A woman by the name of Shirley Cromwell couldn't afford to repair her car because she's a low income wage earner and now has to take the bus (2 hour commute) to work. It's two hours both ways so the commute is actually an hour to work. BIG DEAL! CRY ME A RIVER! A national program in Oregon is now going to allow Ms. Cromwell to borrow money so she can buy a new vehicle or repair her old one. This is insanity.
First. I don't consider her two hour commute long. There are millions of people who commute longer than her every day of the week. I wish my commute was two hours because it's closer to 2 hours and 40 minutes in total and there are many who travel longer.
Second. How is this low income earner going to be able to afford a new car or repay back the loans when she can't even pay for repairs! This is what's insane about the whole situation. Mrs. Cromwell's problem is not the two hour commute each day but the fact that she can NO LONGER afford personal motorized transportation! Low income earners must make use of public transportation or they'll spend every discretionary cent on gas, tolls, insurance, parking, maintenance and repairs. I can see Mrs. Cromwell declaring bankruptcy a few years down the road once the burden of repaying the loans catches up to her.
I repeat, her commute is NOT long and I don't consider and hour in the morning and another during the evening to be excessive. It's just laziness. She would rather drive a vehicle and be dead broke each week without a cent in her pocket than save money by using public transprotation.
Too often, I see many people like her. There's a young couple who live in my building and have two new cars but can't save any money for a new home. They drive their daughter to school each day when it's only 4 blocks away! The supermarket is just across the street but they still drive regardless. I don't get it.
The article states the loans are going to be made for people who make less than $34,000.00 thousand a year with a family of four! FOLKS! A person making that little money supporting that many people SHOULD NOT be getting into debt and driving a car! I used to make 34K a year not too long ago and that was nothing! Trust me. I guess that family will be eating beans and rice every day of the year. Incredible.
Yet. The article states automobile owners make more money than those who don't. I don't know if that's true. Lets look at the situation in the article. Do you think allowing Mrs. Cromwell to borrow thousands of dollars is going to improve her situation? NO. Do you think a person supporting a family of four making 34K is going to be better off once they're loaded with debt? NO.
I would like to know several factors before we determine that motorist make more money than those who don't. I know quite a few people in New York City making six figures and don't own a car. Lets get this straight. Education and experience are probably the most important factors in determining your income level and not motor transport. Do we really think Mrs. Cromwell is magically going to make more money once she's burried with a new loan? A low income wage earner is that way NOT due to the lack of motor transportation but because of little or no education. Period.
It's like walking down the street and seeing a guy with a nice expensive dress jacket. It's foolish to say the jacket is what made him financially well off. An employer is not going to pay you top dollar regardless of what jacket you're wearing or car you're driving. Mrs. Crowell can look for a 100K job in a BMW but unless she's qualified for the job and is a highly skilled professional, she'll always be a low income wage earner. And her car will aways be a financial burden.
The study states the average person with a car made $275.00 dollars more than those who take public transportation. I'd like to see the education level of those who did make more money. If this were true, a car certainly didn't help Mrs. Cromwell at all. There are millions of people just like her today that can't get a decent paying job and live hand to mouth because of their poor education and work skills. I suspect those who were able to make an additional $275.00 were professionals who could have commanded that additional salary even if they biked to work!
But too often, these stats are made to twist the real truth.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
A woman by the name of Shirley Cromwell couldn't afford to repair her car because she's a low income wage earner and now has to take the bus (2 hour commute) to work. It's two hours both ways so the commute is actually an hour to work. BIG DEAL! CRY ME A RIVER! A national program in Oregon is now going to allow Ms. Cromwell to borrow money so she can buy a new vehicle or repair her old one. This is insanity.
Steve, I think you're picking the wrong battle, here.
I think that our car-centric transportation system has victimized the poor. We have too many cars, anyway. Why not make it easier for people who are struggling?
Besides, if Ms. Cromwell gets a brand-new car, or can keep her old one fixed, I'll be breathing less crap as she passes me by on my commute.
My son's been using mass transit to go to work and school for years. It takes him over 4 hours of commute time every day he works. If he drove, it would take him about an hour and twenty minutes total, at the most. He's wasting his hours away standing, waiting for trains and buses. I have to admire his tenacity, but I wouldn't commute that long for a million bucks.
alanbikehouston
Last year, the Federal government gave lawyers and other professionals up to $100,000 off the taxes they owed if they bought a new large truck or SUV. And you are worried about "grants to the poor"?
iceratt
My thirty minute commute, feels long, to me. I could shave off 5 minutes by driving, but I would hate the experience.
I agree, poor people buying cars to get to work, is stupid. How many additional hours, would one need to work, to pay the difference between owning and opperating a car, and taking public transportation, on $17/ hr?
DieselDan
Last year, the Federal government gave lawyers and other professionals up to $100,000 off the taxes they owed if they bought a new large truck or SUV. And you are worried about "grants to the poor"?
The tax exemption was to protect farmers buying large trucks for hauling commidties and equipment. The exemption became a back door loophole when certian, oversized SUVs became heavier then 6000 lbs GVR, then other busniesses could then claim them as an exemption. The tax law was changed for 2005, you now have to prove the vehicle is used for agriculture use.
SamHouston
Mrs Cromwell would do well to attempt to find work in her area. She's already a low wage earner, if she found herself a low wage close to home it would dramatically reduce her expenses while allowing her more time to find a way out of her situation or at the least make it a more pleasant situation to become accustomed to.
As far as her freedom from the bus lines goes, fuel, insurance and repairs give her that same freedom when she doesn't pay for any of them. It's very likely that the money she spent on her vehicle budget could take her to the grocery and out with her grandchildren in a taxi and leave enough for the occasional renter when a car is absolutely essential to get something done.
Her example is poor one of how folks could live wihout their own personal car if hey wouldn't panic at the very thought. She's 57 years old which means it would be hard for her to find a job in her area. If I had the resources to start a program that's trying to accomplish what this trap the poor in a car program is doing I'd try to help them solve their transportation ills by educating them on how to live without such a huge financial burden.[and if a singular problem opposed them, help them solve it, like hooking Cromwell here up with a proper job hunt program] A family of four at $34,000.00 a year (one of the qualifiers for the program) could live happily without a car eating anywhere from a quarter to a third of that income. They'd still be "poor" (it's not bad) but they'd do much better than surviving. Paying a mortgage off on that income even paves the way for retirement.
There are so many better ways, all hidden by the TV and the Joneses.
LittleBigMan
This is not about changing our transporation system. This is about helping people vicitmized by it.
Wow, are you guys missing the point.
operator
No offense, it's easy to crticize someones transportation choices sitting in the comfort of our home in financial security. I can easily imagine myself to be that other person, I don't agree with the way they've played this story but then again, what news article wouldn't.
dee-vee
"The program, funded with federal transportation dollars"
Where can I check off the box to not fund anything like this? I swear America is one giant socialist cesspool but no one can admit it.
Dahon.Steve
Steve, I think you're picking the wrong battle, here.
I think that our car-centric transportation system has victimized the poor. We have too many cars, anyway. Why not make it easier for people who are struggling?
.
I don't believe she is struggling. An hour on a bus to work is not bad. I wish my commute was that short. Almost of my co-workers who live 15 to 30 miles outside of the city have the same commuting time. I repeat, she is not struggling. It's all in her mind. She's brain washed into believing this unaffordable lifestyle is the correct way of living. It's a mistake.
I do believe she is a victim. She's a victim of a society that states you must own a car at all cost even if it breaks you. Applying for loans on her limited income WILL force her to struggle as those loans will need to be paid with interest. It doesn't bother her that transportation costs eat up 20-40 percent of her limited income. She's a victim of her own ignorance.
If she could not save for a rainy day before, what makes you think she's going to be able to save tomorrow? What's going to happen when her car breaks down again and she needs another loan? What's going to happen if she loses her job??
I truly believe the car is making her poor. If she didn't have to pay for costly repairs and all the other associated costs, other options like community college and training become all of a sudden affordable. With this additional education, she would be able to demand a higher salary instead of working in a low paying job.
During my last days as a motorist, I could not pay for repairs and was truly broke. When you can't pay for auto repairs, you're practically destitude. A late model car is a sink hole of money and Mrs. Cromwell found out what took me years to discover.
steveknight
No offense, it's easy to crticize someones transportation choices sitting in the comfort of our home in financial security. I can easily imagine myself to be that other person, I don't agree with the way they've played this story but then again, what news article wouldn't.
been there dun it and I have the shirt. I spent more time on the bus right here in portland too for years. still even now that I am self employed and before I started commuting by bike I was one the bus about 2 hours a day. I have ridden the bus for 17 years and it did not kill me.
she had a car and now without one she is lost and feels insecure. poor thing addicted to a car (G)
Hell I rode 30 miles today and 4 of that was hauling a trailer loaded with 127 pounds of lumber. cars make people into dependant unhealty lazy fools.
alanbikehouston
"The program, funded with federal transportation dollars"
Where can I check off the box to not fund anything like this? I swear America is one giant socialist cesspool but no one can admit it.
I guess that because you are against "socialism", you are also offended by the Federal government giving lawyers $100,000 for each new heavy truck or SUV they bought last year. The rules have been changed so that next year, a lawyer will be given only $25,000 for each SUV he buys. Has "Uncle Sugar" mailed YOU $25,000 lately?
And, there was an article in the paper today about a federal program that has paid companies such as IBM and GM two billion dollars to do research.
People get outraged when they hear about any two-bit effort to help poor folks. Yet, those same folks seldom seem upset about federal "gifts" to millionaires and billionaires. For example, the federal program to help families buy a home by deducting the cost of mortgage interest was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to Enron's CEO Ken Lay (who had mortages on four or five homes with a total value of over twenty million dollars). That same deduction is worth a few hundred bucks to a young school teacher or nurse, struggling to buy a "starter" home.
So, let's eliminate ALL federal aid to the poor. One day after eliminating all federal aid to corporations and millionaires.
77Univega
My son's been using mass transit to go to work and school for years. It takes him over 4 hours of commute time every day he works. If he drove, it would take him about an hour and twenty minutes total, at the most. He's wasting his hours away standing, waiting for trains and buses. I have to admire his tenacity, but I wouldn't commute that long for a million bucks.
-- The time I used to spend waiting for and riding buses was used for... OK America, here is the "R" word...
I spent that time R E A D I N G.
steveknight
-- The time I used to spend waiting for and riding buses was used for... OK America, here is the "R" word...
I spent that time R E A D I N G.
yes I sure miss the reading time I had riding the bus. hard to read and cycle at the same time (G)
kb0tnv
-- The time I used to spend waiting for and riding buses was used for... OK America, here is the "R" word...
I spent that time R E A D I N G.
I totally agree. I think they forgot that on the train or bus you don't have to drive. You can listen to audio books or read a book...That is where you gain some time back! Now those that don't have a car are considered the weird ones. The ones who need help! I live in St. Louis and our family has only one car. I ride my bike whenever I can or my wife can drive me to work if she needs the car. We are already considered weird just with having one car. I donated the second car in '03 because I new that because my wife lost her job it takes exactly one wage earner per car. Even though that car was paid for maintenance, taxes, gas, insurance all cost $...
my .02
kb0tnv
KrisPistofferson
I don't see this as "empowering" in the least bit, and it's reflective of our culture's automobile obsession. After horses were domesticated, many cultures, such as the Mongols and various Native American tribes, considered a man without a horse "half a man", as their culture was built around the horse and the mobility it gave them. This is exactly how we are with automobiles. With the exception of larger metropolitan areas, you may as well have a tattoo on your head that says "POVERTY" if you decide to go carless. I think it's safe to say that below a certain income level, a car is a lead weight hindering your ability to better yourself. The ONLY exception are those who make their living with their cars or trucks. I think federal dollars paying for this is ridiculous, and I'm not against public assistance, but this is akin to giving TV's and VCR's to the poor. I'm all for federal dollars going towards education, shoot, I've had plenty of grants and loans for school, but this is pouring money down a hole, plain and simple. I've technically been "poor" my entire adult life, but it hardly ever occurs to me because I don't FEEL or ACT "poor". Poor will never be convenient, no matter how many luxuries we throw it's way. I'm against rich people using loopholes and accepting federal dollars, too, by the way. I just like to see "welfare" empower people to get where they want to go, and ironically enough, it ain't by buying poor cats cars!
Dahon.Steve
People get outraged when they hear about any two-bit effort to help poor folks. Yet, those same folks seldom seem upset about federal "gifts" to millionaires and billionaires. For example, the federal program to help families buy a home by deducting the cost of mortgage interest was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to Enron's CEO Ken Lay (who had mortages on four or five homes with a total value of over twenty million dollars). That same deduction is worth a few hundred bucks to a young school teacher or nurse, struggling to buy a "starter" home.
So, let's eliminate ALL federal aid to the poor. One day after eliminating all federal aid to corporations and millionaires.
I don't think anyone on this forum was for Ken Lay or tax deductions for the rich. However, this progam to subsidize poor people so they can afford to get themselves in even more debt was wrong. If the program was to enable her to attend a community college and improve her skills, I'd be all for it. Motorized transport helps those who are skilled or have professional degrees. It does not help the poor but keeps them right on the edge.
skydive69
If the liberals had their way, she wouldn't have to work. They would simply support her.
Dahon.Steve
I think it's safe to say that below a certain income level, a car is a lead weight hindering your ability to better yourself. The ONLY exception are those who make their living with their cars or trucks.
Exactly.
The last thing a family of four making 34k a year needs is a new car with monthly payments.
What is that certain level?
When I was in college making 15K a year, I could not afford a car. Many of my friends ended up dropping out because they purchased a new vehicle and it absorbed all their savings. As a result, I graduated college with no student loans and paid for school in cash.
The problem with an automobile is that you can't save any money if you're making less than 40K or 50K a year. If you're paying over $1,000.00 or more in rent, the car and your other bills eat up the rest and you're left with nothing. Try to buy a new car at 25K a year and you're practically living on the edge. Even at 35K year, a new car loan and full coverage will mean pratically no savings. Maybe if you buy a used car and live in flop house, you might be able to save but you're transportation cost will still eat a significant chunk of your income.
I feel that if you're motorized transportation is costing you ever dime and you're not able to save for retirement, you really can't afford it.
Bekologist
There are two really good books out about the disenfranchisment of the American working class "Nickel and Dimed: On not getting by in America" by Barbara Einreich (sp?) and "The Betrayal of Work" by an author who I can't remember.
Both books touched on what a crippling factor on employment not having a car was. They're not talking about people making $35,000 a year (jeesh, that's poor?), there are people making 5-6 dollars an hour in this country. Having a beater car allows them the mobility to find a marginally better job and perhaps, escape the cycle of poverty. New car loans to the truly poor? probably a bad idea. Help with private transportation? probably a good idea. Sustainable wage jobs close enough to affordable housing to allow bike commuting or public transit? even better.
Both books are excellent reads about poverty and the working class, I recommend them.
Roughstuff
No offense, it's easy to crticize someones transportation choices sitting in the comfort of our home in financial security. I can easily imagine myself to be that other person, I don't agree with the way they've played this story but then again, what news article wouldn't.
That is hitting one of the many hot buttons right on the head. As usual, people who have cars at their disposal (whether they use them or not), and already have jobs (whether they pay alot or not) hyperventilate about how others shouldn't be given these opportunities.
And yes...most of these posts are missing the point. The debate is between (1) putting more money into mass transit (subsidizing bus routes, bus tokens etc) or (2) putting that money into helping the poor buy a car. Neither of these alternatives is particularly attractive but that is what the debate is about just now.
Under these circumstances (2) is a far superior alternative.
Reliance on mass transit puts the poor at the mercy of public employee union hacks who run the systems, with all their unreliability and poor quality. It restricts the poor to job opportunities along, or near, the routes which the systems take. It forces riders into a hub-and-spoke transit system when many jobs involve going from one suburb to another. It locks them into the favorite urban fantasy of a 'viable downtown area' when the best opportunities have been in the suburbs for decades.
In contrast, with an automobile you can travel when and where you want on a schedule determined by you, not some Ralph Cramden wannabe. And yes, of course...you might get stuck in traffic and have to wait a while...Now the choice becomes..wait on a bus, or wait in a car?
Of course the best alternative would be (3) to eliminate the vast majority (not all) of mass transit subsidies ENTIRELY, since they vary rarely, if ever, generate the savings in highway construction costs everyone claims they do.
roughstuff
genec
The tax exemption was to protect farmers buying large trucks for hauling commidties and equipment. The exemption became a back door loophole when certian, oversized SUVs became heavier then 6000 lbs GVR, then other busniesses could then claim them as an exemption. The tax law was changed for 2005, you now have to prove the vehicle is used for agriculture use.
Yeah!!!
No more stupid Hummers being bought by the likes of Gloria's Nail Salon...
Sheesh!
Darn things clog the roads here... and I have yet to see one scratched or dirty from going off road.
Roughstuff
New car loans to the truly poor? probably a bad idea. Help with private transportation? probably a good idea. Sustainable wage jobs close enough to affordable housing to allow bike commuting or public transit? even better.
Both books are excellent reads about poverty and the working class, I recommend them.
I would just modify one thing you say here. I like the idea of outright cash grants to help the poor buy used cars; lets just make sure they aren't clunkers that are polluters or generate all kinds of repair expenses.
You might ask..why not take taxis from one location to another? Well, in most urban areas the number of taxis is restricted by law and, therefore, they are (1) more expensive, (2) lower quality vehicles and (3) more miserable service than they would be in a free market. Deregulating the local transit market would be a huge step forward for the unemployed and working poor.
roughstuff
Daily Commute
It is smart to look at alternatives to conventional mass transit. My area is looking at spending half a billion dollars (yes, $500,000,000) to put in a light rail system. You could buy 100,000 $5,000 cars for that money (or 500,000 $1,000 bikes). Yes, you'd still have to pay upkeep, but you wouldn't have to pay all the money it takes to maintain a working rail system.
Maybe the Portland woman in the article is a bad example--if it's only an hour each way, she's not suffering. But I don't begrudge creative thinking.
dobber
Man you people need to look up from the handlebars once in awhile. Just because others don't subscribe to the cyclists manifesto doesn't make them any better or worse.
I'm sure all of you have lived below the poverty line at one point, or lived in rural areas with few jobs and great distances between points, so you speak from experience.
Climb down from the saddles.
Dahon.Steve
There are two really good books out about the disenfranchisment of the American working class "Nickel and Dimed: On not getting by in America" by Barbara Einreich (sp?) and "The Betrayal of Work" by an author who I can't remember.
Both books touched on what a crippling factor on employment not having a car was. They're not talking about people making $35,000 a year (jeesh, that's poor?), there are people making 5-6 dollars an hour in this country. Having a beater car allows them the mobility to find a marginally better job and perhaps, escape the cycle of poverty. New car loans to the truly poor? probably a bad idea.
I read "Nickel and Dimed" and it was an excellant read.
The book made it clear that people who are living on minimum wage or slightly above it have a real difficult time just finding affordable housing! It's incredible but you need to make something like $9.00 dollars an hour if you want to live indoors. There are millions of people living on these substandard wages every day.
In her case, the automobile did open up more opportunites BUT it would not have improved her lot because without and education or special skills, her opportunities were limited. In other words, her car only made it easier to travel from one low wage job to another. That's all!
peterm5365
34k may be nothing in New Jersey, but it other parts of the country it's a reasonable salary. New Jersey has something like the 6th highest average household income. I grew up poor, food stamps and the lot. I tried to get an education, but the needs of life got in the way and I started working full time. My wife has a Masters Degree. Her income is now about a third of mine. I am certainly an exception to the rule, but the fact remains that education is not the cure-all for financial ills. Most of the job growth in the last few years has been in the service industry. These are not high paying jobs. Even with education the jobs still have to be there and the fact is that there are fewer high paying jobs.
Now, my household income is about double the average in the state of New Jersey so car ownership is not exactly a burden to my family, but we still own one car compact car that is 5 years old. Even with adequate public transportation there are times when cars are useful. Having a relative that is ill or a child with chronic health problems is made more difficult without easy access to personal transportation.
Car ownership is a big part of the cycle that keeps the poor poor, but don't assume you know everything about someone's situation by reading one article. I'm happy that my tax dollars go to help those who need assistance. I have to trust that those needs have been assessed and deemed worthy of assistance.
peterm5365
I read "Nickel and Dimed" too. I thought it was condescending. She seemed to have the attitude that she was better than the people she worked with simply because she secretly had a comfortable life to go back to when it was all over.
nick burns
It is smart to look at alternatives to conventional mass transit. My area is looking at spending half a billion dollars (yes, $500,000,000) to put in a light rail system. You could buy 100,000 $5,000 cars for that money.
Cost of light rail system $500,000,000. Cost of keeping 100,000 cars off the road, priceless.
Dahon.Steve
It is smart to look at alternatives to conventional mass transit. My area is looking at spending half a billion dollars (yes, $500,000,000) to put in a light rail system. You could buy 100,000 $5,000 cars for that money (or 500,000 $1,000 bikes). Yes, you'd still have to pay upkeep, but you wouldn't have to pay all the money it takes to maintain a working rail system.
Maybe the Portland woman in the article is a bad example--if it's only an hour each way, she's not suffering. But I don't begrudge creative thinking.
The state of New Jersey Spent 1.2 billion dollars on a light rail system in the middle of abandoned rail yard. Here's what happened.
1. Luxury Condo and Coop development - All over the the line, new construction continues at an incredible pace unheard of since the turn of the century! I should post pictures of all the new high rise buildings going up each year.
2. Office buildings/Ferry systems -- As you can imagine, the community is mixed use with new office building and a ferry system that will take you right into New York City.
3. Home appreciation explodes! --- Homes within 2 blocks of a light rail line has seen its value increase 30% in the past four years.
If you go to www.lightrailnow.com, you'll see this pheonemena happening all across the country. Light rail initiatives are taking hold as cities are looking for new ways to generate development in older downtowns. There are some failures but overall, the system is paying dividends in quite a few cities. The Lightrail's actual benefit cannot be measured by the fare box and you must look at how the line beautified the the entire community.
Roughstuff
It is smart to look at alternatives to conventional mass transit. My area is looking at spending half a billion dollars (yes, $500,000,000) to put in a light rail system. You could buy 100,000 $5,000 cars for that money (or 500,000 $1,000 bikes). Yes, you'd still have to pay upkeep, but you wouldn't have to pay all the money it takes to maintain a working rail system.
....
I am always amused at the expression 'light rail!' Its light all right. Except for expense, since no one ever uses it.
Rail systems are even worse than bus systems since a break anywhere on the line causes a tie up in the entire system until the block is removed. With light rail, all your eggs are in one basket.
With 100,000 $5000 cars, it is statistically impossible for them all to fail at the same time. Compare that to a rail system that suffers a derailment or equipment/power failure.
Again: mass transit systems merit subsidies only to the extent that they reduce transportation costs elsewhere. Rarely do they do so.
roughstuff
Feldman
How about a dedicated national sales tax on motor vehicles priced over 50K, to be redistributed to states for mass transit? Failing that, how about we lose a war in the Middle East, the ragheads twist a tourniquet onto the oil flow, and we have to finally develop an intelligent, rational national transportation policy?
Daily Commute
The state of New Jersey Spent 1.2 billion dollars on a light rail system in the middle of abandoned rail yard. Here's what happened. . . .
Central Ohio does not have anything close to the population density of New Jersey. And I'm not saying we should buy 100,000 cars with the money, I was just trying to put in perspective how much money the system is projected to cost (which, of course, will double during construction).
Anytime the government wants to spend hundreds of millions on some transportation project, it's always smart to ask if there's anything better the money could be spent on.
In my town's situation, they could put the money towards upgrading and further subsidizing bus service. They could also start maintaining the roads enough so that cyclists don't need a MTB with full suspension just to ride the streets.
webist
The study states the average person with a car made $275.00 dollars more than those who take public transportation.
I am NOT taking issue with the loan program, though I am tempted to. I am taking issue with the above statement.
Is it not likely also true that:
Adults make more than children?
Workers more than retired folks?
Healthy more than the sick?
People in mansions more than those in mobile homes?
To say that people with cars make more than people without is like saying people with more money have more money than people with less. Whether or not government should devine programs to eliminate all of these differences is a different argument. An argument which I thought might have been more or less settled when Reagan chatted with Gorbachev about a wall.
peterm5365
The state of New Jersey Spent 1.2 billion dollars on a light rail system in the middle of abandoned rail yard. Here's what happened.
1. Luxury Condo and Coop development - All over the the line, new construction continues at an incredible pace unheard of since the turn of the century! I should post pictures of all the new high rise buildings going up each year.
2. Office buildings/Ferry systems -- As you can imagine, the community is mixed use with new office building and a ferry system that will take you right into New York City.
3. Home appreciation explodes! --- Homes within 2 blocks of a light rail line has seen its value increase 30% in the past four years.
If you go to www.lightrailnow.com, you'll see this pheonemena happening all across the country. Light rail initiatives are taking hold as cities are looking for new ways to generate development in older downtowns. There are some failures but overall, the system is paying dividends in quite a few cities. The Lightrail's actual benefit cannot be measured by the fare box and you must look at how the line beautified the the entire community.
Yes, let's celebrate redlining and increased housing costs in an otherwise overinflated housing market. If people can't afford a car they sure can't afford a $2000 a month apartment or $500,000 condo.
Roughstuff
How about a dedicated national sales tax on motor vehicles priced over 50K, to be redistributed to states for mass transit? Failing that, how about we lose a war in the Middle East, the ragheads twist a tourniquet onto the oil flow, and we have to finally develop an intelligent, rational national transportation policy?
Why over 50K? Do cars over 50K occupy THAT MUCH MORE road space that they, alone should be nailed? You sound like a typical re-distributionist democrat. If you want a progressive tax, why don't you just say so? ;)
States that want/need mass transit--and face it, most of em are the east and left coasts--can easily raise fees and taxes on auto ownership in a hundred different ways. Those states that don't subscribe to this philosophy (hmmm...n.dakota, s.dakota, ad nauseum ) could leave things the way they are.
As for the ragheads, they may do what they may do. I am sure a huge increase in oil prices would go over real well worldwide, given how fragile the economic recovery is (except here in the US where the boom continues). China, their fastest growing customer, would sure appreciate it! The russians, a swing producer anxious to curry favor with the US given concerns over authoritarian moves, would sure love to fill in the shortfall.
roughstuff
Daily Commute
Yes, let's celebrate redlining and increased housing costs in an otherwise overinflated housing market. If people can't afford a car they sure can't afford a $2000 a month apartment or $500,000 condo.
This is a good point. If light rail works, housing prices near it explode and it no longer serves poor people. If light rail doesn't work, it's a collosal waste of money. Sounds like a good use of half a billion dollars to me.
JohnBrooking
I guess that because you are against "socialism", you are also offended by the Federal government giving lawyers $100,000 for each new heavy truck or SUV they bought last year. The rules have been changed so that next year, a lawyer will be given only $25,000 for each SUV he buys. Has "Uncle Sugar" mailed YOU $25,000 lately?
You should also be offended by all the money the federal government gives to build roads for cars to drive on for free, all the while insisting that Amtrack must stand on its own two feet.
Roughstuff
..... The Lightrail's actual benefit cannot be measured by the fare box and you must look at how the line beautified the the entire community.
Very very interesting and its great to see it has those positive effects. I might point out though, that much the same can be said for new highways in alot of areas. Still...good to hear that it has succeeded.
roughstuff
Dahon.Steve
Yes, let's celebrate redlining and increased housing costs in an otherwise overinflated housing market. If people can't afford a car they sure can't afford a $2000 a month apartment or $500,000 condo.
It's true that housing costs increase with Lightrail which is the sad part. However, if you travel down the line, prices drop dramatically and do become affordable. I don't pay $2,000.00 per month or own a 500K condo but those new buildings were consturcted for the well off and there's nothing wrong with that. We have to look at the broader picture because the line is making progress while improving land vaues that were depressed for decades.
That's the beauty of lightrail. I don't have to live in the pricy areas and can choose to live dirt cheap down the line. Furthermore, with the bicycle, I can live 15 to 25 blocks away from the line and get real bargins.
iceratt
The transporation infrastucture can hardly handle the number of cars on the road. From my experience living north of San Fransisco, the difference between sitting on the highway, not moving, and sailing through, in the ever present thick traffic, was mighty few cars.
Encouraging more cars can have amazingly high financial cost( in the need for adding highway lanes), create gobs of pollution, and contribute to the decreased livability of neighborhoods. Is Peterm5365 really saying that lightrail should be avoided, because it makes cities too nice? If lightrail does make a city more livable, it should be spread over the entire city, so that the cost of housing is not jacked up around one or two lines.
Roughstuff
That's the beauty of lightrail. I don't have to live in the pricy areas and can choose to live dirt cheap down the line. Furthermore, with the bicycle, I can live 15 to 25 blocks away from the line and get real bargins.
And for so many others, the lightrail often provides park and ride options where you can take your car (or bike) to the line and go into the city and NEVER have to worry about parking, driving, traffic jams, etc. I would never take a car into Boston or NYC!
roughstuff
JohnBrooking
Rail systems are even worse than bus systems since a break anywhere on the line causes a tie up in the entire system until the block is removed. With light rail, all your eggs are in one basket.
Even worse, the terrorism potential is greater. Look at what happened in Spain. A bomb on a track could kill hundreds of people, and there's too much track to guard it all. A car bomb might kill dozens at most.
I say this reluctantly, as a rail fan just on an emotional basis, but I don't see a way around it. I don't want to be ruled by fear, but this is realistic. I also suspect that this potential has not escaped the people at Homeland Security.
nick burns
Encouraging more cars can have amazingly high financial cost( in the need for adding highway lanes), create gobs of pollution, and contribute to the decreased livability of neighborhoods.
Not to mention the associated motor vehicle accidents, which contribute to a huge number of injuries & fatalities each year.
Dahon.Steve
Even worse, the terrorism potential is greater. Look at what happened in Spain. A bomb on a track could kill hundreds of people, and there's too much track to guard it all. A car bomb might kill dozens at most.
I say this reluctantly, as a rail fan just on an emotional basis, but I don't see a way around it. I don't want to be ruled by fear, but this is realistic. I also suspect that this potential has not escaped the people at Homeland Security.
Even worse, the terrorism potential is greater. Look at what happened in New York City. An airplane could kill hundreds of people, and there's too many airlines to guard it all. A car bomb might kill dozens at most.
(unless you were in the Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City)
operator
Even worse, the terrorism potential is greater. Look at what happened in New York City. An airplane could kill hundreds of people, and there's too many airlines to guard it all. A car bomb might kill dozens at most.
(unless you were in the Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City)
Hah, thanks for saying exactly what I was going to say.
Roughstuff
Even worse, the terrorism potential is greater. Look at what happened in Spain. A bomb on a track could kill hundreds of people, and there's too much track to guard it all. A car bomb might kill dozens at most.
I say this reluctantly, as a rail fan just on an emotional basis, but I don't see a way around it. I don't want to be ruled by fear, but this is realistic. I also suspect that this potential has not escaped the people at Homeland Security.
Well, really what you are saying is that an economy's transportation system is its most vulnerable point. We have known this since Roman times.... Trains are certainly vulnerable, not only because of the huge numbers of people on any one but also because once the tracks are cut the line is down until complete repair. Alternate routes by roadway are almost immediately available.
Obviously tunnels and bridges make automobile transit vulnerable...but trains are vulnerable to these as well. So cars still have the edge.
Planes of course are in league of their own. Who knows exactly how far terrorists will go in the future in attacking planes on takeoff, laden with fuel and vulnerable.
roughstuff
Dahon.Steve
And yes...most of these posts are missing the point. The debate is between (1) putting more money into mass transit (subsidizing bus routes, bus tokens etc) or (2) putting that money into helping the poor buy a car. Neither of these alternatives is particularly attractive but that is what the debate is about just now.
Under these circumstances (2) is a far superior alternative.
Reliance on mass transit puts the poor at the mercy of public employee union hacks who run the systems, with all their unreliability and poor quality. It restricts the poor to job opportunities along, or near, the routes which the systems take. It forces riders into a hub-and-spoke transit system when many jobs involve going from one suburb to another. It locks them into the favorite urban fantasy of a 'viable downtown area' when the best opportunities have been in the suburbs for decades.
In contrast, with an automobile you can travel when and where you want on a schedule determined by you, not some Ralph Cramden wannabe. And yes, of course...you might get stuck in traffic and have to wait a while...Now the choice becomes..wait on a bus, or wait in a car?
Of course the best alternative would be (3) to eliminate the vast majority (not all) of mass transit subsidies ENTIRELY, since they vary rarely, if ever, generate the savings in highway construction costs everyone claims they do.
roughstuff
You're entire statement above depends on many variables. I'll try to take each sentence one at a time.
1. Reliance on mass transit puts the poor at the mercy of public employee union hacks who run the systems, with all their unreliability and poor quality.
I don't know of any unions that own public transportation since most operate at a loss and tend to be subsidized by by state and local taxes. Private ownership does exists but for the most part is not owned by the AFL/CIO. Public transportation varies between excellent and poor depending on your city.
2. It restricts the poor to job opportunities along, or near, the routes which the systems take. It forces riders into a hub-and-spoke transit system when many jobs involve going from one suburb to another.
Maybe so but many high paying jobs are along those routes. There's nothing wrong about going into the city for work by bus. If you have to travel from one suburb into another in a car, the job better pay alot more because your motorized transport (auto) will eat any savings. In my opinion, this is the reason why millions like the woman in the article can't save any money even for repairs. If giving everyone poor person an SUV would guarantee a high paying job, I"m sure the governement would be handing them out for free. Yet, owning a costly vehicle does not mean a high paying job will be at the end of the rainbow. In fact, automobile ownership even among the poor is at an all time high but it hasn't changed the face of poverty because it's still around.
3. It locks them into the favorite urban fantasy of a 'viable downtown area' when the best opportunities have been in the suburbs for decades.
You might be right in some respect that jobs have been going into the burbs in the past thirty years but there's still plenty of life in the cities an urban districts. Unfortunately, the best opportunites often require an education or skills which the poor often do not have. The woman in the article would probably not be able to take advantage of higher paying opportunites in the burbs because she would not qualify for those positions. Lets suppose she does find a job that offers a salary that's marginally better than the low paying one she has today. Will she better off? Probably not. The cost of motor car ownership is such that whatever savings will be absorbed through driving.
4. In contrast, with an automobile you can travel when and where you want on a schedule determined by you, not some Ralph Cramden wannabe. And yes, of course...you might get stuck in traffic and have to wait a while...Now the choice becomes..wait on a bus, or wait in a car?
If I'm like the woman in the article (without any money even for repairs!) or a person with four family members making 34K a year, my choice would be obvious. I'll have to take the bus. Given the option between eating and taking the bus, I'll choose to eat because that's more important than getting to work a half hour early.
SamHouston
That is hitting one of the many hot buttons right on the head. As usual, people who have cars at their disposal (whether they use them or not), and already have jobs (whether they pay alot or not) hyperventilate about how others shouldn't be given these opportunities.
And yes...most of these posts are missing the point. The debate is between (1) putting more money into mass transit (subsidizing bus routes, bus tokens etc) or (2) putting that money into helping the poor buy a car. Neither of these alternatives is particularly attractive but that is what the debate is about just now.
Under these circumstances (2) is a far superior alternative.
Reliance on mass transit puts the poor at the mercy of public employee union hacks who run the systems, with all their unreliability and poor quality. It restricts the poor to job opportunities along, or near, the routes which the systems take. It forces riders into a hub-and-spoke transit system when many jobs involve going from one suburb to another. It locks them into the favorite urban fantasy of a 'viable downtown area' when the best opportunities have been in the suburbs for decades.
In contrast, with an automobile you can travel when and where you want on a schedule determined by you, not some Ralph Cramden wannabe. And yes, of course...you might get stuck in traffic and have to wait a while...Now the choice becomes..wait on a bus, or wait in a car?
Of course the best alternative would be (3) to eliminate the vast majority (not all) of mass transit subsidies ENTIRELY, since they vary rarely, if ever, generate the savings in highway construction costs everyone claims they do.
roughstuff
I don't have a car. I do have a job as well as a good stake in a very small business. If we had a car we wouldn't be able to run the business, probably couldnt have started it.. I also wouldn't be able to afford month long vacations in Thailand. Or to take a cab to a show and a nice meal, or a long weekend in cottage country. I figure that stuff costs me about $10-12G a year. Mind you we aren't in expansion mode for the biz, and I work hard all day and with living well we're not saving much, but living hand to mouth in order to have the freedom to pay for a car just seems ridiculous from the perspective a deck chair on Lamsing Beach with a coconut daquiri in your hand gives you.
It can be done. I'm no genius.
Your (1) and (2) left out my method. I go where I will and when I want without the restrictions you've imposed on us in your statement. I'm still "poor" by the standards of many suburban living, cubicle dwelling sprawl victims but I don't mind in the least. Hehe, most of them are carrying 50G in debt or even double that without their mortgages. Not me. Whats a 50G+ income good for when at the end of the year the only thing you can splurge on yourself with is your tax refund? If some of my friends that went that way had done it without a car, they'd be able to do as we do.
I'm 33 and bought and sold 1 car that I used to make money for about 1 year and bought and sold one collector car, wanted it, didnt drive it for anything but fun, played with it worked on it and sold it for a profit. I didn't buy either of those til I was 25+. I have several friends in their thirties who came from a similar income bracket parants wise who've had cars the had to pay for since they were 16-17. As their income grew they bought nicer cars, some of them are on their 3rd individually, some are married and have 2. Not a one of them has spent less than a 100G on cars in that 15 years or so. Lucky for me my best friend did real real well for himself so we don't go to Thailand alone. Even "DINKs" that make more than we do have less disposable because of that notion that you're nobody if you arent in a benz.
The freedom your talking about is important to teenagers and to people already trapped in their cars who presume there is no other way and have never sat down and tried to find out if they are right.
randya
The bus and light rail system is excellent in Portland. Every car on the road competes for road space with the busses and makes the transit system that much less efficient.