Please tell me you’re kidding. My overly simplistic tax of $600 per person was to get the infrastructure in place, not the cost of using it. Or do you suppose we’ll wave a magic wand and all the cars will disappear and a spiffy new fleet of buses will appear?
Before you start worrying about how much money we can save using public transport, take a look at this article discussing the rates NYC train commuters have to pay from the two towns next to mine. The commuters are understandably pissed about the propose rate hike from $3,048 to $3,192. And these people need to drive to the train station to take the commute. Why?
Because it is too hilly and too dangerous for commuters (who virtually all wear suits, btw) to ride a bike to the train station. And it will always be this way. Not to mention the rough winters.
This is a suburb. Less than 5% of the people live close enough to the train station or bus stop to get there without a car.
Accept that America is different from Europe and Japan. Mass transit is hugely problematic and likely would create as many problems as it would solve, before it inevitably went under for lack of use. The population just simply isn’t dense enough…
Population Density in people per square mile:
Tokyo: 14,000 proper; 33,000 in the 23 wards (what’s a ward?)
New York City: 26,000
London: 11,500
Los Angeles: 5,600
Suburban America: 1,500
Los Angeles doesn’t have enough density to justify effective mass transit, so how can you possibly expect my little backwater to do it?
If you are unconvinced, locate the United States on this list. Now tell me again how we can implement public transportation like Europe and Japan.
I think education in how to eat healthy is a key factor! Yes, it may be more expensive to eat healthy, but I believe that if we educate people as to why they should fork over more money for healthier foods, the ones who are financially able to do so might just do it.
I say it may be more expensive because of this: when I gave up refined sugar and refined/white grains and potatoes a year ago, my grocery bill went up significantly. OTOH, I very rarely stop for fast food anymore (if I must eat fast food, I can always go with salads and burgers removed from the buns, but it’s tastier to eat at home), and very rarely order pizza (it’s a lot less cost-effective to eat pizza if you can only eat the toppings), so I’m sure the money I used to spend on these things have off-set the cost of the higher market-bill. But let’s assume that it is more expensive to eat healthy. So what? Well-made furniture is more expensive thatn poorly-made. Well-made shoes and clothing costs more. Lots of people are willing to shell out the bux, because they realize that this stuff is worth more. Well, healthy food is worth more, too. This is what we are fueling our bodies with, folks. What’s more valuable than that?
Also, education can go a long way towards alleviating the “time factor fear” involved with doing your own cooking. My microwave, George Forman grill and crock pot are all spectacularly helpful. As is meal planning. I take an hour each week to plan my meals. This way, I can use my markets’ sale paper to take advantage of what’s on sale. Also, I can look at my schedule, and see that, Tuesday, for example, is really busy. So, I’d better plan a crock pot meal for that day. That way, I can put it on to cook in the morning, and serve a hot, healthful dinner in almost no time at dinner time. Also, planning ahead allows me to cook doubles of some recipes (things like stews, spaghetti sauce and meatloaf, it’s just as easy to make double and freeze half), so on really, really busy days, all I have to do is take something pre-cooked out of the freezer and microwave it. But a lot of folks just don’t know how to do this stuff. They’re not dumb, just uneducated.
I realize that for the very poor, some of this might not be realistic, but for the average person, I think it is. It’s just a matter of education.
As for exercise, I’m more likely to do it if I’ve scheduled it. If I wait until I have time, I never have time. Richard Simmons videos (if he doesn’t drive you nuts) are great family exercise, cuz the kids love to dance along, and they consider it “time spent with mom”.
Also, I love the idea of putting nutritional value on the bill at fast-food restaurants, but how do you propose getting the owners to go along with it?
Not for long :D. But yes, Anchorage. Mostly either Fred Meyer or a store called Carrs, a chain grocery that’s been here for as long as I have and that was recently bought out by Safeway. Yes, things are way more expensive up here.
4.59 for a gallon of milk, 2 or 3 for bread (I don’t buy wonder, I buy whole grain bread). A package of 4 cubes of butter? Yes, last time I bought it it was 3.99, and we even have “Matanuska Maid” an Alaskan dairy up here.
On sale you can get it for half maybe. I only buy it during the holidays, I don’t really like it that much. “I can’t Believe it’s Not Butter Spray”? 3 something. Any kind of “fancy spice” by either manufacturer? 3.59 a bottle. Ground Ginger is 3.99 a bottle, but you can get it (or any spice) in bulk for less.
Canola oil? 1.39 not sure why it’s cheaper here, but that was the price last time I looked, I haven’t bought oil in forever, I usually use “Pam”.
Garlic powder? Dang, sorry I don’t remember, last time I bought it was at Costco, one of those great big bottles.
Oh wow, frozen veggies, double or triple what you have there, depending upon the veggie and the brand. Dressing? I’ve never seen it less than three a bottle, I buy only fat-free. But the regular stuff is over 2 bucks a bottle. Usually 3 something.
Ready to eat salad? 4.59 a pound. In bags? Don’t usually buy it, it can be yucky by the time it gets here. Plus they don’t seem to wash it well enough.
Hamburger, 7% fat is 3.79 a pound or more, slightly less as you go up in fat content. I think 25% hamburger is 2.39 a pound IIRC, but I usually never buy hamburger with above 15% fat content.
Small lean steaks? 2-5 bucks a pound. Chicken breasts? A frozen pack with 7-8 breasts is over 12 bucks.
Uh huh, and that’s why the constant hue and cry of “eat less/exercise more you fat pigs” is having SUCH a dynamic success rate. Also, to YOU it may not be an issue of cost or education, but to those who are broke, and/or aren’t sure how to put together an effective diet/exercise program, it certainly IS “an issue of cost and education”.
Why are so many people so against simple education? Again, what we’re currently doing is NOT working.
Supporting evidence?
Well, let’s see, “Body for Life’s” successes for one. The number of fitness trainers and other fitness professional who turn out classes and information and personal assistance to folks like this as their living for another.
Is it your position that anyone just somehow innately “knows” the right foods to eat, and the best ways to prepare them? And the best ways to exercise to to lose fat with NO outside info at all?
People who are overweight have in common SOME factor or sets of factors which are different from their thinner counterparts.
What are the thinner counterparts doing regarding food and exercise? They have learned how to plan meals, and make them quick, convenient and tasty. They’ve learned the effective ways to exercise for their body types. Do you honestly think that they’re just somehow “better” than their heavier counterparts?
I did not SAY that heavy people were unable to cook healthy meals for themselves, I said that they had not yet learned the most effective means by which to do that, that doesn’t equal them not having the ability.
As the law goes, “an object in motion…” A thin person who continues to eat right and stay slim is not all that fantastic of an accomplishment.
But a person who, for whatever original reason, has gotten themselves into a state where they’re extremely overweight, needs a BIT more knowledge and assistance with which to regain their health than “eat less and exercise more”.
There are thousands of people every year, picking up books which teach the appropriate, quick and appropriate ways to eat and exercise, and these same people are shocked at how they “never knew” how to do this.
Many people DO have the “all or nothing” mentality. Many overweight people DO believe it’s either “rabbit food” or “yummy food”.
At any rate, what we, as Americans are doing NOW to allegedly assist these people, is not working. At all. Treating a huge (no pun intented) segment of society badly and insulting them isn’t a solution. And the proof is in the results that aren’t happening. How many times have you seen a fat person get insulted (“put down the fries you fat slob”!!) and then seen that person react by throwing down the fries and breaking into a set of jumping jacks.
Sheesh.
So, again, how about something NEW? Something that would assist people in organizing the health aspect of their lives. It’s not as if it would cost more than the costs we are now incurring due to this epidemic.
My number of $3400 was a cost of ownership per year.
And yes, I expect there will be fewer cars if public transport improves. Why would a family of four need 2 cars if one of them commutes by bus and/or train?
Dedicated bike lanes can make bicycling safer. And how do you know it’s too hilly? Have you tried biking there for a month? And a big part of improving the public transport system is to raise that 5% figure by establishing more bus routes.
Not all parts of America. I know you can’t install public transport to serve every single person in the US. That’s true for any country. But there is a huge number of communities which do (or can) have enough population density to justify public transport, yet do not have one right now.
It has a low population density because it’s dependent on automobiles. Not in the sense that automobiles allow you to live further away and have larger houses, but in the sense that automobiles themselves occupy a disproportionate amount of space. Look down from a plane approaching LAX and you see mostly concrete: roads, parking lots and driveways.
In any case I’m not convinced that your numbers for population density are fair. Tokyo, for example, is the center of a metropolitan area, surrounded by vast suburbs which aren’t included in that number.
Well, obviously you can’t do it for the entire population. But I do notice that Massachusetts, for example, has roughly the same population density as Germany, and higher than Italy, Switzerland and France. California and Florida have higher population density than Greece and Spain.
scr4, all of your arguments are that it SHOULD be done, none that offer solutions on HOW it can be done, and be done while addressing many of the valid problems that Ellis Dee and other posters have brought up.
Like she said, exactly what do you propose, that we confiscate everyone’s car based on whether or not the government believes they live in an area where cars are unneccessary, and replace them with enough buses to run thorough enough routes to provide transportation that is AS effective as that of owning a vehicle?
Likely because both working partners do more in their day than simply go to and from work.
I would wager that most cities in America are designed and set up for vehicles rather than mass transit. So in addition to all your fleets of new buses and trains, you’d need to demo the city and rezone, replan and rebuild in order for it to work for people.
And as for rural areas? You’d need a LOT of replanning and a hell of a lot of high tech buses, and/or trains in order to be able to replace autos in any reasonably useful way.
It’s funny. I live in a small town, that isn’t particularly dense. And yet everyone I know, even those who own cars and love them, walks and takes public transportation on a fairly regular basis. Why? Because the public transportation system is there, well-planned, and highly visible.
There are ways to control America’s car obsession. The first is sensible urban planning. There is only so much we can do for what is being built, but as we speak, new suburbs are being created. Are they going to have sidewalks, bike lanes, bus routes and park-and-ride transit stations? Are they going to have small central shopping districts, or one large mall/big box center on the outskirts surrounded by acres of unwalkable parking lots? Are the grocery stores going to be accessable or are they going to have vast lawns and long stately driveways (like the one in my suburb) that discourage pedestrians? Are the schools, parks and public facilities going to be scattered in accesable clusters in the neighborhood or are they going to all be located in one area seperated by fields or commercial zones from the housing? Will each store have a big (unwalkable) parking lot out front or will parking be behind stores or in central parking structures? Will the main entrences of public buildings be as accessable from the street as from the parking lot? What about pedestrian shopping/dining/entertainment districts?
These are questions that every new development has to ask, and it’s perfectly possible to choose the options that make for communities where walking and public transportation are as pleasant and useful as driving. Likewise, established cities can look at how to use zoneing laws to work towards a more walkable, bikeable, bussable city. Simple things like bike lanes, public bicycle storage, stoplights that consider pedestrian needs, sheltered bus stops and adequate street lighting can do a lot towards making existing cities friendlier towards non-car transport. Then there are big things like not building freeways that slash right through the middle of neighborhoods and working on rail-based projects. It won’t happen overnight and it won’t work for every single person, but it’s better than throwing your hands up and saying “Americans will never leave their cars” for the next hundred years.
It might take some investment to get public transportation up to snuff. Public transportation systems need to plan how to best serve their users, and be considered a vital part of the city by the city government. I don’t really know why some cities have sane, reliable public transport and some don’t (I grew up in Sacramento, which sucks public transport-wise) but every city needs to look at cities that have high ridership and see what they are doing right. I think a good part of it is keeping the transit system highly visible, planning sane routes and conveying route information in an easy-to-understand way, providing comfortable bus stops (my town has several “metro centers” have heated/cooled buildings with food options, route info, newspaper stands and bathrooms) and doing little things like running extra busses during special events. It might cost a little money. So do a lot of the things we do to keep our cities livable and our citizens healthy and happy. I’d assume if you were being all libertarian about this you wouldn’t want the govenment worrying about obesity anyway.
When thats done, then it is time to look at intercity transit. Even in widespread America, rail is pretty ideal for getting from one city to another. I think it’s a long time in the future that we’ll see a decent high-speed train system in America. But it’s something we should be looking at anway. We’ve seen how frail our air transport system is and we all know what can happen to gasoline prices. Hopefully a decent medium and long distance transit system will get more people to give up their cars and perhaps make car people a little more aimiable to the idea of mass transit.
All this is pretty big thinking. But there are things that can be done on a much smaller scale. Did you raise your kid to think a car at sixteen is the best thing in the world, or did you make sure they understood your city’s public transit system, how to read bus schedules, and how to pay fares? Would your school consider conducting some of it’s field trips on public transport to get kids used to it? Does your local high school encourage kids to drive to school, or does it have a convienent public bus stop, ample and secure bike storage and easy ways to cross local busy streets? Would they consider restricting parking to those that truly need to drive? Would your workplace consider installing showers and changing rooms for bike commuters?
Of course some people are still going to need or want cars. And of course rural areas are probably always going to be best served by private vehicles. And of course Americans really really like their cars and don’t want to even imagine life without them. But that doesn’t mean that public transportation is a lost cause and that we should keep actively encouraging car-centric culture. There are ways to explore and encourage alternatives that arn’t as draconian as banning private vehiles.
New England is old, hilly, and rocky. Take my word for it that biking isn’t feasible. I rode all over for years before I got my license. It is brutal. 30 degree inclines are not uncommon. Shoulders, much less having room for bike lanes, are virtually nonexistant. All this makes walking unrealistic as well. Basically, no matter where you go, you will face a beginner ski slope (or three) on your way there or on your way back.
Think of New England as San Francisco in a forest, with one large boulder or a dozen large rocks between every tree. Development is cost-prohibitive, and restricted severely by strict zoning regulations.
Even Sven makes good points for future developments. The towns in my county have been around since the 1600s, and many (if not most) of the roads were “planned” hundreds of years ago.
PS: CanvasShoes, I have seen your name so frequently recently that I feel like I know you, though in retrospect I may not have posted in as many of those threads as I thought. I assure you I am very male; my name reflects my teenage hobby. No harm no foul.
It’s also a myth that you have to eat high quality, expensive foods to lose weight. You can lose weight eating at McDonalds.
A kids meal (hamburger, small fries, small coke) has about 600 calories. That’s a completely acceptable amount of food for a meal and it only costs about $2.00. If you ate that for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you’d be just around the 2000 recommended number of calories. If you’re concerned about nutrition, replace the coke with milk (they both have about 100 calories).
So there you go. A diet plan to lose weight on $6 a day which doesn’t require you to cook a single meal, and you get to have all the toys you can handle.
A lot of people look at that and say that’s not enough food to live on. And that’s correct if you’re overweight. That amount of food will not keep a 200 pound person at 200 pounds. But it will keep at 150 pound person at 150 pounds (or somewhere around there). If you are overweight and just ate kids meals 3 times a day, you’d lose weight until you were at at a lower, healthier weight.