Yes, I noticed the following when I read the earlier today:
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don\'t make money, then transit
must lose money too."
Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.
For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.
I've always thought that it's a supreme irony of college life that if you've
_already_ paid to be there, you get to pay more to park there. However, if
you _haven't_ paid to be there, you get to park free. Neat, huh? :-)
BTW, I stuck my head briefly inside a candy shop yesterday, and on a
box, they had a frontal pic of a woman's lower half wearing only this
skimpy "g-string" composed solely of those little round candies on
strings. You know the ones I mean? (Maybe I should go back and take a
After all that candy, though, I would probably be would put off the main
It's an urban planning thing which relates to the neglect of important
beaver habitat in favor of "candy".
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.
Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
I say routing because currently, at least where I've lived, even if one can
get to a bus stop, that bus snakes all over creation before actually
heading anywhere - which is why I was thinking of "feeders"that could be
small neighborhood "trolleys" (or maybe solar-recharged electric vans could
work out) that go from suburban neighborhoods, to pickup points from which
the bus (or whatever) could go directly downtown, or directly to one of the
smaller, more localized city-centers.
OTOH, you seem to be most interested in finding excuses to not bother even
*thinking* about anything other than cars, cars, and more cars. So who is
actually forcing whom to do what?
Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to charge
everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their transit
systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him to a transit
stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So wonderful you arguments.
People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.