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 02-22-2014, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,659,080 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That is not the case everywhere; in fact, it's the exception rather than the rule outside of some pockets of the rust belt. If Pittsburgh's MSA population had kept up with the US rate of increase since 1970, it would be about 4 million by now, instead of 2 1/4 mil.
It's an extreme example to point out that sprawl does, in fact, exist. Are there many metros where the area of urbanized footprint per person hasn't increased significantly over the last 40-50 years? I'm not sure if that question can be answered, but it seems unlikely to me that the development patterns of the great lakes/rust belt cities are that different from the rest of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2014, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,674,744 times
Reputation: 26666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Yes, well, they all seemed to be in MN, which is kind of "socialist". So they probably have a different take on it.



That is not the case everywhere; in fact, it's the exception rather than the rule outside of some pockets of the rust belt. If Pittsburgh's MSA population had kept up with the US rate of increase since 1970, it would be about 4 million by now, instead of 2 1/4 mil.



Who said it was wrong? That article was the craziest thing I have read on this forum, and that's saying a lot with people posting these "pop urbanist" Atlantic Cities articles. It said nothing about any of the above, just told us we're all going to hell in a handbasket, and no, I do not regret my choice of words.



Ponzi scheme is more than harsh choice of words, it's BS. That article doesn't address any Ponzi scheme that I've ever heard of. Cities have infrastructure problems too. Things do wear out in "the city" as well, maybe faster b/c they get harder use. (I'll leave that to someone with more expertise than me to discuss, though).

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your example of Mountain House proves what NBP said above. It's demand driven. People don't wanna drive that far, they're not gonna buy. Stockton is not a suburb, either. Poor example, if you're trying to prove that suburbia will be the ruination of us all.
Stockton has become a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. It has been happening since the 80s. Around 25% of people who live in that county commute to Santa Clara county. Aka Silicon Valley. Mountain house is at the close end of San Joaquin county and borders cheaper suburbs in my county. It is only 5 miles from the county line so it isn't super far. But it has poor transit connections to sf compared to its peers in my county.

The same thing is happening in the other burbs on the outskirts. But they aren't very far from other suburbs at the edge. Just 3-5 more miles. Unfortunately those 5 miles are ridiculously congested and add 20-30 minutes to your commute.

In a less costly or more sprawling metro these areas wouldn't be considered all that far.

The problem we have is that our "business model" assumes that old stuff gets trashed and we create new stuff somewhere else. That is what I got from the ponzi article.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 01:44 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Stockton has become a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. It has been happening since the 80s. Around 25% of people who live in that county commute to Santa Clara county. Aka Silicon Valley. Mountain house is at the close end of San Joaquin county and borders cheaper suburbs in my county. It is only 5 miles from the county line so it isn't super far. But it has poor transit connections to sf compared to its peers in my county.

The same thing is happening in the other burbs on the outskirts. But they aren't very far from other suburbs at the edge. Just 3-5 more miles. Unfortunately those 5 miles are ridiculously congested and add 20-30 minutes to your commute.

In a less costly or more sprawling metro these areas wouldn't be considered all that far.

The problem we have is that our "business model" assumes that old stuff gets trashed and we create new stuff somewhere else. That is what I got from the ponzi article.
Well that's not a Ponzi scheme, and people who use terms like that incorrectly have no credibility. I realize Stockton has become more of a suburb lately, but it's still pretty far out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 01:53 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,002,571 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
No, it takes municipal governments and towns with defined retail core. You know, the "small towns" so many, especially the new urbanists, treat with disdain. Those small towns will not necessarily have public transit or many things that so many say are "required".

What everybody seems to forget is that the suburbs were demand driven. All the talk about subsidies, and governmental policy and all those other conspiracy pieces are just retroactive bull****. Governments running private transit out of business is in the same category, governments got into the mass transit business because the private companies were going bankrupt. They had to cover the cost of service through fares and couldn't, hence government takeover and the system we have today where transit systems are subsidized to the tune of around 70%. A subsidy paid for by the hated car drivers through their gas taxes.

Wrong.

1) gas taxes can only be used for roads in 30 out of 50 states. It typically is not used to fund mass transit, as in IL for example where gas taxes can not be used to fund rail systems.

2) there is no conspiracy related to governments running private transit out of business. The real conspiracy is that private businesses ran public and private transit out of business by doing things like buying up streetcar ROWs and ripping them out to support auto sales.

3) Private transit is not sustaining itself either. It needs subsidies as well. Gas taxes, vehicle fees, and tolls cover only 58% (per the Brooking Institute) of state, local, and highway budgets...and we know that roadways and infrastructure isn't even being maintained at the level it should to maintain functionality. If we funded existing roadways sufficiently, user fees would cover well less than 50% of the cost to support them.

4) The <50% above also ignores indirect costs of roadways. More roadways = more non-permeable pavement, which means more sewer, runoff, and water treatment expenses. It also allows people the opportunity to live further from an urban area, which means the need to fund new infrastructure (utilities, schools, hospitals, etc.)...even though current infrastructure would be able to meet the needs of the area's population...if they didn't move further away.

The bottom line is ALL forms of transportation are subsidized: vehicles, rail, freight, air, shipping, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,085,690 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
Wrong.

1) gas taxes can only be used for roads in 30 out of 50 states and DC. It typically is not used to fund mass transit, as in IL for example where gas taxes can not be used to fund rail systems.

2) there is no conspiracy related to governments running private transit out of business. The real conspiracy is that private businesses ran public and private transit out of business by doing things like buying up streetcar ROWs and ripping them out to support auto sales.

3) Private transit is not sustaining itself either. It needs subsidies as well. Gas taxes, vehicle fees, and tolls cover only 58% (per the Brooking Institute) of state, local, and highway budgets...and we know that roadways and infrastructure isn't even being maintained at the level it should to maintain functionality. If we funded existing roadways sufficiently, user fees would cover well less than 50% of the cost to support them.

4) The <50% above also ignores indirect costs of roadways. More roadways = more non-permeable pavement, which means more sewer, runoff, and water treatment expenses. It also allows people the opportunity to live further from an urban area, which means the need to fund new infrastructure (utilities, schools, hospitals, etc.)...even though current infrastructure would be able to meet the needs of the area's population...if they didn't move further away.

The bottom line is ALL forms of transportation are subsidized: vehicles, rail, freight, air, shipping, etc.
Wrong.

Gas taxes are collected and used to fund mass transit systems in all 50 states. Number 2 isn't really a conspiracy. Everyone knows municipalities bought up private public transportation operators as they were going out of businesses.

How you pay for it is really a matter of skinning the cat. San Francisco uses parking and hotel taxes to subsidize transit. Most new suburbs use Mello-Roos, which is basically a property tax levied within a tax district that is used to pay for roads, schools, parks, etc, as well as the ongoing maintenance of said infrastructure. Increasingly older communities are adopting Mello-Roos taxes as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 02:47 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,667 posts, read 74,628,627 times
Reputation: 48173
the entire system was built on cheap gas and cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 03:49 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 JR_C View Post
It's an extreme example to point out that sprawl does, in fact, exist. Are there many metros where the area of urbanized footprint per person hasn't increased significantly over the last 40-50 years? I'm not sure if that question can be answered, but it seems unlikely to me that the development patterns of the great lakes/rust belt cities are that different from the rest of the country.

See the maps I placed in the Urban Density comparisons. Los Angeles' footprint has decreased per person since 1950, and definitely since 1970, though heavy immigration is partially responsible. Might be also true of a few other spots in California or the West, though many of them weren't that dense to begin with.

But in general, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That is not the case everywhere; in fact, it's the exception rather than the rule outside of some pockets of the rust belt. If Pittsburgh's MSA population had kept up with the US rate of increase since 1970, it would be about 4 million by now, instead of 2 1/4 mil.
However, even in places there was no "people need somewhere to live" because there was no population growth, there was still new sprawling development. Outside of the Rust Belt, most northern metros grew much slower than average. The NYC metro grew about 10% since 1970, if it kept up with the national average growth rate it'd have 28 million people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 03:50 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
How you pay for it is really a matter of skinning the cat. San Francisco uses parking and hotel taxes to subsidize transit. Most new suburbs use Mello-Roos, which is basically a property tax levied within a tax district that is used to pay for roads, schools, parks, etc, as well as the ongoing maintenance of said infrastructure. Increasingly older communities are adopting Mello-Roos taxes as well.
Mello-Roos is a California thing because of low property tax rates, northeastern cities use a different mechanism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 03:51 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 North Beach Person View Post
I'm sure you all noticed that the bulk, in fact about 99%, of the story was concerning incorporated towns or small cities. You know, urbanized areas and not a classic suburb.
Aren't classical suburbs towns or incorporated small cities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 04:01 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,896 posts, read 42,133,814 times
Reputation: 43303
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Aren't classical suburbs towns or incorporated small cities?

Not as what is usually talked about on this Forum.

Some of those towns were far away from the city and weren't even connected to it.
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