4 ms·

Eh let’s don't. The thing about rural areas is nobody lives there, by definition. Our city centers should not be degraded so a tiny minority can drive. Instead

Eh let’s don't. The thing about rural areas is nobody lives there, by definition. Our city centers should not be degraded so a tiny minority can drive. Instead we should have the Swiss/German S-Bahn model where outlying areas have train stations that take the rural folks to cities quickly and efficiently.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
Many people do live there, just more spread out. It's not degrading city centers, you still need trucks to stock your stores, you still need tourism. If everyone that lived in the city centers took public transportation, the already built roads would be freed for foreign traffic. As you say, there's nobody living in rural areas so they wouldn't have a huge impact on the roads. They can share it with the buses and trucks. I see this kind of elitism of urban > rural a lot here.
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  Elitism is when you tear down thousands of homes in black neighborhoods so rural drivers can go non-stop downtown. Elitism is when you spend a billion dollars on a freeway interchange in the middle of nowhere while cutting bus service in downtown Milwaukee. Elitism in America always works in favor of rural people because rural America is overwhelming White and American elitism is just racism.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    There can be many forms of elitism, I don't see how it excuses your view of "not many people live in rural America, so fuck em". Black and white people live in rural America, and just because someone is white doesn't mean they are racist or had anything to do with what you're claiming. You're generalizing people based on race, that's racism. You need freeways to connect cities and transport goods, I don't see what that has to do with cities not properly funding public transportation. Urban cities need rural areas for foods and goods. You're living in a bubble of your own elitism. There's more to America than your city, go travel, you'll need a car though :)
    - shereadsthenews 7y ago
      > You need freeways to connect cities and transport goods, I don't see what that has to do with cities not properly funding public transportation. You don't see it because you aren't paying attention. In Wisconsin the people of Milwaukee had to sue the state because the state transportation agency cut funding for bus service in black, car-free Milwaukee while spending $1.7bn on an interchange to serve overwhelmingly white people from the surrounding area. It was not a meritless suit; WisDOT settled.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        Re-read my comment. I don't see what rural areas have to do with cities not properly funding public transportation. Like all cities, Milwaukee should get their public transportation in order. That being said, public transportation cannot work for rural areas. It can only work in urban and possibly suburban areas.
        shereadsthenews 7y ago
        In Wisconsin like most states cities are creations of the state and transit authorities are also creations of the states. Local tax revenues flow out of cities into the state government for redistribution, which usually results in a net flow of money out of those cities to rural areas, because the cities have the larger economies and the rural areas have a variety of high costs for things like firefighting and road building. The Milwaukee County Transit System, being a creature of the state, derives its funding from the state, which is not always equitably forthcoming. NYC has the same problem with the MTA being controlled by the state government, despite the fact that 97% of the state's economic activity originates in NYC. Any way, if you know anything about American history then you know about the phenomenon where a surrounding entity like a county or state arranges to extract money from a city while also starving it of services. St. Louis is probably the most notable example. Blaming such a city for its own transportation system, while also suggesting that those cities need to spend their own capital to provide parking and driving opportunities to rural citizens, just underlines how little you understand about American cities.
taborj 7y ago
> The thing about rural areas is nobody lives there, by definition. I get what you're saying, but according to this[1], about 46 million people live in rural areas. That's...not nobody. I am a died-in-the-wool car loving 'Merican, but even I can agree that cities shouldn't necessarily be designed around cars. It'd make the most sense for a park & ride type situation (only one that actually works), where us rural-types can drive in close to the city, park, and take public transit in towards the town. Edit: as another commenter pointed out, this plan wouldn't absolve the cities of needing roads, because goods still need to make it into the businesses in the city. [1] https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/states/united-states https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/states/united-states
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  That’s only 14% of Americans. If we start spending only 14% of our transportation budget moving those people and storing their cars, that would be great.
rayiner 7y ago
It’s not just rural areas. There are vast swaths of low density suburbs all over the country. And getting to the city isn’t the primary concern—it’s getting between all these low density suburbs. I grew up less than 15 miles from DC and went there maybe a dozen times from ages 5-18. 90-95% of all jobs in the DC metro area are outside the city. (That’s a big difference from Germany, where even in relatively rural areas most people live in villages that are pretty dense.)

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

Many people do live there, just more spread out. It's not degrading city centers, you still need trucks to stock your stores, you still need tourism. If everyone that lived in the city centers took public transportation, the already built roads would be freed for foreign traffic. As you say, there's nobody living in rural areas so they wouldn't have a huge impact on the roads. They can share it with the buses and trucks. I see this kind of elitism of urban > rural a lot here.

shereadsthenews 7y ago
Elitism is when you tear down thousands of homes in black neighborhoods so rural drivers can go non-stop downtown. Elitism is when you spend a billion dollars on a freeway interchange in the middle of nowhere while cutting bus service in downtown Milwaukee. Elitism in America always works in favor of rural people because rural America is overwhelming White and American elitism is just racism.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  There can be many forms of elitism, I don't see how it excuses your view of "not many people live in rural America, so fuck em". Black and white people live in rural America, and just because someone is white doesn't mean they are racist or had anything to do with what you're claiming. You're generalizing people based on race, that's racism. You need freeways to connect cities and transport goods, I don't see what that has to do with cities not properly funding public transportation. Urban cities need rural areas for foods and goods. You're living in a bubble of your own elitism. There's more to America than your city, go travel, you'll need a car though :)
  - shereadsthenews 7y ago
    > You need freeways to connect cities and transport goods, I don't see what that has to do with cities not properly funding public transportation. You don't see it because you aren't paying attention. In Wisconsin the people of Milwaukee had to sue the state because the state transportation agency cut funding for bus service in black, car-free Milwaukee while spending $1.7bn on an interchange to serve overwhelmingly white people from the surrounding area. It was not a meritless suit; WisDOT settled.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      Re-read my comment. I don't see what rural areas have to do with cities not properly funding public transportation. Like all cities, Milwaukee should get their public transportation in order. That being said, public transportation cannot work for rural areas. It can only work in urban and possibly suburban areas.
      - shereadsthenews 7y ago
        In Wisconsin like most states cities are creations of the state and transit authorities are also creations of the states. Local tax revenues flow out of cities into the state government for redistribution, which usually results in a net flow of money out of those cities to rural areas, because the cities have the larger economies and the rural areas have a variety of high costs for things like firefighting and road building. The Milwaukee County Transit System, being a creature of the state, derives its funding from the state, which is not always equitably forthcoming. NYC has the same problem with the MTA being controlled by the state government, despite the fact that 97% of the state's economic activity originates in NYC. Any way, if you know anything about American history then you know about the phenomenon where a surrounding entity like a county or state arranges to extract money from a city while also starving it of services. St. Louis is probably the most notable example. Blaming such a city for its own transportation system, while also suggesting that those cities need to spend their own capital to provide parking and driving opportunities to rural citizens, just underlines how little you understand about American cities.

taborj 7y ago

> The thing about rural areas is nobody lives there, by definition. I get what you're saying, but according to this[1], about 46 million people live in rural areas. That's...not nobody. I am a died-in-the-wool car loving 'Merican, but even I can agree that cities shouldn't necessarily be designed around cars. It'd make the most sense for a park & ride type situation (only one that actually works), where us rural-types can drive in close to the city, park, and take public transit in towards the town. Edit: as another commenter pointed out, this plan wouldn't absolve the cities of needing roads, because goods still need to make it into the businesses in the city. [1] https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/states/united-states https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/states/united-states

shereadsthenews 7y ago
That’s only 14% of Americans. If we start spending only 14% of our transportation budget moving those people and storing their cars, that would be great.

rayiner 7y ago

It’s not just rural areas. There are vast swaths of low density suburbs all over the country. And getting to the city isn’t the primary concern—it’s getting between all these low density suburbs. I grew up less than 15 miles from DC and went there maybe a dozen times from ages 5-18. 90-95% of all jobs in the DC metro area are outside the city. (That’s a big difference from Germany, where even in relatively rural areas most people live in villages that are pretty dense.)