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 01-21-2014, 03:54 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not sure what the point is, since you're not arguing against anything said.
Oh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In my mind, the argument that the government should subsidize mass transit rests on the government already subsidizing cars. We do this in numerous ways, including building and maintaining roads and highways for drivers (which, with the exception of toll roads, never pay back the cost directly) to provision of free parking (generally through mandated parking minimums, but sometimes through free or artificially low priced downtown lots and garages.

Hell, speaking of Libertarians, here's Ron Paul's take on it. Note that while hostile in general to subsidized transit, he believes that the government's generous subsidies for highway construction helped to kill the ability of mass transit to operate on anything other than a loss. To a degree, one has to agree with him. After all, the highway system allowed mass suburbanization, and the spread of workers so diffusely away from existing rail and streetcar lines it became implausible that transit would ever capture them back again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:01 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That's fine, but then you don't really mean this:
That was referring to the government getting involved in an economic sector, not a social sector (see where the "*" was from). In theory, I don't see much wrong the government building giant apartment complexes. Or a giant office complex. Or a government owned train company that has international operations and has profits like a business. Or a mostly government held oil company. In many cases government held things are inefficient, but otherwise I don't have a libertarian opinion against them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:02 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh?
That does not imply that there were no roads before then. Not sure how that connects.

There was obviously road infrastructure before, but the road infrastructure of say 1920 was insufficient for mass automobile usage or frequent long road trips. That does not mean the government should not have funded more road construction, but it did primarily benefit drivers and allow mass suburbanization to a greater extent than before. The government could have spent less on roads and highway and more rail and transit in general, instead.

Last edited by nei; 01-21-2014 at 04:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:13 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That does not imply that there were no roads before then. Not sure how that connects.
What I got out of his post was the the govt. began subsidizing roads when cars came along.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:21 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
What I got out of his post was the the govt. began subsidizing roads when cars came along.
That's not clear at all to me, it certainly doesn't say that anywhere I can see, it makes no comment on whether government subsidized roads before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:25 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
He actually said, "n my mind, the argument that the government should subsidize mass transit rests on the government already subsidizing cars." As if there was no transit before cars. He then goes on to say the govt. already subsidized cars by building highways. So I was not being clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:30 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
I'm not following your logic. Highways are specifically for cars. He didn't discuss subsidization of anything before cars anyway, so I'm not sure how that's relevant, nor the fact that there was transit before cars. Perhaps eschaton come explain further, though I'm really not sure what pre-automobile road funding has to do with his post.

In any case, there is far more road funding once cars became common as I said earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 05:01 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm not following your logic. Highways are specifically for cars. He didn't discuss subsidization of anything before cars anyway, so I'm not sure how that's relevant, nor the fact that there was transit before cars. Perhaps eschaton come explain further, though I'm really not sure what pre-automobile road funding has to do with his post.

In any case, there is far more road funding once cars became common as I said earlier.
Buses don't use highways in your part of the country? They do here. That's what that BRT mess is all about, building bus/HOV lanes on Highway 36. Currently they have to share, except for a short portion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 05:45 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Buses don't use highways in your part of the country? They do here. That's what that BRT mess is all about, building bus/HOV lanes on Highway 36. Currently they have to share, except for a short portion.
Long distance buses (as Greyhound/ Megabus) do, but there's usually parallel rail infrastructure that could be used instead. As I said before, none of the intercity bus routes do anything that couldn't be done on rail, constructing highways didn't help transit as there was already existing rail that did the same thing. Which is why I said highway construction was for drivers*. Anyway, buses are generally on local roads, with some exceptions: commuter buses in NJ and a couple of express buses I've seen in CT and a few rush hour only routes in our system.

*I should have said highway construction not highways

Actually, in downstate NY a number of the limited access roads (called parkways) don't allow buses or trucks. When I take a bus down to NYC, the first/last 45 minutes involves stop and go local roads, then often congested highways. Neither are an issue with trains.

Last edited by nei; 01-21-2014 at 05:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,668,169 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
So the Field of Dreams approach doesn't work. You need to build things that are cost-effective or you starve the transit system.

Much of Europe (I'm not talking about mega-cities like Paris and London) operates without rail. They have dependable, predictable buses. Building ultra-expensive rail systems when dependable, predictable buses would be cheaper and leave you more funds is a trendy decision, but often a poor one.
Many people in Portland are now agreeing with this and the latest issues from TriMet is that BRT's are seriously being looked at where once light rail and streetcars were once their only thoughts. But the jury is still out. It;s almost a day-to-day issue. I actually heard this from one of the bus drivers on my route. I hope so. I think that many cities are making these important decisions at the moment as to which type of service would be best for them.

I consider myself a liberal but I am afraid I have to admit it is some of the past liberal city politicians in my city were more interested in show pieces than serving the needs of the people. I think if a more conservative approach had been followed, things would have been very different.
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
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