"artificially low" = "not taxed enough".

You do realize that modern semis average around 12 mph and carry about 50,000 lbs of cargo? the average passenger car can carry around 500 lbs of cargo so you would need 100 of them. Even if the are Prius' getting 50 mph, you are using way more fuel using Prius' to move the cargo and causing way more congestion.

but trains cannot reach every little town, let alone every store.

I believe the gain is that somebody got where they were going in a manner they enjoyed doing it in. That you are complaining that you, personally, received no gain only proves that you are selfish.

And they will pass it on to you, their customer. Or are you one of those who never buys anything in a store or online and produces everything you use in your basement from materials you mined yourself in your own backyard with tools you carried by hand after buying them from somebody else just like you.

like the 1970s? we adapted and survived.

So we start off with complaints about how heavy commercial trucks damage the road and then we get to how heavy buses are better. And don't even get me started about how much damage that light rail system does to the roadway.

"What the hell are talking about?" says dunkelfalke, who often wonders where this planet called earth that everybody around him is always going on about.

Really, my "rush hour" commute is only about 13% longer than when I make the drive not during rush hour. That's right, it takes me a whole 2 minutes longer to make the drive during "rush hour" around here. Maybe you should notice that the entire country has not chosen to live in a big city.

Yes, I have. I live and drive here everyday and it isn't really that bad. People reading your rant would think that half of us are involved in an accident everyday but that is really not the case.

Well, public transportation costs will be reduced so they will need to pay less in taxes to subsidize the operation.

but it also says the right of the people and every other amendment that uses people (or the singular, person) has never been interpreted by the right of the left to mean anything other than individuals. really. Why don't we read the first amendment as claiming that State governments have the right to make political speech but no individual person does? It really is that simple; either the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to be armed or it does not guarantee the right of any individual to free speech.

Ah yes, the old "stop promoting adherence to an ancient document and get oppressed the modern way" argument.

"Right of the People to alter or abolish it" and "their right [and] duty, to throw off such Government" kind of speaks to that. I think it is obvious that many of the same people involved in writing the Declaration of Independence were also instrumental in writing the Constitution.

They recognized that extreme measures may be called for to perform one's duty and that required being armed. Only blubbering idiots beholden to an ideology of lies would even consider the premise that the Founding Fathers had any other intentions in regards to weapons than that individual citizens could arm themselves with whatever was considered modern.

Any less is admitting that the government is not restricted by the Constitution from searching your computer and cellphone as they did not exist 200 years ago.

IOW, taxis are now a good option because they have competition from Lyft and Uber so Lyft and Uber can go away because they serve no purpose that taxis don't already fulfill?

How about that they are forcing taxis to offer decent customer service because they have competition.