Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wheel Dividends: Europe's Clues to Breaking Car Dependence
Bremen, Germany - The self-congratulations by bailed-out American car companies are hard to take seriously in a continent of relatively Lilliputian cars, amazing trains, and almost perfect public transit.
Chrysler last week claimed it may break even this year. General Motors boasted of repaying billions in government loans. GM CEO Ed Whitacre said, "I think the government and us, the taxpayers, made a terrific investment, and I think it's going to pay off big time.''
The payoff is not yet visible. GM promises the electric Volt, but it currently has only one car, the Malibu, among 52 wagons, sedans, and small cars cited by Consumer Reports for high fuel efficiency. Chrysler has none. Both companies still dominate the ratings for worst fuel efficiency from subcompacts to SUVs. Ford, which did not take a bailout, remains the only Detroit competitor in fuel efficient vehicles with its Ford Fusion hybrid. Fittingly, Ford is expecting a $1 billion first-quarter profit.
While America spends $82 billion hoping bankrupt companies retool for President Obama's 35-mile-per-gallon standards by 2016, other countries are already into high gear getting cars off the street completely.
In two-and-a-half weeks in Stockholm, Copenhagen, and Bremen, I did not witness a single downtown traffic jam. Part of that is due to the cost of gasoline, up to $8 a gallon. But it is also the alternatives. In Stockholm, buses were frequent and comfortable. Subways in Stockholm and Copenhagen were so smooth and quiet, they made our Boston T seem like a rattletrap. Bus service is so dreadful in many US cities that only the poor climb aboard.
Not only are long-distance European trains blindingly fast, but my wife and I were flabbergasted when our Copenhagen-to-Hamburg express slowed down to enter what we thought was a tunnel. Then everyone was told to get out and go up on deck. The train had been loaded onto a ferry for a 45-minute sea crossing.
The most memorable sight was the most simple: The bicycle. During weekday rush hours, hundreds of people pedal in business attire or with backpacks, groceries, and construction-job tools. Obese people were hardly in sight.
In Copenhagen, at the end of a conference dinner, a middle-age woman rose up at 10:30 p.m. to bid adieu and said she was riding her bike home. At the end of a gathering in Bremen at midnight, a man in his 20s said he was riding his bike the half-hour home. The 65-year-old mother of our hosts in Bremen rides her bike from her house a third of a mile away to see her three grandchildren. Children on cycles are everywhere.
This is no accident. Copenhagen was car-clogged a half century ago, shocked into a fresh vision by the 1970s energy crisis and recession. Urban planners in Copenhagen have installed more than 200 miles of bicycle lanes. Stockholm says it has built more than 460 miles. In these cities, as well as Bremen, bike lanes either share large, wide sidewalks with pedestrians or are separate, dedicated tracks adjacent to sidewalks. Today, the city of Copenhagen says 37 percent of work and school commutes are done by bike. Stockholm says 150,000 of its 810,000 residents bike regularly to work.
This is unlike Boston and Cambridge, where lanes are painted on streets almost as a dare, sandwiching cyclists in between traffic on the left and parked cars on the right, where doors can swing open at any moment. Only the most nimble or fearless of cyclists use them at rush hour. The lanes are a largely vacant symbol of why less than 1 percent of commutes in the United States are done by bike, according to the Census.
That is why the latest auto news is so dull. Instead of throwing billions at uninspired car companies, cities should be reconstructed so that you will want to leave the car in the garage. The real headline is when grandma feels safe to pedal down the street to see her grandkids.
- Posted in
52 Comments so far
Show AllIn NYC, there are also some "lanes painted on some of the streets" for bicycles -- for those "nimblest and daring" of cyclists, just like there are in Cambridge and Boston. Since moving to NYC in 1996, I've often wondered why the city isn't designed better so that more people could bicycle to work, etc. However, unlike most cities in the U.S., NYC is walkable, if you budget your time correctly. We do have decent public transportation, but once you've been to Europe and Scandinavia, ours doesn't look, or travel, nearly as well. BTW, the Paris Metro system is so organized and easy to navigate, that even someone who isn't fluent in French will NOT get lost.
In Lincoln, NE, where I used to live, they have built some wonderful biking and walking/running paths, but during the week they are empty and although the paths are beautiful, they are isolated so that I often didn't feel very safe using them. On weekends, they are well-used, though, and filled to the brim with people. In most cities, with most work schedules it's almost impossible to count on public transportation to get to and from work. And, children in the suburbs can't walk to school -- for the most part, there are no sidewalks. If children walk, they either have to walk in the streets, or on someone's grass. We all know how prideful U.S.A.ans are about their lawns!
During the 1970s, when the energy crisis hit the U.S., I really thought, then, that this country, our elected officials and leaders, would make better decisions for us, we the people. The leaders in Scandinavia and Europe did -- for their citizens. Today, greed and ego rule, along with corporate financial interests, this country and I have no idea how to change that into something else, something we can believe in and to which we the people can contribute.
I have read in more than one article that Obama and his Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have been over in Spain talking to businesses in Spain about manufacturing high-speed light rail for us, here in the U.S. Therefore, concluding from this one single piece of information, this administration -- the Obama administration, you know the one -- the one that promised "hope and change" -- clearly is NOT interested in helping the unemployed here in this country. Otherwise, this administration would be figuring out, promptly, how to convert factories in the U.S. so that we, here in the U.S., could manufacture our own high-speed light rail systems, and put people back to work, many of whom have been out of work, without decent jobs, for decades.
Why isn't Michael Moore -- he has name recognition -- leading a real movement in Flint, and in other devastated communities in Michigan? Dennis Kucinich could be organizing his constituents in Cleveland into a movement. Possibly, they are and I don't know about it. Are the unions talking about this issue? Of course, as Obama also promised -- transparency in his actions -- well, enough said!
I hear that public transportation in NYC is far better than the public transportation out here in the Washington DC area. If you live within DC, it is great but if you live in the outer suburbs, it is useless and too pricey.
Public transportation in NYC is outstanding. The subway, along with the walkability means that you really don't need anything else, whether car or bike. The subway in NYC might not be shiny and sexy, but it works outstandingly well.
I've taken subways in about a dozen different cities in the U.S. and the world, and the advantages of New York's subway are that it runs 24/7 and the ride costs the same whether you take it for one stop or the A-line from the northern tip of Manhattan to Far Rockaway.
But I'm afraid that its price advantage will be eroded in the near future, as the MTA's budget woes will necessitate some fare hikes.
The same thing is true in the Boston-Cambridge-Somerville area, only the public transportation right IN this urban ring, especially the Green Line, is just about as bad and pricey as the public transportation available to the outer-lying suburbs.
I knew it would not take long for someone to try to blame the transportation mess on Obama. If you are keeping count: Obama is now responsible for the financial system collapse, he is responsible for the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is responsible for lack of decent health insurance, bad breath, disease and poverty. Oh, yeah, he blew up the volcano in Iceland.
"Obama is now responsible for the financial system collapse"
He chose to cave in on TARP and continue Bush's policies.
"he is responsible for the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan"
There also, he chose to own and continue the mess.
"he is responsible for lack of decent health insurance, bad breath, disease and poverty"
He signed the worst health care "reform" package which now deserves to be called Obamacare. Tell us which is worse. No health care or being forced to purchase defective "insurance" and call it "health care". Obama refused to put single payer on the table and from a recent conversation I overheard from a worker related to a federal official's staff, Obama is actually proud of keeping single payer off the table and I am not joking.
"Oh, yeah, he blew up the volcano in Iceland."
No one here has accused him of that.
Listen chump. Obama is doing very little on funding public transportation, nothing on the Big Auto guzzlers, and nothing on jobs other than making it clear that only federal jobs are important to him. That is dishonest of this administration and you would say the same thing if Mccain/Palin were in his place.
I don't see the problem with a Spanish company setting up a factory here to build high speed rail. Of course any US company should be free to bid for contracts also, but I'm guessing high speed rail is a pretty specialized business with a lot of knowledge built up by the various companies that have been solving this problem for decades in Europe. I don't see GM competing anytime soon (witness their frankly pathetic peformance with the Volt so far). I'm not uniformly pro free trade (e.g., I've got a big problem with all the Chinese made products that are imported which too often reek of toxic smells and/or are of poor quality), but I appreciate that other countries often buy our airplanes, and it seems OK if we buy locomotive designs from other countries especially if they are built here. I'm not willing to wait that much longer until US companies are competent in this area. We need good intercity rail yesterday.
Dara Parsavand
I neglected to note that GM has experience with rail - from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-ross/turning-swords-into-high_b_442038.html
General Electric and General Motors have extensive experience in freight rail systems. Why can't they turn their attention to billions in profit building our peace-time infrastructure? - Obama state of the union speech.
I'm still skeptical, but using the Volt as an example of their experience with electric powertrains was a poor choice.
Dara Parsavand
Manhattan is definitely walkable (I once walked from 225 St. in The Bronx to 14 St. with stops along the way), and it didn't feel so far. But parts of Queens are less so due to a lack of a grid iron system there, making it easier to get lost. I haven't been back to Brooklyn or Staten Island recently to access their walkability.
I didn't think Paris' Metro was a piece of cake, as I always needed to look at my map when I took it. But at least I didn't get hopelessly lost in it. Having taken New York and London's subways, I was probably well-equipped to try any city's subway system.
Splendid article by Mr. Jackson. His essay echoes the views expressed by Steven Hill in his chapter entitled Revolution on Wheels in his most well written book Europe's Promise: Why The European Way Is The Best Hope In An Insecure Age. The information put forth by both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hill certainly begs the question if America can ever put aside its feeling of innate superiority by finally realizing that it would have a lot a lot to gain if it allowed itself to emulate the successful ideas put forth by many European countries such as its superior transportation system, universal health care, etc.
I can't abandon my car for many purposes and neither can most Americans. Take where I live: Northern Michigan. Bicycling is not a good option during the four months of wintry roads. This is not the Netherlands after all. The warm cab of an automobile is to be preferred over twenty minute waits at bus stops when the wind is blowing cold off Lake Michigan.
Then there is the auto for touring. When you drive, you get to choose when you leave, how long you drive, the speed at which you drive, where you will stop for food, and the route you take. All of those decisions are removed when you take a train. People in the early years of the twentieth century wrote about these things and they hold true today.
What about the auto for economy? Which is cheaper, driving a family of four to a destination fifty miles from home and back or paying for rail tickets? I won't do the math, but you can see who wins out.
Carrying things? You buy fifty pounds of compost and you lug it onto a train? No, probably not.
Commuting? Perhaps that is the arena rail and biking win out. But wouldn't it be better to live within walking distance to where one works or goes to school? That is the best solution of all.
The auto is not going to disappear in the United States. It may morph into an electric powered vehicle or a vehicle powered by biofuel or both, but it will not go away. It is too practical and too much fun.
drosera
I beg to differ. You are almost making it seem that there is absolutely no advantage with public transportation though you do grudgingly admit that "perhaps" commuting may be helpful with a rail and biking system. A couple of months ago I broke my leg. I am still recuperating from that mishap. My wife and I live in a rural area in the Pacific Northwest. My wife was dependent upon me to drive her into work to a neighboring town about 16 miles away. Since my accident my wife has had to scramble to find someone to drive her into work [she now gets up at 4:30 each work day in order to now catch her ride] and at getting to the bank and the post office which is more than a mile away from our house. The point of all this is that she would not have had to have gone through this ordeal if there were a decent rail and bus system which could taken her into a larger town and to her place of employment.
I do not believe that anyone is saying that the auto should disappear. But it certainly would be very helpful for those of us who live outside large towns if more efficient means of transportation were provided for those who desire to eschew the daily rigors of driving as well as providing an alternative to the automobile which, in rural areas, is the only way to get from point A to point B.
"I can't abandon my car for many purposes and neither can most Americans. Take where I live: Northern Michigan. Bicycling is not a good option during the four months of wintry roads. This is not the Netherlands after all. The warm cab of an automobile is to be preferred over twenty minute waits at bus stops when the wind is blowing cold off Lake Michigan."
Do you think it doesn't snow, heavily, in the Scandinavian countries?
Having lived in areas with lake effect snow, I agree a warm car is infinitely preferable to freezing to death in an open bus stop. But, the point of the article is that it does NOT have to be so. It does not have to be an either or choice between crappy buses and cars. You can improve the bus system. Improve the bus stops in Northern Michigan, in Western NY, etc.
"Then there is the auto for touring. When you drive, you get to choose when you leave, how long you drive, the speed at which you drive, where you will stop for food, and the route you take. All of those decisions are removed when you take a train. People in the early years of the twentieth century wrote about these things and they hold true today."
How often do people use their autos for touring? The point of the article isn't to completely eliminate the car.
"What about the auto for economy? Which is cheaper, driving a family of four to a destination fifty miles from home and back or paying for rail tickets? I won't do the math, but you can see who wins out."
No really, I can't. What about buses?
"Carrying things? You buy fifty pounds of compost and you lug it onto a train? No, probably not."
Again, how often do you go around lugging 50 lbs of stuff, unless it is part of your job. Once a week maybe?
"Commuting? Perhaps that is the arena rail and biking win out. But wouldn't it be better to live within walking distance to where one works or goes to school? That is the best solution of all."
Sure. That living within walking distance of where you work might be the best solution, doesn't make public transport and driving equally bad solutions. And most people don't have the option of the best solution.
"The auto is not going to disappear in the United States. It may morph into an electric powered vehicle or a vehicle powered by biofuel or both, but it will not go away. It is too practical and too much fun."
It hasn't disappeared in Europe either. NO one fun is advocating the complete elimination of cars.
BTW, I like driving. I like cars. But, it is hardly fun to drive around in traffic jams, in heavy traffic. Especially when most people who are driving, whether in heavy traffic or not, spend their time talking on the phone, or texting, or daydreaming. What was true in the early 1900s is NOT true today. There are far far more cars today. It is hardly fun to drive around in traffic jams. Nor is it practical either.
I agree that alternatives to driving are necessary, especially for the elderly, disabled, and the young. The present situation of single drivers piloting SUVs is not sustainable. But cars are--well--fun. Perhaps not in traffic jams during the commute, though. And I would be the first to encourage people to drop their cars for that purpose. But a drive in the country on bright spring day? Nothing like it. A family visit to Grandma's on Thanksgiving, two hundred miles away? The car is probably the best choice. I have been buried in research about the impact of early "automobiling" on American society. It wasn't all bad. At first, cars brought people together in a way trains did not. Travel was an adventure, a confrontation of machine, man, and nature. And the occasional smell of gas exhaust was better than horse manure. Add to that: autos are sexy besides. We can reduce the number of miles traveled in cars, but we cannot get rid of the cars themselves.
You know. I like the feeling of having people slaughtered in oil wars funded by my tax money. It's just such a rush of god-like power. That's why I'm glad people like you choose to drive everywhere in their own personal oil burners. Otherwise I'd have to. And I hate the damn things.
Cars do not imply the burning of oil. There are other ways to power them. Why not have photovoltaic cells on your garage to charge your car batteries?
Good response. When I moved to an more traditional walkable transit-served city neighborhood where I didn't need a car. It was positively liberating. I soon learned that nost of the time, a car is just a ball-and-chain.
Cars will remain the only practical transportation for rural use, but if someone is serious at minimizing carbon footprint, they shouldn't be living in out there unless required by their livlihood - i.e. farming, forestry, mining etc.
And as far as public transit, the ordinary bus remains the most affordable and fxexible way to expand public transit in most cities. Affluent suburban people really need to get over their hang-up over riding the bus - don't worry, the poor and dark-complected poeple on the bus don't bite. One of the endearing things about Pittsburgh is how it is one of the few US cities where well-off white poeple can be frequently seen riding riding the bus, eh Rockhill?
pjd412 states, with stunning arrogance, that "if someone is serious at minimizing carbon footprint, they shouldn't be living in [?] out there unless required by their livlihood [sic]..." It never seems to have occurred to this person with such an authoritative mindset that perhaps the reason why people like my wife and I would be living in our rural area is because at the time we were looking to buy a house some years ago, the house that we eventually selected was chosen because it was much more affordable than other comparable houses that were located at or near the city. Our washer and dryer and refrigerator are pretty efficient. We also especially liked this house because it has a little bit of land which enables my wife to work in the garden. That activity also has the extra benefit of helping to aid her with Parkinson's disease that she is afflicted with. One can still be shocked, even in this age where seemingly anything goes, at how quickly some people are in judging and condemning others.
Excuse me but not every suburban resident is affluent and if you would pay attention to the public bus scheduling in the suburban and rural areas, it would be clear that people there are given no convenient or flexible schedule and thus find it better to drive to work. Trust me, not all suburbanites are cars wonks.
maxpayne also brought up an interesting point about teleworking. That could be an interesting idea for us outer residents. A rural resident working remotely in I.T could be interesting.
After I saw pictures and videos of the Chinese carrying heavy loads of all kinds on their bikes and "trikes" (tricycles with a cargo bed), sometimes over difficult terrain, I became even less impressed by SUVs and pickup trucks.
Unfortunately, such scenes are becoming rare in China as it seeks to become the world's largest auto market (if it hasn't already). China still carries plenty of people on trains and is developing alternative fuels, but its love affair with the internal combustion engine is undeniable. All that paving over of its vegetation and oil deals overseas are mainly for the car.
I absolutely disagree.
It might be true that a car is on the plus side when it comes to some things, but it is very possible to live a very comfortable life without having a car. At least in Europe that is. Sitting now here in Australia which is modeled on the American Suburban Dream this article almost makes me weep.
You can get anytime anywhere on foot, bus, subway or train pretty much everywhere in Europe. You can go on wonderful holidays on a train, you can go wherever you want to, whenever you want. You can even walk to this eatery you fear you might miss if you take the train - you can walk there or you take a bus or a taxi.
With a little help of the Metro you can see all of Paris and it doesn't even cost much. Nowadays you can also hire a bike. Big advantage: car drivers in Europe don't view cyclists as something that has to be removed from the streets - by force if needs be -, an impression you often get here.
If the bus or subway go every 5 or 10 minutes cold weather (happens in Europe) isn't that bad.
You walk to shops or you cycle there like my 68 year old mother. My father (68, well-to-do doctor) cycles to work and takes a train to seminars, symposiums etc.
If you fly in holidays you take public transport to the airport and don't need to worry about your car in the carpark. Not to mention the amount of money it will cost you to park it there. Airports all over Europe have train stations. In Frankfurt your train arrives at the bottom of the escalators and at the top you check in.
You can even furnish your home without having a car: you simply walk or take public transport to the furniture shop and have the stuff delivered.
Yes, sometimes public transport is late or something breaks down or a car parks on the tram tracks, but a car can break down as well or you're stuck in a traffic jam so...
As for the economy of things... Hundreds of people on one train or hundreds of cars? If you worry only about your own hip pocket- well... Besides there are good deals on train trips and while living and working in Cologne I had a monthly public transport ticket. Trust me, it was much cheaper than a car. Especially if you consider the parking costs (that is if you could find a car park in a big European city; btw the car has to be parked somewhere when not in use as well - there are only so many garages, car parks and verges in a town).
The car won't disappear in Europe either but in most places it isn't a necessity and I guess that's the point - smart urban development without unnecessary sprawl.
The car companies are not the only problems. The employers of almost all businesses are also responsible for monetarily forcing employees to drive all the way to work. For example, I live in a suburb that has skyrocketed in terms of the costs of living but has come back a bit after the economic downturn. I would have limited choices as to where to work. One job offer was 3 miles away from my home but offered only $25,000 per year, not enough to keep up with the rising costs of living. Another job offer was 30 miles away and traffic congestion (even when my husband and I took HOV) was and still is a living hell just to get there and back but offered $35,000 per year to help cope up with the costs of living. Out here in Loudoun County, all we have is one bus and its scheduling is limited. Attempts to get my local officials to address this concern have proven futile.
Despite being stuck between a rock and a hard place, my husband and I decided to try something new. With some pressure and luck, both of us were able to force a couple of local businesses to avoid closing their doors and going to government contracts. Look around your area for struggling small businesses and if you think you can contribute something positive to them, go for it. Pressuring small businesses to think small but positive is much easier than trying to pressure a lousy politician to listen. Both of us can drive shorter distances and save a couple of seats for the metro travelers.
Or, one could turn your statement around, and ask why you are living in the suburbs, with such a high cost of living, so far away from your job?
What do you propose an employer should do? Move to where you live? What if other employees live in another suburb, on the other side of town? Or would you prefer that employer not hire anyone that doesn't live close to their place of work?
The obvious solution is for employers to move back into the traditional central business districts where frequent public transit is feasable along numerous radial routes. Instead, employers have been moving moved to far flung, scattered suburban "office parks" and "industrial parks", while the urban center depopulates and hollows out. Midwest and western cities and towns have followed have pattern with disasterous effects.
I realize that at this point, most white USAns have been seriously brainwashed into the suburban culture where they go into culture shock unless they are in the confortable familiarity of wide strips, parking lots and big corporate chains. Many people - especially young people are even fearful of walking down a sidewalk into a small family-owned shop or restaurant.
Where I am right now, in Beckley, WV, the downtown is abandoned, and everything - even public services, are all located in malls and strip shopping centers and big-boxes, on Hwy 19 by-pass a place that is completely hostile to walking and bicycling or public transit. No democratic consumer-clamor created this. It has to have been a deliberate act to maximize car use and to replace small family businesses with corporate chains.
"The obvious solution is for employers to move back into the traditional central business districts where frequent public transit is feasable along numerous radial routes."
That has been going on in the Washington Metro area and traffic congestion is a mess and the metro system is sloppier and more costly. I know the suburban culture stinks and I was very upset helplessly watching Loudoun County getting turned from a beautiful rural county into suburban sprawl but I'll cling to Loudoun over Washington.
I hear you on WV and I wouldn't be surprised.
The congestion problems in DC are a result of suburb-to-suburb commuting and errands - I-95 and US 1 through PW County is solid congestion even through the weekends.
It is not commuting into DC that is the problem - few suburbanites in that area work in DC anymore.
Don't listen to the corporate media. WMATA is a fine syatem, although the metro fares are a bit high.
I do know that one of the secrets of Pittsburgh's lack of traffic congestion is that much of it's employment is still concentrated in the very compact "golden traingle" where more than 50% of all workers get to work via bus or light rail.
Coming from Sterling, WMATA is too far to be considered feasible. Going through traffic jam hell all the way to there is not worth the trouble. My husband and I were better off going I66 HOV all the way when we had to work in Arlington/DC. I don't know what the corporate media said about WMATA since I don't bother watching the corporate news much but here is my take. From Vienna to West Falls Church, it fills up all the way and by the time the train is at Ballston, packing bigger crowds in is a living hell all the way to Rosslyn. The crowd would taper off after L'Enfant Plaza. Inside DC, there are more buses (WMATA especially) available but outside of DC, there are fewer stops even in Arlington and if the bus was too late to stop at that stop due to congestion, it would often skip it unless there were at least 4 people waiting at the booth. I would expect Pittsburgh to be far better than this. I might not mind taking Metro but until the orange line gets extended to Dulles/Washington Airport, I won't bother even if I do end up working for some company that will pay for my fares which I have no interest in these days. I know nothing about light rails but if it is supposed to be cost effective and make metro travel more convenient, I guess it will be a pipedream to see WMATA with them.
The traffic congestion in Fairfax County and sometimes Eastern Loudoun County even on the weekends can be frustrating. The same can be true of Washington and Arlington. The timing of WMATA on the weekends is too stretched out. I'm sorry to show my frustration with WMATA but that is my experience and the last time I tried it out was early 2009. If there have been any significant improvements to justify price hiking, then please accept my apologies.
"why you are living in the suburbs, with such a high cost of living, so far away from your job?"
That is easy to answer. I would have to pay $500 more per month to rent a half-baked decent apartment in Arlington and far more in Washington than I do on my monthly mortgage out here in Loudoun County. FYI, it was a rural county until Dubya turned Northern Virginia into a sprawling hell ! My husband and I still have some sweet memories out here to keep us living here and we are not about to leave just to rent some dingy overpriced apartment.
Here's a dirty secret about employers. They set up their company headquarters out here in the suburbs and leave the traveling burden on their employees. Most people who live in Fairfax County actually end up working in Arlington and DC or at best in Eastern Fairfax County. It gets worse for those of us living in the exurbs of Prince William County and Loudoun. If employers, small or big business wise, want to be nothing more than greedy pigs contracting shamelessly to the federal government, then off we go torturing ourselves in very congested traffic. On the other hand, I like companies that put the true value of what they want to stand for over profiteering.
Of course you are correct that not everyone will not be lucky to live nearby but a lot of this is preventable. I have worked with people in DC coming all the way from West Virginia and I completely sympathize with them given the state's utter poverty along with growing coal mining tragedies. Ok, I know it's complicated but I still think some messups could be prevented.
Good point. Far too many communities do NOT understand that for a Community to be successful, you need housing for ALL wage classes. It does no good to live in a community where the average home is 800k and then expect people to commute to work in that community at an 8 dollar an hour job.
We have to push down the gap in wealth tremendously amd then build communities that offer local employment and businesses.
Everyone lives within blocks of where they work and where they shop. No one is "priced out" of such a locale. Why is that so hard?
Hi allirish...your comment reminded me of a remark by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy - himself considered of the 'conservative' stripe - in a speech in columbia university in new york some weeks ago:
he remarked about the "health care debate" in the USA and said, pointedly:
"WE in europe - (note the 'WE') - whenever we watch the American debate on health care shake our heads in DISBELIEF...this is something we had already settled a long time ago".
tells you how backward the USA is - which has the GALL to try to impose and export its self-appointed 'advancement' as a civilization - often at the point of a gun.
teddy
Very well said. Your reference of what French president Sarkozy said at Columbia is also reminiscent of what Sarkozy said in Steven Hill's most relevant book Europe's Promise: Why Europe Is The Best Hope In An Insecure Age where Hill quotes Sakozy stating in a speech that:
"Laissez-faire is finished. The all powerful market that always knows best is finished. Self-regulation as a way of solving all problems is finished."
As you correctly imply, one has to wonder if America's leaders will ever admit that the United States could benefit enormously by emulating the successful policies that have been implemented in European countries such as universal health care, generous retirement, paid parental leave, paid sick leave, affordable child care, monthly kiddie stipends, free or inexpensive university education, generous vacations, decent unemployment benefits, job training, elder care, affordable housing, heating subsidies in the winter, etc. Unfortunately it seems rather doubtful if the Democrats and the Republicans will ever renounce the idea of American exceptionalism.
As soon as I read this article, I looked up the Ford Fusion to see what kind of mileage it gets. What a piece of crap. 23 - 34 mpg.
If you only drove it at its best mileage, which is impossible, you could get 34 mpg. So, generally, the average mpg for this marvel of stupidity would work out to somewhere in the area of 27-28 mpg. If I am not mistaken, the current STANDARD in China is higher.
For several decades now, there have been Japanese vehicles which, when averaged out between highest and lowest mpg have been around 40 mpg. I know from experience.
Our most recent vehicle (since 2005) is a four door, with very good cargo capacity, can seat five people, and we have never had any out of the ordinary maintenance.
This nation of the Unbelievably Stupid and Arrogant needs to change its motto from "e plurabis unum" to "Duh, You mean my dick isn't my brain?"
What about teleworking as in working remotely from home where possible? Public transportation is great but if more people were given the chance to work remotely, the transportation woes would be resolved. The great programmers who went through all this trouble to design such technologies have yet to see their efforts being appreciated. The year is 2010 and more businesses should be doing this already but they're not.
What the author Derrick Jackson failed to mention were the two main factors that contributed to Europe becoming an example of mass transit at work.
The first was governmental, European countries tend be centralized, top-down places where career bureaucrats stay in office no matter who is power and have real power. Thus when a decision is made to go to mass transit, that is it.
The second is population density, Europe has a lot more people per square kilometer than North America. Where it is possible to drive through large sections of North America and not see another person for hours on end, that simply does not happen in Europe, as there are people and buildings almost everywhere. Thus the expensive facet of bridging gaps with no one at all rarely occurs, as almost every place has population that needs to be served by transit.
"The first was governmental, European countries tend be centralized, top-down places where career bureaucrats stay in office no matter who is power and have real power."
The USA actually has that too but for different purposes. Oil production is centralized and so too are the auto giants. It's top-down that got us where we are at. If governing and businesses were actually decentralized and not filled with career bureaucrats serving the corporate monopolists, Big Oil wouldn't be subsidized and people would be free to grow their own green crude from real sources like hemp and algae.
I'll agree with your second point on population density but there was a point in time in North America when railroads for open lands were being worked at until Big Oil and Auto took over and killed the railroad system.
The population density on much of the East coast is quite high, and it is not that low in much of California either. That would at a minimum suggest mass transit in those two areas with several east/west high-speed transportation lines connecting them, spaced north/south so as to go through most of the major urban areas in between.
Is the problem that mass transit in North America is not practical? Or is it that the capitalists here are not that much interested in mass transit and are often openly antagonistic to it for various reasons? Currently what the capitalists want tends to be more pressing to many of our elected public servants than most of what the people on this side of the world need. In my opinion the arguments for building and running a mass transit system in North America are quite strong. A challenge is to build up the size, volume, and unison of the "choir" sufficiently that our public servants and fellow citizens hear the arguments and the issue is put on the table to be seriously discussed.
When I lived in Kansas City 20 years ago I was 1 block off a Main Bus Route that had buses running every 15 minutes from 500AM til 700PM and then they ran every 45minutes to an hour til midnite. I had a truck which only ran during the weekdays unless I needed to go to the suburbs or to a location off the main bus routes. Through the week I rode the city buses because they were cheap, ran on time and were regular. I loved it. I saved money and wear and tear on my truck not to mention I avoided the threat of accidents.
My point? When buses run regular and close routes with frequent schedules I used them and I bet many others would to.
I love my hummer. I can play the music loud and listen to Looney tunes, carry around my plumbing repair tools and cargo, eat my 5 cheese beaf lasagna and Big Mac, and enjoy riding in privacy. Why should I pay taxes for someone else to ride? Go back and live in communist Europe. Here's a pie in your face. OOOOOOOOO !! LOL !
GM has not paid back but a small part of what it received. Their widely circulated ad is grossly misleading.
A small part of the money delivered was delivered as a loan. GM has used money given to them by the government to pay back the much smaller part loaned to them.
One need not ask whether the 0bama administration is complicit in this, only to what point it might be complicit. The administration knows what it gave away and how little has been returned. Apparently they judge it advantageous to allow GM to go on misleading the public about its role and the administration's role.
That's self-serving for the administration, of course.
And then we have the entire dynamic described by the above article on top of that.
In fact the US has several advantages over Europe when it comes to railroads. In Europe each country has its own "national" railways. Voltages for electric trains change at the borders. Most have the same track gauge as the US, but Finland and part of Eastern Europe have the Russian wider tracks, and Spain and Portugal have even wider except for their new, high speed trains. Lots of different signals systems and train control too, and safety regulations in dozens of languages. Switzerland alone has several train systems, lots of trains running and steep grades!
So train rides should be faster, cheaper and simpler in the US. Also, the "interesting " parts: Boston - DC - Florida, Bay Area - LA, etc, are just as densely populated as Europe. Sweden, for example, has a lower pop density than the USA total.
So, all American friends, roll up your sleeves and start working on it!
My community winds up a vote today on whether to pay additional small percent of one percent to retain current bus service. A lot of voters are convinced that the buses are a waste of money, and too bad for those loser elderly and disabled who depend on the bus to get around. These people would rather spend money on roads.
When the price of gas creeps back up and the economy tanks- when few of us will be able to afford to drive cars- I wonder how these folks think they will be getting around? If the levy fails, I just hope the transit agency stores the unused buses carefully and keeps them maintained- because we WILL need them again.
As for bikes...it is crazy to try to ride your bike 2 feet from a car going 40+mph. At least when gas gets very expensive there will be hardly any cars on the roads- much safer for everyone.
Yes, but driving a bicyle at a distance of three feet away from cars driving at 25 to 30 mph is mostly quite safe. When cars are travelling at or below a sensible speed limit on urban streets then changing lanes and cycling safely on a bicycle is not dangerous. Cycling and hanging lanes when cars are driving somewhat erratically at 40+ can be done but there is much less time for motorists to react if they are being inattentive while driving the city streets at those speeds. I would be happy to religously stop at all stop signs and obey all of the traffic laws in exchange for motorists staying at or below the speed limit and staying at least three feet away from me when I am commuting somewhere by bicycle.
(I am confident that all those who complain so bitterly about bicyclists being such terrible arrogant scoff-laws are always travelling at or below the speed limit.)
Look at how well Venice fairs without cars. Perhaps we could start canal projects for low lying cities that let in the rising seawater.
Most European cities of course were well established before the advent of the motor car, where as American suburbs are designed for the auto. Non drivers help pay for this dysfunctional infrastructure driving the big box store and automotive corporate agenda.
Bikes equipped with studded tires are a year round transportation elective for some of the hardy, braving -40 C here in Saskatoon.
"This is unlike Boston and Cambridge, where lanes are painted on streets almost as a dare, sandwiching cyclists in between traffic on the left and parked cars on the right, where doors can swing open at any moment. Only the most nimble or fearless of cyclists use them at rush hour. The lanes are a largely vacant symbol of why less than 1 percent of commutes in the United States are done by bike, according to the Census."
This is one reason why I cringe when I see bike-riders. I'm always afraid they're gonna get creamed. There are lots of motorists who have no respect for bike-riders.
"The obvious solution is for employers to move back into the traditional central business districts where frequent public transit is feasable along numerous radial routes. Instead, employers have been moving moved to far flung, scattered suburban 'office parks' and 'industrial parks', while the urban center depopulates and hollows out. Midwest and western cities and towns have followed have pattern with disasterous effects."
When I'm job-hunting, as a carless person, I always have to look to see where the job is. I had to quit a job once because the commute was too long and inconvenient to get there by bus. It was WAY out in one of those office parks.
We need less cars and more public transit.
" realize that at this point, most white USAns have been seriously brainwashed into the suburban culture where they go into culture shock unless they are in the confortable familiarity of wide strips, parking lots and big corporate chains. Many people - especially young people are even fearful of walking down a sidewalk into a small family-owned shop or restaurant."
I dunno man, I see a lot of white people in the city strolling around the neighborhoods I work and live in. I've always seen lots of black people at the malls too.
I always HATED malls, even when I was a teenager. That was the last place I wanted to hang out at.
The only mall I didn't mind going to was Parkway Center, and that's only because of Phantom of the Attic.
Thing is, many people don't have a choice but to go out to the big chains in the 'burbs. Many city neighborhoods don't have good markets, if they have them at all.
We had a Foodland in Brookline, and my mother always avoided it because it was lousy. She'd go to Brentwood, Castle Shannon, West Mifflin, and Lawrenceville to do her shopping.
Then there's my sister who almost has to shop at Wal-Mart because it's what she can afford.
"That is why the latest auto news is so dull. Instead of throwing billions at uninspired car companies, cities should be reconstructed so that you will want to leave the car in the garage. The real headline is when grandma feels safe to pedal down the street to see her grandkids."
Amen Mr. Jackson.
I think one thing our society needs to get over is the stigma of being carless, which astonishes me.
You'd be surprised how many people resent those who don't drive.
"I dunno man, I see a lot of white people in the city strolling around the neighborhoods I work and live in. I've always seen lots of black people at the malls too."
As US cities go, Pittsburgh is practically off the scale in being white and non-latino. It is also very anomalous in how class-lines are not drawn nearly so starkly along race lines.
Within the city limits it is just 25% black and aside from the few Mexicans in Beechview, it is prbably 0.1% latino/a. Compare this to Baltimore, DC, Detroit, Atlanta where the population inside the city limits is 70-90% black.
In Baltimore, suburban people will look at you like you are crazy if you suggest going to, say, the colorful Lexington public market. They are convinced you will be immediately mugged by the black poeple.
I bet if gas went down to a buck, in those cities mentioned, the car culture would not revive.
In 40 years, I have seen the U.S. and most of its municipalities, states and corporate monopolies go in the wrong direction, it is both a farce and tragedy.
I am living through a national deconstruction all caused by incredible malfeasance and incompetence in our business and government institutions. We, like so much of Europe before 1945, must have a national death wish!
"I bet if gas went down to a buck, in those cities mentioned, the car culture would not revive. "
You have that backwards. Artificially lowering the price of gas only encourages more flabby guzzlers on the road.
My idiot, bigoted co-workers, who all hail from the sticks, are afraid to walk down Butler Street after dark. They get mad when I ridicule them for it. lol.
I'm seeing more and more Latinos in Pittsburgh. A reall neat little Mexican market just opened in my neighborhood.
I remember when I went to Pitt and hearing some of the black kids from other cities complain that Pittsburgh was "too white." I also heard some of the affluent kids from other areas complain that Pittsburgh was too "modest" and make classist remarks about "yinzers."
You'd be surprised at how many people hate Pittsburgh. I think it's because unlike other big cities it's not half gentrified/ half slum where only rich whites and poor blacks live. Some people love inequality.