The lack of Pedestrian culture in America

Brad Bowers said:

I'll take public transportation if it involves flanged wheels on rails

I'm all for restructuring cities for efficient land use, with residential and commercial coexisting as they did for centuries before the automobile.

But I'm not one to live in it. Heck, if I had my way, I wouldn't have a neighbor within five miles of me.

I could see myself driving a few miles to a train station and catching commuter rail into the city, though.

Brad

Click to expand...

The traditional model on the east coast is fine. Burbs for people that can afford it and want to commute, and urban centers for those who like the city.

I agree about rail. Busses don't work as well for two reasons. One is that they are restricted by traffic, the other, which no one seems to think about, at least not here in Seattle, is that busses are not fun. There is something about rail, especially elevated, that makes the experience fun and exciting. It can attract way more people than a bus line can.

reetpleat said:

I agree about rail. Busses don't work as well for two reasons. One is that they are restricted by traffic, the other, which no one seems to think about, at least not here in Seattle, is that busses are not fun. There is something about rail, especially elevated, that makes the experience fun and exciting. It can attract way more people than a bus line can.

Click to expand...

on the other hand though.... it is really infuriating to wait for your bus, on one of the most popular buslines in the city, on a 35-degree rainy night with no shelter, and know that the service has been HALVED, while billions are being poured into MAX (light rail) extensions that will probably never benefit you! the MAX can be fun, but a lot of the time it seems like it rarely benefits the majority of the people who actually have to rely on public transportation! :rage:

reetpleat said:

that makes such big assumptions. Wo says there are no benrfits to companies for their taxes. A better standard of living, easy commute to employees etc.

If what you say is true, the major cities of the east coast and Chicago and Minneapolis, Montreal, not to mention Mexico City, Eropean cities etc.

all the cities with good mass transit would be collapsing due the abandonment of the city. But it is not the case. These cities work well and maintain excellent mass transit.

Click to expand...

The island of Manhattan.

The remaining major employers headquartered there are money management and information companies. Their employees that can afford to live on the island are the white-collar degree'd and similar professionals. The shopping and other service-type businesses have their employees commute in from the outer boroughs.

The businesses that provided reasonable wages to low and moderately skilled employees, the garment industry say, moved off island to where their business costs could be lower, both in taxes and wages.

The downtown cores of Boston, and Chicago and many other major cities, where the average worker of several decades ago could afford to live and work at a nearby business that could afford to pay a living wage are undergoing similar gentrification.

Costs go up for a variety of reasons, the aging of equipment, increased worker's wage and benefit demands, increased costs of manufacturing, materials and shipping, but one thing we can track across the board is the increase in taxation.

Decisions on what to tax and what to spend it on are in the end the responsibility of the voters, all I'm noting is that time and time again decisions were made that had unintended or in fact contrary results from what was intended.

reetpleat said:

that makes such big assumptions. Wo says there are no benrfits to companies for their taxes. A better standard of living, easy commute to employees etc.

If what you say is true, the major cities of the east coast and Chicago and Minneapolis, Montreal, not to mention Mexico City, Eropean cities etc.

all the cities with good mass transit would be collapsing due the abandonment of the city. But it is not the case. These cities work well and maintain excellent mass transit.

Click to expand...

The cities of the East Coast are collapsing. Philadelphia has lost most of its workers and corporations to its immediate suburbs, for the tax cuts and is well on its way to looking like Camden, NJ. NYC doesn't have many neighborhoods its blue-collar and government workers (firefighters, cops, not politicians; politicians do fine) can live.
-Viola

ShooShooBaby said:

on the other hand though.... it is really infuriating to wait for your bus, on one of the most popular buslines in the city, on a 35-degree rainy night with no shelter, and know that the service has been HALVED, while billions are being poured into MAX (light rail) extensions that will probably never benefit you! the MAX can be fun, but a lot of the time it seems like it rarely benefits the majority of the people who actually have to rely on public transportation! :rage:

Click to expand...

The questions to ask are why are busses not perceived as "fun" anymore, if they ever were. Why are they not (apparently to the users and voters anyway) economically viable while light rail is? What arguments are being used in favor of light rail, are they the same arguments that were once made for other modes of public transpo? Who actually benefits from busses as opposed to who will benefit from the light rail system? Who's getting the money, your money, that is being spent on the system?

I don't have a problem with public transportation. As reetpleet points out it can make a whole lot of sense when you look beyond a speadsheet and factor in the "intangibles". If it isn't kept safe, clean and convenient though, the people who provide the tax money to subsidize it aren't going to use it, and thus aren't going to see and feel that real value. So they will start insisting their money go to services that more palpably benefit them.

Aside from a short stay in Denver, I've never lived in a town with enough population density to make public transportation practical. In my town of 120,000 I can drive to work in 10 minutes, bike in 20-25 (If I take life in hand along major roads, or weave through back streets), or I can walk a half-mile, wait for a bus, take a short ride, wait for a transfer, take another ride, and arrive at work (5 miles away) about 30-40 minutes later.

Wonderful. Simply wonderful.

As has been pointed out, our towns have not grown with a design that supports public transportation. Also, the voters in Colorado won't pay for it at levels that provide convenience. But when you're a dispersed population, convenience is tough to achieve.

I have a six-inch steel plate in my left leg from a car hitting me on a motorcycle in 1966 - I'm lucky to have the leg. I'll pass on motorcycles, thanks. And bikes are something I'll use ONLY when I can use bike paths separate from roads, or drive secondary streets, and mostly use the sidwalks. Moreover, I often have meetings away from campus and I can't get to them on a bicycle...so those days are car days.

I'd honestly like to have an option that works - but as long as it's legal and I can afford it, I'll keep the cars (multiple) that we have and keep driving them.

From here to Denver, I'd MUCH rather ride a commuter train than drive - but there isn't one. Hasn't been one for 30+ years. Maybe someday.

Given the city and town architecture that we have, I think the solution to our transportation problems is not "OR", but "AND". More highway lanes AND hybrids AND electric cars AND solar AND hydrogen AND wind power AND trains AND light rail AND carpools..........etc.

Given the city and town architecture that we have, I think the solution to our transportation problems is not "OR", but "AND". More highway lanes AND hybrids AND electric cars AND solar AND hydrogen AND wind power AND trains AND light rail AND carpools..........etc.

Click to expand...

That sounds an awful lot like... individual choice. Based on voluntary decisions, not regulatory dictat. :eusa_clap

With corporations given the exact same rights as individuals, and a lot more power to exercise them.

Fletch said:

With corporations given the exact same rights as individuals, and a lot more power to exercise them.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree there are problems with corporate law right now, but remember that corporations are voluntary associations of individual persons, not some kind of alien monster.

If there are groups of folks who wish to counter a particular corporation's actions, they should have the same freedom to associate and gain the benefits and powers thereof.

If there are legal restrictions to their ability to do that, remember it is due to government regulation. Remove the regulatory power from government, the protectionist legislation bought and sold from corrupt legislators, for good or ill, and the playing field levels between one corporate group of individuals and another.

Viola said:

The cities of the East Coast are collapsing. Philadelphia has lost most of its workers and corporations to its immediate suburbs, for the tax cuts and is well on its way to looking like Camden, NJ. NYC doesn't have many neighborhoods its blue-collar and government workers (firefighters, cops, not politicians; politicians do fine) can live.
-Viola

Click to expand...

True, but it is pretty hard to blme that on taxes to support light rail. THe reasons the inner cities are collapsing are many, but I think the main two are one, decayng infrastructure and structures. It makes more sense to locate a factory or business in a new building in the burbs thn in a 100 year old building in the inner city. The second big reason is white flight. Inner cities have lost everyone who can afford to leave, abandoning the inner cities (for good reasons I will allow) leaving a populace and infrastructure in nned of much taxes, and no one to pay them.

I don't see how you can blame that on the taxes of light rail. In fact, much of that suburban flight has ben made possible by light rail, and more importantly hugely subsidized highways and roads.

Everyone likes to complain about how much taxes light rail will cost, but never seem as concerned about the taxes that go to support roads.

carebear said:

That sounds an awful lot like... individual choice. Based on voluntary decisions, not regulatory dictat. :eusa_clap

Click to expand...

But it isn't about individual choice. When light rail is readily available, city planners make being carless as convenient as cars (as previously discussed) and hybrid technology, wind solare tc are all subsidized to the etent that the auto, and gas industries (including military action), and highways are, then we will have true freedom of choice.

Diamondback said:

Naw, just laser "tripwires" around the fenceline and a Barrett .50 with infrared scope in a securely-locked case up on the 4th-floor observation deck. "You can't keep what you can't protect" and all that...

But we're getting fftopic:

Click to expand...

fftopic:

Sounds like you'll need a sign like this one from Prince Sultan Air Base:



Cheers,
Tom

reetpleat said:

But it isn't about individual choice. When light rail is readily available, city planners make being carless as convenient as cars (as previously discussed) and hybrid technology, wind solare tc are all subsidized to the etent that the auto, and gas industries (including military action), and highways are, then we will have true freedom of choice.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards, none of that is the business of government to subsidize. Any form of energy or transportation or anything else should be left to sink or swim based on its merits in the market.

No subsidies for ethanol or gasoline, wind or coal or solar, light rail, buses or cars.

We'll be free to choose when our incomes are ours to spend as we wish, not as some expert or planner would have us do "for our own good".

carebear said:

You have it backwards, none of that is the business of government to subsidize. Any form of energy or transportation or anything else should be left to sink or swim based on its merits in the market.

No subsidies for ethanol or gasoline, wind or coal or solar, light rail, buses or cars.

We'll be free to choose when our incomes are ours to spend as we wish, not as some expert or planner would have us do "for our own good".

Click to expand...

Well, of course people differ in their opinions on this subject. But subsidization of gasoline is not even politiclly driven. It is driven by the people with the power and money to influence politics.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with government subsidizing things that will benefit the general population. For example, if government were to subsidize clean, cheap power, over dirty expensive power, why is that a bad thing. The role of government is to do the things we can not count on the free market to do.

Of course, I suspect most Alaskans don't see it that way, but I am from Seattle so what do you expect

AlanC, Bella Hella... I am in your boat. I'd go as far as to say, it's all quite pedantic.

If I walked in AZ this time of year... Destination Desication!

reetpleat said:

Well, of course people differ in their opinions on this subject. But subsidization of gasoline is not even politiclly driven. It is driven by the people with the power and money to influence politics.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with government subsidizing things that will benefit the general population. For example, if government were to subsidize clean, cheap power, over dirty expensive power, why is that a bad thing. The role of government is to do the things we can not count on the free market to do.

Of course, I suspect most Alaskans don't see it that way, but I am from Seattle so what do you expect

Click to expand...

Hippy.

Absent my libertarian utopia, the least we can hope for is to spend money on what are most certainly long-term good things.

carebear said:

You have it backwards, none of that is the business of government to subsidize. Any form of energy or transportation or anything else should be left to sink or swim based on its merits in the market.

No subsidies for ethanol or gasoline, wind or coal or solar, light rail, buses or cars.

We'll be free to choose when our incomes are ours to spend as we wish, not as some expert or planner would have us do "for our own good".

Click to expand...

This is a clear statement of opinion. With all due respect for this opinion, I want to register a slightly contrary opinon. If public transportation were left to survive on its own economic merits in most of the Western US, there would be none. No trains, no buses, no dial-a ride for the disabled and senior citizens. There isn't sufficient population density for these to pay their own way. However, local governments have decided that the "public good" justifies spending public money on buses and other transportation services.

Is that good, or bad? I suppose it depends on your opinion and outlook.

We might agree that government support or subsidies are laws and policies; those laws and policies should be based on intended outcomes, although much too often they're based on the influence of certain interest groups. the intended outcomes currently seem to favor providing some level of public transportation and doing so at public expense.

You know, we already have subsidies for automobiles. Taxes are generally used to provide subsidies. Gas taxes pay part of the bill for road repair and development, so they are in that regard a form of subsidy for the development and maintenance of automobile transportation. of course, additional public monies are spent to maintain the automobile road infrastructure.

Also, depending on how much tax is charged, gas taxes can also provide a negative subsidy, inclining people to reduce their gasoline use. Those taxes can be used to support public transportation, shifting the subsidy away from automobile transport and to other forms of transportation.

Whether this makes sense given the infrastructure of the locality or region is another issue. Europe has developed with different traffic and population patterns than the US...as discussed above.

But getting back to the point, I suspect that subsidies for alternative energy sources are almost inevitable in the next few years, with the goal of shifting patterns of energy usage...and not just for vehicles, but for homes, manufacturing plants, business buildings and other energy consuming sites. Which decisions are made is a political issue that's not appropropriate to go into here.

Different opinions as to the appropriateness of such subsidies will be reflected in the differing opinions of our legislators, and it's going to be an interesting discussion.

But let's face it, in this country our entire incomes will NEVER be "...free to choose when our incomes are ours to spend as we wish...". Paying taxes is a cost of living in this country, so we will never be free to spend all of our money exactly as we wish. To me, that's an acceptable situation. I think the benefits of living in the US outweigh the negatives of paying taxes.

But as Carebear said: "Absent my libertarian utopia, the least we can hope for is to spend money on what are most certainly long-term good things."

I HEARTILY agree!

reetpleat said:

True, but it is pretty hard to blme that on taxes to support light rail. THe reasons the inner cities are collapsing are many, but I think the main two are one, decayng infrastructure and structures. It makes more sense to locate a factory or business in a new building in the burbs thn in a 100 year old building in the inner city. The second big reason is white flight. Inner cities have lost everyone who can afford to leave, abandoning the inner cities (for good reasons I will allow) leaving a populace and infrastructure in nned of much taxes, and no one to pay them.

I don't see how you can blame that on the taxes of light rail. In fact, much of that suburban flight has ben made possible by light rail, and more importantly hugely subsidized highways and roads.

Everyone likes to complain about how much taxes light rail will cost, but never seem as concerned about the taxes that go to support roads.

Click to expand...

The number 1 cause of corporation flight from Philadelphia has been the ***damned city wage tax. It hits every worker as a penalty for the priviledge of working within city limits. The middle-class can't afford the bite of a 4% tax increase that can be avoided by moving two inches outside the Quaker City.

The problem isn't white flight anymore. Its anybody-with-a-job flight, I-would-rather-put-this-money-in-my-kids'-college-fund flight. The black suburbs are also growing quite quickly, prices swirling upward even in this real estate slow-down.

You said increased taxes don't cause city collapse. I'm suggesting maybe they do.

Hmm, I think if Alaska could get over that whole "freakish cold" thing I would totally join Carebear's libertarian utopia.lol

-Viola

I don't know about any other western city, but in Denver, the commuter trains and buses are packed. Downtown Denver during rush hour is like mid-town Manhattan (according to my cousin from Manhattan who recently visited). It is clearly one area that needs its public transportation.

Too many people are afraid that any substantial spending for the common good will turn Americans into European social-welfare paupers, living in crumbling shoebox apartments, puttering around in toy cars, living on gluey cheese mushroom cutlets and lukewarm beer and paying 4000% Goods & Services Tax on it all. Folks, it ain't gonna happen that way - especially not if we can figure some way to make big business pay a fairer share.