Discuss James E. Moore's Oct. 10 Op-Ed article.
Comments will close after two days.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- You can cut back on alcohol - L.A. Times - Health 11/16/2009, 12:00 a.m.
- Help for those who drink too much - L.A. Times - Health 11/16/2009, 12:00 a.m.
- Do diet patch claims stick? - L.A. Times - Health 11/16/2009, 12:00 a.m.
- Produce, lean protein should substitute for convenience foods - L.A. Times - Health 11/16/2009, 12:00 a.m.
- Recruiting an Army of Women to fight breast cancer - L.A. Times - Health 11/16/2009, 12:00 a.m.
Save more than
Public transportation is for the greater good economically and environmentally, and in the decades to come a good network of public transportation will greatly affect the quality of life of those individuals finding themselves living in, or commuting to, a more and more urban and dense location. We can't keep guzzling up oil, polluting, and communiting for hours on end every day, it's simply not sustainable. We must evolve in our ideas of transportation. As a major metropolitan center, Los Angeles is already behind on the public transportation front. Eliminate a commuter rail and you're not doing anyone any favors.
DaynaDrew @ 11:27 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
Are you joking?? Do you think that the only things that we should keep around are those that are commercially viable on their own? Unfortunately today we have many organizations and causes worth the time and money it takes to keep the lights on, because they are for a great good. This means subsidies. Subsidies also allow for a greater number of people to be served that would not normally be able to buy tickets if they were simply at cost.
DaynaDrew @ 11:26 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
this is the type of thinking that led to congestion in the first place. just what we need, more "market based" solutions to our problems.
james @ 11:16 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
What do we owe "to the injured and to the families of the dead" of the more than FORTY THOUSAND KILLED ANNUALLY on our nation's highways? I say less money for pavement and more for MASS TRANSIT.
RAYMOND NELSON @ 10:58 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
Mr. Moore, I have to disagree. I take the train to work everyday. To believe that removing the trains will have no impact on travel on the freeways is false. At my station, over 800 cars park at this location. Add all the other stations with literally hundreds of other cars...now add that by including all the lines with similar lots and the amount of cars goes into the thousands. Thousands of cars that will be added to our roads, cars that will get into collisions and add to the pollution in the air. Your article, unfortunately fails to see beyond itself and consider all that public transportation offers in every form.
David @ 10:54 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
People of fair-minded good will can argue the merits of MetroLink. Unfortunately, that does not include Mr. Moore, who has never met a train he didn't hate. Once he editorialized about ripping up all MetroLink and Metro track and replacing it with busways. (Just imagine buses trundling down the Red Line tunnels.) Why does the "Times" keep providing a forum for this man? Asking James Moore's opinion about rail transit is like asking a cattle rancher for his views on bovine rights.
Donald Stanwood @ 10:18 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
Does the region need James E. Moore II?
Robert C @ 10:12 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
Mr. Moore has some good points that he brought up in this article. One point I disagree is: "In Europe, freight and passenger train tracks are usually separate". That statement may apply to the high speed trains such as ICE, TGV, AVE, but generally freight and passenger trains are run on the same tracks. They run shorter freight trains, the railways are usually electrified for more rapid acceleration of the trains, and better signaling and dispatching of trains.
Alan Hegler @ 10:06 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
What utter nonsense. USC continues its tradition of favoring government subsidized automobile-entitlement. Despite the limited future for fossil fuels and ever worsening congestion, we need to be investing in our rail services, not eliminating them. And the idea of putting in high operating cost busways as a substitute for a commuter rail is a joke. It's gotten so bad at the USC school of automobile entitlement, that I cannot take any of their transportation editorials seriously anymore. What we owe the dead isn't abandonment of rail, but increased safety and more designated tracks.
Dan W. @ 9:46 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
It's a mystery to me why the Times publishes about one op-ed a year from a store-bought shill like Moore, when it could run paid commercials by GM or Ford instead, and make some money. What Moore (and his paymasters) doesn't want you to know is that commuter rail (or public transportation) in fact never covers all its costs via fares. Just like taxes are spent on building roads, they are needed to subsidize public transport. It has, in fact, been demonstrated again and again that public transport, like Metrolink, is cheaper once externalities are taken into account.
christian h. @ 7:57 AM PDT, Oct 10, 2008
Next