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 07-18-2014, 10:26 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,673,134 times
Reputation: 1838

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
err not quite. You are forgetting the fact that the bus or train needs an driver, needs dispatch, needs people to maintain and fix it.This is what drives the cost of transit higher than the cost of just an road.

With driving the government just needs to provide the road and maybe take care of the signals and some towing. With transit the government has to continue doing all those above as well as buy the bus, maintain the bus, pay the driver, pay the dispatcher, provide security as well as clean the bus. There are good reasons for transit but it is never cheaper than driving when you count the subsidies.
True. Buses would be rendered useless by a lack of roads anyway though. And outside of security, most functions for trains could hypothetically be automated. But as of right now they aren't, so you're right. However, it is also possible that the transit could survive if it hiked the rates high enough to pay costs. That was part of my initial theory. That would scare a lot of riders away initially, but the deteriorating conditions of similarly unfunded roads would eventually chase people back to the system, allowing for fares to eventually be lowered as more and more people begin paying into the system.

But with driving the govt needs to take care of the road, so repairing potholes, cleaning debris, running signals, etc. is required to keep the roads running smoothly. Take away the lights, you get a lot more accidents, which means a lot more debris on the road that doesn't get cleaned up, and maybe even some totaled cars left for dead (as there's no public-paid towing). That means dirtier and more unsafe roads, which scares traffic away. That's on top of the potholes growing unchecked in areas with harsher winter climates. The roads will eventually become wholly unusable because there will be no one maintaining them. The useable roads will all be toll roads, but outside of that transit will be king because it is the system with people paying into it.

At the end of the day, though, it still would be a horrible idea to defund both systems and see who survives.

 
Old 07-19-2014, 06:03 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,978 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
But with driving the govt needs to take care of the road, so repairing potholes, cleaning debris, running signals, etc. is required to keep the roads running smoothly. Take away the lights, you get a lot more accidents, which means a lot more debris on the road that doesn't get cleaned up, and maybe even some totaled cars left for dead (as there's no public-paid towing). That means dirtier and more unsafe roads, which scares traffic away. That's on top of the potholes growing unchecked in areas with harsher winter climates. The roads will eventually become wholly unusable because there will be no one maintaining them. The useable roads will all be toll roads, but outside of that transit will be king because it is the system with people paying into it.


Buses use roads too.
 
Old 07-19-2014, 06:28 AM
 
39,439 posts, read 40,743,367 times
Reputation: 16227
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
The question is whether roads soak up a disproportionate share of funding.
The fuel taxes are the revenue to support roads, the fares are the revenue to support mass transit.

Revenue from the fuel tax is shifted to support mass transit, how much of the revenue from mass transit has been shifted to support roads?


Quote:
So the issue is how much money should be devoted to transit versus roads.
Raise taxes and fees so they support themselves, let the consumer decide what mode of transportation dominates.
 
Old 07-19-2014, 07:08 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 BajanYankee View Post
We've seen 15 quintillion similar threads already. Everyone knows roads are subsidized. Everyone knows transit is subsidized.
I'm rather puzzled by these threads. And why people like responding to them so much. Ok, road are subsidized. My reaction: so what?

Quote:
What transit supporters are upset about is the perception that roads are hogging scarce transit dollars that could be directed towards transit (though some go even farther and rail against auto-transit altogether). And that's really the heart of the matter. Are roads hogging up a disproportionate amount of transit dollars?
Some examples might be interesting. Certainly all existing roads need to be maintained, and I don't see much need for new road construction except maybe in a places that have see high population growth.
 
Old 07-19-2014, 07:17 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 chirack View Post
Lack of parking is an issue because parking is always going to be limited so requiring some space be devoted to parking is an good thing. The automobile genie is out the bottle and people will not go back to living like they once did and so that means that modern development is going to have to support parking.
Just because an invention is out there, doesn't mean it must be accommodated everywhere. In a dense place with limited space, using up extra space for more automobile storage may be a bad idea and just a poor fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Because, as with many things, "letting the market decide" does not always end up with the best solution to the problem. Developers are, justifiably from their POV, interested in making the most money possible. If they don't have to provide parking, they can build more units. How do you know life goes on "just fine" w/o parking requirements? Just fine for whom? Why should the city (or other municipality) be the provider of parking space for the residents?
Which is a big negative of requiring off street parking: you've sacrificed more housing that could have built for car storage. In a city with limited space, if increasing housing units is a goal, parking requirements create limits. Life goes on fine without parking requirements for those that don't drive all the time. I'm not sure a city be a parking space provider, but I don't see that as any worse than requiring parking.
 
Old 07-19-2014, 07:43 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,978 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm rather puzzled by these threads. And why people like responding to them so much. Ok, road are subsidized. My reaction: so what?
Perhaps it's people who are just getting into urban planning/urban issues who seem astounded that roads are subsidized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Just because an invention is out there, doesn't mean it must be accommodated everywhere. In a dense place with limited space, using up extra space for more automobile storage may be a bad idea and just a poor fit.



Which is a big negative of requiring off street parking: you've sacrificed more housing that could have built for car storage. In a city with limited space, if increasing housing units is a goal, parking requirements create limits. Life goes on fine without parking requirements for those that don't drive all the time. I'm not sure a city be a parking space provider, but I don't see that as any worse than requiring parking.
Well, the genie is not going back in the bottle, Pandora is not going back in her box, etc.

The current thought (and that of the last 30-40 years in some places, e.g. Boulder, CO) is that if parking isn't provided, people won't have cars. This has not been borne out in reality. People get the cars anyway, and park them on the streets, even illegally at times. People seem to continue to go to great lengths for car ownership.

Why should the city/town/whatever government be the provider of residential parking? Why shouldn't the developer, and eventually the homeowner, provide the parking, off the street?
 
Old 07-19-2014, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

The current thought (and that of the last 30-40 years in some places, e.g. Boulder, CO) is that if parking isn't provided, people won't have cars. This has not been borne out in reality. People get the cars anyway, and park them on the streets, even illegally at times. People seem to continue to go to great lengths for car ownership.

Why should the city/town/whatever government be the provider of residential parking? Why shouldn't the developer, and eventually the homeowner, provide the parking, off the street?
I don't believe this assertion though. There are so many more people without cars by choice these days. It is like half the people I meet. And most are my age (mid 30s) or older. It is increasingly common. And a good percentage of other people I meet are trying to find ways to give up their cars.

I was absolutely shocked to see the stats for one of our commuter rail systems Caltrain. It mostly serves suburban Silicon Valley, places I would never live with out a car. And 30-something percent of the riders do not have cars. And I think it was half arrive to the station not via a car. 11 or 12 bring their bike. It is premium transit, along the lines of LIRR for you New Yorkers, the average single trip fare is about $6, and the average income of the riders is about $110k.

So if these affluent people who live or work in these super suburban places are taking the train, what does this tell you about other people? Maybe a lot more people are not interested in parking than we realize....
 
Old 07-19-2014, 10:13 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,978 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I don't believe this assertion though. There are so many more people without cars by choice these days. It is like half the people I meet. And most are my age (mid 30s) or older. It is increasingly common. And a good percentage of other people I meet are trying to find ways to give up their cars.

I was absolutely shocked to see the stats for one of our commuter rail systems Caltrain. It mostly serves suburban Silicon Valley, places I would never live with out a car. And 30-something percent of the riders do not have cars. And I think it was half arrive to the station not via a car. 11 or 12 bring their bike. It is premium transit, along the lines of LIRR for you New Yorkers, the average single trip fare is about $6, and the average income of the riders is about $110k.

So if these affluent people who live or work in these super suburban places are taking the train, what does this tell you about other people? Maybe a lot more people are not interested in parking than we realize....
Maybe for your area. That's never been the case in Boulder. In fact, the last stats i saw, several years ago, showed that Boulder has more registered cars than people. It is not unusual here to have a spare vehicle, such as a truck, or a vehicle for mountain driving, along with one's cars. This in a college town, where some of the students don't have cars. We have to deal with weather here. Today it is supposed to be 94. It feels hot already at 80 in my backyard (not an official weather station!). Tomorrow/Monday it is supposed to be 95. And that's not the worst of it. In six months, it will be below zero for several days, most likely.

Here's a unique way to get to work, BTW:
'Most Boulder thing ever': Tube to Work Day continues to grow - Boulder Daily Camera
 
Old 07-19-2014, 10:47 AM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,673,134 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Buses use roads too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
True. Buses would be rendered useless by a lack of roads anyway though.
I know. I'm primarily talking about rail based transit.

Also, this is off topic, but it makes me think-how expensive would it be to upkeep a canal-based transportation system? As in, cars replaced by boats, roads replaced by canals, like Venice but on a massive scale? Would that be cheaper than roads to maintain? It's pretty out there but I was just wondering.
 
Old 07-19-2014, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Maybe for your area. That's never been the case in Boulder. In fact, the last stats i saw, several years ago, showed that Boulder has more registered cars than people. It is not unusual here to have a spare vehicle, such as a truck, or a vehicle for mountain driving, along with one's cars. This in a college town, where some of the students don't have cars. We have to deal with weather here. Today it is supposed to be 94. It feels hot already at 80 in my backyard (not an official weather station!). Tomorrow/Monday it is supposed to be 95. And that's not the worst of it. In six months, it will be below zero for several days, most likely.

Here's a unique way to get to work, BTW:
'Most Boulder thing ever': Tube to Work Day continues to grow - Boulder Daily Camera
It definitely could be regional. I keep meeting people that had cars, but left them parked on the street. When they got too many tickets for not moving the car they thought, hmm maybe I don't need this! And they rent one.

My neighborhood is both urbanist and car friendly. We do have car sharing spots in the commercial area, and this is where there are more older buildings (circa 1920) that don't have garages or deeded parking. I looked at a cute apartment but rejected it due to lack of parking. My street the buildings all have parking spaces or driveways. Since I have a car, I figured I should prioritize easy parking. This also meant I had to add 2 more blocks of walking to get to the commercial area. So there is a mix in my neighborhood.

My sister lives near the 20s buildings. Her building is circa 1960 and has a garage, but they charge for parking. She doesn't drive so she doesn't pay the parking fee and saves money by not paying for something she doesn't need. The buildings on her side of the neighborhood charge for parking. On my side they don't. They also have a resident permit program on her side, but not in mine as parking isn't quite as impacted. (We live roughly 7 blocks apart, but she lives 1 block from Main Street and I live 3 away).

In my building there is a mix of car free people, and car people. And many single car households (with 2 adults and kids even). More people are "car-light" if you will.
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.


Closed Thread

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