U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2017, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,509 posts, read 3,092,720 times
Reputation: 3355

Advertisements

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...off-the-plane/

I seriously do not know why americans continue to have their rights violated by the TSA and the airlines.

Vote for passenger rail!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2017, 08:13 PM
 
4,480 posts, read 2,661,399 times
Reputation: 4085
That's just so backwards. Dogs can ride in the cargo hold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2017, 08:40 PM
 
3,500 posts, read 4,955,295 times
Reputation: 3488
Here's a site with daily articles about urban planning and transportation

https://www.citylab.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2017, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Tampa - St. Louis
1,090 posts, read 1,626,102 times
Reputation: 1508
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
Buses can be pretty good -- with HOV or transit-only lanes, fewer stops, etc. My city is bus-dominated but creams many train-heavy cities in transit commute share.

The biggest advantage with buses is that a rider heading for the hub (on a hub-spoke system) will usually have a bus within an easy walk at the spoke end, if the local service is any good. Buses can fan out at the end of each route, while collecting into HOV lanes for fast trips the rest of the way in. Each HOV lane can handle several or numerous routes, so any stop on those gets fast, frequent service.
I believe you are from Seattle? It's a fast growing city on a isthmus and doesn't have a large enough black population to have the racial legacy of many cities back east. This is why cities like Denver and Salt Lake City (to a smaller extent Minneapolis) have had little problem expanding their transit systems in recent years compared to say Detroit, Baltimore, or St. Louis cities that are highly segregated with large urban, black populations. I think the role of race and socioeconomics was oddly missing in that video, but it's really hard to talk about the American city and American urbanism without addressing how having hundreds of years of state sanctioned apartheid shaped our cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 11:40 AM
 
Location: BC Canada
831 posts, read 932,747 times
Reputation: 1119
Yes the US has sprawl and most US city's downtowns are rather pathetic for their size and still hollow out at 6 PM resulting in few going there after hours. Service in most US cities is also pathetic and makes transit a near impossibility even at rush hour service.

All that said I think it has more to do with how Americans view public transit in the first place. In the US transit, with few exceptions, is viewed as a SOCIAL service and not an ESSENTIAL one. It is something that is viewed as strictly for the poor and blacks which most do not want to be associated with. With a few exceptions, telling someone you take transit is like telling them you are on welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,994,519 times
Reputation: 2906
Taxpayer funded public mass transit should be about helping the poor, not middle class people who can afford to pay for their own transportation.

Most Americans prefer to drive.... that decision has nothing to do with minorities and poor using mass transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,749,193 times
Reputation: 8803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
Taxpayer funded public mass transit should be about helping the poor, not middle class people who can afford to pay for their own transportation.

Most Americans prefer to drive.... that decision has nothing to do with minorities and poor using mass transit.
No it shouldn't. It should be about helping everyone because we all benefit from it.

What makes you say this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 12:13 PM
 
2,557 posts, read 2,176,886 times
Reputation: 1810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
Taxpayer funded public mass transit should be about helping the poor, not middle class people who can afford to pay for their own transportation.

Most Americans prefer to drive.... that decision has nothing to do with minorities and poor using mass transit.
I guess the vast majority of British, French, Germans, Austrians, Australians, Italians, Belgians, Norwegians, Danes, Singaporeans, Canadians, Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese are all dirt poor living under poverty line because they happen to take public transit everyday.

Pretty much every single developing and industrialized country on earth is making heavy investment into their public transit systems today because it is the way of the future. Why does America have to be the sole exception?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,994,519 times
Reputation: 2906
We have public mass transit in this country that middle class can use. I'm not sure how you can say there is no investment in public mass transit.

If there is such a high demand for public transit by middle class people, why does it need to be subsidized by middle class taxpayers who don't use it?

Doesn't the free market already provide mass transit to the middle class in the form of taxi cabs and Uber and buses and airplanes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,749,193 times
Reputation: 8803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
We have public mass transit in this country that middle class can use. I'm not sure how you can say there is no investment in public mass transit.

If there is such a high demand for public transit by middle class people, why does it need to be subsidized by middle class taxpayers who don't use it?

Doesn't the free market already provide mass transit to the middle class in the form of taxi cabs and Uber and buses and airplanes?
Are you being sarcastic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top