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 03-11-2014, 12:09 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,288,217 times
Reputation: 4025

Advertisements

All we have to do is raise the Federal gas tax by $.50 / gallon.

Increase the cost of gas, transit ridership / biking / carpooling will increase.

We will also get the nice side effect of additional funding for transit, roads, and new infrastructure construction.

*flame suit on*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2014, 12:18 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048
I love it! Better roads, less traffic, better transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,166 posts, read 29,665,044 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
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.
VMT has been trending downward for the past 8 years:
For Eighth Year in a Row, the Average American Drove Fewer Miles in 2012 | Streetsblog USA

Locally for me, our transit ridership is up across the board.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2729689
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 12:31 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,288,217 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
I love it! Better roads, less traffic, better transit.
It will never happen as long as lobbying for big oil exists. Anything that could affect their bottom line gets lobbied against. The best the government could do is find some sort of agreement with them to split the profit or something.

Personally, I'd make gas $5 / gallon. Get them guzzlers off the road, repair and expand those highways, install carpool and bikelines everywhere. *Sigh* in another world...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
VMT has been trending downward for the past 8 years:
For Eighth Year in a Row, the Average American Drove Fewer Miles in 2012 | Streetsblog USA

Locally for me, our transit ridership is up across the board.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2729689
And?

There was a more than a 1% increase in vehicle miles traveled betwen Dec 2011 and Jan 2013, which was the last data point. So per the "booming" logic, the private automobile is "booming." One would have to be stupid to say that. It's basically stagnant, not booming.

In particular areas, transit is definitely up. I don't know that I'd say it's booming anywhere (maybe it is, just not aware of it). For the nation as a whole, a 1% increase, however, is just not booming. It doesn't matter if you're talking about transit trips or vehicle miles traveled, or number of chocolate bars sold: 1% increase is not booming. Hell, population growth has been about .75% for the last few years. More people, more transit trips, more vehicle miles traveled. None are booming. As I said, that's why I like facts. The facts are, by any normal person's definition, that transit is not booming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 02:43 PM
 
Location: rural USA
124 posts, read 219,271 times
Reputation: 130
I keep seeing this headline but not with statistical corrections for population growth as well as correcting for changes in the urban vs rural population %.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 03:05 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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
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.
Btw, this link is for transit riders per capita, so both work and non-work trips are counted. The list ranking doesn't seem to change much compared to the commute ridership list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,166 posts, read 29,665,044 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Btw, this link is for transit riders per capita, so both work and non-work trips are counted. The list ranking doesn't seem to change much compared to the commute ridership list.
I am thinking of the mode share lists. That report I reference uses number of trips, but someone else in the thread posted a graph with percentage of commute trips and it was holding pretty steady.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 07:11 PM
 
2,978 posts, read 2,704,505 times
Reputation: 5627
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
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.


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.

I have heard that the corporate complex built on that site is now vacant and abandoned. Anyone know if this is true? If so, the City of New London got what they deserved. Very sad that the homeowners lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by james777 View Post

I have heard that the corporate complex built on that site is now vacant and abandoned. Anyone know if this is true? If so, the City of New London got what they deserved. Very sad that the homeowners lost.
No, it wasn't even that good. They never built it at all. The most productive thing it's been used for was a temporary dumping ground after a storm swept through the area. Pfizer also completely closed up shop in New London and moved away taking 1,400 jobs with it. Harsh, but obviously not what it deserved which was harsher still. New London Development Corporation may have a new name but is otherwise unchanged as it was when it brokered the Pfizer deal.
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