Public Transportation

Yep.  Registration required to post.
Post Reply
71-1085092892

Post by 71-1085092892 »

Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 29 2001,10:49

I'm voting that our city centers be car-free zones. Various hubs around the city will be available for you to park, and ride the monorail (or whatever) into the city. This gives the streets back to the pedestrians/bicyclists, and eliminates smog. Health levels improve as people walk more. Win/win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,12:06

Inner city dies from within due to people not being willing to give up their vehicles. But try it and see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 29 2001,12:12

They'll have no choice. The cheapest office space will be downtown (cause we said so), and business will go there. Since people cant drive in, they'll learn to know and love public transport. We can also pass some weird infrastructure centralization laws or something.
Just because it hasn't worked well all over America doesn't mean it won't in America II. I wouldn't exactly call Tokyo a "dead city" because 95% of the inhabitants take the trains.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Aug. 29 2001,12:37

I personally don't understand the love affair with public transportation. Besides, if we're on a big-ass boat, there's not gonna be any cars, anyway. Scooters and golf carts, maybe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,16:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: from GORDON on 10:12 am on Aug. 29, 2001
They'll have no choice. The cheapest office space will be downtown (cause we said so), and business will go there. ...
Just because it hasn't worked well all over America doesn't mean it won't in America II.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great. The country has existed in theory for less than a week, and already the government is screwing it up...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 29 2001,16:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: from Vince66 on 2:06 pm on Aug. 29, 2001
Great. The country has existed in theory for less than a week, and already the government is screwing it up...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not. "Public transportation only" in city centers is more efficient in every way, unless you think New York City gridlock is a good way to do things.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 30 2001,13:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Public transportation only" in city centers is more efficient in every way, unless you think New York City gridlock is a good way to do things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

New York has one of the most extensive public transportation budgets in the country and see how well it works for them? If the people demand public transportation, then do it. Otherwise we're back to trying to force people into behaving in a way we want them to which is mostly what's gone whack in America I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 30 2001,13:17

Vince, you ignorant slut.
Human nature being what it is, people will never think of others before themselves....meaning, taking the monorail into the city instead of their Lincoln Navigator.

Half the reasons more cities don't have better mass transit systems is because of past pressure on local governments by tire companies. More trains = fewer cars = fewer tires sold. Don't make me cite references.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue mass transit isn't more efficient than gridlock. America II is as much about doing things intelligently as it is about getting government out of every aspect of our lives.

You are wrong, and will always be wrong.

Submit.

Obey.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 30 2001,17:02

If you think you can create a working government controlled nation that won't fail, go right ahead. Every other fascist/socialist/communist nation thought the only thing wrong with it was that they weren't doing it. What will happen in your city is that all the shit jobs that unskilled labor would have to do will end up in the center of the city, because those that can and do provide their own transportation will be working outside the center of the city. Like I said, go ahead and do it if you want, but the people will ultimately decide whether or not that will fly. (or commute)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 31 2001,09:25

I'll believe you if you can explain to me that mass transit enigma that is Tokyo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Aug. 31 2001,09:42

The Japanese can make anything work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 31 2001,09:46

So we get the Japs to design our city layouts.
I was thinking that anyway, only because I like Japanese architecture.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Aug. 31 2001,10:26

I dunno. Some of it is nice, especially the old temples and some private homes. However, a lot of their public structures, and multi-unit housing, is just plain ugly, and furthermore, it's kind of run-down. Not trashed, like a housing project here, but the metal stairs need painting, and stuff like that.
I'm hot and cold on Japan. They've got some great ideas, but some things belie the myth of the Japanese super-bad-ass-economy. Sure, they sell us stuff cheap, but I think the average guy over there doesn't live as comfortably as the average guy over here.

Example: an engineer with a M.S. in this country. What kind of home would he have? Nice apartment, probably, right? Maybe a house if he's been there a while. I had an internship at a manufacturing company in Japan. They had DORMITORIES for their employees. I'm talking engineers, some with graduate degrees, living in a DORM which did NOT have private bathrooms. What's up with that?

So, yeah, Japan has great trains and buses, but I'm not sure I'm ready to completely adopt their system. No doubt they'd say the same about ours.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 31 2001,10:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: from GORDON on 7:25 am on Aug. 31, 2001
I'll believe you if you can explain to me that mass transit enigma that is Tokyo.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure. Lack of choices (read "freedom"). Having become recently divorced, that's not something I'm willing to give up freely right now.
If I recall, a few years ago it cost more per year to rent a parking space in Japan than it did to actually buy the car. I guess if you get the economy enough out of whack, you can convince people to do just about anything.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 31 2001,10:38

I disagree with your "lack of choices" statement, but let me propose something else:
In NYC, only X amount of Taxi Cabs are allowed to operate. Licensed taxis have a "Medallion," that is their license. How about we only let X number of private vehicles into our city to keep it from choking to death. Year 1 is first come-first serve for "POV Passes." (Privately owned vehicle.) Say, 10k. Then, for year 2, people submit closed bids for licenses. The top 5000 bids for current license holders win by default, but the top 5000 bids for non-license holders get the other 5000 passes. This will generate revenue for the city, non-license holders still have mass transit, and high wage earners will still keep their offices downtown.

I'm also big on non-traditional forms of POV's...like 5th Element flying shit. So there are other alternatives.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 31 2001,11:02

Sorry, but I can't abide by that either. Either government services are for everyone or no one. Would we send policemen or firemen out on calls based on a lottery? That just sets a precedence that scares me.
And using NYC as an example of anything other than a shithole seems like a flawed argument from the beginning.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 31 2001,11:25

1. Parking privileges have absolutely no relation to fire or police protection.
2. NYC is a good example of a shithole, yes. Also a good example of complete personal freedom, whether it's for the good of the public or not. You are advocating complete public freedom. That will turn any city into a shithole.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Aug. 31 2001,12:24

Personal freedom must still respect the rights of others, including property rights. I see no reason why the streets of the cities need extend FREE driving privileges. Just put a big fence and toll-gates around the city center. Problem solved. People who want to drive themselves around will pony up if it's important enough, or use public transportation if they're stingy.
In fact, I see no reason why the government should provide free roads. Again, that's income re-distribution. If people in a certain area want a road, let em come up with the funds themselves, either through donations or tolls. Why should folks in one place pay for roads in another?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 31 2001,14:22

I agree with Thib, actually. It's then available to everyone willing to ante up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Cakedaddy on Sep. 04 2001,12:04

You know, I'd have to say that Vince and Thib just shouldn't be welcome here. They've always got something to say about everything! Bastards.
Public transportation is the way to go. It's cheap. It's clean. It's good. Trying to keep 'choices' is selfish and useless. How about trying to be a part of the team for a change!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Sep. 04 2001,12:33

I'd like to see some numbers or facts or something supporting your claim the public transportation is "cheap and clean." Compared to what? Have you ever seen a public ANYTHING that was clean? And it APPEARS cheap, because the cost is subsidized. I've a hunch that if it really WERE cheap, it would be more popular. Let me just ask you this, all you folks who are in favor of public transportation:
How often do YOU use it?

I suspect that you need a certain population density to make public transportation workable. Something on the order of New York's density. Even then, I betcha the buses and subways probably aren't making piles of money.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Cakedaddy on Sep. 04 2001,12:40

Evidence? I don't need to provide it. I KNOW it. Believe me.
And I don't use it because it's not available in my area.

Actually, cleanliness and cheapness would of course depend on which mode you chose. Done right, public transportation would be cheaper and cleaner than everyone using their own car. So, we would need to do it right.

And for that matter. . . . where's your evidence that it's NOT cleaner and cheaper? Huh smart guy?!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Sep. 04 2001,13:14

You are making an assertion about the benefits of public transportation. If you want me to accept them as true, then YOU have the burden of proof. And if you have nothing better than "I don't need no stinking proof, I KNOW it's true," then a winner is me!!!!1!
So there's no public transportation available in your area? Why is that? Surely the benefits of cheap, clean, public transportation are as real in your area as they are anywhere else? Or maybe the oil companies and tire companies and car companies have squashed any attempts at public transportation in your area.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Sep. 04 2001,14:06

I too would love to be able to get rid of payments and maintenance costs on two vehicles, but mass transit isn't available in my area, either.
The reasons are many.

1. Since the infrastructure for it was never put into place to begin with, the startup costs would be prohibitive. Track to lay, homes to demolish.

2. Since the communities weren't planned with any kind of big picture in mind, an efficient layout for hubs and spurs will be hard to create.

3. I'm not saying there aren't corporate interests in the equation with deep pockets for lobbying for whom large scale mass transit isn't in their best interest.

4. Community bias. If the rich suburbs supported hubs in their affluent neighborhoods, that would allow poor people to be able to reach their neighborhoods and, god forbid, might actually allow them to live outside the city center.

If you plan a city/community from the ground up Washington DC/Disney World style, it makes everything easier.

You want Boston, or Tokyo. I vote for ultra efficiency.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Cakedaddy on Sep. 04 2001,14:19

Ya, what Gordon said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Sep. 04 2001,14:27


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Sep. 04 2001,14:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: from GORDON on 1:06 pm on Sep. 4, 2001
1. Since the infrastructure for it was never put into place to begin with, the startup costs would be prohibitive. Track to lay, homes to demolish.
2. Since the communities weren't planned with any kind of big picture in mind, an efficient layout for hubs and spurs will be hard to create.

3. I'm not saying there aren't corporate interests in the equation with deep pockets for lobbying for whom large scale mass transit isn't in their best interest.

4. Community bias. If the rich suburbs supported hubs in their affluent neighborhoods, that would allow poor people to be able to reach their neighborhoods and, god forbid, might actually allow them to live outside the city center.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



1. Infrastructure NEVER exists initially.

2. Most cities with public transportation were NOT planned with it in mind, either.

3. You're frigging paranoid. Corporate interests are trying to keep public transportation down in Memphis? Please. If it were DETROIT we were talking about, I might believe it. Might.

4. Even more paranoid. Poor people don't live in rich neighborhoods because they can't afford to buy the property, not because they can't get a ride back to their jobs. A person who is too broke to own a car #### sure can't afford a house in whatever the Memphis equivalent of Beverly Hills is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Sep. 04 2001,14:29

I just did a little mental math, and before I paid off one of my vehicles 6 months ago, I had well over ũk/month going to vehicle payments, insurance and maintenance. SHIT YEAH I'd trade some POV convenience for even just 50% savings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Sep. 04 2001,14:37

As I've said before, I have no trouble with public transportation as long as getting people to use it does not require squelching their rights.
Gordo, if you wanna ride the trolley, train, subway, or a dog that is paid for with a ticket paid for out of your pocket, then go right ahead, but don't keep me from owning my car. Then you can offer to take your wife out on a date in the bus while I offer her a ride in my car and we'll see who has company for dinner.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Sep. 04 2001,14:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: from thibodeaux on 12:27 pm on Sep. 4, 2001

1. Infrastructure NEVER exists initially.
2. Most cities with public transportation were NOT planned with it in mind, either.

3. You're frigging paranoid. Corporate interests are trying to keep public transportation down in Memphis? Please. If it were DETROIT we were talking about, I might believe it. Might.

4. Even more paranoid. Poor people don't live in rich neighborhoods because they can't afford to buy the property, not because they can't get a ride back to their jobs. A person who is too broke to own a car #### sure can't afford a house in whatever the Memphis equivalent of Beverly Hills is.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



1. I know. I'm saying it would have been easier if it were planned out during the industrial revolution for mass transit everywhere. Pre-union wage supports and standards, before housing developments were plopped in any random cornfield, and before city sprawl makes the startup costs a lot more prohibitive now than they'd have been in 1910.

2. That's what I'm saying. Like Boston. No planning whatsoever...."total freedom"....and the worse traffic in the country. Yahoo.

3. Right. Los Angeles, too. Hard to find hard evidence in only five minutes, but < here's a place to start. >

4. Incorrect.
a. Germantown is Memphis's "Beverly hills."
b. The city a proposed "low income housing" development out toward Germantown, with the promise of improved bus service. Want to venture a guess who's fighting it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Sep. 04 2001,14:47

On a side note, from that article I linked:
"In retrospect, the most remarkable thing about the Pacific Electric’s history is that the passenger service did not expire entirely until 1961. Interurban of the typical Midwestern sort, which served intermediate-sized towns and rural areas, mainly characteristic of Indians (sic) and Ohio, were wiped out in the depths of the depression or in the late 1930's...."

I grew up in a small town in Ohio. There was this old trail going between my small town and the slightly larger town 10 miles away. Went in a straight line. No bridges, but support abutments where it crossed creeks and streams. We kids called that trail "the trolleys." It wasn't until several years later I figured out what that name meant. Amazing that name could be passed down generation to generation of kids until the meaning is all but forgotten.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Sep. 04 2001,14:54

Ok, I think your 1 and 2 add up to "We need to plan cities to accommodate public transportation." I think you're mistaken in blaming Boston's problems on "freedom," since roads and other forms of public transportation infrastructure are typically government monopolies, but hey, monopolies are OK if they're government monopolies, right?
As for 3, I can't read in in depth 'til tonight, but I don't think that document you linked to had any evidence of GM putting the Red Cars out of business. And anyway, the accusation is that they converted the system from rail to buses, which is still public transportation. I still think you're frigging paranoid, but we've been over this in a previous thread.

Finally, the fact that people are fighting government-subsidized "low-income housing" does not invalidate my argument. Are you saying the gentry are against it because of the bus service, or because of the riff-raff that might start living there? They may have a legitimate point; a low-income housing development could very well hurt their property values. I can't really say, since I'm not up on the issue. Got a link?

Anyway, he poor people wouldn't have been able to afford to live there without subsidies. This is simply a case of the government trying to play social architect. Is that the kind of model you want for America II?
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53725
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

I didn't read the whole thing...

But what about personal automated transportation? The flexibility of cars, without the driving hassle? Could have different sizes available, pretty much there on demand, etc?
It's not me, it's someone else.
71-1085092892

Post by 71-1085092892 »

Three years later, I wouldn't argue so hard in favor of public transportation.... beyond planning the cities to potentially have a rail/whatever system, if it is wanted later.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

GORDON wrote:Three years later, I wouldn't argue so hard in favor of public transportation.... beyond planning the cities to potentially have a rail/whatever system, if it is wanted later.
Heheh... I wonder abut a lot of your views from three years ago, and if you're not a bit further right than you were then ;)
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
71-1085092892

Post by 71-1085092892 »

Age and perspective kill more liberals than terrorists do.
DictionaryDave
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by DictionaryDave »

Public transportation is more efficient both as to fuel and to the environment. But "People love their cars"
thibodeaux
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm

Post by thibodeaux »

DictionaryDave wrote:Public transportation is more efficient both as to fuel and to the environment
Everybody says that, but I wonder if it's really true.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

It's a new country. Let's just build it so that major city centers have no streets, just sidewalks and parks and train stations out the ass.

No streets means no traffic problems. Commute via public transporation, or walk, or get the hell out of the city, those are your choices.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
71-1085092892

Post by 71-1085092892 »

TPRJones wrote:It's a new country. Let's just build it so that major city centers have no streets, just sidewalks and parks and train stations out the ass.

No streets means no traffic problems. Commute via public transporation, or walk, or get the hell out of the city, those are your choices.
Heh. Read the original post... I argued that for a long time.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

GORDON wrote:
TPRJones wrote:It's a new country. Let's just build it so that major city centers have no streets, just sidewalks and parks and train stations out the ass.

No streets means no traffic problems. Commute via public transporation, or walk, or get the hell out of the city, those are your choices.

Heh. Read the original post... I argued that for a long time.
Why'd you change your mind? Still sounds good to me.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53725
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

thibodeaux wrote:
DictionaryDave wrote:Public transportation is more efficient both as to fuel and to the environment

Everybody says that, but I wonder if it's really true.
I don't.

It just isn't as time efficient.
It's not me, it's someone else.
DictionaryDave
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:37 pm

Post by DictionaryDave »

TheCatt wrote:
thibodeaux wrote:
DictionaryDave wrote:Public transportation is more efficient both as to fuel and to the environment

Everybody says that, but I wonder if it's really true.

I don't.

It just isn't as time efficient.
I guess it depends on what your destination is and how far you are traveling. When I lived in Washington D.C. using public transportation was faster and cheaper. The same with when I was in London.
Now if I had to go outside of Washington then car was better. In London same except for maybe long trips b/c they have excellent rail system.
Post Reply