dynodonn 

The one good thing about city life in the times before the automobile, traffic speeds averaged around 10 mph or less, and I'm fairly certain that traffic related deaths were just as low.

Roody

You can see that by the way people cross the street wherever they want, or even stop in the middle of the street to talk with an acquaintance,

Another good thing was that for a couple pennies you could get on a streetcar and go anywhere in the city. For a few cents more you could transfer to an interurban electric train and visit local farms or travel to the next town over.

dynodonn 

You have to remember that 1 penny then is equal to well over a dollar today, and with stops included, most trains averaged around 15 to 20 mph.

B. Carfree

Yes, but I have seen estimates that today's cars only average a little under 25 mph, and most folks think driving is a pretty fast way to get around. Of course, their peak speeds are a bit higher.

Roody

Where are you getting that figure? The inflation calculator on the web says one cent in 1913 would be worth 24 cents in 2013. (The earliest year on the calculator is 1913.)

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Also, where did you learn about the average speed of trains in 1900?

JReade

Still,

https://panam1901.org/visiting/salaries.htm says that the average annual salary was $449, so $8.63 per week to live on.

https://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/...rley/1900.html gives a higher estimate of salary with food costs, so you're down to $6-7 a week...31% of the income spent was on food. I have to imagine that if you had kids, odds are you weren't throwing down on a family of four to go train hopping.

dynodonn 

Using unskilled labor instead of inflation as a calculator, 1 penny in 1900 is equal to 1.27 today. Though the inflation number may be low, the time spent earning that penny was greater.

https://www.measuringworth.com/uscomp...ativevalue.php


"Average speeds on steam railroads were slow by todays standards, averaging about 25 mi/hr. Through trains were faster (up to 40 mi/hr) since they made fewer stops. But local trains plodded along at 15 to 20 mi/hr due to frequent stops."

https://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/hist...l-20th.html#s3

I-Like-To-Bike

Or you can imagine that the average citizens of the day spent their days strolling down city boulevards chatting with their friends, perhaps about their weekend plans for a train ride to a local farm for some fresh vegetables and fruit, or maybe to the beach or a mountain resort for a picnic.

lesscan

I also found this.....

Window to the past



I thought these were pretty amazing!
There are a few pages.

Roody

On this forum, the conservatives emphasize how negative the past was, while the progressives emphasize it's positive aspects. I don't know what that means, but it's weird and interesting.

I-Like-To-Bike

"Conservatives" and "Progressives" of this forum? Care to provide the Roody approved definitions?

SmallFront

I'm conservative? That is probably the only time in my life I have been called conservative.

Roody

I mean only within the context of wanting or not wanting to see the world go more in the direction of being carfree. I think.

Roody

I don't know. You haven't really posted here enough for me to get a good picture of you. But your posts on this thread struck me as MAYBE a tad conservative. So we shall see, if you decide to share more of your opinions.

SmallFront

Just because I'm not an ultraliberalist or fundamentalist left winger in my beliefs as well as disagreeing with such monochrome beliefs, does not make me a "conservative"*. It's time to take-in the bigger picture, Roody.

*And certainly not when using American politics as the parameter. I even vote far left of the middle in "socialist" Denmark. Not that that is any of your business.

Roody

Well, if you can tell me about the bigger picture, I will do my best to take it in. What am I missing about these photos and their historical context?

Ekdog

Who has used American politics as a parameter besides you? Your comments in this thread might be considered conservative as concerns the issue of car-free cities as you seem to be unwilling to accept much change on this issue. You may very well be more progressive on other issues, and you might vote for leftist candidates in Denmark, but that is all irrelevant in the context of this subforum.

SmallFront

The bigger picture of my position and the discussion we had about those pictures. That I didn't think that we necessarily needed everyone to dump their cars, that I didn't long for a time with absolutely no cars (past or future) and other such monochrome views., and that because of that, you decided I had to be a conservative. I guess that if you go enough to the left, everyone else is right wing if you are unable to look at the bigger picture.

SmallFront

A few points:

1) In Europe, "liberal" is someone who is on the right wing, that want's to deregulate businesses and have them pay as little tax as possible. So the very juxtaposition between "liberal" as in "left-winger" vs. conservative is very American concept.

2) Since most people on this forum are Americans, it is only natural to also considering most such comparisons to be on the American political spectrum.

And,

3) I could be wrong, but most areas called "Lansing" are in the US: MIchigan, Illinois, NY etc.


I have very clearly that we needed change in behaviour, and in the very post you replied to, I also made it clear that just because I was against black and white thinking and fundamentalism didn't make me a conservative. It just makes me less monochrome in my thinking.


Reread the very post you quoted and some of my earlier posts, and you might be able to tell that I am arguing against having fundamentalist monochrome views. But since you already replied to a post without understanding what was very clear, I don't have too much hope in that area.

Ekdog

No need to talk down to me and become insulting just because I happen to disagree with you. I'm fully aware that "liberal" can have a different meaning on this side of the Atlantic. "Conservative", in the context it has been used by everyone so far in this thread, with you, again, being the exception, means nothing more than that you are resistant to change on this one issue. "Liberal" and "conservative" needn't have any political implication at all. If someone says I slather my toast too liberally with butter, should I become indignant and tell him my politics are none of his business?

SmallFront

... says the guy who will quote me and make up stuff just to further his own agenda. If I have to explain what has already been said and you think I am therefore talking down to you when I explain what has already been stated quite clearly, then that is your problem. And I am not doing it because you disagree with me. I am explaining things to you since you seem rather prone to simply ignore what will make it easier for you to further your agenda.

So you knew that, yet you decided such things had no bearing on why I mentioned the US. Thanks for proving the point above.

Once again you ignore the post where I was deemed conservative, and other who wanted absolutely car free cities were liberal. You know, juxtaposition the two things.


Ah, yes, so when someone makes the comment that someone (who was supposed to be me) is a conservative, and who doesn't want to go back to "the good old days" is compared to liberals who wants to, and how that is somehow turning the world upside down, then that is not a political juxtaposition. And even whether or not we should limit cars, and how much we should limit them all the way to totally banning them in cities is very much a political question.

You are poisoning the well. Car free cities versus not car free is a political issue by its very nature. How much butter you put on your toasties is not.

lesscan

WOW! This thread has really gotten way off track from the OPs topic!

No comments on the incredible pictures I posted, just some "Conservatives" and "Progressives" BS.

=/

Ekdog

Since you insist upon politicising this debate, I shall have to resort to a bit of political oratory myself:

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead—to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even in his childhood!

Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both teenagers!

I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth?

Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background—no, not when you consider the other members of his family:

His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.

The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.

My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.

His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.

His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.

His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a **** sapien.

His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.

His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.

His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.

And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

Now what shall we say about the man himself?

I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.

He perambulated his infant on the street.

He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.

He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.

He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense.

He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.

He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company - and has taken part in such gatherings himself.

He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.

He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.

Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the U.S. flag.

Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms, he has cooly announced his belief in altruism - and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!

I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.

The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself. Do your duty.

https://www.mendosa.com/politics.html HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

SmallFront

As oblivious to facts and reality as always. As for your copy/paste, I don't know what to say, other than you seem to think that copy/pasting from someone else will somehow hide the fact that you are unwilling to read what I have posted, and are unable to respond in a coherent manner.

Ekdog

Lighten up.