List of richest towns shows need for quality mass transit

[RaleighSentinel]

A previous poster eating the Onion not withstanding, the OP’s conclusion that because many of the wealthiest neighborhoods happen to have a commuter rail stop, that the affluent want high quality (public) transportation for themselves is spurious. I’ve been to most of these areas at some point in my life. Atherton, for example, is a community with multi-million dollar homes on large wooded suburban lots. Most streets have no sidewalks, but do have 2+ car garages, often behind security gates. This is where they park their Teslas, BMWs, and other high end vehicles. Typical residents here are tech executives, professors at Stanford, doctors, lawyers, consultants, and financiers, as well as high net worth individuals. I can say with a lot of confidence that it isn’t the homeowners there using the public transport on a daily basis, but more the folks that support these wealthy individuals. Same can be said for Highland Park north of Chicago. Take a Google Earth tour. There are better arguments to support the development of quality transportation options. This is definitely not one of them.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by ilovelondon

Did you actually link to The Onion as if it was an actual news source? Not surprising considering every post you make is complete satire.

As far as ad hominem attacks, the forum could be improved if there were an option to turn off (or at least not show all the images in) posts that have floods of photos - or even posts from particular posters.

The Onion may be a satirical publication but the article underscores a reality you refuse to recognize.
I cited to the article because it is precisely on point even if the point is made through satire.
As noted in #8, later articles from other organizations made the same observations.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/54444583-post8.html

Even the poster prior (#11) to this post provides anecdotal examples supporting that the "high quality transportation" for the "affluent" means they drive expensive cars. The public transit isn't for the affluent - it's for the plebians. (see, http://www.city-data.com/forum/54440610-post3.html, http://www.city-data.com/forum/54441626-post5.html) The Onion may be satirical but it also reflects a reality that is just a bit uncomfortable for the public transit zealots.

Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda

ROFL. That's hysterical!

I especially like the slogan in the last sentence of the "news article": "Take The Bus… I'll Be Glad You Did."

The article continued beyond that with the following:

The campaign is intended to de-emphasize the inconvenience and social stigma associated with using public transportation, focusing instead on the positives. Among these positives: the health benefits of getting fresh air while waiting at the bus stop, the chance to meet interesting people from a diverse array of low-paying service-sector jobs, and the opportunity to learn new languages by reading subway ads written in Spanish.

"People need to realize that public transportation isn't just for some poor sucker to take to work," Collier said. "He should also be taking it to the shopping mall, the supermarket, and the laundromat."

[jetgraphics]

You know there was no such thing as a conspiracy to eliminate America’s once premier electric traction rail network (urban and interurban). How could there be a collusion between special interests and corrupt politicians to saddle Americans like beasts of burden, enriching all the “right” people.
We’re not stupid!

We weren’t fooled into keeping an ‘old fashioned’ mode of transportation, despite it costing 20 times less in fuel compared to pneumatic tire on pavement (20:1 advantage due to rolling resistance). Americans aren’t bamboozled by mere budgetary constraints, nor are they against paving over more and more land so that we can have glorious superhighway convenience, door to door.

Who cares that one track of rail has the equivalent capacity of 9 lanes of superhighway? Or that a 4 track urban subway, like NYC, is the equivalent of 36 lanes of superhighway? And let’s not forget safety issues. We Americans are outraged at a mere hundred deaths per year by ‘police brutality’ while ignoring 40,100 (2017) annual deaths from traffic incidents. In contrast, the tally of passenger deaths via frightful rail travel is often zero in most years.

Americans do not want a scalable, frugal, efficient, non-polluting, fast, safe and comfortable way to travel in and through our now decaying inner cities, which lack parking space necessary for our national ritual of automobile travel. We don’t want to be free of petroleum imports, nor foreign entanglements necessary to maintain our lifeline of fuel. We prefer sacrificing our precious children and resources in endless unWars.

Americans are too smart to believe in any conspiracy to make them perpetual servants of the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony and all their collaborators, cohorts, and minions. That’s almost as bad as believing in a conspiracy to keep housing costs high, while driving more and more people into the streets, homeless.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

You know there was no such thing as a conspiracy to eliminate America’s once premier electric traction rail network (urban and interurban). How could there be a collusion between special interests and corrupt politicians to saddle Americans like beasts of burden, enriching all the “right” people.
We’re not stupid!

Of course there weren't, since they were replaced by obviously superior transport modes. Do you also pine for America's and Europe's once premier trans-atlantic ocean steamships?

We weren’t fooled into keeping an ‘old fashioned’ mode of transportation, despite it costing 20 times less in fuel compared to pneumatic tire on pavement (20:1 advantage due to rolling resistance). Americans aren’t bamboozled by mere budgetary constraints, nor are they against paving over more and more land so that we can have glorious superhighway convenience, door to door.

Which is true, the minor cost savings in transportation pale in comparison to the time savings and greater access to work, housing, education and amenities provided by the car.

Who cares that one track of rail has the equivalent capacity of 9 lanes of superhighway? Or that a 4 track urban subway, like NYC, is the equivalent of 36 lanes of superhighway?

Which doesn't matter if the line of rail doesn't go where you need to go. A two lane road has infinitely more capacity than a rail line that doesn't exist.

Americans do not want a scalable, frugal, efficient, non-polluting, fast, safe and comfortable way to travel in and through our now decaying inner cities, which lack parking space necessary for our national ritual of automobile travel. We don’t want to be free of petroleum imports, nor foreign entanglements necessary to maintain our lifeline of fuel. We prefer sacrificing our precious children and resources in endless unWars.

No they don't. What they want is a transportation method that allows them to make the trips that they want quickly, comfortably and conveniently. It's the same reason the car dominates Europe.

Americans are too smart to believe in any conspiracy to make them perpetual servants of the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony and all their collaborators, cohorts, and minions.

Well, they're too smart to fall for attempts to massively reduced their travel range, giving little flexibility in where they work, live and play.

[pvande55]

There seems to be an assumption that owners of high end vehicles (new Tesla vs 20 year old Honda) never ride the train. While you won't see many such vehicles in a typical train station parking lot (though I've seen a few), if you have a high paying job in Center City you want to get there quickly without wasting time in traffic, and commuter rail fits the bill. Of course, other factors such as top rated schools play into it as well. Incidentally, I recently spoke with someone who was transferred from San Diego to Chicago. He said he doesn't like the weather, but likes the trains.