Broad extrapolation from a local situation is inadequate. It'd be like
claiming "everyone in the US can grow palm trees because people in Luisiana
can grow them". Your local situation, even if accurately described, is not
the end-all and be-all absolute definition for *everywhere*.
Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...
Speaking of death-rates, seeing as you seem up on that, are you aware of
the inter/national statistics of those involving vehicles?
The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle. A
lifestyle few enjoy.
I think you're wrong on both counts. For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort". It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car.
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but popular.
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.
Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.
Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle. But
alas, that's not the case. I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.
Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality. You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism). But in reality, its much more than that. It is a
social program. It is a political issue. It is a anti-poverty program/
When I post about the solutions (illegal) worked out by people at low cost,
you get upset and ignore that.
No George, you continue to miss points. The point of the final
examples is that there are no "right" answers.
There are expensive answers to everything which always require high
taxes and no flexibility.
It depends on the
individual. Let me give you another example, if you can handle it.
Many people think electric cars are "the solution" because they don't
pollute. Sure, if all cars/trucks/trains were electric, you might get
pristine air in Manhattan. Many would view that as a good thing. But
electric cars don't just pull electricity out of the air (unless they
are lightening powered). So the externality is more pollution in
Ohio, Pennsylvania and upstate NY. It might mean more dead lake in
the Adirondacks. So, are electric cars good? It depends on where you
live. If you have a kid with asthma in NYC, they might be a great
idea. If you like trout fishing in the Adirondacks, they might not
Electric cars do allow cities to export dirty air to rural locations.
That is what the subways do now. NYC does NOT use fewer BTUs per person
than average because of transit. They do it by having people live in spaces
with lower square footage than a single-wide trailer and with rents and
charges in the millions for a 1 room apartment. But that is the lifestyle
pushed by pro-transit people. Remember the people here who said that 800
square feet for a family was very ample? Yes, there are strong correlates
of transit and my point is that most of the outcomes would be considered
negative by most people most of the time.
Agreed about the real estate, at least out here in Vancouver, BC,
Canada. Much of it is ridiculously unaffordable and/or unliveable.
I'd like to see solutions, but how do we agree on what the problems or
their causes are?
As a related side-note, we seem to have an ostensibly-increasing, or at
least increasingly-visible number of security guards in and around town
slinking around like cockroaches at bedtime.
Security from whom or from what? Members of our own communities? Why
should that be, (given a healthy community)? What? It's not healthy? Oh
ok. "Good solution".
As I have pointed out millions of times, car pooling is designed to fail
and has nothing to do with jitneys. Car pooling is a fake solution pushed
by pro-transit operators because they know it cannot work. It has failed
nicely, just as designed.
Transportation will change, George-- hopefully for the better.
Incidentally, I was awoken this morning by the SOUND of a motorized
pressure-washer. For a more liveable urbansphere, there will need to be
a lot less NOISE too.
NOISE may be one of those UNDERRATED urban CONCERNS.
(I also prefer sail boats over motor boats.)
What brings you to urban planning, by the way?
No, but it's interesting, thanks for the link!
Sometimes my mind turns to trying to think how suburban areas could better-
utilize public transportation, such as a system of feeders (trollies, maybe?)
that could go from suburban neighborhoods (with frequent stops so all are
within reasonable walking distance) to central transport areas. Of course,
our *current* infrastructure is going to hell in a handbasket, and new
infrastructure would add to those costs... :(
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.