Stats that show the Atlanta Streetcar was a complete and utter failure of epic proportion (Avera: quality of life, store)

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by arjay57

And think of their tremendous savings in time and convenience! And what about all the increased opportunities they'll have! That'll give them a genuine opportunity to get ahead in the world.

And what about their sense of pride and self-sufficiency? That can make a world of difference!

Your condesending attitude towards mass transit as inferior to the automobile is pathetic.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by MattCW

You're joking right? Atlanta, Georgia is anything but easy to zip around except the middle of the night, and the rail and bus coverage is hardly extensive, and not at all complementary.

I rarely encounter a problem, Matt. However, I stay mostly within about 7 miles of home.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Your condesending attitude towards mass transit as inferior to the automobile is pathetic.

I don't think I'm being condescending, Gulch -- and if so I certainly don't mean to be.

Sure there are riders who take mass transit by choice. It may be handier for your particular destination. Some people consider it "greener" than driving. Or maybe someone would rather play Angry Birds or read a book. Maybe you're planning on drinking and don't want to get behind the wheel. So there are plenty of reasons people may choose transit. I use it myself when it makes sense.

However, the claim was that streetcars will address income inequality. I just don't see that.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I don't think I'm being condescending, Gulch -- and if so I certainly don't mean to be.

Sure there are riders who take mass transit by choice. It may be handier for your particular destination. Some people consider it "greener" than driving. Or maybe someone would rather play Angry Birds or read a book. Maybe you're planning on drinking and don't want to get behind the wheel. So there are plenty of reasons people may choose transit. I use it myself when it makes sense.

However, the claim was that streetcars will address income inequality. I just don't see that.

Mobility and choice of mobility is a factor in addressing income inequality. Streetcars are an aspect of that, as part of a larger network.

No amount of bootstrapping is going to do any good if you can't get to a job, or a school, or out of your neighborhood in a timely manner. Not everyone can afford to have a car, and not everyone can have a car. Then there are those who could choose to simply not have a car, even if they could afford it, because it frees up finances and time to do other things, like read, do homework, study, learn, work, etc.

Try to understand that it's all part of the bigger picture. No streetcars in a vacuum might not help much, but if they open up X number of job opportunities when combined with buses and heavy rail, and even commuter rail, then that helps.

No streetcars in a vacuum might not help much, but if they open up Y amount of free time over driving, then a person might just be able to pull off night classes to improve their education level for better jobs.

Yea just buying cars for 45,000 households might get them a bit of relief, but what about the future inhabitants? Do you just keep buying people cars? What about the local air-quality, financial burden, and lack of dense development of adding 45,000 cars to the city streets? That's an opportunity cost that might loose millions in appreciated property taxes and upward mobility.

There's far more at play here than the limited picture you seem to paint.

[John Williams]

Originally Posted by stockwiz

As far as the posts about wanting the streetcar mainly because it sounds more "sexy" than saying that we have "busses" well that's just silly. Busses are more economically viable, in my opinion. They are not limited by any specific route and have a much larger radius. They use the existing road structure not to mention being time tested.

A lot of transit opponents wonder why cities couldn't just stick with buses, because that means 1)there's no new infrastructure to worry about building or funding and 2)it doesn't take away from road funding like they'd perceive light/heavy rail to do. BRT is commonly brought up, but it's never done properly in the U.S. Once those folks realize how BRT is supposed to be designed and built, all the enthusiasm they've had for it goes out the window.

Buses share the same crowded road networks as other automotive traffic. Unless you're willing to sacrifice lanes or even entire stretches of road for buses, they're not gonna be much good at solving congestion or commute time issues. At some point, you're gonna need a rail network that can move people to and from popular destinations within the city and beyond, whether it be a light rail or heavy rail solution.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Oh, come on, cq. Those numbers are way beyond what poor folks would experience if we gave them a new car.

Depreciation of $3654 a year? Nope, not if the car was a freebie.
Finance charges of $569? Not if you're given the car free and clear.
Maintenance and tires at $900 a year? All that should be covered by warranty.
Registration and taxes of $665 a year?

So you've already knocked out 2/3 of that $9,000 number.

Sure, they'll have to pay for some gas and insurance but if they're taking MARTA they're already spending at least $5 a day.

And think of their tremendous savings in time and convenience! And what about all the increased opportunities they'll have! That'll give them a genuine opportunity to get ahead in the world.

And what about their sense of pride and self-sufficiency? That can make a world of difference!

Between you and AAA, i'll take AAA numbers as they are a respectful organization that has done research, not some guy sitting behind a keyboard pulling numbers out his butt. Understand this is a national average, so costs will be above and below.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by John Williams

A lot of transit opponents wonder why cities couldn't just stick with buses, because that means 1)there's no new infrastructure to worry about building or funding and 2)it doesn't take away from road funding like they'd perceive light/heavy rail to do. BRT is commonly brought up, but it's never done properly in the U.S. Once those folks realize how BRT is supposed to be designed and built, all the enthusiasm they've had for it goes out the window.

Buses share the same crowded road networks as other automotive traffic. Unless you're willing to sacrifice lanes or even entire stretches of road for buses, they're not gonna be much good at solving congestion or commute time issues. At some point, you're gonna need a rail network that can move people to and from popular destinations within the city and beyond, whether it be a light rail or heavy rail solution.

There are a few good examples of BRT in the US; Cleveland's HealthLine and LA's Orange Line are seen as successful.

[BR Valentine]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Between you and AAA, i'll take AAA numbers as they are a respectful organization that has done research, not some guy sitting behind a keyboard pulling numbers out his butt. Understand this is a national average, so costs will be above and below.

From the AAA website regarding their calculations: "Ownership costs are calculated based on the purchase of a new vehicle that is driven over five years and 75,000 miles. Your actual operating costs may vary. See AAA’s 2015 Your Driving Costs brochure for a list of vehicles and additional information on the underlying criteria used in the study."

The figure that's being quoted in this thread is entirely dependent on AAA's assumptions in their methodology which they acknowledge. The average vehicle on US roads is 11.4 years old. So owning a car may be more expensive than using transit, but the actual difference in cost is extremely variable. None of this means that transit shouldn't be built, but transit advocates don't help their cause when they insist on looking for the most exaggerated comparisons possible.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Between you and AAA, i'll take AAA numbers as they are a respectful organization that has done research, not some guy sitting behind a keyboard pulling numbers out his butt. Understand this is a national average, so costs will be above and below.

You can call it what you want, cq, but it's nonsense to claim depreciation and finance charges as a "cost of ownership" on a vehicle that was given to you as a freebie. Likewise with someone spending $900 a year for maintenance on a vehicle under warranty and $700 in taxes that don't exist.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

You can call it what you want, cq, but it's nonsense to claim depreciation and finance charges as a "cost of ownership" on a vehicle that was given to you as a freebie. Likewise with someone spending $900 a year for maintenance on a vehicle under warranty and $700 in taxes that don't exist.

IT'S A NATIONAL AVERAGE?!
Also, how many lower income people are going to be able to afford a brand new car with a warranty? Most buy used from a dealer or consumer-to-consumer.