Increasing traffic congestion

[MA-Caver]

We do not have to endlessly crank out kids, since (among other things) poverty and educational level correlate very highly with family size. We do not have to build endless, mindless shopping malls and highways and housing developments and Taco Bells and all the rest of the crap. We choose to, collectively. And market forces drive it all.

We could junk the big cars, pay the taxes we should be paying, educate people decently, do something about the ridiculous fantasy that if you just accumulate enough worthless stuff--including cars--you'll be happy.

We could, in their words, grow up.

As far as I'm concerned, the endless freeway construction is just a bigger, uglier, more-dangerous version of little boys playing with Tonka trucks in a sand-box.

True, very true. Soooo... how do you propose we do this? It's what being a politician is all about. Having an idea or at least listening to ideas to make this country/world a better place.
Paying the taxes we should be paying. Great idea and I'd be all for it. Just the thought of it makes me leery because the monies I'm shelling out of each paycheck isn't going exactly where they say it would be going to. Thus folks try to get out of it best as they can.
They're going to continue to build endless/mindless shopping malls and mini-malls and super Walmarts and so forth because "We the People" aren't complaining enough and hard enough to the right people. So they are going to do what is in their best interests... namely their wallets.

What to do? What to do? Oh my my what to do? :asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

We do not have to endlessly crank out kids, since (among other things) poverty and educational level correlate very highly with family size. We do not have to build endless, mindless shopping malls and highways and housing developments and Taco Bells and all the rest of the crap. We choose to, collectively. And market forces drive it all.

We could junk the big cars, pay the taxes we should be paying, educate people decently, do something about the ridiculous fantasy that if you just accumulate enough worthless stuff--including cars--you'll be happy.

We could, in ther words, grow up.

Very nicely said, I think.

Planning is the way to go. And, although many (including myself) may enjoy the luxoury of suburbia, the horrendous sprawl that most suburban areas engender is too high a cost. Public transportation is one of the big answers - but people have to have lives amenable to using public transit - i.e., the Metro or T can take them to work, home, and grocery shopping, among other things, or those things have to be within walking distance. A fair number of people in big cities already live like this, although it's not always "fun" or by choice. It's so much nicer to hop into your air-conditioned car all by yourself rather than commuting with hundreds or thousands of other people. But the latter is far, far more efficient and wise.

This country has been fixated with the automobile for too long. And realize that as I say this, I mean me too. My car takes me everywhere. It's a key to freedom. But it's also not always necessary, and I would be in better shape (financially, environmentally, and physically) if I were able to walk more places I need to get to.

What would I do if I had political power? Create incentives for urban renewal ("gentrification" of old neighborhoods is sometimes a very touchy subject, but important sometimes); create incentives for neighborhood planning that limits the need to hop in a car every 5 minutes (i.e. build near or in conjunction with public transit); create incentives for people who can and do commute in alternative ways. The last option may not seem "fair" to some people - some people live too far away to bike or walk or Metro to work - but it will be effective.

 

[michaeledward]

the other problem is that it's perceived as not safe to just let kids roam all over the neighborhood anymore. Mom and dad want to see them safely to their destination.

Why do Mom and Dad think the neighborhood they live in is not safe?

I admit, I was guilty of this. When we bought our house (6 years ago), the children could only travel in the neighborhood ... These streets ... no more ... Don't cross Taylor St.

What a damn fool was I. When my younger daughter lost the priveledge of taking the bus to school (long story - she goofed), she did not know how to get to the school from our home (approximately 3 miles in a small city). Well, I changed my attitude. Despite the Evening Fear report, I made the young tyke (12 years old) walk to school. We live in a nice town; voted twice in the last dozen years as one of the 10 best cities to live in.

Now, it's 'Get the hell out of the house, kid' - I don't care where you go ... just go ... have fun ... explore ... don't do anything stupid.

To answer my own question .. I think it is the 'Fear Culture' brought on by the 'If it bleeds, it leads' mentality of the evening news.

Thanks for listening - Mike

P.S. $6.00 / gallon gasoline is a great idea.

 

[Cruentus]

$6 a gallon is a horrible idea.

Do you think the wealthy 1%, and oil Sultans like the Bush family cares if they have to pay a little extra for gas? By the looks of those Cadillac SUV's, no they don't.

So, who suffers? The poor college kid who works 2 jobs and goes to school, and has to DRIVE far because of the spread. The lower and upper middle class mom or dad who have to outragously commute every day to their jobs, to their kids schools (because bussing transportation has been cut), and to the "strip malls" so they can buy medicine and groceries for their family.

$6 a gallon will not help us...

That's all I have to contribute...carry on with the real topic! :wink1:

 

[MisterMike]

The highways are clogged because the jobs are in the city and the roads can't handle the volume because they were probably designed 2 or more decades ago.

So long as the jobs stay in the city and the population keeps growing, it's going to get worse.

Trouble is, just adding lanes doesn't fix the problem. Massachusetts is notorious for its faultering bridges and poor intersections. It'll take big bucks to fix this mess.

 

[TigerWoman]

Decrease traffic congestion by working at home!!!! Most congestion we have is two on the stairs at one time. Heavy commute up and down. Beats California 3 1/2 hrs from Santa Monica to Ventura Co. I had to do my exercise class in between to cut it up. Everyone move to a less congested area if you don't like the traffic. Lots of them. TW

 

[Feisty Mouse]

TigerWoman, excellent idea too, if possible.

MrMike, I'd say the answer (and granted, this would take a great deal of effort and $) would be to either move the commuters to designed neighborhoods closer to the city, or make the work less centralized.

Again, these are broad plans, not something you could just do tomorrow. But a solution nonetheless.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

They're going to continue to build endless/mindless shopping malls and mini-malls and super Walmarts and so forth because "We the People" aren't complaining enough and hard enough to the right people. So they are going to do what is in their best interests... namely their wallets.

"We the People" are also the reason that the Wal-Mart Supercenters and shopping malls are succeeding, and thereby multiplying. It's strange how so many complain about the big, faceless conglomerate stores driving out all the mom-and-pops', but it's the consumers who decide that, yes, buying the same item from the Fox Books for half the price is worth watching the Shop Around the Corner go bye-bye (yes, a "You've Got Mail" reference, so shoot me).

But it's interesting to see how shopping malls and Wal-Marts are involved in a discussion of traffic congestion. So Robby, just have people stop "cranking out kids" is the method of population reduction you were referring to?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Why do Mom and Dad think the neighborhood they live in is not safe?

To answer my own question .. I think it is the 'Fear Culture' brought on by the 'If it bleeds, it leads' mentality of the evening news.

Well, possibly because there are dangers to be worried about, especially when involving your kid who you love and, frankly, have invested a lot into.

I don't mean to imply that kids should be shut in from the world, nor should mommy and daddy do everything for them (I've seen the results of such parenting strategies--not good). But no, if I had a 10-year-old kid wanting to go to soccer practice, I'd rather see them to and from the park safely.

Can and does the media overhype the dangers? Certainly. But that shouldn't mean we should deny or ignore the dangers that do exist. The 6:00 news may blow a child kidnapping out of proportion, but they don't make them up; kids do get kidnapped on seemingly safe and trustworthy paths. So in a long-winded conclusion, I really don't think it's unreasonable to want to take your kids to soccer practice, or wherever else they need to go. Unless, of course, you don't mind being called up by the chief of police three days after your kids gone missing just to be told they've been found in a gutter somewhere.

 

[sma_book]

Can and does the media overhype the dangers? Certainly. But that shouldn't mean we should deny or ignore the dangers that do exist. The 6:00 news may blow a child kidnapping out of proportion, but they don't make them up; kids do get kidnapped on seemingly safe and trustworthy paths. So in a long-winded conclusion, I really don't think it's unreasonable to want to take your kids to soccer practice, or wherever else they need to go. Unless, of course, you don't mind being called up by the chief of police three days after your kids gone missing just to be told they've been found in a gutter somewhere.

Of course bad things happen, and it would be imprudent to ignore the possibility that such events could occur. But, to be reasonably prudent, is the issue, how many kidnappings take place compared to how many children are there in the country? I believe it is foolish to be over sensitive to possible threats.

Every body stock up on Plastic and Duct Tape; be on alert for suspicious looking individuals; call John Ashcroft if you see a naked breast.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

$6 a gallon is a horrible idea.

Do you think the wealthy 1%, and oil Sultans like the Bush family cares if they have to pay a little extra for gas? By the looks of those Cadillac SUV's, no they don't.

So, who suffers? The poor college kid who works 2 jobs and goes to school, and has to DRIVE far because of the spread. The lower and upper middle class mom or dad who have to outragously commute every day to their jobs, to their kids schools (because bussing transportation has been cut), and to the "strip malls" so they can buy medicine and groceries for their family.

$6 a gallon will not help us...

That's all I have to contribute...carry on with the real topic! :wink1:

Certainly, $6.00 per gallon of gasoline is a regressive concern. It affects those at the lower end of the income spectrum more than it affects those at the higher end of the income spectrum.

Giving a bit more thought to the issue, how would we arrive at $6.00 per gallon is also a bit of concern. It certainly would not serve any good if the reason for the price increase was increased cost of raw material. If a barrel of crude oil goes to $160.00, then only the Bushs and the Cheneys will benefit from price change.

If however, the price increase is because of additional taxes being levied, societal changes would occur (not before there was a great deal of pain). We would find that 'Sprawl' would cease to exist - conserving one of the country's most precious resources; open space. We might find that we car pool more often; which might help to build community among the citizens. High fuel costs would restrict the savings created by running huge factory farms, which might help the local farmer become a viable member of the economy again. We would develop alternative fuel systems, which would spur economic growth in new industries.

Certainly, there would be some pain. But there would also be a number of pluses to increased fuel costs. Of course, due to the slim possibility of taxes on gasoline ever passing our legislature, it is nice to dream of the benefits, while ignoring the detriments.

Some may say that taxes shouldn't be used to drive behavior, let the 'market' lead the way ... to which I would respond; society has always used taxes to drive behavior ... why do you think mortgage intrest is tax deductible? why is the most common mortgage a 30 year term?

Things that make you go .... Hmmm. - Mike

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Of course bad things happen, and it would be imprudent to ignore the possibility that such events could occur. But, to be reasonably prudent, is the issue, how many kidnappings take place compared to how many children are there in the country? I believe it is foolish to be over sensitive to possible threats.

Every body stock up on Plastic and Duct Tape; be on alert for suspicious looking individuals; call John Ashcroft if you see a naked breast.

Mike

Very well, so taking your kids to the soccer game is too paranoid an action. What, then, would be a prudent way to address the possibility? Give the kid a can of mace for security, then let them be on their way?

Two notes. As kids get older, obviously you can trust them to handle themselves better on their own; I'm not saying drive your 15-year-old down the street to band practice. Also, is this getting too far off topic?

 

[MisterMike]

I heard that with all the efficient cars coming out, congress is thinking of taxing people by the amount of miles they travel.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but I take this absurd worry over, "what if my kid gets kidnapped?" as part of the problem with what Lasch called, "the culture of narcissism," and, I might add, the culture of unreason.

First off, nearly all, "kidnappings," well over 90%, are either a) abductions of some sort by a family member/close friend, b) runaways.

Second off--whose kids are we worried about? How 'bout all the kids who grow up in ruined communities in shadows of freeways? How about the leftover lead and other, newer pollutants?

We choose this madness--and we choose it in the name of the Great God, "convenience," and we choose it because of of phenomena like, "white flight."

 

[Spud]

I wonder what actual numbers are on assaults against minors from strangers as the kid is on his way to an event compared to assualts committed by coaches, choir directors, scout masters etc at the kids actual destination.

 

[Spud]

[font=&quot]Good points on $6 per gallon gas being regressive. However, gas at $2.00 a gallon without adequate mass transportation to serve lower income families is also putting an enormous burden on lower income people. Arguably, our existing car-oriented transportation system is a regressive tax. [/font]

 

[michaeledward]

I heard that with all the efficient cars coming out, congress is thinking of taxing people by the amount of miles they travel.

If this comment is not sarcasm, where did you hear this?

My fear is they will start taxing multi-syllabic words, then Robert and I (and a few others here) are truely fornicated!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

We choose this madness--and we choose it in the name of the Great God, "convenience," and we choose it because of of phenomena like, "white flight."

Please enlighten me as to how being fearful for your childrens' safety, whether well-founded or not, is some form of convenience?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I'll try.

It's, "convenience," because it's the fast-food approach to protecting kids: instead of working for a fair society, decent cities, full employment, universal medical care--all of which cost money, take time, and would do a far better job of really protecting kids--we buy cars and build freeways.

And it's "convenient," to do so, because it gives us an excuse not to think about what our lives and society are, and what it would take to fix them.

And it suits a "convenience," society, because all this guff about "protecting," kids is really all about buying new stuff and inventing new markets.

That better?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Couple problems here.

Last time I checked, we were discussing the tangent topic of whether it is reasonable or simply paranoid to fear for children's safety and thereby drive them to wherever they need to get. So the issue is driving them, not building more roads. This is excluding, I suppose, the aspect of making smaller cities, thereby making band or soccer practice closer. But point being, I was thinking the "fast-food" approach to protecting kids that you're criticizing is driving them to wherever, not building roads to do so.

The other thing is that yes, working towards the lofty goals of creating a great wonderful fair society that encourages safety and community would, in the long run, probably do much better at ensuring kids safety, but that's in the long run. What about the right now? And it's not as if it's an either-or situation between the "fast-food" approach and the "long-run" of building better society; we can still, in the meantime, spend the 1/2 hour it takes to actually go with them.