U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-30-2018, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,378 posts, read 9,477,109 times
Reputation: 9314

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
BUT if electric traction rail could slash that cost by 90%, woo hoo!
Of course, those whose livelihoods depend on lavish spending on transportation would be wailing a different tune.

 
Old 06-30-2018, 11:28 PM
 
4,531 posts, read 2,993,209 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
You may believe your overt costs are less than 10%, but perhaps you missed a few items.
I categorize every dollar that comes out of my bank account in a database. I know where every dollar goes and what it is spent on. And my car-related expenses are much higher now due to my wife's accident which meant getting a new car and paying increased insurance. In 2016, prior to the accident, my total outlay for everything car-related for both of our cars (gas, parking, insurance, maintenance, car washes, etc) was around $7,000. At that time, my car was 5 years old, and my wife's car was 13 years old, both paid off.

Quote:
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/20...tyle=101286097[indent]$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
Your link doesn't work, but I pulled up the website through a google search. I balk at their nearly $2,000 per year in maintenance and repairs.

Quote:
Oh, but you object to "subsidizing rail" - - -
Uhhh...I have never, not one time, said that. I just call out the BS that gets spewed around here regarding which is the most subsidized, especially on a per-user basis. Fact: for the most part, transit is heavily funded by non-users. In fact, the vast majority here is paid for by non-users. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but it's just true. Me arguing that doesn't mean I am against subsidies, it means I'm against lying.

Quote:
Who else but the taxpayers have to pay the bill for the "free" infrastructure.
Well, the gas tax in Georgia alone brings in some $1.8 billion of the GDOT's $2 billion budget. If you need help with math, that's around 90% paid for by users, and 10% from other funding sources. Tell me again...how much of MARTA's overall budget do users pay?

Quote:
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
Estimated Investment Needed by 2020: $3.6 Trillion
. . . .
Civil engineers say fixing infrastructure will take $4.6 trillion
Civil engineers say fixing infrastructure will take $4.6 trillion
--The engineers society says roads and bridges need $2 trillion in improvements.
. . . .
Subsidy? Subsidy? OH MY YES. But the lion's share goes to the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony.
Yeah, because that infrastructure covers infinitely more area and population than transit systems country-wide. As it should. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that transit could realistically serve a trip from Bozeman, Montana to Bismarck, North Dakota in any sort of economically-feasible way. This holds true for the mast majority of our 3.5 million square miles. As I've pointed out before, if the figures above are correct regarding GDOT, then the subsidized portion is less than $200 million for the entire state's highway network and other projects, while MARTA's subsidy alone is higher for covering just a portion of ITP.

I assume you listen to a lot of Alex Jones...very alike.

Quote:
Perhaps EDMUNDS is biased.
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-...rcent-in-2012/
...[indent]Cost per mile

According to AAA, car owners shelled out 59.6 cents per mile - 1.1 cents per mile more than in 2011, a bump that took the total annual outlay to $8,946 for a vehicle driven the benchmark distance of 15,000 miles.
Biased? Not sure that's the word I'd use. But, I do take issue with some of their numbers. They peg the newest version of my car as $55,456 over 5 years, or $11,090 per year. This includes a 100% depreciation on the vehicle in five years, meaning the the car is worth nothing at the end of five years. Sorry, but that's horses**t. They also list taxes MUCH higher than what I pay on my car. Their number for financing is 50% higher than the financing calculator gives using their own numbers. So, yeah...I don't know how to accept their "total cost of ownership".

Quote:
But for most Americans, car ownership takes a larger bite out of the budget.
In fact, it's the next largest bite after housing costs.
I'm sure it does. I'm pretty sure no one here, including myself, has argued otherwise. But for most Americans, transit is simply not a viable choice. Even in transit-saturated New York City, only about 50% of the people use transit.


Quote:
Do you think that when you sum up ALL spending on automobiles / petroleum / highway, you will exceed that?
Well, I wouldn't waste my time doing that because I simply don't care enough.

Quote:
BUT if electric traction rail could slash that cost by 90%, woo hoo!
Something tells me you own stock in an electric traction rail startup. Tell you what...go install a test rail between Bozeman and Bismarck, and if it's successful and profitable, we'll know you have a solid plan. But really...we know that the end-user cost of rail is less, because it's being subsidized some 85%. Most of us simply don't care. If we did, we'd confine our lives to rail use. But, we want the ability to do more.

Truth is, to cover the area needed to serve a metro the size of Atlanta successfully with electric rail would be massively expensive. I've always been a proponent of installing it (like a post of mine from 2009), but let's be realistic...even some of the largest heavy-rail systems like London and NYC barely crack the area of our perimeter, and we have a lot more to cover than that.
 
Old 07-01-2018, 08:44 AM
 
4,531 posts, read 2,993,209 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Glad you have the option of getting around by your car.

But you got to realize many people do not see owning a car as "freedom". I certainly do not want to have to worry about parking, staying sober, logistics of coordinating who is driving / keeping up with the car, maintenance, changing modes, among other things.

Far, far easier to just hop in / rent the best mode for the trip. MARTA train, Delta plane, boat, Uber car, Relay Bike, Bird scooter and just hop out when you are there. Then if a big sporting even or something lets out clogging all the streets you have the flexibility to take a whole different mode (or modes) back such as MARTA to bypass that traffic.

If you took an Uber somewhere and then it stops raining and the sun comes out you might bike home. But if you drove your car there you are going to drive your car home. That is not freedom. Sure you have a "choice" to leave your car there (and possibly have it towed if they do not allow overnight parking) and rent a bike home and then come back and get your car later, but we all know that is a false choice.

To each his own. Just because you prefer your car does not mean the city should be built for 95%+ car trips.
Yes. You are correct. In about 3% of instances in my life, alternative methods would really help. And you know what I do in those instances? I use other methods if I can. I've taken Lyft to Suntrust Park, then PCM, and back home. I've taken MARTA to the airport. I've almost missed a flight when two separate Ubers accepted my trip, then didn't move for ten minutes. I have no desire to walk further than about 1/4 mile for anything that isn't a special occasion, not a fan of biking, and I'm not nearly hipster enough to use a scooter. I can and do use alternate methods when needed. Most people who want to use alternate methods will use alternate methods.

But, for the vast, vast majority of trips, it is far, far, far, far easier and faster using my car. Even if it is more expensive. Even if I lived on top of Five Points. I would be shackled waiting on transit, taking three times as long to get to my destination, standing in the rain waiting on my ride, etc. Perfectly cool for a minority of trips. Now, you might be fine with that. It may feel freeing for you to take 45 minutes to get somewhere instead of 15 minutes. You may not mind being sweaty, freezing, wet, or anything else. And that's perfectly fine. I prefer to cover every square inch of the metro on my own terms.

But, if 95% of people prefer their car, then 95% of the infrastructure should be geared towards that. If people want to use busses, they will need the same roads. We are already paying a portion of every dollar we spend on transit funding, even if we don't use it.

Quote:
You don't own a car. It owns you.
Very profound.

I own what I want to do what I want the way that I want. I am not "owned" by it. I chose it because it's the best way for me. You act like you have this vast knowledge of how everyone should/could be living, and that they are all just too dumb to figure it out. You've essentially said that people who live in the suburbs just don't realize how sad they actually are and don't know what they're doing to themselves. But, you, jsvh, have this inner vision of what people actually wish their lives were.

I will ask the next person I see waiting at the bus stop for 25 minutes if they feel "owned" by busses and see what their answer is. I'm sure they'll tell me about their freedom. The next time Lyft/Uber charges me $40 to go 5 miles because I happened to be near a special event, I'll ask the driver if he "owns" me. The next time I'm on MARTA and it sits still somewhere for ten minutes because of whatever the reason is that time, I'll ask MARTA if they "own" me.

I get your point about the freedom of using different methods to make short trips, but if you wish to cover more area of the city/metro, you are much more limited in your options. You're not riding a bird scooter from Chastain Park to Emory. It all depends on what type of life you want to live. You seem to think that everyone actually wants to live this close-by, walkable, urban lifestyle, and it's just not true. Most people want more. You seem to know only people who are urbanists, but I have friends who live in the heart of NYC who have visited me and say that what I have is what they want, but they can't have it there. Everyone wants something different.

We need to gear towards what people actually want and what people actually use. You want to direct equal spending to something that maybe 20% of people would use if it was five times larger. You want to direct much more spending to a method that maybe, maybe 5% of people would use. And you want to remove most spending from something that in the very best-case scenarios, half of the people would use. This is not logical.
 
Old 07-01-2018, 08:54 AM
 
1,269 posts, read 549,303 times
Reputation: 1060
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
What a silly article.

Jobs moving to the suburbs is not "smart growth".
Smart or not, it does appear to be happening. There's alot of high end companies that refuse to pay the heavy price of leasing or owning a property in a dense area versus a much cheaper area in the suburbs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
And just because some places have been built to be car dependent does not mean it is best or even possible to have a city that is entirely car dependent. Nor is it evidence that we need to be building more car dependent areas.
Noting that most of the USA is a car dependent country with only a few minute areas in comparison that have dependable transit networks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Glad you have the option of getting around by your car.

But you got to realize many people do not see owning a car as "freedom". I certainly do not want to have to worry about parking, staying sober, logistics of coordinating who is driving / keeping up with the car, maintenance, changing modes, among other things.
There's advantages and disadvantages to both. There is no "perfect way" of commuting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Far, far easier to just hop in / rent the best mode for the trip. MARTA train, Delta plane, boat, Uber car, Relay Bike, Bird scooter and just hop out when you are there. Then if a big sporting even or something lets out clogging all the streets you have the flexibility to take a whole different mode (or modes) back such as MARTA to bypass that traffic.
It depends. I had a 50 mile commute I did by transit only. That was NOT easy and after all transfers considered took aproximately 3 hours one way, or basically...I spent 6 hours ON TOP of my 8 hour shift away from home every week day. If maybe 1 or 2 transfers fair enough..but start stacking transfers and you lose efficiency until the point it becomes a nuisance and mundane. Its easier to drive at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
You don't own a car. It owns you.
Thats not what my title says.. ..but technically.. the same can be said for MARTA or any form of alternative transit. If that bus, uber, lyft is late... What do you do? Nothing you can do. If service routes are altered or discontinued, once again...what do you do? ..sure you can find an alternate route - but once again.. you're just as dependent on that service as any driver is to a car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
If you took an Uber somewhere and then it stops raining and the sun comes out you might bike home. But if you drove your car there you are going to drive your car home. That is not freedom. Sure you have a "choice" to leave your car there (and possibly have it towed if they do not allow overnight parking) and rent a bike home and then come back and get your car later, but we all know that is a false choice.

To each his own. Just because you prefer your car does not mean the city should be built for 95%+ car trips.
You can take your bike along with you for a Uber ride?

-- Also, no one is saying that Atlanta needs to be built 95% for car trips... What we are saying is... cutting off road improvements, especially before implementing necessary transit alternatives is a recipe for disaster. Also even with excellent transit, it cannot and will never cure everything. Chicago and New York have tolls all over the place. It costs me aprox $20 to drive on the tolls between Indiana and Wisconsin. Does that solve Chicago congestion? ...No... Will it stop Atlanta's? ...POSSIBLY... but I still quite doubt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
You may believe your overt costs are less than 10%, but perhaps you missed a few items.

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/20...tyle=101286097
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
If you're really paying less than 10%, your gross income would need to be
$124,460 per annum.
Congratulations. . .

Oh, but you object to "subsidizing rail" - - -

Who else but the taxpayers have to pay the bill for the "free" infrastructure.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
Estimated Investment Needed by 2020: $3.6 Trillion
. . . .
Civil engineers say fixing infrastructure will take $4.6 trillion
Civil engineers say fixing infrastructure will take $4.6 trillion
--The engineers society says roads and bridges need $2 trillion in improvements.
. . . .
Subsidy? Subsidy? OH MY YES. But the lion's share goes to the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony.

Perhaps EDMUNDS is biased.
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-...rcent-in-2012/
...
Cost per mile

According to AAA, car owners shelled out 59.6 cents per mile - 1.1 cents per mile more than in 2011, a bump that took the total annual outlay to $8,946 for a vehicle driven the benchmark distance of 15,000 miles.
..............
($8946 x 2)/.1
$178,920 annual income !
IMPRESSIVE.
But for most Americans, car ownership takes a larger bite out of the budget.
In fact, it's the next largest bite after housing costs.


268.8 million vehicles were registered in 2016
x $8946 average cost
computes to $2,404,684,800,000
$2.4 TRILLION annual cost to own
vs
GDP $19.39 trillion U.S. dollars in 2017
22% of that is $4.2658 trillion
Do you think that when you sum up ALL spending on automobiles / petroleum / highway, you will exceed that?
I do.
BUT if electric traction rail could slash that cost by 90%, woo hoo!
First you're comparing brand new vehicles, which the average American does not own - most car owners buy used and the average car is aproximately 12 years old in the United States...which eats a HUGE chunk of that MSRP.

Second, edmunds is also factoring in Financing and Deprecation... You don't pay Financing (annual interest charges, those are not car notes) if you buy cash... And you don't pay out of pocket for Depreciation at all. The only time Depreciation is an issue is if you're upside down on a loan and you try to trade in for another vehicle. https://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/2...1/cost-to-own/

Third, You're comparing the deficit of a VAST road network over the entire nation of about 98% of which transit doesn't touch versus a few minute transit systems in VERY small locations in comparison to the rest of the country... ...brilliant. Transit systems are mainly only seen in major cities, and only a handful of those actually have good ones in America.

btw your edmunds article doesn't exist. you may wanna check the link on that.

Last edited by Need4Camaro; 07-01-2018 at 09:11 AM..
 
Old 07-01-2018, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,378 posts, read 9,477,109 times
Reputation: 9314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro View Post
First you're comparing brand new vehicles, which the average American does not own - most car owners buy used and the average car is aproximately 12 years old in the United States...which eats a HUGE chunk of that MSRP. [My point is not refuted by an individual's particular situation. My point is that the cost is FAR HIGHER, due to covert costs, taxes, overhead, etc.]

Second, edmunds is also factoring in Financing and Deprecation... You don't pay Financing (annual interest charges, those are not car notes) if you buy cash... And you don't pay out of pocket for Depreciation at all. The only time Depreciation is an issue is if you're upside down on a loan and you try to trade in for another vehicle. https://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/2...1/cost-to-own/

btw your edmunds article doesn't exist. you may wanna check the link on that.
Apparently, you have to regenerate each report. . . sor-ree.
Here's an active link - - -

https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/t...o-own-tco.html


And I noted that you did not refute the AAA cost-per-mile figure.
 
Old 07-01-2018, 01:36 PM
 
4,531 posts, read 2,993,209 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
And I noted that you did not refute the AAA cost-per-mile figure.
I did...
 
Old 07-01-2018, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,378 posts, read 9,477,109 times
Reputation: 9314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro View Post
You're comparing the deficit of a VAST road network over the entire nation of about 98% of which transit doesn't touch versus a few minute transit systems in VERY small locations in comparison to the rest of the country... ...brilliant. Transit systems are mainly only seen in major cities, and only a handful of those actually have good ones in America.
[beating dead horse flag on]
After 90 years of automobile subsidy, and penalties on rail, OF COURSE there are few transit systems available.
SO does that mean we don't dig ourselves out of the pit and get busy rebuilding our once premier rail network? (That reportedly served 90% of the nation before 1920...)

As stated before, we don't need government subsidies / taxpayer funding as much as we need government to STOP MEDDLING in transportation entirely.

One simple remedy : zero tax liability on any enterprise 100% devoted to manufacture, installation, operation and maintenance of electric traction rail. The only way they can make a profit is move the most passengers (and cargo) from point a to point b.

Given the opportunity for tax exempt investment, financiers will flock to fund America's rail renaissance. And it won't cost the taxpayer one cent.
Instead of projects that take decades to fund and complete, we may just get the country "back on track."

I'd like to see partnerships with "downtown" merchants so they can offer "fare free" travel, so that lack of parking is no longer a problem.

I wouldn't object to multiple classes in car service, where you can pay extra for a little luxury instead of egalitarian service for the lowest common denominator.
 
Old 07-01-2018, 03:19 PM
 
10,147 posts, read 7,145,635 times
Reputation: 3137
Sam & N4C,

Here is what you are missing: No one here is arguing for "transit dependency" where we can only take transit all day or even for the entirety of one trip like you are pushing for continued support for car dependency.

You try to keep coming up with all these examples of how terrible it would be if the bus was late or if the train did not go direct to the destination you want to go to. You portray it like that is "being owned" the same as car dependency where there is traffic or the destination lacks convenient, free parking.

But that is not what life without a car is like at all. Life without owning a car is transportation independence and taking the best modes for each leg of the trip. If own a car and you get stuck in traffic you are not going to just leave your car on the side of the road and hop on a train. But if a bus is running late I have the option to call an Uber or rent a bike (and I often have situations where I do exactly that).

If you want real freedom, it is a city where you have many realistic choices of how to get around. Not locking everybody into car dependency as their only choice that you apparently feel that you are locked into.

Will those additional options solve traffic congestion? Nope. I think you should still have the option to pay the costs and get around around Atlanta 95%+ by car if you want to. But getting around by car in a large city is going to suck regardless. So we should at least support realistic alternatives for people to get out of traffic for those that want to make that choice.

I also love how you think Ubers are too expensive (and their drivers underpaid and corporate losses too big) yet you simultaneous will sit in the same traffic in your own car and value that time at $0. If you value your time you cannot have it both ways. Your real costs of that daily driving commute are basically the same as that Uber would cost if you were able to calculate all the hidden costs in car ownership. Maybe you should consider that that car dependent sprawl you are living in to save a $150 a month in rent is not really worth the costs. But hey, if you enjoy that "freedom" of car dependency, by all means don't let me deny you that joy. You should just be paying a much higher gas tax or a toll for that privilege. Our public policy needs to stop encouraging it and needs to shift towards supporting more efficient, accessible, affordable, safer, healthier, and greener transportation and urban design alternatives.

Last edited by jsvh; 07-01-2018 at 03:27 PM..
 
Old 07-01-2018, 06:09 PM
 
4,531 posts, read 2,993,209 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Sam & N4C,

Here is what you are missing: No one here is arguing for "transit dependency" where we can only take transit all day or even for the entirety of one trip like you are pushing for continued support for car dependency.

You try to keep coming up with all these examples of how terrible it would be if the bus was late or if the train did not go direct to the destination you want to go to. You portray it like that is "being owned" the same as car dependency where there is traffic or the destination lacks convenient, free parking.

But that is not what life without a car is like at all. Life without owning a car is transportation independence and taking the best modes for each leg of the trip. If own a car and you get stuck in traffic you are not going to just leave your car on the side of the road and hop on a train. But if a bus is running late I have the option to call an Uber or rent a bike (and I often have situations where I do exactly that).

If you want real freedom, it is a city where you have many realistic choices of how to get around. Not locking everybody into car dependency as their only choice that you apparently feel that you are locked into.

Will those additional options solve traffic congestion? Nope. I think you should still have the option to pay the costs and get around around Atlanta 95%+ by car if you want to. But getting around by car in a large city is going to suck regardless. So we should at least support realistic alternatives for people to get out of traffic for those that want to make that choice.

I also love how you think Ubers are too expensive (and their drivers underpaid and corporate losses too big) yet you simultaneous will sit in the same traffic in your own car and value that time at $0. If you value your time you cannot have it both ways. Your real costs of that daily driving commute are basically the same as that Uber would cost if you were able to calculate all the hidden costs in car ownership. Maybe you should consider that that car dependent sprawl you are living in to save a $150 a month in rent is not really worth the costs. But hey, if you enjoy that "freedom" of car dependency, by all means don't let me deny you that joy. You should just be paying a much higher gas tax or a toll for that privilege. Our public policy needs to stop encouraging it and needs to shift towards supporting more efficient, accessible, affordable, safer, healthier, and greener transportation and urban design alternatives.
Jesus effing Christ, jsvh...I have shown you a dozen times that the gas tax covers nearly 90% of Georgia’s highway and major road funding (at least no one has refuted it), and the rest by property tax and other funding. As soon as you pay 90% of your multi-modal costs and stop relying on the hidden subsidy supporting all of your modes, you will have a point. But you would NEVER do that. And I wouldn’t suggest that. So, I pay most of my costs. You have most of your costs subsidized. But somehow, you’re able to act like I’M the one mooching off the population.

By the way, I said Ubers are too cheap normally, except during special events. We didn’t sit in any traffic...still paid over $40 to go five miles.
 
Old 07-01-2018, 06:33 PM
 
10,147 posts, read 7,145,635 times
Reputation: 3137
And how much do you think the true cost was of you driving yourself that five miles?

Don't agree with your 90%, but even 10% is still too much. I am fine with a level playing field, but if we are going to subsidize, yes options like transit, walking, and biking are far more deserving of those subsidies.
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top