Raa wrote:There is way too much open land in rural America to provide bus service to everywhere.
.

Between two medium sized towns seperated by 25 miles or so?

15 of that is rural. Also, England is vaguely socialist, but they seem to do a decent job administering it, it may have something to do with the relatively low population.

America is becoming more and more a "Gimme Gimme" society, not Socialist, Entitlement based.. Everybody is asking the Government to give them something.

@Raa
Social Security was meant as a short term solution to a short term problem(the Depression). FDR did NOT intend for entire generations of Americans to be dependant on SS for their living during their waning years. Raa do not expect it to be there when you are ready to retire.

liberator wrote:15 of that is rural. Also, England is vaguely socialist, but they seem to do a decent job administering it, it may have something to do with the relatively low population.

America is becoming more and more a "Gimme Gimme" society, not Socialist, Entitlement based.. Everybody is asking the Government to give them something.

Firstly, and this really pisses me off, United Kingdom != England, ok? I don't ignore 3 quarters of the states in the US, please don't do the same to me.

Secondly, the United Kingdom is not socialist; the current government is a socialist part which has reinvented itself as a centrist party (and did so in order to win elections in, IIRC, 96 or so). The previous government was right-wing-ish / uber-capitalist, especially under Thatcher. The likes of, for example, France is a better example for socialist; as it stands the UK is decidedly centrist.

The socialist aspects of the Uk are, frankly, screwed up. Specifically the NHS - despite the competence of its doctors - is underfunded and over-middle-managed. The benefits sytem is somewhat dodgy, and pensions are quite low as well.... we're not a sterling example of state-managed services. We have some decent stuff - the simple fact that the NHS is free & university is still massively cheaper than the US is genuinely important.

(On the other hand, Scotland seems to be better at this stuff than the english; the free heating bill for the elderly, for example, and also the university funding and refusal to instigate top-up fees)

Thirdly, 15 miles of 'rural' is nothing; there are - to use a local example - far more miles of proper wilderness in the highlands, but there are still bus services and train routes across that. (In spite of the chronic underinvestment post-privitisation, may I add....).

Fourthly, the UK population isn't really low in relative terms if you introduce landmass as a factor; we probably have a much higher population density than the US as a whole, and definately higher than same-sized US states.

aldo wrote: Thirdly, 15 miles of 'rural' is nothing; there are - to use a local example - far more miles of proper wilderness in the highlands, but there are still bus services and train routes across that. (In spite of the chronic underinvestment post-privitisation, may I add....).

Fourthly, the UK population isn't really low in relative terms if you introduce landmass as a factor; we probably have a much higher population density than the US as a whole, and definately higher than same-sized US states.

Point 4 first, and then three.

4 - This is your reason why. You have a much higher density. In the rural areas of the US, there is very little people. The two towns that Lib is mentioning probably only have ~100-200k people at the very maximum.

3 - Because of 4, there is little demand for public transportation in these areas. When I was living in Florida, the county passed a 2 million dollar budget to create T.H.E. (Trans-Hernando [Hernando being the county] Express) Bus. The busses were running for ~5 months when I moved there, and there had been a total of about 100 recorded users. The state felt like it was pissing the money away, and cut back on the service after a year.

Ah, but UK density is not evenly distributed; in UK terms, ~100k population towns are large; 2 of them within 25 miles would be very dense.

Remember that population density is unequal; London, for example, holds about 10% of the population (and Birmingham, Glasgow about 5-8% respectively IIRC).

So we have large tracts of open space; 2 towns within 25 miles of each other in the UK (and a combined population of 100k-200k) would be very dense in certain areas. For example, Dundee - Scotlands 4th largest city - has about 150,000 people.

The difference is that the US, I imagine, has vast unpopulated areas, whereas we don't. But in the case of how Lib describes his area, it's easily as densely populated as the more 'dense' areas of the UK.

I suspect, that the reason there is little demand for public transportation is cultural, though. The US strikes me as very much car-dependent country, one unwilling to use transport outside of cities. In the UK, I think many bus services, etc, run at a loss and are subsidised; but there's probably more acceptance of this.

Regardless, from a UK perspective, for Lib not to have any option of public transport, is simply bizarre.

Raa wrote: Point 4 first, and then three.

4 - This is your reason why. You have a much higher density. In the rural areas of the US, there is very little people. The two towns that Lib is mentioning probably only have ~100-200k people at the very maximum.

Wow. We have bus services between towns of one or two thousand. That's horrendous, from my POV (though admittedly, the population distribution here is unique).

Thing is, those towns, *if* they actually have 200,000 (which I doubt) are sprawled out over alot of land, usually.


But whatever. I'm done trying to explain why US's public transport sucks.

Aldo did mention part of the answer. Americans have always had an infatuation with cars. People don't want to take a crowded bus between towns when they can cruise down the road in their own car. Cities are the exception, seeing as how it would be an absolute nightmare to drive everywhere you needed to go on a daily basis. I'm assuming that this sentiment isn't as prevalent in Great Britain, but for better or worse, that's the way it seems to be here.

I <3 my Honda.

Raa wrote:I <3 my Honda.

Those things are considered cars?

Better than those gas guzzling deathtraps you like.

Explain to me again how a Honda, which is small and built lightly, is not a deathtrap in most wrecks?

Depending on what it's colliding with, of course, there's a pretty decent chance of survival if you're in a small, light, but modern car, with airbags and stuff. Of course, if you hit a semi, you're buggered, but, to be honest, most things are.

It he hits my car, he's buggered. His car weighs 1500lbs, mine weighs nearly 3000lbs. Do the math.

Raa wrote:Better than those gas guzzling deathtraps you like.

Gas guzzling or not, I'll still take my 'Stang. I think it has just a little bit more horsepower than the average Honda.

Please note that I will most likely never be able to afford said 'Stang.