It s not worth arguing with him, Tony. Facts make no dent in his perspective. He has never offered any evidence at all for that perspective. There are noMessage 1 of 53 , Jan 1, 2007View SourceIt's not worth arguing with him, Tony. Facts make no dent in his
perspective. He has never offered any evidence at all for that
perspective. There are no people in any of the media coverage of CTA
saying "I don't care how fast it goes, cause I don't have any other
choice." It's just a weird religious thing with him.
There are really just two options in response. One is to do the
old "corrected your post" thing, where you substitute the first
person singular wherever he has used a collective noun -- because the
essence of it is that Andre himself used CTA as a last resort.
For instance, his post makes perfect sense if amended like this:
>Let's get this thru our heads once and for all - public transit wastransport of last resort (for me). Realistically, (I) really don't
give a hoot how fast the Ryan L runs. 24mph is just fine. As long as
(I) got to (my) job in a predictable timeframe, what that timeframe
was was rather unimportant (to me). If the average speed of the L
were 15mph, (I) would still have ridden it. (I) had no alternative.
[Although I have to say the faux African-American grammar of "I ain't
got no alternative" was a low point even for Andre]
The other alternative in response is a post simply correcting the
record here, so that newbies aren't misled by his
misrepresentations. Every he time he spouts the nonsense, someone
should just post for the record that 'It has come to our attention
that there was an factual error in the above post. Actually, CTA
gives 1.5 million rides a day in a city with only 2.5 million people
of traveling age, and that many of its strongest routes and lines are
in the wealthiest parts of the city.'
He has nothing to support his viewpoint, so arguing with him just
lowers the level of the debate. It's better to issue a simple
correction like that, the way an editor of a periodical would correct
an error of fact, rather than pretending there's an open question as
to whether he might have a valid point.
... outfit, ... ultimately ... these ... As another character sharing the same first name as this poster put it: Everytime I try to get out, they drag me backMessage 53 of 53 , Jan 11, 2007View Source--- In CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com, "willvdv" <willvdv@...> wrote:
> --- In CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com, "Michael T. Greene"
> <michael_t_greene@> wrote:
> > Colonial Coach Lines near me
> > was a Hudson Transit (Short Line) subsidiary, mostly a charter
> > but it did have local service NE of Philadelphia that wereultimately
> > replaced by a number of SEPTA bus routes in the early 1980's.these
> > We now return this group to Chicago transit issues...
> Not so fast, now I'm curious. In the Philadelphia suburbs, it is
> generally known that SEPTA routes in the 90's evolved from the
> Schuylkill Valley system around Norristown. And that SEPTA routes
> 100-125 evolved from the Red Arrow system to the west. But are
> the SEPTA routes just above 125, which evolved from this ColonialAs another character sharing the same first name as this poster
> Coach Lines?
put it: "Everytime I try to get out, they drag me back in!".
Anyway, the routes above 125, for the most part, are run from the
Frontier Garage near Plymouth Meeting...they deadhead to their runs
via the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The runs weren't just Colonial Coach-
Trenton-Philadelphia Coach, which had been part of SEPTA since its
privately owned parent PTC was bought by SEPTA, had some local
services in Bucks County, in addition to its Philadelphia-Trenton via
Levittown run...portions of them became Fronier routes in the high
120's. BTW, Trenton-Philadelphia Coach is still in existance, still a
part of SEPTA, used these days mainly for use by SEPTA for bids on
various privatized services within the SEPTA service area.
Maybe NOW we can get this list back on topic...
Michael T. Greene (you know the rest...)