There have been those people for a long time -- when corporate America and their governmental puppets took away your transportation choices decades ago. So now you have to devote 20-30 percent of your household income to transportation.

 

Maybe someday I'll live in a free country.

 

You act as if it happened against the will of the people. 

You mean people have will? Most are sheep.

Most people make decisions based not on logic, but emotion or what everyone else is doing. The best salesmen and marketers in the world work in the auto and real estate industries. They know how to get people to do what they want.

Article from Slate on how Hollywood depicts not driving as "loserdom".

 

 

Dude, Where's Your Car?

How not having a car became Hollywood shorthand for loser.

By Tom Vanderbilt

Posted Friday, July 30, 2010, at 9:57 AM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In Greenberg, Ben Stiller plays Greenberg, a drifting musician-turned-carpenter who's getting over a nervous breakdown. He's a needy and casually abusive schmuck, a socially awkward and obsessive crank. And if you need any more clues to the extent of his pathological loserdom, here's one: He doesn't drive.

 

Greenberg once drove, as he grew up in Los Angeles. But he has since let his license lapse, an affliction apparently picked up—like something foul in a public bathroom—in New York City. Greenberg's inability to drive is treated as a weakness—watch him flail hopelessly at the SUV that cuts him off at the crosswalk!—but also as a more insidious character failing. As the reviewer for the Guardian put it: "Greenberg takes emotional advantage of … quiet, compliant people, not least because he's that classically dependent figure, a non-driver in Los Angeles who needs people to transport him around town." Once we all buy into the idea that the car is freedom, not having a car reads as a form of clingy, needy dependency............

 

More at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2262214/

I'm planning on writing up some indepth thoughts and observations in another week or so, but due to a car accident (no one seriously injured) my wife and kids and I have been carless for the past month and a half. It's been a challenge, and some tasks are quite tricky, but we've gotten by pretty well mostly thanks to our location adjacent to Downtown. It makes walking and riding the bus easy, and we're close enough to work and play and other amenities that we didn't have to make a lot of radical changes to adapt. I don't think the same could be said if we lived in a suburban community and were miles away from work, groceries and everything else with little or no bus access.

 

That being said, I'm *beyond* ready to have a car again. It might sit parked in our driveway 5 days a week, but those two days a week you really need it are starting to become quite annoying without it. ;)

German Autobahn closes for a day for a gigantic party:

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/german-autobahn-party.php

oops.  double post. sorry...

I could live a car-free lifestyle, as I have everything I need for simple survival within walking distance, including work, I own a bike, and I don't turn up my nose at taking the bus system when needed (though the Akron Metro leaves much to be desired in terms of usability).  That said, if I tried going car-free, I imagine I'd feel the city transform from my playground to my cage.  I don't commute to work (and if I do, it's a third of a mile or so), but I do drive for recreation.  This past weekend, my girlfriend and I went up to Vintage Ohio in Kirtland--even in a better world with respect to available transit options, there wouldn't exactly be a transit option to get from Akron to Kirtland.  We go out to wineries in the countryside as well.  I go down to Canton for First Fridays, to Columbus to visit friends and family, to Cleveland to visit friends and enjoy the social scene up there, to Euclid for my gaming group, and so on.

 

Likewise, I can walk to the grocery store, but the only groceries within walking distance are an Aldi (which is only walkable on a good day, and wouldn't likely be walkable with bags groceries if I weren't a male in my mid-20s) and a little carryout.  Krieger's up in Cuyahoga Falls and DeVitis in Tallmadge are both better, local places and I don't apologize for driving there to give them my business.

 

The fact is that climate alarmism or other green guilt trips of the Michael Dudley variety isn't going to get nearly as many people off the road as the positive case for urban living will--and demanding what is both impossible and undesirable, such as a world completely without cars, is just going to turn people off and make them tune out not only the extreme messages, but more moderate positive messages about urban lifestyles as well.

A few years back the "Loser card" was played up very nicely in Columbus.

 

On city BUSES THEMSELVES they had billboards showing the stupid face of a driver who was caught d.u.i. and the slogan was like "This bus is Jimmy's new ride because he got caught drinking and driving."

 

Now Jimmy has no pride left because he's on the bus lol.

 

 

 

Article from Slate on how Hollywood depicts not driving as "loserdom".

 

 

Dude, Where's Your Car?

How not having a car became Hollywood shorthand for loser.

By Tom Vanderbilt

Posted Friday, July 30, 2010, at 9:57 AM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In Greenberg, Ben Stiller plays Greenberg, a drifting musician-turned-carpenter who's getting over a nervous breakdown. He's a needy and casually abusive schmuck, a socially awkward and obsessive crank. And if you need any more clues to the extent of his pathological loserdom, here's one: He doesn't drive.

 

Greenberg once drove, as he grew up in Los Angeles. But he has since let his license lapse, an affliction apparently picked up—like something foul in a public bathroom—in New York City. Greenberg's inability to drive is treated as a weakness—watch him flail hopelessly at the SUV that cuts him off at the crosswalk!—but also as a more insidious character failing. As the reviewer for the Guardian put it: "Greenberg takes emotional advantage of … quiet, compliant people, not least because he's that classically dependent figure, a non-driver in Los Angeles who needs people to transport him around town." Once we all buy into the idea that the car is freedom, not having a car reads as a form of clingy, needy dependency............

 

More at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2262214/

Article from Slate on how Hollywood depicts not driving as "loserdom".

 

 

Dude, Where's Your Car?

How not having a car became Hollywood shorthand for loser.

By Tom Vanderbilt

Posted Friday, July 30, 2010, at 9:57 AM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In Greenberg, Ben Stiller plays Greenberg, a drifting musician-turned-carpenter who's getting over a nervous breakdown. He's a needy and casually abusive schmuck, a socially awkward and obsessive crank. And if you need any more clues to the extent of his pathological loserdom, here's one: He doesn't drive.

 

Greenberg once drove, as he grew up in Los Angeles. But he has since let his license lapse, an affliction apparently picked up—like something foul in a public bathroom—in New York City. Greenberg's inability to drive is treated as a weakness—watch him flail hopelessly at the SUV that cuts him off at the crosswalk!—but also as a more insidious character failing. As the reviewer for the Guardian put it: "Greenberg takes emotional advantage of … quiet, compliant people, not least because he's that classically dependent figure, a non-driver in Los Angeles who needs people to transport him around town." Once we all buy into the idea that the car is freedom, not having a car reads as a form of clingy, needy dependency............

 

More at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2262214/

Article from Slate on how Hollywood depicts not driving as "loserdom".

 

 

Dude, Where's Your Car?

How not having a car became Hollywood shorthand for loser.

By Tom Vanderbilt

Posted Friday, July 30, 2010, at 9:57 AM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In Greenberg, Ben Stiller plays Greenberg, a drifting musician-turned-carpenter who's getting over a nervous breakdown. He's a needy and casually abusive schmuck, a socially awkward and obsessive crank. And if you need any more clues to the extent of his pathological loserdom, here's one: He doesn't drive.

 

Greenberg once drove, as he grew up in Los Angeles. But he has since let his license lapse, an affliction apparently picked up—like something foul in a public bathroom—in New York City. Greenberg's inability to drive is treated as a weakness—watch him flail hopelessly at the SUV that cuts him off at the crosswalk!—but also as a more insidious character failing. As the reviewer for the Guardian put it: "Greenberg takes emotional advantage of … quiet, compliant people, not least because he's that classically dependent figure, a non-driver in Los Angeles who needs people to transport him around town." Once we all buy into the idea that the car is freedom, not having a car reads as a form of clingy, needy dependency............

 

More at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2262214/

The fact is that climate alarmism or other green guilt trips of the Michael Dudley variety isn't going to get nearly as many people off the road as the positive case for urban living will--and demanding what is both impossible and undesirable, such as a world completely without cars, is just going to turn people off and make them tune out not only the extreme messages, but more moderate positive messages about urban lifestyles as well.

 

I tend to agree.  It's the transport equivalent of abstinence only or "just say no", which are also dismal failures as persuasive tactics (not that failure ever stopped people from trying).  It's important to note though, that people who choose to live car free aren't necessarily preachy a-holes about it.  I quite enjoy blogs or descriptions of people's car free experiences as way to understand how amenable different locations and environments are should people want to go that route (or even car reduction) for any reason, be it environmental, personal health or financial. 

 

Also worth noting that in areas well served by zip cars and cabs, not owning a car does not mean never using them.

There are many solutions for larger amounts of groceries that don't have 200 horsepower and weight 4000 pounds. There are foldable hand carts (not the store's) or wagons to name a couple.

Yes, but those are less useful for trips other than getting groceries.  My car works fine for trips to the grocery store, trips across downtown to see my girlfriend, and trips to Cleveland or Columbus or out into the countryside to get away for a day, making it substantially more versatile.

The fact is that climate alarmism or other green guilt trips of the Michael Dudley variety isn't going to get nearly as many people off the road as the positive case for urban living will

 

What sold me was the ability to get drunk at the bar *while* running errands! I save so much time!

Yes, but those are less useful for trips other than getting groceries. My car works fine for trips to the grocery store, trips across downtown to see my girlfriend, and trips to Cleveland or Columbus or out into the countryside to get away for a day, making it substantially more versatile.

 

Yes, your car can be used for all of those scenarios but that doesn't make it the optimal mode for each.  It's like using duct tape for everything.  I choose to walk to the grocery store every day so I can soak up the morning air, plan my meals more easily, and get a little exercise in the morning.  I choose to ride my bike to visit my boyfriend because in a city it's BY FAR the fastest form of transportation (yes, much faster than a car) and then when I get there we have the option of going for a nice, relaxing, slow ride through neighborhoods and parks if we want.  If I'm going to another city, I absolutely prefer the train or bus because I can use my laptop, read, and get work done while I travel and it usually drops me off in the center of whatever city I'm going to (and I don't have to deal with airport security).  Then, finally, if I'm going somewhere that I absolutely NEED a car (like to visit a hypothetical dying grandmother in Washington Court House) then I'll get a rental car.  It's also important to note that the costs of getting a rental car for those occasions, however frequent, are almost always outweighed by the costs of maintaining a personal car on a daily basis.

It's true that cars are expensive--I certainly don't deny that.  And I never meant to imply that they're the optimal mode for everything (contra duct tape, which is indeed the optimal solution to most problems ...).

 

However, being dependent on rental cars may be cheaper than owning a personal car (for people who don't need a car for work, anyway), but is nevertheless more limiting than owning a personal car as well, particularly for families with children.

I have had a relatively interesting experience over the past few years, as a student at UC always co-oping in New York City.  Over the past four years, I’ve spend 2 years in Cincinnati and 2 years in New York.  It was really easy to live in NYC without a car, obviously, but became a little difficult to constantly move my things back and forth.  I shipped them separate once, convinced some friends to road trip and drop me off once, etc. But the past year I just brought my car.  At first I thought it would be a hassle and I’d have to fork over a few hundred bucks a month to park it, and then never actually use it.  I was wrong, and I’ve found parking on the street in my neighborhood (Astoria) was easier than parking in my neighborhood in Cincinnati (Clifton), and parking in prime locations on the street on weekends in Manhattan is easier than downtown Cincy.  I don’t commute by car, but it’s definitely a bonus to have one on the weekends.  It’s the opposite of most anywhere else in the US, I feel, because leisurely driving is made much easier by the fact that so few people have cars.

Without a Car in the World:

 

Photo essay of car-free residents in Los Angeles:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/without-a-car-in-the-world-1

If that guy's gone without a car since 1982, he's saved over $100,000 and if he's married and his wife has no car, the number's double that.  So when people talk about be treated as a second-class citizen without a car, they're probably in a much stronger financial position. 

I'm HIGHLY considering selling my car and going car-free again.  I'll be living in either Downtown Cleveland or Little Italy by Oct...so it shouldn't be too hard.

 

    "If that guy's gone without a car since 1982, he's saved over $100,000."

 

    Good for him.  :-)

 

    In Cincinnati, only 14% of the jobs are downtown. Having a car opens up a lot of job opportunities. If one can get an extra $10,000 per year by finding a higher paying job outside that he has to drive to, the extra salary just about pays for the car.

 

    I'd still rather work downtown, though.

 

 

Yeah, the opportunities that having a car opens up need to be taken into account when you start thinking about counterfactuals (i.e., what would have happened had a given person bought/not bought a car).  I simply couldn't have made it work, not without drastic lifestyle changes that would have included never going to school where I did or taking the jobs that I've taken.

No access to transportation limits job prospects, economic opportunities

 

By Cornelius Frolik, Staff Writer

9:56 PM Sunday, August 21, 2011

 

Many people cannot imagine life without an automobile, but more than 7.5 percent of Dayton metropolitan area households do not own a vehicle, and some of those residents also do not have easy access to public transit, according to a new report.

 

The concern is that a lack of available transit often limits job prospects and economic opportunities, researchers said.

 

Of the 340,650 households in the Dayton metro area, about 25,785 do not own an automobile, according to a report released Thursday by the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program.

 

Of those, about 4,000 households, or 16 percent, do not live in neighborhoods with good access to transit, according to the report.

 

Read more at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/no-access-to-transportation-limits-job-prospects-economic-opportunities--1235505.html

I'm grateful for the coverage, but I hope that media also starts paying to the number of households with multiple wage earners that must share one vehicle. At last count by the Census, there are 1.2 million one-car households in Ohio where 3 million Ohioans live and are forced to share cars to reach work, health care, shopping, school or to vote. That's in addition to the 8.5 percent of households with no car statewide.

 

Add up the no-car Ohio households and those with just one car shared by more than one adult. Then there's the over-65 demographic of which 2 million Ohioans are a part.....

 

Up to 6 million Ohioans are facing mobility constraints, or roughly half of the state's population.

 

If ODOT spent half of its budget on transit, the state would be putting about $1.5 billion into transit every year. Not $20+ million.

 

It's almost criminal. And under a broader view of federal ADA laws, perhaps it is.

KJP....  you should get in touch with the reporter on the above story and make these same important points.

A broader report on the subject from the Brookings Institute:

 

Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households

Adie Tomer, Senior Research Analyst, Metropolitan Policy Program

Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program

The Brookings Institution

August 18, 2011 —

 

Millions of zero-vehicle households live in areas well served by transit. Yet hundreds of thousands of zero-vehicle households live out of transit’s reach, particularly in the South and in the suburbs. And those with transit access still cannot reach a majority of jobs in metro areas within 90 minutes. Based on these trends, leaders must recognize these households’ unique mobility needs and aim to improve job accessibility through sound policy.

 

Read more at: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0818_transportation_tomer_puentes.aspx

 

"Leaders must recognize these households' unique mobility needs..."

 

Why place the burden on the leaders, whoever they are? Ultimately, the elected leaders are accountable to the voters, and the voters don't seem to be placing a priority on transportation issues.

 

I have a feeling that the majority of voters are drivers. Thus, there isn't much campaigning for other forms of transit. Until this changes, don't expect too much in the way of public transit from the leaders.  :-(

 

Why place the burden on the leaders, whoever they are? Ultimately, the elected leaders are accountable to the voters, and the voters don't seem to be placing a priority on transportation issues.

 

 

And that's where you're wrong. Many voters dislike the impacts of poor transportation on their everyday lives, but don't recognize that the underlying cause is transportation. Many seemingly unrelated things, from high city taxes to loss of farmland to high gas prices to stormwater flooding to negative U.S. trade balances to the war in Iraq have transportation as an underlying factor or direct cause.

 

And the people who are most deeply affected -- the no-car housesholds -- are often poor and are the least politically involved. Many don't participate because they have no faith in their leaders to help them. Others don't participate because their immobility prevents them from doing so. I've attempted to organize many low-income folks, but they do not believe they will succeed in advocating for better transit so they don't even try.

Don't we have a representative democracy because mob rule is oppressive to any minority group (in this case non-drivers)?

If that guy's gone without a car since 1982, he's saved over $100,000 and if he's married and his wife has no car, the number's double that.  So when people talk about be treated as a second-class citizen without a car, they're probably in a much stronger financial position. 

 

That's very true, and though my salary is fairly average for a two years out of grad school position, I feel I can splurge more often and the bank account just replenishes itself because there is no car to worry about...no gas, no insurance, no repairs. 

 

I'm really impressed with the attention Chicago's leaders are giving towards bikes.  More and more bike lanes pop up every month, and now they are building over 100 miles of cycle tracks.

Car-loving L.A. may actually be a public-transit paradise

August 19, 2011 | 10:00 am

 

Attention, Mr. Ripley: There are places tougher to get around without a car than Los Angeles, believe it or not!

 

The car-loving L.A region -– whose public transit system is often treated like Rodney Dangerfield -- ranked second to Honolulu as offering transit-dependent residents the best access to buses and trains, according to a report by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

 

Most L.A. area residents who lack a vehicle live in a neighborhood within three-quarters of a mile of a bus or train stop -- far better than many other regions, Adie Tomer, author of the report for Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program, said in an interview.

 

"Yeah, it's the home of American car culture," he said. "But it's also, frankly, home of a pretty strong transit culture." (The report does not deal with how long or uncomfortable it can be to use public transit.)

 

READ MORE AT:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/car-loving-la-a-public-transit-paradise-.html

Car-loving L.A. may actually be a public-transit paradise

August 19, 2011 | 10:00 am

 

Attention, Mr. Ripley: There are places tougher to get around without a car than Los Angeles, believe it or not!

 

The car-loving L.A region -– whose public transit system is often treated like Rodney Dangerfield -- ranked second to Honolulu as offering transit-dependent residents the best access to buses and trains, according to a report by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

 

Most L.A. area residents who lack a vehicle live in a neighborhood within three-quarters of a mile of a bus or train stop -- far better than many other regions, Adie Tomer, author of the report for Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program, said in an interview.

 

"Yeah, it's the home of American car culture," he said. "But it's also, frankly, home of a pretty strong transit culture." (The report does not deal with how long or uncomfortable it can be to use public transit.)

 

READ MORE AT:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/car-loving-la-a-public-transit-paradise-.html

 

This is some BS.  Get around easy?  :wtf:  3/4 of a mile is quite a distance to walk to a bus or train.  the most bus lines run slow and parallel.  Try going to to two stores on public transportation in LA.

"They do not believe they will succeed in advocating for better transit so they don't even try."

 

So is that a good reason to blame the "leaders?"

 

The leaders represent the VOTERS, or more specifically, a majority of voters, with some political campaign contributors unproportionally thrown in. The leaders do not represent the non-voters. As they say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

 

It's not a perfect system, and it's not a perfect world. The only way to make a difference is either

1. Get more people to vote, particularly the poor, disabled, non-drivers, etc., or

2. Change the system to select the leaders some other way.

Just because people don't vote, doesn't mean they don't matter and will not become a problem for our leaders. I sometimes don't vote because I sometimes don't like my choices. But that doesn't mean I don't have needs of my government and if my government repeatedly doesn't satisfy me, then I am more likely to take more radical action against my government and the people they will satisfy.

 

Political leaders are like store merchandise, if my store doesn't offer anything that I want, then I will not buy anything. I may complain to the store manager if I can find him. I also may not have the means to go to another store. If the store manager doesn't satisfy me and I can't reach another store, I am likely to start getting desperate and, in time, I may take extreme actions to get what I need. That's why political leaders need to pay attention to those who don't vote -- including many minority/low-income residents who feel stepped on by most political leaders they've ever known.

Just because people don't vote, doesn't mean they don't matter and will not become a problem for our leaders. I sometimes don't vote because I sometimes don't like my choices. But that doesn't mean I don't have needs of my government and if my government repeatedly doesn't satisfy me, then I am more likely to take more radical action against my government and the people they will satisfy.

 

A friend of mine likes to say "Democracy requires participation."  That doesn't mean that Democracy requires everyone to vote.  You can be (and in fact KJP appears to be) politically active even without voting.

 

If we want better transit, we have to tell our political leaders that we want better transit. If we want carfree areas in our cities, we have to fight for them.

"If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

 

And then when you vote, they say "Everyone voted and you lost, you have no right to complain."

 

A friend of mine likes to say "Democracy requires participation."  That doesn't mean that Democracy requires everyone to vote.  You can be (and in fact KJP appears to be) politically active even without voting.

 

If we want better transit, we have to tell our political leaders that we want better transit. If we want carfree areas in our cities, we have to fight for them.

 

Sometimes I vote. Sometimes I don't because I don't like my choices. But I get tired of voting for candidates and nothing changes. So it seems pointless except to keep the really scary candidates out of office in favor of mediocrity.

 

Instead, I try to get the mediocre office-holders to do something and encourage the very few good ones who like my issue to keep doing good things. But I am different. I have hope. Many minorities and low-income residents who are car-free and have a voice have lost hope that anyone will listen to them.

^Naw, you do have the right to complain if you voted and lost.

 

 

KJP, using your store analogy, if the store doesn't have what you want, you should ask for it, and offer to pay for it. A smart business owner will accomodate his customers.

 

If you want something from your government, you have to vote for it! The NRA, Sierra Club, Trade Unions, etc., have a lot of political power because their members vote. Other groups that do not vote or have low turnouts do not have much political power.

 

 

^Naw, you do have the right to complain if you voted and lost.

 

 

KJP, using your store analogy, if the store doesn't have what you want, you should ask for it, and offer to pay for it. A smart business owner will accomodate his customers.

 

If you want something from your government, you have to vote for it! The NRA, Sierra Club, Trade Unions, etc., have a lot of political power because their members vote. Other groups that do not vote or have low turnouts do not have much political power.

 

You started with a correct statement and then reversed it with an incorrect statement. Yes, if the store doesn't have what I want, then I should offer to pay for it. And that's how the NRA, Sierra Club, Trade Unions etc get what they want -- by paying for it. All of them or their political action committees contribute lots of money to political campaigns.

 

Many of those who are car-free have no such wherewithal. But I sure would like to try to organize them on a local, regional or statewide basis.

You started with a correct statement and then reversed it with an incorrect statement. Yes, if the store doesn't have what I want, then I should offer to pay for it. And that's how the NRA, Sierra Club, Trade Unions etc get what they want -- by paying for it. All of them or their political action committees contribute lots of money to political campaigns.

 

I was just about to write the same post and then saw you said the exact same thing (except I was going to add lobbyists to what they pay for).  I'm not sure what any of that had to do with voting.

Please don't get sidetracked by the way that political campaigns are funded. The point is that the groups who do not drive are under-represented in the political system, and thus have less political power than drivers. This situation leads to our leaders spending more on highways and less on transit.

 

Trying to convince the political leaders that we should spend more on transit and less on highways is not productive as long as the underlying electorate favors highways.

 

I think we all agree that our population would be better served if some of the funding were shifted from highways to rail transit. The problem is not with our political leaders, nor with the highway planners at ODOT, nor the construction industry. The problem is that non-drivers are not represented in the political process because they do not participate, and therefore political decisions are skewed to favor drivers.

 

 

Except that campaign contributions are what causes many of our political leaders to act. Most are nothing but cheap whores with the morals to match. I've been witness to it for 27 years of my involvement in political advocacy and in 15+ years of journalism. I've heard political leaders brazenly tell transit officials, teachers, or community activists in private and public meetings that if they want action, they are going to have to contribute more money to their campaigns. Heard it straight from their mouths. I was there. Heard it. Too many times. Yet despite how many times I hear it, it still makes me sick.

 

Voting? Yeah right. Maybe in your innocent world.

Campaign money is used to drum up support, and can be done in two basic ways:

1. Convince a voter to change his mind and vote for your cause, and

2. Convince a non-voter to become a voter and vote for your cause.

 

Campaign money can influence the outcome, but the outcome of an election is still under the control of the voters! If the poor man with no money votes for his cause and loses - well, at least he made the winning side work for it. But if the poor man with no money doesn't vote at all, then he just gave up without trying.

 

Most elections are pretty close - 60% to 40% is considered a landslide - so getting an additional 10% of eligible voters to participate would change the outcome of most elections in Ohio.

 

"Politics make me sick" - William Howard Taft.

 

It makes me sick, too, but what is there to do about it?

A couple of activists at a public meeting are a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands who never go to a public meeting and never write a letter to the editor, but show up at the polls.

KJP, why don't you run for something yourself?  (I might even vote for you.) :-)

 

 

Campaign money can influence the outcome, but the outcome of an election is still under the control of the voters!

 

If those who support mass transit are outnumbered by those who don't, then it doesn't even matter if they all vote.  Saying they deserve what they get because they don't get out to vote as much is a lame attempt to shift the blame.

 

By the way, maybe if people who rely on public transportation had better public transportation, they would be able to get out and vote more.

 

The United States has about 300 million people and about 150 million cars, so in round numbers about half of the population drives. Granted, children are non-drivers and they don't get to vote, but it's a little closer than you expected, aye?

 

I think the non-drivers are concentrated in the big cities of New York, Philidelphia, L.A., Phoenix, Houston, and Chicago, so it make sense that in Ohio, the drivers outnumber the non-drivers.

 

Still, the original point is that we have a system where the politicians represent the drivers because for the most part they were elected by the drivers. Can you blame the politicians?

^Phoenix and Houston?

There's way less than 300 million eligible voters (when you subtract out kids, felons, non-citizens, etc.) And more than 150 million drivers (many people share a car, such as households with 2 drivers and 1 car, or 4 drivers and 3 cars, etc.), so no, the ratio of voting drivers to voting non-drivers is not any closer to 1:1 than I would have expected.

 

And saying non-drivers are concentrated in Phoenix...wha-what?!?!

 

 

Still, the original point is that we have a system where the politicians represent the drivers because for the most part they were elected by the drivers. Can you blame the politicians?

 

When Ohio politicians give 99 percent of the transportation funds to roads, yes I do blame them. If they provided at least 8.5 percent (the share of Ohio households without cars) of the transportation budget to transit, then I would say our politicians are at least trying to meet the basic necessities of our citizens. Today, they aren't even coming close.

^Phoenix and Houston?

 

Houston is the 4th largest city by population. Albeit fairly sprawling.

 

"Then I would say our politicians are at least trying to meet the basic necessities of our citizens."

 

Since when is this the responsibilty of our politicians?

 

"I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States" - Franklin Pierce

 

 

"Then I would say our politicians are at least trying to meet the basic necessities of our citizens."

 

Since when is this the responsibilty of our politicians?

 

Unlike the federal government, state and local governments are charged with providing for citizens' health, safety, and general welfare.