- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/5/20 at 12:40 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
MARTA has a lot of problems, but certainly the perception of it being dirty/gross has and continues to be a major obstacle.
And let's not ignore that the perception is at least partially steeped in racial prejudices. And I don't say that to disparage Atlanta as it pervades many public transportation systems, especially in the South. If I had a dime for every time I've heard the "joke", "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta"...
Posted on 5/5/20 at 12:46 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:
They are a right-wing group.
You repeatedly saying they are doesn't make them one.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 12:47 pm to The Spleen
quote:
And let's not ignore that the perception is at least partially steeped in racial prejudices. And I don't say that to disparage Atlanta as it pervades many public transportation systems, especially in the South. If I had a dime for every time I've heard the "joke", "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta"...
I agree. But those prejudices (some are loathsome, many are not) can't really be effectively combatted unless the legitimate grievances are addressed. And they won't be, because we can't be honest about the issues.
To be blunt, there are plenty of non-hateful reasons one might not want to commute with people from Riverdale or Vine City.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 12:48 pm to NolaTiger52
Juarez to Denver huh...
Posted on 5/5/20 at 12:49 pm to soccerfüt
quote:
I like how the map makers purposely avoided the Land Mass with their system.
And no.
The Landmass is between New Orleans and Mobile. They have a line there, but it really isn't a good place to have it.
It would work best if you had a line from L.A. to Vegas.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 12:52 pm to Centinel
quote:
You repeatedly saying they are doesn't make them one.
You are correct, me saying it does not make them right wing. Them being right wing makes them right wing.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 12:55 pm to NolaTiger52
Will never work here. Would cost trillions for installation and the distances are far to great here. Americans also have a deeply entrenched car culture and the majority outside of the largest cities do not have a need for public transportation
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:01 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:
Them being right wing makes them right wing.
Every single member of that group is right wing? If not, what percentage is necessary to make a group right wing? What does that make the people that are members of that right wing group if they themselves are left wing?
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:03 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
"Car culture" didn't just spontaneously materialize from nowhere. It's because our cities and the surrounding suburbs were built around the system of roads. European towns and cities "came of age" before mass production of automobiles, and developed much differently than most U.S. cities.
Umm, it kinda did in the early 20th century and it was definitely policy-driven. Every single major and minor American city to this day was built around 1) waterbodies, and/or 2) rail connections, and in most cases both.
After WWII housing and transportation policy incentivized suburban, greenfield medium density development outside of the urban core, connected by a super highway interstate system. The burbs are truly a US (and in some cases Canadian) development pattern. Yes, there are suburbs in Europe but they are mostly connected/accessible to more centralized town centers, of which many of those are connected to the major urban cores by both rail and highways. The primarily difference is Europe didn't retrofit cities to fit more cars nearly as much as we did in the US.
It seems normal now, but the post WWII boomer generation was the first cohort of Americans to enter into car culture.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:12 pm to NolaTiger52
No, and here's why.
1. The US ripped up most of its metro rail infrastructures so you'd still need an uber once you arrived at most cities.
2. People would b itch and complain about their cities and towns and even neighborhoods not having a stop on the system. You'd have stops every 40 miles and it would zig zag all over the country.
3. Contractors know how to use complex RFPs to milk governments out of money. They will run the costs up with "unexpected" complications and change-orders. It would wind up being more expensive than just paying everyone to ride an uber.
4. Culturally, Americans associate riding public transportation with lower socio-economic status. They love having their own cars and having their own private spaces in them.
1. The US ripped up most of its metro rail infrastructures so you'd still need an uber once you arrived at most cities.
2. People would b itch and complain about their cities and towns and even neighborhoods not having a stop on the system. You'd have stops every 40 miles and it would zig zag all over the country.
3. Contractors know how to use complex RFPs to milk governments out of money. They will run the costs up with "unexpected" complications and change-orders. It would wind up being more expensive than just paying everyone to ride an uber.
4. Culturally, Americans associate riding public transportation with lower socio-economic status. They love having their own cars and having their own private spaces in them.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:24 pm to Centinel
quote:
Every single member of that group is right wing? If not, what percentage is necessary to make a group right wing?
The vast majority. The leaders of the group are known right wingers...Glenn Addison,Ben Leman, Joe Fauth.
This post was edited on 5/5/20 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:25 pm to NOLALGD
quote:
Umm, it kinda did in the early 20th century and it was definitely policy-driven. Every single major and minor American city to this day was built around 1) waterbodies, and/or 2) rail connections, and in most cases both.
Right, before the automobile came along as an affordable option of transportation.
quote:
After WWII housing and transportation policy incentivized suburban, greenfield medium density development outside of the urban core, connected by a super highway interstate system.
Yes, because the automobile had become an affordable option of transportation.
quote:
The burbs are truly a US (and in some cases Canadian) development pattern.
Exactly my point. By the time this development pattern occurred, European towns and cities had already been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. Relatively, U.S. cities had basically just broken ground. So they grew and developed based on the technology available at the time (mass-produced, affordable automobiles). Thus, the rise of mass suburban communities.
quote:
It seems normal now, but the post WWII boomer generation was the first cohort of Americans to enter into car culture
Again, that's my point. The road/highway infrastructure gave birth to "car culture." Not the other way around.
This post was edited on 5/5/20 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:26 pm to NolaTiger52
They can’t spell Greenville but sure let’s build a few trillion dollar rail system.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:29 pm to frankthetank
quote:
I guarantee I could commute 100 miles in my vehicle (including time stuck in traffic) faster that it would take you to travel to the train station, find parking, get on the train, stop at 5 small citities along the way, get to your station, find an uber/cab, and commute to your office.
Commuting via train is much better than via driving as you can actually work on the train
It's common in the Northeast, especially NY. Had a co-worker who commuted from Philly to NY almost everyday
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:30 pm to GusMcRae
quote:
Right. Sometimes I rather drive to DFW, than deal with the hassle of air travel. Also... risk of delays and cancellations.
Which is all way less likely on trains. You show up and get right on a train, it's nothing like air travel
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:31 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Roundtrip southwest flight from msy to lax is like $300 or less. Seems cheap to me
That isn't cheap for one ticket at all, especially Southwest.
This post was edited on 5/5/20 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:31 pm to NolaTiger52
High speed rail would be great to have, but due to political reasons, it would never be allowed to be profitable.
1. You need new tracks. That's a ton of land that would need to be purchased privately or through imminent domain. The issues with passenger rail in this country largely stem from the fact that the freight rail companies in America own the tracks, AMTrack has a monopoly on all passenger rail (and like all government monopolies, is pretty shitty at it), and passenger trains have to share rails with freight.
2. AMTrack is terrible. You'd have to have someone else run it.
3. Distances. While high speed rail can only compete with flights for relatively short distances. For example, a commuter train between New Orleans and Houston or between the 3 cities in the Texas Triangle could compete time-wise with flights, but going any farther than that will always be time advantage to flying.
4. The fewer the stops, the more time-effective, but the less useful it becomes for commuters. So, if you're trying to replace cars, high-speed rail isn't particularly helpful. To commute by rail, you need transportation to and from the train station. The more stops you add, the easier this is, but the longer the commute takes. So, having those extra stops makes you less time effective for "medium distance" travel (i.e. New Orleans to Austin), but better for "short distance" (Baton Rouge to New Orleans).
5. It's just absolutely insane how much new track costs these days. I don't understand why it costs so damn much, but it is crazy expensive and much more than new interstate.
6. Where is the real issue with flying? Security. It takes freaking forever to get through the security theatre. You know with high speed rail that we would have to go through the same TSA bullcrap.
1. You need new tracks. That's a ton of land that would need to be purchased privately or through imminent domain. The issues with passenger rail in this country largely stem from the fact that the freight rail companies in America own the tracks, AMTrack has a monopoly on all passenger rail (and like all government monopolies, is pretty shitty at it), and passenger trains have to share rails with freight.
2. AMTrack is terrible. You'd have to have someone else run it.
3. Distances. While high speed rail can only compete with flights for relatively short distances. For example, a commuter train between New Orleans and Houston or between the 3 cities in the Texas Triangle could compete time-wise with flights, but going any farther than that will always be time advantage to flying.
4. The fewer the stops, the more time-effective, but the less useful it becomes for commuters. So, if you're trying to replace cars, high-speed rail isn't particularly helpful. To commute by rail, you need transportation to and from the train station. The more stops you add, the easier this is, but the longer the commute takes. So, having those extra stops makes you less time effective for "medium distance" travel (i.e. New Orleans to Austin), but better for "short distance" (Baton Rouge to New Orleans).
5. It's just absolutely insane how much new track costs these days. I don't understand why it costs so damn much, but it is crazy expensive and much more than new interstate.
6. Where is the real issue with flying? Security. It takes freaking forever to get through the security theatre. You know with high speed rail that we would have to go through the same TSA bullcrap.
This post was edited on 5/5/20 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:34 pm to NolaTiger52
Yes, it would absolutely work.
Posted on 5/5/20 at 1:39 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
Relatively, U.S. cities had basically just broken ground. So they developed according to the technology available at the time (mass-produced, affordable automobiles). Thus, the rise of mass suburban communitie
We actually agree almost entirely, this is the only small point I will disagree with. Yes, some cities grew mainly in the 60s and 70s, but in almost every American city the urban core was established previous to the 60s.
That said I agree with everything else, as everyone built up some cities (really only NY, DC, and maybe Chicago) heavily invested (or better yet did not divest) in transit. Most other cities tore down neighborhoods to built elevated highways, tore down more neighborhoods to widen roads, and tore down buildings to build parking lots. This allowed the suburbs to thrive but also killed the core of these cities. Now with gentrification its interesting to see urban core areas in many cities thriving again, but there is a trade-off. More cars means less space for people, especially in urban cores. Transit, and even micro-mobility is an equalizer, but its not always cheap.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News