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.
IMO I wouldn't be wasting my free time by going to the gym. In fact, working out is one of my favorite things to do. I'd rather spend 30 minutes at the gym than 30 minutes at the transit stop.
I can somewhat agree, but it still boils down to a lack of exercise. Fit people drive cars. They also spend time working out because they want to be in shape and lead a healthy life. They have a healthy mindset and they drive cars. I believe that the blame should be placed on the person and not the car.
I personally find very, very few people on this forum to be truly anti-car. And although the system is set up for a largely car-dependent lifestyle, I believe a large majority of people enjoy living that way. And I acknowledge that there are some people who wish to live a more urban lifestyle that can't for any number of reasons.
The issue is time. I was already fit before I started commuting. I realized in the hour I waste commuting per day, I could get my cardio workout in. It also saves money in the process. Why am I paying for gas, maintenance, and parking when I live <10 miles from work? Time and energy efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72
I just looked at a few posts on Page 1 of the thread, and I think the important point here is that fuel taxes, unlike many other taxes, actually are user-based and tied to how much someone uses the service. The current set-up is imperfect, that's definitely true, but it's better than paying taxes for something you don't use or where you have no idea where it's going.
I can't speak for other people, but I have a lot less of a problem paying taxes for something I use and that are going directly back in to funding and improving what it is that I use.
That is true from a conceptual point of view. However, there are a few issues:
Fuel efficient vehicles pay less fuel tax.
EV's don't pay any fuel tax.
Fuel taxes only cover less than 1/2 of road maintenance costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
First, the US has rather low density cities for developed world standards. (Although no British city approaches NYC densities) though in general it seems like it is implied the discussion is US-only. You leave off the extremes if you're trying to discuss and focus on the average places. Many posters, including myself are not. I talk about places I'm interested in. Perhaps I should talk more on London more so it would be obvious I'm saying little about the typical American location. Maybe that would clear up confusion?
Some cities have areas near the downtown where plenty don't have cars and space is at a premium. Requiring parking in those areas may be a bad fit. NYC doesn't require residential parking near the center, it limits it a max of 1 per 5 units (a bit higher depending on the neighborhood).
For now... but most of our growth (>90%) in the 21st century will be in cities and suburbs.
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.
Yes, I lived in western (maybe Central?) NY as well, the snow wasn't a huge issue 80% of the time, roads got plowed well. The problems were:
1) Salt. Salt. Chain replacement after the winter was often needed.
2) roads a bit narrower from plowed snow
Miserably cold sometimes, though I would manage a few miles in mid 20s. The idea that somehow snow makes the roads unbikeable for most of the winter is inaccurate. The narrower tires are necessarily a benefit. Less likely to slide maybe, but harder to push through snow on the road (say, an inch).
Quote:
You misred; most bicycle accidents do not involve cars.
Yes, however bicycle accidents that involve serious injury and death do involve cars.
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.
That's because bicycle-culture is frowned upon. I've taken the lane on 45 mph streets before (as long as they lack a usable shoulder). Most of my riding is in the city.. because I live in an urban setting (density ~10,000 per square mile)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
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.
It just takes practice. You get more comfortable over time. Try it on a quiet day first. I do it in Rush Hour. There is no shortage of jack***es but they get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
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?
Conceptually yes. However, Tesla pays no fuel taxes because it uses no fuel
The owner contributed to road maintenance through sales tax on the vehicle, and annual inspection / registration fees. Plus, most of the maintenance is property and income tax anyway. Someone who can afford a Tesla pays a ton of both.
Yes, I lived in western (maybe Central?) NY as well, the snow wasn't a huge issue 80% of the time, roads got plowed well. The problems were:
1) Salt. Salt. Chain replacement after the winter was often needed.
2) roads a bit narrower from plowed snow
Miserably cold sometimes, though I would manage a few miles in mid 20s. The idea that somehow snow makes the roads unbikeable for most of the winter is inaccurate. The narrower tires are necessarily a benefit. Less likely to slide maybe, but harder to push through snow on the road (say, an inch).
Winter beater!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Yes, however bicycle accidents that involve serious injury and death do involve cars.
Fatality rates are still low, because bicycles aren't on high-speed streets. Speed is the biggest cause of pedestrian / bicycle deaths due to auto. At 30 mph, the ped survival rate is at 80%.
Fatality rates are still low, because bicycles aren't on high-speed streets. Speed is the biggest cause of pedestrian / bicycle deaths due to auto. At 30 mph, the ped survival rate is at 80%.
You need a lesson in epidemiology. A 20% mortality rate is HUGE! If there were a vaccine that had a 20% reaction rate, let alone a mortality rate, people would be up in arms, literally.
You need a lesson in epidemiology. A 20% mortality rate is HUGE! If there were a vaccine that had a 20% reaction rate, let alone a mortality rate, people would be up in arms, literally.
It means I can get hit by a car 4 times at 30 mph and survive. 80% = 4 out of 5.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. And you know, feel free to insult my intelligence as well, just to drive home the point.
The operating budget of the CTA is $1,384,800,000 a year. That is how much it costs to staff the CTA as well as offer service and make repairs.
1,600,000 rides are taken on the CTA system everyday. 529,000,000 rides a year.
If there were no subsidies for riding or reduced transfer fares, everyone paid either $2.25 per bus ride or $2.50 per train ride (which averages out to $2.37 between buses and trains), then the CTA would make $1,256,375,000 a year in fares.
$1,384,800,000 - $1,256,375,000 = $128,425,000 SHORT of the budget.
That is a farebox recovery rate of 90%.
Like I said before, I'm not good at math. But you seem to be especially terrible at it when trying to prove someone wrong (but very good at making your point of view look good).
You quoted roughly $4 a ride in order for the CTA to break even, or "cover costs".
Do you really believe that the CTA needs $2,116,000,000 dollars a year to operate on a $1,384,800,000 budget?
You honestly think that the CTA needs a farebox recovery rate of 152% to operate?
Would I be opposed to having the fares increased and subsidies dropped to make the CTA run within/at their budget? NO.
Would people that drive as the primary mode of transportation pay $0.0075 to keep their transportation system up and running?
Quote:
Constitutional Amendment 7 imposes a three-quarters cent increase on state sales and use tax to fund roads and other transportation projects. The tax is estimated to bring in at least $540 million annually over 10 years. The sales tax is expected to cover more than 200 projects just in the Southwest District. NO 590,963 (59%) YES 407,532 (41%)
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. And you know, feel free to insult my intelligence as well, just to drive home the point.
The operating budget of the CTA is $1,384,800,000 a year. That is how much it costs to staff the CTA as well as offer service and make repairs.
1,600,000 rides are taken on the CTA system everyday. 529,000,000 rides a year.
If there were no subsidies for riding or reduced transfer fares, everyone paid either $2.25 per bus ride or $2.50 per train ride (which averages out to $2.37 between buses and trains), then the CTA would make $1,256,375,000 a year in fares.
$1,384,800,000 - $1,256,375,000 = $128,425,000 SHORT of the budget.
That is a farebox recovery rate of 90%.
Like I said before, I'm not good at math. But you seem to be especially terrible at it when trying to prove someone wrong (but very good at making your point of view look good).
You quoted roughly $4 a ride in order for the CTA to break even, or "cover costs".
Do you really believe that the CTA needs $2,116,000,000 dollars a year to operate on a $1,384,800,000 budget?
You honestly think that the CTA needs a farebox recovery rate of 152% to operate?
Would I be opposed to having the fares increased and subsidies dropped to make the CTA run within/at their budget? NO.
Would people that drive as the primary mode of transportation pay $0.0075 to keep their transportation system up and running?
"Why charge me 3/4 of a penny for the roads I already built?!?"
I gave you an link with the CTA budget. Your figures are far from reality. The CTA can't count individual trips so it counts rides. So if it takes you 3 bus rides to get somewhere then it would count as 3 rides.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. And you know, feel free to insult my intelligence as well, just to drive home the point.
The operating budget of the CTA is $1,384,800,000 a year. That is how much it costs to staff the CTA as well as offer service and make repairs.
1,600,000 rides are taken on the CTA system everyday. 529,000,000 rides a year.
If there were no subsidies for riding or reduced transfer fares, everyone paid either $2.25 per bus ride or $2.50 per train ride (which averages out to $2.37 between buses and trains), then the CTA would make $1,256,375,000 a year in fares.
$1,384,800,000 - $1,256,375,000 = $128,425,000 SHORT of the budget.
Fares collected was $549 million
Operating expenses were $1,273 million.
549/1,273. For 2012, CTA had a farebox recovery ratio of 43%.
Quote:
Like I said before, I'm not good at math. But you seem to be especially terrible at it when trying to prove someone wrong (but very good at making your point of view look good).
Hey, I don't even need to try. I can just let you contradict yourself. =D
Quote:
You quoted roughly $4 a ride in order for the CTA to break even, or "cover costs".
Which it would in the simplified example if the farebox recovery was 55% (your claim) and everyone paid the full fare. Of course, they don't. Everyone knows that. Most people who use transit regularly have passes.
Quote:
Do you really believe that the CTA needs $2,116,000,000 dollars a year to operate on a $1,384,800,000 budget?
Nope. I think 2.25/.55 is 4.09.
Quote:
You honestly think that the CTA needs a farebox recovery rate of 152% to operate?
No. It clearly operates with a farebox recovery ratio of less than 50%. Answering rhetorical questions, I know.
Quote:
Would I be opposed to having the fares increased and subsidies dropped to make the CTA run within/at their budget? NO.
Of course you wouldn't. You'd rather have someone else pay for you. Nothing new there.
Everyone knows taxes need to be raised. Just don't raise my taxes.
Quote:
Would people that drive as the primary mode of transportation pay $0.0075 to keep their transportation system up and running?
Well, since most people drive and anyone who drives spends more than 1 cent on gas taxes, registration fees, and so on... that's pretty obvious.
"Why charge me 3/4 of a penny for the roads I already built?!?"
[/quote]
Uh.. your link just says that some voters approved a 3/4 sales tax to pay for roads and transit. So... uh, I guess they would. I'm pretty sure most people spend more than $1 on taxable goods and since most people voted to increase the tax... well, yeah. Looks like they would.
I would have voted no since I think user fees should cover both.
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.
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.
Time and energy efficiency.
