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.
People have sometimes asked "what's a nurse doing on the Urban Planning forum"? Here is a direct application of my nursing education. In psychiatric nursing, we learned that it is important to get the patient to accept reality.
I agree, 100%. The problem is that many people are unwilling to accept reality. And not all are psychiatric cases though perhaps they should be. And many of htose people are people trying to analyze Trump's alleged "mental illnesses. Apparently his grip on reality matches those of many other people if not a numerical majority of voters. Then again I voted for Hillary but being in New York my vote barely counted except to run up the popular vote totals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
The applicability of this is that the car basically took over transportation in importance in this country, not just personal transportation but the transportation of goods and services. It's not going to go back to "the way it was".
There are also authoritarian types who call themselves "liberal." They are in fact the exact opposite of liberals in that they want to plan for others and dictate their actions. They know what's best for others. Their 'solutions' are inherently impractical. To some extent they have gotten their way by forcing cars to be so gold-plated that they are out of reach for people of modest means. For example the requirements of airbags, visionary emissions standards and mileage standards. We see how VW and now apparently Audi has responded to those requirements. As far as airbags, as Takata for what they're paying "fines" now.
More below as to impracticality of rails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
It's a different world than our grandparents or even our parents lived in at our ages. And instead of looking for grand conspiracy theories about why the auto overtook rail, etc, maybe we should look at why people seemed to prefer the automobile/truck to rail. (Not saying you are a conspiracy theorist, JR_C.) It's not that hard; rail is fixed. It's expensive to build, and wouldn't have happened without a lot of government subsidy itself. You have the "last mile" (or miles) problem. Etc. This is what people, including business people wanted. With this conspiracy stuff, you have to look at the "chicken and egg" situation. Did government promote roads to destroy the rail system, or did government promote roads because that's what people wanted?
In my part of the country, the New York City area rails still are practical. New York City is a relatively densely packed urban area, with only a few core business areas. Then Grand Central and Penn Station are both near business areas and have "last few miles" subway systems.
Other cities are really combinations of suburban sprawl office parks and shopping areas. There are no practical points within which to focus mass transit. Plus having enough parking near the stations isn't easy.
I'm repping this post if I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
the end result is the same regardless: more road spending influenced people's transportation choices....The government could build somewhat less highways and fund transit somewhat more. How much more convenient a car is dependent on the transportation infrastructure available.
Also as I just pointed out on the nature of the city being served.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The DC region chose to build a metro system and limited highways.
What choice is there? Where, pray tell, are you going to put highways in DC? Have an exit ramp over the Capitol?
People have sometimes asked "what's a nurse doing on the Urban Planning forum"? Here is a direct application of my nursing education. In psychiatric nursing, we learned that it is important to get the patient to accept reality. The applicability of this is that the car basically took over transportation in importance in this country, not just personal transportation but the transportation of goods and services. It's not going to go back to "the way it was".
What's the point of medicine, anyway? I mean, when someone is sick, they're sick. One must accept reality.
Quote:
It's a different world than our grandparents or even our parents lived in at our ages. And instead of looking for grand conspiracy theories about why the auto overtook rail, etc, maybe we should look at why people seemed to prefer the automobile/truck to rail. (Not saying you are a conspiracy theorist, JR_C.) It's not that hard; rail is fixed. It's expensive to build, and wouldn't have happened without a lot of government subsidy itself. You have the "last mile" (or miles) problem. Etc. This is what people, including business people wanted. With this conspiracy stuff, you have to look at the "chicken and egg" situation. Did government promote roads to destroy the rail system, or did government promote roads because that's what people wanted?
The amount of government assistance given to rail construction (prior to the automobile) was miniscule in comparison to what is spent on roads.
Yes, government funded the construction of some roads because that's what people wanted. Then, IMO, they/we went WAY overboard, which got us dependent on the automobile. The purpose of this thread, IMO, is to discuss ways we can start to wean ourselves off of our almost complete dependence on the automobile.
There are many reasons to have this discussion, (environmental, geopolitical, aesthetic, etc.) but, as a non-driver, I'm most interested in having real, viable alternatives to driving, instead of the barebones, welfare transit that I must use, instead.
You'd complain loudly if someone else wrote that. I'm not going to say more
the end result is the same regardless: more road spending influenced people's transportation choices.
Of course it isn't, but that's a bit of a strawman there. The government could build somewhat less highways and fund transit somewhat more. How much more convenient a car is dependent on the transportation infrastructure available.
The DC region chose to build a metro system and limited highways. In some cities existing transit (bus or light rail on street) is slower than it was in say, 1920s due to traffic congestion. One alternate is to preserve a right of way for transit to ensure a route that doesn't have to deal with congestion.
I resent that; I have not done so and would not. Nor was I saying that anyone here is mentally ill. Just the opposite; I have said that no one should be diagnosing anyone else on CD. However, that particular message has stayed with me, ranking up there with "no surgery is minor to the patient".
Which came first, the demand for more roads, or the spending on roads? That's my point. Rail was not serving people adequately, so they went for cars. Speaking of our grandparents, that's why my grandfather bought a car all those years ago, and taught my mom to drive at 16, at a time (1937) when many women never learned to drive at all. They lived on a farm, she was the oldest kid, and he needed her to help. Prior to a car, they took a horse and carriage to "town" even in the worst weather. One Christmas Eve, they had to make up a story about Santa dropping some mittens out of his sleigh so my aunt had a pair to wear on the ride to church. It wasn't a choice between rail and a car, it was a choice between a horse and carriage and a car. Ever heard of the "horse and buggy" days?
In a large city, many different modes of transportation are used, and that rail and subways have stood the test of time in NYC is a testament to their utility in NYC. That some smaller towns, such as my hometown, abandoned streetcars is a testimony to their lack of utility there once cars became common.
What's the point of medicine, anyway? I mean, when someone is sick, they're sick. One must accept reality.
The amount of government assistance given to rail construction (prior to the automobile) was miniscule in comparison to what is spent on roads.
Yes, government funded the construction of some roads because that's what people wanted. Then, IMO, they/we went WAY overboard, which got us dependent on the automobile. The purpose of this thread, IMO, is to discuss ways we can start to wean ourselves off of our almost complete dependence on the automobile.
There are many reasons to have this discussion, (environmental, geopolitical, aesthetic, etc.) but, as a non-driver, I'm most interested in having real, viable alternatives to driving, instead of the barebones, welfare transit that I must use, instead.
I'm not going to get into a discussion of psychiatry, but many people do not accept reality. For example, many people in your area still think the steel mills will come back. (Ironically, one of the big uses of steel is in the making of cars!)
"Between 1850 and 1871 the United States government used a portion of the public domain (federally owned land) to assist and encourage the building of railroads. In all, during that twenty-one year period approximately 1.31 million acres of land were transferred to private ownership. This represented 9.5 percent of the public domain as it stood in 1850 (1.39 billion acres). . . . The law provided that companies agreeing to undertake the construction of transcontinental railroad lines would be eligible for loans ranging from $16,000 to $48,000 per mile of track laid. The precise amount of the loan was determined by the difficulty of the terrain through which the construction passed. The government loaned a total of $64,623,512 to the transcontinental companies. These loans were for the most part paid back at six percent interest. The law also provided that a company could be given up to twenty sections (a section is a square mile) of land for every mile of track put down. This land would be granted in alternate sections (a kind of checkerboard pattern) within an area lying forty miles on either side of the proposed right of way. To qualify for the subsidies a company had to agree to actually build track or forfeit the grant, and carry mail, government passengers, and freight at reduced rates."
My inflation calculator only goes back to 1914. $64,000,000.00 in 1914 had the same buying power as $1,545,164,800.00 in 2017. 1 1/2 billion dollars in loans alone, plus 9.5% of all the land in the public domain.
I resent that; I have not done so and would not. Nor was I saying that anyone here is mentally ill. Just the opposite; I have said that no one should be diagnosing anyone else on CD. However, that particular message has stayed with me, ranking up there with "no surgery is minor to the patient".
Wasn't the post written towards other posters?
Quote:
Which came first, the demand for more roads, or the spending on roads? That's my point. Rail was not serving people adequately, so they went for cars. Speaking of our grandparents, that's why my grandfather bought a car all those years ago, and taught my mom to drive at 16, at a time (1937) when many women never learned to drive at all. They lived on a farm, she was the oldest kid, and he needed her to help. Prior to a car, they took a horse and carriage to "town" even in the worst weather. One Christmas Eve, they had to make up a story about Santa dropping some mittens out of his sleigh so my aunt had a pair to wear on the ride to church. It wasn't a choice between rail and a car, it was a choice between a horse and carriage and a car. Ever heard of the "horse and buggy" days?
But those are rural areas; transit can never work well for urban areas. Since it's an urban planning forum, I'm mainly referencing non-rural places. Towns in New England were often connected by a network of interurbans / streetcars or mainline rail for longer distances. Most development was in those towns; today there's lots in between which are in places that are rather pedestrian unfriendly and hard to serve at all by buses.
Yes, I'm serious. DC has only one highway skimming downtown and fewer going through it than most US cities.
In a large city, many different modes of transportation are used, and that rail and subways have stood the test of time in NYC is a testament to their utility in NYC.
Quote:
That some smaller towns, such as my hometown, abandoned streetcars is a testimony to their lack of utility there once cars became common.
or partly from a lack of funding relative to highways.
But those are rural areas; transit can never work well for urban areas. Since it's an urban planning forum, I'm mainly referencing non-rural places. Towns in New England were often connected by a network of interurbans / streetcars or mainline rail for longer distances. Most development was in those towns; today there's lots in between which are in places that are rather pedestrian unfriendly and hard to serve at all by buses.
Yes, I'm serious. DC has only one highway skimming downtown and fewer going through it than most US cities.
In a large city, many different modes of transportation are used, and that rail and subways have stood the test of time in NYC is a testament to their utility in NYC.
or partly from a lack of funding relative to highways.
The point about "accepting reality" was a general statement. Too many on this forum seem unwilling to do so. Many want to go back to the "glory days" of pre-WW II, in some cases pre-1900.
We had interurbans out here, too. They went out of business when people acquired their own autos.
DC also has a bunch of beltways. Denver only has one highway skimming downtown as well, and one going across the northern area of the city. Not so "unusual".
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
these are out west, did railroads in the Northeast get large subsidies? [not a rhetorical question]
It's in the link: "The land was located in twenty-seven states, but the largest grants were made in California (11.5 million acres), Kansas (8.2 million acres), Minnesota (9.9 million acres), Montana (14.7 million acres), North Dakota (10.6 million acres), and Washington (9.5 million acres)."
You could certainly do a search on railroad subsidies in the northeast if you were so inclined.
darkeconomist, I went to a lot of trouble to find and multi-quote all your posts about the interstate highway system and a few others, however, nei saw fit to delete my post which has the evidence that you are generally in opposition to the system for any purpose other than military, similar to what IC_delight said.
Well, I never know what IC says because I have IC on my ignore list.
But, if you did go to all that trouble, I appreciate you taking that much time to respond. It is unfortunate, then, that I don't get to see it.
I'm not opposed to the system's use by the private market. Far from it. But the social welfare argument for freeways only goes so far and doesn't include building capacity for private users' private uses. The economic benefit, while valuable to society, is accrued privately and should be handled in the private market.
And, really, the private benefits and preferences have been the main arguments made here in the UP forum in support of extensive and expansive freeways. "It's far more convenient than other modes." Ignoring that this isn't always true, it is a private benefit. "It allows economic activity, like freight distribution and access to jobs." Again, a benefit accrued by private entities, like corporations or individuals. "People wanted roads." Ignoring that that leaves out politics and historical context, that's a private preference.
Last edited by darkeconomist; 03-15-2017 at 10:37 AM..
People have sometimes asked "what's a nurse doing on the Urban Planning forum"? Here is a direct application of my nursing education. In psychiatric nursing, we learned that it is important to get the patient to accept reality. The applicability of this is that the car basically took over transportation in importance in this country, not just personal transportation but the transportation of goods and services. It's not going to go back to "the way it was".
Of course it's not going back to the way it was. I, for one, am glad to live without the threat of cholera.
But nursing, like every profession, develops with the accrual of knowledge, of learning by experience and studying the past. In medicine, it's not unheard of to stop prescribing a certain treatment upon later review. Plenty of medicines have gone out of favor for that reason.
So why is it that it's somehow wrong to do that--look at our history and our data and assess the success or failure of a choice--with city planning?
or partly from a lack of funding relative to highways.
In Santa Clara County, the extensive street car system disappeared because it was no longer profitable in competition with a growing government-funded road network. But, even with our extensive and expansive freeway network in the greater bay area, we are still heavily dependent on Caltrain and BART and country transit operators (even as we like to deride them for being dirty or unpredictable). Palo Alto and San Francisco would screech to a halt without public transit to bring in workers, and geometry means that cars could not take up the slack; there simply isn't enough lane-miles nor land for sufficient lane-miles.
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.
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.
DC has only one highway skimming downtown and fewer going through it than most US cities.
