Log in

No account? Create an account
The cost of the future - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The cost of the future [Aug. 6th, 2010|10:01 am]

When gas topped $4 a gallon, I said that it was a good thing in that people were finally taking alternate transportation setiously.

OMG some people yelled, you hate the poor!!!

No one whp regularly reads my journal would even posit that. And here I sit at the Rapid Station with convincing proof of my poinf:

When gas was over $4/gallon, I had to park far back in the back lot for the stafion. Now? Parking place right up front.

In Cleveland and other cities, the solution to falling tax revenue is, among other things, cutting back on public transit. And why not? The powers that be don't ride the bus, and the upsurge in ridership disappeared once gas prices dropped.

I don't want it to be true of the American public that we only make individual sacrifices when our pocketbooks are jeopardized, but the fact is that we live in a culture that values personal convenience over societal good. Hell, I'm guilty of it myself: if I have an early morning court docket with tge judge I know to be lightning fast, I will often drive in and take advantage of the one hour of free parking available that is actually meant for lunchtime and so available early in the morning. It's a smaller time commitment, and I am back to work much faster.

If gas were at $4.60, I probably wouldn't do it.

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.


[User Picture]From: darksumomo
2010-08-06 02:18 pm (UTC)
"a culture that values personal convenience over societal good."

Welcome to the theme of my very first lecture in Environmental Science every semester. I may be a biology professor, but that course is as much about people's values and how those values influence the decisions people make using scientific information as it is about the science itself.

As far as cutting public transit, I don't know what the politicians think here in metro Detroit, but the people have spoken in favor of it. The renewal of the property tax assessment to keep SMART, the suburban bus system, running, passed on Tuesday with 78% of the vote. That was the highest percentage of any property tax measure in the county where I live.

Also, the local powers that be are behind a light rail project up Woodward Avenue in Detroit. That would be a big help in mobility around here.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: aiela
2010-08-06 02:28 pm (UTC)
I am SO excited about the possibility of the light rail project. I live in Royal Oak and I would go downtown far, far more often if I could drive down to 8 Mile, park, and take the light rail downtown. (I think seven stops in 3.5 miles is excessive, however.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: (Anonymous)
2010-08-06 02:39 pm (UTC)
You don't bill through expenses like mileage and parking to your clients?

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-08-06 04:02 pm (UTC)
Not for bankruptcy cases, no.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
[User Picture]From: halfmoon_mollie
2010-08-06 02:41 pm (UTC)
I'm a bus rider and buses have been cut because due to the budget cuts, less money was allocated for Centro (the bus folks) it doesn't make any SENSE! Fewer cars on the road = less wear and tear on the highways, less highway repair = more money to be donated to the bus folks so MORE people will ride the bus and there will be fewer people on the highway...as for ME, because I don't drive I am forced to either find a ride to somewhere I want to go at night, or stay home because there's nothing after 8.

Sorry. Didn't mean to rant on your lj.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: jer_
2010-08-06 03:20 pm (UTC)
The problem is, in many cities, bus use doesn't equate to decreased car wear; the people with cars never transition to bussing, added bussing just means those without cars have a more convenient mode of travel…because this is America, and they'll pry our steering wheels out of our cold, dead hands with a lever made of high priced petrol and exorbitant taxation.

Increasing the availability of mass transit won't decrease car usage by a measurable amount. The only ways to do that are via legislation or market forces…make it illegal or expensive!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: tdanaher
2010-08-06 02:59 pm (UTC)
When gas was over $4/gallon, I had to park far back in the back lot for the stafion. Now? Parking place right up front.

It would be interesting to find out whether there's a strong possibility that, with unemployment the way it is, people are simply staying home rather than taking either cars or mass transit. I know, plural of anecdote is not etc., but in the housing development my parents live in, they and their many friends tend to stay put in the development and mostly have stuff delivered to them that they would have gone out for in years past. Netflix brings movies which means no heading out to the local theater, food delivery services like Freshdirect bring groceries so no driving to the early-bird special at the Cracker Barrel or picking up bananas at Walmart, webcamming through Skype is an okay way of seeing the grandkids instead of driving a thousand miles to them, and the neighbors provide parties and other social activities, so why buy even cheap gas when the reasons for burning it aren't as compelling as they used to be?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tylik
2010-08-06 03:06 pm (UTC)
So I've usually been something of an ecofreak, but gods, web shopping has allowed me to mostly avoid the mall! I walk and bike almost everywhere. Over the past ten months my roommate and I have put 1,100 miles on the car - and that includes a road trip from Cleveland to Rochester NY and back. (Otherwise, about once a month we go to Whole Foods and load up on staples, and maybe go to the hardware store. The co-op and the CSA are human powered trips.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: lawchicky
2010-08-06 03:24 pm (UTC)
I have no problem with alternate transportation. I actually quite like using the trains and subways, but even living an hour outside of NYC, it's not available for most of my commutes. I'll be miserable if gas goes back over $4 a gallon!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-08-06 04:15 pm (UTC)
Oh, I'm not saying that it wouldn't hurt like hell, believe me. I wish there was a better way.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ba1126
2010-08-06 03:53 pm (UTC)
We live outside Boston and have a terrific network of transportation, but it is time consuming and doesn't always meet individual needs. My sons both went to school in Boston, but had to start two hours before classes to make the connections that would get them to class on time. Then they needed another two hours for the trip home. Four hours of commuting a day, in addition to class and study and sleep and (if lucky) some personal time was unacceptable, except in an emergency (Mom's car in for repairs!).

I work as a nanny and MUST use my car, as transportation is in and out of the city, not town to town.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-08-06 04:17 pm (UTC)
And I have to drive regularly to clients. I do understand. But we aren't doing much to solve the problems inherent in the system.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: thanoslug
2010-08-06 04:19 pm (UTC)
Not everyone has access to any kind of public transportation and attempts to force people out of their cars by increasing taxes on gas or trying to force people into short range electric vehicles hurts people that do not live in high density urban areas.

If people have access to public transport and want to use it and it can support itself then great, I'm all for it. I am not in favor of subsidies for public transportation though - I'll subsidize your bus or light rail or whatever when you subsidize my oil changes and tire rotations and general maintenance.

This is still a free country and those who want to keep driving their cars even if there is perfectly good public transportation they could use then they should be free to keep driving their car with no penalty or stigma attached to them.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-08-06 04:22 pm (UTC)
Blah blah blah off a cliff. About what I expect.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: merle_
2010-08-06 04:21 pm (UTC)
In Cleveland and other cities, the solution to falling tax revenue is, among other things, cutting back on public transit. And why not? The powers that be don't ride the bus, and the upsurge in ridership disappeared once gas prices dropped.

They're doing that here too. Fares went up, a quarter of the bus or train routes were cut, and they started charging for people using the carpool.

Destroying your infrastructure seems completely insane (and a waste of previously spent money). I'd rather pay more taxes.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kibbles
2010-08-06 06:45 pm (UTC)
They're trying to increase ridership here. Figuring out what routes should be changed (since the demographics and the job sites changed -- there are areas of the city that have jobs but no public transportation, and vice versa, because the industries changed). Figuring out that people like to ride bikes to work but the hills are too high to go back home. So bike racks on the bus so you can at least ride part way. (The hills are REALLY bad. REALLY really bad.) Letting school kids on for free because then they get more subsides because of increased ridership (they would have walked or rode with a parent instead). And oddly enough? Changing their name. Rebranding is a cheap way to increase ridership, apparently. That one is still under consideration.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-08-06 06:58 pm (UTC)
Those are all great ideas. The buses here all have bike racks, too. But they are not getting much support from the city.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cynic51
2010-08-06 11:22 pm (UTC)
From a strictly financial viewpoint, it doesn't make sense for me to take the train downtown. Why? Because for the cost of two one-way passes, I can drive downtown and pay for parking. If my wife goes with me, I can drive downtown and pay for the expensive parking for the cost of four one-way passes. Gas would have to be pretty expensive for me to take the train under this viewpoint. Actually, given my proximity to downtown and my fairly high mpg, it would still be cheaper than the train at $4.50/gal. Throw in the higher quota of morons and assholes on the train (plus the lack of a/c), it's a pretty easy no brainer.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-08-06 11:45 pm (UTC)
Train has AC. And where are you parking that is cheaper than $5? An all-day pass is $5.00, single ride is $2.25.

While it doesn't make sense for you and Holly to go down there once in a while, for commuters, monthly passes are much cheaper than monthly parking downtown.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: ccr1138
2010-08-07 12:08 am (UTC)
I agree. I love public transportation, but unless people use it, it won't get the investment it needs to thrive. I wish my city would tax the hell out of gas and use it to build light rail.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fitfool
2010-08-08 08:23 pm (UTC)
While gas was really high, I switched to riding my bike or jogging/walking to any place within 3 miles of home. I jogged to the gym, biked to grocery and drug stores, and biked to meet up with nearby friends. But then the weather started to get colder. and well...gas wasn't so expensive. And when winter had passed and the weather warmed again, I didn't resume biking everywhere I could. I'm a little disappointed in myself.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-08-08 08:38 pm (UTC)
Exactly. I've been the same way.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)