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.
I get carsick, so being driven anywhere kills me. Especially in an overheated bus that does a lot of stop and go. (I've tried everything but that behind the ear patch).
I don't think I've ever seen anyone give that as a reason, but there you have it.
No mass transit where I live. It's totally unnecessary. I live in a town with 3,200 people on a good day! There's more livestock here than people. When we do travel to the larger cities in NY, we drive or take the train. Depends on the purpose of the trip and timing. When I go to Boston, I drive to the outer edges and take the T. Kind of pain when I go shopping though, but it sure beats driving in Boston and attempting to find a place to park.
There would be NO light rail in metro Denver if the much maligned conservatives in the burbs hadn't voted in favor of it.
Transportation isn't a partisan issue, not sure what conservatives have to do with it. I notice locally for me, we do put a lot of effort on expansion into places where people use transit less, instead of making improvements in ways that impact the most riders.
On April 19, 2005, a class of members of racial minority groups who ride buses operated by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (“AC Transit”), a labor union, and a community-based organization filed a federal class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The plaintiffs alleged that MTC has historically engaged, and continues to engage in a policy, pattern or practice of actions and omissions that have the purpose and effect of discriminating against poor transit riders of color in favor of white, suburban transit users, on the basis of their race and national origin. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief.
In June 2005, the parties consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.) This action was also assigned to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Multi-Option Program for the Northern District of California. The parties engaged in ADR discussions running parallel to the litigation. On Feburary 21, 2007, the parties stipulated to class certification.
After Magistrate Judge Laporte denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the case went to trial in October 2008. After a prolonged trial, on March 27, 2009, Magistrate Judge Laporte filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant. Although the Court agreed with the plaintiffs that MTC caused a “disparate impact,” it found that MTC had a “substantial legitimate justification” for its practices because it had relied on the Partnership Advisory Board in formulating them, and because it had other competing goals to meet (such as reducing highway congestion, enhancing transportation connectivity, ensuring safety and security of transportation system). The Court ruled that these justifications were sufficient to allow MTC to continue these practices in spite of their discriminatory impact.
On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals filed an opinion to affirm the judgment of the District Court.
After losing $70 million in stimulus funds last week because the agency failed to satisfy the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) minority and equity standards for federal funding, BART lost another $25 million it was expecting from TIGER, money that was important for the agency to secure further federal loans to build the nearly $500 million OAC.
"Basically, it's just devastating," BART spokesperson Luna Salaver said about the OAC developments over the last week. "We had a triple-one project, a shovel ready project, and then it ran into this opposition that was using the Civil Rights Act make the region lose thousands of jobs."
The MTC has a regular pattern of subsidizing suburban expansion over paying for improvements in for the urban areas that use transit more (SF Muni and AC Transit, which run mostly buses do lose out on funding from MTC often. BART is a commuter rail/subway hybrid serving mostly the suburbs with park and ride stations, although TOD is increasing around the stations in the suburbs and urban areas.)
This has caused me to look a bit more closely on which transit projects get funded where I live.
Transportation isn't a partisan issue, not sure what conservatives have to do with it.
The point is the conservative suburbanites (and suburbanites are more conservative than their city-slicker cousins) are not a subset of "those people" that use public transit that you were talking about. Transit IS a partisan issue sometimes. Conservatives allegedly favor the private auto, while liberals supposedly favor transit. And obviously, cons don't want their taxes raised. Neither do many liberals, but that's always "different". Of course, we all know cons who take transit, even buses, and libs who drive.
The point is the conservative suburbanites (and suburbanites are more conservative than their city-slicker cousins) are not a subset of "those people" that use public transit that you were talking about. Transit IS a partisan issue sometimes. Conservatives allegedly favor the private auto, while liberals supposedly favor transit. And obviously, cons don't want their taxes raised. Neither do many liberals, but that's always "different". Of course, we all know cons who take transit, even buses, and libs who drive.
I haven't mentioned political persuasion one way or another. There are people who think transit is useful (no matter if they use it) and others who do not think it is necessary. Some transit opponents oppose because they think it brings "those people" into their neighborhoods. It is very much a problem in the very liberal Bay Area, and the more conservative Atlanta. That's why I called it an American value. It a running trope in pop culture.
But we don't want to invest in transit (as Americans) because we thing of transit as something only for poor people. And the last thing we want is to be associated with "those people."
Exactly.
And yes Katiana, suburbanites in many places are voting for public transit. But some places the quote above is true. Consider the City of Milwaukee, which has over 170,000 (roughly) riders per day for their bus only transit system and they can't even sniff a hybrid or electric bus purchase, let alone designs on any BRT or LRT. Why? Because 90% of those 170,000 riders are working class, and if a theoretical LRT or BRT system is built, it would possibly take "those people" to suburbs that do not want them there. So Milwaukee just goes along with annual cuts from the state legislature and "those people" have to continually put up with rising fares and reduced service. Why aren't the working class valued more for transit options?
I agree that part of the stigmatization isn't race or even partisan derived. But some cities are suffering precisely because transit is for "those people". And they don't count.
Last year, I had to take my car in for repair, and it ended up taking several days because they needed to order a part. My insurance pays for a one day rental as a loaner, so I could have got the rental loaner, and then paid for the rental for the rest of the time. But my neighborhood is pretty transit friendly, so I declined, and used their courtesy shuttle to take the train home. And managed just fine with out my car for 4 days. I took the train to work (at a client's office), the bus to the grocery store and my other errands. There were options and alternatives for me to et around without my car.
So then why even have a car?
I think the rise of services like Uber/Lyft/Sidecar can really fill in the gaps in places where taxis are scarce/overpriced/both and where public transportation is comprehensive enough that owning a car is not necessary yet still can't always get you where you want to go in a time-efficient manner. Then there are also car-sharing services like Zipcar and similar local services (like iGo here in Chicago) in case you need to have a car to yourself for a while. In cities that have decent public transit plus UberSideLyft type services plus Zipcar-like services, there's a darn compelling case for ditching your personal car altogether.
I haven't mentioned political persuasion one way or another. There are people who think transit is useful (no matter if they use it) and others who do not think it is necessary. Some transit opponents oppose because they think it brings "those people" into their neighborhoods. It is very much a problem in the very liberal Bay Area, and the more conservative Atlanta. That's why I called it an American value. It a running trope in pop culture.
I don't know if I would consider the city of Atlanta "conservative." In last few presidential elections, Fulton County went blue. Now the surrounding metro and state of Georgia could be considered conservative, and I think you would find that in several of these more conservative areas, there seems to be more opposition to transit. For example, Cobb County, which is directly northwest of Atlanta, has consistently voted against allowing a MARTA line pass through the county, most likely because they want to avoid bringing "those people" into their neighborhood.
I think the rise of services like Uber/Lyft/Sidecar can really fill in the gaps in places where taxis are scarce/overpriced/both and where public transportation is comprehensive enough that owning a car is not necessary yet still can't always get you where you want to go in a time-efficient manner. Then there are also car-sharing services like Zipcar and similar local services (like iGo here in Chicago) in case you need to have a car to yourself for a while. In cities that have decent public transit plus UberSideLyft type services plus Zipcar-like services, there's a darn compelling case for ditching your personal car altogether.
I was planning to get rid of my car when I moved a little closer to with downtown or my main street. Car-shaing is about 3 blocks away from me. But my car died before I could afford to move (planning to move to a condo at some point), and then I needed to drive more for work, when I was working from home and had lots of transit accessible clients. And I have since switched jobs, and transit isn't convenient to my current one. But I will definitely get rid of my car as soon as the stars align in terms of living situation and work location. Definitely within the next 5 years, I'll use a car share instead.
I use Uber (haven't tried the other ones yet) as well, I use pretty much all of the transit options.....even though I have a car. My personal car is not always the best choice.
*My parents do have an irrational fear that I need to have a car since my sister doesn't drive (she lives 3/4 of a mile away) and one of needs to have a private car. They don't quite understand car share yet, I am working on it.
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.
