Resolutions for MBTA Riders:
I will pay my fare and will not jump turnstiles whether the MBTA GM is present or not. I will let people exit the vehicle before I push to get on, will give up my seat to those who need it more than I do and not use the seat next to me as my personal luggage compartment. Common courtesy never goes out of style, though some of us seem to have forgotten that.
I will not hassle the bus driver when I’ve had a bad day – chances are good that their day hasn’t been much easier. I will not ride the T talking on my cell phone, discussing daily trivialities, at full volume. Believe it or not, we’re not interested in what you had for lunch, what your significant other did or did not do, or your opinions on fashion.
Resolutions for MBTA Management and Employees:
I will strive to let passengers know why we’re not moving in a timely manner. I will treat all routes, modes and riders respectfully and equitably, while going the extra mile for those who need it most.
I will not take out my frustrations with rude customers on others. I will pull the bus up to the curb, because nobody likes stepping into a slush puddle.
As management we will hold true to the GM’s promise that fares will not go up in 2011. We will strive to reach 95% on time rates across all modes of service because, even though they’re nifty, nobody should have to rely on Smartphone apps to know whether the bus or train will be on schedule.
Resolutions for the Legislature:
Because hundreds of thousands of residents that rely on mass transit across the state (1.25 million daily rides on the T alone), preventing gridlock and making Greater Boston one of the most attractive places to work, we will treat the automobile and mass transit in an equitable manner.
Now that reform has been made at the T, saving 129.5 million, we will work to provide revenue. That was, after all, the dictum: “reform before revenue.” We will meet to talk about transit issues across the state and come up with solutions to the funding problems.
We will include bike and pedestrian improvements among our transportation priorities for the new session.
The MBTA didn’t ask for the Big Dig, so they shouldn’t have to pay for it. We will work to take the $1.67 billion worth of transit commitments from the Big Dig off the T’s budget.
Resolutions for Cyclists:
I will respect the rules of the road, and ride with my own safety and that of others, in mind. There’s enough chaos on the roads already between the lack of signs, narrow streets, etc. I will also wear a light when it’s dark because, among other things, it’s the law.
Resolutions for Pedestrians:
I will wait for the walk light at a signalized intersection. I will cross at pedestrian crosswalks, remembering to give a ‘thank you’ wave to the cars that stopped. I will attempt to refrain from giving a different wave toward those who don’t stop.
Resolutions for Auto Drivers:
I will respect the rules of the road, recognizing that I’m driving a 2000 lb. piece of metal that cannot stop on a dime, regardless what the ads say, especially when the road is wet and I’m driving ten mph over the speed limit. I will provide space as needed, not cut off other drivers or bikers, and look in the mirrors before opening my door.
I will not park, even “just for a minute” at bus stops or handicapped parking spots. I will stop at crosswalks when someone is trying to cross – looking at the person standing there while driving past doesn’t count. Texting while eating a Big Mac and steering with my knees is not appropriate. I won’t do that any more.
I will appreciate that the 1.25 million daily rides on the T are not cars blocking traffic, making me even later to my destination.
I am under no false illusion that everybody will take up these resolutions and follow them for an entire year. I do, however, think that we need to start somewhere, and we can all do our small part to make 2011 a better, safer, year for everyone. Let’s resolve to do so while getting our transportation system to where it needs to be. If we succeed, it could make a more lasting and fruitful change than any unused gym membership or unrealistic budget!
Bob Terrell is Coordinator of On The Move, a coalition of nine community based organizations in greater Boston that came together in 2002 to advocate for transportation justice.
tim-little says
When in doubt, err on the side of kindness.
stomv says
your resolution for pedestrians are way off.
<
p>First of all, we adults can accurately gauge how fast a car is coming in any direction, and can therefore decide if it’s safe to cross a street regardless of the WALK sign.
<
p>Secondly, the fact of the matter is that there are almost no crosswalk signals optimized for pedestrians. In fact, they’re not even optimized to be “fair” to peds and vehicles. They’re optimized for vehicles, with peds getting the scraps. What do I mean? I’ll give you three examples:
a. The law is that you have to provide for 1 second of flashing DONT WALK for every 2.5 feet of distance from curb to curb. Solid WALK is in addition to this. However, the default time for a WALK signal out of the box is something like 7 seconds. Let’s say the road width is 25 feet, and the parallel traffic gets 50 seconds of green. The flashing DONT WALK must show for a minimum of 10 seconds. What should happen is that peds get a 40 second WALK and a 10 second flashing DONT WALK. What the engineers/technicians typically do is leave that WALK default and add the extra time to the flashing DONT WALK. So, a pedestrian approaches an intersection, sees the DONT WALK flashing, and stays on the curb, because flashing DONT WALK implies that one couldn’t make it across the street before the traffic light changes. He stands there for many seconds, far more than it would have taken an able bodied adult to cross the street. Why? The engineer/tech couldn’t be bothered to configure the signals for the pedestrian. Not even giving pedestrians a second’s thought results in signals which are clearly poorly designed for peds, seeming to go out of their way to be worse than a 12 year old would design. As a result, pedestrians are trained to know that flashing DONT WALK doesn’t mean you can’t make it across, because the flashing DONT WALK can last an extremely long amount of time, far longer than 0.4 seconds per foot. Peds are trained to ignore flashing DONT WALK because they’re rarely implemented correctly. While the ped may not know the details I just explained, the ped does understand that the system isn’t designed with consideration for peds, and therefore it doesn’t do the ped much good to obey the DONT WALK when flashing.
b. Have you ever approached an intersection and seen red in all directions for all vehicles? Sure, but it’s rare. It’s called an all-pedestrian phase, and it’s typically used where there are both (i) lots of pedestrians, and (ii) an intersection with complex geography. However, there are many, many intersections with a no-pedestrian phase. Picture this: standard 4 way intersection, 2 way traffic in both directions, roads perfectly perpendicular with good sight lines. We’ll say the N/S is the major traffic route, with the E/W a minor road. The intersection almost certainly has what is called an extended green for the N/S route. What does that mean? Well, if there are no (or few) cars queued up at the E/W stop lines according to the inductors buried in the road, and if there is continuing traffic on the N/S road (again, based on inductors), then the N/S will get an extended green, since this serves more vehicles. Makes sense, right? Of course. Here’s the problem: remember the 2.5 feet per second of walk mentioned above? Well, the extended green has no idea for how long it will extend… if enough cars show up on the E/W or there’s a gap in the N/S traffic before the extension time expires, it will flip. Yellow light on N/S for 3 seconds, then green for E/W. The trouble is, the required time to cross the E/W road on foot far exceeds 3 seconds. Since the system doesn’t know when it’s going to flip 10 seconds in advance (a 25 foot road, which is on the narrow side due to parking), it can’t issue a WALK across the E/W road. Of course there’s a DON’T WALK across the N/S road since it’s got a green. So here we have it, pedestrians standing on the corner wanting to cross, and they can’t. No cars coming or moving E/W, and the peds stand there and wait. The intersection signaling was designed to optimize motor vehicle travel, at the cost of pedestrian crossing times. This kind of intersection timing is extremely common, even in areas with a significant number of pedestrians.
c. Again, we keep the N/S and E/W intersection. We’ve got a pedestrian who wants to cross the E/W, with a WALK sign. It turns out though that vehicles traveling with the green light N/S can almost always also turn onto that E/W road, crossing through the crosswalk. Now, we usually navigate this well enough, as most drivers are reasonable enough to follow the law and yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. But, not all vehicle drivers behave themselves. A bigger concern for a small segment of the population: the blind. A blind person hears the chirp for a WALK, and has to take it on faith that a vehicle traveling N/S and turning onto E/W will see him and stop. If the intersection was optimized for peds, you wouldn’t be able to turn across a crosswalk every. Instead, the best that peds can hope for is what’s called a “leading pedestrian interval” (LPI), where the WALK sign turns on about 2 seconds before the N/S light turns green, which allows peds to establish themselves further into the crosswalk before cars could try to mash their way through. The LPI is being implemented more often, but it’s still on very few intersections, even in metro or other high ped areas.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Consider this pedestrian resolution instead:
As a pedestrian, I resolve to wear clothing to help ensure that I’m visible, to make eye contact with drivers when crossing the road, and to make good judgments about when it is safe to cross, to be courteous to all other users, and to use restraint when there is friction between myself and another user, as politeness and a friendly smile and wave are more effective than red faced anger and yelling.
stomv says
Modern automobiles are closer to 6,000 lbs than 2,000 lbs. It would also be nice if motorists resolved to not stop/stand/park in bike lanes or even in the rightmost lane of traffic, and to recognize that when it is safe, a motorist is obligated to stop at a yellow light, not speed through. Note that if one is doing the speed limit, it is often quite easy to stop at a yellow light. Finally, it would be nice if motorists also resolved to not “block the box”. Doing so doesn’t just create gridlock and obstruct drivers amping up congestion substantially, it often puts pedestrians and cyclists in danger, and depending on the road may also force the streetcar carrying 100s of passengers (or bus carrying 10s of passengers) to wait as well… and occasionally makes it hard for emergency vehicles to get through the intersection too. Really, we know you don’t want to wait another light cycle, but inching out into the intersection without knowing that you can make it across is one of the most selfish things motorists do, and often has substantial negative impacts on 100s of other transportation users’ time.
peter-porcupine says
stomv says
I resolve to continue behaving as a safe, courteous pedestrian. If a car or bicycle is coming, I won’t step off. If no cars are coming, I’m not walking any more than necessary.
christopher says
Plus plenty of people don’t have the judgement you claim to have. A big pet peeve of mine is people who step out onto a busy street in front of me when they could have walked a whole ten yards if they weren’t so darn lazy. (and yes, I usually do find the crosswalk myself, unless there really is no traffic in sight).
stomv says
That’s MA law: $1.
<
p>Also misdemeanors (moving violations):
* speeding 1-9 mph over the limit
* not coming to a full stop at a stop sign
* failing to signal a turn, even when changing lanes
<
p>In all three cases, there are plenty on instances when violating those rules has absolutely no potential harm, and there are also plenty of instances where violating those rules can result in harm. Every motorist violates all three of these on a regular basis, with no qualm. Why? They trust their own judgment, and in an extremely high percentage of cases (I’d bet over 99.999% of them, and yes I mean 99,999 of every 100,000 instances) there is no additional danger to anyone. They make safe decisions.
<
p>I expect the same from pedestrians, and the reality is that pedestrians almost always make safe decisions. They don’t always make courteous decisions — but if you’ll notice, my post included both safe and courteous.
<
p>It’s rater strange to me how it’s completely normal to commit certain moving violations with nary a complaint by others, but it’s totally reasonable to chastise pedestrians and cyclists.
christopher says
…though got off with warnings.
jimc says
Than the revenue-hungry state and city might start enforcing it.
jimc says
Then. Damn I’m sloppy lately.
tyler-oday says
stomv says
The GOP really is all about law and order. Who needs common sense and humane behavior when we have rules, dammit.
kbusch says
example
marc-davidson says
when it concerns everyone but the powerful, which in this discussion are those in their 2 ton SUVs.
jimc says
You sound like a “responsible” gun owner. Who needs laws about where I can carry it? I know better.
<
p>
dcsohl says
1) If either the pedestrian or the driver are being responsible and safe and aware of their surroundings, there’s no danger. A safe and attentive pedestrian should be able to cross a street and avoid nutso drivers, and a safe driver should be able to stop for the pedestrian who is texting as they cross the street.
<
p>2) And when there is danger, it’s strictly the pedestrian’s liability. The driver may be in for a hassle, but if they were driving safely, they will get off.
<
p>3) “Responsible” gun owners like you describe (i.e. not so responsible gun owners who think they are responsible) are a menace to everybody in their surroundings. Including, but certainly not limited to themselves.
<
p>4) Whereas your hypothetical gun owner is a menace to everybody, and whereas stomv is really only a menace to himself, therefore be it resolved that the two scenarios really don’t have much in common with each other, and your analogy is ill-advised. Your analogy is much better applied to bad drivers than to bad pedestrians.
jimc says
But laws are laws. And as I think someone else pointed out, a car avoiding a reckless pedestrian could easily collide with another car.
<
p>It’s not about stomv per se, it’s about rule of law. If individuals can rewrite laws at will, and feel justified, we have a problem.
stomv says
About 4000 pedestrians were killed in tUSA in 2009. About 40,000 were killed in motor vehicle accidents. Save your indignation for the problem ten times larger.
<
p>
<
p>Individuals ‘rewrite’ laws all the time, and it turns out that, generally speaking, we don’t have a problem because of it. I’d bet that there are over 1 Billion traffic violations per day (3 for every person in America). Speeding, rolling through stop signs, failing to use a turn signal, etc. Yet there are only 40,000 deaths per year. That’s an astronomically low rate of accidents per ‘rewrite.’ It turns out that people can and do safely ‘rewrite’ transportation laws all the time.
jimc says
Really. I was just being rhetorical.
<
p>I feel like I’ve offended you, and I apologize for that, it wasn’t my intention at all. I was just using hyperbole to make a point.
<
p>That said, the national stats don’t speak to me. I take public transportation to Boston every day to work, but sometimes there are times when I have to drive. And pedestrians exercising their judgment about where to walk, regardless of what the traffic signal says, are a serious problem here.
<
p>To be fair, Boston and Cambridge both use the shaky tactic of giving drivers the green light AND giving pedestrians the walk signal. I suppose someone smarter than me has deemed this necessary, but it’s also dangerous. Drivers should be reasonably assured no one is walking if they see a green light; pedestrians should be reasonably assured no cars are coming if they see a walk signal. Obviously both parties still have to look, but these are busy places, and it would be easy to miss something.
<
p>
stomv says
I’m not offended; I just don’t understand* why folks focus so much on peds and cyclists when in fact motorists do by far the most damage, have the highest costs, etc. Yip, it’s because there are lots of ’em — but that’s exactly why that’s where the focus should be.
<
p>
<
p>I guess I’d ask you to defined the exactly what the problem is. It isn’t a substantial number of accidents caused by pedestrians ignoring the law: the data simply doesn’t support that conclusion. If your ‘problem’ is that pedestrians are annoying in the way that they cross the street, that’s a different issue… and to be frank, not a particularly important issue in the grand scheme of things. I’d just add that my comment well above was to ask for peds to behave safely and courteously. Perhaps the question is: when a ped is behaving rudely, does the ped know he’s behaving rudely. If so, the issue isn’t a matter of following the law, it’s simply a matter of having good manners. If there’s a massive set of peds who don’t know that they’re being rude, that’s a different (and, I think, unlikely) story.
<
p>
<
p>The concurrent green meets MUTCD guidelines and is used everywhere in tUSA, and if it were the case that there was no right turn to the minor street during a green ball (when the peds crossing the minor street have a WALK), then you’d have an awful lot more congestion then there is now, particularly on one or two lane in each direction roads where there isn’t enough room (lest parking be removed) of a right hand storage lane.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p> * I do understand. There are a tremendous number of folks (even in greater Boston) who use the automobile as their substantially primary means of transportation. It’s cultural.
jimc says
But let’s not forget how overcrowded our little city is. I work near Back Bay Station, and the pedestrians in that area seem to fail to appreciate that many of the cars entering that area have just come off the Mass Pike. So they’ve driven for an hour or two in some cases, gone from high speed to nearly stopped, been hit up for some serious cash in some cases, and then have to navigate a city where a single wrong turn can make you hopelessly lost or send you back on another highway.
<
p>As a commuter, I know that the commute on the train is sometimes no picnic either, but it’s a damn sight more relaxing than driving to work, and most drivers, I’d venture, drive because they have to.
<
p>So Tim Little has articulated the bottom line, I believe.
<
p>
christopher says
patrick says
<
p>Can the driver of the oncoming car accurately gauge how quickly you will be walking in front of their car (assuming they they notice you at all)?
kate says
I will look at schedules to encourage “tele-commuting” as appropiate. I understand that when done correclty this can increase productivity, employee retention and reduce real estate costs.
christopher says
The three paragraphs above the fold are repeated below the fold.
on-the-move says
Sorry about that and thanks for the reminder, it should be corrected now.
roarkarchitect says
Please don’t ride in the middle of the road unless you are going the speed limit.
<
p>All this does is create driver road rage.
<
p>and I’m a biker.
stomv says
There are plenty of good times to ride in the middle of the road as a bicyclist.
<
p> * If you feel pressure coming on the right: a parallel parked car which looks like it might nose out, a vehicle at a driveway which looks like it might nose out, a pedestrian with a DONT WALK light (since you have the green) who looks like he might step out, a vehicle ahead in the lane which is slowing or stopping in order to park, etc.
* If you have to merge left, for example to move to the left lane of a multi-lane road to turn left.
* If you’re turning left from a single lane road.
* If there is debris, potholes, or other unsafe road conditions on the right side of the lane.
* If the road is too narrow to allow for safe passing by autos, and riding in the middle of the lane for a few hundred yards makes for safer riding conditions because drivers consistently pass too close on that stretch of road.
* If the lane is relatively narrow and there are cars parked parallel immediately to the right, where riding on the right side of the lane would put the bicyclist in the door zone.
<
p>The speed limit is an upper limit, not a lower limit. Vehicles are not obligated to move at the speed limit. Vehicles are obligated to move right to allow others to pass when it is safe to do so, not at all times.
<
p>
<
p>Ride a bicycle courteously, but not at the expense of safety nor of marginalizing one’s own rights to use the right of way. That usually means riding on the right portion of the lane (or in the bike lane), but it often means moving leftward for safety reasons.
<
p>
<
p>Road rage is not excusable. It doesn’t matter what other road users are doing — if they are acting legally or not, politely or not, rationally or not. I hear this comment quite a lot — that the road rage of the driver is the fault of the cyclist. Nonsense. Everybody owns their own bad behavior. If a motorist is angered and behaves dangerously, than that driver is at fault for his behavior, nobody else.
christopher says
Yes, you have to turn left at times and avoid obstacles. Then again, I was taught to walk my bicycle across streets, as well as following stop signs and red lights, which I believe is law. I very rarely see these rules followed.
somervilletom says
I suspect this is another example of the difference between what we’re taught (for a perfect and ideal world) and the reality of living in a city. I have the strong sense that riding a bike on the right is simply suicidal in a great many Boston-area neighborhoods.
<
p>I’m not sure I heard stomv suggest running red lights or stop signs.
christopher says
I was just citing other examples of people playing a little fast and loose with traffic laws.
stomv says
you won’t hear any argument from me about that.
<
p>My point is simply that following the rules isn’t necessarily safe and courteous, and that not following the rules isn’t necessarily unsafe nor rude. Context and judgment matter, and things on the roads are far more nuanced than drivers ed.
stomv says
designed for children. For adults, the law is pretty simple:
<
p>bicyclists are to behave like motorists, except:
* bicyclists can’t go on limited access highways such as interstates. Interestingly, they are allowed on roads like Storrow Drive — though I wouldn’t recommend it.
* bicyclists are permitted to pass on the right, something motor vehicles are not permitted to do.
<
p>Like motorists, bicyclists are obligated to stay to the right in a safe manner when traveling straight, but the safety trumps the staying to the right. Like motorists, bicyclists are obligated to turn right from the rightmost lane and left from the leftmost lane (unless there are multiple turn-only lanes). Like motorists, cyclists are obligated to obey speed limits, stop signs, and stop lights.
<
p>
<
p>Now, the nuances. Take a radar gun and measure how fast cars roll through a stop sign. You’ll find that it’s as high as 15 mph on a clear day with sight lines and nobody coming. Now, measure how fast a bicyclist rolls through a stop sign. You’ll find it’s almost never higher than 10 mph — bicyclists tend not to be riding terribly fast in areas with stop signs. Why the double standard, I wonder. Red lights are a different issue altogether. I personally believe that there are appropriate times for bicyclists to treat a red light as a stop sign. Convenience isn’t a good reason… but safety is, and in my opinion as an urban cyclist there are certain intersections at certain times of day for which it is far safer for a cyclist to cross against the light when clear than it is to wait for the green and deal with multiple lanes of overly aggressive motorists jockeying for position. This is true for a bicyclist but not a motorist because (a) a cyclist can stand taller than an auto, (b) a cyclist is only 6′ long and 2′ wide, (c) a cyclist at those low speeds can accelerate, decelerate, and change direction much more quickly than a motorist, and (d) the cyclist imposes extremely low danger to others in the event of a low collision, unlike an auto. I’m not arguing that running a light is ever perfectly safe, merely that it can be safer than the alternative.
<
p>But again, we get to courteous and safe. For me, those two things together are far more important than the law. Just as motorists roll through stop signs at times and exceed the speed limit by a few mph without being rude nor unsafe, cyclists run lights without being rude nor unsafe. For the motorists and cyclists who are being rude or unsafe, knock it off. Cut it out. 86 it. You won’t get any argument from me about that.
christopher says
…that bikes on the right was the law, not a rule for children. That being said, we DID learn in drivers ed that keeping up with flow of traffic is often preferable to adhering strictly to posted speed limits.
stomv says
if just a few people drive the speed limit, it de facto forces lots of others to drive the speed limit, whether or not they want to. On a one lane road it only takes one driver, on a two lane in each direction road it only takes a few. For highways, it’s obviously far more complex.
<
p>I understand why people speed when driving to Florida — making up 10 minutes every hour really has worth if you’re driving for 20+ hours. What I don’t understand is why people speed when driving for 10s of minutes; the added speed only shaves a few minutes of trip time, and results in higher stress, higher costs, and higher danger. The calculation just seems strange to me.
<
p>I don’t drive much, and I don’t always peg the speed limit right on the numbers, but I am a big believer in staying in one lane for long stretches at a time and driving at a consistent speed — far less stress, less money, and less risk of losing hours or days or weeks or months of time stuck in a hospital.
elbows says
As I understand it, the law typically requires bicycles to ride as far to the right of the roadway as practicable. The phrase “as practicable” is generally understood to allow bicyclists to move left when they feel it’s necessary for safety.
<
p>The “roadway” does not include the shoulder, so strictly speaking cyclists are never required to ride on the shoulder (though on some roads it is both a safe and courteous thing to do).
laurel says
i take the bus to work in downtown seattle and i have to say that compared to boston’s system, seattle is tops. the busses on the routes i use are usually on time and the drivers are neutral to very friendly. it is quite common for departing riders to thank the driver, and vica versa. transit doesn’t have to be a misery. it is what we make it. bonus for me is a glimpse of mt rainier from the i-5 bridge hov lane (when the mountain is out…).
stomv says
had a fine time indeed.
<
p>Hats off for thanking drivers. I try to remember to thank the driver of the train or bus every time I get off, even from the back door. Couldn’t hurt.
rollzroix says
IMO, using the buses now, with realtime GPS data available on your iphone or android smartphone (IF you have one of those) is just a much, much improved experience, particularly on weekends and off-peak hours. The buses may not be any more on time, but when you can find out exactly where they are at any given time, it’s almost just as good.
<
p>And my 3 year-old and I thank the driver every morning when we step off the 92 in Charlestown on his way to school!
tyler-oday says
Please don’t drive on my tail
discernente says
Give thanks everyday to the non-MBTA served areas of the state for subsidizing your standard of living at the expense of their own.
stomv says
Just as soon as the “non” areas give thanks everyday for the huge subsidies that are paid toward the roads in the “non” areas — since those areas don’t have anywhere near the density needed to fund their own roads.
<
p>P.S. It’s not just MBTA — all transit regions in the Commonwealth are subsidized by the sales tax. In addition to the MBTA, these include:
<
p>Berkshire Regional Transit Authority BRTA
http://www.berkshirerta.com
Brockton Regional Transit Authority BAT
http://www.ridebat.com
Cape Ann Transit Authority CATA
http://www.canntran.com
Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority CCRTA
http://www.capecodrta.org
Franklin Regional Transit Authority FRTA
http://www.frta.org
Greater Attleboro Taunton Transit Authority GATRA
http://www.gatra.org
Lowell Regional Transit Authority LRTA
http://www.lrta.com
Martha’s Vineyard Transit Authority VTA
http://www.vineyardtransit.com
Merrimack Valley Transit Authority MVRTA
http://www.mvrta.com
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority MWRTA
http://www.mwrta.com
Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority MART
http://www.mrta.us
Nantucket Regioanl Transit Authority NRTA
http://www.shuttlenantucket.com
Pioneer Valley Regional Transit Authority PVTA
http://www.pvta.com
Southeastern Regional Transit Authority SRTA
http://www.srtabus.com
Worcester Regioanl Transit Authority WRTA
http://www.therta.com
somervilletom says
Let’s look at the net flow of public funds/value into those “non-MBTA served areas of the state”. How much do residents of those areas pay in taxes to the state, and how much do they receive in services, value, and state funding?
<
p>By all means, pick one or two and let’s take a look at their public balance sheet.
<
p>I think you’re sadly mistaken about just who is subsidizing who.