shotbanner.jpeg

April 19, 2006

Rails Is Rails. Lies Is Lies.

There was a time when rail mass transit made sense.

Eighty or ninety years ago - when my grandfather Oscar Berg was working as a conductor on the Como Avenue trolley line, urban mass transit made sense; the lines had been built with nearly-free right of way, were built amid cities whose layouts and demography suited (and drove) rail transit, at a time when people in the served cities where business was either built alongside the rail lines, or whose factories and offices served as the lines' destinations.

After World War II, a combination of the market (as returning GIs sought to build their own lives in the new 'burbs, growing outside the reach of the rail lines) and social engineering (as the "urban renewal" craze consumed city governments nationwide, causing unintentional consequences that are still harming cities) and government/business manipulation of the market (as a cartel of government, big oil, big car, and big tire convinced cities in the throes of "urban renewal" that rails were bad, and roads were good) combined to strip the rails from almost all major cities.

In the past thirty-odd years, cities have been trying to recapture their glory days (and, ostensibly, cure congestion) by returning to the idea of rail mass transit. Unfortunately, the train has left the station, as it were; an idea that made boundless sense sixty years ago, using rights of way that were fully amortized and rolling stock and support systems that were cheap by the standards of the day, makes a lot less sense in an era when rights of way must be purchased and rolling stock and infrastructure is a specialty purchase (frequently an import). Urban rail systems that were pretty much self-supporting in the 1920's are considered "successful" today if, like the Ventura Trolley in Minneapolis, they lose money at "best case" rates rather than "worst case".

For that reason, I've always opposed most rail transit. There's one exception; commuter rail - lines like the upcoming Northstar and the proposed Red Rocks lines (connecting the northwest and east metros to the downtowns, respectively, using existing rails and rights of way) which, under some scenarios (admittedly, not the ones that the current plans foresee, using variables like purchasing used rolling stock) could break even over a period of time. Not great (the Taxpayers League has some fairly dismal projections for North Star) but vastly better than current Light Rail projections under all scenarios, especially inasmuch as they do something neither the current Ventura Trolley nor the proposed Central Corridor line between the downtowns plans to do - move people from where they are to where they need to be.

One option that some transit pundits - and a mixed bag of politicians, from conservative Michele Bachmann to green wackjob Dean Zimmerman - have trotted out is the notion of "Personal Rail Transit". PRT is a utopian-sounding idea - small, taxi-sized cars taking groups of 1-4 people directly to destinations - which has its theoretical advantages, but many pragmatic problems. Worst of all, its price estimates are seductively - and unrealistically - low, while its technical challenges look fairly daunting. But at the end of the day, it's just another rail system; just another big-government spending program; just another attempt to engineer society.

I've opposed public investiment in PRT for some time now. Not to the extent that I've mentioned them in this space, of course. Transit is a very minor issue to me, personally; its the kind of issue that uberwonks like to canoodle over, the kind of people who enjoy going to zoning and planning meetings. Something's gotta give in my schedule; transit wonkery is one of them.

Local short-bus Photoshop wanker Ken Avidor assumes that lack of interest implies support. Of course, by that "logic", I've also supported Area 51, building pyramids over the cities to increase life span, a 300,000 seat youth soccer stadium, and Larry Pogemiller.

But, not to let facts get in the way, Avidor and Eva Young, proprietor of the "Dump Bachmann" blog (to which I refuse to link due to various ethical lapses on Young's part in the past) have linked me, in a "cartoon" about PRT supporters, to support of Personal Rail Transit.

It's not true, of course. On the comment thread thread (if you're interested, you can find it), I offer a correction, noting repeatedly that I am not a PRT supporter. Avidor responds by...changing the subject. Repeatedly. The simple fact of my complete opposition to PRT is made perfectly clear, to no apparent avail.

The untrue assertion remains on the blog.

Among many others, of course; Young and her minions frequently refer to me as a Michele Bachmann supporter. This is also unsubstantiated - partly because as a (very minor) media figure, it'd be inappropriate for me to do so, partly because I live in the Fourth CD and have nothing to do with life in the Sixth, and partly because even if I did live in the Sixth my mind would still not be made up, and would not be locked on Bachmann in any case; there are other candidates in that district (Krinkie, especially) who are very strong on issues that matter a lot to me. You can read anything you want into that - although you shouldn't read as much into it as Eva and her not-especially-gifted blogmates do.

One wonders - what does it take for the truth to come out on Eva Young's "Dump Bachmann" blog?

And if they're incapable of correcting something this simple - correcting an utterly, demonstrably false conveyance of support for something I documentably oppose - what does this say about Young's many, many other factually-querulous assertions? The supposed "incidents" in the bathroom in Scandia? The supposed "spying through the bushes" incident?

If The Dump can't get the simple, demonstrable facts straight, what can one assume about her splashier claims?

Do facts count?

(Side bet: Look for a change in subject when and if they respond. It would seem to be the only weapon in their rhetorical arsenal).

UPDATE: I win the bet!

A commenter notes that Avidor has written:

Mitch Berg is embarrassed by Michele Bachmann. He confessed he doesn't want to be "lumped in with proponents" of PRT in the comment section to this post.
As I predicted, a change of subject, and an inept one at that.

There was no "embarassment" stated or implied - merely a demand that The Dump get its facts straight.

This, they seem unable, or unwilling, to do, preferring childish word games to an honest admission of error.

Draw your own conclusions (especially you media figures that keep giving The Dump a walk on things like fact-checking).

Posted by Mitch at April 19, 2006 08:54 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Curious.

Whiner Berg Whineng in the dark about the PRT boondeggle. This proves thet Blogger Berg loves PRT.

How rediculous!

I'll have Avedor photoshop a PRT pod onto whiner Bergs hed!

Me so clever!

Developing...

Posted by: Eva Young at April 19, 2006 09:23 AM

Tepical that Looser Berg allows rediculous fake comments on hes blog.

Red my blog.

Posted by: Eva Young at April 19, 2006 09:40 AM

Just a minor thing, Mitch, but you said "infers" when you meant "implies." Meanwhile, I hope your attempts to set the record straight don't keep falling on deaf ears.

Posted by: Beeeej at April 19, 2006 10:15 AM

Beeeej,

Doh! Thanks.

The issue is insignificant, of course; PRT will never happen, and I pick more traffic out of my morning sneeze than "Dump Bachmann" gets in a day.

But like the rails and the lies, facts is facts.

Posted by: mitch at April 19, 2006 10:49 AM

"I've also supported Area 51, building pyramids over the cities to increase life span, a 300,000 seat soccer stadium, and Larry Pogemiller."

Wow! You too?!

On thread, I've always wondered how a nineteenth century transit modality will ever solve a twenty-first century transit problem.
Perhaps Eva can enlighten me.

Posted by: Kermit at April 19, 2006 10:54 AM

It would be nice to ride the old Twin Cities Rapid Transit to Stillwater or the Amusement Park at Wildwood or Lake Minnetonka again.

People were not in such a hurry either, then...

Also, with soon 3 dollar and higher gasoline/diesel and going full blown into Peak Oil, I think a lot of the hurry/consumerism problems are going to go away....driving will be slower and fewer....

When diesel gets to 5 dollars a gallon, deliveries to the local Starbucks and Seasonal Concepts are gonna take a nosedive....

Think about once or twice a week mail service, twice a month garbage pickup, less Chilean grapes and greek olives in the Cub, little green groceries in the winter and more root crops....

The marketplace will work wonderfully....
The socialist government will work wonderfully...


/sarcasm off

Posted by: Greg at April 19, 2006 11:23 AM

"The marketplace will work wonderfully....
The socialist government will work wonderfully..."

Sarcasm aside, you're right.

The difference; socialism will ration fuel.
The market will come up with alternatives that make sense, sooner than later.

Speaking for myself; until a pure Ethanol, multifuel or hydrogen car with reasonable performance comes on the market, I'm going to try to give telecommuting a real workout.

Posted by: mitch at April 19, 2006 12:27 PM

I've also supported a 300,000 seat Larry Pogemiller.

Posted by: Beeeej at April 19, 2006 12:29 PM

300,000 seat for Larry P. stadi with 100,000 outdoor smoking area for the castoff Saint Paulites and Minneapplites....the only caste of people that we are allowed to use bold and forceful hands of the State in discrimination/bigotry...

...yes, Mitch, when gas hits $3.00 plus a gallon, will be staying home a lot working with toothpicks and white glue and paper and building my trolley to the lakes....

Posted by: Greg at April 19, 2006 01:55 PM

How rediculous.

Aveder posted this on Dumb Bachmann Bloggers todey:

Mitch Berg Embarassed by Bachmann and her Personal Rapid Transit Boondoggle
Mitch Berg is embarrassed by Michele Bachmann. He confessed he doesn't want to be "lumped in with proponents" of PRT in the comment section to this post.

************************
Hey, Eva,

I do not, and have never, supported PRT.

Indicating that I do, as Avidor has done, is simply and objectively untrue.

MBerg

************************

Look at the picture.

The parrot is asleep...

Just like you and other right-wing bloggers who refuse to criticize or even mention the Bachmann/Olson/Zimmermann PRT Boondoggle.

Mitch Berg- How about a blog about Rep. Mark Olson's "Chairlifts for the Masses" amendment?

Avidor

************************
Wrong, Avidor.

I have actively opposed PRT.

I will not link to any of the opponents you refer to, since most of them merely prefer LRT, which is just as wrong as PRT.

Eva, I ask you again - will you continue t allow *lies* - as in, the opposite of the truth - on your blog?

mitch

************************

Mitch Berg has "actively opposed PRT"?

That's news to me. I've been checking Technorati every day for PRT blogs.

Could someone give me the URLs to Mitch Berg's anti-PRT blogs?

There are several prominent critics of PRT who are not proponents of LRT.
David Strom for instance who has publicly denounced PRT on his radio show.

I can't understand why self-described "fiscal conservatives" like yourself cannot publicly denounce Bachmann's PRT boondoggle which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Former Councilman Dean Zimmermann put the cost of a PRT system in South Mpls at $600 million... his price tag for a citywide PRT system was in the billions.

Avidor

************************

"That's news to me. I've been checking Technorati every day for PRT blogs.
Could someone give me the URLs to Mitch Berg's anti-PRT blogs?"

Er, I only write one blog. On it, I have not posted anything about PRT. Nor have I posted about Area 51, Britney's baby, or UFOs. PRT is a technically-untenable fantasy.

"There are several prominent critics of PRT who are not proponents of LRT.
David Strom for instance who has publicly denounced PRT on his radio show."

He covers transit in a way I don't. I generally agree with Strom on transit (except, potentially, on commuter rail).

"I can't understand why self-described "fiscal conservatives" like yourself cannot publicly denounce Bachmann's PRT boondoggle which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars."

Because it's never going anywhere.

PRT has only come up on my radar once - as resolutions at a couple of different GOP BPOU and district conventions. I led the push for their rejection.

There are others who write about transit with passion - indeed, interest - I don't share at the moment.

Lack of visible interest does not equal support.

However, your lumping me in with Zimmerman (ewww) and Bachmann is journalistically untenable and dishonest.

mitch

************************

...your lumping me in with Zimmerman (ewww) and Bachmann is journalistically untenable and dishonest.

Does this mean Mitch Berg is embarrassed by Michele Bachmann now?

Avidor

************************

Good question, Mitch - are you getting embarrassed by being lumped in with Michele?

Eva Young

************************

Here's news for both of you; I don't always agree with ANYONE on every issue. PRT would be one of several where Bachmann and I would disagree.

As to any embarassment - I'm not the one who does the lumping. That'd be your (plural) little peculiarity. I have never announced who I support in the Sixth - not that it matters, since I live in the Fourth and nobody would care - but be aware that any "lumping" is based entirely on your own assumptions, many of which (as this blog historically shows) are, er, ill-informed.

At any rate, Ken and Eva, you're changing the subject; I have a record opposing PRT, and yet you "lump" me in with proponents, erroneously, even after having been advised of your mistake. Are you going to correct this, Eva?

MBerg

************************

Opposing Bachmann's PRT boondoggle when nobody was looking is no big deal.. especially when you have a blog. Mitch Berg could have blogged his opposition to PRT long ago when the media was publishing dozens of puff pieces about PRT, but he kept quiet.

I could have used some help back then!

Now that PRT is starting to look like the joke I always said it was, Mitch Berg wants me to acknowledge his quiet opposition.

The vote on Olson's PRT amendment on April 12th established a new fact on the ground in the legislature... except for 2 clueless DFLers, the stone-dead PRT albatross was hanging from the necks of 26 Republicans..and it's starting to stink to high heaven.

Avidor

************************

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

The fact is, I oppose PRT.

Eva continues to "report" a complete untruth in her blog. Avidor continues to defend it.

I guess that's all we need to know.
MBerg

************************

Oh, I see... it's the parrot picture that's bugging Mitch Berg.

"Stop them damned pictures. I don't care so much what the papers say about me. My constituents can't read. But, damn it, they can see pictures!" - William "Boss" Tweed
Avidor

************************

Sigh.

No, Avidor. I could care less about your little short-bus noodlings (hint: my kids are both more clever and better at Photoshop).

You have - again - passed me off as a PRT supporter. I am - again - not one.

You (and Eva) continue purvey a lie.

That is the only issue. Which is why you and Eva keep changing the subject, sure.
MBerg

************************

"Where did I say you supported PRT?"

I said you and the other right-wing bloggers have avoided criticizing Bachmann's multi-billion dollar Chairlifts for the Masses boondoggle.

We're not talking ancient history either. Did you have anything to say in your blog about Olson's PRT amendment last week?

If you really think PRT is bogus, you should say so in your blog... and you should explain why.

Avidor

************************
posted by Avidor at 6:25 AM Comments | Trackback

Posted by: Eva Young at April 19, 2006 01:59 PM

Just out of curiosity, Mitch -- your second post over there says "I have actively opposed PRT." I can't find any reference to PRT on your site prior to your post today. Or LRT, for that matter.

I guess you indeed don't care about transit, but is it correct to say that you've ever taken an "active" stance on this? Or could that be construed as a "lie" like the Dump Bachmann folks are purporting?

Posted by: spycake at April 19, 2006 02:50 PM

"is it correct to say that you've ever taken an "active" stance on this?"

A fine question - and, as noted later in that same comment thread, yes. It is correct. At a couple of GOP caucuses and conventions, I actively campaigned against PRT (and LRT) resolutions.

Is it a deep-seated passionate anti-PRT activism? No, but in no way is it support.

" Or could that be construed as a "lie" like the Dump Bachmann folks are purporting?"

Clearly, no. Leaving aside detail of my opposition, the fact is that I do not, and have never, supported PRT. For The Dump to claim that I have and do is dishonest.

Posted by: mitch at April 19, 2006 03:15 PM

It's a depiction of you as a sleeping parrot, correct? And I think they clarified it's in regards to your blog's silence on the issue (up until now), not any form of support of PRT. Is that right? I don't see their claim that you "have and do support PRT".

I understand you don't want to be seen as a sleeping parrot, and so you clarified your position on the issue. I just don't see the "lie" or "dishonesty" that you indicate... please clarify.

Posted by: spycake at April 19, 2006 04:34 PM

I've been mildly interested in PRT since the Star/Tribune ran a story on it some 10 ... 15 years ago. I wouldn't want to see it developed citywide or anything, but I do think a demonstration project at a theme park or in a sprawling business/commercial district (OPUS? Southdale? Megamall?) could help work out the kinks and provide sufficient datapoints to review its costs and benefits.

The one issue I'd have would be crime. On a bus, there's a lot of witnesses, but it seems PRT could lend itself to a situation where a predator could strongarm someone vulnerable into a PRT cab for robbery or ... worse.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at April 19, 2006 08:21 PM

If a parrot sleeps in the woods and no one is there to hear it not say anything is it an advocate?

Posted by: Kermit at April 20, 2006 06:37 AM

"It's a depiction of you as a sleeping parrot, correct? And I think they clarified it's in regards to your blog's silence on the issue (up until now),"

The notion of "silence" is absurd; nobody can comment on every topic. I have neither interest nor expertise in transit.

It's also part of Eva Young's hallucination that I "parrot" the GOP party line. I do indeed agree with much of it.

But let's follow their logic: You have a list of people who support PRT, and then you add me, in the guise of the "parrot"; the implication is clear, that I am "parrotting" the PRT line. This is untrue, and since they've been corrected multiple times, dishonest.

At any rate, Avidor - using the level of rhetorical maturity we've come to expect from him and the entire Dump crowd - has changed his story, claiming some bogus "embarassment" that is nowhere in evidence outside his little peabrain.

Avidor and the Dump are too stupid to admit they got it wrong.

Posted by: mitch at April 20, 2006 09:23 AM

Fair enough. But the parrot is clearly sleeping, which seems to validate your claim that although you "do indeed agree with much of [the GOP party line]" (parrot), you have not publicly commented on these transit-related actions/proposals by key Minnesota Republicans (sleeping). I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is untrue.

At worst, this is a mischaracterization, depending on one's interpretation of the cartoon. And given the aesthetic quality of said cartoon, I don't think you have to worry about too many people seeing it and subsequently misinterpreting it.

Posted by: spycake at April 20, 2006 11:07 AM

"Fair enough. But the parrot is clearly sleeping, which seems to validate your claim that although you "do indeed agree with much of [the GOP party line]" (parrot),"

Er, someone's dimwitted caricature validates an assumption about me?

What am I missing here?

"I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is untrue."

I've spelled it out. I've spoken against PRT. Any claims that I've been silent (to say nothing of approving) would have been a simple matter to confirm or deny. They haven't.

"At worst, this is a mischaracterization,"

Perhaps - but then you'd have to admit Avidor's second piece, about my being "embarassed" by my (nonexistant) association with the whole thing, is just yellow hackery.

" depending on one's interpretation of the cartoon. And given the aesthetic quality of said cartoon, I don't think you have to worry about too many people seeing it and subsequently misinterpreting it."

I imagine five or ten people still read The Dump. Unfortunately, two or three of them are newspaper reporters that for some reason give the site credence. That should be fixed.

Posted by: meeyotch at April 20, 2006 03:16 PM

"The one issue I'd have would be crime. On a bus, there's a lot of witnesses, but it seems PRT could lend itself to a situation where a predator could strongarm someone vulnerable into a PRT cab for robbery or ... worse."

as opposed to political strongarming everyone into large busses and train cars where criminals run wild today. Yeah right. Have you read the news stories where gangs force passengers off the bus and assault or murder them and the bus driver does nothing? I don't blame the drivers. The union, no doubt, has induced contracts that require them to do nothing.

I think I would like a private car for my mass transit. And I would like not to depend on a driver to save me and for the driver not go on strike.

That's probably the reason for opposition to PRT on the left: it's not strikable.

Posted by: ms at April 20, 2006 10:16 PM

I suspect the opposition on the both sides is that with PRT there is little control over the riders; they go where and when they want to, rather than as the system dictates.

I can imagine good LRT and PRT systems; they're hard to design, expensive to build, and not cheap to operate. In our area, a great deal of it will have to be underground (or possibly above ground) to avoid snow problems.

Posted by: htom at April 21, 2006 09:04 AM

Claims of conspiracies by a "big oil, big car, and big tire" cartel to put rail transit out of business just don't stand up to a clear, careful examination of the facts. The same lefty newspapers that today urge readers to get on a bandwagon to rebuild a 19th century technology were, "sixty years ago", raging against the eeevil Streetcar Monopoly and their killing machines that smashed into automobiles.

By 1946, the rails and rolling stock of most trolley companies across America were overdue for the scrap heap. The trolley companies were none too profitable in the Depression years before World War II. Wartime restrictions on gasoline use did increase ridership but price controls prevented profits that would have drawn in much-needed reinvestment for proper upkeep and modernization. Rationing of steel and machined goods for war production had resulted in a huge overhang of deferred maintenance.

The post-war boom led to expansion of communities in suburbs beyond the reach of existing trolley lines and generations taught to loathe the eeevil Streetcar Monopoly were resistant to any plans to extend the rails into their new, pristine neighborhoods, if the urban rail companies could have afforded to do so besides. Pent-up demand for automobiles was high after the war and once a family owned a car, the marginal cost of a spin around the town was often much cheaper than buying tickets and transfers for the streetcar.

Conspiracy theories to explain the demise of trolleys in most of America depend, at bottom, on the twin assumptions that most people are stupid with their money and don't know what they really should want. Thus, mass transit schemes are attractive to the meddling statist, like today's typical goo-goo booster of the PRT scheme. But fifty and sixty years ago, the goo-goos of those days were eager to rip out the rails of bankrupt trolley companies which, being bankrupt, could no longer pay the property taxes on their rights of way and the idea of sticking it to the eeevil Streetcar Monopoly by ridding the streets of their killing machines that might, at any moment, strike down The Common Man pedestrian or motorist -- well, that was just irresistable to the progressives!

Posted by: michael i at April 25, 2006 05:27 AM

Great work!
[url=http://vvngxklx.com/qpty/hqws.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://shceaksd.com/cbxj/tlao.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Mary at May 8, 2006 11:41 AM

paintballguns paintballguns

Posted by: paintballguns at September 19, 2006 02:08 PM

free asian bukkake asian head stocking slut secretaries in stockings and suspenders

Posted by: Jjelsstyogq at September 28, 2006 08:56 AM

rectal temperature fetish bar stools foot fetish parties in

Posted by: Zizyc at October 8, 2006 08:59 PM

rectal temperature fetish bar stools foot fetish parties in

Posted by: Zizyc at October 8, 2006 09:01 PM

rectal temperature fetish bar stools foot fetish parties in

Posted by: Zizyc at October 8, 2006 09:01 PM

seamed stockings high heels stocking babes sexy bikinis

Posted by: Drspx at October 9, 2006 08:50 AM

seamed stockings high heels stocking babes sexy bikinis

Posted by: Drspx at October 9, 2006 08:56 AM

anal sex technique anal cum

Posted by: Lgbt at October 9, 2006 09:47 PM

anal sex technique anal cum

Posted by: Lgbt at October 9, 2006 09:49 PM

anal sex technique anal cum

Posted by: Lgbt at October 9, 2006 09:50 PM

happy hardcore shemale hardcore

Posted by: Ganspt at October 10, 2006 09:28 AM

happy hardcore shemale hardcore

Posted by: Ganspt at October 10, 2006 09:28 AM

foot sex snake sex

Posted by: Ytqgojv at October 29, 2006 11:22 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi