> Having never heard of him, I looked up his Wikipedia entry
> which states "He is an avid cyclist who always rides a
> bicycle to and from work, and advocates alternative means
> of transportation where possible."
=v= Which just points up how Wikipedia can be manipulated in
the name of its "NPOV." The "avid cyclist" bit is great for
appearances, and that "where possible" clause is one heck of
a dandy qualifier, given that Randall O'Toole's basic schtick
is that alternatives (meaning, alternatives to the car) are
rarely possible. His general approach is to cherry-pick the
unrepresentative case studies in which transit alternatives
(rail in particular) have fallen short of expectations, and
ignore the majority of cases in which they've done very well.
=v= O'Toole is mostly funded from foundations that rely on oil
wealth. He is also backed by institutes that call themselves
"libertarian" but are themselves backed by the same sort of
foundation.
=v= A lot of so-called libertarians and conservatives have
a HUUUGE blind spot when it comes to transportation funding.
They see the overt subsidy of mass transit but turn a blind
eye to the far greater (and often bafflingly covert) subsidy
of cars on roads. The result is that they oppose the more
efficient and classically conservative use of tax dollars.
O'Toole's unrepresenative sampling props up this view.
=v= It's unsurprising that the teabaggers would be funding
this appearance. To them, transit is Obamasoshulizm and
cars are the private sector running around on unsubsidized
gasoline over roads that just magically grow from the ground.
<_Jym_>
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
