As we are discussing an article from the WSJ right now on letsrun, there is another article in the WSJ about lost time in traffic congestion. For example, in Baltimore, the average commuter sits in traffic for 50 hours a year. What is the obsession with cars in this country. All one does is sit in traffic. Why can't we get with the times and be like Europe where they have incredible public transportation and they have bullet trains going 200 mph. Why are Republicans so against this solution.
Why are we addicted to cars as a country? I would say it is some combination of these:
Independence to go whenever and wherever
Personal History (do what your parents do)
Show off your money (or ability to go in debt)
Laziness and not wanting to walk from public transportation
I am probably missing some points
It's sure a lot easier reading the paper, eating, and talking on my cellphone when I am waiting in traffic than is when I am buzzing along at 80 in the carpool lane.
Have you ever used public transportation? Most people would rather sit in their air conditioned royce than sit next to trash holding a screaming baby.
We have public transportation here & nobody is using it. I bet that includes the starter of this thread.
We owns cars because it's convenient to do so. If you had no place to park your car at home, at work, and any where else you went, then having a car would become enough of an inconvenience that people would explore other options of transportation.
You need to separate bullet trains from local transportation. A bullet train is not going to do much to ease local congestion. (Heck, you take the train somewhere and then need to rent a car at the other end).
A big issue is the cost. It is outrageous what is costs to build these light rail lines and then to keep subsidizing them. Do you really think your Metro fare pays the full cost or even half the cost of operation?
Also, these projects are a huge boondoggle for labor unions (See Davis-Bacon).
One reason that mass transit works well in Europe is that policies are so anti-car.
I am all for trains and such, just let private industry do it. If there is a market, let them address it.
Another option is to move to a place to reduce your time in traffic. Many people in Atlanta moved back into town to enjoy the city life and end the nightmare commute from the burbs. You could do the same.
forte rio wrote:
Have you ever used public transportation? Most people would rather sit in their air conditioned royce than sit next to trash holding a screaming baby.
We have public transportation here & nobody is using it. I bet that includes the starter of this thread.
No we don't unless you are in a few larger cities in the NE. I'd much rather use a subway system like they have in Europe, but such an option is not availible so I drive. Our roads and citiies are not set up to be bike friendly either. I think buses are digusting and unreliable but most rail systems I've encountered in the US, NYC, DC, Philly (as well as abroad) are pretty effective at moving ppl and prefered over driving myself.
Depends where you live... In Boston, you're either incredibly rich or incredibly stubborn if you drive into the city. MBTA might take a lot of shit for what it gets wrong at times, but it beats traffic and parking nightmares any day.
Other places I have lived (small/medium sized cities and southern cities) are so car focused it's amazing. Either there is no adequate public transportation (for example, CENTRO from Syracuse... which has somehow won national pub-trans awards, doesn't serve most of the population centers in any useful manner), or it is viewed as "the way the poorest people get to work" (think tri-rail in Florida, or really most southern cities).
I think it goes back to the 1950's "American dream"... a suburban house, 2 cars, etc. Are those necessary or just signs of wealth/debt? Maybe someday people will realize that for most of us, a car just isn't necessary. I, however, will not hold my breathe. I don't see that day coming any time soon.
A huge percentage of our incomes are spent subsidizing cars, roads, freeways, lung cancer operations, fixing broken bones, EMTs, paramedics, emergency room doctors, etc. Only bullet trains, city trams, light rail, elevated loops, subways, Zero Emissions Electric Vehicles (Nissan Leaf), etc. can begin to cut into the enormous drain that fossil fueled vehicles have on our society.
Hoover screwed us back in the day with his a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. Public transportation needs to be made more convenient for it to take off in the US. And before people start talking shit I take the bus to work even though I own a car.
straight beastin yo wrote:
Hoover screwed us back in the day with his a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.
Dude, I can't think of two things I love more than my car and eating chicken virtually every meal. I also love that guy for inventing the vacuum too. What a filthy world we would live in without that.
Towson exile wrote:
As we are discussing an article from the WSJ right now on letsrun, there is another article in the WSJ about lost time in traffic congestion. For example, in Baltimore, the average commuter sits in traffic for 50 hours a year. What is the obsession with cars in this country. All one does is sit in traffic. Why can't we get with the times and be like Europe where they have incredible public transportation and they have bullet trains going 200 mph. Why are Republicans so against this solution.
you say 50 hours per year like its a lot. That's 15 minutes per working day. I'd be willing to bet it's a whole lot lower than the extra time it takes to walk to and wait for the bus or train.
People should be able to travel however they want, not ushered onto buses and trains like cattle. Transportation should be turned over to the private sector so that the roads and other modes of transportation will grow up around what people demand, not what liberals think people ought to do.
Rational Economics wrote:
People should be able to travel however they want, not ushered onto buses and trains like cattle. Transportation should be turned over to the private sector so that the roads and other modes of transportation will grow up around what people demand, not what liberals think people ought to do.
Agreed... people should be able to make their own decisions on their modes of transportation. But let's make sure they know of all the costs they are signing up for, and provide reasonable alternatives.
It has been estimated that the TRUE cost of each gallon of gas should be over $5 (http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html). If people were to be paying almost double what they pay now for gas, many opinions would change. If we assume average gas prices to be $3/gal, then the cost of driving is subsidised at about 40%. Then take into account taxes towards road repair, parking, and if cities were to enact congestion fees (like London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge), the cost of driving goes up as well. Your trip to work by car is likely less than half of what it "should" cost.
Of course, public transportation is heavily subsidized as well. Mass. residents pay about $203 for the MBTA (http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/MBTA52499.pdf - old, I know... sorry). Monthly, that is about $17/mo. Consider that a monthly subway/bus pass costs $60, putting the true cost at $77/mo (commuter rail from outer suburbs could be more). The MBTA then, it seems, is subsidized at about 25%.
The point? If you really feel that government subsidies on public transportation are such a waste, then so be it. But if you want to remove them from public transportation and let the private sector take over, you need to do the same for autos. That means no more cheap gas, and all the roads are toll roads to pay for their maintenance. In a world where those taxpayer-supported subsidies to drives are removed, I think the private sector could do a damn good job building and maintaining a public transportation system people would want to use. But only if the playing field is leveled, one way or another (subsidize both, or neither).
I agree, the private sector does a much better job.
The government has no business subsidizing farms, bailing out car companies, and Wall St, and should leave it up to free market forces.
The government should not be in the health care provider business. VA Hospitals should be closed. Army, Navy, Air Force Hospitals should be only for active duty personnel or reservists on 2 week summer training. Retired and non-active duty personnel should go to private sector hospitals. The President, Congress, Supreme Court, etc. should go private sector hospitals for health care.
The government should not have taxpayer provided pension plans and health insurance plans. They should pay 100% of the costs for their own plans and obtain it from private sector pension companies and private sector health insurance companies.
We also pay 25% to 50% of our IRS taxes for Pentagon militants to secure oil fields in the Middle East. This is a free subsidy to oil companies, construction industries, airlines, aerospace industries, and automobile industries.
Privatize wrote:
The government should not have taxpayer provided pension plans and health insurance plans. They should pay 100% of the costs for their own plans and obtain it from private sector pension companies and private sector health insurance companies.
I don't see anything wrong with the government providing benefits to its employees, like any other employee. There should just be far fewer government jobs.
Government does not make a profit and thus government workers are not entitled to free extra benefits that most Americans do not receive from their employers. Taxpayers should not have to pay for benefits and pensions to government workers when they don't have it themselves. That's the feudal caste / class system. Government workers are free to purchase their own pension and medical plans just like every American can do. Government workers are free to quit their jobs and seek employment in the private sector where those plans are provided.
Privatize wrote:
Government does not make a profit and thus government workers are not entitled to free extra benefits that most Americans do not receive from their employers. Taxpayers should not have to pay for benefits and pensions to government workers when they don't have it themselves. That's the feudal caste / class system. Government workers are free to purchase their own pension and medical plans just like every American can do. Government workers are free to quit their jobs and seek employment in the private sector where those plans are provided.
Good points.
For most Americans, it takes longer and is a hassle. For most Americans, neither their home nor their work is within walking distance of public transportation.
Where and when that isn't true, most Americans readily take public transportation.
We need to try to stop daily commuting altogether, and leaves the roads open for commerce activities.