Living Car Free - The Sorry State Mass Transit Is Slipping Into

In the Philippines and Kenya that have a jitney system that seems to work reasonably well and it is private. The Philippines calls them Jeepneys. Anyway they stop just about everywhere and will take as many passengers as they can in one direction dropping them off as they go and picking up new people going in that general direction. In Kenya any mini van can end up as a matatus. Well some matatus are just small pickups but they work the same. You stand on the side of the road and a Matatu comes by. If it is going in your direction and it isn’t full you jump on and pay the agreed on price and get dropped off if the vehicle decided to turn before you need to. You can get just about anywhere on one of these. Only problem is you are never sure when exactly one will be driving by with room for one more. They even have bicycles that people will give you a ride on for what amounts to 25 cents. Not going to happen here with things like OSHA and workmans comp laws.

In the Philippines and Kenya that have a jitney system that seems to work reasonably well and it is private. The Philippines calls them Jeepneys. Anyway they stop just about everywhere and will take as many passengers as they can in one direction dropping them off as they go and picking up new people going in that general direction. In Kenya any mini van can end up as a matatus. Well some matatus are just small pickups but they work the same. You stand on the side of the road and a Matatu comes by. If it is going in your direction and it isn’t full you jump on and pay the agreed on price and get dropped off if the vehicle decided to turn before you need to. You can get just about anywhere on one of these. Only problem is you are never sure when exactly one will be driving by with room for one more. They even have bicycles that people will give you a ride on for what amounts to 25 cents. Not going to happen here with things like OSHA and workmans comp laws.

I'm not sure that Americans--who are too spoiled and squeamish to ride on a nice air conditioned bus with their neighbors--would put up with the conditions on a jitney.

BTW, we've had jitneys in America. I remember them in Detroit in the 1970's. And we even have those bicycle things you mentioned. They're called pedicabs. :rolleyes:

Nassau in the Bahamas has a curious system. They have set routes, but the buses are run individually by private firms/individuals. So the fare is up for grabs though competition keeps it fairly standardized and low. And the scheduling along the route is also loose. The downside is that I have witnessed drivers stealing passengers from other buses. At the main terminus, two drivers got into a big fight as to whose passengers were whose. The passengers wisely fled, and both drivers lost.

The cool part is that the buses will take you safely through neighborhoods that are never on the tourist agenda, so you get a much better idea of the real nature of where you are visiting.

Nassau in the Bahamas has a curious system. They have set routes, but the buses are run individually by private firms/individuals. So the fare is up for grabs though competition keeps it fairly standardized and low. And the scheduling along the route is also loose. The downside is that I have witnessed drivers stealing passengers from other buses. At the main terminus, two drivers got into a big fight as to whose passengers were whose. The passengers wisely fled, and both drivers lost.
At tourist places in India cabbies would grab your bags and throw them in the trunk, thinking tourists follow the bags. The problem is that sometimes one guy would grab one bag and another would grab another from a group of tourists. Then the drivers would fight each other for the other bag. It seemed like the only way the yelling and pushing got sorted out is when a guy in uniform with a stick jumped in and began beating the drivers. The beating had a calming effect. But that kind of chaos wouldn't happen here. The businesses get together and provide these free jitneys that cruise the business strip that paid for it. The jitney extends the business advantage of the subway stations beyond the two blocks or block and a half that Americans are willing to walk.

And we even have those bicycle things you mentioned. They're called pedicabs. :rolleyes:

Not quite; a pedicab is a trike or a quad with passenger seats behind. I've seen what he's talking about, and they are just ordinary bikes with large, sturdy rear racks.

Not quite; a pedicab is a trike or a quad with passenger seats behind. I've seen what he's talking about, and they are just ordinary bikes with large, sturdy rear racks.

Yes, and if you have seen the size of the bicycle rider and some of the people they haul along you feel you should tip him on top of the 25 cents.

Yes, and if you have seen the size of the bicycle rider and some of the people they haul along you feel you should tip him on top of the 25 cents.

Of course, riding on the rear rack of a bike is against the law in most towns in the US.

Here it comes, mass transit failing when it is needed more than ever.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2542469120090325
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_doomsday_has_arrived_mta_board_approves_.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aAcygNQelYzY&refer=us

Isn't this on Dahon.Steve's turf?

Here it comes, mass transit failing when it is needed more than ever.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2542469120090325
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_doomsday_has_arrived_mta_board_approves_.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aAcygNQelYzY&refer=us

Isn't this on Dahon.Steve's turf?

My understanding was that decent mass transit was one of the few things that made NYC liveable at all.

Here it comes, mass transit failing when it is needed more than ever.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2542469120090325
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_doomsday_has_arrived_mta_board_approves_.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aAcygNQelYzY&refer=us


I see....more bicycles in NYC's future. It certainly can't fit many more cars.

I think what happens in these forums is we talk cross purposes on too many subjects. The rebirth of the large urban city of old simply isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen. I agree a new model city could be built to attract Suburban people back if Atlanta is considered but cities like Chicago is still bleeding people at a rate that soon will pronounce the city in critical condition. We hear stories of a return to the city but the facts don’t fit the story. In Chicago’s case here is an example from the mayor.



“Recently, the stubborn facts of Chicago’s population decline made news. As CBS TV Chicago reported in January of 2008:


Half-empty schools are ‘unacceptable’ because they don't serve their students or the communities they're supposed to anchor, Mayor Richard M. Daley said Thursday, setting the stage for the biggest wave of school closings in decades.


Officials contend 147 of 417 neighborhood elementary schools are from half to more than two-thirds empty because enrollment has declined by 41,000 students in the last seven years. A tentative CPS plan calls for up to 50 under-used schools to close, consolidate with other schools or phase out over the next five years.”
So what we need to do is quite fighting about people returning to the big city and decide how we are going to live without the city being the center of our society. At the very least the western half of the US will more than likely reject any model of living that looks like a traditional European centralized urban setting. Mass transit and alternative forms of transportation will simply have to deal with the reality that humans do not do well living too close together. They can but it takes a whole different mindset than what the American society has today.

^^I agree. One possibility for new design is the "urban village" (http://www.urbanvillages.com/) concept.

^^I agree. One possibility for new design is the "urban village" (http://www.urbanvillages.com/) concept.

Oh, dang it Roody. You had to bring up New Urbanism. I never have time for longer posts, and I'm sure if I get started now one of the kids will wake up screaming, but I'll jump into this anyway.

While New Urbanism sounds like a great concept - walkable community with all the amenities right around the corner, compact, car-free living - what they are in reality is just another new suburb on what used to be productive farmland. And they may be walkable, but not completely.

Most often, in reality, there isn't a mix of housing in these communities. They're higher end housing, and while some may claim to have a mix of housing prices, they're generally talking something for the very wealthy and the wealthy, not a mix that might include your middle class family, or a working class family, or heaven forbid affordable housing. The community may include shops, restaurants, movies and services, but the person waiting tables at that restaurant or working at the retail shop cannot afford to live in the community. They need to drive there from the place they can afford. The folks who own the houses don't work in that community and they generally drive to wherever they do work. These communities are former fields that have been bought and designed by the developer who bought land where someone was willing to sell (the loss of farmland is another whole topic perhaps for another day, but it's also directly related to urban sprawl which I would argue that New Urbanism is, just with a more green-sounding name), generally closely located to an on/off ramp on the interstate system so that folks can get in and out of the "village" quickly and easily and drive off to their jobs. They are not developed near a major employer, they're developed where the land is cheapest and the interstate system is accessible.

At the same time, they require all new infrastructure. New sewer, water, roads, etc. I haven't yet seen one that's included a school (someone correct me if I'm mistaken). These are subdivisions marked by developers. Urban village moniker notwithstanding, that "village" isn't going to provide a school, so the kid will need to be driven or bussed to where the schools are.

In the meantime, disinvestment in the existing urban areas leaves those areas with failing schools, infrastructure that's already there but no longer maintained because of a falling tax base, a lack of social stratification that's at the other end of the income scale from those folks who are living in their new urban communities. Places like Flint and Detroit have lost so much population that they're demolishing housing at an astounding rate (I know, I get to review the HUD-funded ones every day. It's depressing as hell.)

And at the same time, we lose more farmland. One subdivision at a time. No big deal, until there isn't enough land left to farm, the cost of petroleum skyrockets and it costs too much to farm on a large industrial scale, and food costs go up.

No one in the US wants to live by someone not like them - starting with race and working right over to income. If a mixed community is where houses cost between $350k and $450k, what do the kids growing up there understand about the life of the kid growing up in a $50k house, or even a $150k house, not to mention those who can't even afford that? And if you don't know anyone who is less well-off than your "people" why should you care about them? It becomes much easier for the "haves" to blame the "have-nots" for their own problems and let them try to take care of themselves.

If you can live in a community where the people who work in the community can't afford to live there, but yet the community labels itself "walkable" (you could walk to a movie, or walk to the ice cream shop but not walk to your job), and you've got your own personal vehicle to drive off to work, why should you worry about how the waitress is going to keep her gas tank filled when prices go back up? And why should you pay to subsidize mass transportation? Heck, you're capable of paying for your own car, the rest of the folks should be able to do the same. After all, all the people you know can afford their cars.

If you can live in a community where the people who work in the community can't afford to live there, but yet the community labels itself "walkable" (you could walk to a movie, or walk to the ice cream shop but not walk to your job), and you've got your own personal vehicle to drive off to work, why should you worry about how the waitress is going to keep her gas tank filled when prices go back up? And why should you pay to subsidize mass transportation? Heck, you're capable of paying for your own car, the rest of the folks should be able to do the same. After all, all the people you know can afford their cars.

I know exactly what you mean. On Another Thread, someone was touting Peachtree City, GA as an ideal bicycle friendly community. However, even by his own admission everything you say is true.

The one thing I can say is INFILL DEVELOPMENT. When I lived in Charlotte, there were lots of little pockets of undeveloped land inside the city. The idea was to take those pockets and develop them new urbanistically.

In cities like Detroit where they are demolishing housing, that opens up areas for community gardens. Take those acres of land that aren't built up and put them under cultivation. Here in Charleston on the West Side, I see so many vacant lots on which vegetable gardens could be planted. We just need somebody to give it a boost.

No one in the US wants to live by someone not like them - starting with race and working right over to income. If a mixed community is where houses cost between $350k and $450k, what do the kids growing up there understand about the life of the kid growing up in a $50k house, or even a $150k house, not to mention those who can't even afford that? And if you don't know anyone who is less well-off than your "people" why should you care about them? It becomes much easier for the "haves" to blame the "have-nots" for their own problems and let them try to take care of themselves.

If you can live in a community where the people who work in the community can't afford to live there, but yet the community labels itself "walkable" (you could walk to a movie, or walk to the ice cream shop but not walk to your job), and you've got your own personal vehicle to drive off to work, why should you worry about how the waitress is going to keep her gas tank filled when prices go back up? And why should you pay to subsidize mass transportation? Heck, you're capable of paying for your own car, the rest of the folks should be able to do the same. After all, all the people you know can afford their cars.
Thanks for taking the time to write this post. The year I moved to my central city neighborhood and ditched the car, I checked the demographics of my zip code. Very odd, rich and poor mixed up. On my block I have poor retireees, maids, and lawyers and well off people, I even had a congressman over on the next block. I can and sometimes do walk to work. There are walkable places where the people who work the low paying jobs can afford to live, but they aren't the "New Urban" ex-farmlands as you describe.

Oh, dang it Roody. You had to bring up New Urbanism. I never have time for longer posts, and I'm sure if I get started now one of the kids will wake up screaming, but I'll jump into this anyway.

While New Urbanism sounds like a great concept - walkable community with all the amenities right around the corner, compact, car-free living - what they are in reality is just another new suburb on what used to be productive farmland. And they may be walkable, but not completely.

Most often, in reality, there isn't a mix of housing in these communities. They're higher end housing, and while some may claim to have a mix of housing prices, they're generally talking something for the very wealthy and the wealthy, not a mix that might include your middle class family, or a working class family, or heaven forbid affordable housing. The community may include shops, restaurants, movies and services, but the person waiting tables at that restaurant or working at the retail shop cannot afford to live in the community. They need to drive there from the place they can afford. The folks who own the houses don't work in that community and they generally drive to wherever they do work. These communities are former fields that have been bought and designed by the developer who bought land where someone was willing to sell (the loss of farmland is another whole topic perhaps for another day, but it's also directly related to urban sprawl which I would argue that New Urbanism is, just with a more green-sounding name), generally closely located to an on/off ramp on the interstate system so that folks can get in and out of the "village" quickly and easily and drive off to their jobs. They are not developed near a major employer, they're developed where the land is cheapest and the interstate system is accessible.

At the same time, they require all new infrastructure. New sewer, water, roads, etc. I haven't yet seen one that's included a school (someone correct me if I'm mistaken). These are subdivisions marked by developers. Urban village moniker notwithstanding, that "village" isn't going to provide a school, so the kid will need to be driven or bussed to where the schools are.

In the meantime, disinvestment in the existing urban areas leaves those areas with failing schools, infrastructure that's already there but no longer maintained because of a falling tax base, a lack of social stratification that's at the other end of the income scale from those folks who are living in their new urban communities. Places like Flint and Detroit have lost so much population that they're demolishing housing at an astounding rate (I know, I get to review the HUD-funded ones every day. It's depressing as hell.)

And at the same time, we lose more farmland. One subdivision at a time. No big deal, until there isn't enough land left to farm, the cost of petroleum skyrockets and it costs too much to farm on a large industrial scale, and food costs go up.

No one in the US wants to live by someone not like them - starting with race and working right over to income. If a mixed community is where houses cost between $350k and $450k, what do the kids growing up there understand about the life of the kid growing up in a $50k house, or even a $150k house, not to mention those who can't even afford that? And if you don't know anyone who is less well-off than your "people" why should you care about them? It becomes much easier for the "haves" to blame the "have-nots" for their own problems and let them try to take care of themselves.

If you can live in a community where the people who work in the community can't afford to live there, but yet the community labels itself "walkable" (you could walk to a movie, or walk to the ice cream shop but not walk to your job), and you've got your own personal vehicle to drive off to work, why should you worry about how the waitress is going to keep her gas tank filled when prices go back up? And why should you pay to subsidize mass transportation? Heck, you're capable of paying for your own car, the rest of the folks should be able to do the same. After all, all the people you know can afford their cars.

Very good points. The developers and the media love to take a good concept and twist it all out of shape.

I think of urban villages as being existing urban neighborhoods, but with infill development to add commercal and industrial development close to residences. Think of that vacant land left by the GM plants in Lansing, developed with housing, small factories, offices, stores, schools and parks. Or the condo and "loft" development in downtown Lansing and East Lansing commercial districts, close to resident's existing school and work. I think downtown Lansing is slowly becoming a "village" already.

Another plan is the carfree cities (http://www.carfree.com/topology.html) model. Here you have high density housing built in residential "nodes" that encircle a train station. Residents all live within a 5 minute walk of the station. They use the trains to access work, school and jobs--all in separate "nodes", but accessible with less than a 30 minute train ride.

Most often, in reality, there isn't a mix of housing in these communities. They're higher end housing, and while some may claim to have a mix of housing prices, they're generally talking something for the very wealthy and the wealthy, not a mix that might include your middle class family, or a working class family, or heaven forbid affordable housing. The community may include shops, restaurants, movies and services, but the person waiting tables at that restaurant or working at the retail shop cannot afford to live in the community. They need to drive there from the place they can afford. The folks who own the houses don't work in that community and they generally drive to wherever they do work. These communities are former fields that have been bought and designed by the developer who bought land where someone was willing to sell (the loss of farmland is another whole topic perhaps for another day, but it's also directly related to urban sprawl which I would argue that New Urbanism is, just with a more green-sounding name), generally closely located to an on/off ramp on the interstate system so that folks can get in and out of the "village" quickly and easily and drive off to their jobs. They are not developed near a major employer, they're developed where the land is cheapest and the interstate system is accessible.


I see this type of housing in the Des Moines downtown. Expensive condos where the inhabitants can easily walk to a cafe, bar or restaurant, but which is miles away from a grocery store... which almost guarantees the owners have to own a vehicle or get a bus pass (not likely at this income level.).

However, there are several more relatively informal developments, one in particular that kind of developed as people bought into rundown housing close to the downtown. Each owner developed their own house and eventually the neighbourhood became quite nice. There are grocery stores (as well as bars and cafes) close by and you could even walk downtown. But again, the owners tend to be all relatively well off.

Where I live is a much more informal development but retail and residential space is mixed together and people can live close to their work in some cases. Grocery, cafe, bar, retail are all walkable and the neighbourhood is laid out like a grid.

However, the biggest part of the city is the East end, where there are many neighbourhoods, but relatively few grocery stores and most people have to own a car to get to retail shopping and other services. These people tend to be lower income and their dependence on cars is almost required.