What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

[John Kane]

On May 24, 4:24 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking
> >> my strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to
> >> drive. Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food
> >> chain. I guess only buses protect me from the big predators
> >> out there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and
> > tandems.
>
> Many/most drivers of _any_ type of vehicle would be happy to see that, but
> the teamsters will make sure it never happens. Instead, we're going the
> other way, allowing doubles and now even triples.
>
> Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the
> streets for the majority of their trip anyways. More linear parks would be
> a nice side benefit that any resident would support, and it's easy to
> include bike trains in them at nearly no cost.

Great idea. Once Broadway, Woodward, Yonge, The Strand and the
Champs d'Elyssée are turned into linear parks we should be a lot
better off.


> Even sidewalk maintenance
> (where they exist) is widely supported by local voters.
>
> The key for "quality of life" stuff like this is getting local politicians
> to change spending priorities and zoning rules, rather than trying to
> influence corrupt state or national politicians who care only about getting
> campaign contributions from unions and other lobbies.
>
> S
>
> --
> Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
> CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
> K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

 

[Wayne Pein]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:


> Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the
> streets for the majority of their trip anyways.


Oh sure. You mean, "Motorists would be better served by bike trails that
kept bicyclists off the streets..."

Wayne

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Stephen Sprunk" <[email protected]> writes in part:

> Bicyclists would be better served by bike trails that kept them off the
> streets for the majority of their trip anyways.

Not necessarily. Transportational cyclists need access
to the same destinations as do car drivers. We have
actual places to go, and actual reasons to go there, same
as anyone else. We'd be better served by more people
understanding that, and not impeding us.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Nobody]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:18 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Nobody <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
>>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
>>>with athsma is also good.
>>
>> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect
>> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those
>> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.
>
>I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
>flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
>And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
>/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
>quite do-able right now.
>
>> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
>> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!
>
>Alternative transportation is not regressive.
>
>> Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and
>> hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler
>> across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and
>> snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message.
>
>What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km?
>
>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
>> wish or function.
>
>It is for me, and for many others.


Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
in the closest pond.

It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
"practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

 

[nash]

"Nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:18 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Nobody <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
>>>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
>>>>with athsma is also good.
>>>
>>> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect
>>> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those
>>> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.
>>
>>I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
>>flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
>>And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
>>/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
>>quite do-able right now.
>>
>>> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
>>> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!
>>
>>Alternative transportation is not regressive.
>>
>>> Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and
>>> hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler
>>> across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and
>>> snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message.
>>
>>What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km?
>>
>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
>>> wish or function.
>>
>>It is for me, and for many others.
>
>
> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.
>
> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
> in the closest pond.
>
> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

what is wrong with 5 miles then.

 

[donquijote1954]

On May 24, 3:17 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 11:28 pm, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Nobody <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
> > > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
> > > >>with athsma is also good.
>
> > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect
> > > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those
> > > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.
>
> > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
> > > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
> > > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
> > > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
> > > quite do-able right now.
>
> > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
> > > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!
>
> > > Alternative transportation is not regressive.
>
> > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and
> > > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler
> > > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and
> > > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message.
>
> > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km?
>
> > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
> > > > wish or function.
>
> > > It is for me, and for many others.
>
> > And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present
> > on our roads...
>
> > Are SUV drivers more reckless?
>
> > This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes,
> > but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way
> > up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles...
>
> > So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers
> > who fell for advertising?
>
> > Just wondering...
>
> > --Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer
> > microcar like a honda fit?--
>
> > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
> > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
> > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
> > only buses protect me from the big predators out there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and
> tandems.-

They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the
average Joe SUV.

 

[donquijote1954]

On May 24, 10:55 pm, Nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:28:18 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Nobody <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
> >>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
> >>>with athsma is also good.
>
> >> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect
> >> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those
> >> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.
>
> >I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
> >flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
> >And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
> >/made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
> >quite do-able right now.
>
> >> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
> >> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!
>
> >Alternative transportation is not regressive.
>
> >> Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies and
> >> hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a two-wheeler
> >> across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet and
> >> snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message.
>
> >What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km?
>
> >> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
> >> wish or function.
>
> >It is for me, and for many others.
>
> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.
>
> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
> in the closest pond.
>
> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)-

It makes sense FOR MANY, particularly for those sitting in traffic...

http://atom.smasher.org/construction/?l1=I'd+rather+&l2=be+biking!&l3=&l4=

 

[George Conklin]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 24, 3:17 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On May 24, 1:53 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 23, 11:28 pm, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > Nobody <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > > >>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
> > > > >>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
> > > > >>with athsma is also good.
> >
> > > > > Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to
expect
> > > > > two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow
those
> > > > > weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.
> >
> > > > I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
> > > > flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
> > > > And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
> > > > /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
> > > > quite do-able right now.
> >
> > > > > Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
> > > > > street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!
> >
> > > > Alternative transportation is not regressive.
> >
> > > > > Fine, but don't expect the Great Majority to hitch their pinnies
and
> > > > > hoops, and clasp a hand on baseball cap while peddling a
two-wheeler
> > > > > across 25km of up hill and down dale in rain and shine amd sleet
and
> > > > > snow and wind and gust.. well, you get the message.
> >
> > > > What about the folks who only need to go 10 km or 5 km?
> >
> > > > > It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either
by
> > > > > wish or function.
> >
> > > > It is for me, and for many others.
> >
> > > And for many more who are hold back by the unnecessary danger present
> > > on our roads...
> >
> > > Are SUV drivers more reckless?
> >
> > > This is subjective, in other words what I see around with my own eyes,
> > > but it seems that size and recklessness go hand in hand, all the way
> > > up to the Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles...
> >
> > > So are they the new terrorists of the road, or just innocent suckers
> > > who fell for advertising?
> >
> > > Just wondering...
> >
> > > --Whatever keeps you from driving an older econo car or a newer
> > > microcar like a honda fit?--
> >
> > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
> > > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
> > > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
> > > only buses protect me from the big predators out there.- Hide quoted
text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Under that logic, you should start by banning 53-foot trailers and
> > tandems.-
>
> They know how to drive. The avarage semi driver is well above the
> average Joe SUV.
>

When there is an accident with an 18-wheeler, the car driver is 9 times more
likely to be killed.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Nobody <[email protected]> writes:

>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
>>> wish or function.
>>
>>It is for me, and for many others.
>
>
> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
for numerous North American cities.

> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
> in the closest pond.

10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Bill]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.

On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just
about any transportation method except walking.



- B

 

[Bill]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nobody <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>A pleasant urban environment that doesn't get its citizens
>>>anxiously grinding their teeth in their sleep or coming down
>>>with athsma is also good.
>>
>> Your personal intentions and aspirations are admirable.. but to expect
>> two million plus other citizens in Greater Vancouver to follow those
>> weather-related flagellations is, well, quirky at best.
>
> I don't expect them all to follow those "weather-related
> flagellations." I'm just saying: those who wanna ... can.
> And it's not that bad. It could be better. It can be
> /made/ better. But practical bicycle transportation is
> quite do-able right now.
>
>> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
>> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!
>
> Alternative transportation is not regressive.

No, just not wanted by 95%+ of the population.

- B

 

[Bill]

Bill wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
>> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.
>
> On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just
> about any transportation method except walking.
>
>
>
> - B
>
>
>
Yeah,
Maybe, but what about that 3,000+ pounds of steel that is just being
transferred from parking lot to garage and idling tons of CO2 into the
air in a traffic jam? I had to back a trailer for a dump load (real junk
junk) and felt guilty idling the pick me up truck, also full, while they
were trying to clear trees out of my way.
They get 2 full truck passes per year and somehow manage to collect that
much. Many bicycle parts but all 20" or smaller Chinese Wal-mart kids bikes.
On the upside, I was the only one who cycled the 3 miles each way to get
there and was in better shape than the 3 guys who were younger than me
in their early fifties. If I breath out too much CO2 and get healthy and
don't pay nearly $3.75 in California that makes me feel good.
Bill Baka

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Let's all abandon Mister Ford's automobile, and ride the current
>>> street car ("SkyTrain") and autobus! Hurrah!
>>
>> Alternative transportation is not regressive.
>
> No, just not wanted by 95%+ of the population.

Where do you get that 595%+ figure from?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
>> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.
>
> On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any just
> about any transportation method except walking.
>
>

The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms
comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by
the current biosphere.

The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have
long been sequestered from the environment in
mineralogical forms, and then re-released when
burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative
effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
>>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
>>> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.
>>
>> On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any
>> just
>> about any transportation method except walking.
>>
>>
>
> The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms
> comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by
> the current biosphere.
>
> The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have
> long been sequestered from the environment in
> mineralogical forms, and then re-released when
> burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative
> effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Eh? So the earth says to itself "uh oh, this CO2 molecule was generated by
cars and not humans, therefor I should recycle and reabsorb it"?

 

[nash]

"Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Will we ever see the day when American cities have thousands of
>>>> cyclists going up and down the street without unnecessary risks? It's
>>>> healthy for you as well as for your pocket and for the environment.
>>>
>>> On a per pound basis, cycling generates more greenhouse gases than any
>>> just
>>> about any transportation method except walking.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The CO2 emitted by humans and other life forms
>> comes from, and is recycled and reabsorbed by
>> the current biosphere.
>>
>> The problematic CO2 comes from sources that have
>> long been sequestered from the environment in
>> mineralogical forms, and then re-released when
>> burnt as fossil fuels, inflicting an accumulative
>> effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
>
> Eh? So the earth says to itself "uh oh, this CO2 molecule was generated by
> cars and not humans, therefor I should recycle and reabsorb it"?
>
Global dimming mostly comes from airplanes and it is carbon particles. Not
exasperated by our lungs in other words. Global warming is the least of our
problems as it is now because the dimming particles are keeping us from
being burned up etc...

 

[Bolwerk]

Sancho Panza wrote:
> Nope. I'm going to contribute it to Hillary Clinton's campaign funds. After
> all, she invented the whole legal justification for the Wal-Mart system.

Crikey , I never suspected you were *that* much of a Republican. :-D

 

[Bolwerk]

Joe the Aroma wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news[email protected]...
>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> george conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the New
>>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree to
>>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has
>>>>> enacted regulations for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> John Mara
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of
>>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past used
>>>> to be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's
>>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time.
>> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes
>> anyway...
>
> Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to encourage
> "things you like".

Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted
endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification?
They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow.

 

[Bolwerk]

george conklin wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>
>>> In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting. We
>>> should
>>> be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how morally
>>> bankrupt the New Urbanism is.
>> Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior
>
> Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive labor.

So if I go buy a pedicab and charge willing riders to be driven around
in it, I'm abusing myself?

 

[George Conklin]

"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joe the Aroma wrote:
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news[email protected]...
> >>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> george conklin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the
New
> >>>>>> Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree
to
> >>>>>> walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in
> >>>>>> time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has
> >>>>> enacted regulations for them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.story
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> John Mara
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of
> >>>> workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past
used
> >>>> to be.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> "exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's
> >>> not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time.
> >> George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes
> >> anyway...
> >
> > Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to
encourage
> > "things you like".
>
> Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted
> endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification?
> They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow.

Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price
of food down, down, down.
I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you
obviously do not.

Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society:

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm

Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.