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)
 
Old 02-06-2014, 04:15 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,195,701 times
Reputation: 3351

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
The bald truth is that suburbs exist: a) because increasing populations have to live somewhere; and 2) over the years, an increasing number of people had the increased means to move farther and farther out of town or away from their workplace.
3)federally subsidized highways to get from the suburbs to the city jobs

4)federally subsidized home loans to buy the house in the suburbs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2014, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,390 posts, read 59,868,870 times
Reputation: 54036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
3)federally subsidized highways to get from the suburbs to the city jobs

4)federally subsidized home loans to buy the house in the suburbs
You couldn't take advantage of either of those if you didn't have money in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 05:58 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,195,701 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
You couldn't take advantage of either of those if you didn't have money in the first place.
So then would you agree that subsides are not fair because they tend to go to those with money (less need)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,094,154 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
3)federally subsidized highways to get from the suburbs to the city jobs

4)federally subsidized home loans to buy the house in the suburbs
Federally subsidized home loans generally don't exist. You have federally back loans which are available everywhere. Fannie/Freddie are both profitable GSEs.


Federally subsidized highways doesn't hit urban areas all that much. There's lots of different programs, but the Federal Highway Trust Fund really only goes to interregional connectivity. For example, if you've got 20% of traffic going interregional and 80% intraregional (suburb to city), only 20% of the maintenance is going to come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. There may be other sources that go to it, but there's nothing earmarked.

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/111117_...s_Spent_pb.pdf

Kind of gives you an idea of the scope of dollars spent on transit. It's really not a lot.
Here's another one:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...ding_brief.pdf

Under SAFETEA-LU, total federal spending was 25%. The other 75% was state/local. If you're someplace like California that has large urban areas, those are seeing very little federal dollars. MAP-21 is definitely swinging the other direction but it's too early to tell exactly how. The rules aren't out yet. It's kind of moot anyway. They have a bit over a year to figure out how to fund MAP-21's federal transfers or they'll just run out of money. But again, it's a small pot of money, about 5% of federal spending is spent on all forms of transportation (highways, surface roads, bike paths, public transit).

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinform...8/chapter6.cfm
The other consideration is donor/donee states. Aside from DC, which is just a huge pork fest that just proves why funding shouldn't be controlled at the federal level, the big recipient states are all rural. The majority pay in more than they get out (someone has to pay for DC, Alaska, Dakotas, etc). Effectively federal policy is taking money from urban areas (like the Bay Area where 90% of the population lives in suburbs) and shifting it to rural areas (Northern California) and out of the state. If you take a look at what exactly California's funding is, it's even more interesting. California is barely a donee state solely because we're so damn good at playing the corrupt system. We get about as much of the pork projects as the rest of the nation combined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:51 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,195,701 times
Reputation: 3351
I can see that my post was not clear but I was not referring to current subsides.
About post #139 we got on why/how suburbs exist. My point was the 90% subsidized Interstate Highway program (1960s-70s) and federally insured loans that were available in the suburbs, but not so much in the city were two additional reasons the suburbs exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Federally subsidized home loans generally don't exist. You have federally back loans which are available everywhere. Fannie/Freddie are both profitable GSEs.


Federally subsidized highways doesn't hit urban areas all that much. There's lots of different programs, but the Federal Highway Trust Fund really only goes to interregional connectivity. For example, if you've got 20% of traffic going interregional and 80% intraregional (suburb to city), only 20% of the maintenance is going to come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. There may be other sources that go to it, but there's nothing earmarked.

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/111117_...s_Spent_pb.pdf

Kind of gives you an idea of the scope of dollars spent on transit. It's really not a lot.
Here's another one:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...ding_brief.pdf

Under SAFETEA-LU, total federal spending was 25%. The other 75% was state/local. If you're someplace like California that has large urban areas, those are seeing very little federal dollars. MAP-21 is definitely swinging the other direction but it's too early to tell exactly how. The rules aren't out yet. It's kind of moot anyway. They have a bit over a year to figure out how to fund MAP-21's federal transfers or they'll just run out of money. But again, it's a small pot of money, about 5% of federal spending is spent on all forms of transportation (highways, surface roads, bike paths, public transit).

Office of Highway Policy Information (OHPI) – Highway Finance Data Collection
The other consideration is donor/donee states. Aside from DC, which is just a huge pork fest that just proves why funding shouldn't be controlled at the federal level, the big recipient states are all rural. The majority pay in more than they get out (someone has to pay for DC, Alaska, Dakotas, etc). Effectively federal policy is taking money from urban areas (like the Bay Area where 90% of the population lives in suburbs) and shifting it to rural areas (Northern California) and out of the state. If you take a look at what exactly California's funding is, it's even more interesting. California is barely a donee state solely because we're so damn good at playing the corrupt system. We get about as much of the pork projects as the rest of the nation combined.

Last edited by Eddyline; 02-06-2014 at 07:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:00 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
So then would you agree that subsides are not fair because they tend to go to those with money (less need)?
No. But why not get rid of all subsidies? Let's start with transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
From what I can tell, the cities that had more severe decline, on average had more white flight (and less immigration to make up for it) and racial tensions. Of course there are other factors.
Actually, Pittsburgh had one of the biggest, if not THE biggest declines; its metro area also declined, and it's still today one of the whitest cities in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,094,154 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
I can see that my post was not clear but I was not referring to current subsides.
About post #139 we got on why/how suburbs exist. My point was the 90% subsidized Interstate Highway program (1960s-70s) and federally insured loans that were available in the suburbs, but not so much in the city were two additional reasons the suburbs exist.
Right but we're 40+ years later and suburbs are still growing faster than cities. Those subsidies dried up long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 08:42 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,813,738 times
Reputation: 11136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
You couldn't take advantage of either of those if you didn't have money in the first place.
or in the case of how it used to be, if you lived in a black neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,335,456 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
No. But why not get rid of all subsidies? Let's start with transit.
Great idea, but let's rip the bandaid off all at once...roads, transit, gasoline (get ready to pay $8/gallon).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 08:55 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,813,738 times
Reputation: 11136
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Great idea, but let's rip the bandaid off all at once...roads, transit, gasoline (get ready to pay $8/gallon).
Amen. Somehow the anti-transit crowd still doesn't realize that roads are socialism too.
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