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 07-30-2014, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,169 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
In contrast, it takes me about the same amount of time to drive to a grocery store that isn't overpriced where parking isn't an issue. Avoiding hassle? Priceless. It probably does take me a few minutes longer to bike to the grocery store that's closer than it does you since there aren't really that many lights to get stuck at even though it's half again as far. That's store, however, is in between the price of Whole Foods and Winco where I shop so it still ends up being much cheaper to drive the extra 6 miles to Winco and back than bicycle to the closer store. It costs less than a dollar in gas, even assuming I'm starting with a cold engine and getting more like 45 rather than 50 or 60 mpg.

I'm not opposed to more urban areas, but personally it's too much headache. The bicycle works well in the newer areas and roads that have been redesigned, but there's a lot of roads here where bicycling doesn't really work. I can get to the farmers market by bicycle easily. It takes longer than driving but if I'm not trying to run there and back quickly, it only takes about 10 minutes more time (5 each way) to bike.
I just picked Whole Foods because it happens to be a mile away on a route I take often. Safeway is a little over a mile in another direction. The delta in time is pretty similar for biking/driving, but I don't have direct bus access to Safeway. Actually there are 2 Safeways. For the second one, walking might win, but it would suck, because the shortest distance requires cutting through the Rose Garden and hitting the 80 stairs. But the key takeaway, for trips of about 2 miles or so, biking and driving are about the same for me in Oakland. There are enough traffic lights, crosswalks, stop signs and so on along the way that you can't go really fast. Only Trader Joes can be faster to drive (assuming the parking is in good supply in the lot, or it is the weekend so you can park at BART) because you can hop on the freeway from my place and skip the lights. The transit trip for me would take too long, since it requires a transfer (or going to the other store via the very scenic bus route!). In this case driving wins by a bit. But the bike ride is only about 15-20 minutes anyway (driving is 10 minutes).

In my neighborhood, it is a former streetcar zone and pretty gridded so bikes are convenient.

 
Old 07-30-2014, 03:23 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,289,200 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
In contrast, it takes me about the same amount of time to drive to a grocery store that isn't overpriced where parking isn't an issue. Avoiding hassle? Priceless. It probably does take me a few minutes longer to bike to the grocery store that's closer than it does you since there aren't really that many lights to get stuck at even though it's half again as far. That's store, however, is in between the price of Whole Foods and Winco where I shop so it still ends up being much cheaper to drive the extra 6 miles to Winco and back than bicycle to the closer store. It costs less than a dollar in gas, even assuming I'm starting with a cold engine and getting more like 45 rather than 50 or 60 mpg.

I'm not opposed to more urban areas, but personally it's too much headache. The bicycle works well in the newer areas and roads that have been redesigned, but there's a lot of roads here where bicycling doesn't really work. I can get to the farmers market by bicycle easily. It takes longer than driving but if I'm not trying to run there and back quickly, it only takes about 10 minutes more time (5 each way) to bike.
Bicycles can ride on any street other than limited access highways. One does not need a bike lane to use a bicycle. I ride in the street every day and never think twice about it.

Most people won't do it; but it is legal and convenient for pretty much any urban trip under 10 miles.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Bicycles can ride on any street other than limited access highways. One does not need a bike lane to use a bicycle. I ride in the street every day and never think twice about it.

Most people won't do it; but it is legal and convenient for pretty much any urban trip under 10 miles.
Doesn't mean it's pleasant.

I'm comfortable taking a lane on 35 mph street where traffic goes 45, but most aren't. I'll usually just get behind a pickup that's going the speed limit and slip stream on those roads.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,169 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Doesn't mean it's pleasant.

I'm comfortable taking a lane on 35 mph street where traffic goes 45, but most aren't. I'll usually just get behind a pickup that's going the speed limit and slip stream on those roads.
Yup that's terrible! I don't like to ride on busy streets too much. But if it is busy, has lots of lanes and lots of lights it is OK, albeit slow. But the cars don't zoom by. But here in Oakland there are residential streets and commercial streets that don't have tons of car traffic (or it is slow moving). So I stick to those if there are no lanes. Or the bike boulevards.
 
Old 08-03-2014, 04:51 PM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,196,725 times
Reputation: 8108
While the gas taxes pay nearly half the cost of building and maintaining roads, alternative fuel vehicles don't pay any. Are some motorists annoyed by the fact that a millionaire driving a Tesla pays no motor fuel taxes?
 
Old 08-05-2014, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,582,448 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
The CTA gets an large part of it's funding via reduced fares. In fact an recent reduction in the reduced fair program is currently causing the CTA budget havoc.

http://www.dot.il.gov/neilpt/cta%20finance%20wg.pdf

The average fare per trip is $1.08 when you take that into account. In addition there are passes that allow for an lower fare for frequent users.
I accounted for that in my new numbers (with help from Malloric)

Malloric says there is a 55% farebox recovery rate for the CTA. That works out to $1.24 a ride on the bus when the bus costs $2.25 to ride. The bigger issue, for me at least, is the first transfer of $0.25, and the third transfer of $0.00.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,582,448 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
...What does 25 one-mile trips in a car cost the taxpayer in road costs?
I mean, using the simplified example it costs the taxpayer $1.84*25, or $46 for 25 on-mile trips by bus...
No it doesn't. Here is the definition of farebox recovery:

Quote:
...Farebox recovery is the amount of operating expenses that fares cover. For example, if a system costs $1 million to operate every year and takes in $500,000 dollars in fares, it would have a farebox recovery of 50%…
For CTA buses to cost the taxpayer $1.84 per boarding out of a $2.25 fare, that means only 18% is farebox recovery.

So which one is it? A farebox recovery of 55% (like you originally stated) or 18%?

I'll answer that for you:

CTA Facts at a Glance

The CTA will operate on 1.384 billion.
It has 846 million in capital.

So… a 61% farebox recovery rate?

If the CTA charged full price for every single ride (bus or train) they would make about $3,000,000 more a year than they need to operate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
...There other relevant thing is the total cost. If you take AAA averages (new car every 5 years, 15,000 miles a year) it costs $.46/mile to drive. But what's that really tell you? If you're only driving one mile to parking a $20/day garage for work, you probably aren't doing 15,000 miles. Plus the parking is $20/day. But those are costs covered by the user. The total cost of transit ($4.09/boarding) is much lower than the total cost of driving in that scenario.
How did you get $4.09 a ride when you yourself posted a 55% farebox recovery rate on $2.25 a fare?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
...Where in the heck do you come up with your numbers? It's simple 536 times 2.25. It's $1,206 in fares and $986 in taxpayer funding. That's using the simplified method described above that ignores bus passes meaning the revenue and cost are lower. The key is 55% farebox recovery and cost per boarding, which many transit agencies do report. And of course, buses drive on roads no magic clouds as well but ignore that...
I can put a gallon of gas in my car and drive one way for 25 miles at 25 MPG and pay $0.90 on gas taxes, aka "fares".

But I can spend $22.50 in fares on 10 one mile roundtrips (.5 there and .5 back).

The first person spends $0.90 for 25 miles of travel. The second person has spent $22.50 on a half mile of road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
...Unless the average passenger trip by bus in Chicago is 31 miles, it's pretty clear that the bus receives more taxpayer subsidy than the road. Not to mention that the bus drives on roads.
I said before, and I will say again, I'm not great at math.

But I am smart enough to know this part I quoted is terrible math… and logic.

Where did you get 31 miles from???

I can go to the nearest CTA stop and buy a Ventra card. I can then hop on a bus and travel 1/4 (one quarter) of a mile to my destination and pay $2.25 in bus fare for that 1/4 (one quarter) mile of road.

If you did that (quarter mile drive) in a car that got 25 MPG in the highest gas taxed state in the country, then you paid $0.90 for 25 miles, paid $0.04 a mile, and $0.01 for that quarter mile.

Which is bigger?

2.25 or .01?
 
Old 08-05-2014, 03:31 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,209 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
I accounted for that in my new numbers (with help from Malloric)

Malloric says there is a 55% farebox recovery rate for the CTA. That works out to $1.24 a ride on the bus when the bus costs $2.25 to ride. The bigger issue, for me at least, is the first transfer of $0.25, and the third transfer of $0.00.

Not quite.

55% farebox recovery means that 55% of the revenue the CTA needs to run comes from fares. The other 45% comes from taxes, bonds, and funds raised by advertisement and rent. The number of people who pay $2.25 to ride is limited and the .25 cent transfer only comes into play in certain instances.

When you take into account reduced fares the average fare per trip drops to $1.08 due to lower fares for seniors, high school students and the handicapped. In addition 1,3, and 7 day CTA passes give unlimited rides to those who have them(tourists). And Finally the 30 day pass gives unlimited rides to heavy users of transit(and is also available in an reduced fare form). The result is that an significant number of people are not pay $2.25 a ride and so according to the CTA the average fare is $1.08(or $1.09 for 2013)!


http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...3_Final_FS.pdf

For 2013 the CTA only brought in $624,954,000 via fares but had $1,646,221,000 in operating expenses and $753,308,000 worth of public funding(tax money) was brought in to keep it running.

In order for the CTA to fund itself 100% the average fare per ride would some how have to increase to $1.96 a ride which would mean some serious fare hikes. No more .75 cent fares for high school students(a major user of transit). No more $1.10 reduced bus fare. No more .15 cent transfers for students and other who qualify for the reduced fare and no more 1,3,7 or 30 day passes. and no more .25 cent transfers.

Every ride would have to charge $1.96(to keep things simple.) and so that three ride trip becomes $5.88 instead of $2.25 or $2.50. And no exceptions made for seniors, handicap or students(it isn't magically cheaper to transport them.) and that transfer isn't cheap for the CTA.

Last edited by chirack; 08-05-2014 at 04:20 PM..
 
Old 08-05-2014, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
No it doesn't. Here is the definition of farebox recovery:
No, you're just completely wrong.

fare revenue/total operating cost = farebox recovery. It's the percentage of OPERATING COSTS covered by FARES. The tax payer cost per ride doesn't even factor into the equation. If it costs $4 per boarding (operating cost) and the fare is $2, the farebox recovery ratio is 50%. Simply.

Quote:
For CTA buses to cost the taxpayer $1.84 per boarding out of a $2.25 fare, that means only 18% is farebox recovery.
Good example. If it costs the tax payer $1.84 and the fare is $2.25, then the TOTAL OPERATING COST is 1.84 + 2.25, or $4.09!
Now, take the FARE and divide it by it by the TOTAL OPERATING COST.
2.25/4.09 = ... Yup, 55%.

Quote:
So which one is it? A farebox recovery of 55% (like you originally stated) or 18%?
See above.
Quote:
I'll answer that for you:

CTA Facts at a Glance

The CTA will operate on 1.384 billion.
It has 846 million in capital.

So… a 61% farebox recovery rate?
Wrong and irrelevant. Capital is used for things beyond the operating budget.

Quote:
If the CTA charged full price for every single ride (bus or train) they would make about $3,000,000 more a year than they need to operate.
Wrong again.

Quote:
How did you get $4.09 a ride when you yourself posted a 55% farebox recovery rate on $2.25 a fare?
By using very simple algebra.
See above.
$2.25 fare/.55 farebox recovery = $4.09.

Quote:
I can put a gallon of gas in my car and drive one way for 25 miles at 25 MPG and pay $0.90 on gas taxes, aka "fares".

But I can spend $22.50 in fares on 10 one mile roundtrips (.5 there and .5 back).

The first person spends $0.90 for 25 miles of travel. The second person has spent $22.50 on a half mile of road.
And?
That's completely irrelevant. Yes, cars collect less in user fees (gas taxes) than buses (fares). So what? Cars cost the tax payer a lot less. It doesn't cost the taxpayer $1.84 every time somebody gets in a car. Most of the costs are privately carried with a car (insurance, capital cost, repairs, maintenance, no paid driver). The "user fee" mostly goes to roads (and public transit). None of the user fees for bus fares go to pay for roads.

Quote:
I said before, and I will say again, I'm not great at math.

But I am smart enough to know this part I quoted is terrible math… and logic.
No, you're really not. I don't mean to be insulting, but it's very basic algebra and you're completely clueless on it.
Quote:
Where did you get 31 miles from???
Basic algebra again.
Quote:
I can go to the nearest CTA stop and buy a Ventra card. I can then hop on a bus and travel 1/4 (one quarter) of a mile to my destination and pay $2.25 in bus fare for that 1/4 (one quarter) mile of road.

If you did that (quarter mile drive) in a car that got 25 MPG in the highest gas taxed state in the country, then you paid $0.90 for 25 miles, paid $0.04 a mile, and $0.01 for that quarter mile.


Which is bigger?

2.25 or .01?
.01 is bigger.

The 2.25 you paid is gone. The bus costs $4.09 per boarding in Chicago using the 55% farebox and simplified scenario where transit passes are ignored. So with the car the roughly 1 cent is available for spending on things like roads for cars and buses to drive on. With the bus, none of the $2.25 is left.

In fact, it's worse than that. See, the $2.25 didn't actually cover the cost of your 1/4 mile trip which (averaged per boarding) is $4.09. You're left with a negative $1.84 (-$1.84). One bus trip would entirely offset 184 car trips in terms of net effect. While the bus certainly generates more revenue, it costs more than the revenue it generates. More bus rides, less money in the coffers.
 
Old 08-06-2014, 07:07 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,289,200 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I wasn't arguing any of that. My post was specifically on how big of an effect snow is for biking. Just because it snows in the winter doesn't mean the snow is on the road most of the winter.
Bicycles handle better than cars in the snow. Studded tires, narrower tires, less mass sliding around.

Plus, snow doesn't stay on the ground all winter. I live in the snowiest area of the country (western New York) and bicycling in the winter isn't an issue. People just don't like the cold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You misread. The argument is bicycle loses against car.
You misred; most bicycle accidents do not involve cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
I doubt being hunched over a bike is helping anyone's back problems. As far as the air is concerned you already get to inhale the same air. I think you've inhaled too much. I suspect you prefer diesel.
Perhaps you need to understand ventilation. You inhale more exhaust in your own car than outside. "Fresh air" ring a bell

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Yes there would be accidents and probably even more accidents with cars due the increase in bicyclists despite a decrease in cars. However there is always a tradeoff between functionality, usefulness, practicality, etc. Bikes aren't practical for most households.
Nope. Incorrect.

As bike ridership increases, bike fatalities decrease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Sure lots of kids do. However, it's impractical and unsafe to haul kids (or anyone else) any distance in your bike trailer. Bike is also not particularly secure place to leave things when making multiple stops. Issues with weather exposure and risk exposure are just a few additional examples of reasons bikes are not workable for most folks. Bicycles are not a practical solution for most households in this country.
There is no evidence to support that it is "unsafe" to haul kids. Just personal venting...

I take your point with multiple stops. My original point wasn't that car ownership should be eliminated. I argue cars should be used more practically. Most households strive to have 2+ cars when they can get by easily with one car for the family + a bicycle for each member of the family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
??? Nothing wrong with building road capacity adequate to handle the load. Cuts down on the other concerns you raised like pollution and wait time. So what's your complaint?


Increasing road capacity increases car dependency and future road maintenance costs. Highways are extremely costly to build, but even more costly to maintain over time. Why would we sign up for this? It is counterproductive to the nation's fiscal (and actual) health.
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