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.
Road capacity goes up by a factor of EIGHT. We are pretty much done expanding capacity of the road system.
Make self-driving cars like taxi's that you can call with your smart phone. Now let the car pick up people heading in the same direction. Pretty soon you have a point to point mass transit system that is very efficient. These will be smaller and much more fuel efficient than the "personal" vehicles. If it helps...think of self-driving pods instead of cars.
My prediction is that urban people will end up with one car that is theirs and used for long trips or weekends. The remainder of the trips will be done on "communal" cars that are essentially rented for the trip.
Self-driving cars are not like regular cars....for one thing they get rid of the worst part of a car....the human driver.
There is a revolution coming in personal transportation. We need to focus on solutions for the future that don't look at obsolete "solutions".
one of the less talked about points on self driving cars is, if and when we eventually get to the point where 100% of cars are self driving, you can greatly reduce the weight of a car. a good portion of the weight is made up of the various safety features that we would, in theory, no longer need. coupled with the fact that cars would move in tight packs, increasing their efficiency because of reduced drag, cars would be using substantially less energy. who knows how far away that is, but it basically becomes a new "public transportation" system. and if cars are self driving, i'm not even sure i'd see the point of having a car at home. couldn't you envision "ordering" a car to your house to drive you to the shore for the weekend, and then "ordering" it when you're ready to go home?
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.
your statements assume our economy doesn't adapt. i'm sure CDs prevented people from having to replace cassette tapes that broke or got tangled. so CDs helped depress economic activity? MP3s mean we now never have to replace a CD that gets scratched. So did MP3s depress economic activity (aside from piracy, which existed before MP3s existed)? Our economy evolves constantly.
if our economy relies upon having crap that needs to be replaced frequently (planned obsolescence), then we should probably rethink our economy. If we don't have to spend money on new tires, oil changes, and brakes, we'll be able to spend that money on golfing, a gym membership, or eating out more frequently.
Who cares if the glue makers are out of work? the companies that make all the ingredients for the homemade glue would be hiring!
funny how you call them productive jobs when they only exist due to wasteful spending.
I'm happy that i'm putting some plastic bag manufacturers out of business by using a reuseable bag. silly me, killing the economy.
You may think so if you please. A large number of your fellow taxpayers do not agree with you.
The large number of taxpayers don't know what the hell they are talking about. They are irrationally greedy. If you want to cut taxes, there has to be a cut in services (of which the same complainers use on the daily).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
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).
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.
Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy. Economy is stimulated by demand. Tax cuts do not cause demand, because they are targetted at the top 10%, who already contribute virtually nothing to the demand of the macroeconomy. If you want to talk economics, we can do so in the proper thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
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.
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.
So your response to my comparison of New York and Florida is to compare New York to Colorado and California?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
And since household car ownership is over 90%, the vast majority of those general income taxes are coming from drivers and riders. You can play games about which pocket it's coming from but it's almost entirely coming from the pockets of the users. So if you're point is that auto users are paying half from their left pocket in the form of fuel taxes and half from their right pocket in the form of general taxes, then yeah I guess drivers are subsiding drivers.
And while transit riders cover 35-45% of *operating costs* from fares, they pay none of the capital contruction costs. That comes from general taxes, again which 90% of those households are automobile users while less than 15% are transit users.
Once again, you post no evidence.
Users are only paying 50% of driving costs, and the rest are being subsidized by general income taxes.
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.
but this assumes that if we didn't spend our money on glue, we would have kept it in a savings account. i just don't see that as being the case. we find a way to spend our dollars, whether it's on a hershey bar, glue, or a beer. it'll be spent on something.
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.
do you have actual numbers fo SF's transit budget and what % comes from user fees, and where the rest is coming from? I am having a very hard time believing your claim that transit riders are subsidized 80%.
what's the ridership numbers for SF? and what would be the lost productivity $ if all of those people suddenly appeared on the roads, making everyone's commutes longer?
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?
in fairness to florida, it could be partly due to being full of old retired people who can't go too far on that new hip.
I don't sit in gridlock, because I work an overnight shift. But the only decent job opportunity I have Is about 75 miles from my home; so I rent part of my house out, rent quarters near the job, and commute weekly. Both my permanent residence and place of employment are in predominately rural areas, with limited bus and no rail passenger service. Without a car, I'd still be a $9/Hr. galley slave in the call center that's the only alternative "back home" at present.
Millions of American workers hold employment patterns somewhere outside the 8-to-5 pattern, and many of us like it that way. Forced use of public transit where I currently work (a fast-paced distribution center) would be viewed as just one more method by which your life is micro-managed and scripted by someone else.
Public or privatized, Big Brother/Sister is getting a little too big for his/her britches.
You chose where your permanent residence is. That was simply a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
do people think someone who drives 20,000 miles/yr should pay the same as someone who drives 5,000?
paving a road in rural kansas doesn't cost as much as adding the 2nd avenue subway line, even though both will probably cover about the same distance. so of course transit is a sizeable chunk of the spending.
lots of people in the NY metro area choose public transit over driving. it's certainly a choice for many people. i loved being car free when i lived near NYC and worked in NYC. now I drive because I have to. i don't have a choice.
Yes you do. You chose your place of residence. I have nothing against driving. I'm against subsidizing driving of personal vehicles (subsidizing trucking / commerce is a different story).
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
I called it coercion because the guy to whom I was replying called it that. He was referring to discouraging automobile use through penalizing taxation. He was proposing this as if it were a good idea (to some it is, to some it is not).
When a gas tax is used solely for the purpose of maintaining, upgrading, etc, the existing roadways, and does not get used for any other purposes, a majority of voters can be expected to agree to raising that tax when it is deemed to be insufficient.
It currently is not funding people's use of the system and is siphoning off other funds.
I am all for coercian of automobile use mainly due to greenhouse emissions. If we move to electric cars, you will get no objection from me in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
A friend of mine at work was just raving about how the AZ gas tax money has been appropriated to keep DPS funded for the last couple years though. Resistance to raising gas taxes is justified to many when the money is borrowed in this sort of underhanded way, or when it is openly borrowed to fund things they would not themselves agree to funding - like MT projects that seem dubious to them.
Many MT projects out here in the west are met with a great deal of skepticism by the everyday voter, because they have a good feel for the logistical problems of our very spread out cities. Those MT projects often will fail if they are put up for an up or down vote for independent funding - so gas taxes get co-opted.
I understand and agree with that to an extent, as I have traveled out west extensively. However, once again... my issue is with the smog problems they have out west.. which are casued by...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1
bradykp--
Transit gobbles up 20% of the transportation funding but only accounts for 2-3% of the total commutes and passenger-miles... the money would generate a far better return on investment in 90% of situations if you upgraded the roads. Outside of NYC/Bay Area, transit is generally a poor return on investment.
I've had multiple people reference the poor state of transit in my own town (Dayton, OH). And I can say that it's an even bigger liability here. Montgomery County taxpayers shoulder something like 83% of the burden of supporting RTA here (via a countywide sales tax levy), fares are another 12%, and federal money covers the rest. Fares never even come close, in any jurisdiction, to paying for the true cost of transit.
***
And driving currently is a poor return on investment by the same token.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1
With a few exceptions (NYC, SF Bay Area), cities are still becoming more decentralized. Growth and renewal in the urban core gets all the headlines but even "new" cities like Charlotte, Columbus, and Atlanta are more spread out than ever... the greatest growth in Columbus isn't in the city center but is instead in Delaware County some twenty miles to the north... the center of suburbia if there ever was one. And Atlanta is notorious for the suburban growth ringing the city.
I missed the memo where it Atlanta and Charlotte being completely shut down from a snowstorm on the highways was a good thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1
While the majority of the US lives in a "metro area", remember that metro area is extremely broadly defined... and often extends far beyond any urbanized or built up area... thus, far beyond the feasible range of transit.
I should clarify that I believe there's a time and a place for transit... but the amount of money transit gobbles up is obscene compared to the return on investment we're currently getting. Because of that, it simply doesn't make economic sense in most areas except as a safety net for those who can't afford cars.
But it irritates me when transit advocates keep telling me there's a shortage in the highway trust fund... it's because the same transit folks dip in there to fund their projects.
Transit doesn't pollute the environment like subsidizing personal auto-polluters. Also, that is the problem with transit. Regardless of the cost, transit needs to be made a priority in the 21st century if we are to decrease our emissions and move to a cleaner, more sustainable future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
Yes he said that, even before the coercion comment. My response was specifically responding to the coercion point. Genuinely good ideas usually do not require coercion. Which choices are the "smarter transportation choices" depend an awful lot on preference, location, type of employment, etc. People generally come up with the smartest solution for their own circumstances when they need to do so and are free to do so.
Yes, I absolutely advocate for coercion. I am not naive.
Do you voluntarily pay taxes? Would you do so otherwise?
Preference is not relevant; sustainability is. "Freedom" is not an excuse for tragedy of the commons, in my view.
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.
i agree that it won't fit Boston and Phoenix the same exact way, but part of it is the chicken or egg argument. NYC is NYC in large part because of the MTA system that's in place, coupled with Metro-North and LIRR and NJ Transit. You simply couldn't have the population of people working in NYC without having had that infrastructure. So, while a city like Phoenix may not be dense enough today, the point is, if you build the network, then people will likely start migrating to the areas around the train stops that head into the "city center" where the jobs are. then you build "downtown" around those train stations (pharmacy, boutique stores, grocery store, coffee shop, etc). it wouldn't happen overnight, but neither did NYC.
You may think so if you please. A large number of your fellow taxpayers do not agree with you.
the thing is, a large number of those taxpayers who want taxes reduced clam their lips up when you ask them what spending should be reduced. because the reality is, they want to pay lower taxes but get the same level of service. which i'm not saying is impossible, there's certainly waste out there to eliminate, but it's not the numbers that people would like to believe. even if you wanted to assume that 10% of our spending is just pure wasted money, you're still not making a huge dent in what we'd have to collect for tax revenue.
$1.5 billion in tolls, operating expenses of $400 million. Even after servicing debt, they collect more than $500 million more in revenue.
any chance you've looked up some of the projects the MTA currently is planning to tackle in the next 10-20 years? that revenue they are collecting is going to be going towards numerous projects (like the Second Ave Subway project currently underway).
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.
