4 ms·

Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. The same goes for showing up to a party with a s

by rch 4y ago

Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. The same goes for showing up to a party with a salad from your backyard garden or fresh baked bread. Having the time and space for these is a luxury now, whereas my mother would prefer to pick something up on the way.

hammock 4y ago
> Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. Interesting thought, I had to think of what kind of places these are. Maybe urbanized bedroom communities or connected suburbs like Naperville in Illinois? Where do you live?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jeromegv 4y ago
Perhaps if you have the « choice » for public transit. What we saw in toronto for example during Covid is that ridership dropped in higher income neighborhood (especially the ones that have access to the subway). The highest ridership lines were bus routes in low income neighbourhood, where people still had to go to work as some type of essential workers and did not have a car. Let’s not make a blanket statement that transit is for the rich, the reality is that the rich takes it when it gets good enough but they always have other choices. Some people just don’t have that choice and transit is their only way to go to work, that’s why it’s essential to the economy.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  So the rich people of Toronto first wanted picket fences and built the inner-suburbs, and drove everywhere, plus forced the elimination of transit payment zones. And now the rich are living more in Old Toronto and the poor(er) folks are forced to the inner-suburbs where the design does not condone efficient transit.
- rch 4y ago
  I wouldn't say transit is for the wealthy... Only that that transit should be more ubiquitous within population centers and widespread regionally, with high enough frequency to be a workable option for everyone.

by rch 4y ago

hammock 4y ago

> Where I live the classism is reversed, in that arriving by bus means you can afford to live by public transit. Interesting thought, I had to think of what kind of places these are. Maybe urbanized bedroom communities or connected suburbs like Naperville in Illinois? Where do you live?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jeromegv 4y ago

Perhaps if you have the « choice » for public transit. What we saw in toronto for example during Covid is that ridership dropped in higher income neighborhood (especially the ones that have access to the subway). The highest ridership lines were bus routes in low income neighbourhood, where people still had to go to work as some type of essential workers and did not have a car. Let’s not make a blanket statement that transit is for the rich, the reality is that the rich takes it when it gets good enough but they always have other choices. Some people just don’t have that choice and transit is their only way to go to work, that’s why it’s essential to the economy.

throw0101a 4y ago
So the rich people of Toronto first wanted picket fences and built the inner-suburbs, and drove everywhere, plus forced the elimination of transit payment zones. And now the rich are living more in Old Toronto and the poor(er) folks are forced to the inner-suburbs where the design does not condone efficient transit.
rch 4y ago
I wouldn't say transit is for the wealthy... Only that that transit should be more ubiquitous within population centers and widespread regionally, with high enough frequency to be a workable option for everyone.