Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually no.... not at all. I see you planned a nice little 'trap' and I hardly came close to falling into it, so you ignored my reply and said your bit anyways. It is almost as you didn't read my replies at all.
1) I think that line of thinking is disastrous in that we need to spend money on our future growth. Cutting back in any way (more than we have already done) will only hurt us, the region, make us less competitive, and drive up housing and development costs. I already laid that out. I think it is bad for all forms of transportation in this region to be under-invested even more than it has during the period of rapid growth we have had the last 3-4 decades.
2) As has already been laid out... highways are the least subsidized thing and in the event we did cut back spending as you suggest, it is the only thing with a revenue stream at all. Transit would fold under immediately, since it can't even cover operations. The train wouldn't exist and people are already not choosing it and the cost of a train would only get more expensive should they attempt to drive the costs up.
3) People wouldn't afford to live closer to work, because the costs of development would be so high to make that work and most people already work in auto-centric environments were employment is scattered along corridors. It is a good pattern to lower commutes for auto-centric developments, but perhaps bad for most transit-only models. Most people aren't going downtown to a single-node. That is a harsh reality you're not wrapping your head around.
I have been to all 6 places you mentioned, spent a great deal of time in 4 of them and even got to sneak in some drive time in 3 of them. I'm glad we are not those places. They aren't alike and they are not entirely kicking our butts in infrastructure in all avenues (perhaps only in some forms you choose to care about), they are not entirely privatized and subsidized free as you're making it seem, and their larger cities (and all of Singapore) have extremely high development and housing costs, because they are constrained to short commuting distances and less land. There is a pro and con. Housing costs are extremely high. Singapore to an extreme extent, and to a far more limited extent China and Japan, have extremely subsidized housing just to make the costs of land and development make housing affordable enough to the typical family. Even then most live in tiny show boxes that would be fun to singles, but not necessarily a large family. In Singapore things are a bit more dire for singles who live with their families to late ages as they are not always eligible for the much needed housing subsidies.
Singapore has some downtown arterial road toll points, but it isn't universal. The highways are not tolled in many places. They have strict laws on who can drive when (mandates by the color of your license plate) and you have to pay a really high fee just to be able to drive. Singapore is actively and artificially increasing the cost of driving and mandating against driving to keep people out of their cars so much. They are a bit of a unique case in that they are stacked onto a tiny island and they are trying to create artificial favorites for some of the world's richest people using the country as a tax haven.
All qualities we don't have. The insane amount of wealth drawn in from tax havens, the extremely tiny sea-locked island, and extremely high development costs.
The fact that we can spread out a bit more really lowers housing and development costs, while increasing some qualities of life in some ways.
Singapore's transit was actually built from a government authority and was/is heavily subsidized. They given negotiated concessions to two different for-profit companies to operate the system under a strict set of rules. Even then, ridership is artificially generated through a series of laws, mandates, and artificial costs and taxes..... all on top of the fact the country/city is built on a small island with limited land makeing transit cheaper to implement across their region.
So no.... I'm glad I'm not in Singapore full time. I even enjoy riding the MRT and have nothing against it, but I wouldn't want to pay $400,000 to buy a government subsidized 1,000 sq ft condo on the edge of town with no yard and little street-level character either.
China and Japan's infrastructure is incredibly subsidized on all levels. China is still a partially communist country for crying out loud. Japan again, close to that of Singapore, is a larger country built on a small narrow string of islands. They have barriers we don't have, but also have barriers that add to housing and development costs that I am glad we don't need to live with.
Italy is a mess to be honest with you. It has the charm of an old empire that pre-dates most modern societies and that is about it. Of course, that is kind of the problem. They have too much history and most of the core of their cities were built in a far different time and place that pre-dates modern highways, cars, and yes... transit. Italians don't do much well on a large scale, aren't very efficient, and are closer to that of a second world country. Naples is ripe with organized crime, decaying infrastructure, out of control union-striking, and constantly has huge travel and garbage problems. I find charm in the old buildings of a distant empire, I find charm to the warmth and friendliness of some of the people, and I find a great deal of respect for some of the details craftsman ship that exists for some trades. However, overall... I'm very glad we aren't Italy.
If you really want to try to draw parallels to a well-run place, at least bring up Germany instead. Of course, that is heavily subsidized... but so is Italy.
France is probably one of the nicer countries you brought up and my knowledge is not as good about it, but have been through several cities there. They are older pre-auto cities with historical centers with out of control housing costs. However, in the non-tourists sections that is often not the case.
Of course, the last time I checked France and Italy had the 2nd and 3rd most subsidized rail road system in the world and that doesn't break into intra-city transit subsidies.
Don't get me wrong these places all have great things about them and I love visiting them. Many new ideas that are good often come up in other places that we should pay attention to. Those places are often times rich in culture and have much interesting to see and do, but ultimately no...overall I like who we are. I like that we are more efficient, more productive and can deliver a higher quality of life to more people for less money.
I'd love to see us advance on our transit and break some spending dead locks on some level, but none of that is ever going to happen until you face some realities on costs, subsidies and not merely poorly list off incorrect facts to fit whatever weird pseudo-libertarian pro-transit/anti-roads mentality you're trying to carve out for yourself.
Those places all heavily subsidize infrastructure in vast contrast to your argument and vision you lay out.
Ok, if you are fine with going towards the level of subsidies and transportation infrastructure in those other countries, then we are in agreement.
It’s not just the U.S. raising the idea of private highway investment. Germany’s Autobahn network may be famous for its extent, quality, and lack of universal speed limits, but it’s now suffering from underinvestment and poor management. That, at least, is the contention of Germany’s government, which put forward a plan this weekend that it hopes will pump fresh cash into the country’s highway system. The idea is to partially privatize the network, handing over 49.9 percent of its maintenance and revenue to a newly created private company, whose investors are expected to mainly be major German insurance firms.
Sure. They really want to live in $2,500 shoebox apartments like they do in NYC! That's everyone's dream!
No one is forcing you into a highrise. But your suburban lifestyle is not as inexpensive as you are portraying it. If you want to live in the suburbs I have no problem with that, but you should be picking up the costs not those of us already paying for these expensive shoeboxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Let me ask...let's say there was a really popular store, but they only had one door to get in and out (forget about fire codes for a minute). It was causing issues and they were losing customers. They were shown a new design which would fix their problem, and it would take only five years to design and implement. They could also knock down some walls and put in two more doors and relieve much of the problem in three weeks. This would get them by until the new design could be implemented, but it would push the new design to six years. Do you think it's foolish of the store to add the new doors instead of waiting for the new design.
If you do, then I think we're at an impasse.
It is up to the business. I'd expect they would put in the temporary doors. I just don't think we need any tax dollars going to pay for those bigger doors, the private business will ensure their customers demands are satisfied.
SO do you think the price to ride Transit should increase? I mean you would kind of have to see that if you want users of the roads to cover all costs associated with the roads, then the same thing should be true for transit.
No one is forcing you into a highrise. But your suburban lifestyle is not as inexpensive as you are portraying it. If you want to live in the suburbs I have no problem with that, but you should be picking up the costs not those of us already paying for these expensive shoeboxes.
As I've said many times, I don't live in the suburbs. I live biking distance from Midtown and Downtown, if I was crazy enough to actually bike it. Now, I know your definition of "suburbs" is "anything not walkable from Five Points" and you have the right to believe that. But, it doesn't make you right.
Quote:
It is up to the business. I'd expect they would put in the temporary doors. I just don't think we need any tax dollars going to pay for those bigger doors, the private business will ensure their customers demands are satisfied.
I didn't say that tax dollars would pay for it. The retailer would pay for it from their funds. Much like the government is paying for this expansion with their infrastructure funds.
You chose to live a walkable life. That doesn't give you special powers. If you chose to have the expensive shoebox, you don't then deserve a cut elsewhere. You're still a resident of the Atlanta Metro just like the rest of us.
I love how you are wrong on so many points and you get inundated with with that, so you just ignore it and pretend you have somehow made a point and we are in agreement. It really is intriguing at this point.
I have driven in Germany more than any other place you put on your list, not to mention the countless hired car rides I had to take for a long range drive. I know parts pretty well. I was never tolled once.
They have a registration tax. Of course so do we, although we do it in a different way.
We also have a indirect user fee tax using the gas tax where people pay for how far they drive and the wear and tear their vehicle puts on the road. A bit imperfect, but extremely simple and efficient.
It pays for most state and federal highway spending.... something that keeps getting lost here.
SO do you think the price to ride Transit should increase?
Yes. And distance / zone / rush hour fare pricing is important part of that too. Riding from Alpharetta to the airport should cost you more than hopping between Civic Center and Five Points in Downtown.
Yes. And distance / zone / rush hour fare pricing is important part of that too. Riding from Alpharetta to the airport should cost you more than hopping between Civic Center and Five Points in Downtown.
But in reality it would be too expensive to ride transit if the cost to run came strictly from user fees. Transit would die. Not enough people ride to make the cost reasonable without extra funding. And you won't be able to get more users to lower the cost without expanding the routes which will raise user fees even more to cover th cost of expansion.
I have been to all 6 places you mentioned, spent a great deal of time in 4 of them and even got to sneak in some drive time in 3 of them. I'm glad we are not those places. They aren't alike and they are not entirely kicking our butts in infrastructure in all avenues (perhaps only in some forms you choose to care about), they are not entirely privatized and subsidized free as you're making it seem, and their larger cities (and all of Singapore) have extremely high development and housing costs, because they are constrained to short commuting distances and less land. There is a pro and con. Housing costs are extremely high. Singapore to an extreme extent, and to a far more limited extent China and Japan, have extremely subsidized housing just to make the costs of land and development make housing affordable enough to the typical family. Even then most live in tiny show boxes that would be fun to singles, but not necessarily a large family. In Singapore things are a bit more dire for singles who live with their families to late ages as they are not always eligible for the much needed housing subsidies.
The Chinese are definitely kicking our butt on infrastructure. They can flat get things done.
However, I don't want to live there or in Singapore.
But in reality it would be too expensive to ride transit if the cost to run came strictly from user fees. Transit would die. Not enough people ride to make the cost reasonable without extra funding. And you won't be able to get more users to lower the cost without expanding the routes which will raise user fees even more to cover th cost of expansion.
I disagree. Transit used to be a profitable, private business (and still is in many places). If they don't have to compete with a product / service being given away basically for free it can do quite well. And if it can't, they should not exist.
Many of our oversized freeways would be in a lot more trouble if they had to pay their own way and compete against transit which can offer to move more people for a lower price.
But this is not something that should be decided by you, me, or a bureaucrat with their own angle. Scale back subsudies and privatize and let the people vote with their wallet as a whole.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
