|Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet. (1282547)|
|Home > SubChat|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.
Posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 12:21:36 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 11:50:20 2014.. . . because the government was subsidizing the competition...
Forgot that private railroads were trying to increase speeds of trains to compete better with the modes that were unfairly competing against them?
You keep saying that and yet, despite your concerted efforts, it keeps being bullshit.
What subsidies? What unfair competition? Neither exists.
What did you think projects like the ACF Talgo, Train-X and UAC Turbotrain were supposed to do?
It doesn't matter what they were "supposed" to do. They didn't. They failed. Cutting taxes was "supposed" to stimulate the economy but it didn't do that either.
So what? There's no implication that it needs a government to run that fast.
Well, except for the fact that no private operator has ever run trains that fast, and that the only time they ever got close they were only able to run it for a few years before begging the government to take it over for them.
Thanks to Germany subsidizing everything in terms of infrastructure, in fact, Deutsche Bahn is losing ground to privately-operated intercity buses.
So your argument is what? That high speed rail is infeasible? That some people are willing to take slow, uncomfortable, and cheap over fast, comfortable and expensive? That people choose to take the bus specifically because the government is operating the trains?
Too bad you can't take any argument head-on but have to deflect. I guess I'll have to wait for you to grow up before you attempt that.
Project any harder and you could point yourself at a wall and show off powerpoint presentations. I dismantled your entire argument, and yet you continue to spew the same bullshit about how the railroads were bankrupted by "regulations" and taxes, all while accusing me of ignoring the argument.
No, there's no evidence of that....
Well, except that through-running has streamlined operations considerably and unified the system.
Really? Where is it? Why isn't any running into 30th Street then, or (as an alternative) to the location of the former 24th Street station, which is actually on the Philly side of the Schuylkill?
Yes, congratulations for noticing that the diesel service was shut down. You have yet to explain exactly how said shutdown was caused by the construction of the CCCT.
False characterization. When railroads were regulated, it was an attack on them by government.
There you go with the anarchist bullshit again. Everyone who favours the idea of a society over nonfunctional chaos recognises that every company is (or at least ought to be) regulated, and that this is normal and the way things are supposed to be.
Roads apart from toll roads were an exercise in government power; to this day, the interstate system is the largest and most expensive public works project in the country when it didn't need to be built by the government.
What? OK, I know you're an anarchist and all that, but roads? Seriously, roads? You actually think roads are a bad thing that should never have been built? Roads, which have been built by governments as far back as the Romans?
You know, I'm as much a railfan as anybody here, but I can't even imagine how horrible it would be to live in a country that never had roads.
Even back in the early 20th Century, government favored road over rail, regulating their rates while allowing truckers to charge any rate they pleased. Same goes with passenger fares.
Heh, I'm surprised you don't remember the history. Railroad fares and rates had to be regulated because railroads had a long and varied history of exploiting monopolies and oligopolies to extort their customers.
Wrong. They are left-wing ideas.
Right, which is why every liberal vehemently opposes them and every conservative supports them. You seriously need to learn that words have meanings.
Although I gave you far too much credit. I suspected that you would have some screed about how Obama is liberal because he favours the existence of a government over anarchy or something, but no. You just blithely asserted that the defining principles of conservatism are actual liberal, without even the flimsiest attempt at justification.
The liberals always imply when accusing one of being "right wing" that such a one is in favor of eliminating the establishment clause of the First Amendment in favor of establishing a state religion.
Many to most conservatives do favour the establishment of a state religion, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
(There are no responses to this message.)