Living Car Free - Taken For A Ride - The Murder of Mass Transit

Taken For A Ride - The Murder of Mass Transit
written by Bike Jax at Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Ok this is isn't bike related. But it does have some Jacksonville transit ties.

Taken for a Ride is an amazing documentary by Jim Kleina and Martha Olson that documents the efforts to derail mass transit in America.

Ever wonder why the U.S. has the worst mass transportation system in the industrialized world? Using historical footage and investigative research, this film tells how GM fought to push freeways into the inner cities of America, and push public transportation out. More Info at New Day Films.

http://www.bikejax.org/2009/03/taken-for-ride-murder-of-mass-transit.html

This made me so mad. Here we are doing the same things as of old. We sold our soul to the devil.

We had a pretty big thread on the topic of General Motors destroying streetcars. Unfortunately I can't find a link to it right now. However, there was not a lot of consensus about GM actually doing what the above film claims. This provides some pretty good rebuttal.

In all, though, it seems like GM didn't have that much opposition to their plans. [Though to self: I wonder if GM might consider investing in the gun industry... I wonder what they could do for the manufacture of assault rifles??? :rolleyes:]

In any case, GM seems to be doing to the auto industry what it did back then to the street cars. Is this what they call karma?

Taken For A Ride - The Murder of Mass Transit
written by Bike Jax at Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Ok this is isn't bike related. But it does have some Jacksonville transit ties.

Taken for a Ride is an amazing documentary by Jim Kleina and Martha Olson that documents the efforts to derail mass transit in America.

Ever wonder why the U.S. has the worst mass transportation system in the industrialized world? Using historical footage and investigative research, this film tells how GM fought to push freeways into the inner cities of America, and push public transportation out. More Info at New Day Films.

http://www.bikejax.org/2009/03/taken-for-ride-murder-of-mass-transit.html

I think it's unfortunate that the US's very promising early mass transit system was systematically destroyed, but I don't think it's all GM's fault. It's more a matter of human nature. If you give the average American, Indian or Chinese person a choice between:

a.) riding a bike, rain or or shine,
b.) waiting for a bus or train,
c.) having a car,

guess which one they'll choose, all other things being equal? Given the reality of natural resources vs. projected population, I don't imagine cars have much of a future, but the withdrawl process will be ugly.

I think it's unfortunate that the US's very promising early mass transit system was systematically destroyed, but I don't think it's all GM's fault. It's more a matter of human nature. If you give the average American, Indian or Chinese person a choice between:

a.) riding a bike, rain or or shine,
b.) waiting for a bus or train,
c.) having a car,

guess which one they'll choose, all other things being equal? Given the reality of natural resources vs. projected population, I don't imagine cars have much of a future, but the withdrawl process will be ugly.

To be honest for me it is alot faster to ride a bike than to take the bus or drive so I'd rather have a bike plus I am not all crammed up like on the bus.

I agree on withdrawal being ugly. Especially here in Texas with everything so spread out. The town I am from which is Flower Mound is going to become almost undrivable by 2020 IMO but there forecasting has shown that all there major intersections with a F on there grading scale for delays by 2015.

They don't have anything for bikes, they turned down the option to fund mass transit so they aren't served. Yet they build a giant Rec center where you have to pay for a membership. Then the rooms they charge to rent out too even for non profit organizations in Flower Mound when it was all funded by the tax payers.

They are also thinking about trying to go green with stupid low speed vehicles for public works and that stuff which would make the traffic nightmare even worse.

To make matters much worse they have a huge mixed use city/town center being built with a central 8 story building then on the south side of town construction is to start this year or next on a 15 story tower that consists of condos and a hotel with more on the way. To me the place is full of new rich stuck up snobs now that moved there in the last 3-7 years that would rather sit for hours in traffic before they ever ride a bus or train.

I did like that video quite a bit. I had never even heard about it before and was quite surprised to where I even did a little research just to see if it was correct.

For me, the point here is mass transit needed an upgrade in the fifties. It didn't happen then and it don't happen now.

We took the cheap (unpatriotic) way out which enriched a few rather than taking a more socialistic way which would have enriched everyone. In turn provided a strong vibrant country. Our fear of socialism programs will lead us to our demise and harbor a double standard. Clearly not every one can use a freeway we all built.

I wanted to see that movie for quite a while and couldn't find where to buy it. Thanks for posting.

It's amazing how we destroyed thousands of traction lines to make way for the bus. Seeing all those trams in flames said it all but they will come back. We have about 12 lightrail lines in the U.S. with more on the way because it's all about urban renewal. A lightrail line will bring in billions of private investment and this is what cities are finding out.

I created a post about living next to a lightrail line and it generated very little interest. There were more negative comments than positive and that's because very few people really want to live next to a trolley line today. Seriously. However, gas will once again reach $4.00 dollars a gallon and when that happens, we will see more interest in lightrail again.

For me, the point here is mass transit needed an upgrade in the fifties. It didn't happen then and it don't happen now.

We took the cheap (unpatriotic) way out which enriched a few rather than taking a more socialistic way which would have enriched everyone. In turn provided a strong vibrant country. Our fear of socialism programs will lead us to our demise and harbor a double standard. Clearly not every one can use a freeway we all built.

I still belive the interstate highway was a social experiment to get americans out of the cities and into homes where they could being a life of consumption. Unfortunately, this lifestyle built around a motorcar is what's bankrupting this nation as we have to spend trillions on oil wars, highways, corporate bailouts etc.

I still belive the interstate highway was a social experiment to get americans out of the cities and into homes where they could being a life of consumption. Unfortunately, this lifestyle built around a motorcar is what's bankrupting this nation as we have to spend trillions on oil wars, highways, corporate bailouts etc.
Good point.
I think the movie touched on this. We needed to supplement tanks and guns with toasters and cars.
I think cooperations pushed this much further along to enrich themselves rather than the country.

Toronto still has a streetcar system which functions quite nicely. I remember using it when I lived in that city in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

It was more convenient to use the transit than to drive and there were stories of motorists who were parking their cars for good because it was not worth the hassle and expense to keep on driving. Traffic gridlock, a lack of parking and high insurance rates were among the factors cited.

I preferred to walk or bicycle where I wanted to go, taking the transit only occasionally. I could get around faster by bike than by car or transit. Walking from my home to school, 2.5 kilometres away, took the same amount of time as riding the streetcar. But despite the speed factor, cycling wasn't a good way of getting around. In winter, the salt on the roads played havoc with bicycle components and throughout the year, bike thieves would look around for any opportunity to steal a decent bike. Within a few months, I made the move from cycling to walking.

I'm glad this was posted, but I feel like I should say that the auto/tire/oil lobby doesn't have all the responsibility here. For instance, Los Angeles once had the foremost electric streetcar/train system of any city in the US if not the world. Crazy right? And it wasn't just the auto/rubber/POL syndicates that crushed it, it also involved changing land use patterns and bureaucratic dysfunctionality that prevented a public take over after profits fell off, until long after the system had deteriorated past the point of being salvagable w/o spending way more than was feasible at the time--especially as today's automotive dystopia was imagined by precious few of the wiser heads at the time.


The conspiracy pictured in this theory was real, but it was part of a larger mutually dependent and reenforicng sociopolitical landscape which is what in fact did in mass transit in most large American cities.

Ultimately it's a familiar tale of short term profit taking in the face of inattentive, ineffective or blind policy makers and academicians.

In other words, what else is new?

Good point, gamecat. Changing attitudes are also a factor. Houses built before the 1960s or 1970s tended to be smaller and on smaller lots than houses built in the last 10 to 20 years, but families are smaller now than in the past. The result is we're using more land for fewer people, resulting in sprawl. Add in the acreages at the edge of town, the hobby farms and the non-farm homes on rural properties and the spread becomes a huge factor.

If there was a way to make city or town living, in core areas or older neighbourhoods, more attractive, we might stand a chance at cleaning up some of the car dependency and traffic congestion issues.

If there was a way to make city or town living, in core areas or older neighbourhoods, more attractive, we might stand a chance at cleaning up some of the car dependency and traffic congestion issues.

Truth.

Although, it's difficult to do this w/o displacing the people already living in those areas as they are now, and so destroying the communities they comprise. Which just exacerbates structural inequality and shifts more of the social burden for remediation to those already carrying most of the weight--i.e. the grim side of the processes loosely subsumed by the code word 'gentrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification).' (aka urban renewal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal)See also "the plan (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=350)" (link is to TAL, use the online player, skip to 31:50) -- the internal account that emphasizes the history of redlining, blockbusting, environmental racism and planned shrinkage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_shrinkage) in American inner cities.

I'm after something a little different here. Where I live, we have a downtown that shuts down at the end of the business day. If buildings were to have commercial development on the main floor and apartments or small housing units above, it could make a huge difference. Young singles, young couples and retirees might all find such units very attractive. This isn't about displacing people in order to create a trendy neighbourhood. It's about bringing people to live in an area where they once only shopped or worked.

In downtown or older neighbourhoods, homes are close together and are built for an efficient use of land. The neigbhourhood has is quite walkable with businesses, schools, entertainment venues and workplaces close to the homes. In suburbs and newer neighbourhoods, the lots become larger and there is a greater distance to the businesses and services people need. When such neighbourhoods also have limited transit service, the result is a community which becomes increasingly dependent on automobile traffic. Unless our attitudes and approaches to urban planning start to change, gridlock and congestion are only going to get worse.

code word gentrification----------urban renewal.- the internal account that emphasizes the history of redlining, blockbusting, environmental racism and planned shrinkage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_shrinkage) in American inner cities.

Good one.

Gentrification of the inner cities was immenent because once all the land 50 miles away from the city was developed, the next generation would be forced to return back to the urban core. It's this next generation with small or no families and professional jobs that are demanding new high rise luxury construction. Cities are doing their part to attact this wealthy young populous with lightrail.

I have to admit that urban renewal has both good and bad points. I've seen more housing projects destroyed in the past 15 years than ever before. Where did they relocate all the poor is unknwn but from what I heard, this is what doubled the homeless population recently.

I've seen more housing projects destroyed in the past 15 years than ever before. Where did they relocate all the poor is unknwn but from what I heard, this is what doubled the homeless population recently.

They've also been relocated into "richer" neighborhoods by way of subsidized housing. You'll have a pocket of middle-income households, for example, and a family that used to live in a squalid housing project is inserted among them.

Not that there's enough subsidized housing to go around, but it's part of the effort.

For me, the point here is mass transit needed an upgrade in the fifties. It didn't happen then and it don't happen now.

We took the cheap (unpatriotic) way out which enriched a few rather than taking a more socialistic way which would have enriched everyone. In turn provided a strong vibrant country. Our fear of socialism programs will lead us to our demise and harbor a double standard. Clearly not every one can use a freeway we all built.

So, having good mass transit is socialism? Can't we keep being capitalists and still have public services like fire and police departments and public schools?

So, having good mass transit is socialism? Can't we keep being capitalists and still have public services like fire and police departments and public schools?

Under pure capitalism... no, you can't. Can't buy it? You don't get to have it, whether it's a silk tie, a fire truck, or a tooth filling.

An ideal society, IMO, has a good blend of capitalist and socialist agendas.

Although, it's difficult to do this w/o displacing the people already living in those areas as they are now, and so destroying the communities they comprise. Which just exacerbates structural inequality and shifts more of the social burden for remediation to those already carrying most of the weight--i.e. the grim side of the processes loosely subsumed by the code word 'gentrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification).' (aka urban renewal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal)See also "the plan (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=350)" (link is to TAL, use the online player, skip to 31:50) -- the internal account that emphasizes the history of redlining, blockbusting, environmental racism and planned shrinkage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_shrinkage) in American inner cities.
Even your wikipediea links describe gentrification and urban renewal as two different things. In DC, the areas where people complain about gentrification are different from the areas where people point to failed urban renewal efforts. The gentrification is taking place in the neighborhoods that successfully fought the urban renewal process. For people interested in car-free living the gentrified neighborhoods seem more walkable than the urban renewal neighborhoods. For example in our South West they created cul-de sacs by blocking the street grid. So the result was high density but lowered traffic through put AND segregated use. They overlayed this with limited access highways. They had planned to do this in my neighborhood too but the residents stopped them. My neighborhood is apparently being gentrified but it is still walkable and mixed use. People point to South West, just a stones throw from the old HUD headquarters as a failed Urban Renewal area. They're trying to fix their mistakes now.

An ideal society, IMO, has a good blend of capitalist and socialist agendas.

:thumb:

Under pure capitalism... no, you can't. Can't buy it? You don't get to have it, whether it's a silk tie, a fire truck, or a tooth filling.

An ideal society, IMO, has a good blend of capitalist and socialist agendas.

+1

One of the problems with private transit in the fifties. Eventually we had to take it over anyways when it was a beat down dog.

Here is some more GM hate fodder.
The problem with this company is they never let up they keep beating the war drum. Like they have a bruised ego and need to challenge everything.
here is a great info graphic.
http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/the-fall-of-gm-a-visual-guide/

Here they still give gas and cars to employees.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102316176&ft=1&f=1001

This company hasn't learned their lesson from the forties. Their business plan is not in the best interest of the Country. Why do we keep them around?

The headlines make it seem like Obama is being tough with GM. If he can fire the CEO maybe he can do things that will make car-free living easier.

The headlines make it seem like Obama is being tough with GM. If he can fire the CEO maybe he can do things that will make car-free living easier.

Would be nice, but 100,000 new cars not likely.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/30/20090330ObamaAutos30-ON.html

"He also noted that the economic stimulus legislation he recently signed allows the purchasers of new domestic cars to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. Obama said this provision could “save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales.”"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2486235784907931000&hl=en

someone please embed this

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2486235784907931000&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

Would be nice, but 100,000 new cars not likely.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/30/20090330ObamaAutos30-ON.html

"He also noted that the economic stimulus legislation he recently signed allows the purchasers of new domestic cars to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. Obama said this provision could “save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales.”"

Good one.

If GM went bankrupt, the other manufacturers will simply pick up production with more cars. We are going to give tax credits and extend lending for people to go out and buy more cars. It's sad to think how dependant our economy is on auto sales.

We are going to give tax credits and extend lending for people to go out and buy more cars. It's sad to think how dependant our economy is on auto sales.

This is simply an extension of the stimulus cheques the U.S. government handed out last year. Instead of an economy based on producing and maintaining quality goods, the focus has been on consumer spending — often on non-essential items.

I prefer to see my value as much more than merely a consumer. And it is not fair to any of us to saddle us with the task of bailing out the manufacturing and commercial sectors when we need to focus on our own personal finances.

Would be nice, but 100,000 new cars not likely.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/30/20090330ObamaAutos30-ON.html

"He also noted that the economic stimulus legislation he recently signed allows the purchasers of new domestic cars to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. Obama said this provision could “save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales.”"

A nice gesture would be to let families deduct the cost of sales and excise taxes for bikes and mass transit fares and walking shoes. Or maybe these things were included too?

My understanding is that the streetcars that GM bought out had become money losers due to the rising usage of the private automobile. Transit remained useful in areas constructed prior to the build-out of the streetcar lines, as they are too densely populated for driving to be convenient for everybody. However, private vehicles are more useful than public transit in areas where populations are more dispersed.

If our economy recovers, I expect the price of oil and other materials to rise back to their previous highs. Modernization in heavily populated nations like India and China combined with the decline of easily extractable oil deposits will make our current transportation patterns less affordable. However, we have also seen public transit suffer as a result of these trends. I expect that the end result of these increased costs won't be improved public transit -- especially considering how inefficiently transit agencies are run -- but the rise of more energy efficient personal transportation. I expect more bikes, more scooters, more motorcycles, more small cars, and more short-distance electrical vehicles. Perhaps neighborhoods will be reconfigured to facilitate walking. More people may take advantage of telecommuting.

People appreciate independence of space and movement, and will hold on to it as long as they are able. I include myself as a member of this group.

My understanding is that the streetcars that GM bought out had become money losers due to the rising usage of the private automobile.

Watch the documentary. It'll give you a chance to see things from a different point of view.


People appreciate independence of space and movement, and will hold on to it as long as they are able. I include myself as a member of this group.

I have some questions for you:

1. Isn't "independence of space" just a nice way of saying you don't like rubbing shoulders with us riff-raff who ride buses and trains?

2. Where do you draw the line about holding on to a car-centric lifestyle? How bad would things have to get in terms of environmental degradation, traffic jams, oil wars, road rage and so on before you finally decided to leave your car at home?

Watch the documentary. It'll give you a chance to see things from a different point of view.

I'll give it a watch when I'm not at work.


I have some questions for you:

1. Isn't "independence of space" just a nice way of saying you don't like rubbing shoulders with us riff-raff who ride buses and trains?

Yes, it is :) I can't stand it. I don't like being placed into a confined space with people that I don't know or trust. I don't appear to be alone in holding that sentiment.


2. Where do you draw the line about holding on to a car-centric lifestyle? How bad would things have to get in terms of environmental degradation, traffic jams, oil wars, road rage and so on before you finally decided to leave your car at home?

I don't own a car or have a driver's license, but that's probably not the point of your question. I do favor environmental protections, anti-pollution regulations, etc. I just think that stronger emissions and fuel-efficiency standards are probably a better tool for combating pollution than the expansion of mass transit. Basically, force the polluter to pay the cost of the externalities that they impose upon society -- doing so will provide them with incentives to adopt cleaner technologies.

I'll give it a watch when I'm not at work.
Yea that would help .



I don't own a car or have a driver's license, but that's probably not the point of your question. I do favor environmental protections, anti-pollution regulations, etc. I just think that stronger emissions and fuel-efficiency standards are probably a better tool for combating pollution than the expansion of mass transit. Basically, force the polluter to pay the cost of the externalities that they impose upon society -- doing so will provide them with incentives to adopt cleaner technologies.

You don't need to watch anything to form this opinion.
You can't put a price on fossil fuels, death, and injuries. Expanding mass transits solves these things to an agreeable level.
Secondary how are you going to force people to pay more, the gas tax hasn't increased since 1992, Obama wants 100,000 cars = more polluters, NYC refuses to charge bridge tolls or congestion charging, how do you charge someone for land use? These things you talk about don't happen in the real world.


However, private vehicles are more useful than public transit in areas where populations are more dispersed.
Which is why we have zoning?


However, we have also seen public transit suffer as a result of these trends. I expect that the end result of these increased costs won't be improved public transit -- especially considering how inefficiently transit agencies are run -- but the rise of more energy efficient personal transportation. I expect more bikes, more scooters, more motorcycles, more small cars, and more short-distance electrical vehicles. Perhaps neighborhoods will be reconfigured to facilitate walking. More people may take advantage of telecommuting.

People appreciate independence of space and movement, and will hold on to it as long as they are able. I include myself as a member of this group.
Many people with h out a DL I am sure would not hold this same opinion as you do car free. Especially the rising number of old people.

Yea that would help .
Secondary how are you going to force people to pay more, the gas tax hasn't increased since 1992, Obama wants 100,000 cars = more polluters, NYC refuses to charge bridge tolls or congestion charging, how do you charge someone for land use? These things you talk about don't happen in the real world.


I expect that we will see increased tolling, as escalating costs and runaway budgets have reduced the ability of state and local governments to pay for them. It won't matter how unpopular it is.



Many people with h out a DL I am sure would not hold this same opinion as you do car free. Especially the rising number of old people.I wasn't saying that public transit should be completely done away with, or that it doesn't serve certain purposes (albeit limited ones). I just don't expect it to become the dominant mode of travel. It isn't even the dominant mode of travel in densely populated Europe.

for the 100th time, GM did not kill mass transit--not even in LA. If Americans wanted mass transit, we would have mass transit, and nothing GM could do would stop it.

Common sense, people! How does a company have the power to make people want something that they don't want? People wanted cars, and they still do. Get real.

What did "kill" mass transit:


cheap gas
good roads constructed with public funds
cheap cars
cars are more cnvenient and you don't have to sit next to smelly people


If you want mass transit to improve, vote for a high gasoline tax (probably >$4/gallon), then exempt publicly owned companies from paying the tax.

Oh, and good luck.

I think that a street topology that is makes cycling and walking more convenient may reduce auto use for short trips and errands, but I don't think that suburbanites will really start to demand increased connections for cyclists and pedestrians until driving starts to become really expensive. However, planners have started requiring improved connectivity in the suburbs because it reduces congestion, makes it less necessary to expand arterial roads, and improves emergency vehicle access. See this article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102248.html?hpid=topnews)

for the 100th time, GM did not kill mass transit--not even in LA. If Americans wanted mass transit, we would have mass transit, and nothing GM could do would stop it.

Common sense, people! How does a company have the power to make people want something that they don't want? People wanted cars, and they still do. Get real.

What did "kill" mass transit:


cheap gas
good roads constructed with public funds
cheap cars
cars are more cnvenient and you don't have to sit next to smelly people


If you want mass transit to improve, vote for a high gasoline tax (probably >$4/gallon), then exempt publicly owned companies from paying the tax.

Oh, and good luck.

Are you nostalgic about the "good ol' days" when your hometown (you're a Detroit native, right?) was king? The reason I ask is that you are quite a progressive thinker on most issues, but when this comes up...watch out! On go the blinders!

GM sold the American people a bill of goods and helped to create a situation where millions of people have no choice other than to drive an automobile. Why do you think that they, along with Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, et al, created National City Lines, bought up streetcar systems through the United States and promptly tore them up and replaced them with smelly (to use your adjective), polluting, uncomfortable buses?

Yes, it is :) I can't stand it. I don't like being placed into a confined space with people that I don't know or trust. I don't appear to be alone in holding that sentiment.

Poke around Youtube for "subway fight" and, apart from the scene from The Matrix and its parodies, you'll have a lot of viewing to build some aggravation. Rare, of course, but not any less unpleasant.

GM sold the American people a bill of goods and helped to create a situation where millions of people have no choice other than to drive an automobile. Why do you think that they, along with Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, et al, created National City Lines, bought up streetcar systems through the United States and promptly tore them up and replaced them with smelly (to use your adjective), polluting, uncomfortable buses?

To make money. Streetcars were rapidly losing money to private automobiles and jitneys, and were no longer the preferred mode of transportation. In the face of declining ridership, buses were cheaper and allowed GM, Firestone, etc., to profit from government contracts. Streetcars were also abandoned in cities and countries that this backroom arrangement didn't extend to.

I don't think that either streetcars or buses offer many advantages over the automobile, either in terms of speed or flexibility. Rapid rail, on the other hand, can offer speed advantages, even while not being as flexible as the car. Subways, elevated trains, commuter trains, and fully grade-separated light rail lines can potentially offer shorter trips than a car. I once defeated our local streetcar ON FOOT in a self-declared race from the waterfront to the park blocks. Sure, I was walking fast, but there is no point in spending tax dollars on a mode of transportation that can be defeated by a fast walker.

Poke around Youtube for "subway fight" and, apart from the scene from The Matrix and its parodies, you'll have a lot of viewing to build some aggravation. Rare, of course, but not any less unpleasant.

Indeed. And I should mention that I didn't make my comments from the standpoint of a person who drives everywhere and simply imagines public transit as being an unpleasant experience. I made my comments from the perspective of a person who has relied upon public transit for extended periods of time, and hated having to deal with the thugs, loud conversationalists, crazy people, sick people, and people who were oblivious to basic rules of etiquette.

I never purchased a car, mainly because I'm a cheap ******* who never wanted to shoulder the money-draining expense of owning a private automobile. However, I at least understand that my preference is not shared by most people. Also, I started riding a bike in part because riding public transit made me desire the same independence and flexibility of movement that motorists had, but at a lower cost. In my mind, bikes are more similar to cars than they are to streetcars or buses, as they allow you to go where you want, when you want, and with the company of your choice. Also, biking is fun, inexpensive (roadies excepted :D ) and a good form of exercise.

This article (http://www.bikecommuters.com/2009/03/29/commuter-profile-dottie-white-from-lets-go-ride-a-bike/) at bikecommuters.com profiles a woman who started cycling in part because she was being groped on public transit. Cycling allowed her the freedom to transport herself while avoiding the scum. This is why people prefer personal transport over public transport.

I once defeated our local streetcar ON FOOT in a self-declared race from the waterfront to the park blocks. Sure, I was walking fast, but there is no point in spending tax dollars on a mode of transportation that can be defeated by a fast walker.
When I lived in Toronto, I could walk from my home to the university, a distance of 2.5 kilometres, in the same time as it took to get there by streetcar.

There's a lot I like about public transportation, but in a city, it's not a huge time saver. Its value is in cost, parking convenience and avoiding the hassles of driving.

What made the street car inefficient was the motorcar. I've used Street cars that travel just as fast as the bus and there is no way you can walk faster. Even the San Francisico cable cars cannot be beaten by a regular foot walker.

I guess people just can't relate to being car free with a trolley car or lightrail providing transportation. If you never lived in a lightrail town, then it's almost impossible to see the benefit of having one. Choosing to live at one end of the line and working at the other is just far beyond people's imagination.

In my case, I won't live in another town without lightrail.

the saddest part:

The Great American Sanctuary is The Car.

everyone needs their own personal space.
for most people, the only place they get to "get away from it all" is in their cars.

power, anonymity, and isolation
add some intoxicants... (caffeine, tobacco, thc, etc...)
and there it is... probably nothing in this world, is as addictive.
no wonder people stuff a hose in the exhaust pipe... its their last salvation... its their only place where they can "escape".

sad

Do you remember this song from 1979? It sums up the idea of personal space, anonymity and isolation.

Cars - Gary Numan

Here in my car
I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors
It's the only way to live
In cars

Here in my car
I can only receive
I can listen to you
It keeps me stable for days
In cars

Here in my car
The image breaks down
Will you visit me please
If I open my door
In cars

Here in my car
I know I've started to think
About leaving tonight
Although nothing seems right
In cars

I know I've started to think
I know I've started to think

There are ways to allow us with the American idea of space to use mass transportation if we can get funding for the infrastructure.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/10/personal-pod--1.html (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/10/personal-pod--1.html)

I have been to Japan and been on their subway/underground and I have been on the underground in London. There is a big difference between the two as far as personal space goes. In Japan during rush hour they know just how many people should fit in a car or coach depending on what you want to call them. A conductor on the platform will actually push on the last person so their cloths don’t get caught in the door as it closes. In London you can sit or stand or if you wish wait for the next car. No one pushes you in. In Japan people start out by sitting close to each other in the US and London the seats fill in from the outside in. Different cultural needs.

There are ways to allow us with the American idea of space to use mass transportation if we can get funding for the infrastructure.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/10/personal-pod--1.html (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/10/personal-pod--1.html)

I have been to Japan and been on their subway/underground and I have been on the underground in London. There is a big difference between the two as far as personal space goes. In Japan during rush hour they know just how many people should fit in a car or coach depending on what you want to call them. A conductor on the platform will actually push on the last person so their cloths don’t get caught in the door as it closes. In London you can sit or stand or if you wish wait for the next car. No one pushes you in. In Japan people start out by sitting close to each other in the US and London the seats fill in from the outside in. Different cultural needs.

i was in the Army, and believe me, we were pretty damn close.

i was in the Army, and believe me, we were pretty damn close.

Been there done that have the T-shirt. I still hate lines.

for the 100th time, GM did not kill mass transit--not even in LA. If Americans wanted mass transit, we would have mass transit, and nothing GM could do would stop it.

Common sense, people! How does a company have the power to make people want something that they don't want? People wanted cars, and they still do. Get real.

What did "kill" mass transit:


cheap gas
good roads constructed with public funds
cheap cars
cars are more cnvenient and you don't have to sit next to smelly people


If you want mass transit to improve, vote for a high gasoline tax (probably >$4/gallon), then exempt publicly owned companies from paying the tax.

Oh, and good luck.

What Roody said.

Indeed. And I should mention that I didn't make my comments from the standpoint of a person who drives everywhere and simply imagines public transit as being an unpleasant experience. I made my comments from the perspective of a person who has relied upon public transit for extended periods of time, and hated having to deal with the thugs, loud conversationalists, crazy people, sick people, and people who were oblivious to basic rules of etiquette.


Our public transit has a few rude people, mainly tourists who don't read the signs and a few locals who think the rules are for other people. I rarely see crazy people who project their craziness on others, and never have seen behavior that I'd describe as thuggish. The worst was one time a guy walked down the aisle waving his penis at the seated passengers. People basically leave each other be. Oh, last Friday a guy and girl smelled of alcohol, and the guy pulled the girl off the train and had her puke over the side of the railing. At least she didn't puke in the car. Even better- they weren't driving a car. Of course I like the freedom of the bike. If I ride the public transit a lot I get sick of it, I end up bringing a book and immersing myself in a good read. Many people read while riding public transit. This is an advantage that you don't hear about. Some people study, some read reports from their work, some do puzzles many read newspapers. Lately I've noticed many people on their blackberries or I-phones reading e-mails while riding the train. So even if the bus or train is slower than a bike, some people might feel it if worth it if they can deal with a few e-mails before they even get to the office. If mass transit catches on there will be a market for a slightly larger screen device between the phones and notebook computers so people can pretend they're in the office when they are really still on the train. A notebook computer is a little too large the device needs to be usable while standing, something like an i-phone or blackberry but with a bigger screen.

gwd, I think commuter buses and trains tend to have more civilized riders than the local routes or routes during off-hours. I have noticed a big difference, depending upon the time that you are taking it.

You do make a good point that people can be productive while riding transit, whereas time spent in a car would be "dead time" for many.

Still, I don't see the point of devoting the extra money required to building slow-moving trams, when commuter buses would suffice for the same purpose. Also, rapid rail -- like BART or CalTrain in the Bay Area -- would give tax payers more bang for their buck than a streetcar.

for the 100th time, GM did not kill mass transit--not even in LA. If Americans wanted mass transit, we would have mass transit, and nothing GM could do would stop it.

Common sense, people! How does a company have the power to make people want something that they don't want? People wanted cars, and they still do. Get real.

What did "kill" mass transit:


cheap gas
good roads constructed with public funds
cheap cars
cars are more cnvenient and you don't have to sit next to smelly people


If you want mass transit to improve, vote for a high gasoline tax (probably >$4/gallon), then exempt publicly owned companies from paying the tax.

Oh, and good luck.
Do you have an invested interest in the company?

Why does GM not want seat belts?
Why did they hide their intentions. If the street car was crappy then why the campaign? Why did they have to modernize NYC?

The problem now and back then was private transportation failed and the government or the people failed to pick up the tab. We now have all the rewards of an autocentric society.
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/42164857.html
Where motorist can lie about killing people and get a misdemeanor.