The American Autobahn

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

because it would hut so many people that it might actually force automakers to stop wasting money developping cars with huge HP numbers and start making cars that get 50 MPG

That's not what people want. Why force people, and by proxy, car makers to do what they do not want to do?

Never let the left tell you they don't impose their morality on others. It's a lie.

yes and people are stupid

who is this left?

it could also funs public transportation, which woudl also elmin traffic issues

Of course! I forgot. The high and mighty leftist elitists know what is better for us and we should all submit our freedoms and rights to them to be ruled by these intellectually superior leaders!

Piss off. If you've ever wondered why there is a huge backlash against liberalism in the US, look at your own attitude.

Public Transport in the US has nearly always been an abject failure because our populations are not nearly centralized enough to support them.

That is absolutely wrong. It worked fine for the first half of the 1900s. It would still work, except that our public transportation systems are so sparce that we can hardly use them.

No, it's absolutely right. Our populations were centralized in the early 1900s. The 1940s, 50s and 60s saw a HUGE migration to the suburbs. Suburbs were the death of public transportation, and always will be.

they dont have to be, run some commuter lines out to them, and you only reallyneed to do it around teh major cities,

with the exception of NYC most major cities in the US have crap for PT, you woudl think with 11 mil or so people in LA that they woudl have a decent subway system

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

because it would hut so many people that it might actually force automakers to stop wasting money developping cars with huge HP numbers and start making cars that get 50 MPG

That's not what people want. Why force people, and by proxy, car makers to do what they do not want to do?

Never let the left tell you they don't impose their morality on others. It's a lie.

yes and people are stupid

who is this left?

it could also funs public transportation, which woudl also elmin traffic issues

Of course! I forgot. The high and mighty leftist elitists know what is better for us and we should all submit our freedoms and rights to them to be ruled by these intellectually superior leaders!

Piss off. If you've ever wondered why there is a huge backlash against liberalism in the US, look at your own attitude.

Public Transport in the US has nearly always been an abject failure because our populations are not nearly centralized enough to support them.

That is absolutely wrong. It worked fine for the first half of the 1900s. It would still work, except that our public transportation systems are so sparce that we can hardly use them.

No, it's absolutely right. Our populations were centralized in the early 1900s. The 1940s, 50s and 60s saw a HUGE migration to the suburbs. Suburbs were the death of public transportation, and always will be.

they dont have to be, run some commuter lines out to them, and you only reallyneed to do it around teh major cities,

with the exception of NYC most major cities in the US have crap for PT, you woudl think with 11 mil or so people in LA that they woudl have a decent subway system

If people have to walk more than a block or two to catch public transport, they will not do it. This is why the bus systems in most cities and towns are far from profitable and highly subsidized. No one is riding them, and the few who do have free or discounted welfare passes and are only riding them because they cannot afford a car.

With our highly spread out suburbs, public transport is just not feasible. It would take too many lines for too few people due to extremely low population density over too broad of an area.

NYC and Chicago have good PT because of extremely high population density. The less dense a city, the less feasible PT is.

 

[Anubis]

they dont have to be, run some commuter lines out to them, and you only reallyneed to do it around teh major cities,

with the exception of NYC most major cities in the US have crap for PT, you woudl think with 11 mil or so people in LA that they woudl have a decent subway system

If people have to walk more than a block or two to catch public transport, they will not do it. This is why the bus systems in most cities and towns are far from profitable and highly subsidized. No one is riding them, and the few who do have free or discounted welfare passes and are only riding them because they cannot afford a car.

With our highly spread out suburbs, public transport is just not feasible. It would take too many lines for too few people due to extremely low population density over a too broad of an area.

NYC and Chicago have good PT because of extremely high population density. The less dense a city, the less feasible PT is.[/quote]

now if i call peopel lazy am i gonna get bashed for being liberal again?

in the north east more so then anywhere else ive been peopel use the Park N Ride system a ton, everyone drives to a place, parks and takes a bus/train into the city, they have them all over new england, it IS the solution for the suburbs, you woudl only need like 1-2 P&R places in each burb,

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Anubis

they dont have to be, run some commuter lines out to them, and you only reallyneed to do it around teh major cities,

with the exception of NYC most major cities in the US have crap for PT, you woudl think with 11 mil or so people in LA that they woudl have a decent subway system

If people have to walk more than a block or two to catch public transport, they will not do it. This is why the bus systems in most cities and towns are far from profitable and highly subsidized. No one is riding them, and the few who do have free or discounted welfare passes and are only riding them because they cannot afford a car.

With our highly spread out suburbs, public transport is just not feasible. It would take too many lines for too few people due to extremely low population density over a too broad of an area.

NYC and Chicago have good PT because of extremely high population density. The less dense a city, the less feasible PT is.

now if i call peopel lazy am i gonna get bashed for being liberal again?

in the north east more so then anywhere else ive been peopel use the Park N Ride system a ton, everyone drives to a place, parks and takes a bus/train into the city, they have them all over new england, it IS the solution for the suburbs, you woudl only need like 1-2 P&R places in each burb,
[/quote]

It's not so much lazy people as it is bad weather sucks to walk in.

And P&R works in a limited fashion. It did VERY little to help in SoCal because the commercial and industrial areas are also spread all over the place.

P&R works for the suburbs of the NE because the commercial centers are extremely dense and centralized.

Again, the more dense and centralized the area, the more PT works.

 

[tcsenter]

A speed limit is objective, there is no interpretation of violating it. Its either yes or no, true or false. Even better, its uniform from county to county or state to state. The speed limit isn't uniform, but the objectivity of violating it.

Crafting violations such as 'driving too fast for the conditions' implicitly require a judgement call, and as we know, judgement calls are subjective. Not only are subjective interpretations an invitation for abuse, but necessarily means that one jurisdiction or even one officer to the next may impose different interpretations of what constitutes a violation, with the result being that behavior which is permitted in one jurisdiction will get you cited or jailed in another.

The would-be offender has no way to know in advance if his behavior will get him to his destination faster or just pulled over faster. The more objective the better.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
A speed limit is objective, there is no interpretation of violating it. Its either yes or no, true or false. Even better, its uniform from county to county or state to state. The speed limit isn't uniform, but the objectivity of violating it.

Crafting violations such as 'driving too fast for the conditions' implicitly require a judgement call, and as we know, judgement calls are subjective. Not only are subjective interpretations an invitation for abuse, but necessarily means that one jurisdiction or even one officer to the next may impose different interpretations of what constitutes a violation, with the result being that behavior which is permitted in one jurisdiction will get you cited or jailed in another.

The would-be offender has no way to know in advance if his behavior will get him to his destination faster or just pulled over faster. The more objective the better.

You need to read the article.

He wasn't arguing for a Montana style end to speed limits.

 

[BHeemsoth]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

because it would hut so many people that it might actually force automakers to stop wasting money developping cars with huge HP numbers and start making cars that get 50 MPG

and also if the govt put a 5$ tax on gas they coudl use that money to fund welfare, education ,SS,... whatever

We have enough currently to fund those programs, funds are just misallocated.

I should not have to pay $245 to fill my tank because some white trash girl with 8 kids does not want to work, and wants an increased welfare check.

A $7 a gallon almost no one would be able to afford driving. Sure it would be nice to drive more efficient 50mpg cars, but that is not an option for everyone. Some people have jobs, like my family business, that require the usage of big trucks and vans that only receive 10mpg.

 

[daniel1113]

Well, there is enough non-democratic extreme liberal/conservative thought in this thread to last me the week.

 

[kyparrish]

great read!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Well, there is enough non-democratic extreme liberal/conservative thought in this thread to last me the week.

:laugh:

 

[thomsbrain]

couldn't agree more. in fact, even with the current speed limits, more than 70% of drivers are "criminals." (did a bunch of research on speed limits once).

furthermore, raising the limits has had nearly no statistical impact on driver speeds. people already drive the way they are comfortable, so why make them criminals for it?

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

As i drive the highway infrastructure all over SoCal, i see ridiculous overcrowing and the speed limit is more than of a "goal" than a "reality" (as it used to be).

And i DO see gas hitting $5 a gallon - relatively soon [unfortunately].

Judging the interstates of the US based on So Cal is myopic. Most of the country is not like So Cal at all. I know, I grew up in So Cal and visit there often.

Come out and see the rest of the country some time. Including that area most people just fly over.

i live in So Cal . . . i have lived in Hawaii recently and i have traveled the USA by car. MOST people live in cities. MOST people face traffic problems and gridlock. Cali is a good "predictor" for the rest of the USA.

I guess "you article" applies to those of us on vacation and the few of us lucky to live far away from cities.
:roll:

Not at all. When in SoCal I commute often between Granada Hills and Westlake Village by way of Moorpark and the 118. During non-rush hour times I regularly can go 10 over the speed limit with little traffic in my way.

Not all of America's highways are gridlocked, or facing gridlock. To slow everyone down because you live in an area facing gridlock is silly. MILLIONS of people live in areas with little or no gridlock. Are they to be slowed to 55 because you can't drive at 75?

If you want roads expanded, fight the greenies in CA who have fought any and all freeway widening/double decking. Bitching to me is like singing to the choir.

the last time we double-decked freeways, they fell down in an earthquake. more than one freeway fell. people died, crushed in their cars like bugs. the freeways were shut down in a time when it was most crucial that they safely carry people.

we have 12 lane freeways in the bay area. how much wider do you think they can be? understand that we are completely built out already. there is a 100% solid ring of city all the way from san francisco back around to richmond on the other side of the bay. widening generally means knocking people's homes down. yet even with that, we are just completing several important widening projects, plus new off-ramps, etc. 880 is getting a two-lane carpool interchange fly-over to open in a month or so, in addition to the existing brand-new exit for regular drivers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

As i drive the highway infrastructure all over SoCal, i see ridiculous overcrowing and the speed limit is more than of a "goal" than a "reality" (as it used to be).

And i DO see gas hitting $5 a gallon - relatively soon [unfortunately].

Judging the interstates of the US based on So Cal is myopic. Most of the country is not like So Cal at all. I know, I grew up in So Cal and visit there often.

Come out and see the rest of the country some time. Including that area most people just fly over.

i live in So Cal . . . i have lived in Hawaii recently and i have traveled the USA by car. MOST people live in cities. MOST people face traffic problems and gridlock. Cali is a good "predictor" for the rest of the USA.

I guess "you article" applies to those of us on vacation and the few of us lucky to live far away from cities.
:roll:

Not at all. When in SoCal I commute often between Granada Hills and Westlake Village by way of Moorpark and the 118. During non-rush hour times I regularly can go 10 over the speed limit with little traffic in my way.

Not all of America's highways are gridlocked, or facing gridlock. To slow everyone down because you live in an area facing gridlock is silly. MILLIONS of people live in areas with little or no gridlock. Are they to be slowed to 55 because you can't drive at 75?

If you want roads expanded, fight the greenies in CA who have fought any and all freeway widening/double decking. Bitching to me is like singing to the choir.

the last time we double-decked freeways, they fell down in an earthquake. more than one freeway fell. people died, crushed in their cars like bugs. the freeways were shut down in a time when it was most crucial that they safely carry people.

we have 12 lane freeways in the bay area. how much wider do you think they can be? understand that we are completely built out already. there is a 100% solid ring of city all the way from san francisco back around to richmond on the other side of the bay. widening generally means knocking people's homes down. yet even with that, we are just completing several important widening projects, plus new off-ramps, etc. 880 is getting a two-lane carpool interchange fly-over to open in a month or so, in addition to the existing brand-new exit for regular drivers.

Freeways can be safely double decked. The Oakland incident was a case of bad engineering.

As for knocking down houses, how do you think the first freeways were built? Do you think ribbons of open land were there to begin with?

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

As i drive the highway infrastructure all over SoCal, i see ridiculous overcrowing and the speed limit is more than of a "goal" than a "reality" (as it used to be).

And i DO see gas hitting $5 a gallon - relatively soon [unfortunately].

Judging the interstates of the US based on So Cal is myopic. Most of the country is not like So Cal at all. I know, I grew up in So Cal and visit there often.

Come out and see the rest of the country some time. Including that area most people just fly over.

i live in So Cal . . . i have lived in Hawaii recently and i have traveled the USA by car. MOST people live in cities. MOST people face traffic problems and gridlock. Cali is a good "predictor" for the rest of the USA.

I guess "you article" applies to those of us on vacation and the few of us lucky to live far away from cities.
:roll:

Not at all. When in SoCal I commute often between Granada Hills and Westlake Village by way of Moorpark and the 118. During non-rush hour times I regularly can go 10 over the speed limit with little traffic in my way.

Not all of America's highways are gridlocked, or facing gridlock. To slow everyone down because you live in an area facing gridlock is silly. MILLIONS of people live in areas with little or no gridlock. Are they to be slowed to 55 because you can't drive at 75?

If you want roads expanded, fight the greenies in CA who have fought any and all freeway widening/double decking. Bitching to me is like singing to the choir.

the last time we double-decked freeways, they fell down in an earthquake. more than one freeway fell. people died, crushed in their cars like bugs. the freeways were shut down in a time when it was most crucial that they safely carry people.

we have 12 lane freeways in the bay area. how much wider do you think they can be? understand that we are completely built out already. there is a 100% solid ring of city all the way from san francisco back around to richmond on the other side of the bay. widening generally means knocking people's homes down. yet even with that, we are just completing several important widening projects, plus new off-ramps, etc. 880 is getting a two-lane carpool interchange fly-over to open in a month or so, in addition to the existing brand-new exit for regular drivers.

The solution is that people need to stop being lazy fvcks and ride a bus, a train, or a subway. Otherwise traffic will get so bad that we will all be stuck in our driveways trying to pull out into gridlock.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Glitchny

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

As i drive the highway infrastructure all over SoCal, i see ridiculous overcrowing and the speed limit is more than of a "goal" than a "reality" (as it used to be).

And i DO see gas hitting $5 a gallon - relatively soon [unfortunately].

Judging the interstates of the US based on So Cal is myopic. Most of the country is not like So Cal at all. I know, I grew up in So Cal and visit there often.

Come out and see the rest of the country some time. Including that area most people just fly over.

i live in So Cal . . . i have lived in Hawaii recently and i have traveled the USA by car. MOST people live in cities. MOST people face traffic problems and gridlock. Cali is a good "predictor" for the rest of the USA.

I guess "you article" applies to those of us on vacation and the few of us lucky to live far away from cities.
:roll:

Not at all. When in SoCal I commute often between Granada Hills and Westlake Village by way of Moorpark and the 118. During non-rush hour times I regularly can go 10 over the speed limit with little traffic in my way.

Not all of America's highways are gridlocked, or facing gridlock. To slow everyone down because you live in an area facing gridlock is silly. MILLIONS of people live in areas with little or no gridlock. Are they to be slowed to 55 because you can't drive at 75?

If you want roads expanded, fight the greenies in CA who have fought any and all freeway widening/double decking. Bitching to me is like singing to the choir.

the last time we double-decked freeways, they fell down in an earthquake. more than one freeway fell. people died, crushed in their cars like bugs. the freeways were shut down in a time when it was most crucial that they safely carry people.

we have 12 lane freeways in the bay area. how much wider do you think they can be? understand that we are completely built out already. there is a 100% solid ring of city all the way from san francisco back around to richmond on the other side of the bay. widening generally means knocking people's homes down. yet even with that, we are just completing several important widening projects, plus new off-ramps, etc. 880 is getting a two-lane carpool interchange fly-over to open in a month or so, in addition to the existing brand-new exit for regular drivers.

The solution is that people need to stop being lazy fvcks and ride a bus, a train, or a subway. Otherwise traffic will get so bad that we will all be stuck in our driveways trying to pull out into gridlock.

What are you , a liberal?

Build a double decker driveway...problem solved!

 

[z0mb13]

sniff sniff... oh man why do I smell P&N here in OT?

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

because it would hut so many people that it might actually force automakers to stop wasting money developping cars with huge HP numbers and start making cars that get 50 MPG

and also if the govt put a 5$ tax on gas they coudl use that money to fund welfare, education ,SS,... whatever

That's a terrible idea.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: RandomFool

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

because it would hut so many people that it might actually force automakers to stop wasting money developping cars with huge HP numbers and start making cars that get 50 MPG

and also if the govt put a 5$ tax on gas they coudl use that money to fund welfare, education ,SS,... whatever

That's a terrible idea.

Anubis, do you have ANY idea how that would affect the transportation of goods, and the huge increase in price of goods as a result of it?

Think about what those big rigs you see in the highway are carrying, or those refrigerated trucks are carrying.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: RandomFool

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

because it would hut so many people that it might actually force automakers to stop wasting money developping cars with huge HP numbers and start making cars that get 50 MPG

and also if the govt put a 5$ tax on gas they coudl use that money to fund welfare, education ,SS,... whatever

That's a terrible idea.

Anubis, do you have ANY idea how that would affect the transportation of goods, and the huge increase in price of goods as a result of it?

Think about what those big rigs you see in the highway are carrying, or those refrigerated trucks are carrying.

Of course he has no clue what he's talking about.

 

[SSP]

I absolutely hate public transportation. The only reason I use it is because its the only economical option to getting in and out of downtown TO everyday. The system it self isn't so bad, but what I really hate is how the union can call a strike and COMPLETELY shut down the city, leaving over a million people to carpool or take cabs (it just isn't feasible). They pulled this couple of years ago for two days, and nearly did it again but decided to accept a deal a day before the strike. It would've totally fscked up all the students who rely on pubic transportation cause it was during exam times (and no, the uni's didn't care).

 

[SSP]

Oh btw anubis, Golf TDI - 42-47MPG.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

because it would hut so many people that it might actually force automakers to stop wasting money developping cars with huge HP numbers and start making cars that get 50 MPG

and also if the govt put a 5$ tax on gas they coudl use that money to fund welfare, education ,SS,... whatever

That is stupid thinking. I am disabled and on welfair. If it went to $7 a gallon let alone $3 we're fvcked big time. We live paycheck to paycheck with NOTHING left over. My wife would have to quit her job and HOPEFULLY find one within walking distance. It took her over 6 months to get the job she got now

But with your stuid thinking that it would force the car makers to make a better MPG car with no job and on welfair HTF do you think I can afford to buy these cars, fuel for these cars, and the full coverage insurace for these car. I cannot. Take your head out of your ass please.


You talk about public trans. Do you think if it hits $7 they wont raise the price of a bus ride to the point I couldnt afford that as well????

With our situation we will never see a new car and as far as what to buy it depends on what I can afford to buy at the moment that doesnt take an arm and a leg to make it safe enough to put us in it. Really for me MPG isnt too much of a factor I hat to say because were lucky enough to get a good running vechile that isnt falling apart. If it gets crappy MPG we have to knock out going to see family, parks, zoo, stuff that we alreqady almost had to knock out completely because of the gas prices already.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Glitchny

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

As i drive the highway infrastructure all over SoCal, i see ridiculous overcrowing and the speed limit is more than of a "goal" than a "reality" (as it used to be).

And i DO see gas hitting $5 a gallon - relatively soon [unfortunately].

Judging the interstates of the US based on So Cal is myopic. Most of the country is not like So Cal at all. I know, I grew up in So Cal and visit there often.

Come out and see the rest of the country some time. Including that area most people just fly over.

i live in So Cal . . . i have lived in Hawaii recently and i have traveled the USA by car. MOST people live in cities. MOST people face traffic problems and gridlock. Cali is a good "predictor" for the rest of the USA.

I guess "you article" applies to those of us on vacation and the few of us lucky to live far away from cities.
:roll:

Not at all. When in SoCal I commute often between Granada Hills and Westlake Village by way of Moorpark and the 118. During non-rush hour times I regularly can go 10 over the speed limit with little traffic in my way.

Not all of America's highways are gridlocked, or facing gridlock. To slow everyone down because you live in an area facing gridlock is silly. MILLIONS of people live in areas with little or no gridlock. Are they to be slowed to 55 because you can't drive at 75?

If you want roads expanded, fight the greenies in CA who have fought any and all freeway widening/double decking. Bitching to me is like singing to the choir.

the last time we double-decked freeways, they fell down in an earthquake. more than one freeway fell. people died, crushed in their cars like bugs. the freeways were shut down in a time when it was most crucial that they safely carry people.

we have 12 lane freeways in the bay area. how much wider do you think they can be? understand that we are completely built out already. there is a 100% solid ring of city all the way from san francisco back around to richmond on the other side of the bay. widening generally means knocking people's homes down. yet even with that, we are just completing several important widening projects, plus new off-ramps, etc. 880 is getting a two-lane carpool interchange fly-over to open in a month or so, in addition to the existing brand-new exit for regular drivers.

The solution is that people need to stop being lazy fvcks and ride a bus, a train, or a subway. Otherwise traffic will get so bad that we will all be stuck in our driveways trying to pull out into gridlock.

It's kinda hard to ride a bus, a train, or a subway if they aren't viable options. And there are relatively few places in the US where it is a viable option (unfortunately).


Lethal

 

[funboy6942]

IAmused said:

f people have to walk more than a block or two to catch public transport, they will not do it. This is why the bus systems in most cities and towns are far from profitable and highly subsidized. No one is riding them, and the few who do have free or discounted welfare passes and are only riding them because they cannot afford a car.

With our highly spread out suburbs, public transport is just not feasible. It would take too many lines for too few people due to extremely low population density over too broad of an area.

NYC and Chicago have good PT because of extremely high population density. The less dense a city, the less feasible PT is.



More fuel for your fire is that Chicago just cut alot of thier stops IN Chicago! Pissing off alot of people because they have lost revenue. So I have to agree PT sucks and this is in the city they have dropped alot off. You not only need good PT but people to run them as well. I read talk about shooting a bus or two to the subs. If/with the gas the way it is to pick up a few people it isnt cost efficiant. You have to spend on fuel/driver/insurance for what to pick up $25 for the day? Then you have to hope it doesnt go currupt (SP?). You start getting used to all that money and spending wildly putting al little extra in all pockets to keep them fat and rich to the point you no longer take eough in you have to either cut pay (which the fat heads WILL not do no matter what) or cut jobs. Less fuel/drivers/repairs/insurance durring times they didnt make as much as other times is ok as long as the rich stay rich.

And BTW I wasnt always poor. I have had my ups and downs being rich (27 making 60k a year single living from my 5th wheel with all kinds of cash) to where we are now with me fvcked for live being disabled living in a crappy 2bd trailer family of 4 on a $10k a year income. So I dont have it tottaly against the rich but when it comes down to screwing alot of people cutting off bus service because the higher ups dont wish to take a pay cut messing up he economy so you stay fat isnt right in my book. Alot of people on welfair, poor, or on a fixed income depends on PT and Chicago said screw you.

 

Is this article rather old? Hasn't it been posted in here numerous times as well? Good read anyway.

Anubis, don't play dumb, you're from bumfvck nowhere; pubilc transporation wouldn't help you in the slightest. Manufacturers can make vehicles that make 50mpg, but they wouldn't be useful for anything but commuting a single person with no luggage to and from work.