U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
6,233 posts, read 3,318,025 times
Reputation: 4350
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Wacky study isn't it:
Study: Property values near transit lines kept their value better | StarTribune.com

P.S. Tiburon, Woodside, Atherton are all outliers. Housing for the 1% or maybe it is the 5% hardly changes in the value and represents a very very small portion of the region's housing supply. It isn't a marker of progress for 99% of us. Average home, in an average neighborhood, for average people like us: transit helps.
It's limited. While it says a lot about properties in cities, it says nothing about them in suburbs since it didn't look at suburbs or the housing market as a whole. It just looked at housing prices in five cities. There aren't many places in San Francisco that aren't within a half mile of a bus route with frequent service. YOY prices in Sacramento are up 40%. It was one of the hardest hit, but also the fastest recovering. There aren't that many places in Sacramento that are within half a mile of frequent transit service.

Quote:
Being pro-transit doesn't mean that I am anti-car. I am pro-choice, and for the past 50-70 years we have made driving the defacto choice. In case you haven't noticed, more people want to drive less. And they are driving less on their own accord.
Yet More Evidence of Peak Car - Emily Badger - The Atlantic Cities
Actually, I hadn't. I've noticed they drive less. I've also noticed lots of people complain that because of the price of gas and the state of the economy, they're not taking as many trips as they'd like to. I wouldn't say it's because they don't want to, I'd say it's because they can't afford to. You also have the population that elects not to. Which was me. From '08-'11, I didn't own a car (as well as several years in college.) It wasn't because I wanted to no drive, it's because it didn't make sense to. I've always enjoyed driving, I just didn't. I liked not paying $200/mo for parking, $5/hour to park, $900/year for insurance. Most places I went could be easily reached by walking or biking so the fixed costs didn't make sense for what little benefit I'd get. Now the fixed costs aren't a consideration. Covering a nine-county area for work, public transportation usually isn't an option although I still take BART and ACE.

Quote:
FYI: oddly enough people who use transit shop more frequently and spend more at a business during the month/year: Pedestrians, Cyclists and Public Transit Users: Big Spenders | The GRID | Global Site Plans

We might as well be accomodating towards all the people who want to spend money with a business.
Actually, that isn't what it says. Auto users spent more across the board (the board being convenience stores, bars, and restaurants) than transit users. Total for drivers $61/month, for transit it was $58. I realize the author of Bike Portland can't read a table and erroneously thinks that $61 is a smaller number than $58, however. I can't really fault you for expecting that pretty much anyone could read a table, but as demonstrated... that isn't the case. Always a good practice to look at the actual data (if you can get at it). Auto also looks to be the most lucrative, spending significantly more. Hard to really glean much from that, however.

Also substitution, how often did bike riders go to the grocery store and what did they spend there versus auto drivers? I don't really buy much beyond a few cups of coffee and the occasional Arizona Ice Tea at convenience stores now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 07-24-2013, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
14,038 posts, read 8,108,463 times
Reputation: 8947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It's limited. While it says a lot about properties in cities, it says nothing about them in suburbs since it didn't look at suburbs or the housing market as a whole. It just looked at housing prices in five cities. There aren't many places in San Francisco that aren't within a half mile of a bus route with frequent service. YOY prices in Sacramento are up 40%. It was one of the hardest hit, but also the fastest recovering. There aren't that many places in Sacramento that are within half a mile of frequent transit service.
It will be interesting to watch how these things pan out. Micromarkets if you will. For example, in Oakland, I have noticed that condo prices are varying widely. The ones in the areas I am looking at, near transit, are up about 25-50% year over year. Other ones, that are in the price range I am looking at, away from transit are up only 10%

Quote:
Actually, I hadn't. I've noticed they drive less. I've also noticed lots of people complain that because of the price of gas and the state of the economy, they're not taking as many trips as they'd like to. I wouldn't say it's because they don't want to, I'd say it's because they can't afford to. You also have the population that elects not to. Which was me. From '08-'11, I didn't own a car (as well as several years in college.) It wasn't because I wanted to no drive, it's because it didn't make sense to. I've always enjoyed driving, I just didn't. I liked not paying $200/mo for parking, $5/hour to park, $900/year for insurance. Most places I went could be easily reached by walking or biking so the fixed costs didn't make sense for what little benefit I'd get. Now the fixed costs aren't a consideration. Covering a nine-county area for work, public transportation usually isn't an option although I still take BART and ACE.
I have been seeing these stats over the past few months, and the thing is, driving is decreasing even outside of economic downturn and gas prices changes. It is trending downward, even factoring out money issues. I know quite a few people who just choose not to drive or even learn how. It just isn't important to them. Younger people aren't even learning to drive. Older people are driving less. All over the US.

Quote:
Actually, that isn't what it says. Auto users spent more across the board (the board being convenience stores, bars, and restaurants) than transit users. Total for drivers $61/month, for transit it was $58. I realize the author of Bike Portland can't read a table and erroneously thinks that $61 is a smaller number than $58, however. I can't really fault you for expecting that pretty much anyone could read a table, but as demonstrated... that isn't the case. Always a good practice to look at the actual data (if you can get at it). Auto also looks to be the most lucrative, spending significantly more. Hard to really glean much from that, however.
I read a study months and months ago, this might not have been the same one. But the net was, drivers spend lets say $100/trip and visit once a month. Non-drivers spend $60/trip, and visit 1.5 times a month (or similar). The total inched up a little higher for the non-drivers.

As for your grocery store analysis, I have seen stats that people in walking distance hit the grocery store several times a week, and drivers go like once every other week.

I really need to keep a running list of these studies, instead of hoping the right thing pops up on google again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
6,233 posts, read 3,318,025 times
Reputation: 4350
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
It will be interesting to watch how these things pan out. Micromarkets if you will. For example, in Oakland, I have noticed that condo prices are varying widely. The ones in the areas I am looking at, near transit, are up about 25-50% year over year. Other ones, that are in the price range I am looking at, away from transit are up only 10%
Location, location, location.

Also, we've kind of gotten off of viewing transit as a welfare service for poor people thing. We're not so much trying to provide uniformly crappy service throughout the entire service area so people can through darts and get there. There's a lot more emphasis on using transit to spur development and on maximizing the amount of transportation for the buck versus before when it was just throw a bus route everywhere and tell people to stop whining, they have a bus route. Kind of your "people who don't take transit don't understand it" thread. Just because you're on a bus route that comes once every 30 minutes doesn't mean anything if you have to ride the stupid thing as it meanders around residential neighborhoods aimless for 45 minutes before dropping you off at your first of two transfers. My suburb is focusing on what four transit corridors where there's generally pretty good service. It hits most things, the malls, junior college, restaurants, grocery stores, the downtown area. As a consequence, meandering residential routes have been cut to shift service to those corridors. It's about a mile to the nearest bus stop for me now where I used to have three useless routes that meandered around my neighborhood in random directions to nowhere that no one ever road anyway. Most of what little development has occurred in the last five years has been on those corridors.

Quote:
I have been seeing these stats over the past few months, and the thing is, driving is decreasing even outside of economic downturn and gas prices changes. It is trending downward, even factoring out money issues. I know quite a few people who just choose not to drive or even learn how. It just isn't important to them. Younger people aren't even learning to drive. Older people are driving less. All over the US.
But all of that is normal behavior. Quite a few young people have often not chosen to drive. Old people have always driven less. Economic data is always looking backwards. In past recessions, the dip in driving occurred before or at the very beginning of the recession. The net effect is that we drive about 3% fewer miles as a nation than we did in 2007. Even if we've hit "Peak Car," which is probable, as the economy recovers and the population continues to grow we'll no doubt surpass the 2007 number in the not so distant future.

Quote:
I read a study months and months ago, this might not have been the same one. But the net was, drivers spend lets say $100/trip and visit once a month. Non-drivers spend $60/trip, and visit 1.5 times a month (or similar). The total inched up a little higher for the non-drivers.

As for your grocery store analysis, I have seen stats that people in walking distance hit the grocery store several times a week, and drivers go like once every other week.

I really need to keep a running list of these studies, instead of hoping the right thing pops up on google again.
Well, produce won't last two weeks. I'd say most people go shopping at least once a week, probably more than that. I'd say driving I average 1.5. When I was walking/transit, it was more like 2-3. I probably spend less than I did because I shop at WinCo instead of QFC. Less spent in one area (expensive corner grocery stores or on cars) means more spent in other areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 02:12 PM
 
735 posts, read 606,438 times
Reputation: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
People like to pretend the only people who benefit from roads are the drivers. Ever been on BART? Imagine what it'd look like during rush hour if everyone used it rather than driving. Yikes. Ever bought anything from a store? It didn't get there on a bus. Oh, wait, those need roads. And yes, roads are also paid for with sales and income taxes. What they aren't paid for with is transit fares.
Neither are paid for in their "user fees". The gas tax/tolls covers are fraction of the total cost of roads, and the cost of most transit agencies is covered by a fraction by fares.

They're both subsidized, and there are many people paying for either (in taxes) that don't necessarily use both/either. There are plenty of people who just ride transit who pay for those roads that you get to drive on; and there are many people who drive who never use public transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
14,038 posts, read 8,108,463 times
Reputation: 8947
The thing is transit should be for everyone. Whether it is because you can't afford a car, do not want a car, choose not to use your car at the moment or whatever. In the US in general we decided transit is for "poor people" and the last thing anyone wants is to be associated with "icky poor people."

In the Bay Area we generally have dual goals for transit, lifeline and commuter service. We aren't doing a good job of making non-work trips happen via transit. For lots of people "good transit" means access during work times. It isn't ever in their radar to take transit for other stuff.

Many people might if it was convenient. I would use it more if the buses that went near my place to downtown Oakland ran later or more frequently.

Relder people? This means non millennials. Driving is decreasing across all demographics, even those super attached to their cars.

Re those condos? They are in desirable areas. Technically more affluent even. They have more amenities and in the hills. Might even be considered more desirable than where I live now. But much much cheaper.


On an autocorrecting iDevice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 02:47 PM
 
262 posts, read 109,125 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
Neither are paid for in their "user fees". The gas tax/tolls covers are fraction of the total cost of roads, and the cost of most transit agencies is covered by a fraction by fares.

They're both subsidized, and there are many people paying for either (in taxes) that don't necessarily use both/either. There are plenty of people who just ride transit who pay for those roads that you get to drive on; and there are many people who drive who never use public transit.
Societal cost of driving is a lot higher than the societal cost of riding the bus, so it's not really close, no matter how much public transit is subsidized. Drivers should pay for the roads and infrastructure they use and on top of that, they should pay for pollution, congestion, car accidents and global warming. They pay a tiny fraction of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 04:05 PM
 
735 posts, read 606,438 times
Reputation: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obamadon1 View Post
Societal cost of driving is a lot higher than the societal cost of riding the bus, so it's not really close, no matter how much public transit is subsidized.
Agree there. Just a point I like to throw in discussions about public transit...at some point someone starts harping on public transit for the fact that its fares don't cover the full cost of the system. Well, neither do the "user fees" of driving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 05:21 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
4,891 posts, read 1,084,658 times
Reputation: 1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
Agree there. Just a point I like to throw in discussions about public transit...at some point someone starts harping on public transit for the fact that its fares don't cover the full cost of the system. Well, neither do the "user fees" of driving.
I don't have an issue with traditional tax dollars being used to support traditional roads or need mass transit (the HSR is not needed btw). Mass transit worked in the Bay Area when the jobs were located along mass transit lines (SF and Oakland). With the growth of the SV which is very poorly served by transit and SJ (again poorly served) we have to rely on cars. Neither area (SV or SJ) have central job centers like SF so a system like Bart does not work. Plus the only way mass transit is set up at this time is through San Francisco which takes an exceptionally long time.

The only way I can see mass transit working is if another trans bay tube along the San Mateo bridge connecting the east bay to the peninsula, then heading south to San Jose with subsequent busses to the various job centers cone ring to Bart. I know this will never happen because the local cities will never give up the space and after the boondoggle of the bay bridge anything that remotely resembles another bay crossing will be shut down.

So if the above is not viable then expanding the road system is the last option. The one Bay Area plan is based off of a centralized job center (SF), this model does not fit the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 06:17 PM
 
102 posts, read 72,675 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obamadon1 View Post
Societal cost of driving is a lot higher than the societal cost of riding the bus, so it's not really close, no matter how much public transit is subsidized. Drivers should pay for the roads and infrastructure they use and on top of that, they should pay for pollution, congestion, car accidents and global warming. They pay a tiny fraction of that.
Blech.

First, cities wouldn't exist if not for roads. Businesses would not exist if not for roads (even dear leader Obama stated as much in his "you didn't build that" speech). People wouldn't live in a city if the local gov't didn't provide adequate roadways. It's been that way FOR-EV-ER. . . Didn't you ever play sim city?

Just imagine if tomorrow SF decided to rip up their roads and leave only rail in place... You know, to support the pseudo- science of global warming, How man businesses and people would pack up and leave? With them goes their tax revenue. For those of you with your pie in the sky views who altruistically stay put to enjoy your roadless utopia, your cost for goods will go up BC it will cost more to get it to you. It simply doesn't work.

I am a high earner / high tax payer and you'll be losing me and my tax dollars in a few months. My primary reason for leaving - traffic and cost of housing. I know I'm not alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 07-24-2013, 06:21 PM
 
735 posts, read 606,438 times
Reputation: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubbard53 View Post
Blech.

First, cities wouldn't exist if not for roads. Businesses would not exist if not for roads (even dear leader Obama stated as much in his "you didn't build that" speech). People wouldn't live in a city if the local gov't didn't provide adequate roadways. It's been that way FOR-EV-ER. . . Didn't you ever play sim city?

Just imagine if tomorrow SF decided to rip up their roads and leave only rail in place... You know, to support the pseudo- science of global warming, How man businesses and people would pack up and leave? With them goes their tax revenue. For those of you with your pie in the sky views who altruistically stay put to enjoy your roadless utopia, your cost for goods will go up BC it will cost more to get it to you. It simply doesn't work.

I am a high earner / high tax payer and you'll be losing me and my tax dollars in a few months. My primary reason for leaving - traffic and cost of housing. I know I'm not alone.
No one is saying to get rid of roads. What a ridiculous conclusion to make.

In a metro area where the vast majority of people drive, of course this would never happen. And it also isn't what's being put forth here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $74,000 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 > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, 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 - Top