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.
I have long favored replacing the gas tax with a mileage tax, though Hybrid owners think that's a bad idea. In the 50's the Federal tax was 4 cents a gallon and mileage about 15 mpg. Tax per mile: $.00266, equivalent to $.02 today. Now it is 18 cents and cars average 24 mpg, tax per mile: $.0075. And if we are going to make drivers pay the full cost, how about eliminating free parking at office parks and malls? OK that is politically an explosive issue.
No, it's good to have an incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars. But the gas tax is too low to effect driver's choices anyway.
Free parking? You can't businesses require to charge for parking, and in many places the area is so autocentric driving is the only option. Not requiring parking is a good idea, and businesses could decide whether it's worth it to have parking. There are cities with parking minimums where iit doesn't fit.
I have long favored replacing the gas tax with a mileage tax, though Hybrid owners think that's a bad idea. In the 50's the Federal tax was 4 cents a gallon and mileage about 15 mpg. Tax per mile: $.00266, equivalent to $.02 today. Now it is 18 cents and cars average 24 mpg, tax per mile: $.0075. And if we are going to make drivers pay the full cost, how about eliminating free parking at office parks and malls? OK that is politically an explosive issue.
Alternatively, I've often wondered if I can get a discount on my purchase at the mall because I rode the bus. I'm sure I'd just get some blank stares if I asked.
click the upper left to change to a view of population density; for Northeastern cities there was a drastic population density decline in areas built after then, with the exception of older, often lower density railroad suburbs and some infill. For NYC, the decline was at least 3x, on average 6x maybe more. Ditto for Philly and Boston, though not as extreme usually at least 3x.
Us city people LOVE our farmers, and wish they didnt have to be separated by 30-50 miles of suburbs.
This is entertaining. Thanks. So you think all of your food comes fresh from Bill the Farmer a mere 70 miles away in Spotsylvania County?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
And if we are going to make drivers pay the full cost, how about eliminating free parking at office parks and malls? OK that is politically an explosive issue.
Well, I think there are good reasons to subsidize roads more heavily than public transit. Transit riders benefit from roads because roads are used to get products to Whole Foods, Target, Ace Hardware, Luelumon (sp?), Urban Outfitters, etc. You need roads whether there's a public transit system are not. You don't need a public transit system, however.
This is entertaining. Thanks. So you think all of your food comes fresh from Bill the Farmer a mere 70 miles away in Spotsylvania County?
Community supported agriculture is all the rage these days. Why buy your produce from huge agri-businesses, when you can get your produce from a local small farmer, at a nearby farmer's market?
Quote:
Well, I think there are good reasons to subsidize roads more heavily than public transit. Transit riders benefit from roads because roads are used to get products to Whole Foods, Target, Ace Hardware, Luelumon (sp?), Urban Outfitters, etc. You need roads whether there's a public transit system are not. You don't need a public transit system, however.
Yeah, but the state of Ohio, for example, spends about $3 billion a year on roads, and about $10 million on public transit. Don't you think that's a bit out of balance? According to this article, (Transit) about 40% of the cost of our roads comes from non-user fees. Again, doesn't that seem a bit off-balance?
Community supported agriculture is all the rage these days. Why buy your produce from huge agri-businesses, when you can get your produce from a local small farmer, at a nearby farmer's market?
Because, as we say in my line of work, it doesn't scale. Want to buy a few local tomatoes, etc, some times of the year? Sure. Want to feed an entire nation of 300 million year round? Not going to work so well.
click the upper left to change to a view of population density; for Northeastern cities there was a drastic population density decline in areas built after then, with the exception of older, often lower density railroad suburbs and some infill. For NYC, the decline was at least 3x, on average 6x maybe more. Ditto for Philly and Boston, though not as extreme usually at least 3x.
I'm not seeing how to change the population density. I will say, Denver County, Colorado is the most densely populated county in the entire western United States from St. Louis to San Francisco. The only county in CA more densely populated than Denver County is San Francisco County. Denver Co. is denser than LA County. No county in Washington or Oregon is denser. It is denser than Hennepin and Ramsey Counties (Minn/St. Paul) in Minnesota, in fact, quite a bit denser than Hennepin.
I'm not seeing how to change the population density. I will say, Denver County, Colorado is the most densely populated county in the entire western United States from St. Louis to San Francisco. The only county in CA more densely populated than Denver County is San Francisco County. Denver Co. is denser than LA County. No county in Washington or Oregon is denser. It is denser than Hennepin and Ramsey Counties (Minn/St. Paul) in Minnesota, in fact, quite a bit denser than Hennepin.
Arrows to the right of view more maps.
That's mostly because California counties contains lots of undeveloped land. San Mateo, San Diego, Alameda, Los Angeles and even Orange counties have census tracts with a higher population density. Orange county is kinda featureless sprawl with not so many centers and walkable areas, California just packs 'em in more.
Portland, city or suburb, is less dense than Denver (city or suburb) no matter how to times some Portland urbanist-boosters like to say Portland is dense. I visited Portland. Felt like a nice city but low density. Area right by the center provided lots of I consider "urban living", other parts not so much though I didn't spend much time in the outer neighborhoods. Density-wise looked about the same as Long Island, but it seemed nicer to bike and walk around in with quirky centers (and suburbs in Long Island at the same density sometimes have decent centers, too and sometimes not). King County Washington, includes much of the suburbs as well as just the city. Seattle is a bit denser than Denver, especially right around downtown. Number-wise both similar magnitude, unlike Vancouver or San Francisco which are both much higher.
The other pattern I notice in Denver was that there didn't seem much of a pattern for where the densest tracts where past immediately next to downtown. They don't clump together and decline as you go outward, there's some in a couple seemingly random sections of Denver, then Aurora, then maybe Westminster. San Diego looked a bit similar, except the numbers were higher. Seattle had a bit regular of a pattern. Suprisingly, so does LA. All these being equal, to me, the transition to urban happens around 10-13 k / sq mile, (based on looking up places I'm familiar with). Doesn't work so well for smaller cities as there sections of undeveloped land nearby in census tracts.
If you skim around Boston, you'll find places dropping from 10-15 k / sq mile (old streetcar suburbs, some are 8) down to 3 k or so within a short distance. NYC has older places that are around 20-25 k / sq mile that drop down to 5 k (but some burbs 7-11 k / sq mile, but it's still a big contrast).
That's mostly because California counties contains lots of undeveloped land. San Mateo, San Diego, Alameda, Los Angeles and even Orange counties have census tracts with a higher population density. Orange county is kinda featureless sprawl with not so many centers and walkable areas, California just packs 'em in more.
Portland, city or suburb, is less dense than Denver (city or suburb) no matter how to times some Portland urbanist-boosters like to say Portland is dense. I visited Portland. Felt like a nice city but low density. Area right by the center provided lots of I consider "urban living", other parts not so much though I didn't spend much time in the outer neighborhoods. Density-wise looked about the same as Long Island, but it seemed nicer to bike and walk around in with quirky centers (and suburbs in Long Island at the same density sometimes have decent centers, too and sometimes not). King County Washington, includes much of the suburbs as well as just the city. Seattle is a bit denser than Denver, especially right around downtown. Number-wise both similar magnitude, unlike Vancouver or San Francisco which are both much higher.
The other pattern I notice in Denver was that there didn't seem much of a pattern for where the densest tracts where past immediately next to downtown. They don't clump together and decline as you go outward, there's some in a couple seemingly random sections of Denver, then Aurora, then maybe Westminster. San Diego looked a bit similar, except the numbers were higher. Seattle had a bit regular of a pattern. Suprisingly, so does LA. All these being equal, to me, the transition to urban happens around 10-13 k / sq mile, (based on looking up places I'm familiar with). Doesn't work so well for smaller cities as there sections of undeveloped land nearby in census tracts.
If you skim around Boston, you'll find places dropping from 10-15 k / sq mile (old streetcar suburbs, some are 8) down to 3 k or so within a short distance. NYC has older places that are around 20-25 k / sq mile that drop down to 5 k (but some burbs 7-11 k / sq mile, but it's still a big contrast).
I'm not getting into another protracted argument; however, I stand by what I said. You can diss Denver all you want, it's the highest density county west of the Mississippi except for San Francisco County, even though most of the UP forum thinks that it is "suburban". That includes Texas as well.
I'm not getting into another protracted argument; however, I stand by what I said. You can diss Denver all you want, it's the highest density county west of the Mississippi except for San Francisco County, even though most of the UP forum thinks that it is "suburban". That includes Texas as well.
You asked about the maps, I wrote a couple of paragraphs on different patterns of cities mostly from the maps. I thought it was interesting and thought someone might respond with more, instead I got an annoyed two lines. Why did you bother ask if you weren't interested?
I also pointed out counties are a bad unit of comparison when many CA counties contain wilderness land in their boundaries, which you didn't acknowledge. I'm starting to wonder why I bother post. Here's Los Angeles County:
I'm puzzled why you're bothered by parts of Denver being referred to as not high density and suburban; you said you don't like density all that much anyway.
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.
