Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

Americans hate everything besides cars

Reply
- Mon, 28 May 2018 13:04:17 EST AwbVlekG No.209223
File: 1527527057350.jpg -(100681B / 98.32KB, 648x920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Americans hate everything besides cars
Why are Americans so convinced that mass transit is a conspiracy?
If anything, there’s a pretty plain conspiracy to fund cars over every other mode of transportation.
>>
Priscilla Blodgepedging - Mon, 28 May 2018 14:01:56 EST MdrXzUYs No.209224 Reply
It's a form of freedom, don't have to schedule your life around a bus schedule. Though you could argue there's something beautiful about communal travel

That said, I live in California and AAA spends a fuck ton of money making sure anyone in political office makes no effort in funding or creating public transit. We as a nation have a corrupt system where politicians are for sale, and the people who can buy them want to ring every drop they can from the working class. There's no money in everyone having a bus pass, but there's a lot of money in everyone buying 20K+ car, and buying gas every week and insurance every month.
>>
Molly Sazzlelotch - Mon, 28 May 2018 20:31:06 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209225 Reply
People who complain about the US mass transit system or lack thereof really don't understand the reasons it's totally impossible, at least as a replacement for cars. European countries are relatively small, with relatively dense population centers. Mass transit makes huge sense under those circumstances.
You can't do that in the US. Most economic hubs are heavily dispersed in completely irregular networks that often cross vast tracts of pure emptiness. Mass transit becomes inherently less efficient the more surface area you are dealing with, and the US is on the other side of the point where efficiency gains from doing away with cars are less beneficial than the extreme logistical undertaking of converting the US to a mass transit system.

Besides, a car is an ideal from of transportation if it weren't for the fossil fuel aspect. People are, after all, all going to different places, so it makes sense to have a device which conveys each person to their individual destination rather than having to build society around hubs of transit. So, if there were no moral dimension to car usage, i.e. all cars were using alternative fuels, your rant against cars and Americans would be pretty much meaningless and arbitrary.
>>
Ian Bockleman - Mon, 28 May 2018 23:26:36 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209226 Reply
>>209225
The solution is easy. Let the flyover states rot. Fuck ruralfag. If he really wanted to go to the big city, he would have moved already.
>>
Molly Sazzlelotch - Tue, 29 May 2018 04:43:24 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209227 Reply
>>209226
Who is going to grow the food you eat? Who is going to mine the basic resources that are used to make the things you use?
>>
Ian Bockleman - Tue, 29 May 2018 07:09:41 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209228 Reply
>>209227
As technology marches forward, you Americans no longer need farms in the Midwest, but you can build technological indoor farms right in the middle of cities - where people actually live. No more truck caravans wasting time and fuel to transport food for hundreds of kilometers while spewing CO2 all over the place.
>>
Shit Hobblehidge - Tue, 29 May 2018 11:06:48 EST HLep9U/c No.209229 Reply
>>209225
This is actually 100% untrue.
Sweden is more sparsely-populated than the US. There are lots of large countries with transit systems, and the regions of the US are more than dense enough to support high-speed rail. The cities have been densifying for over 10 years as well and will continue to do so increasingly, according to commercial real estate market reports.

It’s sad how bad Americans’ understanding of transportation is. Quality of life could be a lot better and people could stop dying in car accidents.
>>
Edwin Shakeridge - Tue, 29 May 2018 12:54:03 EST uhpIZv0K No.209230 Reply
>>209225
>People are, after all, all going to different places, so it makes sense to have a device which conveys each person to their individual destination rather than having to build society around hubs of transit.
Why do you think that offering mass transit means you can’t drive cars anymore?

Where did you get that impression? You need to start thinking logically.
And tbh there was no rant against anything or anyone in the OP.
>>
Molly Sevingchit - Tue, 29 May 2018 13:11:12 EST 7flUsGzF No.209231 Reply
>>209225
>Mass transit becomes inherently less efficient the more surface area you are dealing with
Okay, mass transit for the population centers, no mass transit for the flyover moo-cows living in the middle of nowhere.

It's not fucking complicated, dude.
>>
Edwin Shakeridge - Tue, 29 May 2018 13:30:07 EST uhpIZv0K No.209232 Reply
>>209231
The Great Lakes region is actually a perfect density for high-speed rail.
>>
Charlotte Hallystock - Tue, 29 May 2018 20:15:55 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209233 Reply
>>209231
>> mass transit for the population centers, no mass transit for the flyover moo-cows
Well, I mean, that's pretty much what we have. Have you been to a 'population center'? Even the most car oriented ones (like LA) have mass transit systems that are perfectly fine and get a lot of use...perhaps not as much as they could have, but nothing is ever ideal. (LA is a good microcosm of the problem, because the reason mass transit is so inefficient there is because of how it developed over a large, spread out area, compared to much more concentrated cities like NY or SF)
What are you actually suggesting we do? Put more funds into public transit? Make ad campaigns against car use? What?
>>
Charlotte Hallystock - Tue, 29 May 2018 20:40:35 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209234 Reply
Sorry for the double post, I didn't realize how many silly overblown comments had accumulated...
>>209228
>>, but you can build technological indoor farms right in the middle of cities
I assume you are comparing the US to EU, if it some other place you're referring to then let me know, but, just so you know, if you bought it at a supermarket and didn't grow it at your self or from a local urban farmer, the food you eat was grown using largely traditional agricultural methods by someone who lives in a rural part of your or a neighboring country. Of the 48% of the EU that is classed as agricultural land, 59% is being employed for agricultural production, yet the EU still needs to import $126 billion of agricultural goods a year, according to the EC. So uh, how exactly is it that you get all your food from indoor farms again?

>>209229
Sorry to have to break this down to basic mathematics, but your understanding of population density is flawed. There is a difference between land area per capita and population density. Simply put, Sweden has a very large area and a moderately high population, which is why it nets a low land area per capita figure which is what you are referencing. However population density actually refers to the average amount of space between each member of the population. Pic related, comparing the population density of the US and Sweden...keep in mind how few people live in the far north, whereas those vast open tracts of the US are economically viable and valuable (if not culturally, cause they're 'flyover cows' right?

>>Why do you think that offering mass transit means you can’t drive cars anymore?
I never said that. I said cars are an ideal form of transportation. I said that offering mass transit is harder than it sounds and the gains are worth less than you think under these particular circumstances. And I would consider a thread titled 'Americans hate everything beside cards' and claiming its because of some massive conspiracy to be ranting. It's at least unnecessarily dramatic.

You guys are acting like fucking elitist scum and it's obvious in how little you understand about how your own table gets bread on it or how your own country operates. We get it, you think you're superior because you're not American. How about actually having superior reasoning to demonstrate it?
>>
Hedda Gupperped - Tue, 29 May 2018 21:50:50 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209236 Reply
>>209234
That's today mate. Not the future.

Hell, if we nail fucking lab meat grown in petridishes, we can close down 90% of all farm land.
>>
Samuel Sonkinchane - Tue, 29 May 2018 22:01:48 EST AwbVlekG No.209237 Reply
>>209234
I’m American though, and there wasn’t anything elitist in the OP. Also I didn’t see any reasoning in your posts. In fact you seemingly just discovered the idea of population density and are starting to realize population distribution is, but in that case it would really support the case for transit between cities like a high-speed rail system. Our cities are dense enough to support high-speed train travel between each other.

If you’re wondering about the cost, trains actually charge a toll so you recoup some of the costs, and the maintenance and building costs are way lower than highways. As a side bonus you get less people driving on the highways so t reduces highway maintenance costs too. Highways don’t charge any toll, they’re just a continual cost for the government. Nothing is more expensive than car infrastructure; all those highways, Parking lots, parking decks, $200k traffic lights, signs, police, fuel, insurance, it all incurs a giant cost to the public.

And actually you did act like we were advocating getting rid of cars, go reread your post.
>so it makes sense to have a device which conveys each person to their individual destination rather than having to build society around hubs of transit.
No one said anything about “having to build society around hubs of transit”. You can build wherever you want and travel however you want.
Btw cars are only affordable because the govt spends so much to subsidize oil and keep gas affordable. Cars are the most expensive, dangerous, polluting, and noisy means of transport. I’m not saying get rid of them just offer something else.
>>
Charlotte Hallystock - Wed, 30 May 2018 00:39:28 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209238 Reply
>>209236
>> if we nail fucking lab meat grown in petridishes,
Well, that would be grand. But we can't plan today's transportation policy based around a biotechnology that doesn't (quite) exist yet. Hope it goes that way though.
>>209237
You aren't the only person posting in the thread, which included at least four suggestions that rural people are worthless. That demonstrates that a lot of people don't understand how dependent their urban lifestyle still is on the rural laborer. We don't have robots picking our berries yet. Also that Americans are intrinsically intellectually inferior, but that's nothing new. It's coming from you too, like in your presumption, because I am talking about the concept of population density, that I have just discovered the concept of population density. I should assume that since you are talking about cars, you just discovered the concept of cars?
Anyway, high-speed rail isn't that great, because of the distances involved, the costs compared to what you would ever recoup in passenger fees; it's a pretty hard sell. The existing passenger rail network hardly gets enough use to maintain its own existence from a profit perspective, so where would we possibly get enough tolls to even put a dent in the cost?
>> and the maintenance and building costs are way lower than highways.
For ordinary passenger rail, which we already have, yes. But for highspeed rail the estimated cost per mile is around 80 million, whereas highways cost at most 10 million a mile, including maintenance.
>>Highways don’t charge any toll, they’re just a continual cost for the government
That are paid for through taxes as public infrastructure, usually through gas taxes so the people using the service pay for it. There are, of course, actually tons of toll highways. If you're really interested in the costs of our transit system I would suggest analyzing it carefully in an itemized way as you will see that while far from perfect it's not as absurd as people are making it out to be. For the most part the solutions we have arrived at are reasonable and the costs of them are in range of what is acceptable.

>>And actually you did act like we were advocating getting rid of cars, go reread your post.
I did, several times. Not seeing it. I guess me saying cars are good must mean you think I think I'm taking some absolutist stance where ONLY cars are good. Oh wait, that's what you already assumed to be the case for ALL Americans in the OP; that they have some fanatical aversion to anything other than cars. Maybe you are reading your own biases into this conversation?
>>No one said anything about “having to build society around hubs of transit”.
If you build everything around vehicles that are tied to fixed routes (like trains) then all your societal services become more and more dependent on being close to the methods of transport. Which is fine for a place where everything important is concentrated anyway. However hyper urbanization and centralization have their own severe problems, which other forms of transportation mitigate.

>> Cars are the most expensive, dangerous, polluting, and noisy means of transport.
And back to my original post, the moral dimension of car use only applies to fossil-fuel burning cars. A fleet of all-alternative-fuel driverless cars would have most of the advantages of advanced mass transit systems, in addition to the benefits of traditional cars. And it would still be a 'car,' so you aren't really against cars, you're against fossil fuels and government subsidies. So say that instead.
>>
Samuel Sonkinchane - Wed, 30 May 2018 01:30:25 EST AwbVlekG No.209239 Reply
1527658225031.jpg -(171857B / 167.83KB, 736x919) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209238
Trust me, America’s in no danger of “hyperurbanization” and transit doesn’t preclude that. We’re super sprawled out, but we know what makes neighborhoods valuable, walkable and transit-friendly and it’s not over-densifying or being in cookie-cutter subdivisions.
Yes, there are still big issues with cars being the only option even if they were running solely on electricity (which they won’t be for decades, if ever). You’re right I’m not anti-car. I’m anti-“cars only”. And the benefits of a high speed rail system FAR outweigh the immediate costs, especially in comparison to highways, if you do your research. Nothing’s more expensive to us than car infrastructure.
I’m not the only one with this line of thought, there are a lot of businesspeople and experts who agree, but the problem in America is just conveying that to people. And even people who are normally intelligent become conspiracy theorists when you mention moving people in anything besides a car for some reason.
>>
Charlotte Hallystock - Wed, 30 May 2018 13:38:35 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209240 Reply
>>209239
Ok, well then the onus is on you to convince people. I'm not convinced that high-speed rail could ever be cheaper than highway, even if you factor in additional aspects of car infrastructure (are you including fuel costs? Cause trains run on fossil fuels too...) The figures I gave in my previous post were the best information I could find on their respective costs. If you can show me some evidence that demonstrates that that's incorrect, I would be glad to be convinced otherwise.

Also, where do you get the idea that cars will never be fully electric? Don't you think we'll eventually run out of oil?
>>
Emma Brookshaw - Wed, 30 May 2018 15:00:39 EST uhpIZv0K No.209241 Reply
>>209240
I don't think it's a wild idea really. The cost-efficient trains are diesel-electric which can run about 125mph. Fully electric trains are faster but they're more expensive and their lines require more maintenance.

I don't think ALL cars will go fully-electric any time soon because a hybrid drivetrain is a really damn good idea; that's why it's in higher-speed trains now that I think about it. At low speeds the electric motor has a ton of torque to take you from a stop, which is where most fuel gets spent in a heavy vehicle, so it saves a ton of fuel. At highway speeds the internal combustion goes solo but at high gears it's fuel-efficient. Ford's about to come out with a hybrid F-10 and hybrid Mustang which will both have tons of power and good fuel economy.
But alone, the electric motor will only last for 40 miles or so and they take a huge heavy battery. Alone, the internal combustion engine has gaps in the power band and drinks a lot of fuel.

A company in Florida is building a private high-speed rail system (diesel-electric) around the southern part of the state for $3 billion. Ticket fares and increasing ridership over time mean they'll recoup their investment soon enough to justify it. That's a densely-populated region which is growing, but also becoming less and less car-dependent.

For the first time in America's history we're building more "multifamily" stuff and reviving our city centers, than "single-family" detached houses. Markets are just showing a preference for walkability and transit and kind of always have (ie a house with a high Walkscore is way more valuable). As we build denser in our cities, transit becomes more feasible which in turn encourages further dense development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

A transit system is like a big network; if a city has a lot of non-car travel options around, it will support further non-car travel options to other cities, which then encourages mass transit in that city. Brightline is hoping to expand to other cities around the US, they just have to deal with a ton of red tape and random county governments trying to fight them. Same thing happened with a private rail company in Texas, they've had the money but people have held them up for years.
>>
Rebecca Chullyshit - Thu, 31 May 2018 04:42:29 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209243 Reply
>>209238
Actually there was a report on lab meat developed in the Netherlands on an actualities program. The scientist interviewed expects lab meat to compete with regular meat in what maybe 5 years? That is nothing mate. Farming is dead. Goddamn best day of my life.
>>
Emma Bummerbanks - Thu, 31 May 2018 10:03:16 EST VxPu9uB7 No.209244 Reply
9.jpg -(80085B / 78.21KB, 666x69) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Something tells me you're perception is just off. I get that middle America is legit the most vast and open place and overall it's most of America's population. The thing is, America is so huge say Arkansas or Missouri or Indiana is completely different from places like say California, New York, philly, Oregon, Washington, DC, Baltimore, Maine, Chicago, etc.

For instance, the coasts and cities people are more likely to be against organized religion, to be questionable of the economic values of America - shit most coastal cities will shun people for snitching meanwhile in middle America there's militias with blue lives matter logos. It's a complete clash of values. Small towns hate the big city and have been fed this idea of mass hordes of lazy criminals from the urban (of all colors) being the reasoning for them being broke. It's an age old capitalist mechanism of disconnecting the rural working class from the urban poor. Don't believe me I can pull up a Bakunin or Nietzsche quote from the 1800s describing how the rural peasants are lulled into ignorance by nationalism and religious values while the inner city poor are rebellious and prone to crime.

This is relevant because there is pretty widespread transit in all of these coastal densely popular areas. Anyone who thinks otherwise is confused because millions of people ride transit in nyc alone, even more in the entire north east. I've never heard anyone dog on mass transit in a city unless it was about fare hikes, labor disputes or inefficiency.


PS: this hatred towards cities isn't just opinion, it's actually structurally ingrained into things and racism plays a big part. For two instances Maryland underfunds Baltimore and Harrisburg PA does the same to Philly (America's biggest poor city). What makes it racial is as suburbs receive a higher population of mixed races, funding and resources drop (Ferguson).


Shit my dudes. This goes beyond transit. Things may seem calm, but its clear tension has been building up towards some sort of civil war involving this divide. These people not only believe in conspiracy against transit but believe in waging a war against thugs,liberals,socialists, atheists, scientists,antifa,queers, aka city minded folk.
>>
Emma Bummerbanks - Thu, 31 May 2018 10:16:07 EST VxPu9uB7 No.209245 Reply
1527776167319.jpg -(398221B / 388.89KB, 700x560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
And lol @ being so naive you think mass transit means people stop driving. I mean you keep bringing up accidents so on one hand you say you don't want people to lose the ability to drive but on the other you naively think people will stop if faster trains exist. Won't happen. Doesn't happen in Europe wont happen in America. Pic related.

I also feel like if you've been more places you wouldn't feel these ways. Europe isn't some utopia it's a hellhole that tries to mask the fact that their history is blood and conflict that temporarily pleased people with welfare ... It's now austerity and brexit mixed in with xenophobia and underground extremists.

Also not all traffic in USA is bumper to bumper. Ever drive thru Utah,wyoming,Kansas,Montana? Sometimes ID see like 5 cars on the road for over 30 miles. Seems like transit would be a bust.
>>
Isabella Digglepane - Thu, 31 May 2018 11:45:22 EST zXgQ4QA1 No.209247 Reply
>>209245
>And lol @ being so naive you think mass transit means people stop driving.
I know I'm wasting my time since in all likelihood you're pretending to be stupid on purpose, but there is a difference between a reduction in a thing versus a total elimination in a thing.

Nobody here thinks that better mass transit will lead to a total elimination in driving, nor is anyone here advocating for such a thing.

>austerity, xenophobia, underground extremists
Which the US already has in spades, so this is a moot observation.

>Utah,wyoming,Kansas,Montana? Sometimes ID see like 5 cars on the road for over 30 miles.
This is absolutely irrelevant to the lived experience of 97.66% of the US population. This means nothing.
>>
Betsy Buzzlock - Thu, 31 May 2018 12:26:28 EST AwbVlekG No.209249 Reply
>>209245
There are so many strawmans in this post I’ve never seen anything like it.
Nowhere does anyone say people are going to stop driving altogether. Nowhere does anyone say anything about Europe. Nowhere does anyone say all American traffic is bumper-to-bumper.

Americans have got to stop seeing transit discussion as an assault on their identity. And stop thinking “bringing transit here” = “turning us into Europe/japan/whatever strawman place I can come up with”

I think the heart of Anericans’ mistrust in cities comes from our development patterns and how we build suburban sprawl. But in the past decade that’s really been changing and Americans are embracing their cities and turning them totally around. So I think transit will come, but we’ll still need to educate people and convince the committed anti-transit types who don’t understand transportation and development issues.
>>
Alice Ningerlock - Thu, 31 May 2018 12:36:26 EST QNC4+cft No.209250 Reply
>>209247

Love how people 'debunk' me with statistics pullled out of their ass. Personal experience is where knowledge comes from, anybody can try to reduce things to a random number. My point about listing my driving experiences isnt isolated.. It's a reflection of reality. That reality being the midwest and West is vast wide open spaces with an array of towns that have developed along old industrial developments and.. Highway. There's a reason most of the railways there have to be split.. It's already dominated by freight lines which Europe barely has. Theres route s built for commerce alone.

You people are naive to think the rich will just restructure an entire landscape that has been built to maximize and instill their profit. You also act as if any European country is the size of Europe.

How many places have you lived?


And people's mistrust for the city is something I already explained. It comes from racial supremacist and bourgeise values being crammed down rural throats for over a century. Disconnecting the rural workers from the city is one of the oldest and most necessary mechanisms of capitalism.
>>
Alice Ningerlock - Thu, 31 May 2018 12:40:39 EST QNC4+cft No.209251 Reply
>>209250

And accidents don't come from too many people on the road. Europe's safer driving does not come from reduced driving. You also have no statistics to prove most people would stop driving for transit. It just so happens you much prefer it but that doesn't mean most people will or do. A lot of assumptions.

Europe has safer road conditions and a less distracted culture of consumers eating MacDonald and smoking camels watching buzzfeed driving with their knees.

So yeah. Consider that. This country was built around highway and freight and even CSX rail lines and public roads are falling apart.

America has a much more sinister problem behind there being "inefficient" transit.
>>
Alice Ningerlock - Thu, 31 May 2018 12:43:58 EST QNC4+cft No.209252 Reply
1527785038664.jpg -(120554B / 117.73KB, 500x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Thirdly, Japan and Europe didn't get mass transit without a mass power vacuum being left open paving the way for a more social Democratic welfare state to develop around fresh infrastructure. You know ww2 happened. America didn't have to rebuild and reevualte because industrial centers and cities weren't being bombed.
>>
Alice Ningerlock - Thu, 31 May 2018 12:48:29 EST QNC4+cft No.209253 Reply
>>209252

Just consider it. A lot of Americans live in houses from 1920-1930-1940 even. In Europe those homes would likely have taken some heavy blows. That's on an individual persoanl property level. Now consider the results of a brutal industrial capitalist region tearing itself apart from the inside in a war of Nations ravaging each other's centers of commerce. Look at European history even in the 70s. If one rail accident happened in Italy workers (were) outside of that mayors house mob style.
>>
Isabella Digglepane - Thu, 31 May 2018 13:18:10 EST zXgQ4QA1 No.209254 Reply
>>209250
>Love how people 'debunk' me with statistics pullled out of their ass.
And which ones would those be?

>Personal experience is where knowledge comes from, anybody can try to reduce things to a random number. My point about listing my driving experiences isnt isolated.. It's a reflection of reality.
In other words... You also have no statistics to prove that your personal driving experience is representative of the reality experienced by the average American. It just so happens you have experienced it but that doesn't mean most people will or do. A lot of assumptions.

>>209251
>And accidents don't come from too many people on the road. Europe's safer driving does not come from reduced driving. You also have no statistics to prove most people would stop driving for transit. It just so happens you much prefer it but that doesn't mean most people will or do. A lot of assumptions.
Well, luckily for me... Personal experience is where knowledge comes from, anybody can try to reduce things to a random number. My point about listing my driving preferences isnt isolated.. It's a reflection of reality.

On a totally unrelated note, are you familiar with the phrase "talking out of both sides of one's mouth?" Just a random question that popped into my head suddenly, can't imagine what prompted it.
>>
Beatrice Hobbleman - Thu, 31 May 2018 13:46:40 EST uDTKqB2Z No.209255 Reply
>>209253
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what your point is supposed to be with this post.
>>
Shitting Gassledeg - Fri, 01 Jun 2018 11:59:18 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209258 Reply
>>209250
While I think this guy is going off the rails (har) on the whole racial supremacist angle, I will say that the basis for my initial objection about surface area was also based on this same kind of experience -- driving through the American frontier and seeing on a first-hand level how immensely vast and isolated it is, and putting that together with the fact that no one will ever, ever think about building a high-speed train to service some BFE in BFE, yet those people still need to get around and have services provided.

On the other stuff the guys a rite nutter tho m8.
>>
Matilda Honeyshit - Fri, 01 Jun 2018 14:59:42 EST AwbVlekG No.209260 Reply
>>209258
I’m not sure what your impression of high-speed rail is. But it’s only made for going from one densely-populated area to another.
No high-speed rail advocate is pushing for lines through the middle of the frontier country, because super long distances are best for planes. But if you’re going from one large city in your state to another large city the next state over, it’s perfect for that. Don’t have to put hundreds of miles on your car and be preoccupied with driving, it’s really nice.

I’ll admit that before I rode HSR I always wondered what the fuss was about it; after that though I saw the impact it would have in America.
>>
Phyllis Membletid - Fri, 01 Jun 2018 19:20:02 EST QsdQMypM No.209261 Reply
1527895202354.jpg -(144416B / 141.03KB, 647x648) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209254

Saying 96% of Americans are from highly condensed areas. I say personal experience has a role in knowledge because it does. Doesn't mean statistics can't confirm. It just means you live and learn thru experience.

Here's my maps to back that.


Secondly America has a mass freight rail system that no other country has. Something that hauls billions off dollars of commerce isn't going to be torn up or restructured in any form or way unless it would mean maximizing profit.

If you think this is of no importance, there's such an extensive rail system in the USA that Amtrak shares the same freight lines. Amtrak goes down train lines that have hauled goods since the 1800s.
>>
Phyllis Membletid - Fri, 01 Jun 2018 19:41:49 EST QsdQMypM No.209263 Reply
>>209258

Seriously? People are so deluded that I'd basically be considered a conspiracy theorist for bringing up something that's been documented for years.

You seriously don't think racism has a role in any policy involving proper infrastructure? How have so many people in /PSS/ escaped actual science to believe this. It's almost like you believe Flint Michigan has clean drinking water.

If they build mass transit in the USA, it'll be when all of the poor residents are driven out of condensed areas by raising prices on everything. Its begun to happen already.

The amount of people below the poverty line in America's suburab sprawl has grown more rapidly and also, the amount of bilingual people in burbs. This means a lot of immigrants. Ferguson saw a shift in racial diversity and suddenly funding was gone and the town made their business extorting residents at gun point.

If you can't see the logic in what im saying, the forces behind transit and how every single point on this map is built to ensure profit than idk what's up.

I mentioned ww2 because, Europes wars and conflicts did not come out of nowhere. There were various conflicts in Europe. Many places in the region were having a hard time dealing with workers rebellions and revolutions as America murdered off their last dissident leaders. This lead to, more or less, the ruling parties of Europe engaging in a battle.. The cold war. They never wanted to face such strife, such loss of industry again. They adapted some socialist values out of a neccesity, even began letting socialists and social Democrats have some what of a say, no longer outlawing parties. This directly led to the carrot on the stick.. The welfare social democracy. Which means lots more funding for infrastructure that was already deteriorated,for services of public and worker welfare. Things we don't have in the USA (200 dollar ebt a month does not mean u in a welfare state). Sooo.. Ding ding. High speed rail.
>>
Matilda Honeyshit - Fri, 01 Jun 2018 19:57:37 EST AwbVlekG No.209264 Reply
1527897457146.jpg -(566421B / 553.15KB, 750x1077) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209263
No one’s ever going to drive ALL the poor people out of cities.

But you do make a good point about prices in cities going up; city centers have been getting trendier and honestly for good reason; they’re convenient, walkable, and with new development they get nicer.

Suburban sprawl has comparatively little to offer and I see “poor people moving out of cities into suburbs” as a really good thing honestly. It’s a market correction. It’ll bring home values down and make poor and rich people live in the same neighborhoods more often. That’s what America needs to increase mobility and reduce class division.

I also want to make the point that everyone in America needs to realize: mass transit raises property values. It’s a huge benefit to the poor, but the more you run it the nicer the area becomes so they move to the suburbs. Right-wingers should want all the mass transit possible because it saves the government money and it prices out the poor. Leftists should want mass transit because it helps the poor until the neighborhoood becomes so pricey they can’t live there anymore. But in the meantime they saved a lot of money and had good opportunity to advance in life.
Environmentalists should want it because it uses less energy, and car-lovers should want it because it means less people driving.
>>
Molly Shittingman - Sat, 02 Jun 2018 03:29:12 EST yW/bYk7V No.209265 Reply
>>209264
>>market correction

This is how rich people talk about things like layoffs,eviction, private prisons, wage cuts, austerity.

>>divide of class will decrease if rich people are geographically close to the poor

There's a reason gated communities, security, homes that are isolated and guarded became a thing for rich people. Poor people were burglarizing them. Poor people even Rob each other you think a richbitch will live near the poor without the police becoming more high handed. How will that stop a divide? When a rich dude has a gun of a coked up stick up kid to his neck or when over a thousand homeless people get complained on an arrested en masse.

European cities aren't exactly dealing with rising costs and austerity.. They're rioting and radical communism and right wing movements are widespread than ever since the cold war.
>>
Clara Blizzlepadge - Sat, 02 Jun 2018 13:23:28 EST AwbVlekG No.209266 Reply
>>209265
Yeah you’re talking in hyperbole and don’t have a lot of knowledge of commercial real estate.

There are quite a lot of mixed-income communities even in the US. In fact living in a mixed-income place has become so desirable that within several years they become expensive places and the problem becomes staying affordable for the poor. Case in point: city areas which used to be poor and then get gentrified.
Don’t hyperbolize the “market correction” either. It’s true, use your brain.

Suburbs are income-segregated places, largely created to separate whites from blacks. You shouldn’t complain that they’re becoming mixed-income and integrated. It is not anything like layoffs or private prisons, you’re being an assclown.
>>
Molly Shittingman - Sat, 02 Jun 2018 16:59:06 EST yW/bYk7V No.209267 Reply
>>209266

Where exactly are people coexisting? Maybe poor and middle income. Prisons and jails defenitely have something to do with what I'm talking about. With rich people, comes more policing against the "criminal neighborhoods". The poor usually don't buy into fear and hatred of crime.

Look at SF and Seattle, how they police the homeless. How they attack them and try to put them out of site. How old " drug areas " are now being swept to create a safe space for shoppers. It not so cocidedentally began to increase drastically when techies from the valley flocked.

There is a good result of suburbs becoming poor though. The police can't deal with organized crime and rebellion because they havent been fed the resources and training that cities have seen getting for 50 years. They don't have outlets or resources to calm them down like in the city.

Look at Ferguson. The police were so not used to a bunch of people losing their shit. They kicked a hornets nest and created a full scale rebellion. That would not happen in NYC because they have counter rebels in every community, spies, constant working with federal agencies and NGO liberals who will channel energy into their harmless organizing.


Idk why so many people call me a conspiracy theorist for talking about shit the department of defense admits. There's a direct relation to heavy policing and class. A neighborhood gets nicer "police step up security patrols". A suburb gets poorer, homeland security hands them militaristic gear to handle rebellious poor people in suburbs with less police than people.

No coincidence here.
>>
Molly Shittingman - Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:02:29 EST yW/bYk7V No.209268 Reply
>>209266

And a lot of America was built to keep whites from blacks. In Chicago there's literally an old ass bridge built to purposely separate white from black back in the day. It would force the black hood to walk a really long time to get to the white area

Anyone I responded to you pissy but you seem to know what you're talking about more. I just thought you were the guy who thought I was going off the rails for saying a lack of infrastructure has some racism behind it.
>>
Polly Blogglehen - Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:38:00 EST AwbVlekG No.209269 Reply
>>209267
People make mixed-income developments a lot man. We even have a program called Hope VI to build mixed-income places instead of poor projects.
Mixed income, mixed-use, mixed transportation, is how you make healthy cities. The problem is, in America, these are rarities so they come at a premium, and the poor get priced out after several years. Hope VI has been very successful.
I *personally* know real estate developers who would build mixed-income more if they could, but the cost of construction is prohibitive.
Studies have shown you can make a new development 15% low-income units and it will not hurt the price of the high-income units.

In the old days we used to build a servant’s quarters in the backyard or something. But now suburbs have outlawed building additional dwelllings on the property, so the maids have to live somewhere else, buy a car, and drive in rush-hour traffic.

Honestly dude I’ve been to San Francisco several times and they’re really nice to the homeless. Like how are you going to use the most liberal city in the country as an example of mistreating the homeless.

When you get white people moving into poorer areas in the city, you get poor living with the wealthy. This should be what you want, since you’re complaining about segregation. But you’re also complaining about the rich moving into poor areas. You also talk about minorities moving to the ‘burbs and to me this is a good thing; they’re moving out of bad neighborhoods.
>>
Nathaniel Brunningsterk - Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:30:52 EST E015zI+P No.209270 Reply
>>209269

SF is nice to the homeless? I'm from the West coast. I was a homeless tweaker in SF and LA and generally all over California. I've talked to homeless people from more gritty cities in the East coast and said cops generally overlook them.

I've dealt with sweeps of parks, in which cops with flash lights wake up, harrass you, and cite you for sleeping in public. They have units meant to keep loiters out. They clear encampments at gun point. In Seattle they have anti homeless spikes on benches. I spent my time in and out of jail in SF.

Oakland is rough and the cops are dangerous but I wasnt stopped there as much. Being homeless in SF means being questioned and approached at least twice a day. When I first got evicted it wasn't like that but in the mid 2000s.

Why so many apologists for capitalism on a /PSS/. I don't want rich people moving next to poor people unless it means those poor people can have all their shit.
>>
Molly Nicklefield - Sun, 03 Jun 2018 06:25:18 EST pcWJKJHj No.209271 Reply
>>209270

OK pinko criminal scum. You and your communist friends are greatly outnumbered in the USA and most of America wouldn't care if all commies got locked up. Speed induced paranoi about a capitalist police state useful idiot
>>
Polly Blogglehen - Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:06:17 EST AwbVlekG No.209272 Reply
>>209270
You have veered way off-topic with your posts dude. You didn’t even try to keep it about transit.
Transit accomplishes a great amount of social justice while spurring business development. It makes a lot of sense which is probably why it’s so controversial in America.
>>
Molly Nicklefield - Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:43:35 EST pcWJKJHj No.209273 Reply
>>209272

Communists don't want infrastructure. Look what they do in Europe. Burning, looting, hurting patriots, supporting Islamic white genocide.
>>
Eliza Mirringshit - Mon, 04 Jun 2018 18:29:19 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209281 Reply
>>209274
Stop. Spamming. The. Same. Shit. In. Every. Thread. You. Far. Right. Nazi. Turd.
>>
Sidney Dudgechidging - Mon, 04 Jun 2018 19:59:37 EST dpFcLaUw No.209282 Reply
>>209274

Ever find it ironic that "anarchists" cough cough just commies conning idiots are Europe's biggest national security threat second to only Islam. It's almost like they're in bed together and their open borders nonsense is a way to destroy Europe.

Think about it. These people always wanted European nations to fail. In Spain they hailed "death to God and the nation" and Franco heroicially put them in their places.
>>
Jarvis Hittingbutch - Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:07:49 EST dpFcLaUw No.209283 Reply
>>209282

Inb4 hurrr durr nice statistics. Hahahaha go look at Interpol's threat list. It's all medeterianian violent commies and the islamics those dirty southern euro commies allow to flow into the border
>>
Barnaby Boddlechire - Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:49:57 EST AwbVlekG No.209284 Reply
I hope non-Americans can see the situation in this thread here perfectly.

A simple discussion of transit modes besides the car devolves QUICKLY into conspiracy theories of communism vs. capitalism, neither of which have to do with transit. Now you know why American infrastructure is stuck in 1950.
>>
Graham Snodstock - Tue, 05 Jun 2018 22:55:02 EST vms6yrtd No.209285 Reply
>>209284

Lmao mass transit has nothing to do with the economy? Nothing in this society is benign. Stop drinking the flouride you liberal twat.
>>
Thomas Mondlehet - Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:21 EST xflefAjS No.209286 Reply
I think american cities grew with cars mostly, so they are good for cars. big asian or euro cities were built with horses and bicycles and shit. so they're more compact as a foundation. that's why mass transit works in those places.
>>
Clara Turveywater - Wed, 06 Jun 2018 19:50:52 EST t87tpTXY No.209289 Reply
Trains got fucked. Niggas had to build tracks, and cars, and pay for police, insurance, and medical niggas, and everything else. With cars, we pay for the cars, and we pay for the roads, we pay for the insurance, and we pay for the police and EMTs, and then we pay for the roads again via toll booths. That's what allowed cars to overtake trains. Come visit us on /his/ some time for more exciting discussion.
>>
Ebenezer Blythegold - Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:33:23 EST VhdWon+z No.209569 Reply
>>209223

OP i'm gonna be honest here- you must either be just a dink. a big ol' dink. or you're not actually from the United States nor have you ever been here. 325 million people we're talking about- if you're talking about intra-state? sure, there's actually plenty of mass transits available in densely populated centers.... if you're talking about interstate travel. no you're being stupid. the only think that's basically cost effective, on the ground, is trains, and even those are being used less and less versus air travel.

The United States isn't Europe we can't just string trolleys everywhere and expect to cover the millions of square miles of open space whereas some European countries are so minuscule that they might as well be carpeted
>>
Phineas Gaggleway - Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:29:22 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209570 Reply
>>209569
Russia is fucking big too, and they have good mass transit in Russia.
>>
Graham Honkintirk - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 15:18:26 EST ZGNH5R/T No.209581 Reply
We'd probably still be using trains if the auto industry didn't leverage tax dollars against them. With trains, the train folk pay for the trains, the tracks, the fuel, the insurance, the policing, the repairs and upkeep.

With automobiles, we pay for the cars, the roads, the police, the insurance, the fuel, and then extra shit through toll booths and tax subsidies.
>>
Ian Grimfoot - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:33:39 EST EoUIC8nL No.209582 Reply
>>209569
I’m not exaggerating. This is the most uninformed post I’ve ever seen.
>>
Ian Grimfoot - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:35:59 EST EoUIC8nL No.209583 Reply
>>209570
Sweden is more sparsely populated than the US.
China is building a giant awesome high speed rail network.

Fortunately we have private high speed rail companies here. If republicans ever stop blocking them we will get a high speed rail network. It’ll be a mix of public and private lines.

Richard branson just bought the one in Florida and there expanding to orlando.
>>
Cyril Gooddock - Fri, 29 Mar 2019 06:52:27 EST H3AbUXPL No.209638 Reply
>>209225
That's a lot of words for
>Either we have public transportation or we have no intrastate trade
It's not that hard to set up city-wide public transportation and then work from there. I have no faith in the federal or state governments though.
>>
Betsy Monkintene - Sun, 07 Apr 2019 15:33:45 EST NsFksadU No.209644 Reply
Let China have their high speed rail, who cares? We don't need any more rail in the US. Expensive as shit, takes up precious right of way, inflexible, very limited geographic reach, every linear foot of rail requires high maintenance all the time, prone to tragic crashes and derailments. Worst of all it's unnecessary. We have these modern things called planes now.
>>
Eugene Tillingman - Sun, 14 Apr 2019 08:03:25 EST MW9ZOdhQ No.209645 Reply
>>209644
Planes use wildly more fuel than trains do. and trains are better at moving freight than planes. we gotta look out for our carbon emissions.
>>
Clara Bapperstock - Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:03:01 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209646 Reply
>>209645
Planes use more energy now, but it has a lot to do with the way we get them up to speed. Trains can take a really long time to get up to speed, but planes don't have that luxury. At actual cruising velocity, (under equal head/tail wind conditions) a plane uses less energy because it loses less momentum to friction, weight for weight (of course, you also need to calculate how much of the weight of your vehicle is cargo capacity vs. load bearing, but that goes back to the first point.)
My point being that the thing that would be better than both would be some sort of aerial train, that either was able to take a long time to get to speed (maybe using subterranean runways or something) or alternatively is kept always continuously in flight so it only loses energy to drag and not to changes in acceleration.

I know that's not a practical solution with current tech nor has anything to do with the real substance of the thread.
>>
Cyril Parrygold - Sat, 27 Apr 2019 01:25:19 EST NsFksadU No.209658 Reply
>>209645
We already have a rail network for freight. It works fine. And any extra fuel that might be used for air travel vs. trane is well worth it, considering the speed and geographic reach of an airplane. Trane technology has a long way to go before it can catch up. As long as it's the same old steel wheels rolling on a track that costs a billion dollars a mile to build and maintain, it should be a no-go.
>>
Jack Wepperson - Wed, 01 May 2019 03:59:26 EST agUXn1jU No.209664 Reply
>>209223
Because mass transit is a conspiracy in a country as large and diverse as ours. Sure China but they are living in the fucking cyberpunk future literally today
>>
Jack Sommlenad - Mon, 10 Jun 2019 08:16:27 EST NPZLHuqu No.209687 Reply
>>209223
I don't think anyone thinks it's a conspiracy. Historically, yes, the car manufacturers (primarily GM) lobbied to make sure LA didn't get a good public transit system (underground) to ensure the new and budding city would be one where citizens used cars, but for the most part, in most of the country, it's just not practical. In places like NYC, Boston, DC, etc, most people do use public transportation, because it's easier, cheaper, more convenient, etc. But a significant portion of the US lives in areas where just driving to the grocery store is an hour endeavor, and you need a car to get any and every where. I live in a remote area like that, and I need to have a car, and realistically, need a snowmobile or something for winters, too. Even when I lived in the suburbs, there's no way public transportation would have worked. It's a metro thing only .
>>
Archie Gingerson - Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:03:57 EST ypesdWZV No.209688 Reply
>>209687
Suburban public transport works fine everywhere else. There's definitely some lobbying, but maybe culture and attitudes and just shitty planning.

It does also require a large city. Once you're past a certain size you can have good links everywhere, even the burbs. But if it's a place that only squeaks 6 figures if you're liberal with the definition of it's borders then yeah, you get a bus every 15 minutes, but half won't turn up and then you'll get stuck in traffic and might as well have walked. Going from where I live to Nottingham where I could get a tram anywhere with a 10 minute wait was pretty refreshing and never more than 10 minutes walk at either end to where I wanted to go either. The bigger cities get even smoother. Utrecht was good, London transport is marred by Londoners but otherwise is a dream.
>>
Beatrice Bluckledock - Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:12:58 EST Pr3KJWoH No.209691 Reply
>>209688

yo man, i am totally pro-public transit. in fact proximity to public transportation is one of the most influential factors of a person's economic success in life. anyway, comparing UK to US in this discussion is absurd. size is so very very disproportionately different. population distribution and density not even comparable
>>
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:14:17 EST LFOJs4BT No.209693 Reply
>>209688
You really have no idea just how vast the USA is do you?
>>
Fanny Fuckleforth - Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:53:02 EST 7GcVuhMy No.209694 Reply
>>209693
The true but bullshit answer: No one really understands it. Can you actually visualise a whole mile in the same detail you can see what's in front of you? A whole county? State or country? Of course not. Everything is just compressed so we have an idea that we visual in terms of multiples of something we understand. Who really understands the size of the US? Birds maybe.

The important bit:
The huge space in between the cities doesn't change the logistics of getting around them.
>>
A_Wizard !cMZsY.BCnU!!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:12:33 EST LFOJs4BT No.209695 Reply
1560795153626.jpg -(36062B / 35.22KB, 640x432) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209694
I traveled a twice the length of the brittish isles, weekly, for two years+. You try doing that on public transit like a little bitch. The car is freedom.
>>
Charlotte Sembledudge - Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:40:14 EST ZB8s5u4D No.209696 Reply
>>209695
No one cares about your and stupid life decisions. Thankfully most people would find the idea of traveling that for work unless their work is actually transport related, to be awful. And rightly. They'd move to the nearest affordable town or city and commute something in low double figures.

Normal people might work in the next city over though. If they can get the 30 miles in 20 minutes with another 15 minutes on local services at each end that's no worse than spending 20 minutes driving and 30 minutes sat in congestion (and that assumes you somehow have parking right where you need to be when you get there and don't need to spend another 15 minutes on the local services anyway). It's also safer.
>>
Cyril Dartstone - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:26:01 EST MvfmiYjd No.209702 Reply
>>209695
>I traveled a twice the length of the brittish isles, weekly, for two years+. You try doing that on public transit like a little bitch.
That would actually be incredibly easy to do on the actual British Isles, and probably a load cheaper and less stressful, too.

Because of, you know, public transportation.
>>
Ebenezer Crablingtidge - Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:57:17 EST htO9/ZFZ No.209703 Reply
1561078637884.png -(875194B / 854.68KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209695
Baltimore to Boston: 404 miles: 6-7.5 hours via car
London to Glasgow: 412 mines: 4.5 hours via train

7.5 hours/UK x 2 UK/trip x 50 trips/year x 2 years = 1500 hours or 62.5 days of your life pissed away.
>>
Edwin Sanningham - Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:50:11 EST JyDTI0YA No.209705 Reply
>>209243
>cheering this on when a massive population of conservative farmers are going to go bust and move into your city as soon as the bomb drops
>>
William Girrygold - Sat, 29 Jun 2019 18:05:31 EST P+Yf9cWM No.209706 Reply
>>209696

I would rather take public transport even if it's longer. This is time you can read a book, browse the internet, or look at nudes your exes sent you. This frankly isn't possible when you're driving.
>>
Molly Connerspear - Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:50:46 EST htO9/ZFZ No.209707 Reply
>>209705
Mass absorption of the lumpenproletariat into the proletariat will accelerate a proletarian revolution. Whatever their reactionary tendencies may be; the material conditions of their proletarian status will shift them to leftist politics.
>>
Cornelius Blatherville - Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:58:34 EST JyDTI0YA No.209708 Reply
>>209707
>he types as the proud boys stage another counter rally in Portland
nb
>>
Martin Weddlehetch - Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:46:46 EST htO9/ZFZ No.209710 Reply
>>209708
fascist numbers are dwindling the problem is those that are remained stay embolden.
>>
Charles Bunnerfotch - Sat, 06 Jul 2019 07:55:35 EST u+iaeV9p No.209713 Reply
>>209707
>their proletarian status will shift them to leftist politics

Right, just like what happened in the Weimar Republic
>>
Augustus Dissledock - Sat, 06 Jul 2019 21:53:42 EST nQTynWUg No.209715 Reply
Aren't most American cities designed with cars in mind, while European cities were already established before the car got invented?
>>
Edward Guddlenog - Fri, 12 Jul 2019 01:40:26 EST JyDTI0YA No.209722 Reply
>>209715
Most major American cities were established before the car too. Public transit services in American cities were by and large on par with their European equivalents up until WW2. Post-war policy changes plus the influence of the automobile lobby encouraged city planners to go on a spree of highway building, neighborhood demolitions, and road widening programs that radically altered the landscape of American cities, in addition to cutting funding for public transit systems outside of ultra dense cities like New York. This continued unabated until the 1970s freeway revolts. Most of America's major infrastructure still dates from that era, which is why crumbling infrastructure is such a potent topic (and a difficult one for policy makers to handle due to the massive cost associated with infrastructure redevelopment) today.
>>
Augustus Blythelock - Wed, 14 Aug 2019 02:01:14 EST vI2KG7aE No.209742 Reply
>>209223
I hate cars and I live here. Maybe I'm salty because I never had my drivers license

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.