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.
Folks who want to utilize public transit for their daily activities can readily do so.
Folks who want to use their private automobiles for their daily activities can also do so.
The overwhelming majority of decisions as it relates to buying homes and vehicles are made by females, and since extremely few of our 100 largest cities have excellent public schools, the so-called 'soccer moms' will choose to live in the suburbs as well as the vehicles which best suit the needs of their families.
As demographer Joel Kotkin pointed out recently in the Orange County Register as well as on his website at Newgeography.com | Economic, demographic, and political commentary about places, many cities which have spent billions of dollars for light rail systems, including Portland, DFW, Atlanta, Raleigh, Phoenix and many other cities are losing $$$$ by the ton on those systems because of abysmal ridership levels, much to the consternation of the urban planning blockheads who insist that they'll be packed as well as beneficial to the cities in which they're located.
How the heck is a soccer mom supposed to take Jeremy to soccer practice and Jessica to her piano class?
If you want stump any urban planner out there, throw those questions at them, and wait for an answer.
Exactly! The private vehicle is the private sector's, and the responsible individual's answer to the arrogance and pig-headedness of those who think they alone know what's best for us. That's precisely why the power-hungry seek to limit it.
How the heck is a soccer mom supposed to take Jeremy to soccer practice and Jessica to her piano class?
The assumption, presumably, is that (1) the family lives near a metro station, and (2) once Jeremy and Jessica reach age 13 or so, they ride the metro after school - alone - to their various evening activities; and then ride the metro back home - also alone - in time for dinner. This tends to work well in Moscow, Stockholm and Berlin. Maybe NYC. It does not work in rural (or suburban) Ohio.
Everything will change with self driving cars. It will be the end of mass transit.
I suspect given that legislatures can pass the appropriate laws self driving cars within five years will represent at least 25% of cars on the road. Ten years after that most urban areas will be self-driving auto's ONLY due to congestion caused by human drivers.
About that time you will see solutions to commuting with self-driving cars and mass transit systems will in most cases be removed just like trolley lines in the 1950's. I suspect a few VERY high density cities will keep mass transit systems
Folks who want to utilize public transit for their daily activities can readily do so.
Folks who want to use their private automobiles for their daily activities can also do so.
The overwhelming majority of decisions as it relates to buying homes and vehicles are made by females, and since extremely few of our 100 largest cities have excellent public schools, the so-called 'soccer moms' will choose to live in the suburbs as well as the vehicles which best suit the needs of their families.
As demographer Joel Kotkin pointed out recently in the Orange County Register as well as on his website at Newgeography.com | Economic, demographic, and political commentary about places, many cities which have spent billions of dollars for light rail systems, including Portland, DFW, Atlanta, Raleigh, Phoenix and many other cities are losing $$$$ by the ton on those systems because of abysmal ridership levels, much to the consternation of the urban planning blockheads who insist that they'll be packed as well as beneficial to the cities in which they're located.
How the heck is a soccer mom supposed to take Jeremy to soccer practice and Jessica to her piano class?
If you want stump any urban planner out there, throw those questions at them, and wait for an answer.
There are a couple of problems with this statement here. One, it assumes that everyone is advocating Jane the soccer mom should never drive her car. It also assumes the population of Jane Soccer Mom's is increasing. That 2 kids and a dog lifestyle is on the decline for a variety of reasons. The proportions of child free adults is increasing steadily, but our development assumes that everyone wants or needs that lifestyle.
I also tend to lump all non-car based transportation in the same bucket (walking and biking). We could plan our neighborhoods in a way, that Jan and Joe soccer parents could actually accomplish most of the stuff they need to do in a 2 mile radius. If that was the case, even if a place had limited transit, it would be entirely feasible for people to not use their cars for those basic needs. And little Johnny and Susy could transport themselves when they get old enough.
The problem is, we develop in such a way, the only way to get around, even for short distances, is in a car. And that is the problem. Which fuses extra congestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
Mass transit as we know it is dead.
Everything will change with self driving cars. It will be the end of mass transit.
I suspect given that legislatures can pass the appropriate laws self driving cars within five years will represent at least 25% of cars on the road. Ten years after that most urban areas will be self-driving auto's ONLY due to congestion caused by human drivers.
About that time you will see solutions to commuting with self-driving cars and mass transit systems will in most cases be removed just like trolley lines in the 1950's. I suspect a few VERY high density cities will keep mass transit systems
Self driving cars are not the savior of the universe. They still have the same problem as regular cars, they require lots of road space and assume people are traveling alone in single occupancy vehicles. If everyone switched to a self driving car, and had one of their own, there will still be road and parking issues. Now there is some potential to reduce the number of cars required, if the self-driving car could be combined with the idea of car-sharing, but this isn't exactly going to revolutionize congestion and traffic. There needs to be a way to move lots of people quickly to specific destinations.
I call it persons' free choice to drive or not. They still enjoy the fruits of those highways - quite literally if they enjoy purchasing fresh fruit in January. How do you think your produce gets to the market? Elves?
Prosopis, apologies in advance if you genuinely have never considered the plight of people who cannot drive. But this is an opportunity to educate yourself. If you have eyesight below 20/40 (+/- depending on the state), or epilepsy, or a couple of other physical problems, you can never operate an automobile. It's not a "free choice".
How produce is shipped to markets has nothing to do with private automobile ownership. The near-impossiblity of buying food that has not touched a vehicle at some point only speaks to the total dominance of the automobile in today's society.
Quote:
Similarly, I have no children, and never plan to have children. Yet I do not begrudge my tax dollars going to education of others' children, any more than non-drivers should begrudge some of their tax dollars going to an efficient roads system.
If you were legally banned from having children because of something you were born with, I suspect that you would feel differently about these taxes.
Non-drivers have every right, indeed a duty to oppose the very existence of an efficient road system along with their tax dollars paying for it. Every advance in the road system means more places where they cannot live and more employers who won't hire them.
Quote:
How self centered!
Forgetting, or ignoring, that some people in the world are denied the privileges that you take for granted -- and have constructed an entire society around -- would be the very definition of "self centered".
Last edited by Schermerhorn; 03-26-2014 at 10:25 AM..
Reason: removed extraneous quote tag
The problem is, we develop in such a way, the only way to get around, even for short distances, is in a car. And that is the problem. Which fuses extra congestion.
No, it's a problem for you. Most people don't have a problem with it. Objectively, it isn't a problem. The marginal cost of driving a short distance (like two miles to the grocery store for a typical suburbanite) is very, very low. Cheaper than the cost of the fare which is 80% subsidized. Cars are more energy efficient and cheaper to operate than buses per passenger mile. There is a societal benefit to people taking cars instead of buses in that more people riding buses encourage more buses. Buses are more expensive and more energy intensive than cars. It doesn't have to be this way, but that's how transit in America operates. It's massively over-funded for the level of demand there is. The demand is very low because it frankly sucks since the focus is minimum levels of service rather than transportation. If you focused it, as other countries do, on routes where there was demand ridership would be higher and it would cost less.
Quote:
Self driving cars are not the savior of the universe. They still have the same problem as regular cars, they require lots of road space and assume people are traveling alone in single occupancy vehicles. If everyone switched to a self driving car, and had one of their own, there will still be road and parking issues. Now there is some potential to reduce the number of cars required, if the self-driving car could be combined with the idea of car-sharing, but this isn't exactly going to revolutionize congestion and traffic. There needs to be a way to move lots of people quickly to specific destinations.
Agreed, but look at the explosion of Lyft/Uber-type services in cities. Now realize that most of those costs are labor costs. It won't be the savior of the universe, but it will revolutionize transportation, especially in cities. You've just cut the cost of a taxi substantially. Mass transit will still have a role in urban areas. You can't replace BART or the 38 bus with driverless cars during commute hours as congestion is a problem. Especially for short trips during the day, however, it will make transit largely irrelevant. Assuming the 80% subsidy of transit is applied to a driverless car that is currently wasted providing transit in San Francisco, the clear winner is obvious. Even if you about double the IRS rate and assume it's $1 per mile, 80% subsidized like MUNI, that's only 20 cents a mile. It's hard to go 10 miles in San Francisco.
I've always advocated for a huge hike to the gas tax. It is the easiest way to fund / repair / upgrade our roads, coerce people into smarter transportation choices, and reduce our carbon footprint.
Damn the economy. It needs to be done.
Driving currently is way too subsidized. Make drivers feel the real cost of driving.
Then next we need to make transit riders feel the real cost of transit- that is highly more subsidized than driving is! At least with driving the gas taxes I pay cover about 60% (in this state, anyway) of the road costs- it would be more but a significant portion of those gas taxes are redirected to subsidize TRANSIT. So take that way, keep what we pay for driving to go directly to roads, and the numbers would look even better. Let's see how many would willingly use inconvenient bus service if the cost went up to the true cost, and they had to shell out something like $10 per ride.
As someone else noted regarding China, how overcrowded their cities and roads/highways are, and yet more and more people are driving instead of taking public transportation because they are quickly discovering- just like we know- that driving is almost always more convenient and comfortable than public transportation. This country is just not laid out well for public transport- there is no way you'd ever be able to get directly from your point A to your point B via public transportation with the way our towns/cities are laid out. Why would I go to the nearest bus stop to my home, make TWO bus changes along the way on the 90 minute bus travel time to get to my work place when I can just hop in my car and drive straight there in 20-25 minutes? And there will never be a bus going directly from where I live to where I work because both are in suburban types of areas- I don't work in a major job center such as downtown. So what good does it do to try to force people like me into using the bus?
And then there is also the convenience factor. On my way home from work I can make a slight detour to stop at Home Depot to pick up items I need for the house, make another slight detour to stop at Target or Babies R Us or Best Buy for items I may need or even just for browsing without adding much distance or time to my actual trip. By bus that would be a pain- it would mean trying to plan out yet another trip on another transfer to another bus (or two transfers), why would I ever consider that? I wouldn't get home for hours!
Transit gobbles up 20% of the money and only serves 2% of the passengers. If that 20% were instead spent on upgrading this nation's road network, you would save untold billions in times of time and gas not wasted stewing in traffic... as an environmental bonus you don't have millions of cars stewing in traffic jams, polluting, and not going anywhere.
funny how that wasn't the observation of the writer of the article. why should car drivers be subsidizing public transit?
And then there is also the convenience factor. On my way home from work I can make a slight detour to stop at Home Depot to pick up items I need for the house, make another slight detour to stop at Target or Babies R Us or Best Buy for items I may need or even just for browsing without adding much distance or time to my actual trip. By bus that would be a pain- it would mean trying to plan out yet another trip on another transfer to another bus (or two transfers), why would I ever consider that? I wouldn't get home for hours!
It strikes me after reading this paragraph from your previous post that cars help drive economic expansion by allowing such conveniences. My husband and I share a car, and as such we must carefully plan our schedule, meaning that I shop on a particular day at a particular place. If I forget something important, I can't necessarily just run out and pick it up, so I've learned to be resourceful; I can make all sorts of things from household odds and ends. This has a dampening effect on our household expenditures. Whether or not I personally run over to a Office Depot to pick up a $.99 bottle of Elmer's or make a jar of white glue from the pantry doesn't seem like such a big thing, but when everybody starts eliminating those convenience purchases, it can really add up.
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.
