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.
That Depends on the city. For Example Indy's Gasoline is 70 cents cheaper than Chicago. That may not sound like alot but add on the extra 5-10$ your average person pays in gasoline times the metro population of chicago having 9.5M people and lets just (assume that 2.5M of those people either are to poor to have a car or use the mass transit). Also lets cut that in half assuming half the population of Chicago metro is kids/teens that can't drive or really old people.
3,500,000 people commuting to Chicago or around its metro daily and each person pays on average 5-10$ to fill up. lets assume every commuter in Chicago that drives fills up once a week. ill be fair and just use 7$ 50 cents as an average increase in cost. comes out to an extra 4M dollars a DAY that Chicago has to spend on Gasoline. People can live in a fantasy world but the fact is our economy is fueled by gasoline/Diesel (which of course is more expensive). The Trucking Industry though is always hit the hardest and everyone will notice it when their grocery bills contiune to go up. Everything that had to be transported by truck will go up in cost.
So Basically it depends on the metro area and the gasoline prices. And contray to Obamanomics we will not stop using gasoline or diesel overnight and swich to green tech. It takes years to phase it out and the best approach is to first convert to Natural Gas which is Cleaner and 90% is produced in America for Jobs in our country not China or the Middle East. Then as Technology advances and the price goes down for green Tech THEN phase into that.
Your synopsis furthers my point of Indy though. A major component of Indy’s economy is in the trucking industry. Look at the number of warehouses in the Indy metro region….. As fuel price increases that sector will begin to sputter. Additionally while there is indeed a pricing difference between Indy and larger cities with reference to gas prices one also needs to remember that Indy has lower wages that are proportionally depressed to reflect the cheaper living standards. A rising tide floats all boats and the converse is also true. As fuel prices increase families within metro Indy (especially those that commute some distances) will experience pinches in their budgets. Additionally as you outlined basic goods will increase in price to reflect the greater cost to ship. Both coupled does not bode well for the future of the American outer suburb.
This development is already occurring within my metro region (greater DC). There was a time when numerous developments were being built in WV to house DC workers. In fact the idea to extend MARC service (our local commuter rail) to Cumberland, MD (two hours west of us) was floated out of the fear that it would become the newest bedroom community. What has since occurred has proven these individuals wrong. The housing downturn and subsequent adjustment of real-estate values within this region has permanently depressed the values of homes in the far flung regions. Houses within these areas are still on average worth 60% less than their prerecession levels. Conversely houses within the city proper and well serviced suburbs (transit wise) have not only regained most of their losses but now enjoy bidding wars akin to the prefinancial collapse years. Americans have not only begun to awake to the idea that they do not want to live in their cars, but also to the idea that such commutes are wasteful (both financially, and environmentally).
My point here is that oil prices will not decrease. The region that we rely upon for most of our imports is inherently unstable. Additionally while we do enjoy extensive reserves in the form of shale, extracting such reserves is a pricey endeavor. The fact that we increasingly turn to such reserves speaks volumes as to the future of the oil market. As the price of this fundamental commodity increases the value of living in car dependant areas will decrease. In fact we will most likely begin to resemble Europe in the manner that most of their cities are affluent cores surrounded by economically depressed suburbs. Please also keep in mind that I am not stating that Indy will dry up and blow away. It will merely contract. If I were in urban planning, I would rather be ahead of the curve rather than behind and prepare for coming shift in American living patterns.
Which again is why I listed the city proper square mileage. If you look at the immediate sq mileage of each of the cities I listed none with the exception Salt Lake and Denver are dramatically smaller in area than Indy.
And the use of city boundaries is again the flaw. Look at it this way:
-30%-35% of Edmonton's land within the city limits is undeveloped, which is much more than Indianapolis. This land has been set aside to prevent development in an effort to preserve density. They'd never build a transit line through this area.
-Denver's rail goes primarily from its southern suburbs to downtown. Using city data doesn't help here.
-Roughly 40% of SLC's total land area contains a giant salt marsh and a forested area with mountains and a narrow canyon.
If/when any rail transit is developed, people aren't looking at undeveloped and more specifically undevelopable areas within a city. They're looking at developed and soon to be developed areas across multiple municipalities in a joint regional effort, ie, urban areas and urban area density. Then they're going to drill down to specific high density (population and workplace) corridors that are more favorable to rail with available rail rights of way. Those available rights of way are also an issue for Indianapolis as the best corridor (due north from downtown to Carmel) has no available easement.
I would love for it to happen too, but the market and land usage already in place dictate it will be difficult to run a rail system in an economical manner there.
The best indicator that things could work in Indy is Charlotte, which is a smaller and less dense metro. Two key differences: Charlotte is growing much more rapidly and they have available rights of way in the rail friendly metro corridors. Even in that case, 1500 riders per rail mile on a 10 mile line is a step in the right direction, but not an overwhelming success. The Hampton Roads system is another comparison, but that one's a little different as the primary goal is to connect a CBD to a medical district rather than serve as a commuter system.
Your synopsis furthers my point of Indy though. A major component of Indy’s economy is in the trucking industry. Look at the number of warehouses in the Indy metro region….. As fuel price increases that sector will begin to sputter. Additionally while there is indeed a pricing difference between Indy and larger cities with reference to gas prices one also needs to remember that Indy has lower wages that are proportionally depressed to reflect the cheaper living standards. A rising tide floats all boats and the converse is also true. As fuel prices increase families within metro Indy (especially those that commute some distances) will experience pinches in their budgets. Additionally as you outlined basic goods will increase in price to reflect the greater cost to ship. Both coupled does not bode well for the future of the American outer suburb.
This development is already occurring within my metro region (greater DC). There was a time when numerous developments were being built in WV to house DC workers. In fact the idea to extend MARC service (our local commuter rail) to Cumberland, MD (two hours west of us) was floated out of the fear that it would become the newest bedroom community. What has since occurred has proven these individuals wrong. The housing downturn and subsequent adjustment of real-estate values within this region has permanently depressed the values of homes in the far flung regions. Houses within these areas are still on average worth 60% less than their prerecession levels. Conversely houses within the city proper and well serviced suburbs (transit wise) have not only regained most of their losses but now enjoy bidding wars akin to the prefinancial collapse years. Americans have not only begun to awake to the idea that they do not want to live in their cars, but also to the idea that such commutes are wasteful (both financially, and environmentally).
My point here is that oil prices will not decrease. The region that we rely upon for most of our imports is inherently unstable. Additionally while we do enjoy extensive reserves in the form of shale, extracting such reserves is a pricey endeavor. The fact that we increasingly turn to such reserves speaks volumes as to the future of the oil market. As the price of this fundamental commodity increases the value of living in car dependant areas will decrease. In fact we will most likely begin to resemble Europe in the manner that most of their cities are affluent cores surrounded by economically depressed suburbs. Please also keep in mind that I am not stating that Indy will dry up and blow away. It will merely contract. If I were in urban planning, I would rather be ahead of the curve rather than behind and prepare for coming shift in American living patterns.
Not Exactly. Cost of Living Wizard | Salary.com Compare any Metro area to Indy like chicago/Detroit/NYC etc. Just Make sure Indy is the new location so its not confusing
ill give you 3 comparisons. Ill assume you make 100,000$ a year to make the math easy. If you move from Chicago to Indy you drop about 28% in cost of living and you earn 7.5% less for a gain of 20% more cash to spend.
NYC youll shave about 49% off your cost of living and your wage drops 17%. Net Gain of 32% more cash to spend on what you want.
Washington DC area. Cost of living drops 40% moving to Indianapolis your wage drops 10% net gain of 30% more to spend.
So in all reality it depends on which metro area you move from and move too. Different states have it differently as i said use that website link to compare any metro you want then come back here and tell me that
Ummmmmm Almighty Buddha has come out to say congratz Chicago76 for Telling the Truth! Ummmmmmmmmmmmm Have a Nice Day Chicago76!
Last edited by Broadrippleguy; 10-03-2011 at 03:53 PM..
It's true that oil probably will continue to increase in price, and it's also true that relative disposable income is probably a bit higher here on a same job basis.
The comparison between a place like Cumberland MD or WV and the outlying suburbs of Indy isn't valid. Why? the outlying suburbs of Indy are within roughly 40 minutes and 25 miles max of downtown. Gas prices only hurt half as much in that scenario compared to a place like DC, if gas prices were equal, and they're not, being much more expensive in DC.
Not Exactly. Cost of Living Wizard | Salary.com Compare any Metro area to Indy like chicago/Detroit/NYC etc. Just Make sure Indy is the new location so its not confusing
ill give you 3 comparisons. Ill assume you make 100,000$ a year to make the math easy. If you move from Chicago to Indy you drop about 28% in cost of living and you earn 7.5% less for a gain of 20% more cash to spend.
NYC youll shave about 49% off your cost of living and your wage drops 17%. Net Gain of 32% more cash to spend on what you want.
Washington DC area. Cost of living drops 40% moving to Indianapolis your wage drops 10% net gain of 30% more to spend.
So in all reality it depends on which metro area you move from and move too. Different states have it differently as i said use that website link to compare any metro you want then come back here and tell me that
I understand the point that you are making in reference to living costs within Indy. Indy is cheaper to live in, and enjoys comparatively higher salaries (percentage wise) than it's pears. This still does not negate the point I made previously however. A 30 cent rise in costs of fuel will do much to crimp every urban market. Please remember back to the gas price rise of the mid 2000's and what it did to commuting patterns within the metro of Indy. People from carmel and Fishers began to (newly provided) commuter busses to Indy. Again, my point here is that Indy is hardly immune. In fact it is at greater risk than cities with mass transit in place. Chicagoans have many options when gas stretches their pocketbooks. Commuters within Indy do not.
I understand the point that you are making in reference to living costs within Indy. Indy is cheaper to live in, and enjoys comparatively higher salaries (percentage wise) than it's pears. This still does not negate the point I made previously however. A 30 cent rise in costs of fuel will do much to crimp every urban market. Please remember back to the gas price rise of the mid 2000's and what it did to commuting patterns within the metro of Indy. People from carmel and Fishers began to (newly provided) commuter busses to Indy. Again, my point here is that Indy is hardly immune. In fact it is at greater risk than cities with mass transit in place. Chicagoans have many options when gas stretches their pocketbooks. Commuters within Indy do not.
Well first we don't have the major traffic congestion you see in Chicago/Washington D.C or Even Charlotte for that matter. When your Idling away gas 15-30 minutes a day instead of moving like here in Indy where traffic is on the move even during Rush Hour. that does make a huge difference. Idling in the streets is nothing more than throwing money out the window.
And the use of city boundaries is again the flaw. Look at it this way:
-30%-35% of Edmonton's land within the city limits is undeveloped, which is much more than Indianapolis. This land has been set aside to prevent development in an effort to preserve density. They'd never build a transit line through this area.
-Denver's rail goes primarily from its southern suburbs to downtown. Using city data doesn't help here.
-Roughly 40% of SLC's total land area contains a giant salt marsh and a forested area with mountains and a narrow canyon.
If/when any rail transit is developed, people aren't looking at undeveloped and more specifically undevelopable areas within a city. They're looking at developed and soon to be developed areas across multiple municipalities in a joint regional effort, ie, urban areas and urban area density. Then they're going to drill down to specific high density (population and workplace) corridors that are more favorable to rail with available rail rights of way. Those available rights of way are also an issue for Indianapolis as the best corridor (due north from downtown to Carmel) has no available easement.
I would love for it to happen too, but the market and land usage already in place dictate it will be difficult to run a rail system in an economical manner there.
The best indicator that things could work in Indy is Charlotte, which is a smaller and less dense metro. Two key differences: Charlotte is growing much more rapidly and they have available rights of way in the rail friendly metro corridors. Even in that case, 1500 riders per rail mile on a 10 mile line is a step in the right direction, but not an overwhelming success. The Hampton Roads system is another comparison, but that one's a little different as the primary goal is to connect a CBD to a medical district rather than serve as a commuter system.
I still don't see the flaw in utilziing city boundaries, especially if one is merely concerned with providing services to locations closer to the CBD. Additionally I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that Indy would have difficulties in finding rights of way within areas dense enough to support rail, however that would be the premise behind light rail correct? Lightrail contruction can be cumbersome and messy, hoowever it does allow for continued motor vehicle usage of roads where the lines would be isntalled.
It's true that oil probably will continue to increase in price, and it's also true that relative disposable income is probably a bit higher here on a same job basis.
The comparison between a place like Cumberland MD or WV and the outlying suburbs of Indy isn't valid. Why? the outlying suburbs of Indy are within roughly 40 minutes and 25 miles max of downtown. Gas prices only hurt half as much in that scenario compared to a place like DC, if gas prices were equal, and they're not, being much more expensive in DC.
I understand that there are differences in distances between a Cumberland and Fishers. However the fact remains that driving costs will increase and while utilizing your example of 25 miles max, that means an individual would drive in excess of 250 miles a week / 1000 miles a month. A 20 cent increase in fuel costs would add up quickly for such an individual. Again my point is that many are not willing to sit in traffic, burn unnecessary gas, and spend hours within the car and that mindset is only increasing.
I understand that there are differences in distances between a Cumberland and Fishers. However the fact remains that driving costs will increase and while utilizing your example of 25 miles max, that means an individual would drive in excess of 250 miles a week / 1000 miles a month. A 20 cent increase in fuel costs would add up quickly for such an individual. Again my point is that many are not willing to sit in traffic, burn unnecessary gas, and spend hours within the car and that mindset is only increasing.
Well DC has another disadvantage that all the jobs are related to the government. As the Reality Republicans (new Generation) are pointing out were out of money so some of those jobs have to go. Thats life and the Washington D.C areas growth is a good symbol of the Federal Beauracracy getting into everyones lifes and getting to big. Indianapolis is the state capital yes but not even 10% of the jobs in our 8.3% unemployment area are from the state government. Again Government can NOT create permanent jobs. when the money dries up everyone loses.
Well first we don't have the major traffic congestion you see in Chicago/Washington D.C or Even Charlotte for that matter. When your Idling away gas 15-30 minutes a day instead of moving like here in Indy where traffic is on the move even during Rush Hour. that does make a huge difference. Idling in the streets is nothing more than throwing money out the window.
I still don’t buy your argument. I drive a 328 xi xdrive bmw and get horrible gas mileage (but hey I use the metro for my daily commuting and I love my bmw). If I were to utilize the example Chicago76 of commuting 25 miles each day I would burn through a bit more than half a tank of gas a week. While the fuel economy of my car is horrible it is definitely not the worst out there (at 18 miles per gallon on average) as many do far worse. At Indy's current average (3.17) that would come to just about 30 bucks a week. That compares favorably to the cost of a metro commute for me in DC (or if I drove) and trust me fluctuations in even such a minute portion of my budget (and I'm bougie with my German engineering) would make a difference. Heck it makes a difference in anyone’s budget unless your part of the other class.
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.
) would make a difference. Heck it makes a difference in anyone’s budget unless your part of the other class.
