Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2014, 07:56 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,982,085 times
Reputation: 997

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You could give out 70,000 cars @ $20K each for what this rail costs.
Which would then be illegal to drive without insurance. Which wouldn't move due to lack of gas. Which have no where to park because of no parking. Which have no capacity to run due to no capacity on the roadway. Which die due to lack of oil changes and upkeep.

You're making a complete apples to oranges comparison. Just vehicles to the total cost of an entire system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
How much more in rent/mortgage are they supposed to pay in order (and less desirable living environment to endure) to achieve this "savings".
That (average) savings is almost a thousand bucks a month. That's a huge increase in the the range of accessible apartments or houses.

 
Old 10-21-2014, 07:56 AM
 
3,438 posts, read 4,456,961 times
Reputation: 3683
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner77 View Post
The people living downtown don't need cars - maybe we should try recreating this walkable, self-sustaining scenario throughout the city. It would be a lot cheaper than building a $600MM rail line, wouldn't it?
Unless their job is also downtown they will need a car. Even if their job is downtown they probably need a car. Not sure what "self sustainable" you are referring to. Don't think that most of the residential areas folks are living in care to sustain the vagrants, pan handlers, and crime associated with "downtown". They also don't want high rises, noise, smells, late night activity, etc. next to their homes. They also tend to want decent schools. The main thing downtown "sustains" is high cost living and high taxes. Most folks would like to do something else with their dollars - and that includes not paying a rail tax for the exclusive benefit of a very, very few.
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,511,604 times
Reputation: 13259
A family of four living downtown cannot rely on public transportation alone if the children are involved in any extra-curricular activities (sports, music, horseback riding, etc). So what then? Use Lyft and Uber? Rent cars for weekend travel? Use cabs for doctors visits and grocery shopping? All those expenses add up to a lot of dollars and serious inconvenience.
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:15 AM
 
3,438 posts, read 4,456,961 times
Reputation: 3683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Which would then be illegal to drive without insurance. Which wouldn't move due to lack of gas. Which have no where to park because of no parking. Which have no capacity to run due to no capacity on the roadway. Which die due to lack of oil changes and upkeep.

You're making a complete apples to oranges comparison. Just vehicles to the total cost of an entire system.
Getting worried about early voting? Can't wait to see the results.
The typical reader of these posts is sophisticated enough to see through your bogus "savings" claims.

The "comparison" wasn't a comparison - it was to give some perspective as to the poor economics of your RAIL TAX. You are the one talking about savings and yet to the extent anyone might "save" it is at a much, much higher cost to 99.9% of the population - $1.4 billion - and the RAIL TAX does nothing for those folks whatsoever. Cars do offer independence and far more flexibility in where you live, where you work, where you shop, and what you do in your leisure time. Your anti-car rant is an attempt to sell transit-dependent living. Call it what it is, you promote transit-dependency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
That (average) savings is almost a thousand bucks a month. That's a huge increase in the the range of accessible apartments or houses.
No it's a huge decrease in the range of apartments or houses. The geographic territory of the house/apartment will be severely constrained to an area near the train. The cost of the housing/apartment will be more than the same housing/apartment elsewhere. There is already a "premium" cost for living in the area - that's one reason why so many live elsewhere. Paying more in rent is not "saving". Your "savings" proposal requires absolute transit dependency. Smaller housing for the same price or more than before isn't a positive thing. You want everyone else to pay for a few to lead a transit-dependent lifestyle? What happens when the job changes? Anyone that worked outside of the government employees union knows they might need to actually be flexible enough to go where the jobs are.

Transit dependency is not a positive thing to sell except by those that want to rob Peter to pay Paul. Paul will vote for the plan - will Peter?

Last edited by IC_deLight; 10-21-2014 at 08:29 AM..
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:22 AM
 
1,430 posts, read 2,376,924 times
Reputation: 832
If roads and sprawly suburbs led to higher housing costs, places like Kansas City would be very expensive. But they aren't--in fact they are a lot less expensive and a whole lot easier to get around than Austin. Bad roads lead to larger demands for close in housing which leads to pushing the middle class out of the central city.
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:29 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,982,085 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You are the one talking about savings and yet to the extent anyone might "save" it is at a much, much higher cost to 99.9% of the population
It's not a much higher cost. It's like 10 bucks a month. Don't get a starbucks for a couple days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
- $1.4 billion -
600 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
and the RAIL TAX does nothing for those folks whatsoever.
Sure it does. Personally I wouldn't be able to ride this line for my daily commute, but I would have the option to use it for a trip downtown. That's available for a huge number of people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Your anti-car rant is an attempt to sell transit-dependent living.
What anti-car rant? I simply stated that cars are very expensive. Which is a completely true fact.

The only one ranting and raving here is you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Call it what it is, you promote transit-dependency.
What transit-dependency? I can bike everywhere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
No it's a huge decrease in the range of apartments or houses. The geographic territory of the house/apartment will be severely constrained to an area near the train.
Say I have a budget for an apartment of $500 /month.
Available apartments at that price in Austin, basically 0.

Say I give up the car which is costing me, say on the low end, $500 /month.

That's a huge increase in my budget. There's a lot of options in that price range in biking range (2 miles or so) of stations.



Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The cost of the housing/apartment will be more than the same housing/apartment elsewhere.
Yes, but I won't be able to afford that cheaper apartment elsewhere, while I would be able to afford the more expensive one with transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Paying more in rent is not "saving".
Paying less in rent + transportation _is_ saving.
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
13,448 posts, read 15,491,161 times
Reputation: 19007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpurcell View Post
If roads and sprawly suburbs led to higher housing costs, places like Kansas City would be very expensive. But they aren't--in fact they are a lot less expensive and a whole lot easier to get around than Austin. Bad roads lead to larger demands for close in housing which leads to pushing the middle class out of the central city.
You're assuming that most of the middle class wants to live in the central city. Here in Austin, there are many factors that motivate people to live outside of the central city - schools, house size, yada yada. Not simply due to affordability. I do thank Metrorail though...commuting is not much of a big deal any more.
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:53 AM
 
3,438 posts, read 4,456,961 times
Reputation: 3683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
It's not a much higher cost. It's like 10 bucks a month. Don't get a starbucks for a couple days.

600 million.
$1.4 billion of other people's money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Sure it does. Personally I wouldn't be able to ride this line for my daily commute, but I would have the option to use it for a trip downtown. That's available for a huge number of people.
Well for your occasional, wholly elective trips to downtown you can drive your car instead of expecting everyone else to pay $1.4 billion for you to be able to take your lazy butt down to a rail station to saunter downtown at your leisure. Or you could take a taxi at your expense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
What anti-car rant? I simply stated that cars are very expensive. Which is a completely true fact.

The only one ranting and raving here is you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
What transit-dependency? I can bike everywhere.
Did you expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab for your bike too?
You can't bike everywhere and your comments suggest to others that you have few responsibilities (see Nor Cal Wahine's observations above).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Say I have a budget for an apartment of $500 /month.
Available apartments at that price in Austin, basically 0.

Say I give up the car which is costing me, say on the low end, $500 /month.

That's a huge increase in my budget. There's a lot of options in that price range in biking range (2 miles or so) of stations.

Yes, but I won't be able to afford that cheaper apartment elsewhere, while I would be able to afford the more expensive one with transit.

Paying less in rent + transportation _is_ saving.
First off the taxpayers here have no obligation to provide you an apartment in the area you want to live. You can find a job elsewhere that fits within your budget.

The savings you claim is actually illusory. You won't be seeing any savings because the cost of rent will go up to capture the "savings" you refer to. Since you already bicycle everywhere (supposedly) it seems pretty absurd for you to promote a $1.4 billion tax and ongoing operating expenses on everyone else so that you can wander downtown on occasion at your leisure. Get a cab - or better yet take your bike since you said you can bike everywhere.
 
Old 10-21-2014, 09:15 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,982,085 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Well for your occasional, wholly elective trips to downtown you can drive your car instead of expecting everyone else to pay $1.4 billion for you to be able to take your lazy butt down to a rail station to saunter downtown at your leisure.
Why should you expect everyone else to pay the 10s to 100s of billions of other people's money that have gone into the road system? So that you can take your lazy butt in your car.
 
Old 10-21-2014, 09:24 AM
 
3,438 posts, read 4,456,961 times
Reputation: 3683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Which would then be illegal to drive without insurance. Which wouldn't move due to lack of gas. Which have no where to park because of no parking. Which have no capacity to run due to no capacity on the roadway. Which die due to lack of oil changes and upkeep.
Okay, $5K allowance for insurance and gas (after all you want the taxpayers to subsidize the operating costs of the train too). Pick your lesser evil - $15,000 cars with $5,000 additional subsidy = $20,000 or $20,000 car with $5,000 extra annual subsidy. So you still get 56,000 to 70,000 cars under the program. Alternatively, you could give away 5,000 cars (isn't that the estimated number of commuters) and subsidy @ $20,000 each for a total of 100,000,000. Wow that's a savings (by not taxing everyone else) of $1.3 Billion dollars ($1.4B - 100,000,000)! Not that I promote such a program - I just promote exposing the silliness of your claims.

Who says all these cars would be driving downtown? There are other places to work and live - like (272 sq mi - 3.2 sq mi) = approx 270 sq miles worth (assuming there was some constraint limiting one to the city of Austin)

By the way, you seem to neglect that people would need some form of transport to get to the train station to begin with. Were you proposing Star Trek style transporters (which would beg the question of why rail is needed) or were you neglecting that they would be using cars?
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


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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 > Texas > Austin
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top