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 05-10-2013, 06:07 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
Have you seen US 36 thru Louisville? McCaslin Blvd thru Louisville?
US 36 does not really go through Louisville. Yes, oftentimes it's congested at rush hour. I drive McCaslin every day that I work, and it's not, by a long shot, congested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
You can't really have an unsubsidized transport network.

For instance, if car owners paid full freight a gallon of gas would be $6/$7 gallon (and I'm not including any capture for environmental damage). People would drive a lot less. In fact, they are already are driving less and the cost is half that. States are scrambling to figure out how they're going to pay for their existing highway network because the decrease in VMT per capita and increasing fuel economy are a double whammy against the gas tax.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that we're approaching the price elasticity of demand for gas . As usage goes down the amount of money collected to maintain the network goes down, the network shrinks, usage declines further, the network shrinks and on and on.

I'm not saying it's bad that car owners pay full freight but even if cars disappear I'll still want the street paved so I can ride my bike on it - and I would prefer not to go back to riding on belgian block. So if you start charging cyclists how do you tax them? A flat tax on the sale of new bikes? Not everyone rides the same amount. Do you start also taxing pedestrians? Would the people who walk or cycle less be subsidizing the people who walked or cycled more?

To take that a step further - most of the interior of this country was settled by means of huge, subsidized enterprises like canal building, land grants and tax breaks for railroads, and the Army Corps of Engineers maintaining draft depths on inland waterways. How much more expensive would it be to live in the midwest without subsidized freight? How much more expensive would food and energy costs be on the coasts?

The Romans understood quite well that it took a large, well maintained, well defended transport network to maintain the Empire. It's not a value judgement - i'm just saying that the US would look a lot different today without those subsidies and it's worth considering. Personally, I think those subsidies are currently going to the wrong modes. We need better funding and a more balanced approach but highways and most interstates (those that actually go between states) are a fundamental part of the overall network.
The bold says it all. There's been too much nonsense on this forum about the lack of a need for roads, and people actually trying to argue that somewhere, someplace, there are no roads in cities.

 
Old 05-10-2013, 06:12 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,842,524 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
You can't really have an unsubsidized transport network.

For instance, if car owners paid full freight a gallon of gas would be $6/$7 gallon (and I'm not including any capture for environmental damage).
Assuming that's true, if you could do it revenue neutral, I don't think it would be a problem. Of course, politicians would never do that; they'd increase gas taxes and not decrease anything else.

Quote:
People would drive a lot less. In fact, they are already are driving less and the cost is half that. States are scrambling to figure out how they're going to pay for their existing highway network because the decrease in VMT per capita and increasing fuel economy are a double whammy against the gas tax.
I'd be a lot more impressed by that claim if they weren't always diverting road funds elsewhere (sometimes mass transit, sometimes gold-plated bicycling initiatives, sometimes something completely unrelated).

Quote:
To take that a step further - most of the interior of this country was settled by means of huge, subsidized enterprises like canal building, land grants and tax breaks for railroads, and the Army Corps of Engineers maintaining draft depths on inland waterways. How much more expensive would it be to live in the midwest without subsidized freight? How much more expensive would food and energy costs be on the coasts?
Again, I'm not sure what the problem is. I'll accept for the sake of argument that freight to the midwest from the coasts is subsidized. Get rid of the subsidies in a revenue-neutral way, and what happens? Freight costs go up; product costs go up. The freight gets priced into the product instead of taxes.
 
Old 05-10-2013, 06:22 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
So ... wood burning pollutes more than millions of cars
Not what I said. Here it is, in case you didn't read it thoroughly the last time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The only thing he brought up that is quantifiable is road upkeep, and as much as some people on this forum want to believe otherwise, roads were around long before cars, and are used by mass transit as well. You can't quantify the contribution of any one driver to air pollution, oil drippings, or rubber debris. A big part of the air pollution here in metro Denver is wood burning, and no one's doing that in their cars.
It took a while to find something old enough to discuss the pre-woodburning ban era, but I finally did.

Burning Issue Of Unsightly Smog Inflames The Not-so-pristine West - Chicago Tribune

With a population sightly above 500,000, Denver has more than one wood stove or fireplace for every two residents. City council members estimate that the ratio is the same for the million-plus residents of the entire metropolitan area. . . . Further, about 15 percent of the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide comes from wood-burning, not vehicles, experts estimate. . . . A study by the Wyoming state government last year found that each wood stove in that state was producing between 100 and 300 pounds of particulate matter for each cord of wood burned. . . With an average stove in frigid Wyoming consuming four cords of wood annually, virtually every Wyomingite`s household was belching nearly a half ton of pollutants into the air.

27 years later, few houses have actual wood-burning fireplaces, and virtually NONE are built with them.

The city wood-burning ban morphed into an area wide ban (on certain days), and some mountain towns also have bans.
 
Old 05-10-2013, 10:16 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,107,012 times
Reputation: 3117
Here we trot out environmental effects for wood burning, but somehow calculations of the same for cars are invalid? Sounds like a red herring.
 
Old 05-11-2013, 06:09 AM
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
But we're getting way off topic. Back to changing suburbs, please?

Last edited by nei; 05-11-2013 at 10:11 AM.. Reason: off topic
 
Old 05-11-2013, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Geauga County, Ohio
1,469 posts, read 1,518,754 times
Reputation: 1387
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Those place? They look like they'll never be anything but auto-oriented. But I doubt there is much demand for it to "evolve"

So I guess my answer is no. Too much to change, too expensive to change, and very little demand to change.
Maybe the people who live there don't WANT them to "evolve"?

We LIKE "privately owning" our 1+ acre lot in the outer suburbs. We'll take the inconvenience of needing 2 cars along with it.
 
Old 05-11-2013, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,248 posts, read 1,015,545 times
Reputation: 448
Suburbs will not change much. They will just expand. Areas closer to the city will become somewhat more urban, but the areas further away will stay the same.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 04:33 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,006,214 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
But we're getting way off topic. Back to changing suburbs, please?
An externality, at its core, is something that is unaccounted for within a given model.

Once an externality has been internalized into the model, the model has changed, has "evolved."

If, then, someone asks
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
Why would someone from Chicago care how dense the suburbs are?
Keep living your life in Chicago, and let those in the suburbs live their life how they want....
they are directly questioning the validity of one or more externalities.

If they are invalid, then the model is complete, and the OP's question
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
1. Will the suburbs evolve beyond placing the car as the undisputed and uncontested mode of transit?
is immediately moot. There's no externalities to account for and, therefore, no change to make and nothing to "evolve" in to.

iNviNciBL3's question can only be answered by understanding the inter-related costs and benefits of communities of differing compositions and character.

So, it would be inaccurate to suggest that a discussion of the ability (or lack of ability, it that's one's position) to calculate externalities isn't off-topic, as it is, instead, central to the discussion.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,472,879 times
Reputation: 5401
Some suburbs will density and become more urban but to expect all suburban towns to evolve into a city seems rather ridiculous.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 05:34 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,006,214 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
How are cars "heavily subsidized"? You can't even deduct the interest you pay on a car loan on your taxes any more, unless you add the loan to your mortgage.
They are heavily subsidized in that not all the costs associated with their use are incorporated into their ownership. Extreme example: smog in China. The so-called "brown cloud" is a subsidy by the public. People are "paying for" some of the cost of cars, trucks, factories, and cargo ships with clean air.

As I said, when I drive my car, I'm not paying the full cost of it. Some of it is, yes, subsidized via taxes. Some is also subsidized by the residents of the cities and neighborhoods I transit through, and by other drivers.

Does this also apply to PT? Yes. When I ride the local LRT, my ticket doesn't cover the full cost. Most of the price is picked up by taxpayers, many of whom will never use the service.

In either case, are these necessary realities? At the margins, for a functional society, probably. It would be extremely expensive to have a city without subsidization of transit, private or public. The subsidies, though, could certainly be much, much lower.
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