On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:21:32PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: > On 3/6/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote: > > >Just because the document lists them as the largest, does not mean that > >they are also not the best. > > So you cite a document that labels something the *largest* in support of > your assertion that it is the *best* and you expect the rest of us to just > accept it? You must think that we are just as intellectually handicapped as > you are. > Of course I don't expect you to just accept it. That is why I provided a source. Now, I can't do you your thinking for you. Besides, judging from the juvenille tone of your writing, even if I could it wouldn't help you at all. > >Furthermore, Chicago and New York are commonly viewed to have the best > >public transportation in the US. This is common knowledge. > > Now you are just making things up as you go along. The more you write, > the deeper the hole from which you'll have to climb out. > Actually, you are just continuing to display your amazing ignorance. > > Even if it were not, in public transportation, bigger is better. > > More of the same, keep digging, it's good for a laugh. > > Of course, as expected, not everybody agrees with you: > Did you even *read* what was at those links? I'll excerpt a few things for you. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Public_Transportation_Association http://www.apta.com/media/releases/061011_apta_honors.cfm (this was the link referenced for the 2006 awards) "These dedicated and accomplished individuals and transit agencies have increased the quality of public transportation in their local communities and across the country." (note: nothing about economics) "Four public transportation agencies, competing in four different categories based on annual ridership, were honored as the best transit agencies in North America." (note: nothing about per capita or economics) "In the past three years, despite a decline in county population and a fare increase in January 2005, BCTA's fixed-route ridership increased by 34 percent." (Well, even with fewer residents to serve and charging more, they managed to get more riders. Wow, they're ready to take on NYC) "Despite its reputation as a car-centered area, 10 million people depend on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) buses and trains. ... Even with all of its improvements, Metro has successfully kept costs well below inflation." (Well, OK. LA is basically the most improved transit system for 2006.) So, now your challenge is to explain how any of those is actually better than NYC or Chicago. (hint: they're not) What you clearly fail to understand is that the previous discussion centered around economic viability of public transit systems. Most of them waste tax payer money; lots of tax payer money. Precious few are able to be self-sustaining or turn a small profit. Now, I don't expect you take my word for it, but I am sure you can use Google to confirm. > http://www.thebus.org/AboutTheBus/AmericaBest.asp > Haha! This is a web page by the people who run TheBus pimping *themselves*! Of course, *they* are going to think they are the best. Granted, they did get some APTA awards in the past. Of course, none of the systems discussed above, except for LA, even comes close to NYC or Chicago. Heck, NYC is an entire order of magnitude greater than Chicago and LA when it comes to number of passneger trips. Of course, since you either didn't bother to read the thread or simply ignored what you read, you are not aware that the "best" that we were discussing centered around numbers of trips per capita and economic viability. > >I explained all of this and then you promptly ignored it. > > These must be the type of "explanations" that "educated" people in the > military are to used to give and receive... > Quite right. In fact, all of you responses have demonstrated such superior and genius-level intellectual rigor, that I bow down before your mighty intellect and education. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature