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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2013, 07:26 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,038 posts, read 102,742,261 times
Reputation: 33084

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Your solution means that all the customers will have to go further to get to the store though. If you're also increasing the costs of driving a car, that will cause demand for stores that are closer to the customer, so more smaller shopping areas and counter the effect of higher trucking costs. I could see the net effect being more smaller shopping areas than today.
Not only will the customers have to go farther, but the business owners will have to come up with some method of getting the goods to their business from the railroad station. Maybe since cars are so bad, we could go back to horse and wagon.

 
Old 05-30-2013, 10:28 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,823 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
When you're talking about rail or roadbuilding, that's what "right-of-way" means.
Okay. Understood. Also, not totally relevant at this juncture, as I went on to elaborate what I meant for trucks, which was purchasing time/space on the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
You are mistaken, because such trucks do pay per mile for road use.
Could you elaborate on that? How do they pay? How is it calculated? Whom is paid?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

I take what people say about "I'm not promoting XXX" with a grain of salt.
Skepticism is a good trait to have. But, as has been made explicit, I'm promoting internalization of previously externalized costs and then speculating what I think would happen. I haven't been promoting any specific form as innately better or worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Not only will the customers have to go farther, but the business owners will have to come up with some method of getting the goods to their business from the railroad station. Maybe since cars are so bad, we could go back to horse and wagon.
Why do you keep going back to rail? I was very explicit in stating I was talking about trucks, freight prices and suburban form.
 
Old 05-30-2013, 02:39 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,038 posts, read 102,742,261 times
Reputation: 33084
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Okay. Understood. Also, not totally relevant at this juncture, as I went on to elaborate what I meant for trucks, which was purchasing time/space on the road.



Could you elaborate on that? How do they pay? How is it calculated? Whom is paid?




Skepticism is a good trait to have. But, as has been made explicit, I'm promoting internalization of previously externalized costs and then speculating what I think would happen. I haven't been promoting any specific form as innately better or worse.



Why do you keep going back to rail? I was very explicit in stating I was talking about trucks, freight prices and suburban form.
Why do you keep diverting? I thought you WERE talking about rail. One post, you're talking about this; then I respond and you're supposedly talking about something else. Rinse, lather, repeat.

You still haven't said what you think suburban shopping looks like NOW.
 
Old 05-30-2013, 07:07 PM
 
9,522 posts, read 14,869,898 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Could you elaborate on that? How do they pay? How is it calculated? Whom is paid?
Commercial truck operators pay the states they operate their trucks in a tax based on the mileage and weight class of their vehicles. New York calls it the Highway Use Tax, Pennsylvania calls it the Motor Carrier's Road Tax, I'm sure other states call it other things. The point is that what you ask for already exists, so suburban shopping could not be changed by bringing it into existence.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 03:45 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,823 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Commercial truck operators pay the states they operate their trucks in a tax based on the mileage and weight class of their vehicles. New York calls it the Highway Use Tax, Pennsylvania calls it the Motor Carrier's Road Tax, I'm sure other states call it other things. The point is that what you ask for already exists, so suburban shopping could not be changed by bringing it into existence.
Thank you. Wasn't aware.

Quote:
New York State imposes a highway use tax (HUT) on motor carriers operating certain motor vehicles on New York State public highways (excluding toll-paid portions of the New York State Thruway). The tax is based on mileage traveled on NYS public highways and is computed at a rate determined by the weight of the motor vehicle and the method that you choose to report the tax.


Couldn't find something similar for California.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 04:02 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,823 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Why do you keep diverting? I thought you WERE talking about rail. One post, you're talking about this; then I respond and you're supposedly talking about something else. Rinse, lather, repeat.

You still haven't said what you think suburban shopping looks like NOW.
I haven't been talking about rail, but I have been using it as a foil for comparison to trucking. I've been very explicit in talking about freight trucking. I started by comparing the way trucks and railways negotiate for use of their medium (rails for trains, roads for trucks). AFAIKnew, trucks didn't pay for road use. I don't know if they pay California for highway use, as they do, albeit circuitously at tax time, in New York. Also, AFAIK, they don't pay for use of local arterials, which a state agency, like CalTrans, doesn't maintain. I'm under the impression they don't pay our transit authority, the VTA, anything, per mile driven, for use of our arterials. This is what I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Agreed on the premise, but not on the extent. Currently, the way we "charge" for road use creates massive distortions in the market. Trucks, specifically, are overutilized vs. rail because we, the public, subsidize their use.

Imagine if trucks had to buy right-of-way like rail does. Would trucks be used so extensively? Probably not.

So, while we do gain from their use, their overuse as a direct result of our subsidization leaves us net negative.

This seems a scale above the question of suburban form but, if we didn't have this distortion of the market, suburbs might not have taken the current wide-and-short form wherein everything is spread out. If, say, trucks had to pay, per-mile, for road use, were limited to arterials (or other main streets) and were banned from neighborhood streets, retail might be more centralized in shopping "hubs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I'm going to focus on my one point regarding freight trucking and the suburban form. To avoid confusion, I'm not, in this post, going to discuss rail.

Trucks, and road users in general, do not pay anything close to the fully inclusive cost, to the government or the larger society, per mile traveled. If trucks had to pay a per-mile usage fee, like a toll, the suburban form would be different than it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Anyway, my original point was and is that if cargo trucks, like the kind that deliver to grocery and convenience stores, had to pay, per mile, for road use, the form of retail in the suburbs, and the form of the suburbs in general, would look different.

I haven't responded to your question regarding what I think the current suburban retail form is because, given the volume of things I've had to try and clarify and respond to, your question seemed like a distraction. If I'm already expending a lot to get you to talk about trucks and not veer off to the subject of rail or being anti-car, or being pro city, why would I split my writing further? I've no incentive to.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 05:46 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,038 posts, read 102,742,261 times
Reputation: 33084
Just to clarify (though I shouldn't have to), darkeconomist, YOU are the one who brought up rail shipping, three days ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Agreed on the premise, but not on the extent. Currently, the way we "charge" for road use creates massive distortions in the market. Trucks, specifically, are overutilized vs. rail because we, the public, subsidize their use.

Imagine if trucks had to buy right-of-way like rail does.
Would trucks be used so extensively? Probably not.

So, while we do gain from their use, their overuse as a direct result of our subsidization leaves us net negative.

This seems a scale above the question of suburban form but, if we didn't have this distortion of the market, suburbs might not have taken the current wide-and-short form wherein everything is spread out. If, say, trucks had to pay, per-mile, for road use, were limited to arterials (or other main streets) and were banned from neighborhood streets, retail might be more centralized in shopping "hubs."
Now you have decided you don't want to talk about trucks, so you choose accuse me of diversions, saying you never wanted to talk about rail.

Your words:

Quote:
Why do you keep going back to rail? I was very explicit in stating I was talking about trucks, freight prices and suburban form.
Uh, huh!
 
Old 05-31-2013, 05:50 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
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
This thread has gone way off topic, and turned into a personal back and forth between several members.
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

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