New Thinking on Fighting Poverty..ANYONE??

[Said1]

Mass transportation is not used by the poor exclusively and benefits more than just the poor. Giving a hand up by implementing mass transportation systems used by all people (if they are effective transportation systems this will be the case, the less effective the system the more likely those with means will avoid it) is not often seen as a welfare program but more often as a benefit to the city in question, it alleviates problems with parking and encourages tourism.

I only mention it because of the effective isolation that would ensue if they were moved to an area without an effective transportation system. If they were moved to an outside area either an effective system would need to be built where they were moved to or we would simply be putting an unnecessary burden upon them.

Specifically where I live there is no effective way to introduce mass transport to the suburban areas. It would not be cost effective and thus would effect a further isolation as well as almost no access to jobs.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying move them anywhere, I'm saying this is how is was done here. Now these areas have been surpassed by more housing developments. They were never considered rural or where they isolated 25yrs ago either.

 

[Said1]

2 different subjects-----efficient urban transportation and poverty.
Americans love the freedom they have when they drive their own cars--it's as simple as that.

I know that. Read who I was responding to and why.

 

[no1tovote4]

Why aren't new lines being added as communities grow? Urban planners still have to consider the need for public transport, regardless of who is living in the "sprawl". Pubic transport isn't for the poor only.

I addressed the fact that public transport isn't for the poor only. However introducing an effective public transport system would not be cost effective in the suburban communities in Denver. As I stated, you would not believe the sprawl.

Like I said, there are buses that go way beyond city limits as it is, and more are added as rural becomes more suburban.

Where I live there are buses that go into suburban areas, but not into the more rural areas. The buses in the suburban areas are not cost effective and adding more would simply add to the extra cost and not improve the value. It simply isn't cost effective to add such bus lines that will not be utilized by those living in the area.

You also have to consider you are dealing with many different cities with different ideas of how best to run their cities. Some want more isolation than others, some see it as a great benefit and will spend that money. Some want to be considered separate and will add their own less efficient system, etc.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Finish high school.
Get a job.
Don't have children out of wedlock.

It's not really new, but it works.

 

[no1tovote4]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying move them anywhere, I'm saying this is how is was done here. Now these areas have been surpassed by more housing developments. They were never considered rural or where they isolated 25yrs ago either.

I was answering dillos point about mass transport being much like a welfare system if it is utilized only by the poor. I didn't think you were saying move them.

 

[Said1]

I addressed the fact that public transport isn't for the poor only. However introducing an effective public transport system would not be cost effective in the suburban communities in Denver. As I stated, you would not believe the sprawl.


Where I live there are buses that go into suburban areas, but not into the more rural areas. The buses in the suburban areas are not cost effective and adding more would simply add to the extra cost and not improve the value. It simply isn't cost effective to add such bus lines that will not be utilized by those living in the area.

I know, we are talking about different things. I'm describing it as it already exsits, your talking about implimentation. My point was that they were not isolated, your point is that they would be as things are now. Clear as a bell.

 

[Said1]

You also have to consider you are dealing with many different cities with different ideas of how best to run their cities. Some want more isolation than others, some see it as a great benefit and will spend that money. Some want to be considered separate and will add their own less efficient system, etc.

Tell me about it! Ottawa is still trying to sort out the city's amalgumation mess dating back to 2001. I'm basically downtown, so we see a lot of benefits, but the suburbanites are paying for it, obviously getting tax harder in return.