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 03-10-2014, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,498,921 times
Reputation: 15950

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
It seems like the private sector is the biggest fan of this sort of "centralized planning"--most of the planning we're talking about in this forum is local and regional.
The Supreme Court (in Kelso vs City of New London - 2005) is the most prominent example of backsliding on what libertarians (small 'l' please) regard as a very important issue, but until recently private sector entities had little chance of confiscating other peoples' property for their own purposes.

That standard has, unfortunately, changed rapidly in recent years, but it is the "crony capitalists", rather than the millions of small-scale players, who have set us on this slippery path.

Acton's observation that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" holds as firmly for the private sector as the public, and for the local influence-peddler as well as the Federal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2014, 07:34 AM
 
409 posts, read 388,635 times
Reputation: 495


Yeah. Transit is BOOMING! Nevermind the fact that it's a sliver of personal automobile use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,326,260 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post

Yeah. Transit is BOOMING! Nevermind the fact that it's a sliver of personal automobile use.
That chart is just for "workers".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 08:21 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Here's a link showing transit ridershipo by urban area:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1118.pdf

Also breaksdown by type of transit. Note electric buses "trolleybuses" count as other, which is why Seattle and San Francisco have such high other amounts. Ferries might help as well, especially for Seattle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 08:22 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
That chart is just for "workers".
True, though I'd guess transit would be a lower percent if the chart included non-work related trips.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26642
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
True, though I'd guess transit would be a lower percent if the chart included non-work related trips.
It is silly that they don't count non-work trips. I know lots of people (including myself) who are off-peak transit users.

Considering how the pop culture narrative is that transit sucks...increases are a good sign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:26 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,951,694 times
Reputation: 5383
Young people are broke, can't find jobs, and gas is expensive? An alternate hypothesis on why we are seeing this shift.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 11:08 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,554,265 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
The Supreme Court (in Kelso vs City of New London - 2005) is the most prominent example of backsliding on what libertarians (small 'l' please) regard as a very important issue, but until recently private sector entities had little chance of confiscating other peoples' property for their own purposes.

That standard has, unfortunately, changed rapidly in recent years, but it is the "crony capitalists", rather than the millions of small-scale players, who have set us on this slippery path.

Acton's observation that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" holds as firmly for the private sector as the public, and for the local influence-peddler as well as the Federal.
In my own study of redevelopment law, private sector entities had plenty of opportunities to confiscate other people's property, as long as they were disenfranchised people with limited political power, and the standard of "blight" could be used based on the presence of disenfranchised parties (like nonwhites.) Typically the properties declared "blighted" and turned into redevelopment areas were not retained by the state for public projects, they were handed over to the most favored developers at sweetheart rates, and the developers facilitated the reelection of the helpful redevelopers on the city council. In the same way, the magic of residential zoning combined with public highway projects built strong cronyism three ways: it profited the "concrete lobby" private sector companies who built the highways, the real estate moguls who bought cheap farmland and had it rezoned as expensive residential subdivisions, and made those who lived there dependent on automobiles to get back and forth to work downtown.

Thank you, by the way, for specifying "small-l" libertarianism. I'm not a fan of big-L Libertarian Party or what the LP has become (it went from "Republicans who take drugs" to "Republicans") but analysis of urban development from a free-market perspective (including real market pricing for things like highways and parking lots, instead of prescriptive government-enforced codes and minimums) is something that interests me greatly. Part of the idea of urban planning, especially from a neighborhood/bottom-up perspective, as Jane Jacobs taught it, is the necessity of fighting the top-down, authoritarian school of planning put forth by folks like Robert Moses, who viewed people as obstacles for their enforced visions of cityhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,056 posts, read 16,063,174 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Transit trips are up to levels not see since 1956.

Transit ridership booming across America - SFGate

Looks like transit is in.
Jesus christ, hyperbole much.

Record 10.5 Billion Trips Taken On U.S. Public Transportation In 2012

A less than 1% increase in transit trips and it's booming. Highest levels since 1956. And in 2012?
" Record 10.5 Billion Trips Taken On U.S. Public Transportation In 2012"

Vehicle miles have increased by more than 1% since the trough after the recession. That doesn't mean they're booming, they're basically stagnant. Funny how the same group of people call the same increase a "boom" or "peak oil" depending on what they're talking about. That's why I like facts rather than badly written articles intended to mislead. Nobody in their right mind considers a less than 1% increase to be a boom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,056 posts, read 16,063,174 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
In my own study of redevelopment law, private sector entities had plenty of opportunities to confiscate other people's property, as long as they were disenfranchised people with limited political power, and the standard of "blight" could be used based on the presence of disenfranchised parties (like nonwhites.) Typically the properties declared "blighted" and turned into redevelopment areas were not retained by the state for public projects, they were handed over to the most favored developers at sweetheart rates, and the developers facilitated the reelection of the helpful redevelopers on the city council. In the same way, the magic of residential zoning combined with public highway projects built strong cronyism three ways: it profited the "concrete lobby" private sector companies who built the highways, the real estate moguls who bought cheap farmland and had it rezoned as expensive residential subdivisions, and made those who lived there dependent on automobiles to get back and forth to work downtown.

Thank you, by the way, for specifying "small-l" libertarianism. I'm not a fan of big-L Libertarian Party or what the LP has become (it went from "Republicans who take drugs" to "Republicans") but analysis of urban development from a free-market perspective (including real market pricing for things like highways and parking lots, instead of prescriptive government-enforced codes and minimums) is something that interests me greatly. Part of the idea of urban planning, especially from a neighborhood/bottom-up perspective, as Jane Jacobs taught it, is the necessity of fighting the top-down, authoritarian school of planning put forth by folks like Robert Moses, who viewed people as obstacles for their enforced visions of cityhood.
That's because in redevelopment, it is considered a public interest and not a (solely) private interest. A private company profits off of it, but the whole project is approach as being a public interest like confiscate private property for a roadway, a choo choo train track, a park, library, etc.

Sacramento has a perfect case in point. The arena is a "public interest." So a private corporation will get hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to build an arena. It will get tens of millions in mitigation fees waived. And it will win in eminent domain court to take someone's property. The question in front of the court is really about dollars, not whether the land seizure should occur. It will occur. That is a given. It's just now a matter of how much the city of Sacramento will pay to seize the land. Prior to Kelso, there had to be some pretense of a public benefit like the arena or a luxury condo building with 20% affordable housing unit. Usually that meant a developer welfare project where a lot of taxpayer money was used. This kept things somewhat limited since there's only so much money for developer welfare. Kelso was just the end of a long line of gradually opening up eminent domain to solely private sector interests that did away with a public interest pretense whatsoever.
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