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 primary reason is the general opposition to large publicly funded infrastructure that lose vast sums of money.
Please give an example of a large publicly-funded infrastructure that does not lose vast sums of money. Perhaps utilities, but definitely NOT highways.
Quote:
A secondary reason is a perceived threat to automobile based transportation, which is a symbol of individual freedom.
We can build all the trains we want, and there will still be plenty of roads with plenty of cars and if anything, more individual freedom, as people actually have a bona fide choice between transit and their cars. Nobody is saying let's rip out the interstate highway system and replace it with rail...
Gangbangers and career criminals have access to cars (or can easily get access to cars) and can do that stuff anywhere.
Unless you're solely talking about the homeless, your argument FAILS.
Like I said, you seem to never have been to the hood in DC or Baltimore. Do some people have cars? Sure. But I estimate that only about 20% have legal cars.
And of course they can conduct crime anywhere, but it makes more sense to do it in rich areas where there aren't bars on the windows and products are more freely out in the open and less protected.
"Replace cars" is too strong of a description. The OP is snarky and he is wrong, but I'll provide a civil response.
I love my car and need it, but we need options. The fact is oil is finite, and we need to prepare for the future. All fossil fuels are finite, and a wise nation would prepare for the future. We cannot sustain the gluttonous consumption patterns we've lived post WWII. The glory days are over.
Mass transit long ago was ruined so the auto makers could profit. trains were made unreliable as were others. so people would turn to owning a car. the plan worked and we are paying the price today.
"Replace cars" is too strong of a description. The OP is snarky and he is wrong, but I'll provide a civil response.
I love my car and need it, but we need options. The fact is oil is finite, and we need to prepare for the future. All fossil fuels are finite, and a wise nation would prepare for the future. We cannot sustain the gluttonous consumption patterns we've lived post WWII. The glory days are over.
If you can understand this all of your questions are answered!!!!!
I can't explain those situations because I don't know anything about them. All I know is that Metro accessible area = more crime where I live.
I speak from personal experience that criminals don't need transit to committ crimes. I was jumped and my money taken from me. The persons who did this were driving a car. They ran off and got in their vehicle and drove off. Meanwhile, how did I get help. I walked on foot to the nearest phone.
I don't have a car. I am not a criminal. I am actually quite frightened of driving on the highway. A person like me needs public transportation to get around. Someone else tried the "crime" argument with me. Please explain this. Why is it that European and Asian cities can have public transportation that goes everywhere and crime levels are much lower than in American cities?
And furthermore, judging by your argument AGAINST public transportation, can you please explain to me what benefit this is going to be for me(someone without a car, who can't really afford a car right now, who is afraid of driving anyway)?
I asked the last question because I live in metropolitan Atlanta. In the 1970's, MARTA was being built. Some residents referred to it as "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta". As a result, MARTA rail only covers two counties and has 48 miles of track, compared to 86 miles of track for DC's rail system. I live in Cobb County, where a bus system is. Without a bus system, I would have a harder time getting around than I do now. There are people who don't want MARTA, claiming the crime will go up. Well, the crime has already gone up because the criminals who were once in Atlanta are now in Cobb County, where there is no MARTA rail system. I personally feel that some people who are vehemently against mass transit probably couldn't care less about my personal situation.
I speak from personal experience that criminals don't need transit to committ crimes. I was jumped and my money taken from me. The persons who did this were driving a car. They ran off and got in their vehicle and drove off. Meanwhile, how did I get help. I walked on foot to the nearest phone.
I don't have a car. I am not a criminal. I am actually quite frightened of driving on the highway. A person like me needs public transportation to get around. Someone else tried the "crime" argument with me. Please explain this. Why is it that European and Asian cities can have public transportation that goes everywhere and crime levels are much lower than in American cities?
And furthermore, judging by your argument AGAINST public transportation, can you please explain to me what benefit this is going to be for me(someone without a car, who can't really afford a car right now, who is afraid of driving anyway)?
I asked the last question because I live in metropolitan Atlanta. In the 1970's, MARTA was being built. Some residents referred to it as "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta". As a result, MARTA rail only covers two counties and has 48 miles of track, compared to 86 miles of track for DC's rail system. I live in Cobb County, where a bus system is. Without a bus system, I would have a harder time getting around than I do now. There are people who don't want MARTA, claiming the crime will go up. Well, the crime has already gone up because the criminals who were once in Atlanta are now in Cobb County, where there is no MARTA rail system. I personally feel that some people who are vehemently against mass transit probably couldn't care less about my personal situation.
I don't know how people took my statement "Metros can turn areas into slum-like conditions by caravanning in the poor and disadvantaged and/or teenagers by the truckload" and turned it into, "Criminals don't own cars". I never said criminals don't own cars. I never said criminals don't commit crimes via car. Please everyone, stop pretending that's what I said.
I thought it was SO OBVIOUS, but Let me explain it more clearly: Mass transit gives people, who normally would be restricted to their neighborhood, access to much richer areas. People who rob, cheat and assault because that's how they learned to get by in poorer areas now have access to rob, cheat and assault historically safer, more crime-free areas.
It gives people who don't have access to a car greater access to the rest of local area (duh), but people who rob, cheat, etc. tend to BRING THAT BEHAVIOR WITH THEM. They actually might be MORE LIKELY to rob and assault because the GAINS are greater in an area that has more wealth than their impoverished communities.
I am not against mass transit in THEORY, but in areas like the one where I live, where pockets of extremely poor neighborhoods are ensconced in relatively rich areas, all it does is give these low level criminals greater access to all areas. Because they are typically the only ones who use mass transit as a PRIMARY MEANS for transportation, and because they bring all their undesirable behavior with them, THE MIDDLE / UPPER CLASS tends to avoid mass transit to avoid being around people who behave like that. As a result, mass transit loses money, the quality degrades which makes the middle and upper class even less likely to use it.
Now, is what I'm saying true in EVERY single area in the continental U.S.? Prob not. But it's certainly true where I live.
I thought it was SO OBVIOUS, but Let me explain it more clearly: Mass transit gives people, who normally would be restricted to their neighborhood, access to much richer areas. People who rob, cheat and assault because that's how they learned to get by in poorer areas now have access to rob, cheat and assault historically safer, more crime-free areas.
It gives people who don't have access to a car greater access to the rest of local area (duh), but people who rob, cheat, etc. tend to BRING THAT BEHAVIOR WITH THEM. They actually might be MORE LIKELY to rob and assault because the GAINS are greater in an area that has more wealth than their impoverished communities.
I don't know how effective it is for criminals to use transit. In these areas where "rich people don't use transit" the bus only comes once every 20 minutes or less. So let't take a hypothetical scenario. I am a criminal. I take the bus the the "rich neighborhood." I ride the bus for 10 minutes and get off at the stop. Rich people don't want bus stops in front of their home, so add 10 more minutes of walking time. I break in. Steal some stuff, like the TV. I walk with the TV to the bus stop. Then wait for 20 minutes for the next bus to come.
NO ONE NOTICES.
This argument is flawed. Criminals go where the opportunity is. They are equal opportunity transportation users.
(For the record, the last few bank robbers who used BART -- the Bay Areas MARTA like subway) got caught before they even made it to the train station.
If I cannot smoke my pipe on the bus, I shall not ride.
(apologies to Mark Twain)
Great !! Enjoy your Cancer on your own.
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.
Enough Said...............
