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.
Nope, you're wrong on that one. Self-driving cars don't eliminate the #1 problem of congestion: parking. Most congestion problems in cities are due to parking. The rest is due to surface street congestion. You can make a highway 30 lanes wide and there will still be massive congestion within city limits. There just isn't enough space. The only way to prevent this is to keep people off the roads and use transit, cycling, or walking..................
Transit and multi-modal methods are far less invasive on public health and more cost-effective.
I disagree. Self-driving cars can actually "go back home" and park. There really isn't any reason for them to park where people work.
I suspect they will also be much smaller compared to today's since you can really build them for urban situations. With each road having EIGHT times the capacity congestion will not be an issue.
My observation is that congestion is really caused by drivers. They really are not very smart about how they drive. A computer does not have that problem.
The other problem with high sped mass transit is urban sprawl. You really need some land use planning to insure that the environment is protected. I watched the BART system in San Francisco contribute to massive urban sprawl.
BTW....I think that is also going to be an issue with self-driving cars. From Seattle it will be a "short" weekend trip to Montana or Idaho!!! Likewise, lots of people will accept a longer commute if they don't have to drive.
Okay, the glue example actually happened. Panicked middle school student, project due the next morning. I don't see how that's any different than crying baby, no jars of baby food. I made glue rather than buying it from Office Depot. Maybe you could have boiled a sweet potato or some carrots and mashed them through a strainer rather than jumping in your car and going to the store.
My point is that being able to run out for something using a personal vehicle at the drop of a hat facilitates extra purchases. My husband can't go to a grocery and buy just one thing, and he's not at all uncommon. Ask him to pick up a dozen eggs at the grocery across from his office on his way home, and he comes home with $50 worth of additional stuff that nobody actually needed.
Multiply this behavior by a couple hundred million people, and it has a measurable effect on the economy. Take that option away, and it also has a measurable effect on the economy. If public policy makes it less preferable for people to drive, I think it will have a dampening effect on convenience purchasing. That's all I was trying to say.
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.
For the record, my reason for coercing people into smarter choices was mostly financial.
Rail is actually less subsidized than driving. The average driver pays only half the actual cost of road maintenance through tolls and gas taxes. The rest is subsidized by general income taxes.
Translation: We are subsidizing people to pollute our environment. I understand a lot of poor rural people will get hurt by it, but that is all the more reason to upgrade our transit infrastructure nationwide. We have things backwards. We should not be artificially lowering the cost of driving and widening our roads. If people want to drive, make them pay the true value of driving.
This would require a gas tax hike, but it will allow us to use the funds to expand transit and have people actually pay for the roads they are destroying.
Which means almost all rail is, in fact, more subsidized. Roads don't cost very much. Plus drivers pay for all the operating costs, which are also massively subsidized by transit. It's actually the operating that costs a lot, not so much the infrastructure.
It really doesn't require any coercion. Just have people pay their freight and they'll make the smarter choice. If the driver only pays for half the road cost, double the taxes. I drive a lot, so doubling the would have a relatively large impact on me. Taking the gas tax from the national weighted average of 50 cents to $1 gallon would mean I'd spend an extra $450 dollars on gas taxes and maybe another $100 in vehicle registration. $550/year isn't going to get me out of my car and into transit.
Likewise, transit needs to pull its weight so that people can make smart choices. In Seattle where it costs $4 per boarding to private transit, people need to be charged $4 every time they get on a bus, light rail. Even more efficient would be to charge based on the route and by distance. That would discourage inefficient, lengthy routes. But that's more difficult to do.
Rather than wasting more money on transit to encourage people to make bad choices, you could reduce taxes.
Which means almost all rail is, in fact, more subsidized. Roads don't cost very much. Plus drivers pay for all the operating costs, which are also massively subsidized by transit. It's actually the operating that costs a lot, not so much the infrastructure.
It really doesn't require any coercion. Just have people pay their freight and they'll make the smarter choice. If the driver only pays for half the road cost, double the taxes. I drive a lot, so doubling the would have a relatively large impact on me. Taking the gas tax from the national weighted average of 50 cents to $1 gallon would mean I'd spend an extra $450 dollars on gas taxes and maybe another $100 in vehicle registration. $550/year isn't going to get me out of my car and into transit.
Likewise, transit needs to pull its weight so that people can make smart choices. In Seattle where it costs $4 per boarding to private transit, people need to be charged $4 every time they get on a bus, light rail. Even more efficient would be to charge based on the route and by distance. That would discourage inefficient, lengthy routes. But that's more difficult to do.
Rather than wasting more money on transit to encourage people to make bad choices, you could reduce taxes.
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.
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".
That was not clear from your initial post. The bulk of mass transit proponents in this thread and that I have known personally appear to be speaking of making a choice to use mass transit as opposed to driving, I assumed you were doing the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schermerhorn
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.
Private car ownership has a great deal to do with how products get to market - the roads system we have, both locally and interstate, is based on the assumption of private ownership and operation of both cars and commercial trucks, and the tax revenue from both is intended to support that system - assuming it is not appropriated for some other cause as so often happens. Non-drivers do benefit from this roads system every time they shop. While it may not be the ideal system from your personal point of view, it is the one in use and it is foolish to deny that non-drivers reap some reward from its existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schermerhorn
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.
You suspect wrongly. I understand that it is in the best interest of the society in which I live to educate its young. I understand that I reap some reward from its having done so in a multitude of ways.
I suspect that you have a rather irrational sore point on the subject of being allowed to drive. This is entirely understandable, if I presume correctly that you refer to your own circumstance, however that does not make it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schermerhorn
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.
I disagree that it the transportation system must be designed with the convenience of a minority (non-drivers) in mind. A fair society should be aware of the problems of that minority and make all available allowances, but I see no reason the rest of us should not drive just because some cannot or will not. The existing system is efficient for most people to pursue their own varied tasks in a day, what you seem to advocate would be less efficient. Of course, I've lived for years where congestion is not much of a problem. A New Yorker would without a doubt see it differently.
I apologize for the "self centered" remark, it was not clear to me that you were speaking of a situation that was not by choice. I would not have said it had that been clear in my mind.
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.
I totally disagree with this concept altogether. People being able to afford their homes leaves them with disposable income to spend on "fun" stuff. People in apartments need furniture too. And perhaps people in multifamily dwellings don't spend on lawn care, but they go out to eat more or what have you. Home ownership has a whole lot of nothing to do with consumerism.
Disposable income does. But when people need to spend 50% of their income on housing and transportation, and there are no alternatives to cut costs, that hurts the economy. When the only affordable homes are 50 miles away from your job, the community loses both in environmental and social costs. People with long commutes aren't engaged in their community, home owners or not.
We like to think of home ownership as economic fairy dust, and there are plenty of cottage industries around that, but the most important thing is home affordability in relationship to location/amenities. If you can't afford the sort of home you want and need, well you are going to sacrifice somewhere and stop spending.
I am going to use Portland as an example. They have better transit than many similar sized cities and apparently spend way more income on "useless stuff" since they spend less on transportation.
I disagree that it the transportation system must be designed with the convenience of a minority (non-drivers) in mind. A fair society should be aware of the problems of that minority and make all available allowances, but I see no reason the rest of us should not drive just because you cannot. The existing system is efficient for most people to pursue their own varied tasks in a day, what you seem to advocate would be less efficient. Of course, I've lived for years where congestion is not much of a problem. A New Yorker would without a doubt see it differently.
I apologize for the "self centered" remark, it was not clear to me that you were speaking of a situation that was not by choice. I would not have said it had that been clear in my mind.
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.
Which means almost all rail is, in fact, more subsidized. Roads don't cost very much. Plus drivers pay for all the operating costs, which are also massively subsidized by transit. It's actually the operating that costs a lot, not so much the infrastructure.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
It really doesn't require any coercion. Just have people pay their freight and they'll make the smarter choice. If the driver only pays for half the road cost, double the taxes. I drive a lot, so doubling the would have a relatively large impact on me. Taking the gas tax from the national weighted average of 50 cents to $1 gallon would mean I'd spend an extra $450 dollars on gas taxes and maybe another $100 in vehicle registration. $550/year isn't going to get me out of my car and into transit.
Agreed. I don't think their should be surcharges, but I don't agree with subsidizing driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Rather than wasting more money on transit to encourage people to make bad choices, you could reduce taxes.
How would reducing taxes bridge our infrastructure funding gap?
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.
No it is not. If people stopped pissing away so much money on commuting and overpriced mortgages, they would have more money to spend or invest, which benefit the economy. Wasteful spending is never necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
what is the real cost of driving cars?
I think the financials vary greatly, here in nyc, its obvious that cars are paying for everything.
Cars users pay for approximately half the cost of driving.
Even in NYC, the bridges (with their $13 tolls) are extremely subsidized by general income funds. You wouldn't even want to know the real price.
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.
