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.
No it doesn't. But that people like personal transportation is evident in car ownership. How long have I been saying that on this forum?
Sure, plenty of people like cars, yes you've said that many times. Not too many posters have advocated a carless society, so?
In 80% or so the country, it's not really a practical option not to own a car, or at least it would be much slower. The current level of car ownership implies people like transportation. The majority of adults in most developed countries own cars, but there's less of a situation of "it's very hard to get around without a car" and cars aren't quite as ubiquitous.
Quote:
That's an odd twist of logic. How often do you need a large truck? The last time we needed one was about 10 years ago, when we gave our daughter a couch that we drove to her apartment.
the idea is that Uber is a backup, it's a similar logic even if the scale is different.
People have this stuff, and put up with the expense, because they want it, not because they've all been duped by the auto industry, which is another recurring theme on this board.
At this point the thread is full of "arguing against general themes" instead of something specific. It's rather unreadable and unfollowable.
No it doesn't. But that people like personal transportation is evident in car ownership. How long have I been saying that on this forum? Longer than I can remember. Cars caught on because people liked the idea of personal transportation that did not involve keeping a horse or horses and hitching them up to a carriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Sure, plenty of people like cars, yes you've said that many times. Not too many posters have advocated a carless society, so?
In 80% or so the country, it's not really a practical option not to own a car, or at least it would be much slower. The current level of car ownership implies people like transportation. The majority of adults in most developed countries own cars, but there's less of a situation of "it's very hard to get around without a car" and cars aren't quite as ubiquitous.
Right. My post wasn't wide-sweeping against owning a car or why. It was simply in response to not wanting to be in control of their life. Much more specific.
Sure, plenty of people like cars, yes you've said that many times. Not too many posters have advocated a carless society, so?
In 80% or so the country, it's not really a practical option not to own a car, or at least it would be much slower. The current level of car ownership implies people like transportation. The majority of adults in most developed countries own cars, but there's less of a situation of "it's very hard to get around without a car" and cars aren't quite as ubiquitous.
the idea is that Uber is a backup, it's a similar logic even if the scale is different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
At this point the thread is full of "arguing against general themes" instead of something specific. It's rather unreadable and unfollowable.
There's certainly a lot of advocacy against cars on this forum, implied and stated outright. That's the main problem with the burbs, right? Too "car-centric"! People make insane statements like "no public transit in the suburbs" over and over again.
Uber is often presented as an alternative to car ownership. It's not. It's just not the same thing, to use a fancy "app", then wait for your ride to a pre-determined location, and pay for it, than it is to get in your car and maybe change your mind about your destination (maybe you decide to go to a different store or whatever; if they don't have what you're looking for at Target you try Walmart or Hobby Lobby [trying to be a little inflammatory here], etc. Your spouse calls you while you're out and wants you to pick up his prescription at yet another store; you decide to get a cup of coffee when you approach Starbuck's because it looks good, etc.
As far as "arguing against general themes" when I have presented old posts as corroboration, that's not OK either.
Sure it does if the reason you don't or can't have one is due to restrictions imposed by others.
There's far more to life than owning a car. Having control over your life encompasses a lot of things, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
There are quite a few differences. You don't wait on a car - the car serves you. You leave when you want to. You have many additional options including much greater control over your immediate environment and the route taken. You don't have that when waiting for the train or riding the train. Cars offer access to a much wider variety of people. A train at best only serves those that have a way of getting to the station with no need to be anywhere other than as permitted by the train schedule and route and who have no need to transport anything other than themselves.
True, but I would say it depends on built environment. Where I live, it's easier to get around via public transit. So in this scenario, constraints and restrictions exist more for the car owners due to traffic, difficult parking, high insurance, etc. Where you live? Yes, there are more restrictions for public transit, I'm sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
The complaint is that there is a contingent of people that don't want other people to be in control of those other people's own lives. This contingent appears to promote or even mandate dependency.
Seems like sensationalism. Many people just want an environment where it's not so hard to get around without a car (not rural). Many people, like yourself, read that as though people want no cars anywhere. But that's not what's being discussed here. Me wanting to even out the subsidies between the different modes likely has little to no impact on people like you who like driving and live someplace where only that is possible. Of course unless you live someplace like a big city where transit is really needed. Even then, no one is going to downgrade the road you live on to dirt and install a train station across the street...
And it's even sensational to suggest that someone loses control over their life if there are more options for people who live in places where transit could better serve people.
Me wanting to even out the subsidies between the different modes likely has little to no impact on people like you who like driving and live someplace where only that is possible.
1. You are making an assumption about where the poster lives.
2. As I've told darkeconomist many times during discussions about subsidies, this one and others, it's dang near impossible to tease out the subsidies all forms of transit get. However, they're all subsidized, in some cases heavily. I have no problem with some subsidies to provide transportation to underserved areas, either car or PT, which I've also said many times over. If you want to even them out, I'd wager heavily that PT would lose.
There's certainly a lot of advocacy against cars on this forum, implied and stated outright. That's the main problem with the burbs, right? Too "car-centric"!
That's not a carless society... complaining about "car-centric" is complaining that's hard to get around without a car. It's anti-car only
Quote:
Uber is often presented as an alternative to car ownership. It's not. It's just not the same thing, to use a fancy "app", then wait for your ride to a pre-determined location, and pay for it, than it is to get in your car and maybe change your mind about your destination
well for some people, it works as a substitute for the few times transit / walking / biking isn't sufficient. ZipCar or a rental is more analogous as an alternative for the six
Quote:
As far as "arguing against general themes" when I have presented old posts as corroboration, that's not OK either.
weren't they corroborating general themes rather than arguing against the specifics in the old posts. The last one you did had 10 posts; it would create a hijack from the current conversation.
1. You are making an assumption about where the poster lives.
2. As I've told darkeconomist many times during discussions about subsidies, this one and others, it's dang near impossible to tease out the subsidies all forms of transit get. However, they're all subsidized, in some cases heavily. I have no problem with some subsidies to provide transportation to underserved areas, either car or PT, which I've also said many times over. If you want to even them out, I'd wager heavily that PT would lose.
Do you really think IC_Delight lives in a dense urban environment?
There was a guy in one of the state Forums (I think it may have been North Carolina but I'm not positive) who was moving to the area.
His plan was to use Uber and Lyft back and forth to work, I think is was 10 or 15 miles one way, every day because he didn't want the outrageous expense of a car.
There's far more to life than owning a car. Having control over your life encompasses a lot of things, no?
Of course it does silly.
If you look at the themes in this forum, however, urbanophiles do try encompassing a lot of things, yes.
You will note a recurring themes such as the following:
"suburbia bad, dense development within city limits good";
"yards bad, tiny living quarters with shared walls good";
"personal vehicles bad, reliance on third party vehicle owners good";
"personal vehicles bad, public transit good";
"personal vehicles bad, trains good";
"parking garages/lots bad, no parking garages/lots good".
The justification is usually abstract concepts such as environment and community or society and even something as subjective and largely irrelevant as aesthetics.
Often the underlying rationale is to make public transit feasible - i.e., the cart before the horse. The end objective is "public transit" so the intermediate objective is forced density and forced dependency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
True, but I would say it depends on built environment. Where I live, it's easier to get around via public transit. So in this scenario, constraints and restrictions exist more for the car owners due to traffic, difficult parking, high insurance, etc. Where you live? Yes, there are more restrictions for public transit, I'm sure.
Restrictions for public transit? Public transit is handled by governmental bodies. There isn't a "restriction". Public transit can always be implemented or expanded. Of course it only serves a narrow class of needs or uses. Your plumber isn't going to be using public transit - of course in the urbanophile world where people only live in dense housing, typically rental, then maybe you don't need a plumber but your landlord will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
Seems like sensationalism. Many people just want an environment where it's not so hard to get around without a car (not rural).
... and free healthcare, and guaranteed jobs/income, etc., etc., ... and they can keep on "wanting". There's constant complaints from the anti-car contingent about the subsidies cars get and yet all the whining is to promote rail and other transit projects. Can you find any mode of transportation more heavily subsidized than rail based public transit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
Many people, like yourself, read that as though people want no cars anywhere.
It's pretty easy to read a desire to restrict or eliminate roads or who can use them, higher taxes, housing designed so that you can't actually park anywhere, retail center designed without adequate parking, elimination of garages, parking lots, etc. under the pretext of aesthetics as proponents being quite anti-car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
But that's not what's being discussed here. Me wanting to even out the subsidies between the different modes likely has little to no impact on people like you who like driving and live someplace where only that is possible.
Sure it does because of the tax base you want to rely on for transit and the limited few classes of individuals it serves. But "evening out the modes" suggests that there is an imbalance or that "even" is better. I don't think the public transit proponents are interested in "evening out" anything. They simply want more public transit regardless of where the resources for it come from (other than themselves).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
Of course unless you live someplace like a big city where transit is really needed. Even then, no one is going to downgrade the road you live on to dirt and install a train station across the street...
Is it really needed? Seems it's a self-serving argument to promote centralization of businesses, cutting off or restricting roads, eliminating garages and parking lots, and then argue transit is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
And it's even sensational to suggest that someone loses control over their life if there are more options for people who live in places where transit could better serve people.
You are making a claim I did not assert. You are not really interested in "options" for the limited few people you would "serve" but rather dependency so that they "need" public transit and to that end yes people on this forum have promoted restricting or eliminating roadways, higher taxes on vehicles, elimination of parking garages/lots, dense housing, etc., etc. You aren't interested in providing the same "options" to all but you want to re-allocate resources from all to give the limited few more options.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 03-17-2017 at 10:41 AM..
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.
