Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit?

Notices
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit?

Old 06-03-19, 08:37 PM
  #101  
rossiny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 428

Bikes: Rossin,Raleigh,Casati

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
True

Originally Posted by FiftySix View Post
IMO, the distance needs to be measured in time not miles. The article in the first post touches on this.

"In the biggest cities, the radius from downtown accessible within an hourógenerally considered the limit for daily commutingóby transit was fully developed by World War II. Cars dramatically extended that radius, and made it very hard for conventional transit to compete."

So, 1 hour on average by foot, bicycle, transit, or car. I don't know many that will walk or bike an hour one way to work, though.

Edit to add:

Back in my youth (20 y.o.), when my 400cc motorcycle wasn't running, I would walk to the nearest bus stop and take a bus to work. The walk and bus ride would take at least 90 minutes.

When my motorcycle was running, I could make the trip to work in 30 minutes.

The distance was only 13 miles. Clearly, I would have never taken that job if I had not owned motorized transportation.
True But the problem lies in the fact that because of this public transit will never improve. If busses ran more frequently and possibly smaller and more efficient. Also if trains can easily run at 200mph, wouldn't it be faster to take a train on a long trip? Then once you get to your destination then yes , the train.station need to be linked to buses of some sort or an additional way to get to your location. So yes currently our world is what I call a " car society " . Whether we realize it or not we are linked and depend on cars. We have been blessed or cursed to be born in a time where cars are king... 🤴
rossiny is offline  
Old 06-03-19, 10:42 PM
  #102  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny View Post
True But the problem lies in the fact that because of this public transit will never improve. If busses ran more frequently and possibly smaller and more efficient. Also if trains can easily run at 200mph, wouldn't it be faster to take a train on a long trip? Then once you get to your destination then yes , the train.station need to be linked to buses of some sort or an additional way to get to your location. So yes currently our world is what I call a " car society " . Whether we realize it or not we are linked and depend on cars. We have been blessed or cursed to be born in a time where cars are king... 🤴
Where does the publicís preference fall in this? Should the voter have a voice in if their tax money is spent on trains, buses, planes, car or motorcycles? Or should the easiest solutions be hindered till the more complicated ones become more viable?
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-04-19, 01:34 AM
  #103  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,787

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1696 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 146 Posts
They didn't, they mass just became more cars and trucks.

OR

It's hard to move a Church...
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 06-04-19, 03:00 PM
  #104  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
What is sad is we are supposed to be addressing the problem with mass transit in this country and someone keeps trying to drag the conversation to people who work hard make too much money or live in the wrong places. Maybe the hardest part is the contention that there is a cabal that is formed because if someone wants to be Car Free the rest of society is guilty because that lifestyle is more difficult than the one society has moved toward for 100 years. The majority should change because the ultra minority says it should? The majority should embrace mass transit even if it doesnít work for them?

Some people do find the constant complaining about how others choose to live as amusing. I have never told my neighbor what to drive or where to live and am not interested in having a neighbor telling me to ride a bus rather than a motorcycle or my car or a tractor trailer. And if they do I just smile because I find the bus less that the best method for me and my family. Disappointing that neighbor would be fine with me.
You take a lot of things I've said and re-weave them to mean something different than the reason they were said when I said them.

The bottom line is this: If government is investing money in building train lines, or even bus systems, where everyone is getting paid enough to afford car payments and driving expenses such as insurance; then the funding of alternative transportation is effectively subsidizing the automotive industry and culture.

That's just the reality; and it's the reason that when alternative transportation such as trains and bus systems fail or are inadequate, people can continue to afford to go on driving.

If all those projects weren't funded at all, and if road and highway infrastructure were funded at a minimum level, then many more people simply wouldn't have the incomes necessary to afford cars and driving and the US wouldn't be able to give up on mass transit,i.e. because people would have to pool their resources instead of being able to buy one car per person or even per household.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-04-19, 03:32 PM
  #105  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
TP,
this is so sad it is amusing. If the suggestion is that we would be better off poor I suggest you go visit any third world country without the resources to fund highway projects. Poverty is not a happy state. These are your words.
From your last post:


ďIf all those projects weren't funded at all, and if road and highway infrastructure were funded at a minimum level, then many more people simply wouldn't have the incomes necessary to afford cars and driving and the US wouldn't be able to give up on mass transit,i.e. because people would have to pool their resources instead of being able to buy one car per person or even per household.Ē

now for a society that canít afford roads it is hard to imagine them affording proper mass transit. Still I reject you plea for poverty. Those were your words under quotes not mine. And I know I said it was worthless to quote you but this had to be shown.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Likes For Mobile 155:
Old 06-04-19, 04:23 PM
  #106  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
TP,
this is so sad it is amusing. If the suggestion is that we would be better off poor I suggest you go visit any third world country without the resources to fund highway projects. Poverty is not a happy state. These are your words.
From your last post:


ďIf all those projects weren't funded at all, and if road and highway infrastructure were funded at a minimum level, then many more people simply wouldn't have the incomes necessary to afford cars and driving and the US wouldn't be able to give up on mass transit,i.e. because people would have to pool their resources instead of being able to buy one car per person or even per household.Ē

now for a society that canít afford roads it is hard to imagine them affording proper mass transit. Still I reject you plea for poverty. Those were your words under quotes not mine. And I know I said it was worthless to quote you but this had to be shown.
You're twisting my words. What I said is that people couldn't all afford cars for themselves personally, or even at the household level, if it weren't for all the public investments in alternative transportation and infrastructure at levels that fund car-purchases and driving-expenses at the individual level.

I don't think there would be poverty if most people gave up driving and took a lower salary since they didn't need to pay those driving expenses. I think the costs of alternative transportation and infrastructure would then be more affordable, so there would be good quality of life without everyone driving.

My point is that as long as people are all buying cars and driving with the money they're making from transit and infrastructure projects, driving is going to remain the dominant transportation form and alternatives are going to underutilized and too expensive.

That is just what happens when a society grows too dependent on ubiquitous driving and the high per-capita costs that come with that.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-04-19, 05:47 PM
  #107  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
TO,
Dude people that are getting their salaries cut often give up driving because they cannot afford it. That is also why they often lose their house. Transportation projects do not make up the lions share of how people make their money and the most people you are talking about do not feel they are over paid.

This is is the only plan I have ever heard to get people back on buses, to cut their pay till a bus is their only choice is almost cruel. Re-read your post and imagine looking into someoneís face and telling them they are over paid and they would be better off making less to support their family and pay their bills.

I know people that make a lot more than I ever have. But I donít begrudge their success and your solution sounds like a perfect formula for a failing society.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 07:50 AM
  #108  
FiftySix
I'm the anecdote.
Thread Starter
 
FiftySix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 908

Bikes: Norco CityGlide, Schwinn Willy

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 477 Post(s)
Liked 278 Times in 211 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
You're twisting my words. What I said is that people couldn't all afford cars for themselves personally, or even at the household level, if it weren't for all the public investments in alternative transportation and infrastructure at levels that fund car-purchases and driving-expenses at the individual level.

I don't think there would be poverty if most people gave up driving and took a lower salary since they didn't need to pay those driving expenses. I think the costs of alternative transportation and infrastructure would then be more affordable, so there would be good quality of life without everyone driving.

My point is that as long as people are all buying cars and driving with the money they're making from transit and infrastructure projects, driving is going to remain the dominant transportation form and alternatives are going to underutilized and too expensive.

That is just what happens when a society grows too dependent on ubiquitous driving and the high per-capita costs that come with that.
Poverty precedes the era of the train and the era of the automobile and bus.

In the old days, people in poverty walked. Move up from walking and you might have a donkey or mule. Usually it took more money to have a horse over a donkey or mule.

Infrastructure back then would be wooden bridges and dirt paths. Many towns only had dirt streets.

TP, it sounds like you're a proponent of the Degrowth Movement. Degrowth would have to happen naturally with collapse of society as we know it. Most people in developed countries aren't about to give up their current way of life willingly.

Last edited by FiftySix; 06-05-19 at 07:55 AM.
FiftySix is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 07:57 AM
  #109  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
TO,
Dude people that are getting their salaries cut often give up driving because they cannot afford it. That is also why they often lose their house. Transportation projects do not make up the lions share of how people make their money and the most people you are talking about do not feel they are over paid.
Housing prices are inflated, along with rents and everything else, by generally high levels of spending that circulate through the economy. You talk about people 'feeling' that they are overpaid or underpaid, but that feeling is based on normative assumptions with an economy that budgets personal automotive expenses into wages.

If the average transportation budget was, say, $500/year for transit plus another hundred or so for riding a bike/scooter/etc. then people would have the same real income in terms of what they could afford to buy outside their transportation budget. Their housing costs would be lower, because landlords wouldn't all need to afford cars and driving. The prices and other expenses they pay would be lower because government wouldn't be taxing them as much for infrastructure with so much less traffic using roads/lanes.

You just don't seem to grasp the idea of system-wide savings resulting in savings for individuals at every level.

This is is the only plan I have ever heard to get people back on buses, to cut their pay till a bus is their only choice is almost cruel. Re-read your post and imagine looking into someoneís face and telling them they are over paid and they would be better off making less to support their family and pay their bills.

I know people that make a lot more than I ever have. But I donít begrudge their success and your solution sounds like a perfect formula for a failing society.
I don't want to be in anyone's face. I am just saying that public investments in transit and infrastructure pay people salaries that afford them car payments and driving expenses. Without those public investments hiring people at those wage levels, most people wouldn't be able to afford to drive.

So that is the reason 'America' gives up on transit. It's because the cost of transit is high due to wage-levels being set at high levels so everyone can afford to drive. If those wage-levels and infrastructure-investments were cut to levels that don't afford everyone's driving expenses, the people would cry that too much was being spent on alternative transit/infrastructure and the money would be shifted back to over-funding the driving infrastructure.

For some reason, they never reach the point of cutting the automotive infrastructure investments down to levels that only fund a fraction of the driving population, probably because of all the automotive interests lobbying to keep everyone driving for economic reasons.

So there you have it: for the people to broadly embrace transit, they would have to be too poor to afford driving; but to be too poor to afford driving, they would have to stop investing in transit and infrastructure at levels that fund everyone driving.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 10:56 AM
  #110  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by FiftySix View Post
Poverty precedes the era of the train and the era of the automobile and bus.

In the old days, people in poverty walked. Move up from walking and you might have a donkey or mule. Usually it took more money to have a horse over a donkey or mule.

Infrastructure back then would be wooden bridges and dirt paths. Many towns only had dirt streets.

TP, it sounds like you're a proponent of the Degrowth Movement. Degrowth would have to happen naturally with collapse of society as we know it. Most people in developed countries aren't about to give up their current way of life willingly.
You are introducing proofs into the fantasy that success is a bad thing. Your example of walking to donkeys to horses proves itself out all over this world. Some just need to get out of their living room and see how humans are. I have been to Africa, Asia and South America and viewed transportation development in the exact order you described. The really poor walk. Poor with a job or business gets a donkey cart and if they are successful maybe a horse.

In Africa the next move is often a mini van that they get a permit to haul people with. They then use that van to pick up and charge walkers a fee to ride into town. In Asia the get a small three wheeled scooter and charge people that donít want to walk. In South America it is small cars they use as a taxi. But the transition is always the same.

No no where is the concept that people are willing to take less for their labor a workable idea.

If if some people would spend some time socializing with others in real time they would know that their fellow citizens are working as hard as they can to move up rather that digress to what people made in the pre- Industrial Age.


If we are talking such fantasies maybe people gave up mass transit because the are waiting for transporters to be invented. That way they could simply be zapped anywhere in the world as fast as light.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Likes For Mobile 155:
Old 06-05-19, 11:39 AM
  #111  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
You are introducing proofs into the fantasy that success is a bad thing. Your example of walking to donkeys to horses proves itself out all over this world. Some just need to get out of their living room and see how humans are. I have been to Africa, Asia and South America and viewed transportation development in the exact order you described. The really poor walk. Poor with a job or business gets a donkey cart and if they are successful maybe a horse.

In Africa the next move is often a mini van that they get a permit to haul people with. They then use that van to pick up and charge walkers a fee to ride into town. In Asia the get a small three wheeled scooter and charge people that don’t want to walk. In South America it is small cars they use as a taxi. But the transition is always the same.

No no where is the concept that people are willing to take less for their labor a workable idea.

If if some people would spend some time socializing with others in real time they would know that their fellow citizens are working as hard as they can to move up rather that digress to what people made in the pre- Industrial Age.


If we are talking such fantasies maybe people gave up mass transit because the are waiting for transporters to be invented. That way they could simply be zapped anywhere in the world as fast as light.
So what do you think about the fact that it takes government spending to fund the automotive culture? Are you fine with that? Is that simply the price you think we all have to pay to avoid becoming like Africa and all these other less-developed places you claim to have been and seem to deplore?
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 12:01 PM
  #112  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
So what do you think about the fact that it takes government spending to fund the automotive culture? Are you fine with that? Is that simply the price you think we all have to pay to avoid becoming like Africa and all these other less-developed places you claim to have been and seem to deplore?
First things first. Government also funds mass transit and roads. They do so with taxes and borrowed money. It doesnít have to be a giant conspiracy it can be as simple as best practices to make a life for the public better. No one is walking 1000s of miles to get to a car free life in Venezuela are they. Are masses of people trying to immigrate to Africa?

Are you disputing the progression from being poor to being more successful? Are you disputing the idea that your neighbors do not feel they are being paid too much for their work?

No I suggest that most people even a preponderance if people are as aware as I am and can choose for themselves what they prefer to use to get to work. I donít assume I know better or have clearer vision as to what makes others happy. But I do know from experience that given the choice people would rather make a wage that includes enough for their wants and something left over for their children.

That is why I suggest it is good to have a social group to bounce ideas off of and ask why the do or donít like the forms of transportation they are offered.

Show us a society that feels they are over paid or that donít deserve what they are paid.

Maybe society has decided it is a price worth paying and that is what matters.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 01:12 PM
  #113  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
TP
one last thing, if someone is sitting in a room with 100 people and the choice is given to each one of how to get around more than 94 of them in the U S will choose something other than public transportation. This is after going through all the processes in history that included mass transit till today.

The chances that the 4 or 5 that do take mass transit are more aware than the 95 is well against the odds. Not many people are going to listen to the 4 or 5 making excuses of how if people take another vote they will change their mind. The system has to be fixed first then let the people choose. Read the following link.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...many-americans
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 01:41 PM
  #114  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
First things first. Government also funds mass transit and roads. They do so with taxes and borrowed money. It doesnít have to be a giant conspiracy it can be as simple as best practices to make a life for the public better. No one is walking 1000s of miles to get to a car free life in Venezuela are they. Are masses of people trying to immigrate to Africa?
So your point is that I'm right but people don't care enough to leave the country to protest? Ok, I'll give you that.

Are you disputing the progression from being poor to being more successful? Are you disputing the idea that your neighbors do not feel they are being paid too much for their work?
I am just pointing out that the system is biased against transportation reform because reforms are funded at levels that pay for everyone involved to buy cars and drive.

No, I'm not disputing progress toward being more successful because why else would I advocate progress toward more efficient land- and resource- use. You always accuse me of advocating lower standards of living, but I just don't see riding a bike and/or using transit as a lower standard of living just because it costs less and generates less GDP growth.

No I suggest that most people even a preponderance if people are as aware as I am and can choose for themselves what they prefer to use to get to work. I donít assume I know better or have clearer vision as to what makes others happy. But I do know from experience that given the choice people would rather make a wage that includes enough for their wants and something left over for their children.
All you do when you say this kind of thing is propagate the automotive scam further.

Maybe society has decided it is a price worth paying and that is what matters.
No, I don't think most people are aware of how it works, or they would be against it. They have been tricked into believing it is a natural result of a free market that everyone drives, when that is really not the case. The problem, however, is that most people aren't willing to stand up to a large-scale lie because it scares them that it has progressed so far that they aren't willing to advocating changing it. That doesn't mean that they can embrace it knowing it's a lie and a scam, though. That's why people accept those, like you, who would white-wash it and make it easier for them to not question. Many people will accept a lie and a scam rather than question it, but because it makes them feel uncomfortable to be aware of it as such, they will also accept propaganda denying that there's a lie in it.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 02:14 PM
  #115  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
So your point is that I'm right but people don't care enough to leave the country to protest? Ok, I'll give you that.


I am just pointing out that the system is biased against transportation reform because reforms are funded at levels that pay for everyone involved to buy cars and drive.

No, I'm not disputing progress toward being more successful because why else would I advocate progress toward more efficient land- and resource- use. You always accuse me of advocating lower standards of living, but I just don't see riding a bike and/or using transit as a lower standard of living just because it costs less and generates less GDP growth.


All you do when you say this kind of thing is propagate the automotive scam further.


No, I don't think most people are aware of how it works, or they would be against it. They have been tricked into believing it is a natural result of a free market that everyone drives, when that is really not the case. The problem, however, is that most people aren't willing to stand up to a large-scale lie because it scares them that it has progressed so far that they aren't willing to advocating changing it. That doesn't mean that they can embrace it knowing it's a lie and a scam, though. That's why people accept those, like you, who would white-wash it and make it easier for them to not question. Many people will accept a lie and a scam rather than question it, but because it makes them feel uncomfortable to be aware of it as such, they will also accept propaganda denying that there's a lie in it.
Are you trying to say you know better than the rest of society what will make them happy? Are you saying they are fools? I donít accept that concept for a second.

Can you demonstrate your idea of making less is the same as making more? Is there a wife and child you have to provide for on minimum wage? I am saying there is nothing in your ideas that have substance.

I am saying every place I have ever been to where people start out poor are working towards making more not less to take care of their families. Every place I have been to is working towards a life most people in the US see as successful. And none of those people I would call foolish or ignorant or stupid. I am saying if you want people to following your suggestions give them an example of how that has worked for you. And if they decide it isnít for them let them live their life.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 03:03 PM
  #116  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Are you trying to say you know better than the rest of society what will make them happy? Are you saying they are fools? I donít accept that concept for a second.

Can you demonstrate your idea of making less is the same as making more? Is there a wife and child you have to provide for on minimum wage? I am saying there is nothing in your ideas that have substance.

I am saying every place I have ever been to where people start out poor are working towards making more not less to take care of their families. Every place I have been to is working towards a life most people in the US see as successful. And none of those people I would call foolish or ignorant or stupid. I am saying if you want people to following your suggestions give them an example of how that has worked for you. And if they decide it isnít for them let them live their life.
This thread is about why transit funding in the US doesn't achieve transit. It's simply because the funding is paid out in wages that afford everyone a car and driving expenses.

Further I noted that without transit and infrastructure funding, most people wouldn't be able to afford to drive a personal motor-vehicle, i.e. they would have to choose transit and/or ride a bike.

You seem to agree, only you think that it's a good thing.

So your perennial insistence that choice is good denies that choice is actually structured out of the system by the way it works.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 03:29 PM
  #117  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
TP,
you have still not addressed the point and I donít believe you can. People prefer comfort and personal freedom. They also prefer a good paying job. You and you alone have proposed that success is a bad thing and poverty can be avoided even when people get their pay cut.

It is you you and your ideas that are resisting what society has chosen. And you make such proclamations as if how you live is an example for anyone else.

The other poster that indicated you are trying to encourage restructuring society into a primitive state is correct. You have been on the people make too much money side since the first post we ever talked about. That was the one where you asked in a poll how many in the forum would live in a poor section of town and live with minimum pay if there were no cars allowed. Or would they want to live with better pay in a better part of town but they had to have access to a car? You and you alone advocated for living in the poor section.

Nothing has has changed from that conversation and no one is less aware than you are. Remember this is a general forum for the one percent of the population. This part of the forum represents a small percent of that one percent. And it has the highest percentage of people interested in what car fee is or involved in. Yet you are the lone voice or reason? Do you even read your own posts?

Last edited by Mobile 155; 06-05-19 at 03:34 PM.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 03:36 PM
  #118  
pedex 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under bridge in cardboard box
Posts: 5,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
TP,
you have still not addressed the point and I donít believe you can. People prefer comfort and personal freedom. They also prefer a good paying job. You and you alone have proposed that success is a bad thing and poverty can be avoided even when people get their pay cut.

It is you you and your ideas that are resisting what society has chosen. And you make such proclamations as if how you live is an example for anyone else.

The other poster that indicated you are trying to encourage restructuring society into a primitive state is correct. You have been on the people make too much money side since the first post we ever talked about. That was the one where you asked in a poll how many in the forum would live in a poor section of town and live with minimum pay if there were no cars allowed. Or would they want to live with better pay in a better part of town but they had to have access to a car? You and you alone advocated for living in the poor section.

Nothing has has changed from that conversation and no one is less aware than you are. Remember this is a general forum for the one percent of the population. This part of the forum represents a small percent of that one percent. And it has the highest percentage of people interested in what car fee is or involved in. Yet you are the lone voice or reason? Do you even read your own posts?
I made a somewhat similar choice when I went car free back in 2001. It is a very small group of people that live like that by choice for certain.
pedex is offline  
Likes For pedex:
Old 06-05-19, 03:48 PM
  #119  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
TP,
you have still not addressed the point and I donít believe you can. People prefer comfort and personal freedom. They also prefer a good paying job. You and you alone have proposed that success is a bad thing and poverty can be avoided even when people get their pay cut.
Why don't you use the word, "socialism," when you talk about people wanting a good-paying job? You're admitting what I said, that there wouldn't be as many good-paying jobs or as high of pay without transit and infrastructure spending, so you are basically saying that people accept automotive socialism because it generates more/higher-paying jobs than no-socialism or lower-cost socialism.

Having transit as the most common mode of transit, coupled with lower infrastructure costs as a result of less traffic on the roads, would not equal poverty. The value of money is relative to what you can (and have to) buy with it. If you don't have to buy a car and insurance, then you are much better off with less money than if you do.

Let me ask you this: if people had to fund toll-roads and other roads and highways out of pocket instead of their government spending the money for them up front and then taxing/tolling them for it later, how many people do you think would voluntarily front the money?

It is you you and your ideas that are resisting what society has chosen. And you make such proclamations as if how you live is an example for anyone else.
You always demonize and ostracize me in your posts because your arguments would be too weak without putting me down.

The other poster that indicated you are trying to encourage restructuring society into a primitive state is correct. You have been on the people make too much money side since the first post we ever talked about. That was the one where you asked in a poll how many in the forum would live in a poor section of town and live with minimum pay if there were no cars allowed. Or would they want to live with better pay in a better part of town but they had to have access to a car? You and you alone advocated for living in the poor section.
You are connecting two different things that have nothing to do with each other. If costs of living were lowered by less people driving overall, then more people could afford to live outside the poor areas.

The reason I used to advocate for moving to poor areas was to raise the standard of living in those areas, i.e. by more positive people bringing their energy into the area without driving up the prices by spending more.


Nothing has has changed from that conversation and no one is less aware than you are. Remember this is a general forum for the one percent of the population. This part of the forum represents a small percent of that one percent. And it has the highest percentage of people interested in what car fee is or involved in. Yet you are the lone voice or reason? Do you even read your own posts?
Yours are always piles of lies committed by subtly spinning and misinterpreting things I say and have said. Your POV is built on completely shaky foundations, but you assume that as long as you go on repeating it, it will hold up. It doesn't and it won't, but as long you are ignorant of your own ignorance, it will hold up in your own mind; and I'm certain that will be enough for you.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 04:07 PM
  #120  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by pedex View Post
I made a somewhat similar choice when I went car free back in 2001. It is a very small group of people that live like that by choice for certain.
I have known others that have as well. Still I contend the choice to do so was made with the same amount of thought that someone makes in a job choice or the purchase of a car. None of the people I have met assumed the rest of society is fooled into buying a car or intimidated out of riding the bus by the auto industry.

For 8 years all in my friends and I rode motorcycles. Not once in that 8 years did any of us think we were better informed than our neighbors or fellow workers. Nor were we interested in riding a bus then either. And while our fuel costs were less than our pick up driving friends none of us took a cut in pay. And I am not now about to advocate that my doctor be paid minimum wage after medical school.

The guy that got me back into cycling was car free for years. His car freeness did cost him money when his job moved. He survived and eventually got a better job and no longer is car free. If asked today what he preferred he is happier today.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Likes For Mobile 155:
Old 06-05-19, 04:22 PM
  #121  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
I have known others that have as well. Still I contend the choice to do so was made with the same amount of thought that someone makes in a job choice or the purchase of a car. None of the people I have met assumed the rest of society is fooled into buying a car or intimidated out of riding the bus by the auto industry.

For 8 years all in my friends and I rode motorcycles. Not once in that 8 years did any of us think we were better informed than our neighbors or fellow workers. Nor were we interested in riding a bus then either. And while our fuel costs were less than our pick up driving friends none of us took a cut in pay. And I am not now about to advocate that my doctor be paid minimum wage after medical school.

The guy that got me back into cycling was car free for years. His car freeness did cost him money when his job moved. He survived and eventually got a better job and no longer is car free. If asked today what he preferred he is happier today.
It's a different thing to choose to LCF in an economy where most people drive than one where most people take transit and/or bike. In some ways it's better and in some ways worse; but overall the costs of everyone driving and all the infrastructure that goes with that have to get passed on in prices, rents, and other expenses.

People think the government is taxing the rich and big corporations to pay for the roads and highways, but they are passing the costs back down to us, assuming they're not voluntarily losing money. So we would all do ourselves a favor by reducing our collective transportation costs by reducing the total percentage of people who own and drive their own vehicles, but as long as people like you keep managing to convince others that they're better off paying more so the economy will be bigger, most will go on failing to understand that less overhead is better if you can get the same value out of a less expensive thing.

Now you will say that being able to drive your own car everywhere holds more value than taking transit and/or biking, but it ultimately doesn't because of all the land-waste and time-waste caused by sprawl and congestion. People also don't want to work more hours to drive when they could get the same standard of living with less money by not driving.

Really, can you imagine that if you gave people the choice to reverse environmental/climate problems without lowering their quality of life by replacing driving with transit and bike riding that they would turn that down? The only reason they don't is because they are afraid it won't work and they'll end up losing money and/or quality of life without getting what they opted for. They are right, too, because as I explained the transit and infrastructure projects would be funded at levels that would pay everyone involved to own a car and drive, and the overall stimulus would keep many other people employed at those levels too.

So we are stuck with the automotive system until we outlaw it or somehow all choose to reject it and go LCF voluntarily. As long as that doesn't happen, though, no amount of investment in alternatives will work because the money will just end up recirculating into the automotive economy, which people will inevitably utilize instead of transit because the transit will be kept inadequate to deter most people from choosing it.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 05:41 PM
  #122  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
TP
We vote every time we spend our money. We open our wallet and buy a car. I do not agree transportation projects fund cars. And all you have to do to prove your contentions is get people to vote for them.

I am am willing to wager you lose every vote. It s you not me that wants to cut peoples pay and it is your idea that you have to sell. I donít have to convince people of anything and as I said I am willing to let them make their own decisions. You not I want to control other peopleís lives.

And when all is said and done America has given up on mass transit in general. As the link I posted pointed out if you took the time to read it. About 5 out if 100 choose mass transit over all.

And yes yes I think many of your ideas are almost evil. The ones restricting what people make to your standards bother me the most. Not that there is a chance in the world your contentions will come to anything.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 06:54 PM
  #123  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,010

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1441 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times in 26 Posts
TP,
i May have to apologize to you. I have said in the past that some of our seem hopeless because we are diametrically opposed to each otherís way of life. And yet I have still tried to reach some understanding of your position.

The truth is like someone said in another post I cannot communicate with you. On this subject it is no longer worth trying. Believe what you want I am out on this one.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 06-06-19, 06:32 AM
  #124  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8077 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
TP
We vote every time we spend our money. We open our wallet and buy a car. I do not agree transportation projects fund cars. And all you have to do to prove your contentions is get people to vote for them.

I am am willing to wager you lose every vote. It s you not me that wants to cut peoples pay and it is your idea that you have to sell. I donít have to convince people of anything and as I said I am willing to let them make their own decisions. You not I want to control other peopleís lives.
Everything funds cars as long as the price of a car and driving expenses are built into the wages paid.

Think about it this way: how much more would you have to pay employees for everyone to buy a Tesla or Mercedes or other expensive car instead of a Ford or Hyundai or whatever basic level car they buy? Hopefully you realize that employers don't want to pay all their employees at that level. Now think about how much less you could pay employees if they only took transit and/or rode bicycles and didn't even buy the basic Ford or Hyundai.

Hopefully that example makes it clear that every salary has a certain level of transportation costs built into it. Sure, people have some freedom to spend a little more on one thing by spending less on another; e.g. you could spend more on rent, food, travel, etc. by not having a car, which is what I advocate here sometimes; or you could buy a Tesla and live in a tent if you wanted to take your freedom in that direction; but the bottom line is that we all have budgets to work with and LCF makes more of your budget available for expenses other than driving; and likewise a business spending less on an employee because they LCF means the business can charge less in its prices, if that's how it chooses to spend its savings.

If you take this budgeting logic to the level of the overall economy, we are budgeting more on highway and road infrastructure than we need to because so many people drive. If a fraction of current drivers drove and used transit instead, congestion would go down and less lanes and parking lots would be needed. Reducing those infrastructure expenses would lower taxes, which corporations could pass on in the form of lower prices and rents. Likewise, if a smaller percentage of people drove, they could afford to work for less without giving up anything else in their budget, so that would also reduce costs for their employers, which could be passed on as lower prices, rents, etc.

The people who would lose out are auto makers, auto workers, and others who specifically make money in automotive-oriented businesses. Those people would have to look for other ways to make money. I believe you are on the side of such people, and that is why you always argue against anything I say about less cars being better.

And when all is said and done America has given up on mass transit in general. As the link I posted pointed out if you took the time to read it. About 5 out if 100 choose mass transit over all.
Only because the culture has been steered that way through the decades. When Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus, the bus was full of people to sit next to.

And yes yes I think many of your ideas are almost evil. The ones restricting what people make to your standards bother me the most. Not that there is a chance in the world your contentions will come to anything.
Everyone is already restricted in what they make, simply because they could be making more but aren't. That's economics. If everyone could make unlimited amounts of money, money would lose its ability to regulate commerce. Money and budgeting are two sides of the same coin.

It's not evil to see that the value of money is relative to how the economy works. If the total overhead of an economy is less because of more efficient transportation/infrastructure spending across the board, that makes everyone's dollars worth more, i.e. because prices are lower for the same quality products. E.g. if you can buy a nice meal for $20 instead of $30 because the restaurant pays less for rent, less to workers, etc. then it's not bad to make less money. Then you say it bothers you the workers make less, but if what they can buy with their money is not less, then they aren't really making less in real dollars; the dollars they make are just deflated instead of being inflated by the widespread costs of transportation/infrastructure in an automotive economy.

I really think the bottom line is you are just afraid of losing the privilege of everyone having and driving their own car. You don't care that there are 6+ lane highways and clover-leafs and other over/under passes that waste land and create sprawl. You think it's good to keep the people you don't want to live near far away by having large amounts of sprawl between neighborhoods. These are all things that you value and so you consider it worth the extra cost to budget driving and infrastructure into everything. To me it is bad for the environment/sustainability, a waste of land, too much to pay for what amounts to walls throughout society, and it alienates people from the inherent human ability to use human power to traverse one's local realm.

It amazes me that you have spent so much time on a car-free forum arguing against LCF. It's like we've never been able to have an LCF forum because you and people like you keep making this forum into a debate against LCF.
tandempower is offline  
Old 06-06-19, 07:32 AM
  #125  
FiftySix
I'm the anecdote.
Thread Starter
 
FiftySix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 908

Bikes: Norco CityGlide, Schwinn Willy

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 477 Post(s)
Liked 278 Times in 211 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Everything funds cars as long as the price of a car and driving expenses are built into the wages paid.

Think about it this way: how much more would you have to pay employees for everyone to buy a Tesla or Mercedes or other expensive car instead of a Ford or Hyundai or whatever basic level car they buy? Hopefully you realize that employers don't want to pay all their employees at that level. Now think about how much less you could pay employees if they only took transit and/or rode bicycles and didn't even buy the basic Ford or Hyundai.

That's not the way it works.

Minimum wage employees walk, bike, take transit, drive old cheap cars, or get rides. Those employees are not compensated with pay for transportation.

People that make wages above minimum are paid for the job they are hired to do. Higher value to the employer gets that employee more money. That increase in money could be used to change that employee's housing-to-transportation cost ratio. Closer to work might mean more expensive housing, but potentially less expensive transportation. These employees are not compensated for transportation, they are paid a competitive rate based on what their job is and what part of the world the job is located.

The employers that do pay their employees compensation for transportation are usually employers that hire their employees to drive their own personal vehicles for the job.

Like has already been mentioned, transit infrastructure is paid for by the people with taxes*, bonds, and tolls.

Sure, cost of living is part of what has driven wages up, and you touched on housing which is a big part of it. Plus, the USA has some pretty high living standards even if you leave cars and housing out of the picture. How many of us would go without air conditioning, smart phones, the internet, etc. One landline phone per household sure is cheaper than four smartphones in the same house. My bills certainly were much smaller back when all I had was a land line phone and books to read. So were everyone else's bills too.

--------------
*"The average Texan pays about $10 per month in state gasoline taxes for the roads we drive on every day."
https://tti.tamu.edu/uncategorized/t...d-the-numbers/

28 million Texans x $10/month per Texan is a lot of infrastructure money.

Last edited by FiftySix; 06-06-19 at 08:00 AM.
FiftySix is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.