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.
. public transit also pays these taxes as they dont run on positive emotions but energy.
Actually, they don't. Public transit is exempted from federal gas taxes. State may vary, in California they are exempted.
Quote:
Not to mention the pollution. Oh god the pollution. It cost society hundreds of billions in externalities they dont pat for.
Yes? And when was the last time a bus, running on diesel and getting much worse per passenger fuel economy on average than a car as the average bus does, paid anything? Turns out bus riders don't pat for it either despite causing more on a per use basis. Fortunately, there's not many bus users.
If everyone who uses Mass Transit in heavily urbanised areas resorted to using a car then I rather suspect the roads would come to a complete gridlock very quickly, similarly if everyone left their car at home and attempted to use Mass Transit then the Public Transportation system would spectacularly fail to cope. The more transportation options there are - private or public - then the better it is for everyone. Those living & working near to public transportation will use it, those who don't will have a much easier car commute due to quieter roads. It's not an either or option in my view - heavily urbanised areas need a mix of both decent roads and good public transportation to work efficiently.
Actually, they don't. Public transit is exempted from federal gas taxes. State may vary, in California they are exempted.
Yes? And when was the last time a bus, running on diesel and getting much worse per passenger fuel economy on average than a car as the average bus does, paid anything? Turns out bus riders don't pat for it either despite causing more on a per use basis. Fortunately, there's not many bus users.
That would be the case if one person rode one bus. However, several people do so the net effect is less pollution. Also, busses arent the only form of public transit.
Like I said a million times public transit has its cons but roads and cars are MUCH worse in every factor. Much more subsidized, much more pollution, much more sprawl, expensive to service the sprawl, etc.
People need to stop complaining about the cost of public transit unless they are also against ALL roads.
If everyone who uses Mass Transit in heavily urbanised areas resorted to using a car then I rather suspect the roads would come to a complete gridlock very quickly, similarly if everyone left their car at home and attempted to use Mass Transit then the Public Transportation system would spectacularly fail to cope. The more transportation options there are - private or public - then the better it is for everyone. Those living & working near to public transportation will use it, those who don't will have a much easier car commute due to quieter roads. It's not an either or option in my view - heavily urbanised areas need a mix of both decent roads and good public transportation to work efficiently.
I wish more posters on this forum could post as sensibly as you have...especially some of the anti-car/highway crowd. Well said.
I wish more posters on this forum could post as sensibly as you have...especially some of the anti-car/highway crowd. Well said.
Nobody is anti-car or highway. I am merely pointing out they are subsidized more than public transit, and that some people are terrified of public transit and and cycling.
Secondly, you could design a city 100% around not having cars, except public transit ones and it could flow without serious traffic. You couldnt do this with cars.
I am not anti-car. I have a car and use it sometimes. That doesnt change that fact that many drivers dislike public transit, even though it reduces cars on the road and helps them, and are against it expanding. Some are even terrified of it, or very aggressively against it. Often the arguments they use against it is hypocritical as the things they bash it for are much for cars and roads.
Honestly, cycling seems to scare them the most. You have people that just hate it. They somehow are afraid these cyclist will force them to stop driving and ride bikes, when that isnt even remotely true.
At the end of the day public transit is good for drivers and saves society money over roads and cars. So even if you never plan to use it you will benefit. It is reversing the sprawl that is ruining this country. You can still live in it, and it will be less crowded and cheaper as people flee it. Public transit and cycling is win win for everyone.
Now back on subject any more theories on why some people are afraid of this?
That would be the case if one person rode one bus. However, several people do so the net effect is less pollution. Also, busses arent the only form of public transit.
Like I said a million times public transit has its cons but roads and cars are MUCH worse in every factor. Much more subsidized, much more pollution, much more sprawl, expensive to service the sprawl, etc.
People need to stop complaining about the cost of public transit unless they are also against ALL roads.
The facts are the contrary, especially for buses. They produce more pollution, have much higher direct subsidies, damage the roads much more costing more in indirect subsidies. That's not to say that it isn't true hypothetically. Hypothetically, buses could be much more efficient than cars and most places are. The exception is in the United States because we try and run buses to auto-centric, low-density suburbs indiscriminately. It's stupid transit. Rather than using smart transit which promotes so-called smart growth based around transit corridors, we run crappy transit everywhere scatter shot. Again, that's only beginning to change. My transit agency has adopted a transit corridor approach that will actually encourage less sprawl by making it possible for TOD to occur along said corridors. Public transit could be an actually resource for area going forward instead of an irrelevant transportation of last resort that it currently is. And considering the 2% population growth per year, which isn't expected to stop anytime soon, actually encouraging development to occur along corridors with a functional transit policy rather than ensuring that it does not with the "throw more unused buses at more sprawl" approach is quite important.
If people want to keep on building more neighborhoods farther and farther out, fine. But the pretending we can provide something that isn't a joke in the way of transit service has never worked. Time to stop pretending. More and more places are recognizing this. Portland has had its urban growth boundary for decades. It hasn't really done anything to prevent sprawl as most growth is outside of the UGB. Seattle refused to build more highways in the '60s and started working on a public transit system in the '80s. Again, most growth just left Seattle, but you're seeing large amounts of development in Seattle especially right now. There's more than 2,000 units of apartments in Ballard (a neighborhood of less than 40,000) currently under construction or approved for construction, mostly currently under construction. Rapid Ride (Seattle's "light rail-like" express bus) is struggling in Ballard, still awaiting road reconfiguration and signal prioritization. Over in West Seattle, it's the complete opposite. Ridership is almost double projected there. Construction isn't as hectic, but picking up with lots of small projects constantly coming up.
they are not. Personally i know hundreds of people that feel this way. People are. This thread is about them.
LMAO Name them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
I am not anti-car. I have a car and use it sometimes. That doesnt change that fact that many drivers dislike public transit
Ah, moving the goalposts again are we? Perhaps you need a dictionary, because "terrified" and "dislike" carry nowhere near the same definition.
Although, now that I think about it, of course anyone with half a brain is terrified of public transportation -- when you're standing in the middle of the street and the bus is bearing down on you. Or if some bozo pushes you off the platform and onto the track and you hear that ol' train whistle a-soundin' ...
Quote:
Honestly, cycling seems to scare them the most. You have people that just hate it. They somehow are afraid these cyclist will force them to stop driving and ride bikes
Where are you coming up with this bull?
Quote:
when that isnt even remotely true.
Like every post of yours in this thread.
Last edited by Ohiogirl81; 06-07-2013 at 06:11 PM..
Here in Vancouver public transit sucks balls. Today the bus was 15 minutes late. It is usually late, and i often wait 1/2 hour to an hour. And almost always, the buses are absolutely packed like sardines. A bus ticket costs $2.75. But at least you can use it until it expires in a few hours, unlike in LA where you pay I think $1.75 for EACH bus so if you take 8 buses (which is not unusual living in LA) round trip you have to pay that much for each one which is total BS.
If everyone who uses Mass Transit in heavily urbanised areas resorted to using a car then I rather suspect the roads would come to a complete gridlock very quickly, similarly if everyone left their car at home and attempted to use Mass Transit then the Public Transportation system would spectacularly fail to cope. The more transportation options there are - private or public - then the better it is for everyone. Those living & working near to public transportation will use it, those who don't will have a much easier car commute due to quieter roads. It's not an either or option in my view - heavily urbanised areas need a mix of both decent roads and good public transportation to work efficiently.
True.
The only common objection I see from the driver camp is that they ever growing percentage of cost of transit they are expected to cover, especially in light of the dwindling road budget. Hint: it's not magically dwindling.
I mean, take Portland. What do you think is going to plug the budget hole in Portland's light rail transit? Will it be the roads? Not likely. Portland stopped repaving roads more than a decade ago. All they do now is emergencies patches on their dilapidated street network. Will it be buses? Not likely. They've already gutted bus service to build the light rail. Maybe more taxes?
Again, it's not like there's not plenty of money there for the road budget. Portland collects millions more in parking revenue each year than it spends on road maintenance.... it's just 100% of that money goes to public transit and 0% for roads. They're also building a bunch of new bridges and other projects. Those could be put on hold and the money used to do the necessary repairs except they are funded by bonds specifically for that purpose. If you gave the city another blank check, they'd build more light rail, which they can't fund.
When you mean parking subsidies, do you mean effects from parking minimums or actual government subsidies? My city definitely subsidies parking near the center but I don't think larger ones generally do.
I've definitely heard of medium-sized cities offering free parking downtown. Even here in Pittsburgh, virtually all the garages are owned by the city itself, meaning some variant of price controls may be in effect.
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.
