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 03-10-2014, 03:22 PM
 
3,704 posts, read 2,192,310 times
Reputation: 4148

Advertisements

I get carsick, so being driven anywhere kills me. Especially in an overheated bus that does a lot of stop and go. (I've tried everything but that behind the ear patch).

I don't think I've ever seen anyone give that as a reason, but there you have it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2014, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in America
12,304 posts, read 10,756,220 times
Reputation: 20540
No mass transit where I live. It's totally unnecessary. I live in a town with 3,200 people on a good day! There's more livestock here than people. When we do travel to the larger cities in NY, we drive or take the train. Depends on the purpose of the trip and timing. When I go to Boston, I drive to the outer edges and take the T. Kind of pain when I go shopping though, but it sure beats driving in Boston and attempting to find a place to park.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,650,120 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
There would be NO light rail in metro Denver if the much maligned conservatives in the burbs hadn't voted in favor of it.
Transportation isn't a partisan issue, not sure what conservatives have to do with it. I notice locally for me, we do put a lot of effort on expansion into places where people use transit less, instead of making improvements in ways that impact the most riders.

There was actually a lawsuit against our own regional transportation commission (MTC) alleging discrimination.
Darensberg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Here are the case details:
Quote:
On April 19, 2005, a class of members of racial minority groups who ride buses operated by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (“AC Transit”), a labor union, and a community-based organization filed a federal class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The plaintiffs alleged that MTC has historically engaged, and continues to engage in a policy, pattern or practice of actions and omissions that have the purpose and effect of discriminating against poor transit riders of color in favor of white, suburban transit users, on the basis of their race and national origin. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief.

In June 2005, the parties consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.) This action was also assigned to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Multi-Option Program for the Northern District of California. The parties engaged in ADR discussions running parallel to the litigation. On Feburary 21, 2007, the parties stipulated to class certification.

After Magistrate Judge Laporte denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the case went to trial in October 2008. After a prolonged trial, on March 27, 2009, Magistrate Judge Laporte filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant. Although the Court agreed with the plaintiffs that MTC caused a “disparate impact,” it found that MTC had a “substantial legitimate justification” for its practices because it had relied on the Partnership Advisory Board in formulating them, and because it had other competing goals to meet (such as reducing highway congestion, enhancing transportation connectivity, ensuring safety and security of transportation system). The Court ruled that these justifications were sufficient to allow MTC to continue these practices in spite of their discriminatory impact.

On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals filed an opinion to affirm the judgment of the District Court.
A few years later, MTC lost federal money for the Oakland Airport Connector due to civil rights issues.
BART Loses More Federal Funding for Oakland Airport Connector Project | Streetsblog San Francisco

Quote:
After losing $70 million in stimulus funds last week because the agency failed to satisfy the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) minority and equity standards for federal funding, BART lost another $25 million it was expecting from TIGER, money that was important for the agency to secure further federal loans to build the nearly $500 million OAC.

"Basically, it's just devastating," BART spokesperson Luna Salaver said about the OAC developments over the last week. "We had a triple-one project, a shovel ready project, and then it ran into this opposition that was using the Civil Rights Act make the region lose thousands of jobs."
The MTC has a regular pattern of subsidizing suburban expansion over paying for improvements in for the urban areas that use transit more (SF Muni and AC Transit, which run mostly buses do lose out on funding from MTC often. BART is a commuter rail/subway hybrid serving mostly the suburbs with park and ride stations, although TOD is increasing around the stations in the suburbs and urban areas.)

This has caused me to look a bit more closely on which transit projects get funded where I live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 04:04 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33050
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Transportation isn't a partisan issue, not sure what conservatives have to do with it.
The point is the conservative suburbanites (and suburbanites are more conservative than their city-slicker cousins) are not a subset of "those people" that use public transit that you were talking about. Transit IS a partisan issue sometimes. Conservatives allegedly favor the private auto, while liberals supposedly favor transit. And obviously, cons don't want their taxes raised. Neither do many liberals, but that's always "different". Of course, we all know cons who take transit, even buses, and libs who drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,650,120 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The point is the conservative suburbanites (and suburbanites are more conservative than their city-slicker cousins) are not a subset of "those people" that use public transit that you were talking about. Transit IS a partisan issue sometimes. Conservatives allegedly favor the private auto, while liberals supposedly favor transit. And obviously, cons don't want their taxes raised. Neither do many liberals, but that's always "different". Of course, we all know cons who take transit, even buses, and libs who drive.
I haven't mentioned political persuasion one way or another. There are people who think transit is useful (no matter if they use it) and others who do not think it is necessary. Some transit opponents oppose because they think it brings "those people" into their neighborhoods. It is very much a problem in the very liberal Bay Area, and the more conservative Atlanta. That's why I called it an American value. It a running trope in pop culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
328 posts, read 253,807 times
Reputation: 276
Quote:
But we don't want to invest in transit (as Americans) because we thing of transit as something only for poor people. And the last thing we want is to be associated with "those people."
Exactly.

And yes Katiana, suburbanites in many places are voting for public transit. But some places the quote above is true. Consider the City of Milwaukee, which has over 170,000 (roughly) riders per day for their bus only transit system and they can't even sniff a hybrid or electric bus purchase, let alone designs on any BRT or LRT. Why? Because 90% of those 170,000 riders are working class, and if a theoretical LRT or BRT system is built, it would possibly take "those people" to suburbs that do not want them there. So Milwaukee just goes along with annual cuts from the state legislature and "those people" have to continually put up with rising fares and reduced service. Why aren't the working class valued more for transit options?

I agree that part of the stigmatization isn't race or even partisan derived. But some cities are suffering precisely because transit is for "those people". And they don't count.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,169,700 times
Reputation: 29451
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Last year, I had to take my car in for repair, and it ended up taking several days because they needed to order a part. My insurance pays for a one day rental as a loaner, so I could have got the rental loaner, and then paid for the rental for the rest of the time. But my neighborhood is pretty transit friendly, so I declined, and used their courtesy shuttle to take the train home. And managed just fine with out my car for 4 days. I took the train to work (at a client's office), the bus to the grocery store and my other errands. There were options and alternatives for me to et around without my car.
So then why even have a car?

I think the rise of services like Uber/Lyft/Sidecar can really fill in the gaps in places where taxis are scarce/overpriced/both and where public transportation is comprehensive enough that owning a car is not necessary yet still can't always get you where you want to go in a time-efficient manner. Then there are also car-sharing services like Zipcar and similar local services (like iGo here in Chicago) in case you need to have a car to yourself for a while. In cities that have decent public transit plus UberSideLyft type services plus Zipcar-like services, there's a darn compelling case for ditching your personal car altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 05:29 PM
 
1,110 posts, read 908,024 times
Reputation: 1201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I haven't mentioned political persuasion one way or another. There are people who think transit is useful (no matter if they use it) and others who do not think it is necessary. Some transit opponents oppose because they think it brings "those people" into their neighborhoods. It is very much a problem in the very liberal Bay Area, and the more conservative Atlanta. That's why I called it an American value. It a running trope in pop culture.
I don't know if I would consider the city of Atlanta "conservative." In last few presidential elections, Fulton County went blue. Now the surrounding metro and state of Georgia could be considered conservative, and I think you would find that in several of these more conservative areas, there seems to be more opposition to transit. For example, Cobb County, which is directly northwest of Atlanta, has consistently voted against allowing a MARTA line pass through the county, most likely because they want to avoid bringing "those people" into their neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,460,458 times
Reputation: 5397
I can think of a number of reasons.

1. Social stigma associated with mass transit. (Especially with buses)

2. Lack of transit-oriented development in the US.

3. Lack of great mass transit in most US cities. (Only 13 US cities have subway systems)

4. People don't want to be in close contact with undesirables.

5. The US has had a car-centric culture since the 1950's.

6. Most mass transit isn't seen as a great economic alternative to driving on the rode.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2014, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,650,120 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
So then why even have a car?

I think the rise of services like Uber/Lyft/Sidecar can really fill in the gaps in places where taxis are scarce/overpriced/both and where public transportation is comprehensive enough that owning a car is not necessary yet still can't always get you where you want to go in a time-efficient manner. Then there are also car-sharing services like Zipcar and similar local services (like iGo here in Chicago) in case you need to have a car to yourself for a while. In cities that have decent public transit plus UberSideLyft type services plus Zipcar-like services, there's a darn compelling case for ditching your personal car altogether.
I was planning to get rid of my car when I moved a little closer to with downtown or my main street. Car-shaing is about 3 blocks away from me. But my car died before I could afford to move (planning to move to a condo at some point), and then I needed to drive more for work, when I was working from home and had lots of transit accessible clients. And I have since switched jobs, and transit isn't convenient to my current one. But I will definitely get rid of my car as soon as the stars align in terms of living situation and work location. Definitely within the next 5 years, I'll use a car share instead.

I use Uber (haven't tried the other ones yet) as well, I use pretty much all of the transit options.....even though I have a car. My personal car is not always the best choice.

*My parents do have an irrational fear that I need to have a car since my sister doesn't drive (she lives 3/4 of a mile away) and one of needs to have a private car. They don't quite understand car share yet, I am working on it.
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
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