U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,661,531 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Wrong.

Go see the thread about auto costs. Someone making $25,000 a year isn't spending an average of $8000 on car expenses. Not even someone making the average income, which was $55,000 in 2007, is spending that much, so certainly someone making less than half the average income isn't.

Notion of auto-dependent by choice really sums it up and is the end of the discussion, however. Actual dependence, like say drug dependence, isn't by choice. Auto-dependence isn't dependence. It's just a fancy way for anti-car people to say choice since they can't wrap their minds around a world where people might actually choose to drive a car.
Some choice. In Ohio, for example, I'd guess there are maybe 15 square miles in the entire state (0.04% of the state's total land area) where one could comfortably live car-free. (I understand "comfort" is subjective, so take my number with a grain of salt, I'm just making a point)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,090,068 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Those are usually a relatively small fraction of many metros and often fall into either category:

1) Expensive
2) Rather decayed and poor

It has reduced the ability to walk to places. Here, most businesses used to be concentrated in the center of towns. Now? Some remain, many in scattered strip malls outside. Even one lived in the walkable areas near the center of old towns (such as myself) getting to some destinations without a car is much clumsier than it used to be. Most small cities in NY and New England used to have healthy downtowns. Now? Many downtowns decayed (Hartford, Springfield, etc.) business migrated to the periphery.

As to Levittown, as far as walkability goes, it's worse than most of that era for Long Island. But in the region, few built much afterwards are more walkable, many are less walkable. For Long Island, point (1) is irrelevant, as most is at least 50 years, and not much built post-1970 (Nassau County has about the same population as 1960). But newer areas of New Jersey and elsewhere in the Northeast are generally less walkable.
Dunno. Midtown, East Sac, Land Park, Oak Park, Alhambra Triangle, Curtis Park... lots of walkable areas in Sacramento. Pocket is a newer suburban area. It semi-walkable with good enough transportation. A lot of government workers live there and take the bus into downtown. You can get to parks, grocery store, dry cleaner, couple restaurants, from many places. Like Land Park, Curtis Park, and others you wouldn't want to just randomly throw a dart and decide to live there.

So instead of living in the newer parts of NJ if you don't like them, go live in something built in the '60s or before in Nassau county. It's totally irrelevant along the eastern seaboard where there's a large percentage of housing stock built pre-'60s. It's more in Sacramento MSA which has grown some 400+% in population since then, but not like there aren't choices. Most people simple do not care about neighborhoods being walkable in the slightest and are perfectly to happy to buy houses or rent apartments in neighborhoods that aren't walkable. So what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,674,519 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Wrong.

Go see the thread about auto costs. Someone making $25,000 a year isn't spending an average of $8000 on car expenses. Not even someone making the average income, which was $55,000 in 2007, is spending that much, so certainly someone making less than half the average income isn't.

Notion of auto-dependent by choice really sums it up and is the end of the discussion, however. Actual dependence, like say drug dependence, isn't by choice. Auto-dependence isn't dependence. It's just a fancy way for anti-car people to say choice since they can't wrap their minds around a world where people might actually choose to drive a car.
OK....let's throw out the $8K and just talk in terms of logic.

A person in a low-to-moderate paying job (e.g...$25k) is barely eecking by. Wouldn't you agree? Which mode of transportation ties up more of their wages in expenses? Owning a car or being able to take a bus to work, errands, etc.?

A person IS dependant on an auto if mass transporation is not readily available to get them from their home to all the places (job, Dr, grocery, etc.) they need to travel. This isn't semantics. It is fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,674,519 times
Reputation: 1434
[quote=Malloric;28368616]Dunno. Midtown, East Sac, Land Park, Oak Park, Alhambra Triangle, Curtis Park... lots of walkable areas in Sacramento. Pocket is a newer suburban area. It semi-walkable with good enough transportation. A lot of government workers live there and take the bus into downtown. You can get to parks, grocery store, dry cleaner, couple restaurants, from many places. Like Land Park, Curtis Park, and others you wouldn't want to just randomly throw a dart and decide to live there.

So instead of living in the newer parts of NJ if you don't like them, go live in something built in the '60s or before in Nassau county. It's totally irrelevant along the eastern seaboard where there's a large percentage of housing stock built pre-'60s. It's more in Sacramento MSA which has grown some 400+% in population since then, but not like there aren't choices. Most people simple do not care about neighborhoods being walkable in the slightest and are perfectly to happy to buy houses or rent apartments in neighborhoods that aren't walkable. So what?[/quote]

So what? So as a result, it is yet another factor why as a nation we keep getting fatter and fatter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,090,068 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Some choice. In Ohio, for example, I'd guess there are maybe 15 square miles in the entire state (0.04% of the state's total land area) where one could comfortably live car-free. (I understand "comfort" is subjective, so take my number with a grain of salt, I'm just making a point)
Only if people are so stupid they randomly throw maps at Ohio and then go live in a cornfield before realizing they can't really walk anywhere because the're nothing but corn for 20 square miles. And I thought I had a dim outlook on the intelligence of humanity. Colombus certainly has a plenty of walkable neighborhoods. I would assume people would be smart enough to just avoid the cornfields out of hand, wouldn't you?

Last edited by Malloric; 02-22-2013 at 12:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,090,068 times
Reputation: 12647
Actually, fatter and vehicle ownership are barely, if at all, correlated. Stuffing face full of twinkies is very highly correlated. I mean, I sort of get how people can confuse correlation and causation (insert rant of why statistics needs to be required in journalism curriculum)... but cars and fatter don't even have correlation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:28 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Or an electric car. I was next to a Tesla Roadster last Friday for a good 20 minutes. Consider I used about 10 times as much gas idling as moving in that time, the Tesla seemed a particularly good idea as it just shuts off when it stops.
Going back to the original toic, a Tesla sounds neat… I'd like one too if I had a $100,000 on hand and a pressing need to get rid of it. Range is a bit iffy but it sounds like it should to do what I need… can handle 250 miles in one go to get to upstate NY or up in NH. Charging might be an issue away from home. Not really an electric bicycle or Segway replacement considering the price difference.

As for why new urbanist might be more interested in bicycles over electric cars? They're still cars, with all the space requirements of a car. And as you said,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It's difficult to have a vibrant street scene when everyone gets everywhere by car.
Environmentally, they're great, though not that practical until costs go down. Maybe a car like the Tesla could become normal 30 years from now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 9,944,871 times
Reputation: 2978
Quote:
Originally Posted by capitalcityguy View Post
There are many downsides, but how can you say they are "pretty cheap".

...they're spending on average $8,000/year in associated costs (depreciation, gas, repairs, etc) of having to rely on their auto vs. what it would cost them if mass transit was readily available.
The problem is that mass transit is too expensive, especially long-range mass transit. It really isn't economical vs. owning a car, unless you are single, intend to stay that way, and live in the city core.

So my automobile-related costs (purchase price, fuel, repairs, taxes, insurance) conservatively cost me no more than $5600/year.

Currently we live within 3 miles of downtown Boston. I work within 10 miles of the downtown, and my spouse works 1 mile away from home. Here is our cost of public transportation breakdown:

Public Transportation if we lived and worked within the local bus/subway: $840 / year
Public Transportation Myself + Spouse as we currently live: $3948 / year
One Car (our current situation): $5595 / year
Public Transportation Last year when we lived 10 miles out along the commuter rail: $6768 / Year

That's a maximum savings of only $1500/year if we NEVER travel outside zone 2 of the city. With one or more children, the costs jump again. However, car costs remain constant with up to 4 passengers.

Subtract the kids and add in the cost of rental cars, taxis, or zipcars for the occasions when you simply have to drive, and the supposed economics of mass transit just aren't there in the USA except in a few dense city cores. Otherwise, the best you can really do is "car-lite".

...

This is sad, because I lothe driving. It stresses me out and it's dangerous. When the weather is decent we walk or ride bicycles to any destination within 5 miles. However, considering the costs, though I would much rather take it, we only ride public transportation as a novelty, when we want to drink, or when we are fairly sure we won't be able to find free parking.

...

My hope is that self-driving cars will change all this and be the happy compromise between mass transit and personal vehicles, for a spread-out country like the USA. I hope that, in a decade, I can pay a couple hundred a month into a "car collective" and have a shared robot-driven vehicle show up at my (phone's) beck and call anytime I want. Either that, or I'll move to a denser part of the world with more economical mass transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,674,519 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
$8,000/yr is only for a new, financed car. Having a car extends the range a person can look for a new job. It will let them work an hour or so away from where they live, so that the worker making $25,000 has a car, he/she has the ability to hunt for better jobs in areas that are very unreachable without the car. Not having the car would trap that worker to only jobs in his/her immediate vicinity.
Thx for the clarification on the $8K expense. That said, the expense for even a used car would in in the thousands per year. Who making $25K can afford that...and certainly even less likely if their commute is 1 hr each way to work.

Your final thought (bolded) was created in large part when we started building our cities to be auto-centric. You're concluding the auto as a solution when in many cases, the problem wouldnt' have existed in the first place had we built our cities smarter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,674,519 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Actually, fatter and vehicle ownership are barely, if at all, correlated. Stuffing face full of twinkies is very highly correlated. I mean, I sort of get how people can confuse correlation and causation (insert rant of why statistics needs to be required in journalism curriculum)... but cars and fatter don't even have correlation.
Link?

Here's just one of many I can provide. You?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May30.html
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:

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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