|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 4, 2021 8:49:10 GMT
Pocket worthy Stories to fuel your mind
Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit? (Don't Blame Cars.)Streetcar, bus, and metro systems have been ignoring one lesson for 100 years: Service drives demand. CityLab by Jonathan English (Link: How Pete Buttigieg Could Save Mass Transit)  One hundred years ago, the United States had a public transportation system that was the envy of the world. Today, outside a few major urban centers, it is barely on life support. Even in New York City, subway ridership is well below its 1946 peak. Annual per capita transit trips in the U.S. plummeted from 115.8 in 1950 to 36.1 in 1970, where they have roughly remained since, even as population has grown. This has not happened in much of the rest of the world. While a decline in transit use in the face of fierce competition from the private automobile throughout the 20th century was inevitable, near-total collapse was not. At the turn of the 20th century, when transit companies’ only competition were the legs of a person or a horse, they worked reasonably well, even if they faced challenges. Once cars arrived, nearly every U.S. transit agency slashed service to cut costs, instead of improving service to stay competitive. This drove even more riders away, producing a vicious cycle that led to the point where today, few Americans with a viable alternative ride buses or trains.
The only way to reverse the vicious cycle in the U.S. is by providing better service up front. The riders might not come on day one, but numerous examples, from cities like Phoenix and Seattle, have shown that better service will attract more riders. This can, in turn, produce a virtuous cycle where more riders justify further improved service—as well as providing a stronger political base of support.
A focus on improving local service is all the more important in an era where the White House and Congress are not very favorably disposed to transit, and well-funded lobby groups like those of the Koch brothers are spending millions to fight transit infrastructure spending. Even if the money to build new light rail lines isn’t coming from Washington, states and local governments absolutely can afford the comparatively small annual expenditure to run buses reasonably often, all day, every day, so that transit is a viable mode of transportation for all kinds of trips—not just 9-to-5 commuting. That has been proven around the world to be the way to attract riders to transit.
The U.S. is not going to be able to rebuild metropolitan areas overnight to turn them into model transit-oriented development. But good service can make transit successful even in low-density suburbs. It’s worth the investment to make more metropolitan areas accessible to everyone, and to reduce the severe environmental impact of overwhelming dependence on the car. When it comes to transit, if cities don’t build it, riders definitely won’t come.
Jonathan English is a Ph.D. candidate in urban planning at Columbia University.
===============================================================================
About the ONLY way I can ever see mass transit becoming appealing to enough people to ever become sustainable again......... is to have auto-pilot pods that arrive upon request and allow people to ride in clean, safe and hassle free environments when they want and where they want directly.
Anyone who believes that making private autos more restrictive and just plain too expensive to maintain in high density areas is just using the force of Govt to deprive everyday people more freedom...........meanwhile the politicians that pass such rules and regulations continue to ride in style. ![[rolleye1]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/MTjbungPBOzv0BKQvdPJ.gif) |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 4, 2021 17:05:46 GMT
1. So... same amount of traffic, but fewer non-computerized drivers? That doesn't sound like a solution. Do you want buildings to install elevators that can fit only a family of 4 max. so that you don't have to be around other people?
2. I'm not seeing anything about making driving a car more restrictive in what you posted, so I don't get what you're on about. But since you mentioned "freedom" I'm guessing YOU want the freedom to get to your job in a car while making sure that the poor can't compete for your job because they can't travel to it.
I use public transportation most of the time and it's great... even better now that the 3rd subway line is partially open.
And I just love the high-speed rail. If you ever go to Shanghai, you have to get on the mag-lev and check out life at over 250 miles an hour.
Of course, the biggest problem with adding infrastructure in the US is always going to be the price. Even if the price seems somewhat reasonable in the beginning - reasonable to Americans, not anyone else - there are going to be problems, cost overruns and missed deadlines. I'm from Boston. I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 5, 2021 12:50:14 GMT
1. So... same amount of traffic, but fewer non-computerized drivers? That doesn't sound like a solution. Do you want buildings to install elevators that can fit only a family of 4 max. so that you don't have to be around other people? 2. I'm not seeing anything about making driving a car more restrictive in what you posted, so I don't get what you're on about. But since you mentioned "freedom" I'm guessing YOU want the freedom to get to your job in a car while making sure that the poor can't compete for your job because they can't travel to it. I use public transportation most of the time and it's great... even better now that the 3rd subway line is partially open. And I just love the high-speed rail. If you ever go to Shanghai, you have to get on the mag-lev and check out life at over 250 miles an hour. Of course, the biggest problem with adding infrastructure in the US is always going to be the price. Even if the price seems somewhat reasonable in the beginning - reasonable to Americans, not anyone else - there are going to be problems, cost overruns and missed deadlines. I'm from Boston. I know. 1. Buildings don't seem to have as many issues with overcrowding and the indigent. There's also a certain amount of mutually agreed upno behavior depending on the neighborhood.
2. It's my understanding in the bigger cities, it becomes costlier and costlier just to HAVE a car of your own. Like they're trying to make it so cost prohibitive that only the wealthy and politicians will remain. Oh, and taxis. The freedom to ride in relative comfort without having to deal with those humans that you don't like. That's not a form of freedom to you? My job should be one of the most competed for just by the sheer number of people qualified to work it. And yet, it's been my experience that even with such low qualifications, even regular Americans aren't stampeding these employers. I guess Welfare pays too good.......even before covid.
My wife just got back from Vegas and that was one of her gripes about this time around...... they had eliminated some buses, so it was more crowded than usual.
The Big Dig was a pretty good example of how construction goes with tax dollars. Totally predictable.
What floors me the most is how the US used to have Railroad Barons that operated lines and became wealthier and wealthier. But even with the most ridership in the entire country, the NY subway system can't even break even? (much less make a slight profit)
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 6, 2021 0:15:11 GMT
1. So... same amount of traffic, but fewer non-computerized drivers? That doesn't sound like a solution. Do you want buildings to install elevators that can fit only a family of 4 max. so that you don't have to be around other people? 2. I'm not seeing anything about making driving a car more restrictive in what you posted, so I don't get what you're on about. But since you mentioned "freedom" I'm guessing YOU want the freedom to get to your job in a car while making sure that the poor can't compete for your job because they can't travel to it. I use public transportation most of the time and it's great... even better now that the 3rd subway line is partially open. And I just love the high-speed rail. If you ever go to Shanghai, you have to get on the mag-lev and check out life at over 250 miles an hour. Of course, the biggest problem with adding infrastructure in the US is always going to be the price. Even if the price seems somewhat reasonable in the beginning - reasonable to Americans, not anyone else - there are going to be problems, cost overruns and missed deadlines. I'm from Boston. I know. 1. Buildings don't seem to have as many issues with overcrowding and the indigent. There's also a certain amount of mutually agreed upno behavior depending on the neighborhood.
2. It's my understanding in the bigger cities, it becomes costlier and costlier just to HAVE a car of your own. Like they're trying to make it so cost prohibitive that only the wealthy and politicians will remain. Oh, and taxis. The freedom to ride in relative comfort without having to deal with those humans that you don't like. That's not a form of freedom to you? My job should be one of the most competed for just by the sheer number of people qualified to work it. And yet, it's been my experience that even with such low qualifications, even regular Americans aren't stampeding these employers. I guess Welfare pays too good.......even before covid.
My wife just got back from Vegas and that was one of her gripes about this time around...... they had eliminated some buses, so it was more crowded than usual.
The Big Dig was a pretty good example of how construction goes with tax dollars. Totally predictable.
What floors me the most is how the US used to have Railroad Barons that operated lines and became wealthier and wealthier. But even with the most ridership in the entire country, the NY subway system can't even break even? (much less make a slight profit)
1. But streets DO have the problem of being overcrowded and your "solution" doesn't help.
"Depending on the neighborhood"... Are you talking about white people in their apartment building elevator vs. the same white people in their downtown office elevator or were you thinking of some other neighborhoods?
2. Much of those costs have to do with parking - which is generally NOT a government policy... unless you want the government to butt in and tell property owners how much they can charge....
As for riding with other people, that's the price I pay (plus 15 cents) for not wanting to drive.
3. So... your wife's experience shows that public transportation is a good thing.
4. Yes. Infrastructure improvements are under the purview of government. Did you want to go back to that tired old argument about homeowners being responsible for their section of street?
5. Maybe the subway wouldn't be losing so much money if they were sending 5 or 6 cops to taze every alleged fare-hopper. ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif) Maybe they wouldn't have to spend so much on cleaning and maintenance if more people had jobs or good schools to go to rather than time to kill spray-painting graffiti.
Maybe fares wouldn't be so high if wages weren't so high. Maybe wages wouldn't be so high if everything at the store didn't cost an arm and a leg.
But we don't want the government to "regulate" the new "Robber Barons" do we, Abs?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 6, 2021 2:22:45 GMT
"Depending on the neighborhood"... Are you talking about white people in their apartment building elevator vs. the same white people in their downtown office elevator or were you thinking of some other neighborhoods?
You've been on a one track racial mindset lately.
Maybe you haven't noticed this........but when people, of ALL colors, start to make a better living for themselves.......one of the things they do is move OUT of bad neighborhoods?
And the Govt's solution? "Hey, we should start mandating more low cost housing in those nicer suburbs!" But, of course, that will never include the neighborhoods those politicians live in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 6, 2021 3:31:49 GMT
"Depending on the neighborhood"... Are you talking about white people in their apartment building elevator vs. the same white people in their downtown office elevator or were you thinking of some other neighborhoods?
You've been on a one track racial mindset lately.
Maybe you haven't noticed this........but when people, of ALL colors, start to make a better living for themselves.......one of the things they do is move OUT of bad neighborhoods?
And the Govt's solution? "Hey, we should start mandating more low cost housing in those nicer suburbs!" But, of course, that will never include the neighborhoods those politicians live in.
1. Maybe YOU haven't noticed but moving into a better neighborhood doesn't change years of enculturation over night
2. Maybe they should just make it easier for people to get home loans so they can afford to purchase homes in those suburbs?
Of course, it would be also nice to have some decent public transportation from the suburbs to the city as well so the city streets weren't so crowded with minivans and SUVs that people don't know how to drive.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 6, 2021 12:01:36 GMT
1. Maybe YOU haven't noticed but moving into a better neighborhood doesn't change years of enculturation over night
2. Maybe they should just make it easier for people to get home loans so they can afford to purchase homes in those suburbs?
Of course, it would be also nice to have some decent public transportation from the suburbs to the city as well so the city streets weren't so crowded with minivans and SUVs that people don't know how to drive.
1. It does make for a more peaceful and serene day to day life, though. I have no interest in living any closer to the city dwellers at this point. Quite the opposite.
2. They tried that awhile back and look what happened........one of the largest housing crashes ever. Americans have this annoying habit of spending up to and beyond all the credit they're given. And then adding more on top of that. Home equity loans, cars, credit cards etc etc THEN they've got the gall to declare it all 'predatory lending'? Cuz they couldn't figure out how much of a loan they could reasonably afford?
Don't need public transport from the burbs........if you can afford to own a home, a car should be a breeze. Yet again though, Americans overextend themselves. IIRC, home loans, student loans and auto loans are the 3 largest debt crisis facing millions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 6, 2021 22:56:46 GMT
1. Maybe YOU haven't noticed but moving into a better neighborhood doesn't change years of enculturation over night
2. Maybe they should just make it easier for people to get home loans so they can afford to purchase homes in those suburbs?
Of course, it would be also nice to have some decent public transportation from the suburbs to the city as well so the city streets weren't so crowded with minivans and SUVs that people don't know how to drive.
1. It does make for a more peaceful and serene day to day life, though. I have no interest in living any closer to the city dwellers at this point. Quite the opposite.
2. They tried that awhile back and look what happened........one of the largest housing crashes ever. Americans have this annoying habit of spending up to and beyond all the credit they're given. And then adding more on top of that. Home equity loans, cars, credit cards etc etc THEN they've got the gall to declare it all 'predatory lending'? Cuz they couldn't figure out how much of a loan they could reasonably afford?
Don't need public transport from the burbs........if you can afford to own a home, a car should be a breeze. Yet again though, Americans overextend themselves. IIRC, home loans, student loans and auto loans are the 3 largest debt crisis facing millions.
1. I don't think you understood what I wrote
2. Before I call you a complete idiot, which "crash" are you talking about?
3. Again, you didn't understand what I wrote.
But I do love watching you display your ignorance and bigotry.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 7, 2021 0:28:15 GMT
1. It does make for a more peaceful and serene day to day life, though. I have no interest in living any closer to the city dwellers at this point. Quite the opposite.
2. They tried that awhile back and look what happened........one of the largest housing crashes ever. Americans have this annoying habit of spending up to and beyond all the credit they're given. And then adding more on top of that. Home equity loans, cars, credit cards etc etc THEN they've got the gall to declare it all 'predatory lending'? Cuz they couldn't figure out how much of a loan they could reasonably afford?
Don't need public transport from the burbs........if you can afford to own a home, a car should be a breeze. Yet again though, Americans overextend themselves. IIRC, home loans, student loans and auto loans are the 3 largest debt crisis facing millions.
1. I don't think you understood what I wrote
2. Before I call you a complete idiot, which "crash" are you talking about?
1. I chose to not even bother discussing that CRT woke garbage.
2. The Big Short is a 2015 Oscar-winning film adaptation of author Michael Lewis’s best-selling book of the same name. The movie, directed by Adam McKay, focuses on the lives of several American financial professionals who predicted and profited from the build-up and subsequent collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 7, 2021 3:35:20 GMT
1. I don't think you understood what I wrote
2. Before I call you a complete idiot, which "crash" are you talking about?
1. I chose to not even bother discussing that CRT woke garbage.
2. The Big Short is a 2015 Oscar-winning film adaptation of author Michael Lewis’s best-selling book of the same name. The movie, directed by Adam McKay, focuses on the lives of several American financial professionals who predicted and profited from the build-up and subsequent collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 and 2008.
1. Yup. You didn't understand a fucking thing I wrote.
2. Now I can call you a complete idiot. ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) were not a "government plan" devised to help low income earners move out of the cities and into the suburbs. They weren't a government plan at all. They were predatory lending practices which the government allowed due to being paid off by the banksters.
You really are a bass-ackwards thinker, Abs.
Here's the kicker: They were made possible by DE-regulation of the banking industry... by Clinton.
That's got to be a tough one for you to parse. On one hand, you'll want to say something about "libs" but since you are the guy always calling for de-regulation, you really can't.
Has your brain exploded yet?
We might never know, since the sound of your brain exploding probably wouldn't register on the Decibel scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 7, 2021 12:37:00 GMT
1. Yup. You didn't understand a fucking thing I wrote.
2. Now I can call you a complete idiot. ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) were not a "government plan" devised to help low income earners move out of the cities and into the suburbs. They weren't a government plan at all. They were predatory lending practices which the government allowed due to being paid off by the banksters.
You really are a bass-ackwards thinker, Abs.
Here's the kicker: They were made possible by DE-regulation of the banking industry... by Clinton. That's got to be a tough one for you to parse. On one hand, you'll want to say something about "libs" but since you are the guy always calling for de-regulation, you really can't. Has your brain exploded yet? We might never know, since the sound of your brain exploding probably wouldn't register on the Decibel scale.
2. Who in their right mind takes out an ARM when we've had HISTORIC LOWS for mortgage rates?
Even if it were the lobbying of the banksters........DON'T take out that kind of loan! And I've known people that have done it. (Idiotic behavior, imo) If you don't have good enough credit or enough of a downpayment to qualify for a decent rate......THEN you ain't quite ready to buy as home. It's just that simple. Work on it. When I first built back in 95, I had to jump thru hoops and have a bunch down because it was a construction loan. They didn't wanna risk it not getting completed, instead of buying an existing home.
I'm so defective in my thinking.......that I do better than most?
I do not blame lenders or casinos or autodealers when people borrow more than they can afford. I've been in the chair when some loan agents have tried to push products that benefit them more than the borrower....and I've walked out without signing. It's called being an adult.
That's also why I was against the S&L bailouts, the Bank Bailouts, the auto bailouts .........and ALL of these BS bailouts they're pushing now with covid. It's not fixing stupid.....it's rewarding it.
|
|
![[rolleye1]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/MTjbungPBOzv0BKQvdPJ.gif)
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
Maybe they wouldn't have to spend so much on cleaning and maintenance if more people had jobs or good schools to go to rather than time to kill spray-painting graffiti. ![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)
