Online commentators don't like the Columbia Pike streetcar

Wow. Online contributors snark a lot? Unheard off!

by Jasper on Jun 27, 2012 9:21 am • link • report

More hilariousness from Reason, hint: even if you wear a suit to work you may still be low income. Like when I made 11$/hr at a bank and the only way I could afford rent is because I was paying well below market rates because of the generousness of my landlord.

Then's there is all the other foolishness, but that stems from the fact that they somehow believe the government should never spend any money ever but decide to write an article that doesn't address this but rather takes it as an opportunity to make fun of "liberals".

And maybe this union thing wasn't a red herring for the Gov. That's two good ideas he's expressed over the last week (the other being his threats to the UVA board). He still shouldn't threaten regular metro funding at every little inconvenience however.

by drumz on Jun 27, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

Re: Budget Autonomy

I think Gabe Klein said it best. Rand Paul is a total ass hat.

by Adam L on Jun 27, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

I think privatizing the streetcar system is an idea worthy of more thought and discussion. However, given how hostile this city is to private business, I'm not sure who would risk such an investment without considerable guarantees for profits. The streetcar is a waste of city resources, in my opinion, but could still serve the city well. This might be a nice compromise.

by MJ on Jun 27, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

What is the source of the $10 million in annual operating costs for Loudoun County and the Silver Line? Is there a margin of error for that? To the outside observer, it would appear that the source is a napkin and the margin of error is half an order of magnitude.

by movement on Jun 27, 2012 10:33 am • link • report

That doesn't sound like a privatization of the streetcar...just hiring a private company to operate it. Sort of like how the Circulator currently operates.

At least, that's the impression I got from reading the RFI yesterday.

On the other hand, the list of "non-regional" bus routes that the District wants to take over is a head-scratcher to say the least.

by andrew on Jun 27, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

Why the Hell should a municipal streetcar system "make money"? This is the same idiocy we see when discussing CaBi. At some point municipal services are there to enhance citizens' quality of life. Not to turn a profit.

It's like everyone lost their collective mind in the 1980s.

by oboe on Jun 27, 2012 10:56 am • link • report

RE: Robert Moses

I've always felt Moses has been a bit too thoroughly villaified by planning communities today. Personally, I look at his record and have felt he was actually very multi-modal as well as a extremely effective public administrator -- he got a job done no matter its consequences. Of course, that last element was also his vice: a seeming lack of regard for the local communities affected; his choosing the greater benefit over local desires.

RE: Flying Bike

"Flying bike", you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bossi-Bonomi_Pedaliante

by Bossi on Jun 27, 2012 11:17 am • link • report

@Bossi

What exactly was multimodal about Robert Moses? He refused to expand ROW for projects out to Kennedy and on the Long Island Expressway to include future transit. He purposely raised the rates on the precursor of the MTA multiple times to try to price out poor people and reduce ridership (and go towards his roads) while simultaneously not raising rates on his bridges. And he built his roads so buses, aka poor people, couldn't use them.

He got things done by ignoring all public input and steam rolling neighborhoods that were too poor to fight back with injunctions by starting projects before they new they even existed.

The guy did some good things but I think his context in history is in proper prospective.

by jj on Jun 27, 2012 11:37 am • link • report

@jj
1. It is laughable that you claim Moses just steamrolled the poor neighborhoods. He was an equal opportunity steamroller.
2. I'm not sure what the benefit of expanding ROW for the LIE is. The LIRR handles that role just fine.
3. The rail line to JFK did ultimately get built, though no self-respecting New Yorker would ever use it.

by movement on Jun 27, 2012 2:33 pm • link • report

So it's okay to criticize automotive-oriented "subsidies" but not bicycle-oriented?

(shrugs)

by Ironchef on Jun 27, 2012 3:50 pm • link • report

@Ironchef
We can criticize subsidies we feel are unproductive and unwarranted while at the same time championing subsidies that we feel are beneficial and positive.

There's no contradiction unless you demand a pointless black and white opinion like "all subsidies are good/bad"

by MLD on Jun 27, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report

not everyone here is against auto oriented subsidies. I believe that a highway can make sense without directly paying for itself. The issue comes up because people often claim that a transit system cannot make sense if it does not directly pay for itself.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 27, 2012 4:12 pm • link • report

"So it's okay to criticize automotive-oriented "subsidies" but not bicycle-oriented?
(shrugs)"

I'd say its ok to criticize subsidies when you actually take time to get the facts right rather than take pot shots at "liberals" who by their very nature do not understand economics according to your worldview.

And yes, it does get tiring to constantly have to remind peolpe of automobile subsidies mainly because almost every "libertarian" thing I read seems to ignore them wholesale.

by drumz on Jun 27, 2012 4:45 pm • link • report

As soon as I stepped off the bus this evening, I saw Jack Evans dining outdoors with his wife. I wish that I had confronted him about the latest round of corporate welfare.

by The Civic Center on Jun 27, 2012 11:59 pm • link • report