades, this proposal will not fly.

It's my opinion that this community is prime for more bike lanes though because it is easy to sell that idea to a conservative community in a recession.

Edited April 28, 2009 by crinzema

[GRDadof3]

The problem is that the Silver Line is not an investment. It doest run to a population center. It runs to a sparsely populated corner of nothing. Its route is up a road that has NOTHING on it but low-rent strip malls, dying businesses, and fast-food joints. Look at Google street view. You are not going to find mixed-used town centers anywhere on this route.

Where are the hard numbers that show the massive numbers of people that live south of 60th street that are going to park and ride in DT on this thing? Where are the numbers that show people on S. Division desperately need this?

What should have been proposed was a BRT route that ran from DT GR to DT Grand Haven via M-45, with a stop in Allendale, and a commuter lot stop outside of Grand Haven. Ottawa county is one of the fastest growing areas in W. Michigan, and lots of those folks commute to GR to work. On top of that is the massive population of students from GVSU that would use it. And even on top of that are the people from GR that will use this line to go directly to the lakeshore for day trips. Plus FEWER cars on that busy stretch of road.

M-45 doesn't have the ease and speed of the highway, so people may just opt for a BRT rather than a stressful, but short highway trip as is the case with a routh next to US-131.

And the best part is that it would be introducing mass transit to an area that is still very rural, so there is an excellent chance the type of mixed-use town center developments would take hold along this route.

I can vote for that. It would be cheaper and easier to put together and federal funds would not be needed.

And it would be a real investment.

You're saying you'd prefer to see development out in the countryside along M-45, rather than redevelopment along South Division (where there is infrastructure in place)? How is that a wise investment?

I do think that upgrades could definitely be made to the Grand Valley/Allendale route. But it should stop in Allendale. I can't see running a bus to Grand Haven that will only have people on it 3 months a year (and very few people at that, especially on weekdays).

[Veloise]

The problem is that the Silver Line is not an investment. It doest run to a population center. It runs to a sparsely populated corner of nothing. Its route is up a road that has NOTHING on it but low-rent strip malls, dying businesses, and fast-food joints. Look at Google street view. You are not going to find mixed-used town centers anywhere on this route.

Surely you can't be referring to DT GR with that statement.

The Division corridor has infrastructure in place, and is connected to population centers via the "mile roads." The mixed-use town centers will come, as surely as they have in DC and other munis where a transit line has been retrofitted.

Where are the hard numbers that show the massive numbers of people that live south of 60th street that are going to park and ride in DT on this thing? Where are the numbers that show people on S. Division desperately need this?

Presumably the numbers are available on-line in the masses of data collected prior to this proposal being floated. Might even be some on the Silver Line website.

What should have been proposed was a BRT route that ran from DT GR to DT Grand Haven via M-45, with a stop in Allendale, and a commuter lot stop outside of Grand Haven. Ottawa county is one of the fastest growing areas in W. Michigan, and lots of those folks commute to GR to work. ...

Where are those hard numbers? How many are "lots"?

Wikipedia: Olive Township is a civil township of Ottawa County in the U.S. state of Michigan. The population was 4,691 at the 2000 census.

A transit line that runs 30 miles into the country, through sparsely-populated areas, seems like a good way to increase bad planning and urban sprawl.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Veloise

[GR_Urbanist]

Surely you can't be referring to DT GR with that statement.

The Division corridor has infrastructure in place, and is connected to population centers via the "mile roads." The mixed-use town centers will come, as surely as they have in DC and other munis where a transit line has been retrofitted.

Presumably the numbers are available on-line in the masses of data collected prior to this proposal being floated. Might even be some on the Silver Line website.

Where are those hard numbers? How many are "lots"?

Wikipedia: Olive Township is a civil township of Ottawa County in the U.S. state of Michigan. The population was 4,691 at the 2000 census.

A transit line that runs 30 miles into the country, through sparsely-populated areas, seems like a good way to increase bad planning and urban sprawl.

#1 60th street and S. Division is the nowhere. It has been nowhere since I went to elementary school, 50 yards away from the corner, in the early 80s.

#2 I didnt say that the BRT to Grand Haven was going to do loops through every sparsely populated village and hamlet. One stop in Allendale, one at a commuter lot, and one in DT Grand Haven.

The point is that it serves a useful purpose to more people than a BRT running down S. Divison where there is already existing bus service that oddly dosnt seem to be bursting at the seams with users.

How many people in GR will take this to the lakeshore during the summer? Lots I bet.

How many people are going to take a scenic trip to Big Lots on 54th street or to the pawn shop near 44th.....anyone?

How many people do you seriously think are going to take a trip DT on a BRT for entertainment, which is one of those reasons I read FOR this.

S. Division may have infrastructure for infill, but you know what, No one is interested in living amongst used car lots, a dying GM plant, and party stores. If infill was happening and mixed-use developments were springging up, then it makes sense. Right now it seems like the cart is firmly in front of the horse.

A stop in Allendale, which is an established town, large student population that likes the mass transit service, with a desire to develop a more traditional city center, is a no-brainier.

A stop at a commuter lot might created the atmosphere for mixed-use developments to spring up around it. That's stuff I read from New Ubanist publications, not me making it up.

Grand Haven is an established town with a pedestrian-centered DT area.

Three cities, and a potential for a 4th urban area to develop in an area that is seeing, and will continue to see major growth, on a route that people used to mass transit use with the potential for many news riders going both ways.... as opposed to an area that's still on a major downswing , with already underused bus service, in an place with a firmly established car reliance and culture. NEXT to a brand-new highway and barely a stone's throw from the major north-south one.

Which one is an easier sell?

[GRDadof3]

#1 60th street and S. Division is the nowhere. It has been nowhere since I went to elementary school, 50 yards away from the corner, in the early 80s.

#2 I didnt say that the BRT to Grand Haven was going to do loops through every sparsely populated village and hamlet. One stop in Allendale, one at a commuter lot, and one in DT Grand Haven.

The point is that it serves a useful purpose to more people than a BRT running down S. Divison where there is already existing bus service that oddly dosnt seem to be bursting at the seams with users.

How many people in GR will take this to the lakeshore during the summer? Lots I bet.

How many people are going to take a scenic trip to Big Lots on 54th street or to the pawn shop near 44th.....anyone?

How many people do you seriously think are going to take a trip DT on a BRT for entertainment, which is one of those reasons I read FOR this.

S. Division may have infrastructure for infill, but you know what, No one is interested in living amongst used car lots, a dying GM plant, and party stores. If infill was happening and mixed-use developments were springging up, then it makes sense. Right now it seems like the cart is firmly in front of the horse.

A stop in Allendale, which is an established town, large student population that likes the mass transit service, with a desire to develop a more traditional city center, is a no-brainier.

A stop at a commuter lot might created the atmosphere for mixed-use developments to spring up around it. That's stuff I read from New Ubanist publications, not me making it up.

Grand Haven is an established town with a pedestrian-centered DT area.

Three cities, and a potential for a 4th urban area to develop in an area that is seeing, and will continue to see major growth, on a route that people used to mass transit use with the potential for many news riders going both ways.... as opposed to an area that's still on a major downswing , with already underused bus service, in an place with a firmly established car reliance and culture. NEXT to a brand-new highway and barely a stone's throw from the major north-south one.

Which one is an easier sell?

Despite it appearing in New Urbanist publications, a fake town center out at 96th and M-45 is still sprawl. Most NU is, which is why we don't talk about it much here (and it gets criticized here, even by you).

I would compare a run to Grand Haven to the run they did between the airport and the downtown hotels. Tourist transit. It went bust because no one used it.

Despite our feelings about which is the best option, very specific guidelines are used to get New Starts funding, including existing transit routes in the same corridor and ridership projections based on hard data (existing ridership, population density, cross routes, links, park-n-rides, etc.). The Rapid is estimating something like 1600 riders a day for the first year. To me, that sounds pretty reasonable and attainable. That's probably a bit higher than what the current route gets now. And then the goal jumps up to about 4500 in years 5 - 10 (?)

You mention the current bus route on Division is hardly bursting at the seams. Could it be because it takes too long to get downtown with the current infrastructure? Would more people ride it if 10 - 15 minutes were cut off the trip?

Despite the appearance of South Division, it has the largest concentration of population in the metro area on each side of it. And it has a lot of inexpensive land for potential development. I agree, it'd be great if a big development like Metro Health were at the other end of it to provide a Southern anchor. That doesn't really exist anywhere in the metro area (downtown and a large employment center anchor in the burbs). So for most people, the transportation solution is that it provides an option to get downtown or near downtown.

Do I foresee a big burst of development along the route? Not until the housing market gets a lot healthier.

[crinzema]

I'm not clear on the cost of this project, but if it costs 50 mil, which I think is a cheap estimate, with 5,000 riders, which is a extremely generous amount, that would end up costing the government 10k per head. My car is worth 3k.

[aowwt]

Oh man, this is so hillarous talking about the area of 54th and 60th. Has anybody lived in that area? I have. Trust me that area could use BRT like you wont believe. Most of the people that will use the BRT line will be students, consider at least 600 if not more students per day. Getting from that area to CC is a PAIN in the neck. You have to travel to Kzoo then onto m6 then 131 to get downtown. Plus its not like north wyoming which has some good back roads to get downtown but thats it. North kentwood has no such back roads and as a result the best routes downtown is 131 or division. The traffic on 131 is unbearable.

As for not having anything in the area, you are correct but thats a GREAT thing. Having a clean slate means that it will be easier for developments. I would expect the wyoming planning commission be extremely busy in a years time if this get passed. Kentwood not as much but dont count it out. Grand Rapids has already setup several areas for developement around their stations.

[d8alterego]

And conservatives wonder why their message isn't reaching anyone? That would be why: they are stubborn, selfish, and tend to be ingnorant to new ideas (like a BRT). The word progressive has no meaning to them. You ask, crinzema, in another thread if the conservative moment is "progressive and viable" when all you need to look to for the answer is your own Dad.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm really not. I'm just stating how I see the facts infront of me. Do you not see the same thing?

My point is, is that if the government tries to speed up the process to get people out of their ford super duties into puttering euro cars or public transportation in an artificial way, conservatives will over-glance their conservative roots by buying more large vehicles because they see it as a threat to their freedoms or independence. How else can you explain why "conservatives" are anything but conservative when it comes to transportation, in regards to the vehicles they own? I'm telling you one reason why hard nose conservatives would shoot this proposal down. Especially when this kind of system gets light priority, it sends a message to the point where it almost resinates with me.

Basically what I'm saying is, is that to get a conservative community to back anything regarding transportation, it must not be seen as a threat to their independence or freedoms. When a transportation system gets placed on a busy road, eats up a lane, gets light priority, seen as wealth distribution, and cost an exorbitant amount in the depths of the largest recession this county has seen in decades, this proposal will not fly.

It's my opinion that this community is prime for more bike lanes though because it is easy to sell that idea to a conservative community in a recession.

Edited April 28, 2009 by d8alterego

[crinzema]

I'm handing you the keys to the kingdom"Basically what I'm saying is, is that to get a conservative community to back anything regarding transportation, it must not be seen as a threat to their independence or freedoms." My opinion is that personal transportation is more progressive than public transportation because it's user flexible. All we need is for detroit to stop giving us 2 ton cars.

Edited April 28, 2009 by crinzema

[crinzema]

You ask, crinzema, in another thread if the conservative moment is "progressive and viable" when all you need to look to for the answer is your own Dad.

And the mudslinging begins. Muds is mud, no matter the intentions. I must have some kind of right to respond to this? One quick question for you d8alterego, was Ron Paul progressive in YOUR opinion.

Edited April 28, 2009 by crinzema

[GRDadof3]

And the mudslinging begins. Muds is mud, no matter the intentions. I must have some kind of right to respond to this? One quick question for you d8alterego, was Ron Paul progressive in YOUR opinion.

You're the one who painted the picture of your dad in that light. What did you expect?

Can we please get this back on the topic of transit.

[crinzema]

yes yes, of course.

Let me just start off with that I think because we have so many conservatives in the area, that we can get them to buy smaller more efficient vehicles, as long there is there is still an option to buy any vehicle they choose, and that the government is not playing favorites through taxation. I think a true conservative solution can't be controlled because it's up for each individual to decide what's right going forward, not a government.

[d8alterego]

Yes, he is progressive in some regards and for another example, so was Teddy Roosevelt.

As I said, I am NOT trying to be a jerk. You presented your case as to why conservatives feel the way they do about transit and thus I gave my opinion. You are free to make yours. I do hope it is on transportation, however, and not just on politics. As GRDad has said, let's move on.

- Dave

And the mudslinging begins. Muds is mud, no matter the intentions. I must have some kind of right to respond to this? One quick question for you d8alterego, was Ron Paul progressive in YOUR opinion.

You're the one who painted the picture of your dad in that light. What did you expect?

Can we please get this back on the topic of transit.

Edited April 28, 2009 by d8alterego

[Khorasaurus]

I'm not clear on the cost of this project, but if it costs 50 mil, which I think is a cheap estimate, with 5,000 riders, which is a extremely generous amount, that would end up costing the government 10k per head. My car is worth 3k.

Actually, your car costs:

1) What you paid for it (I'm assuming 3k)

2) The cost of the roads you drive on

3) The cost of fuel

4) The cost of cops to make sure you don't hit other cars with your car

5) The environmental costs of you driving by yourself

For the record, I'm a Republican/Libertarian, but improving public transit is a short term cost that reaps long term benefits.

[suydam]

Actually, your car costs:

1) What you paid for it (I'm assuming 3k)

2) The cost of the roads you drive on

3) The cost of fuel

4) The cost of cops to make sure you don't hit other cars with your car

5) The environmental costs of you driving by yourself

For the record, I'm a Republican/Libertarian, but improving public transit is a short term cost that reaps long term benefits.

6) Insurance

7) Oil Changes

8) Repairs over the life of the car