They hate us. They really REALLY hate us.

Yes, exactly, Passenger, how to make busses, trains, and highways less congested instead of more congested--except for special situations similar to mine where you have something large, heavy, and bulky which you must carry around.

fauxcelt wrote: When I am needed to be a bass player, I use either my three-quarter size acoustic bass fiddle (or string bass or double bass) or my electric bass guitar. If I use my electric bass, then I have the problem of bringing the amp along also.
If I am supposed to play piano instead of bass then I must bring my electronic keyboard which is five feet long and weighs thirty pounds. All of these instruments are too big and too awkward and too heavy to transport on a bicycle or a bus or a train.

I thought you were going to say you need a large truck to carry your piano. Thank God for electronic keyboards, which even at 5 feet and 30 pounds are much smaller and lighter than any standard piano.
And what of the poor bagpipe player's dilemma? I remember one of them left his bagpipes in his car's back seat, when he returned someone had broken into his car and left another set of bagpipes.

I don't think the problem is people who have cars for the occasional time they need to lug cargo. I think it's people who have cars who use them all the time, even if there might be a decent non-automobile option. So we get highways jammed with single occupant sedans and SUV's, taking up a lot more real estate than we would need if some of them shared vehicles.

Does anybody remember "The Gods Must be Crazy" with the homeowner who ran her car out of the garage to go to the mailbox at the foot of her driveway?

Some of this is just thoughtless force of habit, some of it may have a bit of calculation. With some, not necessarily adequate, justification people may feel a need to make many trips in order to bring down the cost per trip, since the variable costs - maintenance, fuel, etc... - usually are minor compared to the fixed costs - buying, insuring, garaging etc.

I ride the NJTransit Riverline, which slow as it is is still considerably faster than the comparable bus service, and depending on traffic can be at least as fast as the automobile. One fellow passenger mentioned how she prefers to drive, didn't give much reason why she prefers driving. I got the impression her household doesn't have enough cars for her to drive every day. Whatever, the next time I saw her on the Riverline she was asleep, a feat which I don't think she could do if she were employing her preferred commuting method.

Thank you for the joke about the bagpipes, Gardendance. As a performing musician for too many years, I have either heard that joke or similar variations of it many times over the years. Yes, I have accompanied bagpipers a few times in my varied career as a musician. Have you ever heard the slang term for playing the bagpipes? It is "strangle the octopus".
Yes, I agree, the problem is people who use cars too often and too much.
Yes, I have watched "The Gods Must Be Crazy". It is one of my favorite movies.
Unfortunately, where I live, it is quicker and easier for me to drive to and from work than it is to use public transit. If I drive, it takes me half as long as when I ride the bus. I know what I am talking about because I have had to ride the bus to and from work while my car was at the dealership waiting for parts so they could fix it.

I hope then that you are one of those automobile users who are willing to pay something towards maintaining public transit, even though you may not plan to use it.
I can imagine people, and I'm not trying to imply that you're one of them, whose argument is "I shouldn't have to pay taxes for public transit since I have a car"
Leaving aside the discussion of individual responsibility to provide for the common weal, in your example, where apparently your dealership does not include a loaner car in the repair price, you would have to make some other transportation arrangement if there was no public transit option for times when your car's not available.

Yes, I definitely willing to help pay for public transit where I live but too many people here in Pulaski County have voted against adding an extra penny to the local sales tax to help CAT (Central Arkansas Transit) financially. The four or five times this idea of adding a penny to the local sales tax for CAT has been on the ballot, it has lost quite badly. CAT does get some money from the federal government but it depends mostly on money which is given to it by Pulaski County as well as the towns and cities in Pulaski County which are served by CAT. The money which local governments give to CAT and the amount or amounts is a contentious, hot-potato political issue here. It has destroyed the political careers and brought to a screeching halt the political careers of some promising (and talented) local politicians.
As for waiting for parts so my car could be repaired.....the auto dealership thought it would take a day or two for the necessary part to be shipped here from Houston, Texas and then a hurricane hit Houston. When the dealership realized that it would probably take at least a week before any auto parts would be coming here from Houston, they contacted a local rent-a-car place and got me a nice car to use temporarily until my car was repaired.

Laurence

gardendance wrote: Leaving aside the discussion of individual responsibility to provide for the common weal.....

Here's a picture of a "common weal," which apparently is a species of "weasel family," known by the latin name Mustelidae:




I would advise all forum members not to "provide for the common weal," since it's pretty clear from this very amusing photo that the common weal will provide for itself given half the chance - although I still can't figure out how they manage to remove the bottle caps?

fauxcelt wrote:Yes, I definitely willing to help pay for public transit where I live but too many people here in Pulaski County have voted against adding an extra penny to the local sales tax to help CAT (Central Arkansas Transit) financially. The four or five times this idea of adding a penny to the local sales tax for CAT has been on the ballot, it has lost quite badly. CAT does get some money from the federal government but it depends mostly on money which is given to it by Pulaski County as well as the towns and cities in Pulaski County which are served by CAT. The money which local governments give to CAT and the amount or amounts is a contentious, hot-potato political issue here. It has destroyed the political careers and brought to a screeching halt the political careers of some promising (and talented) local politicians.

If I lived in a place like Little Rock, Arkansas, I don't think that I'd want to pay an extra 1% in sales tax to support a bus service that I wouldn't use. My guess is that most Little Rock voters don't ride the bus and that non-bus riders would pay far more of the tax increase than the less affluent bus riders. It isn't hard to see why this sort of tax hike is overwhelmingly unpopular. The people who pay the taxes tend to be motorists, and in a place like LIttle Rock, almost everyone is a motorist.

Actually, about the only time I ride a public bus is when I'm in Manhattan, where the buses are downright pleasant these days. Of course, I don't live there and if I did, I wouldn't be all that happy with the outrageous level of taxation.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

gardendance wrote: Leaving aside the discussion of individual responsibility to provide for the common weal.....

Here's a picture of a "common weal," which apparently is a species of "weasel family," known by the latin name Mustelidae:




I would advise all forum members not to "provide for the common weal," since it's pretty clear from this very amusing photo that the common weal will provide for itself given half the chance - although I still can't figure out how they manage to remove the bottle caps?

Moderator's Note: weal (wēl)
n.
1. Prosperity; happiness: in weal and woe.
2. The welfare of the community; the general good: the public weal.

Credit to Mr. Wayne for a little levity, and remind me to keep any Mustelidae away from my fridge.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled transit discussion.

Thank you for the definition of "weal" Mr. Stephens. Did you hear about the bear in Washington state who does not like Budweiser? At a campground, someone made the mistake of leaving their beer where the bear was able to sample it. The bear tried a can of Budweiser and then he tried one can of a local brew. The bear liked the local beer so much he drank the whole case of the local beer. For some strange reason, Budweiser does not like this story.

Considering how much the Big Pebble (Little Rock) and the other towns in Pulaski County have grown since I was a teenager, I think giving one penny of the sales tax to support public transit would be a good idea for this metropolitan area. Since I was teenager, they have built three new interstate highways (I-430, I-630, and I-440) as well as having to expand and widen the existing highways. In addition, a major highway intersection (I-430 and I-630) on the west side of Little Rock is undergoing a complete re-building because no one seems to have realized how fast the west side of Little Rock would grow once they finished building I-630 across Little Rock from east to west. And this is not all.....there are plans to build a bypass through the northern part of Pulaski County north of North Little Rock.

Also, since I was a teenager, two new towns have been incorporated and the existing towns and cities seem to be trying to annex all of the unincorporated land in Pulaski County.

This is why I think public transit and support for it should be expanded here.

Laurence

fauxcelt wrote:Thank you for the definition of "weal" Mr. Stephens. Did you hear about the bear in Washington state who does not like Budweiser? At a campground, someone made the mistake of leaving their beer where the bear was able to sample it. The bear tried a can of Budweiser and then he tried one can of a local brew. The bear liked the local beer so much he drank the whole case of the local beer. For some strange reason, Budweiser does not like this story.

Considering how much the Big Pebble (Little Rock) and the other towns in Pulaski County have grown since I was a teenager, I think giving one penny of the sales tax to support public transit would be a good idea for this metropolitan area. Since I was teenager, they have built three new interstate highways (I-430, I-630, and I-440) as well as having to expand and widen the existing highways. In addition, a major highway intersection (I-430 and I-630) on the west side of Little Rock is undergoing a complete re-building because no one seems to have realized how fast the west side of Little Rock would grow once they finished building I-630 across Little Rock from east to west. And this is not all.....there are plans to build a bypass through the northern part of Pulaski County north of North Little Rock.

Also, since I was a teenager, two new towns have been incorporated and the existing towns and cities seem to be trying to annex all of the unincorporated land in Pulaski County.

This is why I think public transit and support for it should be expanded here.

Laurence

The problem here of course is that you're describing a pattern of development based on the personal use automobile. When people moved to these sprawling communities in the greater Little Rock area, there was no expectation of public transportation. People who live in modern suburbs don't move there expecting public transport.

In this case, we're not even talking about commuter rail, light rail or mass transit, but a public bus system - still centered on highway transportation. My general feeling is that the benefits of such a system go to the individuals who pay the least in taxation, while the burden bearers of the tax system have the very least use for it. So it come as no surprise that the taxpayers will begrudge a 1% sales tax increase to a service that doesn't benefit them directly.

The best solution for Pulaski County, Arkansas would be a privatization of CAT (Central Arkansas Transit), allowing this bus system to sink or swim in the private market. In the absence of taxpayer subsidies of a publicly funded system, private operators would have the opportunity to offer service that is better geared to the actual needs of the community. In the end, there might be a number of successful owner operators, most likely operating better focused van, limo, bus and taxi services, none of which would require taxpayer funds.

Central Arkansas Transit was owned and operated by a private company until sometime in the 1970's when the local governments stepped in and took it over to keep the busses running. There are plenty of people living here who do need public transportation to get to and from work because they cannot afford a car for various reasons.
For example, when I was going to school full-time at a local college and working part-time at a local hospital, I had to use public transit to get to and from school and work.
There was another man whom I saw riding the bus frequently because he was in a similar situation. He was married and had four children. His wife was working full-time while he was going to school full-time at the same college I was going to. This man's wife needed the car so she could get to work and play chaffeur for their four children.
And, last but not least, many years before I met her, my wife had to use the bus to get to and from work until she could afford to buy a car.
There are many other people here who are in the same or similar situations and they do need public transit.

I have been to other cities where there is just as much and just as heavy a pattern of development based on personal use of the automobile but they have better public transit then we do here in central Arkansas because the local public transit system has a secure and stable source of funding such as a penny of the local sales tax. One example of this which I am familiar with is San Antonio, Texas. I have family and relatives who live there and we drive there once a year to visit with them. So far as I can tell, San Antonio and the other towns and cities in Bexar County are just as automobile and road dependent as Little Rock and Pulaski County. They do have a larger population base but their public transit system is better because they have a stable and secure source of funding. If I remember the name correctly, VIA Public Transit doesn't have to beg for money from the local governments every year unlike CAT.

I have used public transit in other cities besides the two which I have already mentioned. The other example which I am most familiar with would be in Norfolk, Virginia because I was stationed there for three years while I was in the Navy. Since I didn't have a car, I had to use the bus to get around and I was favorably impressed by the local bus service.

There are private taxi, limo, and van services here but they could all use considerable improvement. Yes, I have used them and I was not impressed.

As you can see, I have some basis for comparison and I know what I am talking about concerning the local situation here in Pulaski County.

Laurence Gray

It seems to me (and I am not an expert) that a long-term transportation policy for a metropolitan area which is based only on building more roads or expanding existing roads is lopsided and not a good idea unless you are willing to use or even consider other modes of transportation in addition to building more roads just for private vehicles such as cars.

I guess what I am thinking about is a more balanced transportation policy which includes all of the possible options besides cars and just building more roads or expanding existing roads.

Laurence

jbvb wrote:But I still know a bunch of people who get fairly emotional over any attempt to pry them out of the (perceived) freedom, privacy and convenience of their autos.

They don't want tax money spent on anything that doesn't benefit them directly. Also, some of them perceive that funds spent on rail will not be spent on highways. (However, this is out of proportion because rail is MUCH cheaper than roads, meaning that there will still be road funds.)

The "groups" are generally business shill/fronts, like Wendell Cox and the highway construction lobby. They hate all rail because they fear governments waking up to the fact that their limited funds might be better spent on rail projects, as happened years ago on the NEC. But the knee-jerkers are just your average types who can't comprehend anyone choosing differently from them, convinced that investment is zero-sum, and--

--completely unable to grok that more commuters on the train = more space for them on the highway and more parking when they get there.

There's also a history in the Northeast of politicians trying to maximize revenues on the city-owned transit lines by dictating that urban thoroughfares be level of service "F". According to legend, there was some guy in charge of traffic control in Boston in the 70's who saw his goal as making cars hit a red light at every intersection. More recently, Boston made it policy to remove parking spaces to keep cars from coming in (a sort of back-end congestion management). When NYC had a city-owned rail system competing with private owned, well, the abuses there are common knowledge.

There is a conflict of interest, so those with long memories may have a somewhat rational position vis a vis urban politicians trying to get them out of their cars.

They should love (they won't) London's congestion charge--it's reportedly MUCH easier to tool around town in a car than before. Pay to play.