U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 02-10-2014, 02:31 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,291 times
Reputation: 1439

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidValleyDad View Post
Well considering I still need to own a car to get to the Train or bus and to haul kids to soccor matches and go shopping. The only thing I save is the incremental cost of gas, maintenance and parking. And I gain flexibility of being able to come in early (or stay late when needed) When I was working downtown Car to commuter bus to Metro was fine as long as I could walk out of the office by 4:27 (not 4:29 or I missed the Metro that connected with the bus)

It is all a tradeoff each makes their decision based on their priorities
That speed, flexibility and ability to haul children and stuff is the major reason why even when Transit is pretty good people still own cars. I live in an area well served by transit but I prefer driving for almost all trips.

Locally we have PACE for the burbs but they are so built around a 9 to 5 schedule that they are not as useful for people who work off hours or blue collar out in the burbs. CTA is better but if you need to work late hours or on weekends trouble(yes you can get around but who wants to walk six blocks at 4a.m.?).

If you need to go different directions then the time it takes to transfer adds up and your ability to haul stuff is going to be limited which will in turn limits you to the smaller more expensive neighborhood stores.

There is a reason why people bought cars as soon as they were affordable and no transit system can compete with a car on most trips and win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2014, 02:32 PM
 
409 posts, read 388,635 times
Reputation: 495
There is no indication that transit is gaining popularity in America.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 02:53 PM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,126,395 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That has more to do with the poor job we have done when it comes to investing in public transit over the past 100 years.
Even if that is true, transit still wouldn't serve everyone. Infrastructure as a whole has been poorly invested in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 03:27 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,037 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post
You sound like you are very young.

Back in the late 80's and early 90's I lived a mile from work and I "commuted" by bicycle a lot.

Then I made a lifestyle choice to move 35 miles away and now my commute is done 100% by private motor vehicle. If there was a train or bus reasonably close to my house and my job I might try it out, but there isn't.
That's right - you made a choice to live and be in traffic. That's on you, not on anyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 03:30 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,037 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidValleyDad View Post
Well considering I still need to own a car to get to the Train or bus and to haul kids to soccor matches and go shopping. The only thing I save is the incremental cost of gas, maintenance and parking. And I gain flexibility of being able to come in early (or stay late when needed) When I was working downtown Car to commuter bus to Metro was fine as long as I could walk out of the office by 4:27 (not 4:29 or I missed the Metro that connected with the bus)

It is all a tradeoff each makes their decision based on their priorities
If opted to live in a place with good transit or close to everything, as many many families do, you might only need to be a 1 car household. That's a major cost savings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 04:00 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,291 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
If opted to live in a place with good transit or close to everything, as many many families do, you might only need to be a 1 car household. That's a major cost savings.
However there are issues of schools, size of housing, amount of land available, does the job out in the area with bad transit pay more than the one with good transit and so on. There is a reason why the burbs boomed in the 1950ies and it wasn't just the GI bill or government subsidies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,499,569 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius View Post
Even if that is true, transit still wouldn't serve everyone. Infrastructure as a whole has been poorly invested in.
That's what I just said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 05:03 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,033 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That has more to do with the poor job we have done when it comes to investing in public transit over the past 100 years.
...more like the lack of feasibility (financial and otherwise) of providing a transit pipeline to locations convenient to all residents.

A car offers considerably greater flexibility than transit. The flexibility includes time of trip, time of return, route, capacity for passengers, certainty of departure, ergonomic/environmental conditions about the traveler, insulation from other travelers, ability to make changes to schedule, plus you don't have to go to a lot of places you don't want to be before getting to your destination. In addition, in many cases transit is a faux solution since folks often have to drive to get to the transit depot. Bottom line is that transit fails to serve or offer any benefit to the vast majority of the populace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,723,738 times
Reputation: 32304
Default No fair - you're being rational!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
On 7th avenue in Midtown Manhattan, bikes don't get through either. It's a gridlock of pedestrians spilling out into the road, taxis, trucks, and buses. I try to avoid it. The point being that if too many people need to traverse too small a space, there's a traffic jam, regardless of mode.
Not fair at all! You're being rational. The original poster is an ideologue, and for him it is a question of good and evil. If you make the morally wrong choice, all the disadvantages of that choice are on you.

But suppose the OP were to be mugged while taking public transit. Well, of course he would not draw the same conclusions at all. Instead, he opts to belabor the obvious, namely that when there are traffic jams consisting of automobiles that means there are too many automobiles at the same location at the same time. (Gosh, the brilliance involved there is staggering!) Ergo, he can bask in the superiority of one who is not contributing to the traffic jam.

Of course he is not going to admit that considering a multitude of factors, the driver in car has opted to drive despite the obvious disadvantage of being stuck in traffic on that day at that time. Ideologues are not going to want to get into the complexity of multiple advantages and disadvantages because that would muddy the simplistic waters of moral superiority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 05:14 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,037 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
However there are issues of schools, size of housing, amount of land available, does the job out in the area with bad transit pay more than the one with good transit and so on. There is a reason why the burbs boomed in the 1950ies and it wasn't just the GI bill or government subsidies.
There are public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, magnate school, home schooling - all to choose from in most major metropolitan areas and at different price points from free to very expensive - again, its a matter of choice.

Actually, it was exactly government subsidies that made the burbs boom in the 1950s. It was a massive investment by the municipal, state and federal governments that made the feasible in the first place.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
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