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.
The joke is on folks who think they'll "cash out" when the SHTF.
Based on 1.4 T in circulation, that's less than $4400 per capita.
Billionaires get a 'haircut' real good.
As solar power grows in efficiency, a modern home like what I'll be moving into will have solar on the roof and an EV charging station in the garage, completely free power for an all electric renewable energy vehicle. Why would I ever take a bus unless I was just poor? So yes, Captain Obvious, public transit IS seen as for those too poor to afford a car. It will always be that way. If you want to live in a city that relies on public transit, go for it, I want to hop in my car and drive directly to where I'm going the fastest way possible.
This is why America will never progress in public transit. "Hopping in your car and driving directly to where you are going" is just not realistic in hyper-congested urban areas that lack both parking and space (Think LA, San Francisco and NYC, and arguably Chicago).
To contrast your question; why would I want to sit for hours in gridlock traffic breathing in carbon monoxide fumes from drivers around me, while having to worry about the next accident further delaying my commute or lack of parking availability at my destination, when I can instead take a nap or read a book on the train or subway and reach my destination in a (mostly) predictable time frame? To give an anecdotal example, I live in a suburb of NYC. Driving to work
Public transportation is not 'just for poor people'. This is the thinking that pervades rural and suburban areas but is not true for America's urban centers.
Last edited by vladlensky; 07-16-2018 at 08:55 AM..
It is always interesting when progressives talk about raising taxes on "Millionaires & Billionaire," but when the tax increase goes through, it magically applies to people who make $85K and above - perhaps man #7 above are caught.
That is absolutely false. The last major tax increase passed during the Obama administration targeted anyone making over $400k. I forgot if this was taxable income or total income.
I also find it interesting that conservatives/Republicans are so concerned about Federal Government debt when they are not in power. As soon as they are in power and have a chance to give their base a huge tax cut, they forget about the debt completely. Where is the Conservative outrage about the 800 billion budget deficit that the Federal Government is running after the most recent give-away to the rich and corporations: https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
And that is in generally good to decent economy...
What possible reason is there behind favoring public transit, anyway?! It's an outdated concept that's going to die a miserable death. It was once seen as the future and anyone paying any amount of attention can clearly see it's the past. Once you have autonomous self-driving vehicles (newsflash: we already have these!) driving everywhere and the grid controlling traffic to a substantial extent, you don't have any reason for ANY transportation stuck on a track that takes forever to go from one fixed point to another....
So yes, Captain Obvious, public transit IS seen as for those too poor to afford a car. It will always be that way. If you want to live in a city that relies on public transit, go for it, I want to hop in my car and drive directly to where I'm going the fastest way possible.
I think it depends on where you live. We use both public transit and cars, depending on our needs. My spouse has been a frequent user of light rail when working with clients in Denver. Navigating the highways in and out of the city is insane, and it's a much better use of his time to use the train where he can work during his daily commute. Furthermore, the cost of using the train is covered by his employer, which is not the case if he drives. My teens also love having light rail because it's wonderful for going into the city for concerts, games, etc. For local errands, we most certainly use a car, a bike, or our own two feet. As an aside, it's also possible for us to ride comfortably by train to the airport. We can walk right out our front door, hop on a local bus for a five-minute trip to the station, where we board a train that takes us to the terminal. I love having light rail and am glad to live in a community where it's convenient.
This is why America will never progress in public transit.
That is not why.
Prior to WW II, housing and commercial retail developments were built around mass transit, which was almost entirely operated by the private sector.
After WW II, General Motors Corporation engaged in several programs to destroy mass transit, including refusing to supply buses, street cars and rail cars, price-fixing buses, street cars and rail cars with outrageous prices to discourage the purchase of mass transit vehicles, and buying up private mass transit and then curtailing or ceasing operations.
That is not a "conspiracy theory" it's a fact highlighted in several documentaries where GM officials confess on camera, plus numerous federal court cases resulting in convictions of General Motors, and congressional hearings and laws enacted that were intended to help protect the handful of remaining private mass transit operations.
United States v. National City Lines, US Supreme Court (1948)
The suit was brought by the United States against nine corporations for alleged violation of 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S.C. 1, 2, 15 U.S.C.A. 1, 2. The basic charge is that the appellees conspired to acquire control of local transportation companies in numerous cities located in widely different parts of the United States, and to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in motorbusses, petroleum supplies, tires and tubes sold to those companies, contrary to the Act's prohibitions. Injunctive and other relief of an equitable nature was sought.
The suit was dismissed without prejudice on an issue of improper venue by the trial court, and upheld on appeal, but reversed by the Supreme Court, and convictions were obtained in the end.
In spite of the convictions, those companies continued as if nothing happened, destroyed mass transit and coerced Americans to buy cars as a means of transpiration.
From that point forward, future housing and retail commercial developments revolved around the car, and not around mass transit.
It is impossible to incorporate mass transit now.
Even in the best-case scenario, it would still require Americans to drive 2 to 12 miles to access mass transit.
The idiots where I live constantly harp on light-rail, but light-rail by any other name is "bus."
The city already operates bus service between West Chester, Ohio and down-town Cincinnati, Ohio, but it operates at a loss, because no one in the right mind would want to spend 3 hours round-trip when they can drive and spend 90 minutes to 2 hours round trip. Light-rail would still be 90 minutes one-way.
Now, if you had rapid mass transit and could get people from West Chester to down-town Cincinnati in 20-25 minutes, you'd have scores of people wanting to use that service, because it would actually save them time.
The problem is acquiring the right-of-way, would necessitates Eminent Domain, and when you add that cost to the cost of construction, you're looking at $500 Million or more, and it would take nearly a century to recoup those costs, and that's just not going to happen.
The assumption that mass transit is a good idea for most Americans would assume that it’s going from roughly where I live to where I want to go and doing so fast. I drive within the suburb I live and avoid downtown at all costs. I hate downtown and there’s zero reason for me to be there. I lived downtown for a while and walked when I wanted to go places because parking is horrible. It’s fun to be downtown IF you live there. Otherwise forget it.
I can’t think of any reason I would care to drive downtown either where I live or where I’m moving, which is Vegas. But if they had a light rail from, say, downtown Summerlin to the Strip I would use that if I lived there because driving the Strip isn’t something I ever want to do. I’d just Uber there lol
I can’t think of any reason I would care to drive downtown either where I live or where I’m moving, which is Vegas. But if they had a light rail from, say, downtown Summerlin to the Strip I would use that if I lived there because driving the Strip isn’t something I ever want to do. I’d just Uber there lol
And now you’re starting to see the light. I live in Vegas most of the year and I doubt my husband would use light rail from Summerlin to the Strip if it were available (he goes frequently) but I would (although I rarely go and never without him). A bit off topic, but expanding the monorail to the airport makes all the sense in the world as it would cut back on congestion and pollution from taxis/ Ubers and it would be more convenient for tourists but apparently the taxi lobby is pushing hard against it. Tourists would use it if it is priced right but it should be priced high enough to cover construction/ maintenance costs (or soak tourists with another room tax).
Randomparent’s example of Denver is a good case-in-point. Public transportation doesn’t always have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. In the northeast I use a combination depending on my needs - even the bus (gasp!) and I’m not poor (imagine that). The crumbling 110 year old infrastructure between northern NJ (where I used to live) and NYC (where I sometimes had to go to work) was one of the main reasons I left. Vegas does have fantastic roads which are well-maintained. Not to mention the Vegas airport is far superior to any of the NY-metro airports.
The car culture screws over poor / working class that live paycheck to paycheck. Cars are expensive to acquire and maintain and those without a lot of money are often prayed upon by the predatory buy here / pay here used car industry. A train / bus pass does not present such issues. I remember being a poor student / working an entry-level job and the pain inflicted by costly car repair bills. I actually like car culture and we have more cars than drivers in my household, but it’s not really the best model for an equitable society. My parents grew up poor in NYC and their families did not have cars, but they got around just fine.
An issue occurring in NYC is the once crappy neighborhoods that have easy subway access are quickly becoming gentrified and lower income residents are being pushed out to more far-flung areas that aren’t as well-served by the subway. OTOH, the introduction of public transportation gondolas in South American cities in have attributed to the reduction of inequality. A more equitable society is a safer society.
whoever thinks public transit is for the poor, that says a lot about your character IMHO.
Most people that think like that are from extremely car centered cities where the only people that use the inefficient public transit that's available are those that have absolutely no other option
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.
