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.
It amazes me how one side of this debate leaves out whatever information they find convenient.
First of all, you can't compare property taxes paid in high density areas to suburban areas until you break it down to some equivalent unit, such as per residential unit. Likewise, I'm not impressed with the property taxes collected on an apartment building with 6 apartments with a market value of $400,000 when the per-residence share of taxes comes to $667 while six houses in the 'burbs (or anywhere else) valued at $200,000 are levied $2,000 annually. So you can whine and cry and ball all you want about who is paying taxes, or not, and tell me something like there are expensive single-family homes near downtown. Well, there are expensive homes in some areas of the 'burbs too, and more of them.
The funding sources of roads varies somewhat from state to state. Generally, property taxes contribute to a general fund. The funds are then distributed to local governments or agencies. In California property taxes don't leave the county. They are distributed among local governments and can be distributed to any publicly-funded department in the county. It is up to each local government to decide what percentage of that money goes to transportation. Note, transportation means anything to do with transportation, including roads, light rail, a new bus station for Greyhound, landscaping along a sidewalk and filling in the funding gap the Federal Gov't has left local governments with in respect to redistribution of transportation funding. Many places allocate some portion of sales taxes. In California it is .25¢ (one quarter of a cent). Local voters have approved additional sales tax amounts for transportation. In most cases the entire county pays this. And if people living in the suburbs are driving more, they are contributing more through fuel taxes. There are also fees for almost everything one can think of. Utility fees on gas, electric, phone, internet. Franchise fees paid by...franchises. These fees are tossed into the general fund in California. Most metro areas have a much larger population outside the main core or CBD. That means more money is collected from people in the suburbs.
On the comment about road wear. If you think buses don't have a substantial contribution to road wear, take a look at a bus-only lane sometime. Buses are heavy vehicles. Road wear is the result of several factors based on the load on an axle. The wear can be from fractures and deformation or from things like water on the surface of the road. Water doesn't compress. It is either displaced by the tires, tires go over it, or it goes into the pores. In the real world it is a combination of the three. A car will have a tendency to ride on the surface of the water that isn't displaced. A heavier vehicle will force more of the water into the pores. When water is forced into the pores it erodes or fractures the roadway. I've read estimates comparing the wear of a car vs a semi-type truck. The estimates are that wear from a truck is 9,000 - 12,000 times that of a car. I couldn't find any consistent figures for the weight of a bus, but what I did find is they weigh a little less than an unloaded semi. I'm not trying to knock buses because I prefer trains. They are an important part of public transit. I'm just trying to point out how far out some of the responses can be.
Nobody on the urban side ever addresses housing costs, which would be a huge issue if all the jobs were moved into one central location and everyone was competing to live close to work. Nor do they have much of an answer for other's personal activities. A lot of people prefer hiking, gardening and outdoor activities to sitting in a cafe drinking overpriced coffee with a crowd of pseudo-sophisticates who think they are smarter than they really are because they live downtown.
And what is with this assumption that everyone living in the suburbs commutes long distances to work? Citing some statistic that 50% of the people working downtown live in the suburbs means only that. It doesn't mean 50% of the people living in the suburbs are working downtown. There are rough statistics stating something like a third of auto accidents occur within a mile of home and close to two-thirds within five miles from home. Do ya think that might be because people usually do things close to where they live?
It amazes me how one side of this debate leaves out whatever information they find convenient.
First of all, you can't compare property taxes paid in high density areas to suburban areas until you break it down to some equivalent unit, such as per residential unit. Likewise, I'm not impressed with the property taxes collected on an apartment building with 6 apartments with a market value of $400,000 when the per-residence share of taxes comes to $667 while six houses in the 'burbs (or anywhere else) valued at $200,000 are levied $2,000 annually. So you can whine and cry and ball all you want about who is paying taxes, or not, and tell me something like there are expensive single-family homes near downtown. Well, there are expensive homes in some areas of the 'burbs too, and more of them.
The funding sources of roads varies somewhat from state to state. Generally, property taxes contribute to a general fund. The funds are then distributed to local governments or agencies. In California property taxes don't leave the county. They are distributed among local governments and can be distributed to any publicly-funded department in the county. It is up to each local government to decide what percentage of that money goes to transportation. Note, transportation means anything to do with transportation, including roads, light rail, a new bus station for Greyhound, landscaping along a sidewalk and filling in the funding gap the Federal Gov't has left local governments with in respect to redistribution of transportation funding. Many places allocate some portion of sales taxes. In California it is .25¢ (one quarter of a cent). Local voters have approved additional sales tax amounts for transportation. In most cases the entire county pays this. And if people living in the suburbs are driving more, they are contributing more through fuel taxes. There are also fees for almost everything one can think of. Utility fees on gas, electric, phone, internet. Franchise fees paid by...franchises. These fees are tossed into the general fund in California. Most metro areas have a much larger population outside the main core or CBD. That means more money is collected from people in the suburbs.
On the comment about road wear. If you think buses don't have a substantial contribution to road wear, take a look at a bus-only lane sometime. Buses are heavy vehicles. Road wear is the result of several factors based on the load on an axle. The wear can be from fractures and deformation or from things like water on the surface of the road. Water doesn't compress. It is either displaced by the tires, tires go over it, or it goes into the pores. In the real world it is a combination of the three. A car will have a tendency to ride on the surface of the water that isn't displaced. A heavier vehicle will force more of the water into the pores. When water is forced into the pores it erodes or fractures the roadway. I've read estimates comparing the wear of a car vs a semi-type truck. The estimates are that wear from a truck is 9,000 - 12,000 times that of a car. I couldn't find any consistent figures for the weight of a bus, but what I did find is they weigh a little less than an unloaded semi. I'm not trying to knock buses because I prefer trains. They are an important part of public transit. I'm just trying to point out how far out some of the responses can be.
Nobody on the urban side ever addresses housing costs, which would be a huge issue if all the jobs were moved into one central location and everyone was competing to live close to work. Nor do they have much of an answer for other's personal activities. A lot of people prefer hiking, gardening and outdoor activities to sitting in a cafe drinking overpriced coffee with a crowd of pseudo-sophisticates who think they are smarter than they really are because they live downtown.
And what is with this assumption that everyone living in the suburbs commutes long distances to work? Citing some statistic that 50% of the people working downtown live in the suburbs means only that. It doesn't mean 50% of the people living in the suburbs are working downtown. There are rough statistics stating something like a third of auto accidents occur within a mile of home and close to two-thirds within five miles from home. Do ya think that might be because people usually do things close to where they live?
A loaded semi is limited to 80,000 lbs, I believe.
To put my view simply: the jobs are usually in commercial corridors going out to suburbs. By jobs I mean fast-food and entry level retail. The people working these jobs generally can't afford cars. They generally rely on public transit MORE than other types of workers. They also generally can't afford to live near their places of employment. Transit to suburban areas in many larger cities runs not at all or very sparingly to these commercial corridors because they are so far from the usual range of service for a city's transit system. If one lived in the poorer part of a city and worked in the far-flung suburbs (because that's where the jobs are as the companies built close to the suburbs), they should be able to get there without having to walk 10 miles.
All I would like is for better service to these suburbs. Along commercial corridors. I don't really care all that much about getting service into the subdivisions since a very small percentage of those people would ever ride public transit. To supplement the amount of money that systems usually budget for pretty dismal service to these areas to the money that would be able to provide bus service for all shifts for these commercial areas, suburbs should foot the bill. After all, it is because of them that these commercial corridors got developed.
To put my view simply: the jobs are usually in commercial corridors going out to suburbs. By jobs I mean fast-food and entry level retail. The people working these jobs generally can't afford cars. They generally rely on public transit MORE than other types of workers. They also generally can't afford to live near their places of employment. Transit to suburban areas in many larger cities runs not at all or very sparingly to these commercial corridors because they are so far from the usual range of service for a city's transit system. If one lived in the poorer part of a city and worked in the far-flung suburbs (because that's where the jobs are as the companies built close to the suburbs), they should be able to get there without having to walk 10 miles.
All I would like is for better service to these suburbs. Along commercial corridors. I don't really care all that much about getting service into the subdivisions since a very small percentage of those people would ever ride public transit. To supplement the amount of money that systems usually budget for pretty dismal service to these areas to the money that would be able to provide bus service for all shifts for these commercial areas, suburbs should foot the bill. After all, it is because of them that these commercial corridors got developed.
So here we are on Groundhog Day! Despite much evidence to the contrary, you continue to assert that the burbs are not served by transit, and that suburbs aren't paying for transit service.
So here we are on Groundhog Day! Despite much evidence to the contrary, you continue to assert that the burbs are not served by transit, and that suburbs aren't paying for transit service.
It depends on the metro area. NY, Philly, Chicago, Boston and DC are well served by transit into central city. the Achilles heel is travel between one suburban region and another. Only Southern CA has a rail line linking the Eastern and Southern suburbs. Chicago is planning a line circling the western suburbs but who knows if it will ever get built.
It depends on the metro area. NY, Philly, Chicago, Boston and DC are well served by transit into central city. the Achilles heel is travel between one suburban region and another. Only Southern CA has a rail line linking the Eastern and Southern suburbs. Chicago is planning a line circling the western suburbs but who knows if it will ever get built.
The Denver RTD has some service between suburbs, e.g. lots of service from various places into Boulder, and some intra-city service within the burbs.
Part of the DC problem is that when the system was planned the jobs were Downtown. Over the last 30 years they have migated out to the suburbs, especially NoVA. So someone who works in SoMD, for example, used to be able to drive to a stop and go into work. Now, if the job is in VA, it's easier in many cases to drive both in time and hassle.
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.
