Is public transport for losers?

Question

Ok so I know its not the politically correct term but untill I see a vast majority of MPs regulary travelling on public transport, I like them am going to assume public transport is for societys sinkers. I know lots of people that could get public transport but they dont, as if they reckon they have some sort of entitlement. Is this snobbery at its best? If global warming did become a problem how would we go about reversing this form of snobbery or would it be better to save the planet and say goodbye to the economy/money system?

Please comment on this, thanks

Answer 1

My town:



Subway? No

Street buses? No

Closest Gray hound route 100 km

Airport? 76 km.

Box stores? 146 km



Not everyone has access to public trans. Think of people like us when you say it doesn"t matter that vehicle costs or gas prices go up.

Answer 2

I used to drive a bus in a very congested city. The transit system eased a lot of that congestion, and was very convenient for the students and faculty at the university, as they didn't have to hunt for parking, and could actually get off closer to their destinations than if they drove. A lot of business people took the bus downtown, again, to ease the problem of parking. Everyone rode the bus to the shopping districts. There were a few routes that went to the lower-income housing areas, and you got the sorts of people you would expect there.

In a city that cannot support the traffic demand, public transportation is the only viable option! Our transit system kept hundreds, if not thousands of cars off the already-clogged streets everyday. That results in less traffic, less congestion, less pollution, and less fuel consumption. Everyone should take advantage of public transportation and help conserve our natural resources!

Answer 3

I live in London and don't think people are snobbish about public transport. Every day I see men in sharp suits and women in designer clothes on the tube. I think MPs just live on another planet, although I am sure some of the more famous ones might be concerned about the security implications of travelling on public transport.

Answer 4

Society sinkers? Maybe the conditions of the subways systems aren't spick and span, but the advantages on the environment are much better pooling together and much cheaper per individual. Military Police are there for your protection. Probably for reasons your not even thinking about.



http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/12/new.york.plot/index.html?iref=allsearch



We will eventually have to use the public system as our population goes up and our oil runs out. Eventually the cost of gas will force us to use public transportation. It's inevitable.



Say goodbye to the monetary system? I think that's for Science Fiction only.

Answer 5

Not in my city, which happens to be Chicago. In big cities like mine, many people don't bother with cars. They're a hassle to maintain, you have to pay for parking and other fees, the insurance costs are higher, and the risks of theft and vandalism are greater. (It's happened to me.) Why deal with all that when you live in a city in which you don't actually use your car all that often? When you can commute to work in comfort and actually get some work or reading done while doing so?



I know quite a few native New Yorkers who have never even learned to drive. Some of them live very much at the top of the scale, in terms of income. I have a relative who has happily lived without a car in Chicago for 40 years. If he travels somewhere that he needs one, he rents one.



As far as MPs are concerned, note that politicians have security concerns the rest of us don't face, so citing a lack of MPs on the Underground doesn't make your point regarding snobbery. And who really wants to drive into London these days? Not I. Even Princess Anne was taking the train in a couple of years ago, because she was tired of the hassle of driving.

Answer 6

Just wish I could travel to my place of work using public transport; no hassle, better for the environment, cheaper, no overheads other than the fare itself.



If you live somewhere with a viable public transport system and you don't use it- you should be locked up.

Answer 7

No, it's for people who have to go somewhere and don't want to pay for gas, insurance, plate stickers, window stickers, etc. I have a car. But in the area where I work parking costs $20-30 per day. So I guess if you want to say that I am a loser because I'd rather pay $5.00 per day for bus fare than that parking fee plus all the other fees I mentioned, then you can think of it that way. I like to think of it as financially sound.

Answer 8

not at all. public transport gives people independence particaully if like me u live in the middle of now where and its a choice of a bus or parents i definatly go 4 the public transport

Answer 9

public transport is a life safer to many,many people,especially the elderly. put it this way,if you had the choice to travel in a top of the range jaguar,or a bus,many people would opt for the jag.

but seen as thats not an option for most people,public transport is there life saver.

Answer 10

No.

Paying $4 a gallon for gas is for losers.

Keep demand down by riding public transportation.

Answer 11

i understand why famous people etc. have thier own transport etc.

but just think some people cant be bothered waiting on a bus etc.



I HAVE to use public transport and would rather just jump in a car.

get where your coming from though.

x

Answer 12

i comprehend how you experience. this is frequently unlawful to play loud music to play on public transportation because it disturb the passengers, conductors, prepare operators and bus operators. they are not respecting their passengers. I shop in innovations even as i develop into the front automobile of large apple city Subway, even as there develop into male teen taking area in the ipod so loud, prepare operator yelled at him.

Answer 13

No. How do we ordinary plebs get around in our major cities

Answer 14

No it'is you looser man. Buy a Bentley