Is public transit only for low income minorities?

a reply to: Nyiah

Populations in different areas of the US are more and less integrated.

I think in the South is is actually less physically segregated than it is as you go north ironically enough for all that the NE Coastal elites especially like to point and jeer at Southern racism. And that's not to say there isn't racism in the South only that different ethnic populations lived and worked closely together for a long, long time even with the various racial issues in the South and that never really changed.

But during the Great Migration years as blacks moved north the neighborhoods they moved into were kept very highly segregated from white neighborhoods and that persists to this day. So when people from farther north tell you it is what it is, they aren't necessarily wrong anymore than you are.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Edumakated

Great post. Every City is different. Chicago isn't worth using a car to get around the Metro Area, that's how good their system is. Hell, my parking last time I was there was almost as much as my Air BnB. Didn't use my car the whole week we were there. Even Ubers are pretty affordable there.

In Detroit, it's adequate but nothing to write home about and doesn't have the ridership to warrent expanding. The new light rail we put in downtown is a joke, going to places no one really travels.

In America, mass transit is looked down upon by most, with a few City exceptions.

In Europe......it's one of the main forms of commuting. Just different philosophies on things.

No one looks down on mass transit in America. It is also about distances and ridership (whether or not it is economically viable). Another issue is that there is a party in the USA that is full of grifters. They front load the project with nepotism and cultural feel good nonsense.

The reason why existing systems in CHicago and NYC "work" is because they existed before the DNC decided to make everything about race and nothing about what might actually work. It is such an obvious truth it obviously hurts people to recognize.

Keep in mind I am not a fan of the RNC either, same nonsense, just not as bold.

Mass transit for most Americans is not their first option for commuting, so yes, it is looked down upon, generally speaking. Most middle class people only take mass transit if their are no other options. Certain cities are the exception, not the rule. Most of America was built for the individual driving their car.

Given a choice, in most communities, mass transit is not the preferred means of commuting like it is in many European Countries in big cities.

In cities that have a fully developed mass transit system, it's great. Not many cities have that here.

Then why do middle class people use it in Chicago and NYC and Washington DC area? Are there no middle class white people in those cities?

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Edumakated

Great post. Every City is different. Chicago isn't worth using a car to get around the Metro Area, that's how good their system is. Hell, my parking last time I was there was almost as much as my Air BnB. Didn't use my car the whole week we were there. Even Ubers are pretty affordable there.

In Detroit, it's adequate but nothing to write home about and doesn't have the ridership to warrent expanding. The new light rail we put in downtown is a joke, going to places no one really travels.

In America, mass transit is looked down upon by most, with a few City exceptions.

In Europe......it's one of the main forms of commuting. Just different philosophies on things.

No one looks down on mass transit in America. It is also about distances and ridership (whether or not it is economically viable). Another issue is that there is a party in the USA that is full of grifters. They front load the project with nepotism and cultural feel good nonsense.

The reason why existing systems in CHicago and NYC "work" is because they existed before the DNC decided to make everything about race and nothing about what might actually work. It is such an obvious truth it obviously hurts people to recognize.

Keep in mind I am not a fan of the RNC either, same nonsense, just not as bold.

Mass transit for most Americans is not their first option for commuting, so yes, it is looked down upon, generally speaking. Most middle class people only take mass transit if their are no other options. Certain cities are the exception, not the rule. Most of America was built for the individual driving their car.

Given a choice, in most communities, mass transit is not the preferred means of commuting like it is in many European Countries in big cities.

In cities that have a fully developed mass transit system, it's great. Not many cities have that here.

Then why do middle class people use it in Chicago and NYC and Washington DC area? Are there no middle class white people in those cities?

Because those THREE are examples of fully developed mass transit systems. Dude, I said there were exceptions to the rule. I've driven in DC and Chicago, it's insane and the cost of parking is crazy high.

Most Cities don't have Chicago's transit infrastructure.

The cost of construction of Chicago's system in the Detroit Metro Area would be hard to imagine today. It would be in the billions if not tens of billions.

Most Cities today could not afford to build such impressive systems.

One would think public transit would be environmentally sufficient, rather than assuming only the low income are somehow lower classed and smugly mocking their plight. When absolutely needed I'm grateful for the availability of public transit, hence doing your part to create less green house gas emission. These things we value such as gas and energy may not always be so easily available.

Worked with business men who prefer transit to their Mercedes.

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Edumakated

Great post. Every City is different. Chicago isn't worth using a car to get around the Metro Area, that's how good their system is. Hell, my parking last time I was there was almost as much as my Air BnB. Didn't use my car the whole week we were there. Even Ubers are pretty affordable there.

In Detroit, it's adequate but nothing to write home about and doesn't have the ridership to warrent expanding. The new light rail we put in downtown is a joke, going to places no one really travels.

In America, mass transit is looked down upon by most, with a few City exceptions.

In Europe......it's one of the main forms of commuting. Just different philosophies on things.

No one looks down on mass transit in America. It is also about distances and ridership (whether or not it is economically viable). Another issue is that there is a party in the USA that is full of grifters. They front load the project with nepotism and cultural feel good nonsense.

The reason why existing systems in CHicago and NYC "work" is because they existed before the DNC decided to make everything about race and nothing about what might actually work. It is such an obvious truth it obviously hurts people to recognize.

Keep in mind I am not a fan of the RNC either, same nonsense, just not as bold.

Mass transit for most Americans is not their first option for commuting, so yes, it is looked down upon, generally speaking. Most middle class people only take mass transit if their are no other options. Certain cities are the exception, not the rule. Most of America was built for the individual driving their car.

Given a choice, in most communities, mass transit is not the preferred means of commuting like it is in many European Countries in big cities.

In cities that have a fully developed mass transit system, it's great. Not many cities have that here.

Then why do middle class people use it in Chicago and NYC and Washington DC area? Are there no middle class white people in those cities?

It is the convenience of having it available PLUS the inconvenience of not using it....

In cities where mass transit is used, it is because it is not only convenient to do so but trying to commute by car isn't worth the hassle...

When I lived on the northside of Chicago. I could walk three blocks to my train station, grab a cup of coffee, get on the train and be at my office in the loop in about 30 minutes. All for like $3.00 one way. On the other hand, if I drove, it would still take me about 30 minutes in traffic plus I'd have to pay about $30.00 to $40.00 to park in my building all day. It simply isn't worth the hassle to drive in a city like Chicago when you have convenient public transit.

On the other hand, I lived in Atlanta there was no train station near me. I'd literally have to drive about 15 minutes to get to the nearest train station. Then I had to ride the train another 20-30 minutes. This of course assumes the train even has a station near my office. IN many cases, the train stations still drop you off too far so you still need to take a bus. It made no sense to take the train system.

In cities like Chicago, NYC, Boston, they've been able to build their train systems over the last 100 years. They were built BEFORE cars took over. In newer cities, they simply don't have the infrastructure in place to have a fully developed transit system. In addition, the aren't so dense and parking so limited that there is a huge inconvenience to driving.

All things equal, people rather drive themselves than ride in a packed car of strangers, many of whom probably haven't bathed in a month or a few marbles short upstairs.

Mass transit ends up being inconvenient as compared to cars in a lot of places.

We investigated it when we started out. Sure, I could walk 2 to 3 blocks on either end of the bus route here and get to work fairly easily, but on those days when I put in a full 8 hours before our kiddo came along, the bus service to my office building's area stopped at 5pm which would have stranded me.

Now that we have the kiddo, even though I only work part-time and could think about it again ... the timing between school bus and shift beginning doesn't allow me to wait on bus routes to show up and connect. I have to jump right onto transport and go and even then, I'm running about 5 minutes late most mornings.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Edumakated

Great post. Every City is different. Chicago isn't worth using a car to get around the Metro Area, that's how good their system is. Hell, my parking last time I was there was almost as much as my Air BnB. Didn't use my car the whole week we were there. Even Ubers are pretty affordable there.

In Detroit, it's adequate but nothing to write home about and doesn't have the ridership to warrent expanding. The new light rail we put in downtown is a joke, going to places no one really travels.

In America, mass transit is looked down upon by most, with a few City exceptions.

In Europe......it's one of the main forms of commuting. Just different philosophies on things.

No one looks down on mass transit in America. It is also about distances and ridership (whether or not it is economically viable). Another issue is that there is a party in the USA that is full of grifters. They front load the project with nepotism and cultural feel good nonsense.

The reason why existing systems in CHicago and NYC "work" is because they existed before the DNC decided to make everything about race and nothing about what might actually work. It is such an obvious truth it obviously hurts people to recognize.

Keep in mind I am not a fan of the RNC either, same nonsense, just not as bold.

Mass transit for most Americans is not their first option for commuting, so yes, it is looked down upon, generally speaking. Most middle class people only take mass transit if their are no other options. Certain cities are the exception, not the rule. Most of America was built for the individual driving their car.

Given a choice, in most communities, mass transit is not the preferred means of commuting like it is in many European Countries in big cities.

In cities that have a fully developed mass transit system, it's great. Not many cities have that here.

Then why do middle class people use it in Chicago and NYC and Washington DC area? Are there no middle class white people in those cities?

Because those THREE are examples of fully developed mass transit systems. Dude, I said there were exceptions to the rule. I've driven in DC and Chicago, it's insane and the cost of parking is crazy high.

Most Cities don't have Chicago's transit infrastructure.

The cost of construction of Chicago's system in the Detroit Metro Area would be hard to imagine today. It would be in the billions if not tens of billions.

Most Cities today could not afford to build such impressive systems.

Actually MOST cities can and they DO. The problem is that politicians do not care for routes that are about making the system economically viable but how to service the "under class" which in turn never uses the public transit for jobs but to perpetrate crime.

Seriously what is so hard about this to understand? It happens and happens and happens in city after city and yet we keep acting as if it isnt the problem.

a reply to: Fools

Actually MOST cities can and they DO. The problem is that politicians for routes that are not about making the system economically viable but how to service the "under class" which in turn never uses the public transit for jobs but to perpetrate crime.

Saying that public transit is never used for people trying to get places like work, school or what have you, but as you said it, to 'perpetrate crime', is like telling lawful gun owners to give up their arms because some people might use those guns to commit crimes, and therefore not viable.

originally posted by: TGunner
a reply to: Fools

Actually MOST cities can and they DO. The problem is that politicians for routes that are not about making the system economically viable but how to service the "under class" which in turn never uses the public transit for jobs but to perpetrate crime.

Saying that public transit is never used for people trying to get places like work, school or what have you, but as you said it, to 'perpetrate crime', is like telling lawful gun owners to give up their arms because some people might use those guns to commit crimes, and therefore not viable.

Wow, a leftist that understands that an object doesnt cause a crime perp'd by a subject???? I suppose you are going to join the NRA now?

a reply to: Fools

No most Cities do NOT have the transit system Chicago or New York does. I don't know why you think they do.

It cost Billions to do that in the US. Link

a reply to: Fools

Are you saying that you're a leftist?

Let us not forget that up until the middle of the last century, many cities actually had quite functional mass transit systems, employed by all.

Los Angeles, for example, has spent huge sums of money to recreate the mass transit system it once enjoyed.

That trolley-based system was abandoned and removed, after much arm-twisting and lobbying by special interests (predominantly General Motors and Firestone), and replaced with a much less efficient and environmentally damaging bus-based transit system.

By most accounts, the current iteration leaves much to be desired (and many customers waiting by the roadside).

Those who could afford to drove to the suburbs in their shiny new cars. Those who could not, were forced to remain in the city and make do with whatever means was available, while the suburbanites flooded the city streets with traffic.