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 01-22-2015, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
And you ignore poverty every time you post it.
Also generally true as long as you're talking about inner-city as the poverty stricken places. Inner-city like Manhattan or San Francisco have low obesity rates. It's mostly because they're wealthy. Wealth is of greater importance when predicting obesity than much of anything else. Overall rural areas have higher obesity than urban areas. Rural areas also have higher poverty rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2015, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Also generally true as long as you're talking about inner-city as the poverty stricken places. Inner-city like Manhattan or San Francisco have low obesity rates. It's mostly because they're wealthy. Wealth is of greater importance when predicting obesity than much of anything else. Overall rural areas have higher obesity than urban areas. Rural areas also have higher poverty rates.
True, those that live inner city that take transit, bike, and/or walk tend to be much healthier because they are not only active but they can also afford to eat healthier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 10:22 AM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,874,215 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Once you get outside of more dense parts of cities, the transit and walkability drops dramatically in most cases. With the invention of the car, our country moved as far away from being a transit focused country.
It was not really the invention of the car, but the construction of the interstates, the home-buying incentives, the residential redlining, and the connection of property taxes to school funding that moved our country away from the cities, I would say.

Germany, in 1997, saw about 60% of transportation miles taken by car, and that share has since fallen. Young Americans Aren't the Only Ones Driving Much Less Than Their Parents - CityLab

New Zealand, a similarly "New World" country to the U.S., had ~65% car commuters in 2006. Commuting Patterns in New Zealand: 1996
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
It was not really the invention of the car, but the construction of the interstates, the home-buying incentives, the residential redlining, and the connection of property taxes to school funding that moved our country away from the cities, I would say.

Germany, in 1997, saw about 60% of transportation miles taken by car, and that share has since fallen. Young Americans Aren't the Only Ones Driving Much Less Than Their Parents - CityLab

New Zealand, a similarly "New World" country to the U.S., had ~65% car commuters in 2006. Commuting Patterns in New Zealand: 1996
We wouldn't have interstates if we didn't have cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 10:55 AM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,874,215 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
We wouldn't have interstates if we didn't have cars.
We also wouldn't have stop lights if we didn't have cars, but attributing the suburbanization of America to the invention of cars fails to acknowledge that that same suburbanization did not happen over the whole world (where cars also exist).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Once your car is very old, whether you have a lot or little miles doesn't make a huge difference in its value, it may still have issues regardless of mileage, especially here where roads are salt-treated most of the winter. My car has 123,000 miles on it, any problems it has a result of age not mileage. But if you put a lot of miles a year, (say more than 15,000 miles or especially 20,000+ miles) the mileage will shorten its useful lifespan. You're more likely to run into problems on a ten year old car with over 200,000 miles than one with 100,000 miles. So if your commute is long (maybe 25+ miles each way) added wear and tear on a car will be significant. Of course, almost all 25+ mile commutes tolerable (time-wise) on public transit are either on rail or express bus, usually to a downtown.

Call that it $2,000 over ten years or $200 a year. Honestly, I think that's understated but whatever.

Replacement interval is likely more of a big deal. If you're driving 5,000 miles a year, you might replace your car every 15 years versus every 10. Call a Civic LX $20,000.
20,000 - 3,000 (NADA 10@200k) replaced every ten years is $1,700/yr.
20,000 - 2,500 (NADA 15@75k) replaced every 15 years is $1,166.67

Just call it $600/yr as again I think that's understated.

Then you've got marginal cost of operating. 15,000/yr works out to a 30-mile commute one way, just as frame of reference. If we call the marginal cost of driving 25 cents a mile (for support: http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0501.pdf), that's $3,750/year.

Then you include the road subsidy. For Sacramento, my area, my MTP estimates that at $500-$1,000/yr per driver. Take the upper bound of $1,000

Total cost $5,350/yr. That's a solo driver ignoring externalities.

Back when I first moved to Seattle area and was staying in Marysville, I took the bus to work downtown. Cost for the commuter bus is $198/month nowadays. Commuter buses, unlike regular buses, generally make a tremendous amount of sense. I'm not aware of the farebox recovery ratio for that bus, but we have commuter in my area now that run healthy profits for the transit agency and cost about the same.

Amtrak (Capitol Corridor) is $426/month for a 70-mile trip, transfer to BART in Richmond and operates at a 66% farebox recovery today (almost double what it did 20 years ago). Back when I lived near enough to Amtrak, that was my preferred way of getting to the San Francisco, actually. Now I drive to BART. The single-fare prices on both Amtrak/commuter bus to BART are too high to make fiscal sense.

Incidentally, this is why I have called commuter transit the big enabler of exurban living. Doesn't work for everyone by any means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
We also wouldn't have stop lights if we didn't have cars, but attributing the suburbanization of America to the invention of cars fails to acknowledge that that same suburbanization did not happen over the whole world (where cars also exist).
I am only speaking about specifically the US when I said that. Though it is more of a general statement than anything, I am sure one could target more specific moments like the creation the in interstate system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 11:39 AM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,874,215 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I am only speaking about specifically the US when I said that. Though it is more of a general statement than anything, I am sure one could target more specific moments like the creation the in interstate system.
And the other stuff, the redlining, the home-buying incentives, and the tying together of school funding and localized property taxes--also probably the long-standing U.S.-Saudi relationship. It's no secret that transit (and walking/biking) work well in dense areas--cities. So the key to understanding America's globally high car dependance is understanding why America departed from denser development to more sparse development--suburbs. The car was invented long before suburbanization. The car existed around the world, including in places that did not sub-urbanize the way America did.

The United States is at the bottom of transit use rankings as a result of decades of policy choices. NatGeo surveys countries' transit use: guess who comes in last | Kaid Benfield's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC
Greendex: Survey of Sustainable Consumption - National Geographic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
True, those that live inner city that take transit, bike, and/or walk tend to be much healthier because they are not only active but they can also afford to eat healthier.
It's irrelevant what people can do. Have you been to a grocery store and watched people loading up on junk before paying with their food stamps? Those are all people who can afford to eat healthful foods too. They just choose not to. Low-income people as a group make poorer lifestyle choices than high-income people do. Food deserts, for example, are mostly in rural areas although a few exist in urban areas. That can make it more difficult. Similar with exercise, high-income people are more likely to be active. Lower SES areas actually have higher access to facilities for recreational physical activity than higher SES areas.

Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity ... - PubMed - NCBI
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
And the other stuff, the redlining, the home-buying incentives, and the tying together of school funding and localized property taxes--also probably the long-standing U.S.-Saudi relationship. It's no secret that transit (and walking/biking) work well in dense areas--cities. So the key to understanding America's globally high car dependance is understanding why America departed from denser development to more sparse development--suburbs. The car was invented long before suburbanization. The car existed around the world, including in places that did not sub-urbanize the way America did.

The United States is at the bottom of transit use rankings as a result of decades of policy choices. NatGeo surveys countries' transit use: guess who comes in last | Kaid Benfield's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC
Greendex: Survey of Sustainable Consumption - National Geographic
Very true, there are lots of things that have played to the demise of public transit in the US.
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
Similar Threads
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