Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 03-10-2017, 02:12 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,156 posts, read 80,278,112 times
Reputation: 57016

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Nonetheless, a car comes with a basket of costs--tires, oil, gas, repairs, insurance, etc.--and any benefit that comes from private vehicle ownership has to overcome those costs.

When I ask if it is always financially superior for the individual, I ask that on net and in comparison to other modes in an equivalent context, on net. It is incomplete to just point to the benefits of private car ownership, and it is incomplete to point to the costs of other modes in a car-centric built form.

What net value does a car bring in an auto-centric layout? How does that compare to the net benefit of other modes in layouts that are predominantly designed around that mode?

When I talk about preference for familiarity and about loss aversion--the latter of which has been around in microeconomics since the 1970s and represents a distinct break from the classical description of individuals as rational decision makers--I'm talking about the biases the limit the willingness to make that apples-to-apples comparison.

So, once again, I ask questions about the net value of private vehicle ownership. Is private car ownership financially superior for the individual? Sometimes, but only in specific situations. Is it superior for the city, state, or federal governments, which have to build and maintain our roadways? Sometimes there is a clear net benefit, sometimes there is a clear net loss, and sometimes the situation is hard to describe. Is it superior for the neighborhood? Given how in demand walkable neighborhoods are and given that traffic calming is one of the most frequent demands of the city council, SJ DOT, and SJPD in San Jose, clearly designing for the car was not the absolutely superior choice for the neighborhoods. Is it superior for "society," for all of us taken as a whole? Well, there's a preponderance of evidence describing how vehicle emissions are harmful to our health and how those harms increase in magnitude and/or frequency as vehicle volumes increase.

I recognize, too, that it is important to ask these same questions of other modes in environments that are centric to the mode. Buses aren't always good on net. But buses and trains and bikes and walking all have their place in which they are beneficial, on net.

I'm not saying cars are bad, far from it. What I've always said is that cars are a tool. As a tool, they are good at some things in some situations, but not at or in others. A hammer is an essential part of any tool kit, but it cannot be the only tool in that kit. You need wrenches and screwdrivers and saws and so on. And we need to look at private cars as one tool in a kit of tools.
All modes of transportation have their place. When it comes to cars, cost is not the only factor to consider, we have 3 and they all have low miles, still well worth the cost to have them.

For many people yes, cars are a tool. For others like me, they are more than a tool. Off-road driving in my 4x4 truck is good fun, and I use it for hauling or on the rare snow days. My Challenger is great fun to drive whether on a road trip or just a short hop to the grocery store. My wife's economical CUV is still fun to drive, though it's a bit more like a tool. Still, I would never want a self-driving car and miss out on the driving experience. I commute 23 miles a day to work by bus, most weeks driving in only on Fridays. Because of where we choose to live, in a wooded suburban city, bus service is limited, requiring me to drive 6 miles to a park & ride, but at the other end I walk a mile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2017, 02:49 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,419,241 times
Reputation: 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Nonetheless, a car comes with a basket of costs--tires, oil, gas, repairs, insurance, etc.--and any benefit that comes from private vehicle ownership has to overcome those costs.

When I ask if it is always financially superior for the individual, I ask that on net and in comparison to other modes in an equivalent context, on net. It is incomplete to just point to the benefits of private car ownership, and it is incomplete to point to the costs of other modes in a car-centric built form. ....
Put whatever mathematical model on it you want. Problem is you are trying to create an equation that folks aren't going to agree with. You are also trying to assign values to variables that are not so easy to assign purely numeric values to. This is not a fluid state where people have an infinite number of variable choices. It comes down to public policies which must be limited by constitutional constraints - not necessarily an economic analysis.

When you say "net value" - I have to ask "net value to who"?
Value is a vector not a scalar quantity.
How do you resolve and prioritize the value differences?

It costs money for a government to have open meetings, open records, courts, etc. So should these simply be dispensed with because it costs the government money, or should we continue to respect constitutional rights? What is the dollar value to the individual (hard to quantify) vs the cost to the government and what difference does it make?

"Neighborhood" is still not computing. A neighborhood is not an entity and does not belong in the who gets what value computation on this topic.

Is a net value of a house negative? It could be depending upon the snapshot in time one looks at - but housing is a fundamental necessity and a negative value probably means insufficient value was assigned to the value of housing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
What net value does a car bring in an auto-centric layout?
To who? Some people living there might not like it, others do. What numeric value do you give as a negative to the people that don't like it? What numeric value do you give as a positive to the people that do? Do you include only people that reside there in your math or do you include all that pass through or derive an economic benefit from car traffic in the area?

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
How does that compare to the net benefit of other modes in layouts that are predominantly designed around that mode?
Do you intend to include the cost of running other modes to the locations of all those being surveyed or is that prospective cost not included at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
So, once again, I ask questions about the net value of private vehicle ownership. Is private car ownership financially superior for the individual?
Not so easily computed. Is owning (or having) a driveway only about the cost of the driveway? It costs money to put one in and to maintain it. Do you presume the value of having one meets or exceeds the cost or do you decide that driveways are a net negative value to the owner/user?

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I'm not saying cars are bad, far from it. What I've always said is that cars are a tool. As a tool, they are good at some things in some situations, but not at or in others. A hammer is an essential part of any tool kit, but it cannot be the only tool in that kit. You need wrenches and screwdrivers and saws and so on. And we need to look at private cars as one tool in a kit of tools.
Well it depends on what problem you are trying to solve, doesn't it? Why would you need a screwdriver and a saw to hammer a nail into a piece of wood? Why would you try to suggest to someone to stop using the hammer they are using and to start using a saw or a screwdriver to drive the nail into the wood? So what is the statement of the problem/issue? The author of the article is simply anti-car. Being anti-hammer and analyzing the cost of using other tools to drive in the nail doesn't mean a hammer isn't a perfectly good choice for driving the nail into the wood. The author isn't really interested in the task at hand (driving in the nail). Instead he is simply anti-car. The argument about what tool to use is pretext - it seems he wants you to pursue an altogether different task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2017, 02:57 PM
 
2,552 posts, read 2,449,817 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I'm not saying cars are bad, far from it. What I've always said is that cars are a tool. As a tool, they are good at some things in some situations, but not at or in others. A hammer is an essential part of any tool kit, but it cannot be the only tool in that kit. You need wrenches and screwdrivers and saws and so on. And we need to look at private cars as one tool in a kit of tools.
All modes of transportation have their place. When it comes to cars, cost is not the only factor to consider, we have 3 and they all have low miles, still well worth the cost to have them.

For many people yes, cars are a tool. For others like me, they are more than a tool.
Thank you.

My meaning was as a device used to accomplish some task, though I suppose I should have specified that broad definition of tool.

I, too, enjoy driving, but I don't enjoy commuting, and I am fortunate that I don't always have to commute by car. In keeping with my statement, there are tools that many purchase for personal hobbies. A person who enjoys woodwork is going to have at least several tools, some of which can be pricey. For these hobbyists, those are still tools, even as they are tools purchased as a matter of desire rather than necessity. Some of my past cars have been tools straddling necessity and hobby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2017, 07:58 PM
 
10,219 posts, read 19,114,648 times
Reputation: 10880
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
So, once again, I ask questions about the net value of private vehicle ownership.
You ask a lot of questions. But if the answers aren't what you'd like, you switch to different questions. Seems like you start from the answer and try to work backwards to develop a chain of reasoning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 12:25 AM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,966,589 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Nonetheless, a car comes with a basket of costs--tires, oil, gas, repairs, insurance, etc.--and any benefit that comes from private vehicle ownership has to overcome those costs.

When I ask if it is always financially superior for the individual, I ask that on net and in comparison to other modes in an equivalent context, on net. It is incomplete to just point to the benefits of private car ownership, and it is incomplete to point to the costs of other modes in a car-centric built form.

What net value does a car bring in an auto-centric layout? How does that compare to the net benefit of other modes in layouts that are predominantly designed around that mode?
Chicago was designed around the street car not the automobile and even without the freeway(which the el uses) the car is often faster than public transit.

People value their time and the non stop nature of the car made it faster than the street cars and busses that people rode in the 1920ies. This also made shopping and other tasks much easier or faster. You could also put items into the trunk and carry much more than you would be able to if you were limited to other forms of transit. This allowed you to combine trips(drop the husband off at work, drop off the stuff at the laundry, and pick up goceries).It allowed you to live father away from work where rent could be cheaper or other amenities available.

People value shelter. Cars protect from bad weather much better than public transit where you need to walk longer distances or wait outside for longer periods of time.

People value control of their eviroment. In a car you don't have to yeild your seat to the elderly, disabled or pregant person who happens to board the bus. You dont have to listin to someone else's singing, conversation or phone call. You can adjust the temperature and the radio however you like. You don't have to worry about not having a seat or some crazy person boarding.

This is why the older technology(Public Transit) lost to the newer technology(the car).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,259,082 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Chicago was designed around the street car not the automobile and even without the freeway(which the el uses) the car is often faster than public transit.

People value their time and the non stop nature of the car made it faster than the street cars and busses that people rode in the 1920ies. This also made shopping and other tasks much easier or faster. You could also put items into the trunk and carry much more than you would be able to if you were limited to other forms of transit. This allowed you to combine trips(drop the husband off at work, drop off the stuff at the laundry, and pick up goceries).It allowed you to live father away from work where rent could be cheaper or other amenities available.

People value shelter. Cars protect from bad weather much better than public transit where you need to walk longer distances or wait outside for longer periods of time.

People value control of their eviroment. In a car you don't have to yeild your seat to the elderly, disabled or pregant person who happens to board the bus. You dont have to listin to someone else's singing, conversation or phone call. You can adjust the temperature and the radio however you like. You don't have to worry about not having a seat or some crazy person boarding.

This is why the older technology(Public Transit) lost to the newer technology(the car).
^^This, especially the bold, and especially the blue! NONE of these other forms of transit are ever going to replace a private conveyance of some sort. Not Uber/Lyft, which seem to be so much more acceptable than cabs for some reason but really are just cabs in another form; not renting cars when you want to go out of town which requires planning, a trip (somehow) to get the car; not public transit of any kind which requires getting to the transit stop somehow in all kinds of weather, being on the transit company's schedule (which they don't always follow), and so on.

As for the closing statement, YES! It wasn't that people were taking PT and loving it, and only reluctantly gave it up for some inexplicable reason, or were forced to give it up because of the big, bad automobile, it's that cars are more convenient, for all those reasons and more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 09:14 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,204,802 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
^^This, especially the bold, and especially the blue! NONE of these other forms of transit are ever going to replace a private conveyance of some sort. Not Uber/Lyft, which seem to be so much more acceptable than cabs for some reason but really are just cabs in another form; not renting cars when you want to go out of town which requires planning, a trip (somehow) to get the car; not public transit of any kind which requires getting to the transit stop somehow in all kinds of weather, being on the transit company's schedule (which they don't always follow), and so on.
the above make sense for someone where the above benefits aren't very large to someone over a car. Uber / rentals don't make sense if you're using them all the time. How much people use cars and how much advantage they greatly depends on the place and built layout.

As I said, the weather is not an advantage to some (like me), not being out means you feel trapped inside more. I don't go outside much winter everyday (at least not everyday), after everyday of home -> car -> work I was getting frustrated and just annoyed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,259,082 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
the above make sense for someone where the above benefits aren't very large to someone over a car. Uber / rentals don't make sense if you're using them all the time. How much people use cars and how much advantage they greatly depends on the place and built layout.

As I said, the weather is not an advantage to some (like me), not being out means you feel trapped inside more. I don't go outside much winter everyday (at least not everyday), after everyday of home -> car -> work I was getting frustrated and just annoyed.
It's your time more than anything else that makes cars popular. Time and convenience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 09:28 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,204,802 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
It's your time more than anything else that makes cars popular. Time and convenience.
I agree about time. Few will choose transit if takes twice as long. 20% longer? Maybe. [I'd rather slightly longer if I can read a book or even my phone].
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 11:20 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,419,241 times
Reputation: 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
the above make sense for someone where the above benefits aren't very large to someone over a car. Uber / rentals don't make sense if you're using them all the time. How much people use cars and how much advantage they greatly depends on the place and built layout.

As I said, the weather is not an advantage to some (like me), not being out means you feel trapped inside more. I don't go outside much winter everyday (at least not everyday), after everyday of home -> car -> work I was getting frustrated and just annoyed.
Given that example how are you trapped inside less with either
home -> transit -> work or
home -> car -> transit -> work?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top