Traffic congestion/public transit: how should we get around?

[Biff_Loman]

I read an article on traffic congestion, recently, in Canadian Business. It's an intruiging problem.

Traffic congestion is increasing all over N. America. The obvious solution is to build more roads, but that can create an effect called "induced demand." With more road space available, more people are willing to take car trips. Do you want to drive through Toronto during rush hour if you don't have to? No, you stay home, and so do thousands of other people. If more roads are constructed, however, more people will make car trips to take advantage of the additional asphalt. Billions of dollars can be spent with no benefit.

Public transit is pretty dicey as a solution. Bangkok, Thailand has a $2 billion light rail system that operates at 50% capacity; the city still has the worst congestion on the globe. Portland, Oregon has an excellent rail transit system that, according to the article, fails to prevent very bad congestion. Rail systems aren't popular, given that they aren't flexible enough. I can relate - in my limited experience with the TTC in Toronto, it was far easier to get around by streetcar than the subway.

London England has a toll of eight pounds for driving a vehicle into the city core. Subway use has actually gone down, as the buses now run on time due to decreased congestion. Bus use has increased greatly.

Do we really want a toll model to discourage car trips? Canada has hardly any toll roads, and it is a serious pain the ass to go to the U.S. and start paying tolls to get anywhere. The concept of the "open road" is ingrained in N. American culture.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Increase fuel tax, use the money to lower income tax. The net effect is that heavy drivers lose, carless people gain. It will sort itself out.

The core problem is the settlement pattern, and that can't be changed overnight. Dispersed living is inefficient.

[coffeezombie]

Increase fuel tax, use the money to lower income tax. The net effect is that heavy drivers lose, carless people gain. It will sort itself out.

Well, the problem is that if you are a heavy driver of a car with good gas mileage, you pay less than the guy driving a car with poor gas mileage. The gasoline tax is an excise tax, not a use tax. Although environmentalists would argue that this is fair, transportation departments are having fits over where road funding will come from someday when everybody is driving a Prius.

Oregon is looking at having GPS-type devices installed in cars there. At the gas station, the gas nozzle reads how many miles you have driven, and thus taxes you accordingly.

[xavierd]

I agree with Fox about the settlement pattern and that dispersed living is inefficient but I think that with increasing use of the internet and technology in general that in the future it may be a little more practical. Allowing more people to work from home means you do not have to live as close to your job, same could be said of education if we could ever come up with an effective way to implement a virtual classroom.

[libertarianjim]

I grew up in the countryside, so the traffic jams of Pittsburgh were a total shock to me when I moved to Pittsburgh. (And the roads in Pittsburgh are old, narrow, and make no sense. There weren't street signs until the mid-80s -- the names were engraved on the curbs, if you can imagine that.)

That said, there are tradeoffs. If you want to travel in the city, then you have to realize that there's lots of people, and where there's lots of people, there's lots of traffic. We can try to align road networks in such a way that make transit easy. We can encourage light rail (I would have liked that when I lived in Pittsburgh). But there's not much else.

Obviously, I don't support tax hikes and toll expansion.

[Hustler]

I kind of like the taxibus (http://www.taxibus.org.uk/) idea. It could even be tweaked a little from what they talk about on their site, and it could be privately owned and run, if the government can't be trusted to do it right.

[libertarianjim]

...if the government can't be trusted to do it right.

If?

[coffeezombie]

Obviously, I don't support tax hikes and toll expansion.
Would you support tolls if they were levied by private corporations that own roads? Isn't it just a user fee then?

[booyalab]

the problem with public transit is the delay between information about demand and decisions made by the transit authorities (central planners) so in lots of cities, there's virtually no difference seen between the demand for transportation 8am and 2pm. When the planners finally get around to doing something about it, they have to withstand all of the politics preventing them from raising prices to reflect the supply and demand. And the fact that public transportation is a monopoly, dissuades them from using their resources efficiently, such as having smaller buses come at different frequencies throughout the day, instead of huge buses that are packed at rush hour and empty at midnight.

[libertarianjim]

Would you support tolls if they were levied by private corporations that own roads? Isn't it just a user fee then?

I wouldn't necessarily like it. But, I would have to concede that a private company would have the right to charge for the right to drive on their roads.

I realize there's really little difference in the practical effect of allowing government to charge tolls -- but that money, despite protestations to the contrary, just goes into a big pot where it can be used for anything.

One of the reasons I'm a pain in the ass about roads and spending is that they SUCK in Pennsylvania. Winters are actually better to drive in than summers -- because you're not weaving in and out of those fucking orange barrels.

Edit to clarify some poor grammar: by "they" I mean the roads, not the spending, although that sucks too.

[coffeezombie]

the problem with public transit is the delay between information about demand and decisions made by the transit authorities (central planners) so in lots of cities, there's virtually no difference seen between the demand for transportation 8am and 2pm. When the planners finally get around to doing something about it, they have to withstand all of the politics preventing them from raising prices to reflect the supply and demand. And the fact that public transportation is a monopoly, dissuades them from using their resources efficiently, such as having smaller buses come at different frequencies throughout the day. Instead of huge buses that are packed at rush hour and empty at midnight.
Before you start complaining about "central planners," I advise you read about the wonderful fare system (or lack thereof) set up in the UK by private for-profit rail companies, and how much the British people like it. And the trains still aren't always on time!

[booyalab]

Before you start complaining about "central planners," I advise you read about the wonderful fare system (or lack thereof) set up in the UK by private for-profit rail companies, and how much the British people like it. And the trains still aren't always on time!

I'm not familiar with that system, but I'm sure Lee will be along shortly to give his opinion. I look forward to it.

[jread]

We have so much traffic congestion only because we have created a society that is completely automobile-dependant. The suburban sprawl that eats away the countryside like a spreading cancer provides no other means for people to get around. Housing is income-segregated and landuses are grouped into homogeneous "pods" where residential areas are far away from commercial areas, etc. The days of having a neighborhood corner store, school, ball park, etc. within walking distance are over in America. We have become self-serving and intolerant. We want the best of both worlds: country living with city amenities. What's funny about suburbia is that the people living there don't want anyone else to live there. "I have my house but I don't want anybody else to have one". Traffic is only going to get worse as more and more people pursue the "American Dream" out in the hinterlands surrounding major metropolitan areas.

Higher-density development, mixed-use development, walkable/bikeable communities and above ground or below ground mass transit such as monorails and subways (light rail is stupid to me because it's on the street with the cars) would all help tremendously. Also, I have no problem with toll roads for the most part. The city-dwellers do not need the freeways for most trips... it's those who live in suburbia who are USING the freeways, therefore they should be the ones PAYING for them. What a communist idea.

[zhang_bob]

Before you start complaining about "central planners," I advise you read about the wonderful fare system (or lack thereof) set up in the UK by private for-profit rail companies, and how much the British people like it. And the trains still aren't always on time!Don`t even get me started on this.




Obviously, I don't support tax hikes and toll expansion.Don`t come to london or Oxford then.

[Hustler]

I'm not familiar with that system, but I'm sure Lee will be along shortly to give his opinion. I look forward to it.

Are you saying you have three hours to kill to read his dissertation on the subject?

[booyalab]

Are you saying you have three hours to kill to read his dissertation on the subject?
I am

[Hustler]

I am

Well that's just excellent. Having a lot of time to kill is an indicator of a good life.

[Madrigal]

Well that's just excellent. Having a lot of time to kill is an indicator of a good life.
No, people with a good life don't tend to "kill" their time. :p

[kuranes]

Is the Taxibus system operational yet, or more of an idea ? I liked it as a concept, although a guarantee ( or target ? ) of only having to wait 3 minutes for one sounds extremely conceptual. Perhaps that assumes that there are thousands of them in existence already, as the system expands from its beginnings.

[Lee]

I'll reply and enlighten you all with my verbose and irritatingly precise wisdom, but only because it has been requested by booya, and who could refuse even a sarcastic boo?


Before you start complaining about "central planners," I advise you read about the wonderful fare system (or lack thereof) set up in the UK by private for-profit rail companies, and how much the British people like it. And the trains still aren't always on time!There have been problems with the British railway network for over 100 years, and more than one failed attempt by government to do something about it.

The problem today is that the railway industry was never really opened to free-market competition, sure they allowed private companies to run the trains, but central planners were still setting ticket prices, targets and policy. In other words, the system exists in a kind of pseudo-privatisation, which leaves the entire network at the mercy of almost all of the same inefficiencies, political incentives and price controls that ruined the network in the first place!

However, the problems run even deeper. The railway industry began privately and for a time made a healthy profit, though time was harsh and by the early 20th century the railway companies were struggling. Of course, at this point the inefficient parts of the railway should have been allowed to die, after all, that is the most important function of any free-market, the elimination of inefficiency through bankrupcy, thus allowing the same resources to be directed toward useful ends.

After World War II, during the heyday of Old Labour and its far left ideology, the railway system was nationalised. An amusing pamphlet from the era has written as its sub-heading 'A proposal that the state should acquire and maintain the railways, making them free to the public like the highways.' Alas, if only it were remotely true, nothing is free, someone has to pay the cost of developing, maintaining and running a railway network.

So they say "the government should pay," but of course the government has no money except that which is appropriates in taxes, asking the government to pay is simply a roudabout way of forcing another to pick up the bill, regardless of their own wishes. Usually we would refer to this forceful acquisition of anothers wealth as theft, though such condemnation is conspicuously absent when this theft is performed via the middle-man of government.

Under such circumstances of nationalisation or today's subsidisation we cannot rely on prices to reflect the costs of providing anything, since the industry can simply pick up the shortfall in ticket prices by forcing eveyone to pick up the bill in higher taxes. This leads to a peculiar side-effect, where privatisation (to whatever degree) may result in higher prices at the ticket office, but with lower net costs to society, therefore fostering the illusion that costs are rising.

Whether this has actuall happened in recent years is difficult to say, the rail networks appeared to have improved since privatisation, though nobody can be sure if they are simply mirroring the same improvements which might have occured without privatisation.

I personally think that the rail network has been forced to limp on to the point where it is no longer financially viable, the net costs to society are more than the net benefits to society. The problem is that the short-term benefits to individuals do not mirror that, but many people can make personal gains by using political clout to keep the railway system limping on.

The free-market encourages efficient allocation of scarce resources, because supply, demand and the bottom line force companies to adapt or go out of business. This process is cumulative, preserving good ideas, systems, management practices, customer service etc. whilst eliminating errors. 50 years of nationalisation crippled that process, because public servants can avoid the feedback mechanisms which would otherwise discipline private companies.

The idea that important decisions involving millions of pounds of other people's money, should be placed in the hands of those who bear little or no costs for failure is moronic, you'd be an imbecile to think it was a good idea. Any private companies would inherit a cripple, possibly beyond repair without an extraordinary level of investment, but we did not even get that, but instead were given a pseudo-privatisation little better than what came before.

Privately owned railways are not impossible, in fact, to my knowledge Japan's railway network is almost exclusively privately owned and is one of the -- if not the -- best in the world. Though perhaps in the case of the UK, it is wise to question how much a railway system is needed? We are a small island, good roads and surrounded by seas and rivers.

[CoHo]

The best system is to invest in telecommuting. There isn't any reason for the majority of the workforce to actually go to work.

[mgb]

Increase fuel tax, use the money to lower income tax. The net effect is that heavy drivers lose, carless people gain. It will sort itself out.

The core problem is the settlement pattern, and that can't be changed overnight. Dispersed living is inefficient.

I think Canadian and American cities would have to drastically change how business operates to accomodate something like that.

For me, I start work at 6:30am. So I don't really experience congestion. But I do drive about 20kms or so to get to work and another 20 home. Although, it only takes me about 15 minutes each way.

And since public transportation wouldn't be even close to an efficient alternative in my case, it seems like I'd be penalized for something out of my control.

[cryingmime]

I kind of like the taxibus (http://www.taxibus.org.uk/) idea. It could even be tweaked a little from what they talk about on their site, and it could be privately owned and run, if the government can't be trusted to do it right.


we have something similar to this for senior citizens and the disabled. it's called dial-a-ride. it's nowhere near as efficient as this seems like it would be...but i also don't think that this would work as well as the website suggests.

[Lee]

jread, do you think through anything before posting?


We have so much traffic congestion only because we have created a society that is completely automobile-dependant.Who has created this society? You? Me? The President? Little Green Men? Who?

I can unequivocally inform you that it is none of the above. In fact, the current situation has -- for the most part -- come about due to millions of individuals making free choices, each deciding what costs they are willing to pay for what benefits.

Cars offer a huge range of benefits which no alternative transport system could currently hope to match, therefore businesses adapt to their customers choices. With widespread use of automobiles, many retailers can cut costs to customers by opening up fewer, but larger outlets. If people were not willing the pay the price of the longer travel time, then they would keep shopping at the small local outlets and keep them profitable, but cars reduce radically the cost of that travel time and make more distant megastores viable.

There is no conspiracy from above here, this is the emergent outcome of millions of free decisions, to desire otherwise is to desire the oppression millions of individuals freedom to simply satisfy your own personal preference. People often accuse America of cultural imperialism, but in reality people from all over the world are pretty similar, when given the sae freedoms as Americans they tend to do the same as Americans. Not because there is anything special about Americans, but simply because we are all human.


We have become self-serving and intolerant.Everyone is self-serving, that is nothing new, and as long as we provide proper incentives to prevent crime, our self-serving nature is the best tool we have to help everyone.

As for intolerant. That's just nonsense, for all the problems that do exist in the US, it is still one of the most tolerant countries on the planet.


Higher-density development, mixed-use development, walkable/bikeable communities and above ground or below ground mass transit such as monorails and subways (light rail is stupid to me because it's on the street with the cars) would all help tremendously. Also, I have no problem with toll roads for the most part. The city-dwellers do not need the freeways for most trips... it's those who live in suburbia who are USING the freeways, therefore they should be the ones PAYING for them. What a communist idea.This is all wonderfully utopian, but why should you have the right to arbitrarily force your own preferences on people who left to make their own choices disagree? Since you would never accept the treatment in reverse, I can only conclude that you are being hypocritical.

You are breaking the Golden Rule of morality, therefore inviting everyone to not give a damn what you think, since all you want is to do is selfishly force your own wishes on everyone else, despite the fact that when left to make their own choices, most disagree.

[kuranes]

The best system is to invest in telecommuting. There isn't any reason for the majority of the workforce to actually go to work.

We could definitely use a lot more of this.

[mgb]

Who has created this society? You? Me? The President? Little Green Men? Who?



City Planners. Their specific job is to plan cities. Not all of them, usually just the one they live in. Sometimes they'll do other cities though, when contracted to. They might not have to move to that city to do it, but it's usually just one city at a time, not all of them at once. Unless you live in South America, I think they only have like two or three city plans to choose from.

[Lee]

City Planners. Their specific job is to plan cities. Not all of them, usually just the one they live in. Sometimes they'll do other cities though, when contracted to. They might not have to move to that city to do it, but it's usually just one city at a time, not all of them at once. Unless you live in South America, I think they only have like two or three city plans to choose from.City Planners do not create society, though their roles entail more influence than most, which is why I qualified my statement with the words "for the most part." But then cityplanners do not control businesses, and the same business models which jread so despises crop up over here to, where everything has developed almost completely unplanned as far as city planners are concerned. Likewise, many places where central planners stuck their nose into everything, eventually get adapted to different uses by the people who live there, even if they have to work around the existing infrustructure.

[mgb]

City Planners do not create society, though their roles entail more influence than most, which is why I qualified my statement with the words "for the most part." But then cityplanners do not control businesses, and the same business model's which jread so despises crop up over here to, where everything has developed almost completely unplanned as far as city planners are concerned. Likewise, many places where central planners stuck their nose into everything, eventually get adapted to different uses by the people who live there, even if they have to work around the existing infrustructure.

Actually, the city does control business. They zone where business's can operate. And the city will do so as the City Planners guide them too.

For example, my city is mostly residential in the west side, both north and south. On the east side, there is quite a bit of industrial space with scattered housing. There is a downtown in the center and a beltline district. It's not coincidence it happened that way. Since the city's inception, people have been planning where houses should go and where businesses should go. If a house or a business ended up in the wrong spot, it was moved to the right spot at the cities expense (although some would argue at an unfair expense).

Large roads can move entire neighborhoods. Business Redevelopment Zones can change the nature of an old neighborhood. Gentrification is controlled or encouraged through business permits.

It's all monitored and controlled.

[Lee]

It's all monitored and controlled.It's obviously not all monitered and controlled, though I understand what you are saying. Luckily, local authorities are subject to many of the sam pressures which ordinary businesses are when choosing location. If the city planners have guessed more or less right, then there should be little change between the original plan and the outcome, but political and economic pressures do act -- even if inefficiently -- to force public authorities down the same paths.

This is all because whatever system you have in place, there is always an underlying economic reality pushing it around. Of course, ideally there would be a minimum of influence from the local authorities, but that influence is by no means arbitrary. As much as I find most public sector organisations to be inefficient and bloated, they are not so completely immune to feedback that they can avoid responding to the demands of constituents.

If customers wanted local stores and businesses saw a profit in local stores, then both sides would be petitioning for politicians who promise to remove or change the laws preventing it. The political route is a clumsy one, but one that can and must be taken where such regulatory bodies have so much power.

All that being said, the same economic patterns which jread described tend to pop up in all kinds of places, often despite a complete lack of planning for them, and often in spite of laws which attempted to prevent them. The great advantage that US city planners had was hindsight, they already knew how cities developed and could plan the city to make that development as hassle free as possible.

[Zephyrus055]

I think we should have air traffic, like on Coruscant in Star Wars!

[kuranes]

Lee - I think that jread is just expressing his preference, which would be one contribution to the "market" that you describe, which consists of many voices. Who knows, maybe he could get some kind of coalition together of people who share his beliefs.



Everyone is self-serving, that is nothing new, and as long as we provide proper incentives to prevent crime, our self-serving nature is the best tool we have to help everyone. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . since all you want is to do is selfishly force your own wishes on everyone else

[Hustler]

No, people with a good life don't tend to "kill" their time. :p

Poor, ignorant Madrigal. Perhaps someday you will be enlightened. If not, well, it's not my problem.

[jread]

jread, do you think through anything before posting?

You're an asshole for making me do this at 1:25 a.m. when I have to work in the morning, but I do not have the self-control to just forget it and go to sleep. My first post was a very, very condensed version of everything I have to say on the subject. I've worked in digital cartography in the city planning department for nearly 9 years now. It is something I know a lot about and study relentlessly on my own. Much of it was my opinion, but I'll try to leave opinions out this time and use some of the facts that my opinions are based on.



Who has created this society? You? Me? The President? Little Green Men? Who?

Who? Capitalism has created this society. Post WWII suburban construction began the trend and it only went up from there. The automobile made it much easier for each american to have their own little piece of the world and land was cheap. Developers began mass-producing homes in subdivided lots... providing a good product at one helluva great price. Every American family could have the white picket fence, the "safety" and "security".... this was the middle class's path to the good life. Money was the fuel and vast tracts of open, cheap land were the fire. The economic, social, and environmental impacts were not considered at all. There was money to be made... LOTS of it.



I can unequivocally inform you that it is none of the above. In fact, the current situation has -- for the most part -- come about due to millions of individuals making free choices, each deciding what costs they are willing to pay for what benefits.

What benefits? Suburbia offers many illusions but various studies have shown an even longer list of detrimental results: isolation, higher traffic congestion, higher infrastructure costs (utilities to low-density land), high teen suicide (isolation again), obesity...yes.. OBESITY due to the sedentary lifestyle of suburbia (you drive everywhere, walk nowhere), frustration due to more time spent in traffic.... serious quality of life issues here. The suburban form is also heavily marketed to young couples... tax breaks are given... people eventually just think that this is the way to live and this is what they should do.


Cars offer a huge range of benefits which no alternative transport system could currently hope to match, therefore businesses adapt to their customers choices. With widespread use of automobiles, many retailers can cut costs to customers by opening up fewer, but larger outlets. If people were not willing the pay the price of the longer travel time, then they would keep shopping at the small local outlets and keep them profitable, but cars reduce radically the cost of that travel time and make more distant megastores viable.

I don't see how cars reduce the cost of anything. The payments, fuel, insurance, maintenance... I don't remember the average but it's somewhere around $7000 per year, per car. Yes, they do offerer a private mode of transportation and they definitely have their place, but cities would function much better on mass transit with the alternative of driving. Right now, driving is not an alternative, it is a necessity.


There is no conspiracy from above here, this is the emergent outcome of millions of free decisions, to desire otherwise is to desire the oppression millions of individuals freedom to simply satisfy your own personal preference. People often accuse America of cultural imperialism, but in reality people from all over the world are pretty similar, when given the sae freedoms as Americans they tend to do the same as Americans. Not because there is anything special about Americans, but simply because we are all human.

I am not saying we should all be crammed into highrise residential complexes. It is very possible to still have single-family housing just like we do now, but laid out in a much more intelligent and sustainable manner. Sprawly streets and cul-de-sacs are worthless when you consider that the exact same homes and lots could fit in a much smaller gridded-street area that wastes less land. We've been programmed to desire life in the suburbs and people don't give it much more thought. Developers are going to keep pushing this as it sells their homes. Then there are cases such as the redevelopment of the site of the old airport in central city Austin. They are going with the old "town square" style with mixed-use buildings, single and multi-family housing... all being pleasant and walkable.. built for the human and not the automobile. I think they've already sold every available lot and they haven't done much more than lay down the streets. People are LOVING this alternative. They can live in the city, 2 minutes from downtown, but in a nice neighborhood where everything is in walking distance. No commute to work on the freeways anymore. The gentrification of these old, innercity areas has really taken off recently and it's wonderful to know that people are really wanting to live in these areas. Ironically, I just read an article that many of Chicago's most notorious gangs are moving out to the suburban areas :lol:



Everyone is self-serving, that is nothing new, and as long as we provide proper incentives to prevent crime, our self-serving nature is the best tool we have to help everyone.


Our best tool to help everyone is having a sense of community. We're all in this together and we should act like it.



As for intolerant. That's just nonsense, for all the problems that do exist in the US, it is still one of the most tolerant countries on the planet.

This is all wonderfully utopian, but why should you have the right to arbitrarily force your own preferences on people who left to make their own choices disagree? Since you would never accept the treatment in reverse, I can only conclude that you are being hypocritical.

You are breaking the Golden Rule of morality, therefore inviting everyone to not give a damn what you think, since all you want is to do is selfishly force your own wishes on everyone else, despite the fact that when left to make their own choices, most disagree.

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I would much rather "show" them the alternative and let them make their own decisions. The majority of younger families hate their commutes to and from the suburbs, but it offers them safety from the city. If they could be shown that lovely places can exist within the city, where commute times are low and the kids have a lot more to do, then who knows... maybe they'd go for it.

That's the happy happy side. Now for the cold, hard truth: we have created a monster that is completely unsustainable. Economic, social and environmental health heavily depend on how landuse is handled. We cannot simply sprawl out until there is no land left. We cannot simply suck water from every possible source because a bunch of people decided it was a great idea to build a booming city in the desert (Phoenix/Las Vegas). We have limited resources, we have limited space and the environment can only take so much of a beating. There will come a point where something HAS to change... whether it's wanted or not. Look at Los Angeles and the hell they're going through right now. They have an infrastructure that cannot support their population at all. How will they come out of it? I've heard mass transit... dun dun dun.

P.S. Don't blame urban planners... they'd love to bulldoze suburbs around the world. They have very limited power, though, over the political forces that actually decide what gets done. Those folks would be the politicians and the rich developers.


Lee - I think that jread is just expressing his preference, which would be one contribution to the "market" that you describe, which consists of many voices. Who knows, maybe he could get some kind of coalition together of people who share his beliefs.

There are plenty already. Most city planners, the New Urbanist (http://www.cnu.org) movement, so on and so forth.

[coffeezombie]

Actually, the city does control business. They zone where business's can operate. And the city will do so as the City Planners guide them too.
Well, sometimes they do. But most of the time the elected city representatives are pretty adamant on what they want where, despite what we tell them. Our "power" is usually exaggerated, I think.

[zhang_bob]

Privately owned railways are not impossible, in fact, to my knowledge Japan's railway network is almost exclusively privately owned and is one of the -- if not the -- best in the world.


Well as far as I know some of it is financed with local government funds, which subsidies some of the Japanese national railways on the rural lines what don`t make much money.


Though perhaps in the case of the UK, it is wise to question how much a railway system is needed? We are a small island, good roads and surrounded by seas and rivers.

The main problem is our railway network is a lot older so they can not just put in faster train lines. They would have to start all over again and make them straighter.

[Architectonic]

we have something similar to this for senior citizens and the disabled. it's called dial-a-ride. it's nowhere near as efficient as this seems like it would be...but i also don't think that this would work as well as the website suggests.

Over here, we also have the ''Wandering Star' (http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/routes/wandering_star.html) service which drops people off at their door (between the hours of 12:30 and 5:30 on Friday and Saturday nights). Basically it allows drunk people to arrive home safely. ;)

But it is not time efficient - if you are one of the unfortunate people who gets off last, then you are on the bus for a long time.....

[Xander]

Why not just tax the living stuffing out of cars etc?

That way people will live nearer work and shops etc reducing the eventual demand for travel.

[Huston]

I was going to put a response to Lee, but jread couldn't have said it any better. Free choice is not putting a proper perspective on it when they (people who support suburbia) are made to believe (social construction) that the suburban way of life is the best way. Suburbia is only good for auto companies, and large companies especially the home and garden stores such as Home Depot. These big box stores and auto makers make a fortune off such a life style, and the U.S. economy is the largest in the wolrd because of it. However, it is far from the most sustainable. Once the cheap fuel is gone, bye bye U.S. economy, not that Canada is any better off.

[sbw]

Suburbia is only good for auto companies, and large companies especially the home and garden stores such as Home Depot.

ummm, I like it, and I'm not a large company. I'm not even a large man, in spite of the rising obesity levels amongst suburbanites.

Scott

[Huston]

ummm, I like it, and I'm not a large company. I'm not even a large man, in spite of the rising obesity levels amongst suburbanites.

Scott

Straw man. This is not about 'like'.

[sbw]

Straw man. This is not about 'like'.

ummm, its 'good for' me (your term) to live in a place that I like?

Scott

[Huston]

ummm, its 'good for' me (your term) to live in a place that I like?

Scott

Do you always give empty replies?

[sbw]

Do you always give empty replies?

no. I'm perplexed by your word choice--if the nature of suburban living is "only good for...large companies" like you said, does that imply that its bad for everyone else, or does it not?

Scott

[relaxo]

Once the cheap fuel is gone, bye bye U.S. economy...

These kind of statements crack me up!
You could say, once cheap fuel is gone, bye bye world economy. Or, once the US economy is gone, bye bye world economy.

Of course the truth is however, once cheap fuel (assuming you mean oil and gas) is gone (whatever cheap means...), hello cheaper alternative fuel (such as coal, or solar etc). Or even better, hello opening up protected wilderness in the USA to oil and gas drilling.

The market will work it out. It did it in the mid 70s, it's doing it right now. Sorry, no collapse of the USA economy.

[Huston]

Then how is it good for you? Your replies are empty because they contain no content to even respond to. Plus your first response made no sense or did not follow mine because like is different from good. You either had trouble comprehending or it is a straw-man (Taking your initial response to mine, I will say you had trouble comprehending.. ?ummm, I like it, and I'm not a large company?). Now you are saying it can only be good or bad, where I never made such a diametrical situation. If you can profit from suburbia over any other form of life style then share don't be so empty.

[Hustler]

I was going to put a response to Lee, but jread couldn't have said it any better. Free choice is not putting a proper perspective on it when they (people who support suburbia) are made to believe (social construction) that the suburban way of life is the best way. Suburbia is only good for auto companies, and large companies especially the home and garden stores such as Home Depot. These big box stores and auto makers make a fortune off such a life style, and the U.S. economy is the largest in the wolrd because of it. However, it is far from the most sustainable. Once the cheap fuel is gone, bye bye U.S. economy, not that Canada is any better off.

Preposterous. For one, suburbia predates auto companies and Home Depot, so there must have been an incentive for it prior to their existence. Secondly, suburbia is "good" for anyone who prefers to live in a suburban setting than the alternative. Just as an example, it is far easier to start a wealthy, exclusionary community in the suburbs than it is elsewhere. Rich professionals can live among other rich professionals without all the hassles that come from living in the city among the poor or ethnic minorities. If you're the vice president of some bank and don't mind a 30 minute commute in order to live in a 6,000 square foot house on a golf course 15 miles down the interstate from the city, then who cares if Home Depot profits and the world goes to shit faster because of it?

The "social construction" argument is totally laughable. It can just as easily be turned on its head and used to discredit any set of preferences you might espouse, without any appeal to scientific reasoning, as you've done to an opposing opinion to your own in the above passage.

[th!nkstyle]

is this whole black star against white star actually for real? (huston vs. relaxo)

if it is just a coincendence,then its a good one.

AND they are both from toronto!

[Huston]

These kind of statements crack me up!
You could say, once cheap fuel is gone, bye bye world economy. Or, once the US economy is gone, bye bye world economy.

Of course the truth is however, once cheap fuel (assuming you mean oil and gas) is gone (whatever cheap means...), hello cheaper alternative fuel (such as coal, or solar etc). Or even better, hello opening up protected wilderness in the USA to oil and gas drilling.

The market will work it out. It did it in the mid 70s, it's doing it right now. Sorry, no collapse of the USA economy.

Cars can not run off coal, and cannot run effectively off solar PV's. Other means of combustible fuels are not feasible either, like sugar - ethanol - for example, since so much energy has to be put into the distillation process to make into fuel that can be used in cars. Aside from this, leaveing vehicluar transportation, suburbia is still not sustainable, jread gave some examples.

[relaxo]

Cars can not run off coal, and cannot run effectively off solar PV's. Other means of combustible fuels are not feasible either, like sugar - ethanol - for example, since so much energy has to be put into the distillation process to make into fuel that can be used in cars. Aside from this, leaveing vehicluar transportation, suburbia is still not sustainable, jread gave some examples.

The key point is that innovation solves the problems. If oil went up too high too quickly, the USA would open up it's wilderness and ocean territories to drilling.

Oil prices have gone up 300% in the last 3 or 4 years. USA economy is rolling on...

[relaxo]

is this whole black star against white star actually for real? (huston vs. relaxo)

if it is just a coincendence,then its a good one.

AND they are both from toronto!

haha, I saw it and just had to argue, it was too funny not to

[Huston]

Preposterous. For one, suburbia predates auto companies and Home Depot, so there must have been an incentive for it prior to their existence.

Yes, it was fed by social and racial segregation, and the suburbs were fed by LT lines and subways.


Secondly, suburbia is "good" for anyone who prefers to live in a suburban setting than the alternative. Just as an example, it is far easier to start a wealthy, exclusionary community in the suburbs than it is elsewhere. Rich professionals can live among other rich professionals without all the hassles that come from living in the city among the poor or ethnic minorities.

Yes, as I stated, social and racial segregation. I would not label "good" as prejudice neurosis.


If you're the vice president of some bank and don't mind a 30 minute commute in order to live in a 6,000 square foot house on a golf course 15 miles down the interstate from the city, then who cares if Home Depot profits and the world goes to shit faster because of it?

I care if the world goes to shit faster because of it. You should to. I am apathetic, but not to this degree of severity.


The "social construction" argument is totally laughable. It can just as easily be turned on its head and used to discredit any set of preferences you might espouse, without any appeal to scientific reasoning, as you've done to an opposing opinion to your own in the above passage.

Well it comes down to the question of what is not constructed. I gave another example of social construction in this reply to. Will you also disagree that social construction creates segregation? How does it come about? Must I write a sociological treatise on it? Sorry I go by the structuralists argument when it comes to sociology. Does this mean my argument is moot? Sound more like ad hominem on your part.

[Huston]

The key point is that innovation solves the problems. If oil went up too high too quickly, the USA would open up it's wilderness and ocean territories to drilling.

Oil prices have gone up 300% in the last 3 or 4 years. USA economy is rolling on...

At the expence of it inhabitants, but the U.S. dollar is droping. Also how does opening up oil drilling in the wilderness innovation? Innovation finding new solutions, not the continuation of the old in more desparate or radical forms.

[relaxo]

At the expence of it inhabitants, but the U.S. dollar is droping. Also how does opening up oil drilling in the wilderness innovation? Innovation finding new solutions, not the continuation of the old in more desparate or radical forms.

Sorry, the two sentences should have been separated like this, with an extra word I suppose:

The key point is that innovation solves the problems.

(besides) If oil went up too high too quickly, the USA would open up it's wilderness and ocean territories to drilling


and despite the falling dollar, American economy is rolling on...

[bergenski]

I don't think people at all like the level of traffic congestion in the US, including bank vice presidents. And I think many people *are* sold on a social construct of suburban life that doesn't bear out in reality. As for trusting urban planners and politicians, have a look-see at the stadium they recently built here in Manchester, NH, next to the downtown. It is a laughable example of traffic congestion anytime there is an event there (which is pretty much every weekend and many weeknights). Who would build a stadium directly next to the heart of business, all of which is accessible essentially by a single route? I wouldn't trust planners and politicians in the slightest, they are looking out for their own interests and achievements instead of the collective good.

[Hustler]

Yes, it was fed by social and racial segregation, and the suburbs were fed by LT lines and subways.

Interesting theory. Not really universally applicable. I could start rattling off counterexamples, but why bother? We're probably both just victims of social construction and disinformation.


Yes, as I stated, social and racial segregation. I would not label "good" as prejudice neurosis.

Do you have a logical reason for this? Or do I have to accept your morality?


I care if the world goes to shit faster because of it. You should to. I am apathetic, but not to this degree of severity.

Some people tell me I should be concerned that Jesus died for my sins. But, I guess that's neither here nor there. Sort of like your opinion on where I should draw the line between apathy and concern.


Well it comes down to the question of what is not constructed. I gave another example of social construction in this reply to. Will you also disagree that social construction creates segregation? How does it come about? Must I write a sociological treatise on it? Sorry I go by the structuralists argument when it comes to sociology. Does this mean my argument is moot? Sound more like ad hominem on your part.

I don't really want you to write any treatises. In fact, I don't even want you to respond to this at all. Will I get my wish? I doubt it. But at least go learn what ad hominem means, because I never questioned your motives. I still don't. I don't care about your motives. I just wanted to point out the irrationality of your position on this matter. Your low opinion of suburbia is based on your own personal set of morals. You have used that as a platform to attack people here who disagree with you by saying they are blinded by "social construction" or engaging strawmen because they "like it" or guilty of ad hominem or implying they are bad because they "should care." This is poor argumentation, hypocritical, illogical and, frankly, not worth my time.

[mgb]

Interesting theory. Not really universally applicable. I could start rattling off counterexamples, but why bother? We're probably both just victims of social construction and disinformation.



Do you have a logical reason for this? Or do I have to accept your morality?



Some people tell me I should be concerned that Jesus died for my sins. But, I guess that's neither here nor there. Sort of like your opinion on where I should draw the line between apathy and concern.



I don't really want you to write any treatises. In fact, I don't even want you to respond to this at all. Will I get my wish? I doubt it. But at least go learn what ad hominem means, because I never questioned your motives. I still don't. I don't care about your motives. I just wanted to point out the irrationality of your position on this matter. Your low opinion of suburbia is based on your own personal set of morals. You have used that as a platform to attack people here who disagree with you by saying they are blinded by "social construction" or engaging strawmen because they "like it" or guilty of ad hominem or implying they are bad because they "should care." This is poor argumentation, hypocritical, illogical and, frankly, not worth my time.

You've been totally brainwashed. You poor General Motors loving bastard.

[jread]

Sorry, the two sentences should have been separated like this, with an extra word I suppose:

The key point is that innovation solves the problems.

(besides) If oil went up too high too quickly, the USA would open up it's wilderness and ocean territories to drilling


and despite the falling dollar, American economy is rolling on...

Ok, so here's my question for you....

Say that the the U.S. finds another fuel source to power all the cars... something more renewable and much less polluting. Fantastic, right?

Now, what in the hell does that do to help with traffic congestion or any of the other problems associated with automobile-oriented landuses? No matter what fuel the cars are burning, they're still all on the road.

[sbw]

Now, what in the hell does that do to help with traffic congestion or any of the other problems associated with automobile-oriented landuses? No matter what fuel the cars are burning, they're still all on the road.

yes, unsurprisingly, people are arguing unrelated tangents amongst themselves. I love it here.

anyway, traffic congestion, obesity, etc etc--so what? people that don't like their commute can change the location of either their job or their house.

Scott

[rawr]

http://www.physorg.com/news70040977.html
Maybe you can roll to work in one of those. just dont get ran over!


http://www.bicycleman.com/fuji/images/fuji_team_road_bike.jpg.jpg

Those help. Reducing spraw, rebuilding citys insted of taking over more country side, railways, walking, carpooling or riding the bus. Unless you come up with some style jetsons tube, I dont think you're going to do much better.

[relaxo]

Now, what in the hell does that do to help with traffic congestion or any of the other problems associated with automobile-oriented landuses? No matter what fuel the cars are burning, they're still all on the road.

That's right! They are. So no matter what, we're going to have cars on the road.
Makes you wonder why people don't take public transportation. Makes you wonder why people don't live closer to work.

Which all makes me wonder, if there really is a traffic congestion problem at all. Sure, everyone bitches about it, but nobody seems to change their lifestyle over it. Kind of like bitching you don't make enough money. Most people will always bitch they need more. And like that, people are always going to bitch there is too much traffic. Compare bitching sessions in the cities to bitching sessions in the suburbs and beyond. Some people bitch it's 15 minutes to drive, others would love that.
There will always be congestion problems.

[rawr]

That's right! They are. So no matter what, we're going to have cars on the road.
Makes you wonder why people don't take public transportation. Makes you wonder why people don't live closer to work.


White flight.:banana:

People like to live in little "safe" suburbs away from the city.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Well, the problem is that if you are a heavy driver of a car with good gas mileage, you pay less than the guy driving a car with poor gas mileage. The gasoline tax is an excise tax, not a use tax. Although environmentalists would argue that this is fair, transportation departments are having fits over where road funding will come from someday when everybody is driving a Prius.

Oregon is looking at having GPS-type devices installed in cars there. At the gas station, the gas nozzle reads how many miles you have driven, and thus taxes you accordingly.Funding? Raise the gas/carbon tax, repeat. Fuel efficiency will greatly increase. Sadly, the necessary changes in existing housing patterns and vehicles would takes 50 years at least. We don't have 50 years.
Tax-per-mile or tax-per-gallon is essentially the same, though driving less might be more effective for people with low mpg cars. Some incentives to switch to more efficient vehicles or preferably moving to the cities might be added to make the transition possible for those who otherwise would or could not afford it.



I think Canadian and American cities would have to drastically change how business operates to accomodate something like that.

For me, I start work at 6:30am. So I don't really experience congestion. But I do drive about 20kms or so to get to work and another 20 home. Although, it only takes me about 15 minutes each way.

And since public transportation wouldn't be even close to an efficient alternative in my case, it seems like I'd be penalized for something out of my control.Well, people do control where they live. And a 20 km isn't that bad yet. The whole problem is that suburbia is built on the assumption of cheap and plentiful combustion fuel. The alternatives are locked.

[Huston]

Interesting theory. Not really universally applicable. I could start rattling off counterexamples, but why bother? We're probably both just victims of social construction and disinformation.

Of course we all are. I am merely taking this from what I have gathered through the study of sociology and urban planning, and lack thereof. If you are not into giving out counter examples, then why are you part of this discussion? I am here to gain insight, opinion, and information. If you feel like ?why bother?, why the hell are you here?


Do you have a logical reason for this? Or do I have to accept your morality?

The crazy thoughts that go through people head through a set level of expectations and other neurotic wishes and dreams that they feel threatened that might be taken away from ?other? people coming in. The one pie ordeal. As for morality, I amoral and my views change and evolve; you would not know this, because I have not been here long. You don?t have to accept anything.


Some people tell me I should be concerned that Jesus died for my sins. But, I guess that's neither here nor there. Sort of like your opinion on where I should draw the line between apathy and concern.

Well those people base there views on made up bullshit to have sheep to do someone?s bidding. What is worse, allowing people to go to a made up place called hell, or having future generation suffer from the actions selfish assholes who follow the beliefs of a hell or the one pie concept.


I don't really want you to write any treatises. In fact, I don't even want you to respond to this at all. Will I get my wish? I doubt it.

You would have had your wish, but you had to write this last part.


But at least go learn what ad hominem means, because I never questioned your motives.

That is not ad hominem. You tried to discredit my position by saying that ?social construction is totally laughable?. You attacked my position, my argument because you thought social construction as some sort of all encompassing term, somewhat of a scapegoat to win arguments; that social construction is a moot term.


I still don't. I don't care about your motives. I just wanted to point out the irrationality of your position on this matter. Your low opinion of suburbia is based on your own personal set of morals.

You?re projecting. Suburbia can work; it just needs to be planned out. A bunch of semi-independent satellite cities ?revolving? around a centralized one. The central city taking care of the beauracratic issues. My opinion may have more influence from the field of architecture and planning, as it naturally would since I am part of the field.


You have used that as a platform to attack people here who disagree with you by saying they are blinded by "social construction"

No I used social construction as a means to explain the opinions of others. Are you going to throw out an entire field of work (sociology), just because you believe the term can be use in any scenario and case? I am sorry, but that is a little hard to do since people points of view are created through such means. If you don?t want to share your point of view then yes you are wasting your time. I here to debate, if you are not, then leave, because you are wasting your time.


engaging strawmen because they "like it"

They either didn?t read properly or misrepresented my point. I was pointing it out. What does like have to do with anything I said.


or guilty of ad hominem or implying they are bad because they "should care."

So ethics is a pointless endeavor? I don?t follow a set moral rule, I go by ethics. You harm others; you are doing an unethical act.


This is poor argumentation, hypocritical, illogical and, frankly, not worth my time.

And yet here you are wasting your time, amazing. You have not even addressed any points, and you have created another ad hominem by attacking my ad hominem charge. At least when I made the ad hominem charge, I still addressed the issues and not ignore them. You have. Even in writing this, I still brought forth issues on my view point on suburbia and what can be done. You started this with the projection that I am some kind of fool-owe-er or believer. Is this why you say ?why bother? twice in your reply? If not, then I will detract these comments, and blame that on projection as well.

[Huston]

Well, people do control where they live.

Only according to their wallet.

[wildcat]

I read an article on traffic congestion, recently, in Canadian Business. It's an intruiging problem.

Traffic congestion is increasing all over N. America. The obvious solution is to build more roads, but that can create an effect called "induced demand." With more road space available, more people are willing to take car trips. Do you want to drive through Toronto during rush hour if you don't have to? No, you stay home, and so do thousands of other people. If more roads are constructed, however, more people will make car trips to take advantage of the additional asphalt. Billions of dollars can be spent with no benefit.

Public transit is pretty dicey as a solution. Bangkok, Thailand has a $2 billion light rail system that operates at 50% capacity; the city still has the worst congestion on the globe. Portland, Oregon has an excellent rail transit system that, according to the article, fails to prevent very bad congestion. Rail systems aren't popular, given that they aren't flexible enough. I can relate - in my limited experience with the TTC in Toronto, it was far easier to get around by streetcar than the subway.

London England has a toll of eight pounds for driving a vehicle into the city core. Subway use has actually gone down, as the buses now run on time due to decreased congestion. Bus use has increased greatly.

Do we really want a toll model to discourage car trips? Canada has hardly any toll roads, and it is a serious pain the ass to go to the U.S. and start paying tolls to get anywhere. The concept of the "open road" is ingrained in N. American culture.
Public transit is dicey only in your propaganda. Rail systems are the only systems that make any sense. They are the most flexible systems.
Wake up. Open the book. Look around.

[Biff_Loman]

Wildcat, I gave you the examples of Portland and Bangkok, in which light rail systems are underutilized and failed to ameliorate congestion. There's also the example of London, in which subway use has actually fallen as people have flocked to buses.

The book is open. Care to defend your assertion with evidence?

[wildcat]

Wildcat, I gave you the examples of Portland and Bangkok, in which light rail systems are underutilized and failed to ameliorate congestion. There's also the example of London, in which subway use has actually fallen as people have flocked to buses.

The book is open. Care to defend your assertion with evidence?
And why the light rail systems are underutilized? Because they are underdeveloped. It is an attitude problem all around. One should invest money in them. The costs should be covered by communal tax alone. One should be able to use them without charge. Prohibit the buses and the private motorcars inside the cities (save the cabs). Introduce the trams again. Develop an efficient intercity train network.
Germany and Sweden age going in the right direction, but too slowly. There have also been some setbacks.
In many cities it is also possible to develop the waterways.

[Biff_Loman]

Light rail is better suited for a hub-and-spoke configuration, whereas more and more urban development defies this pattern, at least in North America. A lot of economic activity now occurs at the edge of a city, so the traditional model of transporting workers from the 'burbs into the city core isn't as applicable as it once was.

[wildcat]

Light rail is better suited for a hub-and-spoke configuration, whereas more and more urban development defies this pattern, at least in North America. A lot of economic activity now occurs at the edge of a city, so the traditional model of transporting workers from the 'burbs into the city core isn't as applicable as it once was.
Ever been to Europe? Ever been to Bern? Dusseldorf? Zurich? Bonn?
Ever seen a trolley-car? A ferry? A tram? A train? Ever seen a pedestrian street where the motor cars are prohibited?
Ever heard of them?
I am not talking about the transportation of workers. Is this a class issue?
I do not think you North Americans know what is a functioning city. You do not have city architects. You have road planners. Everything for the motor-car. And why?
To sell oil? You do not have any oil.

[Huston]

Ever been to Europe? Ever been to Bern? Dusseldorf? Zurich? Bonn?
Ever seen a trolley-car? A ferry? A tram? A train? Ever seen a pedestrian street where the motor cars are prohibited?
Ever heard of them?
I am not talking about the transportation of workers. Is this a class issue?
I do not think you North Americans know what is a functioning city. You do not have city architects. You have road planners. Everything for the motor-car. And why?
To sell oil? You do not have any oil.

They like their dead cities like Detroit which is a perfect example of class and racial segregation and the folly of the American economic system where they will allow their cities to become bankrupt. Of course, the thing that put Detroit under was the LT system they were trying to universalize. But I guess the government smartened up when Boston undertook its massive tunnel project. However, it is not about selling oil or oil at all, it is just the binding agent. It is all the service that come out of having a yard, a means to move about, and social prestige (which take on a large amount of wasteful spending on things that truly have no value which also results in the waste of resources.

Now, as for the more dense and urban setting, this kind of setting is more beneficial to the city, as it mean increase land value, increase tax revenues, and such. Not sure if this any better, but the city is more interactive with the population (or well it has the potential) unlike the private companies. The city can take the money and put it back into more useful means such as daycare, transit, parks, and facilities for various types of groups for entertainment and leisure.

[wildcat]

They like their dead cities like Detroit which is a perfect example of class and racial segregation and the folly of the American economic system where they will allow their cities to become bankrupt. Of course, the thing that put Detroit under was the LT system they were trying to universalize. But I guess the government smartened up when Boston undertook its massive tunnel project. However, it is not about selling oil or oil at all, it is just the binding agent. It is all the service that come out of having a yard, a means to move about, and social prestige (which take on a large amount of wasteful spending on things that truly have no value which also results in the waste of resources.

Now, as for the more dense and urban setting, this kind of setting is more beneficial to the city, as it mean increase land value, increase tax revenues, and such. Not sure if this any better, but the city is more interactive with the population (or well it has the potential) unlike the private companies. The city can take the money and put it back into more useful means such as daycare, transit, parks, and facilities for various types of groups for entertainment and leisure.
I thought those services are covered by the communal tax revenues. Expensive land makes expensive cities.

I never had a car. I used to walk, most of all. Sometimes I took the trolley-car or a tram or a train or a ferry.

So America is the country of the peasants. Americans are not urban people. The horse used to mean social prestige among the cowboys. Now it is the car. The town meant the road. On one side of the road you had the saloon and above the saloon the whorehouse. Beside the saloon you had the barber shop and the office of the only editor of the town. On the other side of the road you had the blacksmith.
The Europeans are urban proletariat and the Americans are peasants. The peasants love their engined horses and they tend to be reactionary and backward. They like to be on the move. They love their yards. They try to get into the Country Club. They hate Jews and Mexicans. They cut their grass. They barbacue. They are afraid their women divorce them but they are prepared. They turn into their daddy and mom even when they are married. The lovely money has to stay in the house.

[zhang_bob]

There's also the example of London, in which subway use has actually fallen as people have flocked to buses.
I would like to know where you got your information.

[th!nkstyle]

Its going to be all about the buses that can control traffic lights in about 5 years. The next cheap efficient band-aid.

[Nemesis]

The Strasbourg Tram System (http://tramateurs.free.fr/tram_strasbourg/strasbourg2.jpg) seems to work very nicely. I've no idea why we can't implement it here in the States or in Canada.

[wildcat]

I would like to know where you got your information.
It did diminish after the terrorist attack for a while but I think it is back to normal by now.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

People in London flocked to buses after congestion in the city was reduced due to the congestion tax.

[wildcat]

People in London flocked to buses after congestion in the city was reduced due to the congestion tax.
This has nothing to do with the Underground. Like Paris Metro, it is extremely efficient. Much faster than any other transport.

[Biff_Loman]

My information was from an article in the periodiocal Canadian Business. Unfortunately, I don't have the magazine handy, and can't tell you which issue had this article.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. This isn't an academic paper and I'm not aiming for academic levels of accuracy. I do, however, actually have a source.

[jread]

I thought those services are covered by the communal tax revenues. Expensive land makes expensive cities.

I never had a car. I used to walk, most of all. Sometimes I took the trolley-car or a tram or a train or a ferry.

So America is the country of the peasants. Americans are not urban people. The horse used to mean social prestige among the cowboys. Now it is the car. The town meant the road. On one side of the road you had the saloon and above the saloon the whorehouse. Beside the saloon you had the barber shop and the office of the only editor of the town. On the other side of the road you had the blacksmith.
The Europeans are urban proletariat and the Americans are peasants. The peasants love their engined horses and they tend to be reactionary and backward. They like to be on the move. They love their yards. They try to get into the Country Club. They hate Jews and Mexicans. They cut their grass. They barbacue. They are afraid their women divorce them but they are prepared. They turn into their daddy and mom even when they are married. The lovely money has to stay in the house.

Your recent posts in this thread have led me to the conclusion that you have no idea what in the fuck you're talking about.

Peasants? LOL! Also, there are some great urban places in the United States (ever heard of New York City or San Francisco? Boston?), it is the more modern, Sunbelt cities that are sprawling out of control. They have lots of land and lots of money and no concern for creating urban environments. That doesn't mean that you can correctly generalize the entire country and pull random shit out of your ass to support your views. I could just as easily generalize Europe in many ways and make up whatever I want to. There is sprawl in Europe as well. There would be even more if there were enough room.

Funny that you would call us backward. What makes Europe so sophisticated? [edited by Dr.].

[Biff_Loman]

The Strasbourg Tram System (http://tramateurs.free.fr/tram_strasbourg/strasbourg2.jpg) seems to work very nicely. I've no idea why we can't implement it here in the States or in Canada.

Well, anything that works at street level has to compete with the cars, there. Toronto has electric street cars that run on rails, but they offer no specific benefit other than energy efficiency. And - they don't look nearly as pimp as that Strasbourg example.

I can see our society moving towards something like the Taxibus system, with very efficient hybrid vehicles co-ordinated using a sophisticated system.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

This has nothing to do with the Underground. Like Paris Metro, it is extremely efficient. Much faster than any other transport.
Of course, maybe they didn't like the stairs. But my point was actually that public transport is often hindered by car traffic, so it's value as alternative may be reduced by the very phenomenon it is designed to alleviate.

[zhang_bob]

My information was from an article in the periodiocal Canadian Business. Unfortunately, I don't have the magazine handy, and can't tell you which issue had this article.

This maybe true, but The London Underground is still the most popular form of public transport in London. I agree with Wildcat the terrorist attacks may have played a part, but also the state of The London Underground in general.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/england/1752928.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4079135.stm

[last_caress]

Your recent posts in this thread have led me to the conclusion that you have no idea what in the fuck you're talking about.

Peasants? LOL! Also, there are some great urban places in the United States (ever heard of New York City or San Francisco? Boston?), it is the more modern, Sunbelt cities that are sprawling out of control. They have lots of land and lots of money and no concern for creating urban environments. That doesn't mean that you can correctly generalize the entire country and pull random shit out of your ass to support your views. I could just as easily generalize Europe in many ways and make up whatever I want to. There is sprawl in Europe as well. There would be even more if there were enough room.

Funny that you would call us backward. What makes Europe so sophisticated? [edited by Dr.].

I'd say he's humorously hyperbolic, but his sentiments definitely echo my own.
The reason for the reliance on the horseless carriage and resistance to public transportation can be traced primarily IMO to the lower relative population density and strong cultural emphasis on self-interest.


Traffic congestion/public transit: how should we get around?
Better trained/funded terrorists. :devil:

[rawr]

You cant really compaire the united states to european citys. As europe was mostly developed before cars were. If the land, and the transportation were available. Im sure europe would have developed in a simular way.

[wildcat]

Your recent posts in this thread have led me to the conclusion that you have no idea what in the fuck you're talking about.

Peasants? LOL! Also, there are some great urban places in the United States (ever heard of New York City or San Francisco? Boston?), it is the more modern, Sunbelt cities that are sprawling out of control. They have lots of land and lots of money and no concern for creating urban environments. That doesn't mean that you can correctly generalize the entire country and pull random shit out of your ass to support your views. I could just as easily generalize Europe in many ways and make up whatever I want to. There is sprawl in Europe as well. There would be even more if there were enough room.

Funny that you would call us backward. What makes Europe so sophisticated? [edited by Dr.].
You take too seriously what I say; I am half joking. I am not a serious person. My purpose was in no way to offend the Americans, only to amuse them. I hate motorcars because I am an autist and I do not suffer the noise they make. Also, the air we breathe is not an inexhaustible measure. A landscape destroyed by an endless network of roads is not a pleasant sight. And it does not make sense.
I know there are urban places in America.

[wildcat]

Of course, maybe they didn't like the stairs. But my point was actually that public transport is often hindered by car traffic, so it's value as alternative may be reduced by the very phenomenon it is designed to alleviate.
What do you need the car traffic for if there is a public transport? Europe is already taking measures to prohibit car traffic inside the cities.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

What do you need the car traffic for if there is a public transport? Europe is already taking measures to prohibit car traffic inside the cities.
Of course, I support car-limiting measures to shoehorn the transportation habits into a more efficient mould.