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.
Likely this is really about a developer trying to sell more units in the same building under the pretext of "encouraging" residents to use other modes of transportation, e.g., walking, biking, bus, taxi, and private transportation services".
Must be an urbanophile's dream come true - making residents transit-dependent by not providing places for cars. I suspect all this does is ensure that these people will have to park their cars somewhere else (yes they will have cars). The marketing is that the building offers all these amenities and conveniences to the residents. If you have to get somewhere every day (like to a job), this isn't going to be very convenient. No doubt fools will purchase. I suspect the turnover rate will be high as people find out how inconvenient this is.
And the people who need a car and parking live in one of the many other housing developments that have space for cars! Not every development has to target every potential group.
Au contraire, driving is almost always faster. How long do you think it takes to drive 1.6 miles in a suburban city? 10 minutes maybe. How long did it take my daughter to get home from school 1.6 miles away on the city bus? 45 minutes!
For 1.6 miles? The bike ride is about 10-15 minutes depending on the route.
What I uncovered? My bike ride is pretty comparable to driving for distances 3 miles and under! And if the destination has impacted parking? The bike probably wins. I ride my bike downtown, it takes about 2 minutes longer, but I generally save 5+ on the circling for parking so the bike wins.
Traveling to one of the neighboring cities (4-5 miles away to the downtown area), which means a freeway ride that has traffic all day, or lots of traffic lights and round abouts, it only takes me a few minutes longer than the drive, unless there is no traffic. Which is basically only 2 in the morning. Anytime during normal hours, the bike ride is the same! A little longer on the way since it is up a gradual hill.
Au contraire, driving is almost always faster. How long do you think it takes to drive 1.6 miles in a suburban city? 10 minutes maybe. How long did it take my daughter to get home from school 1.6 miles away on the city bus? 45 minutes!
Buses can be very slow, but that's an extreme example. I would sometimes walk to high school (1.6 miles). Usual time for me was 35 minutes.
If you live within the Denver Regional Transit District, my personal sales taxes subsidize your transit trips. That's what seems to be missing from some (not all) of the urbanists' calculations. And yes, if you live in my town, my property taxes do support your Uber, by providing and keeping up the roads. Ditto your pizza delivery! Your property taxes may subsidize the food I buy at Safeway since I have to drive on a public road to get there! Your Amazon order is probably delivered by UPS, using a roadway. They aren't doing the drones yet.
But the flip side of that argument is, the hypothetical transit user also pays sales taxes, payroll taxes, state taxes, property taxes and so on that goes into the general fund and pays for the roads. We don't have 100% user fees for the roads as our roads aren't paid for by gas taxes alone.
If you live within the Denver Regional Transit District, my personal sales taxes subsidize your transit trips. That's what seems to be missing from some (not all) of the urbanists' calculations. And yes, if you live in my town, my property taxes do support your Uber, by providing and keeping up the roads. Ditto your pizza delivery! Your property taxes may subsidize the food I buy at Safeway since I have to drive on a public road to get there! Your Amazon order is probably delivered by UPS, using a roadway. They aren't doing the drones yet.
I don't deny that PT is also subsidized. But I'm not trying to argue about that. Nor am I arguing about local roadways--streets and roads. I'm talking specifically about interstates, freeways, and highways.
And the people who need a car and parking live in one of the many other housing developments that have space for cars! Not every development has to target every potential group.
The problem with this argument (using the word as a debate term, not to say you're being argumentative) is you can make a development for people w/o cars, but what happens when someone who lives there buys a car? One's job, lifestyle etc can change. Does that mean you have to move if you get a job that's not on a transit line, or if you break your leg and all of a sudden can't bike to work, or one of a million other things that can happen? Having a baby is probably the biggest lifestyle changer. Many who lived w/o a car suddenly find they really need one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
For 1.6 miles? The bike ride is about 10-15 minutes depending on the route.
What I uncovered? My bike ride is pretty comparable to driving for distances 3 miles and under! And if the destination has impacted parking? The bike probably wins. I ride my bike downtown, it takes about 2 minutes longer, but I generally save 5+ on the circling for parking so the bike wins.
Traveling to one of the neighboring cities (4-5 miles away to the downtown area), which means a freeway ride that has traffic all day, or lots of traffic lights and round abouts, it only takes me a few minutes longer than the drive, unless there is no traffic. Which is basically only 2 in the morning. Anytime during normal hours, the bike ride is the same! A little longer on the way since it is up a gradual hill.
I believe I gave a brief description of this situation. I'll elaborate. 1.6 miles doesn't sound like much, but there is a 1 mile hill to go up to get home. My daughter played cello in the orchestra, and in middle school was very tiny. She was only 4'11" and about 90# when she started HS. I can't remember 6th grade, but suffice it to say she was much smaller. The cello was about as big as her! So biking, for get it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
But the flip side of that argument is, the hypothetical transit user also pays sales taxes, payroll taxes, state taxes, property taxes and so on that goes into the general fund and pays for the roads. We don't have 100% user fees for the roads as our roads aren't paid for by gas taxes alone.
Well, yes. I'm just trying to get some people to see that transit is subsidized as well. Some on here don't seem to think of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
I don't deny that PT is also subsidized. But I'm not trying to argue about that. Nor am I arguing about local roadways--streets and roads. I'm talking specifically about interstates, freeways, and highways.
I'm not sure there's a huge difference in the type of roadbed. The interstates are a fed/local proposition. The states own and maintain the interstates. In large cities, interstates are used like regular roads, for transportation and commerce (deliveries, etc). Interstate 80 is called "the nation's highway". It's full of trucks transporting stuff, including perhaps your Amazon order. I'm not sure I get the differentiation of freeways from interstates. There are some limited access roads that are designated state highways rather than interstates, or federal highways that are not part of the interstate system, e.g. US 36 in Colorado, which is limited access in some places. The state of CO pays for the upkeep in Colorado. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm#question5
The problem with this argument (using the word as a debate term, not to say you're being argumentative) is you can make a development for people w/o cars, but what happens when someone who lives there buys a car? One's job, lifestyle etc can change. Does that mean you have to move if you get a job that's not on a transit line, or if you break your leg and all of a sudden can't bike to work, or one of a million other things that can happen? Having a baby is probably the biggest lifestyle changer. Many who lived w/o a car suddenly find they really need one.
Some people will use on-street parking. It's usually less convenient and will get scarce if everyone relied on it, but it is there.
As for having to move, many other things (including having children) can require some people to change apartments, happens.
Quote:
I believe I gave a brief description of this situation. I'll elaborate. 1.6 miles doesn't sound like much, but there is a 1 mile hill to go up to get home. My daughter played cello in the orchestra, and in middle school was very tiny. She was only 4'11" and about 90# when she started HS. I can't remember 6th grade, but suffice it to say she was much smaller. The cello was about as big as her! So biking, for get it!
Yes, I knew what the situation ws as soon as you mentioned. Still, in general it's an atypically slow bus ride.
I wasn't talking to another poster, I was commenting on your post. I get that for some, the car is superior, but that isn't the case for everyone and because of that, there should be a support for multiple forms of transportation which is why it is a poor choice to build for the car because that makes it harder for other forms of transportation to function.
Cars for whom? Plenty of commerce is dependent upon vehicles that utilize the roadways for something other than "commuting". So you are going to have the roads. You have a problem because you want to discriminate against "commuter cars" but can't do so without discriminating against a wide class of vehicles and uses.
I don't deny that PT is also subsidized. But I'm not trying to argue about that. Nor am I arguing about local roadways--streets and roads. I'm talking specifically about interstates, freeways, and highways.
Well the latter get used for "local" movement as well as longer distance inter- or intra-state uses that isn't going to get served by public transit anyway. Moreover the latter are critical to getting bulk goods and services to an area while the former might form the "last mile" part of transportation. I don't see how public transit replaces or provides an alternative to any of it and the people utilizing public transit will still need goods and services delivered directly or indirectly (e.g., to local merchants) by non-public-transit means.
I'm not sure there's a huge difference in the type of roadbed. The interstates are a fed/local proposition. The states own and maintain the interstates. In large cities, interstates are used like regular roads, for transportation and commerce (deliveries, etc). Interstate 80 is called "the nation's highway". It's full of trucks transporting stuff, including perhaps your Amazon order. I'm not sure I get the differentiation of freeways from interstates. There are some limited access roads that are designated state highways rather than interstates, or federal highways that are not part of the interstate system, e.g. US 36 in Colorado, which is limited access in some places. The state of CO pays for the upkeep in Colorado. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm#question5
I did not mean to imply that I was differentiating between highways, freeways, and interstates (except where highways are indistinguishable from a street, eg, as many rural main streets).
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.
