Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 03-26-2014, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,741,222 times
Reputation: 28561

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
This is exactly the misunderstanding I'm talking about. You're thinking that a person either owns a car or uses mass transit exclusively. That makes no sense. Generally, except in well designed developments and urban neighborhoods, you need a car for trips to shops, to visit your friends, etc. Most people live in suburbs so the car is not going away.

The best use of rail is for commuting. Every day a huge number of Americans go from the suburbs to the urban cores, and then back out again in the evening. No one enjoys sitting in a car in gridlock, aside from a few crazy Libertarians. It's a HUGE waste of energy and time, and a huge source of pollution. With park & ride trains, you can commute cheaply and quickly, and save your car for recreational driving and errands.
I think many people can be multimodal. But I also think that trips to the store, dinner, movies, etc could also be served by not using your car. Depending on if you have a smart neighborhood design. You should be able to get to school, shopping, the doctor etc on foot or via a bike. That should also be a viable option.

So you can use your car for the trips where it makes the most sense.

I drive to work. I take transit to shop sometimes. And for some errands. I use my bike for other trips and other errands. I drive to some errands as well. In an average week, I use all modes.

Sometimes my bike is faster, adding in the parking time. Other times the bus is faster than driving (factoring in parking time). There are other times where the bus is infrequent or ends early so it makes more sense to drive. But I am an advocate for choice, and most of our urban design doesn't offer the average resident any.

Transit doesn't work in very low density places, but we can build some higher density places, even in suburbs. Setting aside a few blocks for denser mixed use development for living, working and shopping is good for everyone. It creates a town center. Preferably connected with commuter rail. Even without that connection, many people would be able to make their trips on foot. Or park once and walk around to do everything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,741,222 times
Reputation: 28561
Interesting article about planning for the new tech enabled pedestrians:
http://www.govtech.com/local/Smart-C...f-Walking.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:11 PM
 
2,957 posts, read 5,876,140 times
Reputation: 2286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
In most parts of the country, driving is the only way. You are not going to get people to accept high gas tax.

Not to mention that high gas tax hurts the poor the most as they live way out. Transit is lousy in most cities. Around transit lines, new luxury condos emerge. Progressive politics is too costly to the poor.

Without a good transit system, people will have to pay more for gas and keep driving. Improving transit systems might work better. We are a long way from that kind of transit system. Given the ridership, transit funding is too much.
Transit is lousy in most cities, but aren't the poor actually in the cities, while the wealthy people live in the burbs?

Also, there should be a designation as to the types of transit. The local city bus serves a different population compared to the commuter trains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:13 PM
 
Location: The analog world
17,077 posts, read 13,285,651 times
Reputation: 22904
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
And this is a crucial point! Private motor-vehicles have a stimulative effect on the economy, far beyond road-construction and car dealerships and the various other direct costs of automobiles. Another example is owner-occupied housing. People who own houses spend a lot more money on maintenance, furniture, appliances, lawn care and the like, than do the apartment-renters. Government subsidizes house ownership, and society extols house ownership, in large measure because this stimulates economic activity. One or another individual, depending on circumstances, might be better off by renting an apartment, or taking the subway instead of driving. But if we all do this, economic activity would collapse.

The home-made glue might be less expensive than the store-bought glue. It might have lower environmental impact. It might even be of higher quality. For any given individual, it might be the superior solution. But not in the aggregate! In the aggregate, if enough people make their own glue, then the professional glue-makers would be out of work, the glue-store would shut down, the guys driving glue delivery trucks would be out of work, the customs inspectors checking the imported glue would have nothing to do, the people cleaning up environmental damage from discarded glue would be unoccupied, the lawyers suing for glue-related poisonings would have nothing to litigate.

Simply put, wasteful spending is necessary to support productive jobs. Cars and the car-culture might be wasteful, but they are essential to keep the modern lifestyle humming. The LESS we waste, the lower our consequent standard of living.
OhioPeasant understood what I was trying to say. I believe that in part it's the ubiquity of private vehicles that convinces us that it's more efficient to run to the store and buy a bottle of Elmer's than to pull flour, cornstarch, & vinegar out of the pantry and spend a few minutes making a similarly effective white glue in one's own kitchen. The ease of driving to the taqueria makes it hard to resist heading out for a burrito when we really should be eating what's in the fridge. (Been there, done that!) All the extra purchasing multiplied by millions of people stimulates the economy, and we have cars to thank for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:15 PM
MJ7
 
6,221 posts, read 10,694,901 times
Reputation: 6606
Will never happen, just because people don't use transit doesn't mean they all live in the city and/or have access to transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,679 posts, read 24,861,050 times
Reputation: 18926
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
A surface road doesn't cost that much but a highway does. These are what are relevant-- the highways that commuters use to get from home to work every day, the ones that are clogged with gridlock traffic. A lot of people seem to have a misunderstanding of where trains are most necessary and therefore how they can benefit working people.
Yeah, FHWA only collects about 70% in gas tax revenue of what it spends on highways. At a federal level, that's a problem. The 18 cent federal gas tax should be increased to about 25-26 cents a gallon from 18. Combined with stopping siphoning off money to fund the Mass Transit account and deficit reduction and the problem would be solved. It's not really a problem at all. It just requires the Congress to do something and they're incapable of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,679 posts, read 24,861,050 times
Reputation: 18926
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs View Post
No, they don't. Drivers pay roughly have the cost of driving, which is less than Amtrak (which covers 85%). I'm not entirely sure of the level of subsidy transit authorities receive, so I will look into that. Mass transit is far more efficient than driving, however.

Remember, driving costs in maintenance (50% is very poor), health costs (pollution and lack of exercise), noise / air pollution, and lack of worker productivity.



Agreed. I don't think their should be surcharges, but I don't agree with subsidizing driving.



How would reducing taxes bridge our infrastructure funding gap?
Amtrak isn't all of rail. When was the last time you took Amtrak to buy a gallon of milk? Or go to your job? Probably never. There's a few people that commute on Amtrak regularly, but very few. The times I've taken Amtrak, I never exercised either. You could take the time you saved driving instead of taking transit and spend it in a gym, walking the dogs, riding a bicycle, or sitting in front of your TV eating Cheetos. That's a personal choice. Transit doesn't involve exercise either. I take BART into San Francisco most of the time. Walking a few blocks isn't exercise. It's not any farther than I often have to walk from the parking garage when I have to drive.

Reducing taxes would bridge our infrastructure gap quite handily since driver fees (gas taxes, vehicle taxes, tolls, and parking) would be doubled to fully fund infrastructure. Maybe you forgot about that part of my post due to a poor attention span? Also since transit riders would be paying their freight instead of receiving massive subsidies to the tune of 80% of cost in most of the country, you'd need much less tax revenue. Just take San Francisco, if we use round numbers and call it an $800 million budget, $640 million is subsidized by the taxpayer. That's $640 million less in tax revenue that needs to be collected. Alternatively you could take $220 million of that and pain some pavement and change the traffic lights like Muni wants to do on Geary for BRT and still cut taxes by $420 million. Or not cut taxes at all and just not take out billions of dollars in bonds they are planning on using to extend the central subway. Assuming, of course, that's actually any demand to extend the subway which is dubious if you take away the 80% subsidy.

Last edited by Malloric; 03-26-2014 at 03:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 03:37 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,377,048 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Yeah, FHWA only collects about 70% in gas tax revenue of what it spends on highways. At a federal level, that's a problem. The 18 cent federal gas tax should be increased to about 25-26 cents a gallon from 18. Combined with stopping siphoning off money to fund the Mass Transit account and deficit reduction and the problem would be solved. It's not really a problem at all. It just requires the Congress to do something and they're incapable of that.
The gas taxes need to be increased a lot more than that. State and Federal funding is only covering half of road costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Amtrak isn't all of rail. When was the last time you took Amtrak to buy a gallon of milk? Or go to your job? Probably never. There's a few people that commute on Amtrak regularly, but very few. The times I've taken Amtrak, I never exercised either. You could take the time you saved driving instead of taking transit and spend it in a gym, walking the dogs, riding a bicycle, or sitting in front of your TV eating Cheetos. That's a personal choice. Transit doesn't involve exercise either. I take BART into San Francisco most of the time. Walking a few blocks isn't exercise. It's not any farther than I often have to walk from the parking garage when I have to drive.

Reducing taxes would bridge our infrastructure gap quite handily since driver fees (gas taxes, vehicle taxes, tolls, and parking) would be doubled to fully fund infrastructure. Maybe you forgot about that part of my post due to a poor attention span?
Reducing taxes is unacceptable. We have decreased the national deficit due to closing loopholes and allowing tax cuts to expire. Tax cuts are detrimental to the economy.

Alternative transportation is far more exercise than driving. Most people who use it either walk to work, ride their bicycles, or have to walk several blocks in each direction just to get to a bus / train station. How about you test it out on a pedometer?

New York is consistently rated in the least obese states in the United States (top 10), despite hellish winter. New York has lower rates of obesity than Florida. Given the huge climate difference, why do you think New York consistently scores higher than Florida in this category? Could it be the walkaholic lifestyle of NYC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,679 posts, read 24,861,050 times
Reputation: 18926
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs View Post
The gas taxes need to be increased a lot more than that. State and Federal funding is only covering half of road costs.
Yes, which is why I said double what it currently is. It's right now a weighted average of 50 cents per gallon in the US. If that covers half of costs on average for the US, double the gas tax to $1/gallon. The federal component doesn't need to be increased to more than 25-26 cents to fully fund the federal component, combined with eliminating the Mass Transit account (which is funded with federal gas taxes) and deficit reduction (funded with federal gas taxes).

Quote:
Reducing taxes is unacceptable. We have decreased the national deficit due to closing loopholes and allowing tax cuts to expire. Tax cuts are detrimental to the economy.
That's contrary to what every economist in the country says. If you want to pick daisies with odd theories far out in left field, so be it. You just have no credibility behind your position. Deficit can be addressed by cutting spending. In the long-term spending needs to be cut and taxes probably need to be raised. Spending more money subsidizing transit works in the opposite direction.

Quote:
Alternative transportation is far more exercise than driving. Most people who use it either walk to work, ride their bicycles, or have to walk several blocks in each direction just to get to a bus / train station. How about you test it out on a pedometer?
I suppose it depends upon what you consider to be exercise. From a health perspective, it's 150 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise a week. Walking a few blocks for me is 0 minutes of moderate exercise. My heart rate doesn't get up high enough walking to quantify. If you're 300+ pounds and get winded walking from the couch to the fridge, maybe walking is even vigorous exercise for you. I don't know. All I know is walking a few blocks from BART is not exercise for me and can only assume it is for you since you consider it exercise.
Quote:
New York is consistently rated in the least obese states in the United States (top 10), despite hellish winter. New York has lower rates of obesity than Florida. Given the huge climate difference, why do you think New York consistently scores higher than Florida in this category? Could it be the walkaholic lifestyle of NYC?
Not likely.

I'm pretty sure that people in Colorado don't do as much walking from transit stops as people in NYC. What they do do is eat well and exercise. Affluent states have lower obesity. Affluent parts of affluent states have even lower obesity. Obesity rate in Marin County, CA, is 16.8%. NYC Metro has a higher obesity rate than San Jose Metro, Orange County (Irvine) metro, Reno, San Francisco, Denver, Fort Collins, Bethesda. West Chester County, NY, has the lowest obesity rate in the NY Metro.
Obesity Rates for States, Metro Areas
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...ry-westchester

Affluent areas tend to be less obese, although there's also cultural reasons. Colorado really isn't all that affluent and has the lowest obesity rate in the country. Also they don't take a lot of transit in Colorado, certainly not compared to NY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 04:29 PM
 
1,152 posts, read 1,271,866 times
Reputation: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
This is exactly the misunderstanding I'm talking about. You're thinking that a person either owns a car or uses mass transit exclusively. That makes no sense. Generally, except in well designed developments and urban neighborhoods, you need a car for trips to shops, to visit your friends, etc. Most people live in suburbs so the car is not going away.
Actually, I was replying to the very specific point, made by a non-driver, that non-drivers have a duty to resist the further expansion of our road network. Those remarks should not be taken as a broader argument, since they are not.

For the most part, people in western cities drive everywhere, and a few take the bus to places where parking is a real problem - Universities and downtown areas.

Out here mass transit just doesn't work that well beyond city bus lines. Even urban areas are not dense enough for it to work well. Usually there is a small downtown district with traditional tall buildings, but 90% of the cities are made up of single story shopping centers and a few multistory buildings. Most have huge parking lots

As I said before, I expect a New Yorker, Philadelphian, or Bostonian to have a different view of it than do I. But they must understand as well that there are huge areas of the country where these MT schemes simply will not work. There is no central planning solution that fits both Boston and Phoenix, or New York and Las Vegas.
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 > Economics

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