Increasing traffic congestion

[Cruentus]

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?

Oooo....that WAS much better!

 

[Spud]

Perhaps I’m missing something. Extra driving trips to deliver kids is a component in the whole issue of crowded roads and the demand for extra traffic capacity. Am I mis-reading RP700’s post? Not trying to be flippant, I’m confused by the post.

I see a false sense of safety if we must drive our kids 3 miles because the roads are too busy for them to bike or we have sprawling retail centers with no sidewalks and pedestrian crossings.



[font=&quot]
[/font]

 

[MisterMike]

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!

Shhh! Don't tell anyone......but I think I was listening to NPR (hehehe)

I'm pretty sure that's where I got it. Whereever it was, they just mentioned that the idea has already rolled off the lips of some congressman/woman. I don't know if there are any bills in the works.

 

[rmcrobertson]

two fundamental logical problems:

a) Are you seriously arguing, let's not plan ahead or consider consequences, let's not think about what we want as a society, let's just keep being short-sighted and throwing together quick patch jobs?

b) Highway construction is hardly, "short-term." It takes many years.

c) And, we've been trying to build our way out of these probnlems for what, fifty years? Does it seem to be working to you?

 

[michaeledward]

Shhh! Don't tell anyone......but I think I was listening to NPR (hehehe)

I'm pretty sure that's where I got it. Whereever it was, they just mentioned that the idea has already rolled off the lips of some congressman/woman. I don't know if there are any bills in the works.

Well, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was supposed to work that way,
Tax on mileage ... longer you are on the road, higher the toll, at least until they paid off the bonds used to build the highway. I think they paid those bonds off in the late seventies ... Still got tolls East of Springfield, though, don't they?

But the real eye-opener here is that MisterMike was listening to NPR ... wow ... becareful, it could be habit forming.

Mike

 

[RandomPhantom700]

two fundamental logical problems:

You listed three things, Berty. :lol:

a) Are you seriously arguing, let's not plan ahead or consider consequences, let's not think about what we want as a society, let's just keep being short-sighted and throwing together quick patch jobs?

Nope. I believe I said that, while trying to address all the social ills you listed, we'd still have things to worry about in the meantime. Something along the lines of instead of using the "quick patch job" of going with kids instead of all these lofty long-term approaches, simply escorting our kids in the meantime. Not instead of.

b) Highway construction is hardly, "short-term." It takes many years.

As compared to embracing the socialist dream of yours to idealogically restructure society into the happy world you envision we'll have without capitalism? Which one's gonna take longer to construct, the road or the society? Again, I thought we were talking about the off-shoot topic of escorting kids because of fear of others, not building roads.

c) And, we've been trying to build our way out of these probnlems for what, fifty years? Does it seem to be working to you?

You mean are building roads working? For what goals?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Perhaps I’m missing something. Extra driving trips to deliver kids is a component in the whole issue of crowded roads and the demand for extra traffic capacity. Am I mis-reading RP700’s post? Not trying to be flippant, I’m confused by the post.

Well, we kinda got into a different topic, concerning whether it's legitimate for parents to be fearful of their kids being abducted or something. Somewhat related to the traffic congestion issue. Sure, the parents driving their kids to soccer practice or whatever adds to the traffic on the road, but that's not what I was addressing.

I see a false sense of safety if we must drive our kids 3 miles because the roads are too busy for them to bike or we have sprawling retail centers with no sidewalks and pedestrian crossings.

Yeah, that wasn't my point at all. Guess I should better start writing things out first on Word or something before posting.

 

[Pacificshore]

In the small town that I now reside in, I've seen the traffic increase 10 fold. The main intersection use to be controlled by 4-way stop signs, and now is controlled by traffic signal lights. My little town has grown into a bedroom community for those who have to commute to work because the town they work in is over priced in terms of owning a home. With the sudden growth, and housing available, the costs of homes here are driven up just the same. If I want to sell my place, there's no way I can actually buy back in, and I'd have to move to a more undesirable place.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

As compared to embracing the socialist dream of yours to idealogically restructure society into the happy world you envision we'll have without capitalism?

I didn't really get the full flavor of a burgeoning socialist dream, but other people (like me) HAVE suggested that some restructuring is what it's going to take to solve some of these insane traffic problems - especially as our global oil supply (finite) dwindles. I hope we can keep making plastics in the future, which are useful, rather than burning it all for our transportation.

And, another aside, capitalism does not equal democracy, and wanting to change society doesn't mean rejecting capitalism. It's a pet peeve of mine - if I (and I realize I am not the target of your comment) want to change or prioritize something differently than we currently do, sometimes I'm accused of rejecting capitolism. If I thought that's what we had in this country, that's one thing. But we have an oligarchy (I believe that's the word I'm looking for) of big business.

BUT! that is not the point of this thread.

It does seem that vehicles are certainly these little moving realms of safety - I believe part of the SUV-buying boom in the 90's was in part spurred on by single women who wanted to feel "safe" (driving their stylish version of a tank, I guess).

I think it's (obviously) a lovely thing when people are concerned for their children's safety. Sometimes knowing your neighbors and being present in the community will help - knowing what's out there, knowing what the neighborhood is like. I guess a lot of it depends on where you live.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Random:

1. I listed two logical fallacies, and something else altogether. That's why I began the sentence with the word, "and." I realize it is pleasurable to think that you've caughgt me out, but I'm afraid I've been writing--probably, anyway--longer than you've been alive.

2. Socialist dreams have zip to do with it. I was simply remarking that if one thinks that slapping together new highways is the short-term solution, it's probably best to remember how long it takes to get new highways planned, approved and built.

3. "Rhetorical question," dude. We've been building and building these damn things since Eisenhower, and traffic gets worse. What can we learn from this? Are we learning yet?

As for those socialist dreams, I confess to the illogical idea that people, if they try, can make logical, informed, decisions about important things if given a chance. Silly me: I'd thought that was the hope not only of democracy, but of martial arts. Shame you have no faith in either.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I listed two logical fallacies, and something else altogether. That's why I began the sentence with the word, "and." I realize it is pleasurable to think that you've caughgt me out, but I'm afraid I've been writing--probably, anyway--longer than you've been alive.

Ahh, I see. So the third point had nothing to do with any logical fallacy (?), my mistake. As for you having been writing longer then I've been alive, very impressive, but just remember, so has Jerry Falwell.

2. Socialist dreams have zip to do with it. I was simply remarking that if one thinks that slapping together new highways is the short-term solution, it's probably best to remember how long it takes to get new highways planned, approved and built.

Well, building new, or preferably improving current, highways has certainly been a big help for areas around where I live. And it's strange how building a new highway, as a process, is both lengthy in planning and slapped together at the same time.

As for those socialist dreams, I confess to the illogical idea that people, if they try, can make logical, informed, decisions about important things if given a chance. Silly me: I'd thought that was the hope not only of democracy, but of martial arts. Shame you have no faith in either.

Strange, I don't remember saying that people couldn't make logical decisions, or that you're whole idea of restructuring society so that people could send their kids out onto the streets without fear would never happen. As for martial arts, again, I DONT PRACTICE THEM. All I said was that it would certainly take a damn long time to address the culture of fear that "Bowling for Columbine" illustrates, and in the meantime, there's still parents with kids that they're worried about.