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 don't sit there and take joy out of someone getting hit by a car on foot/on a bike, or smile in joy at the city cutting bus service for people who rely on it.
Is getting hit by a car equivalent to paying more for gas?
What a ridiculous statement, I can't understand how anyone could say something like this.
They are negative externalities associated with more gasoline usage (pollution, trade deficit among them, more sprawl depending on your point of your view). It may be a good idea to raise the gasoline tax, it may not, but it's not ridiculous. I'd support a $1-$2 increase with most of the increase rebated back to individuals. And yes, I do drive.
Quote:
Because we all know the only people affected by the price of oil, it can't possibly non-drivers in any meaningful way, transportation or not. People who live in magical urban areas where all goods and supplies are delivered by solar-powered electric trains, "diesel" buses are fueled with unicorn tears, transit agencies don't use petroleum for anything at all. Oh, of course all plastics are 100% recycled and nothing else we use comes from petroleum whatsoever.
Of course, non-drivers are affected but they are affected less.
Is getting hit by a car equivalent to paying more for gas?
In terms of severity, no its not. I know plenty of people who have made comments about cyclists being hit by cars as "good for them, maybe they'll stay off the road now" in a similar vein as a cyclist saying "I'm glad gas prices are getting higher, maybe people will stop taking up so much space on the roads now". I don't agree whatsoever that either one is a rational thought, and the hit by a car example is an extreme case of ridiculousness, but I have heard it said as well in the same vein.
In terms of severity, no its not. I know plenty of people who have made comments about cyclists being hit by cars as "good for them, maybe they'll stay off the road now" in a similar vein as a cyclist saying "I'm glad gas prices are getting higher, maybe people will stop taking up so much space on the roads now". I don't agree whatsoever that either one is a rational thought, and the hit by a car example is an extreme case of ridiculousness, but I have heard it said as well in the same vein.
Understood. This cyclist is appreciative.
Increases in fuel prices, however, affect those who drive little or not at all, less.
(1)Your hypothetical is unlikely, first. (2)Sure, you'll get more non-poor people on transit in City B, but that doesn't mean the cause of more ridership and public transit support is due to higher economic diversity...
...(3)As to which city would allocate more funds, A. City B may have expanded transit to cover all that there could be ridership for.
1. Unlikely? Sure. But so is sending men to the Moon and back safely. I only bring that up because when America wants to do something, it will. So even though a transportation system for a city of 50,000 in 50 square miles is unlikely, I believe that Americans can make it happen if they want to.
But, just guessing here, 95-98% of American "cities" have far from comprehensive public transit options, and I think I'm being generous with those percentages.
2. I agree. But I think you also have to admit that having more routes that cover more miles plays a significant role in whether or not "economically diverse" people use it, correct?
If Chicago (using it as an example because I know it) had only the Red line train, which runs north and south, I seriously doubt the mayor, or many other white collar people (where ever they lived) would be taking a bus/parking-and-riding to get to the one train line that serviced the city. They would just drive... my thought of course.
3. I don't buy this. Why should "City A" spend more money on something that barely goes anywhere?
I get wanting to expand the system, I do. But the chances are that the city with 14 miles of public transit routes won't see a need to expand their system. Why? Because "poor" people use it... not "the middle class".
Almost everyone in America thinks of themselves as "middle class":
"The 2008 census reported the medium income as $50,233. The PewResearch Center suggests that the middle income range is 75 percent to 150 percent of the median income. This would make the middle class income range $37,675 to $75,350. To most, this range seems small, and surveys conducted by the PewResearch Center find that many who fall outside this range still consider themselves middle class...
...Surveys conducted by the PewResearch Center confirm that salary, or income, range is not the only determining factor of what class a person considers himself. Four out of 10 Americans with incomes below $20,000 classify themselves as middle class. On the other end, one-third of those who enjoy incomes over $150,000 say they are middle class."
**EDIT** Is this why we have so many junker cars on the road??? The mentality of, "I have a car... Of course I'm not poor! I have car freedom!"
I think my point still rings true:
Places with nonexistent, terrible, and bad transportation systems think public transit is for the "poor"
Places with totally comprehensive, excellent, or very good public transportation are for "regular people".
Definition
Persons who do not have immediate access to private transportation or who otherwise must use public transportation in order to travel. Also, persons limited by circumstance to use one mode of transportation. Or, having to rely on public transportation to meet one's travel needs. (Source: AASHTO Glossary)
I get it. I did before you posted it.
I even gave an earlier example of a person who was deemed BY THE STATE to be handicapped, but still chose to drive themselves to their destination and have able bodied people push them in a wheelchair to their final destination.
That person should have:
A) Been driven by the able bodied women in his company.
or
B) Been able to take public transit to the grocery store (which sat on a major city road).
But that wasn't the case. Because in a place that has, pardon my French, S------- public transportation, traveling other than car is something "poor" people do.
Hell, the cars (a significant percentage) I saw on the road (in Indianapolis) couldn't have been worth more than $500 Kelly Blue Book value.
My guess? Public transit sucks there (not a guess, it's a fact), and only the truly poor enough to not own a $500 junker aren't driving one or are getting their family/significant others/roommates to drive them.
"Take the BUS?!?!?! I'm not like them!!!!!!!!! Drive me... wait, I'll drive, then you just help me into my wheelchair, then push me into the store!"
"Take the BUS?!?!?! I'm not like them!!!!!!!!! Drive me... wait, I'll drive, then you just help me into my wheelchair, then push me into the store!"
While I agree with the priciple, your discription does not sound like someone healthy enough to take transit. Unless that was a motorized wheel chair and he had enough oxygen supply even the bus would be too much. A better example might be a relative of mine who used it when she got too old to drive. She was still able to get about pretty well but lacked the vison to drive.
Here in SLC it seems that buses are for poor/trashy people and to be avoided but light rail and commuter rail are just fine for "Classy people" and using them is more "responsible" behavior than driving.
It's strange how people's minds work... this would all be so much easier if people thought logically instead of emotionally.
In terms of severity, no its not. I know plenty of people who have made comments about cyclists being hit by cars as "good for them, maybe they'll stay off the road now" in a similar vein as a cyclist saying "I'm glad gas prices are getting higher, maybe people will stop taking up so much space on the roads now". I don't agree whatsoever that either one is a rational thought, and the hit by a car example is an extreme case of ridiculousness, but I have heard it said as well in the same vein.
Higher gas prices may or may not influence the behavior of other people, but that's their deal - not mine. A few more cars off the road isn't going to have a major impact on my life either way. It's just that when I see the price of gas go up, I see it as even more money I'm saving by not driving.
It's strange how people's minds work... this would all be so much easier if people thought logically instead of emotionally.
But quite boring!
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.
Public Transportation is for Poor People.
