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 08-19-2014, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Now, because this is CD, I always have to explain myself. I personally am not opposed to public transit, and I think one good reason for having a good PT system is that some people can't afford private autos. But I do not believe there is a right to subsidized transit. When transit systems were first built, they were run by for-profit companies. As fewer people used them,they started losing money and even failing, so the govt. stepped in. My "inner Libertarian" sneaking out to say hello!
Part of the problem with why they went bankrupt was the fixed price in return for the government-granted monopoly rights. Combine the 5 cent fare (fixed) with rampant inflation during the Great Depression with the knee-jerk political reaction towards monopolies of the era which made it politically impossible to negotiate fare increases and they just all started going bankrupt.

Falling ridership certainly occurred, but it really wasn't what kicked off the financial problems which in most places were already underway in the late '20s. You did have some reduction in ridership during the Great Depression but not really a landslide movement away from transit. Now, 20 years after they were no longer profitable, yeah. I've read some old firsthand accounts of the state of Seattle's streetcar lines for example where people talked about being bucked off the seats and hurled across the cars due to the deplorable state of the tracks. That didn't happen overnight. It happened because they'd been cutting costs desperately anywhere they could for decades to try and stay afloat.

 
Old 08-19-2014, 08:48 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,003 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
That's because certain industries (transportation, education, and health care) are more efficient under control of the government. Privatization of those industries always leads to increased costs with no improvement to service.

Yes, no one has a right to public transit. The point of public transit is to allow low-income people an opportunity to get around (hopefully to their place of employment). I guess we would rather have more people on welfare!
You completely missed my point where I said one purpose of public transit is to provide service to those who don't have cars. I just don't think it is a "right" as so many on this board do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Part of the problem with why they went bankrupt was the fixed price in return for the government-granted monopoly rights. Combine the 5 cent fare (fixed) with rampant inflation during the Great Depression with the knee-jerk political reaction towards monopolies of the era which made it politically impossible to negotiate fare increases and they just all started going bankrupt.

Falling ridership certainly occurred, but it really wasn't what kicked off the financial problems which in most places were already underway in the late '20s. You did have some reduction in ridership during the Great Depression but not really a landslide movement away from transit. Now, 20 years after they were no longer profitable, yeah. I've read some old firsthand accounts of the state of Seattle's streetcar lines for example where people talked about being bucked off the seats and hurled across the cars due to the deplorable state of the tracks. That didn't happen overnight. It happened because they'd been cutting costs desperately anywhere they could for decades to try and stay afloat.
I'll take your word for it. However, my point had more to do with subsidized vs non-subsidized transit, that transit started out as for-profit. There is no "right" to subsidized public transit.
 
Old 08-19-2014, 09:05 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,194,455 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I'll take your word for it. However, my point had more to do with subsidized vs non-subsidized transit, that transit started out as for-profit. There is no "right" to subsidized public transit.
So is there a "right" to subsidized public roads?

And if so, why the difference?
 
Old 08-19-2014, 09:33 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,350,485 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Public transit becomes more efficient, as more people use it.



Tell that to the low-income people I ride the bus with everyday.
You misinterpreted the use of the word. It referred to white collar welfare.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-19-2014 at 09:44 AM..
 
Old 08-19-2014, 09:44 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,350,485 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
For one, those statistics presented by the poster apply to operational costs only.. they don't account for long-term economic effects. I am sick of repeating what we already know; cars are a net economic drain on society. Health care, pollution, climate change, congestion / loss of economic output, affects housing, etc.
"Liability" is a vector not a scalar value. When you simply say "liability" your use of the word is equivocal at best. However, you have merely stated your opinion using abstract concepts like "society". Apparently you believe cars are a liability for your ephemeral "society" but not to actual people in your "society"?

Your blind belief is not knowledge and your hypothesis is missing things like evidence to support it. Your "society" is a small one - consisting generally of anti-car zealots.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-19-2014 at 10:15 AM..
 
Old 08-19-2014, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,582,448 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Sure. They're baloney like most your numbers. Completely fabricated with no basis in reality.
My numbers aren't fabricated.

This particular hypothetical is. My hypothetical John Q. Public is. How much he drives is. The maximum amount of money gas is taxed today, retrofitted for 60 years in the past is.

But the numbers themselves? No. Not fabricated. I have sources, and I've listed them.



So, do you have any numbers that point to gas taxes being enough to pay for roads? Any numbers? I can post recent news stories saying that the highway fund is, well… not paying for the roads.
 
Old 08-19-2014, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,582,448 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Again, I'm not a big proponent of that line of thinking. Many people believe that and I can understand, to a degree, the arguments for that line of thinking. I'm a small "L" libertarian. As such, I mostly disagree that it is the governments job to provide for the general welfare of people. It is, however, the governments job to PROMOTE the general welfare. Transit has a place in promoting the general welfare.

The problem is in the implementation. The problem with what I call welfare transit is that it's counter productive. Minimum level of service transit creates a lot of problems. Namely it sucks and makes TOD impossible. Recently we've switched from providing mostly minimum level of service welfare transit to providing transit corridors. Transit has gotten even worse in most places but is actually very good along six basic corridor routes. Again, it will take many, many, many years until TOD along those corridors is realized, but it's something that now can possibly occur. Hopefully it will and we'll see a shift away from more or less exclusively auto-dependent landuse. That was, in my opinion, very bad policy overall. It was bad policy to promote auto-only development, and it was bad policy to provide minimum level of (crappy) service welfare transit to all areas at the expense of having an actual functional transportation system.

Now, don't misconstrue that as my having any problem with auto-dependent development. I don't. I just think it's bad policy to have that be the only development, which is really the only development that occurred here for the last 60 or so years. Now, if somebody who can't drive for some reason or another chooses to live in a more auto-dependent area where the transit is awful or just doesn't exist (or an employer chooses to locate their business there)... well, so what. They chose to live there or operate there. I strongly disagree that transit from everywhere to everywhere is a basic right the government has to provide. That doesn't mean I don't think no transit at all is the answer. I'm just against stupid transit. We have lots and lots of stupid transit in this country.
So, you're against government built roads?

Private roads should be the answer then?
 
Old 08-19-2014, 01:43 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,048 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
So, you're against government built roads?

Private roads should be the answer then?
If I get what he's saying, then my interpretation is that the answer is smarter development because, if I get him, he's against poorly designed infrastructure. The problem isn't buses, it's buses that serve auto-oriented development and are perpetually empty. The problem isn't roads, it's roads that spread everyone out even as cities pretend to be able to supply higher levels of amenities.

I think that's what little L libertarian means, at least.

From an econ perspective, it doesn't make sense to build infrastructure unless there's a clear and present demand for it. And I use demand very strictly to mean something people want and are willing and able to pay for, either directly or through taxes. So, if the city can't fund its construction and ongoing maintenance, the infrastructure shouldn't be put in place.
 
Old 08-19-2014, 01:52 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,289,200 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
"Liability" is a vector not a scalar value. When you simply say "liability" your use of the word is equivocal at best. However, you have merely stated your opinion using abstract concepts like "society". Apparently you believe cars are a liability for your ephemeral "society" but not to actual people in your "society"?

Your blind belief is not knowledge and your hypothesis is missing things like evidence to support it. Your "society" is a small one - consisting generally of anti-car zealots.
Not really. I provided hard numbers. Like I said, they already studied this in Denmark.

Also, there is a direct correlation between bikable / walkable communities and small business sales. People walking or on bikes have easier access to small shops, as they usually have limited car parking.

Do you have any numbers?
 
Old 08-19-2014, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,582,448 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
...However, my point had more to do with subsidized vs non-subsidized transit, that transit started out as for-profit. There is no "right" to subsidized public transit.
When were roads for-profit in the United States?

And constitutionally (Article 1, Section 8), Congress can build and maintain post roads.

It doesn't say:

car roads
truck roads
bus roads
bicycle roads
atv roads
people roads
train roads
military roads
make-my-30-mile-drive-from-home-to-my-work-and-back-again-as-quick-as-possible roads.

Post roads. That's it.

So while there is no "right" for public transit to be subsidized, there is also no "right" for personal transit to be subsidized, federally speaking, of course.
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