oltmannd That's a pretty good explanation of commuting life in the Northeast! But, it's still really hard to explain it to someone who hasn't lived it. Even when using trains/transit is a longer trip time than driving - and maybe more expensive, the quality of life issues tip the balance back toward the train. That 20 mile, forty minute rush hour drive in the Northeast is generally not one where you can sit back, sip your coffee and listen to tunes! It's a trip that will grind you up in both directions. Everyone's experienced traffic somewhere in their life, but it's a whole different deal when you have to do it twice a day, 220 days a year.
Further, on the commuter trains traditionally people read books, magazines, newspapers, work-related documents, study for class, and even sleep - none of which can be done safely in a single-occupancy automobile. For those of us who can work and/ or bill hourly and who are somewhat portable or mobile in that way, those trips offer an opportunity for a hour or so of uninterrupted time to review a document or write one up - again, totally impossible in an auto - and thereby turn the commute into some amount of productive time.
And now in the digitial age, cell phone conversations are safely possible (unless you annoy too many others . . . ), and for sure working on the laptop, text-messaging, Internet surfing, e-book reading, e-commerce in any form, etc., etc. Surprisingly, the digital gadgets now make the train a more productive/ fun/ accessible/ safe place to do all that - thus have a marked benefit over driving yourself. Wait until the young folks figure that out ! The lure of the 'open road' and its supposed 'freedom' and 'independence' is a delusion in urban areas during peak traffic times.
- Paul North.
SALfan Murphy had asked for an explanation of the utility of the NEC in a way that those without urban mass transit could understand, and I wasn't successful in posting a reply. Hope this try works. My wife and I lived in Odenton, MD from 1992 to 1997. Odenton is about 20 miles from Washington, DC on the NEC. MARC (Maryland Area Rail Commute, or something similar) locomotive-hauled commuter trains ran from Baltimore to Washington on the NEC and stopped in Odenton. We chose to locate there because of the commuter trains. At that time rush hour going into DC ran from about 6:30 AM to 9:30 AM, and a similar time period in the afternoons for folks going home. During rush hour the roads were choked with traffic despite commuter trains on two lines between Baltimore and DC, and Metro (DC subway) lines out into Maryland. Parking in DC cost about $100 a month, if you could find it. Most people who drove into DC left home no later than 6:30 AM to avoid the worst of the traffic and to make it more likely they could find parking. This was when Marion Barry was mayor of DC, so the streets there were as rutted and potholed as those in any s**thole third-world capital city. The rigors of stop-and-go traffic and DC's miserable streets meant a car used for commuting led a hard life and didn't last long. By contrast, it was a 10 to 15 minute drive from our house to the station in Odenton, a 30-40 minute ride on the train into Union Station in DC, then a 10-15 minute walk down the hill to where we both worked. A monthly commuter ticket cost $105, IIRC. We arrived at work calm, cool and collected rather than seething with road rage or scared half to death from the near-death experiences of rush-hour traffic. The decision to ride the train rather than drive in to work didn't take very long or require a lot of thought to make.
Murphy had asked for an explanation of the utility of the NEC in a way that those without urban mass transit could understand, and I wasn't successful in posting a reply. Hope this try works.
My wife and I lived in Odenton, MD from 1992 to 1997. Odenton is about 20 miles from Washington, DC on the NEC. MARC (Maryland Area Rail Commute, or something similar) locomotive-hauled commuter trains ran from Baltimore to Washington on the NEC and stopped in Odenton. We chose to locate there because of the commuter trains.
At that time rush hour going into DC ran from about 6:30 AM to 9:30 AM, and a similar time period in the afternoons for folks going home. During rush hour the roads were choked with traffic despite commuter trains on two lines between Baltimore and DC, and Metro (DC subway) lines out into Maryland. Parking in DC cost about $100 a month, if you could find it. Most people who drove into DC left home no later than 6:30 AM to avoid the worst of the traffic and to make it more likely they could find parking. This was when Marion Barry was mayor of DC, so the streets there were as rutted and potholed as those in any s**thole third-world capital city. The rigors of stop-and-go traffic and DC's miserable streets meant a car used for commuting led a hard life and didn't last long.
By contrast, it was a 10 to 15 minute drive from our house to the station in Odenton, a 30-40 minute ride on the train into Union Station in DC, then a 10-15 minute walk down the hill to where we both worked. A monthly commuter ticket cost $105, IIRC. We arrived at work calm, cool and collected rather than seething with road rage or scared half to death from the near-death experiences of rush-hour traffic.
The decision to ride the train rather than drive in to work didn't take very long or require a lot of thought to make.
That's a pretty good explanation of commuting life in the Northeast! But, it's still really hard to explain it to someone who hasn't lived it. Even when using trains/transit is a longer trip time than driving - and maybe more expensive, the quality of life issues tip the balance back toward the train. That 20 mile, forty minute rush hour drive in the Northeast is generally not one where you can sit back, sip your coffee and listen to tunes! It's a trip that will grind you up in both directions. Everyone's experienced traffic somewhere in their life, but it's a whole different deal when you have to do it twice a day, 220 days a year.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Murphy Siding schlimm: Murphy Siding: Heck, I don't even have any concept of what it is you're trying to ask me. Let me try again. If we are seriously(?) trying to privatize the NEC, but then want the new private company to act more like a government agency or a non-profit; what's wrong with asking the government agencies to act more like private, for- profit companies? If my employer routinely ran in the red, he would either change something (raise prices, cut costs, etc...) or go out of business. Would/could/should we allow any company that took the NEC private to do the same? Perhaps from your perspective in the Dakotas, the utility of the NEC and mass urban transit escapes you. Perhaps your inclination toward evaluation on the only basis of profit and loss obscures your seeing any other value to the NEC, etc. Fair enough. Perhaps you're correct. Perhaps I have a different perspective. Perhaps you could then elaborate the utility of the NEC and mass urban transit in a way that those of us who don't have the NEC and mass urban transit , yet still pay a portino of it's operation could understand. I bring forth the evaluation on the basis of profit and loss, because that is what is going on in congress right now in this matter. I feel that anything that requires government funding has to pass some sort of basic hurdle. That being, that the majority of the people (taxpayers) have to feel that it is something good for the whole of society, whether they personally benefit from it or not. A pure example of that, is that I support our public school system, even though I don't have kids in the system.
schlimm:
Murphy Siding: Heck, I don't even have any concept of what it is you're trying to ask me. Let me try again. If we are seriously(?) trying to privatize the NEC, but then want the new private company to act more like a government agency or a non-profit; what's wrong with asking the government agencies to act more like private, for- profit companies? If my employer routinely ran in the red, he would either change something (raise prices, cut costs, etc...) or go out of business. Would/could/should we allow any company that took the NEC private to do the same?
Heck, I don't even have any concept of what it is you're trying to ask me. Let me try again. If we are seriously(?) trying to privatize the NEC, but then want the new private company to act more like a government agency or a non-profit; what's wrong with asking the government agencies to act more like private, for- profit companies? If my employer routinely ran in the red, he would either change something (raise prices, cut costs, etc...) or go out of business. Would/could/should we allow any company that took the NEC private to do the same?
Perhaps from your perspective in the Dakotas, the utility of the NEC and mass urban transit escapes you. Perhaps your inclination toward evaluation on the only basis of profit and loss obscures your seeing any other value to the NEC, etc.
Fair enough. Perhaps you're correct. Perhaps I have a different perspective. Perhaps you could then elaborate the utility of the NEC and mass urban transit in a way that those of us who don't have the NEC and mass urban transit , yet still pay a portino of it's operation could understand. I bring forth the evaluation on the basis of profit and loss, because that is what is going on in congress right now in this matter. I feel that anything that requires government funding has to pass some sort of basic hurdle. That being, that the majority of the people (taxpayers) have to feel that it is something good for the whole of society, whether they personally benefit from it or not. A pure example of that, is that I support our public school system, even though I don't have kids in the system.
Dragoman Bucyrus -- And where did the "people who have it" get it? They/We got it from wages paid to us by our employers, or payments made to us by our clients, or government payments (Social Security, Unemployment, etc.), or interest/dividends/rents from investments, or etc, etc, etc. And where did our employers/clients/etc get it? All of it comes from somewhere/someone else. By your definition, nobody has any money (except for those very lucky few who are sitting on a gold or uranium mine)! The only meaningful definition, is that the person/entity making the decision and signing the check is the spender. Where and how they get their funds is a very different discussion. You and I don't generally decide where our tax monies go, so we are not spending it. We "spend" our money paying various taxes, and the various levels of government decide where and how to "spend" those taxes collected.
Bucyrus --
And where did the "people who have it" get it? They/We got it from wages paid to us by our employers, or payments made to us by our clients, or government payments (Social Security, Unemployment, etc.), or interest/dividends/rents from investments, or etc, etc, etc. And where did our employers/clients/etc get it? All of it comes from somewhere/someone else. By your definition, nobody has any money (except for those very lucky few who are sitting on a gold or uranium mine)!
The only meaningful definition, is that the person/entity making the decision and signing the check is the spender. Where and how they get their funds is a very different discussion.
You and I don't generally decide where our tax monies go, so we are not spending it. We "spend" our money paying various taxes, and the various levels of government decide where and how to "spend" those taxes collected.
We acquired our money from getting up, going to work each day, and creating goods and/or services. By my definition, nobody has any money until they create it by producing something of value. Although one can also be gifted money from someone else who got up and earned it. I am not talking about cash or currency that is manufactured by the government and flows into society as a medium of exchange. That is beside the point.
And I would argue that when we pay taxes, we certainly are spending our money. The fact that we are paying the tax without stipulating how it will be used does not change the fact that we are spending our money when we pay taxes.
Murphy Siding & schlimm:
Schools are a great analogy. It is generally widely acknowledged that an educated populace benefits the entire society, not just the kids involved and their parents. That's why (at least basic) education has nearly always been funded on a community-wide basis, not on a strict tuition model.
So, the question is, does society as a whole benefit from the wide availability of a variety of passenger transport modalities?
In the late 1950's a local bus driver (working for a National City Lines affilated bus company), expressed the thought that somday. all public transit would be operated free of charge to the rider, provided as a public service to the public just like the roads and highways were, because there was a benefit to society.
Murphy Siding schlimm: You must have missed the part where I said it was OK for some states to get back more than they paid in to Uncle Sam. The reason being, I never said it. It's pretty easy to be condescending. It's harder, apparantly, to explain what your thoughts are to someone who you think doesn't agree with you. Actually, I probably agree with you more than disagree with you on this issue.
schlimm: You must have missed the part where I said it was OK for some states to get back more than they paid in to Uncle Sam. The reason being, I never said it. It's pretty easy to be condescending. It's harder, apparantly, to explain what your thoughts are to someone who you think doesn't agree with you. Actually, I probably agree with you more than disagree with you on this issue.
Condescending? Rather the pot calling the kettle... I was giving an example of our interdependence as a nation. But some folks, not necessarily you, want to radically change that to a user-fee approach. For better or worse, we've gotten where we are as a great nation by working together, with the exception of another approach that led to the Civil War. We're all in the same boat. Sink or swim. "All hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately - (Franklin, 1776).
You state that you naturally pay taxes for public schools, even though you receive no direct benefit. You contribute to paying for roads, most of which you never use. Yet you don't seem to see how a benefit to urban areas (mass transit, etc.) benefits society as a whole in much the same way? How is that so different? Do you not see that SD is interdependent with metro areas like the Twin Cities, Chicago and Omaha? And even to NYC and LA? And if the commerce and business in those areas came to a grinding halt b/c people couldn't get to work or it took them 2+ hours each way, don't you think that would have a negative ripple effect on the rest of the country? Or would it not matter? That's of course why we all help communities who have been hit by tragic destruction from nature, through taxes and voluntary contributions by many of money or time and sweat, even though we probably don't know anyone in Joplin, etc.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 The government and governments have bonded, chartered, granted, loaned, subsidized, paid for, underwritten, constructed, sold, researched, operated and operates so much of the transportation system that to say 50% is an easy guess
The government and governments have bonded, chartered, granted, loaned, subsidized, paid for, underwritten, constructed, sold, researched, operated and operates so much of the transportation system that to say 50% is an easy guess
Henry, Saying that the government spends $______ on this or that transportation system is meaningless. The government does not have money. They can only take it away from people who have it. Then they can spend it on a transportation system that some people will use. So the issue is how much use the payers get out of a transportation system.
You could say that the government funds highways 100%. The fact is that the people fund 100% of the roads and some of them use them.
But by your rationale, the government pays 100% for roads, so they should fund a passenger rail system 100%
Murphy Siding schlimm: You must have missed the part where I said it was OK for some states to get back more than they paid in to Uncle Sam. The reason being, I never said it. It's pretty easy to be condescending. It's harder, apparantly, to explain what your thoughts are to someone who you think doesn't agree with you. Actually, I probably agree with you more than disagree with you on this issue. In short, I feel like the federal government should be throttling back on subsidies to a lot of things, so that the true cost of things becomes more obvious, whether it be mass transit or farm subsidies. Can you make the case that subsidized mass transit in urban areas benefits our society as a whole on the same level as our policies of cheap energy and cheap food?
schlimm: You must have missed the part where I said it was OK for some states to get back more than they paid in to Uncle Sam. The reason being, I never said it. It's pretty easy to be condescending. It's harder, apparantly, to explain what your thoughts are to someone who you think doesn't agree with you. Actually, I probably agree with you more than disagree with you on this issue. In short, I feel like the federal government should be throttling back on subsidies to a lot of things, so that the true cost of things becomes more obvious, whether it be mass transit or farm subsidies. Can you make the case that subsidized mass transit in urban areas benefits our society as a whole on the same level as our policies of cheap energy and cheap food?
In fact Murphy, Alaska gets $1.84 for every dollar it pays to the Federal Government...saw that in a Sarah Palen promo today!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Murphy, your statement is a hackneyed statement, overused, always used by those in opposition to anything the government does when it comes to the arts, the railroads, and anything else deemed frivelous and costly to their concept of waging governement ...you and so many have said it so many times. But it is said without noting that air, highway and water systems are payed for way beyond what has been "given" to Amtrak and the railroads. If you don't understand what I have said, or have to ask where I'm coming from, then you apparently have not paid much attention to anything I and others have said on this subject.
rrnut82: My comment again is based on what has been said on these pages and threads and forums. The government and governments have bonded, chartered, granted, loaned, subsidized, paid for, underwritten, constructed, sold, researched, operated and operates so much of the transportation system that to say 50% is an easy guess (and my comment was aimed at transportation in general and not rails in particular). Again, read these forums and threads if you haven't already, and you'll see that I am not the only one saying these things...nor that you or Murphy's Siding aren't the only ones saying the opposite.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Fair enough. Perhaps you're correct. Perhaps I have a different perspective. Perhaps you could then elaborate the utility of the NEC and mass urban transit in a way that those of us who don't have the NEC and mass urban transit , yet still pay a portino of it's operation could understand.That being, that the majority of the people (taxpayers) have to feel that it is something good for the whole of society, whether they personally benefit from it or not. A pure example of that, is that I support our public school system, even though I don't have kids in the system.
Fair enough. Perhaps you're correct. Perhaps I have a different perspective. Perhaps you could then elaborate the utility of the NEC and mass urban transit in a way that those of us who don't have the NEC and mass urban transit , yet still pay a portino of it's operation could understand.That being, that the majority of the people (taxpayers) have to feel that it is something good for the whole of society, whether they personally benefit from it or not. A pure example of that, is that I support our public school system, even though I don't have kids in the system.
If you wish to understand the utility of NEC and mass urban transit, I would suggest you read about it, starting with Trains.
As far as benefiting from taxes, an examination of a table of federal benefits vs. taxes paid by state, 2005, [Tax Foundation] shows that 32 states are subsidized by the other 18:
In 2005 South Dakota ranked #8, receiving $1.58 back for each tax dollar sent to Washington, DC. Meanwhile, by contrast, NY ranked #42, receiving only $ .79 back for each dollar paid, Connecticut ranked #48, getting $ .69 for each tax dollar and NJ was #50, last, getting only $ .61 back.
Good thing for you that those of us in states with metro areas and mass transit don't look at matters solely from a user-pay basis, or else folks in states like yours would have much higher state income taxes (SD has none) and sales and property taxes, like we do. [My state, Illinois, was #45, getting back only $ .75 for each tax dollar paid in]
henry6 ... It is a fact that government does pay well over 50% of the cost of all transportation services in some way or another and no form of transportation is excepted.
... It is a fact that government does pay well over 50% of the cost of all transportation services in some way or another and no form of transportation is excepted.
I'm curious how you got to 50% public funding of all rail transportation?
henry6 It must be easier to dismiss someone's comment as a knee jerk reaction, than it is to explain why you feel the way you do. Either that, or you posted your comment before reading mine just above it?
Murphy Siding ... I bring forth the evaluation on the basis of profit and loss, because that is what is going on in congress right now in this matter. I feel that anything that requires government funding has to pass some sort of basic hurdle. That being, that the majority of the people (taxpayers) have to feel that it is something good for the whole of society, whether they personally benefit from it or not. A pure example of that, is that I support our public school system, even though I don't have kids in the system.
... I bring forth the evaluation on the basis of profit and loss, because that is what is going on in congress right now in this matter. I feel that anything that requires government funding has to pass some sort of basic hurdle. That being, that the majority of the people (taxpayers) have to feel that it is something good for the whole of society, whether they personally benefit from it or not. A pure example of that, is that I support our public school system, even though I don't have kids in the system.
Actually, the hurdle is that Congress feels "that it is something good for the whole of society," not the majority of taxpayers (or the populace generally). They can "throw the bums out" if they disagree, but in our representative form of democracy the Legislative & Executive branches make the decisions, with the Judicial branch making sure that the rights of the minority aren't trampled, even by the wishes of the majority (as expressed by the Legislative).
Enough of the civics lesson already -- if Congress is talking "profits", then we either have to talk "profits", or figure out the appropriate argument to disabuse them of the idea that "profits" are the best test.
Murphy, your comment about if "they" want to ride they should ante up the full price works other ways, too. How about you paying out the full cost of building, maintaining, and policing every road, street, and highway you drive on plus a little more for the future. Same thing for that airplane ride out of the locally owned, maintained and operated airport? Your taxes don't cover it. Nor the gas tax. No, your statement is the knee jerk reaction usually heard from those who don't understand how the whole system works and not the statement I would have expected from a member of this forum. It is a fact that government does pay well over 50% of the cost of all transportation services in some way or another and no form of transportation is excepted.
schlimm Murphy Siding: Heck, I don't even have any concept of what it is you're trying to ask me. Let me try again. If we are seriously(?) trying to privatize the NEC, but then want the new private company to act more like a government agency or a non-profit; what's wrong with asking the government agencies to act more like private, for- profit companies? If my employer routinely ran in the red, he would either change something (raise prices, cut costs, etc...) or go out of business. Would/could/should we allow any company that took the NEC private to do the same? Perhaps from your perspective in the Dakotas, the utility of the NEC and mass urban transit escapes you. Perhaps your inclination toward evaluation on the only basis of profit and loss obscures your seeing any other value to the NEC, etc.
Murphy Siding Heck, I don't even have any concept of what it is you're trying to ask me. Let me try again. If we are seriously(?) trying to privatize the NEC, but then want the new private company to act more like a government agency or a non-profit; what's wrong with asking the government agencies to act more like private, for- profit companies? If my employer routinely ran in the red, he would either change something (raise prices, cut costs, etc...) or go out of business. Would/could/should we allow any company that took the NEC private to do the same?
I am not a Socialist, and do not consider myself either a Liberal or a Conservative in the strictist political meaning of the term. I do consider myself a Liberal in that I do try to help other people regardless of race or creed or nationality, etc. I do consider myself a Conservative in that I believe in Conserving what is good. And one of the existing things that is good about the USA is the abilitiy to see much of its beauty from the window of a comfortable railroad train.
Now, addressing the question: "If it is so important to them, why shouldn't they be required to pay its costs?"
The answer is as follows:
1. Commuters and Corridors: My using corridor rail service they free up room on the highways and airports for others who use auto and air transportation, allowing these travelers to use their preferred modes without terrible congestion, and without the removal of more land from productive use and tax roles and without the huge expenses of addition airports or runways or highway lanes that will probably require funding from the general tax payers far in excess of the subsidy the corridor rail service requires, in terms of interest costs on the principle required for the construction.
2. Long Distance: Aids the economy of the USA by allowing decent local and foreign tourism, provides mobility for the entire country for aged and handicapped and wounded, ties the essential corridors together into one system, provides essential transportation in a minority of cases to places that would be snowed in during winter, and preserves what I consider an important USA heritage, like the National Park Service, which also requires a subsidy. Also, very very handy in a Katrina-like emergency. (Minetta is guilty of aiding manslaughter (1000 of New Orleans' poor) in my opinion for his sitting on his duff and not backing Gunn's proposal for evacuation.)
You may not consider a train like the California Zephyr or Empire Builder or Coast Starlight or Crescent as part of the National Heritage, but I do. This is matter of opinion. And has nothing to do with any political lable. Canadians obviously consider the Canadian and the Ocean as part of their national heritage. Possibly the Chaleur as well. And that is why they are running.
Heck, I don't even have any concept of what it is you're trying to ask me. Let me try again. If we are seriously(?) trying to privatize the NEC, but then want the new private company to act more like a government agency or a non-profit; what's wrong with asking the government agencies to act more like private, for- profit companies? If my employer routinely ran in the red, he would either change something (raise prices, cut costs, etc...) or go out of business. Would/could/should we allow any company that took the NEC private to do the same? Are we going to just plain shut down the NEC and tell everybody to hitch hike? No. Are we going to be honest, and tell people things will be changing, and that rider costs will probably be going up? Probably.
Murphy Siding Phoebe Vet: Good idea. Forget about the 862 thousand people a day who rely on the NEC for transportation. Let's cut it up for scrap. They are probably all Liberals and socialists anyway. If someone can't get rich doing it then it shouldn't be done. If this is so important to them, why can't they be asked to pay more to cover the cost of that service? Is it imperative that the service be sold to those commuters below cost? In a post above jeaston mentions that it takes $200 million a year just to keep the track up to what it is now. 862,000 commuters X $1.00 per day X 5 days a week X 52 weeks a year = $223,600,000 per year.
Phoebe Vet: Good idea. Forget about the 862 thousand people a day who rely on the NEC for transportation. Let's cut it up for scrap. They are probably all Liberals and socialists anyway. If someone can't get rich doing it then it shouldn't be done.
Good idea. Forget about the 862 thousand people a day who rely on the NEC for transportation. Let's cut it up for scrap. They are probably all Liberals and socialists anyway. If someone can't get rich doing it then it shouldn't be done.
If this is so important to them, why can't they be asked to pay more to cover the cost of that service? Is it imperative that the service be sold to those commuters below cost? In a post above jeaston mentions that it takes $200 million a year just to keep the track up to what it is now. 862,000 commuters X $1.00 per day X 5 days a week X 52 weeks a year = $223,600,000 per year.
Call me dense, but I don't see what your point is. 1. The NEC has passengers other than commuters using it daily. 2. What do you think the average passenger ticket per trip actually costs on the various commuter districts? 3. Do you have any conception of the economic disaster it would be if we depended on the private rails to provide a small profit making service for commuters? First, the service would be abandoned. Second, have you any conception of the gridlock on roads that would follow? Third, have you any conception of how much it would cost to make up for that lost commuter capacity with new roads and traffic lanes?
You have never heard me argue about the cost of a passenger rail ticket. My passion is availability.
If you remember, when the railroads were lobbying to eliminate their passenger service, the entire rail industry was struggling. Many flags fell in that time frame. There is no getting around the fact that there is more profit to be made moving freight than moving people. That applies to rail, concrete, air, or water.
I have stated in the past that I believe in fast, frequent, and on time corridor service. The only circumstance where I argue for long distance trains is where high density corridors can be easily connected. An example would be The North East corridor, from Boston to DC, which is in service and proven. The South East Corridor, from DC to Charlotte, which is being constructed at this time with long range plans to extend it to Atlanta. There is no reason that at least some of the equipment cannot run all the way from Boston to Atlanta. I have never advocated for long distance trains through low density populations. Intrastate local service should be decided on and provided by local governments or corporations. High speed trains should be express service stopping only once in each major city along the route.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Good idea. Forget about the 862 thousand people a day who rely on the NEC for transportation. Let's cut it up for scrap. They are probably all Liberals and socialists anyway. If someone can't get rich doing it then it shouldn't be done.
I am not offended, and apologize to whoever was offended by my sarcastic post.
Bucyrus ...........I say if we are going to have rules, write them like railroad rules to say what they mean and mean what they say.
...........I say if we are going to have rules, write them like railroad rules to say what they mean and mean what they say.
So pretty clearly if Bucyrus, Dave and I, who have very divergent political views, can discuss these issues which are intertwined with ideology (more so than politics) and/or political matters, without coming to blows, why not just leave it be?
FYI:
While I agree that my post contained the offending terms, I would like to point out that the post was sarcastic, and I did not call anyone by those names. I am Liberal in my beliefs, and socialist is a label that Conservatives use to describe people like me. I hear the terms daily and am sensitized to it. The actual point of the post was contained in the last line that I do not believe that a function must make a profit, or even break even to be useful and/or necessary to society. Some services benefit society in general in ways that cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Capitalism, being profit based, cannot exist in a vacuum. Society must provide some services that profit motivated people cannot or will not.
selector Bucyrus: Crandell, ...” what do you mean by “associations, ascriptions, and supporting entities”? I mean linking the 'ways' to ideologies such as socialism, libertarianism, etc. Talk by all means about the ways, just don't ascribe the support for those 'ways' to political bents. It is the politicization of the discussion that ruins it, not the moderator's dutiful imposition of the host's rules on the discussion. Crandell
Bucyrus: Crandell, ...” what do you mean by “associations, ascriptions, and supporting entities”?
I mean linking the 'ways' to ideologies such as socialism, libertarianism, etc. Talk by all means about the ways, just don't ascribe the support for those 'ways' to political bents. It is the politicization of the discussion that ruins it, not the moderator's dutiful imposition of the host's rules on the discussion.
Crandell
I can certainly understand the desire by moderators to not have a discussion degenerated into a food fight of name calling, which is often characterized by the disparaging use of ideological labels. But I disagree that the labels themselves are the cause of such friction.
Such altercations are the hallmark of the uninformed, and they serve no purpose. The moderators seem convinced that the use of labels inevitably lead to these food fights, However, I have rarely, if ever, seen that type of behavior here. If one were to examine all the locked threads, I don’t think you would find a pattern of ideological labels being at the root cause. More often, discussions are locked because some non-participant perceives the crossing of an imaginary line between civility and passion that nobody can define.
I say if we are going to have rules, write them like railroad rules to say what they mean and mean what they say.
selector I mean linking the 'ways' to ideologies such as socialism, libertarianism, etc. Talk by all means about the ways, just don't ascribe the support for those 'ways' to political bents. If you mean name-calling, in the sense of "that's a socialist scheme" or "he's a fascist" of course. It is the politicization of the discussion that ruins it, not the moderator's dutiful imposition of the host's rules on the discussion. In the case before us, PV's little slip did not curtail any discussion. If the moderator's intervention was because some third party reported it as abuse, then why not simply excise the offending words, unobtrusively and move on?
I mean linking the 'ways' to ideologies such as socialism, libertarianism, etc. Talk by all means about the ways, just don't ascribe the support for those 'ways' to political bents.
If you mean name-calling, in the sense of "that's a socialist scheme" or "he's a fascist" of course.
It is the politicization of the discussion that ruins it, not the moderator's dutiful imposition of the host's rules on the discussion.
In the case before us, PV's little slip did not curtail any discussion. If the moderator's intervention was because some third party reported it as abuse, then why not simply excise the offending words, unobtrusively and move on?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.