NCAAbbs

Amazing how the article talks about it like it's a good thing, and boasts about how Oregon is ahead of the rest of the country for researching a tax that allows the government to track you like an animal and tax you accordingly.

With the push to fuel efficiency there is going to have to be a shift away from a per gallon gas tax to something like a mileage tax to keep up with funding highway improvement. I am completely against any type of GPS in the car though. It would be simple enough to have someone check your odometer each time you renew your tag or have your car inspected (in states that do vehicle inspections).

Hey, here's a novel idea... how about governments cut expenses in other areas to cover their lost tax revenues? Or just spend DOT money more efficiently. Have you ever passed through an ALDOT construction zone where there weren't a dozen plus workers standing there with their thumbs up their butts, while 1 or 2 actually worked? I know I haven't.

I'm not seeing the logic here. I don't believe for a second that the increase in auto fuel efficiency is greater than the general increase in demand for gasoline. The increase in demand may have slowed, but it hasn't stopped.

Utter BS!!

Lay in a European style passenger rail grid and use this tax to help pay for it, maybe. Otherwise, BS!!

We have no alternatives, so they can suck on their tax.

(09-15-2009 06:06 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]Utter BS!!

Lay in a European style passenger rail grid and use this tax to help pay for it, maybe. Otherwise, BS!!

We have no alternatives, so they can suck on their tax.

As I have said before- Euro style rail will not work on a national level.

Europe is about 4 million square miles with a population of about 730 million. Pop density of about 180/ sq mi.

Contiguous 48 states (throwing in the vastness of Alaska with little population would skew the numbers) about 3 million sq mi, population of about 280 million. Pop density of about 95/ sq mi.

Europe, with huge population centers in close proximity to each other can make rail work. Here, we could, and do, make it work in the DC-Boston corridor. But a nationwide rail system is unlikely.

(09-14-2009 04:29 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not seeing the logic here. I don't believe for a second that the increase in auto fuel efficiency is greater than the general increase in demand for gasoline. The increase in demand may have slowed, but it hasn't stopped.

Yes, fuel demand has increased even as efficiency has increased but that means that there is an even larger increase in traffic which is putting an even bigger strain on the highway infrastructure, which is making the situation worse. If cars were once getting 20mpg, and the government was getting $.10 per gallon, that's $0.005 per mile driven. Now, if cars are getting an average of 30 miles per gallon, and the government is still getting $.10 per gallon, that's $0.0033 per mile driven.

Now, if 250,000 cars are driving a 10 mile stretch of highway each day, then the road is generating $1250 per day in revenue at 20mpg. If 325,000 cars are driving that same stretch at 30mpg it's only generating $1083. The road hasn't gotten any bigger or smoother, but has actually gotten more crowded and is generating less money. More cars = more wear on the surface and more congestion. It also means more costs to the police to work wrecks.

The real answer is mass transit, so you don't have to drive on the road. But this is Alabama and we can't spend money on that kind of stuff.

(09-16-2009 10:26 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-15-2009 06:06 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]Utter BS!!

Lay in a European style passenger rail grid and use this tax to help pay for it, maybe. Otherwise, BS!!

We have no alternatives, so they can suck on their tax.

As I have said before- Euro style rail will not work on a national level.

Europe is about 4 million square miles with a population of about 730 million. Pop density of about 180/ sq mi.

Contiguous 48 states (throwing in the vastness of Alaska with little population would skew the numbers) about 3 million sq mi, population of about 280 million. Pop density of about 95/ sq mi.

Europe, with huge population centers in close proximity to each other can make rail work. Here, we could, and do, make it work in the DC-Boston corridor. But a nationwide rail system is unlikely.

We don't need a nationwide rail system. The interstates between major cities aren't congested. We need rail inside cities. I need to be able to get on a train or bus in Calera or Alabaster and ride to downtown Birmingham without sitting in traffic alone in my truck.

I would walk 500 miles....

(09-16-2009 10:26 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-15-2009 06:06 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]Utter BS!!

Lay in a European style passenger rail grid and use this tax to help pay for it, maybe. Otherwise, BS!!

We have no alternatives, so they can suck on their tax.

As I have said before- Euro style rail will not work on a national level.

Europe is about 4 million square miles with a population of about 730 million. Pop density of about 180/ sq mi.

Contiguous 48 states (throwing in the vastness of Alaska with little population would skew the numbers) about 3 million sq mi, population of about 280 million. Pop density of about 95/ sq mi.

Europe, with huge population centers in close proximity to each other can make rail work. Here, we could, and do, make it work in the DC-Boston corridor. But a nationwide rail system is unlikely.

Population of the United States is about 304 Million, by the way.

It is a parallel situation to how the banks adapted to the drop in interest rates by dreaming up new ways to get money from its customers by enacting various fees and charges to increase income. The states will have to do the same thing to meet their citizen's demands for service while tax income in this economy drags downward. I would expect to see inventive new ways adopted by the states since the Federal monies which supplement state spending may drop as well (the Federal "stimulus money" will end at 2 years).

BTW, Most, if not all, of the workers you see on the highway construction sites are private company employees who are working for companies under ALDOT contracts.

I would like to see a feasibility study of a true national rail system similar in coverage to the Interstate highway system. I believe one advantage rail might have is their ability to carry you some distance WITH YOUR AUTO ABOARD so you can stay at a remote location with your own car.

(09-16-2009 11:24 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It is a parallel situation to how the banks adapted to the drop in interest rates by dreaming up new ways to get money from its customers by enacting various fees and charges to increase income. The states will have to do the same thing to meet their citizen's demands for service while tax income in this economy drags downward. I would expect to see inventive new ways adopted by the states since the Federal monies which supplement state spending may drop as well (the Federal "stimulus money" will end at 2 years).

Are you serious? The economy is bad so the government needs to think up more ways to get money out of the population? How about the government focus on cutting non-essential spending to keep costs under income, kinda like how families are having to do in the current environment.

This is what happens when the government gets too big. Taxes have to go up to maintain all the crap that gets started. It's not a sustainable practice.

(09-16-2009 11:24 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to see a feasibility study of a true national rail system similar in coverage to the Interstate highway system. I believe one advantage rail might have is their ability to carry you some distance WITH YOUR AUTO ABOARD so you can stay at a remote location with your own car.

if there was a rational transportation system nationally and locally, wherever you might go would have a functioning mass transit system and you wouldn't need your car.

(09-17-2009 06:35 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-16-2009 11:24 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It is a parallel situation to how the banks adapted to the drop in interest rates by dreaming up new ways to get money from its customers by enacting various fees and charges to increase income. The states will have to do the same thing to meet their citizen's demands for service while tax income in this economy drags downward. I would expect to see inventive new ways adopted by the states since the Federal monies which supplement state spending may drop as well (the Federal "stimulus money" will end at 2 years).

Are you serious? The economy is bad so the government needs to think up more ways to get money out of the population? How about the government focus on cutting non-essential spending to keep costs under income, kinda like how families are having to do in the current environment.

This is what happens when the government gets too big. Taxes have to go up to maintain all the crap that gets started. It's not a sustainable practice.

Do you really believe all this fuss over BINGO would be going on in Alabama if taxes were rolling in? Gambling is the "out" for a state that considers itself "holier than thou" but wants the state to do everything without taxes being raised, particularly on those with the most money.

"Cut non-essential services" for this state means education and medicaid. It certainly doesn't mean football coaching salaries!

With the lack of quality education in Alabama government schools,
this State should get out of the K-12 education business altogether.

(09-16-2009 10:26 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-15-2009 06:06 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]Utter BS!!

Lay in a European style passenger rail grid and use this tax to help pay for it, maybe. Otherwise, BS!!

We have no alternatives, so they can suck on their tax.

As I have said before- Euro style rail will not work on a national level.

Europe is about 4 million square miles with a population of about 730 million. Pop density of about 180/ sq mi.

Contiguous 48 states (throwing in the vastness of Alaska with little population would skew the numbers) about 3 million sq mi, population of about 280 million. Pop density of about 95/ sq mi.

Europe, with huge population centers in close proximity to each other can make rail work. Here, we could, and do, make it work in the DC-Boston corridor. But a nationwide rail system is unlikely.

Did you honestly think I was advocating Swiss track density in places like Wyoming which has a state population comparable to the greater Birmingham Metro Area?

No, I didn't think you were advocating that. I was just pointing out that Europe isn't the best example of what we need.

What we need is sensible, useful mass transit. Where the density works, rail transport and the like. Where it does not, a public transport system that works for an urban area would still be useful. See MARTA in Atlanta for instance.

What we have instead is MAX, which sucks balls.

(09-19-2009 09:10 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]What we need is sensible, useful mass transit. Where the density works, rail transport and the like. Where it does not, a public transport system that works for an urban area would still be useful. See MARTA in Atlanta for instance.

What we have instead is MAX, which sucks balls.

Get the government out of the business of mass transit. If it is capable of working successfully, then let the private sector invest in it and build it.

(09-21-2009 06:36 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2009 09:10 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]What we need is sensible, useful mass transit. Where the density works, rail transport and the like. Where it does not, a public transport system that works for an urban area would still be useful. See MARTA in Atlanta for instance.

What we have instead is MAX, which sucks balls.

Get the government out of the business of mass transit. If it is capable of working successfully, then let the private sector invest in it and build it.

B'ham's public transit system was private from the beginning. B'ham Electric CO. ran the first system of horse-drawn trolleys and then moved to electric trolleys and electric buses. After WWII, they were bought out (like many local transit companies) by a subsidiary of General Motors who replaced all electric vehicles with gasoline powered ones (from, guess who?). That is when the tracks were ripped up or paved over.

It was only when the private companies abandoned the local transit companies that the city had to step in with what became MAX. It was the default by private companies that made the publicly owned transit companies necessary. The continued drive for immediate profitable returns by the private companies rather than taking a longer R & D time line approach ( this trait has been the topic of several TV documentaries on the decline of American entrepreneurial vigor) has kept the governments in the public transit field, not the other way around.

profits=bad
collectivism=good

(09-24-2009 06:26 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]profits=bad
collectivism=good

Private company default = Public transit company birth
Refusal by private company to provide service = public service to the people to make up for it (even when tax support is meager)

(09-26-2009 01:25 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-24-2009 06:26 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]profits=bad
collectivism=good

Private company default = Public transit company birth
Refusal by private company to provide service = public service to the people to make up for it (even when tax support is meager)

no market to support service=government fleecing taxpayers to provide service to the few

Everyone benefits from a public transit system, even if you don't personally ride it. That's why we use taxes to pay for it. Could you imagine the traffic in some large cities if there wasn't mass transit? Oh, I can. It's called I-65 in Shelby County on a weekday morning.

I'd be willing to wager large sums of $$$ I could find a substantial pct. of the population in many large cities to disagree with your statement.
have you ever been to Miami, Houston, Detroit, Orlando, Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Atlanta, NOLA, L.A...... I could go on.
These are cities with lots of hrs./year of auto commute time per worker, as well as a public transit system.
Only in the northeast will you find a large number of people 'choosing' to ride public transit.

The point is, however, that traffic would be even worse, and companies would have a hard time doing business if their workers and customers who don't have cars couldn't get to work. Just because a city has bad traffic and a significant public transit system doesn't mean the transit system isn't taking a load off the highways.

it also doesn't mean the local/fed gov't hasn't fleeced the many for the few, again.

is it impossible for you to accept that something the government does that you don't get a direct benefit from still benefits you? you are better off for public transit, from reduced pollution to reduced traffic, public transit is generally considered to be a worthwhile investment

it's not a worthwhile investment for me, or a majority of the population.
it's impossible for you to see government isn't the answer to every day problems,
whether the perceived problems are real or imagined.

traffic congestion is not an imagined problem. I sit in it every day of my life. Sometimes you have to get off your idealogical high horse and actually try to fix some of the problems in the world.

fixing the problems of the world.

as long as you rely on government to fix your problems (real or imagined),
you'll never get anywhere. And, you'll wait your entire lifetime for the fix that will never materialize.
that appears to be the difference between you and me. I'm self reliant. You rely on someone else.

(09-26-2009 09:39 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ] fixing the problems of the world.

as long as you rely on government to fix your problems (real or imagined),
you'll never get anywhere. And, you'll wait your entire lifetime for the fix that will never materialize.
that appears to be the difference between you and me. I'm self reliant. You rely on someone else.

Some things you can't fix on your own. I can't strike out on my own and start a business that fixes traffic congestion. That's not how the world works. Some things do actually take government intervention.

how do you know you can't start a business to ease traffic congestion?
apparently, you don't know how the REAL world works.
most successfull businesses are/were started by individual [or a small group] of entrepreneurs filling a need for a product or service.
you could do this if you really cared, instead of bit*hing about it and waiting on government to do it for you.
do you drive a car? why don't you live closer to your work or the exisiting MAX routes?
there are some things you could do. it just doesn't appear to be THAT important to you.
yes, there is a place for government. but, not in this instance.
another example of a liberal telling society 'do as I say, not as I do.'

Ok, first if you had your way there wouldn't be any MAX routes at all. And me personally moving closer to work isn't going to fix traffic congestion. Please give me a rough business plan of a private corporation that would ease traffic congestion profitably, and how they would do it.

Not True. There just wouldn't be MAX routes [as we now know them] because government wouldn't run (ruin) local mass transit in my world.
If there was a TRUE need based market [in Birmingham] there would be viable mass transit.
No amount of taxpayer $$$ can create a true market.
The reason MAX is a failure [and runs a deficit] is there isn't enough ridership in the existing routes [for a myriad of reasons].
You moving closer to your work would be one less car in traffic.
if enough people cared, they would do the same. baby steps, mixedup.
if it's a big enough 'problem', then a solution has to start somewhere.
why can't you start a solution, instead of wating on government to solve a problem?

I give up. Arguing with you is like arguing with a stop sign.

Not everyone can pick up and move when they get a different job. UAB doesn't pay me enough to live within 5 minutes of campus. I'd love to have a job closer to home, but our glorious completely free market economy is in the shitter right now.

(09-27-2009 10:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I give up. Arguing with you is like arguing with a stop sign.

Not everyone can pick up and move when they get a different job. UAB doesn't pay me enough to live within 5 minutes of campus. I'd love to have a job closer to home, but our glorious completely free market economy is in the shitter right now.

see, this is where you're wrong. we gave up on the 'completely free market economy' in the 1930's.
government f'd this up through needless regulation and intrusion into private business.
so, you're telling me you're a quitter and you're not willing to be self-reliant or attempt to solve 'perceived' problems.
this explains a lot. there's no sense of accomplishment, purpose or self-esteem in that.
you're [obviously] a classic, far left collectivist, for which government is the answer to everything in your world.
I hope you find happiness and success there, because the rest of us will be working to pay for others handouts, and somehow finding happiness and purpose in life, as well.

Anyone who thinks what we have experienced anytime lately is "free market" obviously has the economic IQ of a tree stump. Or worse, an Obama.

(09-17-2009 06:35 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-16-2009 11:24 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It is a parallel situation to how the banks adapted to the drop in interest rates by dreaming up new ways to get money from its customers by enacting various fees and charges to increase income. The states will have to do the same thing to meet their citizen's demands for service while tax income in this economy drags downward. I would expect to see inventive new ways adopted by the states since the Federal monies which supplement state spending may drop as well (the Federal "stimulus money" will end at 2 years).

Are you serious? The economy is bad so the government needs to think up more ways to get money out of the population? How about the government focus on cutting non-essential spending to keep costs under income, kinda like how families are having to do in the current environment.

This is what happens when the government gets too big. Taxes have to go up to maintain all the crap that gets started. It's not a sustainable practice.

The Federal, State and local governments are responding to our (the citizen's) demand for services we consider "essential". Look at the public's uproar over cuts to the Jeffco Sheriff's Dept. caused by the state legislature cutting out the county's Occupation tax. While Voluteer Fire Depts. are "OK", they don't want "Volunteer Police Depts".

ALL levels of gov't can cut spending. The problem is the "where" and "what" to cut. One man's "pork" is another man's "essential service". Usually gov'ts cut according to the "sqeeky wheel" principle. The "disadvantaged" in the population are the usual "victims" of cuts since to the "advantaged", they are the "people who don't matter" in political terms. In my youth in Alabama, that was usually all the "poor" and Blacks of any income.

Quote:The Federal, State and local governments are responding to our (the citizen's) demand for services we consider "essential". Look at the public's uproar over cuts to the Jeffco Sheriff's Dept. caused by the state legislature cutting out the county's Occupation tax. While Voluteer Fire Depts. are "OK", they don't want "Volunteer Police Depts".

ALL levels of gov't can cut spending. The problem is the "where" and "what" to cut. One man's "pork" is another man's "essential service". Usually gov'ts cut according to the "sqeeky wheel" principle. The "disadvantaged" in the population are the usual "victims" of cuts since to the "advantaged", they are the "people who don't matter" in political terms. In my youth in Alabama, that was usually all the "poor" and Blacks of any income.

The PROBLEM is the fact that our elected politicians blew the taxpayer money and created this problem.

At the end of the day, Jefferson County should be running a much leaner and smaller government for which this taxpayer is happy. If we had real leadership, they would have already figured out a way to streamline the County and saved costs anyway rather than giving away money to lawfirms and consulting firms. Jefferson County needs a county manager, pure and simple. Let's hope s/he comes from a conservative background so they can cut costs and eliminate waste in every department.

(09-17-2009 06:35 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-16-2009 11:24 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It is a parallel situation to how the banks adapted to the drop in interest rates by dreaming up new ways to get money from its customers by enacting various fees and charges to increase income. The states will have to do the same thing to meet their citizen's demands for service while tax income in this economy drags downward. I would expect to see inventive new ways adopted by the states since the Federal monies which supplement state spending may drop as well (the Federal "stimulus money" will end at 2 years).

Are you serious? The economy is bad so the government needs to think up more ways to get money out of the population? How about the government focus on cutting non-essential spending to keep costs under income, kinda like how families are having to do in the current environment.

This is what happens when the government gets too big. Taxes have to go up to maintain all the crap that gets started. It's not a sustainable practice.

When is government "too big"? Is it when it helps people who have been overwhelmed by circumstances beyond their control, put out of work by CEOs who want to stimulate the company's stock price since they are paid in stock by cutting labor costs? Maybe it's when it gets into wars of choice that costs billions in treasure and thousands of lives but that they then can't get out of without looking bad? Is it when government cuts taxes on those with the most money income but can't respond to a natural disaster that wipes out the most vulnerable who have no where to turn but government? Maybe the real problem is that government is too small in important issues like public education and healthcare but too big in helping those with the most personal resources so that their pockets remain overfilled? Maybe it's just a matter of whose "ox is being gored"?

oh, if it weren't for that vexatious little document we call our Constitution

(09-27-2009 09:48 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]Not True. There just wouldn't be MAX routes [as we now know them] because government wouldn't run (ruin) local mass transit in my world.
If there was a TRUE need based market [in Birmingham] there would be viable mass transit.
No amount of taxpayer $$$ can create a true market.
The reason MAX is a failure [and runs a deficit] is there isn't enough ridership in the existing routes [for a myriad of reasons].
You moving closer to your work would be one less car in traffic.
if enough people cared, they would do the same. baby steps, mixedup.
if it's a big enough 'problem', then a solution has to start somewhere.
why can't you start a solution, instead of wating on government to solve a problem?

The problem for public transportation in the south is unique to the area. There is a long held cultural barrier that has never been crossed in the south. Both of you sound like you are too young to remember the 1950s bus disputes. After the arrest of Rosa Parks in Montgomery, the Black citizens boycotted the buses. It was a perfect opportunity for White citizens to "take over" the buses. The result however showed how strongly the whites considered public transport to be "Black transport". The whites never tried to reduce the impact of the boycott by riding the buses themselves so the boycott remained very economically effective.

Middle class Whites DON"T ride public buses in the south unless they are too old, too poor or too young to drive their own car, even if it means sitting in a "parking lot" twice a day like on US 280 or I-65. I can still remember the old remarks about public transit being the "Mountain Brook Maid Delivery Service".

It would probably take something dramatic like $5 per gallon gas to shake these age-old prejudices that buses are for Blacks (and now Hispanics) and cars are for Whites.

(10-07-2009 07:13 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-27-2009 09:48 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]Not True. There just wouldn't be MAX routes [as we now know them] because government wouldn't run (ruin) local mass transit in my world.
If there was a TRUE need based market [in Birmingham] there would be viable mass transit.
No amount of taxpayer $$$ can create a true market.
The reason MAX is a failure [and runs a deficit] is there isn't enough ridership in the existing routes [for a myriad of reasons].
You moving closer to your work would be one less car in traffic.
if enough people cared, they would do the same. baby steps, mixedup.
if it's a big enough 'problem', then a solution has to start somewhere.
why can't you start a solution, instead of wating on government to solve a problem?

The problem for public transportation in the south is unique to the area. There is a long held cultural barrier that has never been crossed in the south. Both of you sound like you are too young to remember the 1950s bus disputes. After the arrest of Rosa Parks in Montgomery, the Black citizens boycotted the buses. It was a perfect opportunity for White citizens to "take over" the buses. The result however showed how strongly the whites considered public transport to be "Black transport". The whites never tried to reduce the impact of the boycott by riding the buses themselves so the boycott remained very economically effective.

Middle class Whites DON"T ride public buses in the south unless they are too old, too poor or too young to drive their own car, even if it means sitting in a "parking lot" twice a day like on US 280 or I-65. I can still remember the old remarks about public transit being the "Mountain Brook Maid Delivery Service".

It would probably take something dramatic like $5 per gallon gas to shake these age-old prejudices.

If there were a bus route for me to ride, I'd ride it. I'm 26 and white, and I don't care the color or economic status of the person in the seat next to me.

(10-07-2009 07:13 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-27-2009 09:48 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]Not True. There just wouldn't be MAX routes [as we now know them] because government wouldn't run (ruin) local mass transit in my world.
If there was a TRUE need based market [in Birmingham] there would be viable mass transit.
No amount of taxpayer $$$ can create a true market.
The reason MAX is a failure [and runs a deficit] is there isn't enough ridership in the existing routes [for a myriad of reasons].
You moving closer to your work would be one less car in traffic.
if enough people cared, they would do the same. baby steps, mixedup.
if it's a big enough 'problem', then a solution has to start somewhere.
why can't you start a solution, instead of wating on government to solve a problem?

The problem for public transportation in the south is unique to the area. There is a long held cultural barrier that has never been crossed in the south. Both of you sound like you are too young to remember the 1950s bus disputes. After the arrest of Rosa Parks in Montgomery, the Black citizens boycotted the buses. It was a perfect opportunity for White citizens to "take over" the buses. The result however showed how strongly the whites considered public transport to be "Black transport". The whites never tried to reduce the impact of the boycott by riding the buses themselves so the boycott remained very economically effective.

Middle class Whites DON"T ride public buses in the south unless they are too old, too poor or too young to drive their own car, even if it means sitting in a "parking lot" twice a day like on US 280 or I-65. I can still remember the old remarks about public transit being the "Mountain Brook Maid Delivery Service".

It would probably take something dramatic like $5 per gallon gas to shake these age-old prejudices that buses are for Blacks (and now Hispanics) and cars are for Whites.

NOBODY rides buses unless they're too old, poor, or young. If I couldn't afford a job, I'd either live within walking distance to work or I'd ride the bus. Being a certain race has nothing to do with it.

mass transportation, in most southern cities, isn't economically feasible because
most southern central business districts aren't large enough to support such a system.
Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas [each with metro population >5 million] have such systems.
A system connecting Orlando with Tampa (combined population 4.8 mil.) is under consideration, as well.
I don't know why most everything has to be a race issue with BAMANBLAZERFAN , but it seems to be.

You know the real reason middle-class white people from the suburbs don't ride busses in the South? They don't pick you up where you want to be picked up and take you where you need to go...

It's like 20+ miles into town from my house and there's no direct shot by car. During the fits and starts of concentric ring growth of this town outward into the 'burbs no real city planning took place.

EVEN IF a bus came out this far to pick me up, the closest places I can think of for it to make a suitable stop near my house are in this order: A Winn-Dixie Parking lot or Hoover High School. BOTH places would require me to get in my own car to drive miles (plural) to the stop where I would then have the issue of day parking to contend with...

Again people, our solution in Birmingham is to stop with the stupid and introduce rail a little at a time. Day Free Park and Ride rail stations that take you all the way, express, downtown. The stations would look exactly like the Hamilton Holmes and Doraville Stations on Atlanta's MARTA. Put one station out on 280 at Brookhighland where that stupid strip mall is already starting to go fallow, put one up in Gardendale or Blount County somewhere, one in Helena, Trussville, and one over by Hoover's new Grove shopping center to start. When those are established you can introduce major stops along the way such as in Vestavia and Homewood... While this is catching on you could have busses serving greater Homewood, Vestavia, etc. from the rail stations because now you have folks downtown. "White suburban folks." Who have no car 'cause you got them downtown by train. They'll then be glad to take the bus.

It's not a race issue. It's a city planning issue. It's a lack of intelligence issue.

(10-08-2009 05:49 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]You know the real reason middle-class white people from the suburbs don't ride busses in the South? They don't pick you up where you want to be picked up and take you where you need to go...

It's like 20+ miles into town from my house and there's no direct shot by car. During the fits and starts of concentric ring growth of this town outward into the 'burbs no real city planning took place.

EVEN IF a bus came out this far to pick me up, the closest places I can think of for it to make a suitable stop near my house are in this order: A Winn-Dixie Parking lot or Hoover High School. BOTH places would require me to get in my own car to drive miles (plural) to the stop where I would then have the issue of day parking to contend with...

Again people, our solution in Birmingham is to stop with the stupid and introduce rail a little at a time. Day Free Park and Ride rail stations that take you all the way, express, downtown. The stations would look exactly like the Hamilton Holmes and Doraville Stations on Atlanta's MARTA. Put one station out on 280 at Brookhighland where that stupid strip mall is already starting to go fallow, put one up in Gardendale or Blount County somewhere, one in Helena, Trussville, and one over by Hoover's new Grove shopping center to start. When those are established you can introduce major stops along the way such as in Vestavia and Homewood... While this is catching on you could have busses serving greater Homewood, Vestavia, etc. from the rail stations because now you have folks downtown. "White suburban folks." Who have no car 'cause you got them downtown by train. They'll then be glad to take the bus.

It's not a race issue. It's a city planning issue. It's a lack of intelligence issue.

I would be all over that like "you know what" on rice.

The idea of driving some short (relatively) distance to park my car in a secure place, and sit and read while someone else drives, already appeals to me, $5 gas, be damned.