Comment 20355

By Rusty (registered) - website | Posted March 26, 2008 at 11:02:11

I hardly think Don was 'twisting' anything here... he has made some general - admittedly isolated - observations about the environmental impacts of these council decisions, which are indisputable. Why would Don highlight the environmental impacts and not examine the business or other related impacts? Well take a look at his profile - linked at the top of the page - and you will see. There's nothing subversive about any of this. Every RTH writer (and, in fact, every journalist in the world) has an element of bias in what they write and how they write. We write based on what we know and what we feel is important. It's up to the reader to take everything in context.

With respect to serious' comments, I agree that the business aspects of the decisions referenced are other important factors. But the environment is at least equally important.

One element that is striking in this article, is the shear weight of favour that road building and airport expansion seem to receive from the tax payer. For road usage in particular the costs are way bigger than any transit 'subsidies' - I love that word! Why do we not refer to road taxes as 'subsidies'...? - and yet we pay no user fees.

Surely the central question is: Why should one group of transit users pay user fees and another be subsidized so heavily?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds