|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 230 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 112 of 230:
| 
Aug 12 00:42 UTC 2003 |
resp:101 Maybe. Some jobs want you to have a car-- or at least
transportation they will believe to be dependable.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 113 of 230:
|
Aug 12 02:35 UTC 2003 |
Re #110: I understand what you're saying, but I respect Twila a lot for
realizing that her lack of peripheral vision would endanger
herself and others if she drove. In her case, from what she's
said, it's the only responsible choice.
|
naftee
|
|
response 114 of 230:
|
Aug 12 05:13 UTC 2003 |
I CAN{T BELIEVE I WAS THE ONE WHO ENTERED THIS ITEM LOL.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 115 of 230:
|
Aug 12 06:24 UTC 2003 |
LOL
|
edina
|
|
response 116 of 230:
|
Aug 12 16:29 UTC 2003 |
Re 113 I respect it too. I'm just glad I have good eyes.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 117 of 230:
|
Aug 12 22:01 UTC 2003 |
Lol.
|
scg
|
|
response 118 of 230:
|
Aug 13 17:02 UTC 2003 |
I have a car, which I bought several years ago when commuting from Ann Arbor
to the Detroit suburbs. In the last few months, I've had a destination that
was much easier to get to by car than by bike or public transit, so I've been
using it a lot, but I think that's about to change. In the 2.5 years before
that, I used to go weeks at a time without driving it, pretty much only using
it for out of town trips. I don't really like driving all that much, and most
of the time I'd much rather sit on a train and get where I'm going, rather
than spending more time sitting in a traffic jam, and then having to spend
a long time looking for a $20 per day parking space.
It is nice having the car so I can use it without having to plan in advance
when I want to. If it were to die, it would probably be cheaper to rent a
car when I needed it, but I might be tempted to buy a new one anyway.
Those I know who live in neighborhoods where parking is difficult have mostly
gotten rid of the cars they had when they moved in, declaring finding parking
to have been more trouble than it was worth.
|
tod
|
|
response 119 of 230:
|
Aug 13 17:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gregb
|
|
response 120 of 230:
|
Aug 13 19:35 UTC 2003 |
Like Twila, my eyeballs are rather shot. In fact, I'm
classified "Legally Blind" without my glasses. Even with glasses, it's
not good enough, so I can empathize with what she has to deal with.
However, if you think AATA's bad, you haven't dealt with SMART (gawd, I
hate that name!). They suck BIG TIME! I did some checking and AATA
actually has a better setup for its size.
I found it amazing that there's actually people out there that /can/
drive, but choose not to. But from what I've read, it's those that
have other means of transport that scoff at driving. They'd change
their tunes reeeal quick if it was the only way they could get around.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 121 of 230:
|
Aug 13 20:12 UTC 2003 |
I can understand some people living in San Francisco (where I am at the
moment) choosing not to drive: with both the BART rail and the MUNI
bus/trolley/interurban systems reaching almost everywhere in the city,
it is pretty easy to get around without a car (unless you live on the top of
some hills). It has made me wonder why Detroit can't have as good a system,
though I expect the answer is that Detroit is so economically depressed.
|
gregb
|
|
response 122 of 230:
|
Aug 13 20:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gregb
|
|
response 123 of 230:
|
Aug 13 20:32 UTC 2003 |
From what I've heard it's because of the auto-makers. After all, this
is the auto capital of the nation. It wouldn't look good to have all
those pesky busses running around when you've got car dealers up the
whaazoo. It's mostly political, but partly economic, too.
Also, according to one of the bus drivers, SMART is one of the last of
the large metropolitan bus systems that still depends a great deal on
federal funds to keep things running...such as it is.
|
tod
|
|
response 124 of 230:
|
Aug 13 20:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 125 of 230:
|
Aug 13 21:50 UTC 2003 |
I've heard that's been debunked. There *were* many cities where the
automakers bought out and scrapped trolly lines so they could sell buses
instead, but they never tried to discourage buses in Detroit.
|
gull
|
|
response 126 of 230:
|
Aug 13 21:51 UTC 2003 |
(If buses were such a losing proposition for GM, they wouldn't
manufacture so many of them.)
|
tod
|
|
response 127 of 230:
|
Aug 13 21:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
i
|
|
response 128 of 230:
|
Aug 13 23:52 UTC 2003 |
If one looks at Detroit & Wayne County's long histories of extremely
capable, honest, efficient, and dedicated-to-the-long-term-public-good
governments, then one *might* be able to understand why mass transit
runs rather short of reasonable expectations in that part of Michigan...
|
tod
|
|
response 129 of 230:
|
Aug 14 00:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 130 of 230:
|
Aug 14 14:25 UTC 2003 |
Re #127: There are multiple reasons:
- Incompetant and corrupt government in Detroit and Wayne County.
- Detroit doesn't have the tax base to fund it, and the suburbs aren't
willing to chip in for something they see as mostly benefiting poor
people in Detroit. (Some people have tried to spin this as racism.)
- Detroit has had urban decay for so long that a lot of people are no
longer commuting from the suburbs inward; they're commuting crosswise,
from suburb to suburb. This makes it hard to get enough rider density
on any given route.
- Public attitude. Mass transit has been so bad for so long, people feel
it's a money pit and will never be any good.
|
tod
|
|
response 131 of 230:
|
Aug 14 16:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 132 of 230:
|
Aug 14 16:49 UTC 2003 |
"they're commuting crosswise, from suburb to suburb"
This is not because of Detroit's urban decay. It is a phenomenon in almost
all large American cities at the end of the 20th century. It is one of the
most vexing transit planning problems, because the density of housing in these
suburbs makes transit unworkable.
Ann Arbor itself is barely dense enough for transit to be financially
feasible. Feasible does not mean self-supporting. About 1/3 of Ann Arbor's
transit cost is paid for by Federal subsidies.
|
tod
|
|
response 133 of 230:
|
Aug 14 17:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
katie
|
|
response 134 of 230:
|
Aug 19 00:42 UTC 2003 |
(Wha' happen to the grexer spotting thread?)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 135 of 230:
|
Aug 19 01:18 UTC 2003 |
Drift, drift, drift...
|
scott
|
|
response 136 of 230:
|
Aug 20 23:16 UTC 2003 |
Moments ago, I saw srw walking by the Our Town Deli at Main & Liberty (I'm
in here having dinner & internet).
|