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.
"...The Los Angeles Times has recently reported that public transit agencies “have watched their ridership numbers fall off a cliff over the last five years,” with multi-year decreases in mass transit use by up to 25 percent. And a new UCLA Institute of Transportation study has found that increasing car ownership is the prime factor for the dive in usage.
As Homer Simpson would say, “Doh.”
Southern California residents bought 4 times as many cars per person in the 15 years after the turn of the century, compared to the decade before. That substantial jump in automobile ownership caused the share of Southern California households without access to a car to fall by 30 percent, and 42 percent for immigrant households. As one of the study’s authors, Michael Manville, put it “That exploding level of new automobile ownership is largely incompatible with a lot of transit ridership.” In other words, once a household has access to a car, they almost universally prefer driving to mass transit....
The superiority of automobiles doesn’t stop at the obvious, either. They expand workers’ access to jobs and educational opportunities, increase productivity and incomes, improve purchasing choices, lower consumer prices and widen social options. Trying to inconvenience people out of their cars also undermines those major benefits.
Cars’ allow decreased commuting times if not hamstrung, providing workers access to far more potential jobs and training possibilities. That improves worker-employer matches, with expanded productivity raising workers’ incomes as well as benefiting employers. One study found that 10 percent faster travel raised worker productivity by 3 percent, and increasing from 3 mph walking speed to 30 mph driving is a 900 percent increase. In a similar vein, a Harvard analysis found that for those lacking high-school diplomas, owning a car increased monthly earnings by $1,100...."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv8MTufKRQQ
* keeps the train off the streets
* ideal for city centers with skyscrapers
* can bank into turns
* meshes well with irregular terrain
"...The Los Angeles Times has recently reported that public transit agencies “have watched their ridership numbers fall off a cliff over the last five years,” with multi-year decreases in mass transit use by up to 25 percent. And a new UCLA Institute of Transportation study has found that increasing car ownership is the prime factor for the dive in usage.
As Homer Simpson would say, “Doh.”
Southern California residents bought 4 times as many cars per person in the 15 years after the turn of the century, compared to the decade before. That substantial jump in automobile ownership caused the share of Southern California households without access to a car to fall by 30 percent, and 42 percent for immigrant households. As one of the study’s authors, Michael Manville, put it “That exploding level of new automobile ownership is largely incompatible with a lot of transit ridership.” In other words, once a household has access to a car, they almost universally prefer driving to mass transit....
The superiority of automobiles doesn’t stop at the obvious, either. They expand workers’ access to jobs and educational opportunities, increase productivity and incomes, improve purchasing choices, lower consumer prices and widen social options. Trying to inconvenience people out of their cars also undermines those major benefits.
Cars’ allow decreased commuting times if not hamstrung, providing workers access to far more potential jobs and training possibilities. That improves worker-employer matches, with expanded productivity raising workers’ incomes as well as benefiting employers. One study found that 10 percent faster travel raised worker productivity by 3 percent, and increasing from 3 mph walking speed to 30 mph driving is a 900 percent increase. In a similar vein, a Harvard analysis found that for those lacking high-school diplomas, owning a car increased monthly earnings by $1,100...."
All this cheerleading hides the fact that the automobile / petroleum / pavement mode of transportation costs between 25% - 29% of the GDP.
And all those industries that benefit from public subsidy are loathe to give it up.
. . .
FOLLOW THE MONEY
. . .
In 1920, 90% of all travel was by electric traction rail (streetcars), average fare - $0.05. ($36.50 annual cost for taking a round trip every day; 730 x 5 cents.)
In 1920, you could buy a brand new Ford Model T for $300.00
In 1935, you could buy a brand new Plymouth for $565.00.
In 1979, you could buy a Honda Accord for $7000.00.
In 2012, you could buy a Ford Focus for $16,500.00
In 2012, 30-Day Unlimited Ride MetroCard on NYC mass transit - Cost: $104, reduced fare $52
(per annum = $ 1248 / $ 624)
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/20...tyle=101286097
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
The point: The buying power of funny munny keeps dropping (prices keep inflating), which wipes out the benefit of "saving". (Thanks! Congress)
The point: Inflation is a hidden tax increase as well as a hidden pressure to increase government budgets, which increases deficits.
The point: To afford a modest car, a necessity in many locations, consumes a large proportion of one's earnings, and indirectly consumes resources, via taxation to build, improve, and maintain the extensive infrastructure that it requires.
The point: Is it really worth it for government to SUBSIDIZE automobiles - one of the most expensive, wasteful, inefficient means of land transport?
Is it worth it to YOU to spend over ten years working just so you have the convenience?
And work even more "for the government" who expends it on infrastructure?
One might infer that due to the 90-95% savings in fuel, transportation costs would drop 90% as well. (Based on fares v. automobile costs)
So instead of working ten years for "your ride" you would only need to work one year out of your life.
Is that a "fare" trade?
Last edited by jetgraphics; 06-06-2018 at 12:12 AM..
All this cheerleading hides the fact that the automobile / petroleum / pavement mode of transportation costs between 25% - 29% of the GDP.
And all those industries that benefit from public subsidy are loathe to give it up.
. . .
FOLLOW THE MONEY
. . .
In 1920, 90% of all travel was by electric traction rail (streetcars), average fare - $0.05. ($36.50 annual cost for taking a round trip every day; 730 x 5 cents.)
In 1920, you could buy a brand new Ford Model T for $300.00
In 1935, you could buy a brand new Plymouth for $565.00.
In 1979, you could buy a Honda Accord for $7000.00.
In 2012, you could buy a Ford Focus for $16,500.00
In 2012, 30-Day Unlimited Ride MetroCard on NYC mass transit - Cost: $104, reduced fare $52
(per annum = $ 1248 / $ 624)
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus/20...tyle=101286097
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
The point: The buying power of funny munny keeps dropping (prices keep inflating), which wipes out the benefit of "saving". (Thanks! Congress)
The point: Inflation is a hidden tax increase as well as a hidden pressure to increase government budgets, which increases deficits.
The point: To afford a modest car, a necessity in many locations, consumes a large proportion of one's earnings, and indirectly consumes resources, via taxation to build, improve, and maintain the extensive infrastructure that it requires.
The point: Is it really worth it for government to SUBSIDIZE automobiles - one of the most expensive, wasteful, inefficient means of land transport?
Is it worth it to YOU to spend over ten years working just so you have the convenience?
And work even more "for the government" who expends it on infrastructure?
One might infer that due to the 90-95% savings in fuel, transportation costs would drop 90% as well. (Based on fares v. automobile costs)
So instead of working ten years for "your ride" you would only need to work one year out of your life.
Is that a "fare" trade?
This is filled with so many inaccuries and falsities its clear you tailored this only to suit your own point by WAY overly exaggerating vehicular ownership and severely underestimating the cost of mass transit as a whole...thus not telling all the facts and only the ones you wanted to convey to strengthen your own point...
First:
Why are you comparing the prices of brand new cars to that of minimum wage or even double minimum wage salaries? That is one of the worst kind of investments at those salaries. You either buy a used vehicle, or you share a ride if transit isn't available. Another thing is, the average car in America is approximately 12 years old. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...-too/30821191/
Most people do not go out and buy a car brand new... they get one within a fixed budget thus not having to spend 41% of their wages to drive... and guess what, it accomplishes the same goal as a new car.
Second:
The government is not "subsidizing" anything automobile related. They never have, nor do they currently. Not once has the government paid a portion of anyone's car note so they could stay on the road. Most of our road infrastructure is paid only by the very thing that keeps the majority of vehicles propelled, gasoline tax. The cost of actually commuting is imposed on the driver.
Third:
Mass Transit is really only "efficient" within a dense urban area, outside of one and it becomes exponentially less efficient while the cost of maintaining it remain the same. You call automobiles inefficient yet there are currently NO profitable mass transit systems even WITH subsidies and other taxes supporting them. You think the government is going to step up and repave our highways with railroads and eat the costs of building and maintaining both the railroad and commuter trains where as with vehicles they don't have to pay for "the vehicle" or "the fuel to propel said vehicle" (lets not forget even an electric train incurs an electric bill.)... better think again. You're not likely to see transit taking over as a primary for commuting... ever...it will always and only be an alternative. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...-chart/395189/
"...The Los Angeles Times has recently reported that public transit agencies “have watched their ridership numbers fall off a cliff over the last five years,” with multi-year decreases in mass transit use by up to 25 percent. And a new UCLA Institute of Transportation study has found that increasing car ownership is the prime factor for the dive in usage.
As Homer Simpson would say, “Doh.”
Southern California residents bought 4 times as many cars per person in the 15 years after the turn of the century, compared to the decade before. That substantial jump in automobile ownership caused the share of Southern California households without access to a car to fall by 30 percent, and 42 percent for immigrant households. As one of the study’s authors, Michael Manville, put it “That exploding level of new automobile ownership is largely incompatible with a lot of transit ridership.” In other words, once a household has access to a car, they almost universally prefer driving to mass transit....
The superiority of automobiles doesn’t stop at the obvious, either. They expand workers’ access to jobs and educational opportunities, increase productivity and incomes, improve purchasing choices, lower consumer prices and widen social options. Trying to inconvenience people out of their cars also undermines those major benefits.
Cars’ allow decreased commuting times if not hamstrung, providing workers access to far more potential jobs and training possibilities. That improves worker-employer matches, with expanded productivity raising workers’ incomes as well as benefiting employers. One study found that 10 percent faster travel raised worker productivity by 3 percent, and increasing from 3 mph walking speed to 30 mph driving is a 900 percent increase. In a similar vein, a Harvard analysis found that for those lacking high-school diplomas, owning a car increased monthly earnings by $1,100...."
This makes me wonder if the original title if this thread should be changed to "Atlanta's relationship with mass transit is reaching a cross roads".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv8MTufKRQQ
* keeps the train off the streets
* ideal for city centers with skyscrapers
* can bank into turns
* meshes well with irregular terrain
There is a reason why these are not built in every major city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro
This is filled with so many inaccuries and falsities its clear you tailored this only to suit your own point by WAY overly exaggerating vehicular ownership and severely underestimating the cost of mass transit as a whole...thus not telling all the facts and only the ones you wanted to convey to strengthen your own point...
First:
Why are you comparing the prices of brand new cars to that of minimum wage or even double minimum wage salaries? That is one of the worst kind of investments at those salaries. You either buy a used vehicle, or you share a ride if transit isn't available. Another thing is, the average car in America is approximately 12 years old. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...-too/30821191/
Most people do not go out and buy a car brand new... they get one within a fixed budget thus not having to spend 41% of their wages to drive... and guess what, it accomplishes the same goal as a new car.
Second:
The government is not "subsidizing" anything automobile related. They never have, nor do they currently. Not once has the government paid a portion of anyone's car note so they could stay on the road. Most of our road infrastructure is paid only by the very thing that keeps the majority of vehicles propelled, gasoline tax. The cost of actually commuting is imposed on the driver.
Third:
Mass Transit is really only "efficient" within a dense urban area, outside of one and it becomes exponentially less efficient while the cost of maintaining it remain the same. You call automobiles inefficient yet there are currently NO profitable mass transit systems even WITH subsidies and other taxes supporting them. You think the government is going to step up and repave our highways with railroads and eat the costs of building and maintaining both the railroad and commuter trains where as with vehicles they don't have to pay for "the vehicle" or "the fuel to propel said vehicle" (lets not forget even an electric train incurs an electric bill.)... better think again. You're not likely to see transit taking over as a primary for commuting... ever...it will always and only be an alternative. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...-chart/395189/
So you get upset when jsvh tries and tells someone to ride transit, but then you go and tell someone making minimum wage that they can only buy used car or use transit?
The superiority of automobiles doesn’t stop at the obvious, either. They expand workers’ access to jobs and educational opportunities, increase productivity and incomes, improve purchasing choices, lower consumer prices and widen social options. Trying to inconvenience people out of their cars also undermines those major benefits.
Cars’ allow decreased commuting times if not hamstrung, providing workers access to far more potential jobs and training possibilities. That improves worker-employer matches, with expanded productivity raising workers’ incomes as well as benefiting employers. One study found that 10 percent faster travel raised worker productivity by 3 percent, and increasing from 3 mph walking speed to 30 mph driving is a 900 percent increase. In a similar vein, a Harvard analysis found that for those lacking high-school diplomas, owning a car increased monthly earnings by $1,100...."
Grrrrrrrrlll...you gonna get blasted by some fabrics here soon!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
SUSPENSION RAILWAY
DORTMUND H-BAHN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv8MTufKRQQ
* keeps the train off the streets
* ideal for city centers with skyscrapers
* can bank into turns
* meshes well with irregular terrain
Those are pretty neat, but are they any different than something like Chicago's Loop, where the trains simply ride on top of the same structure? Ooh! Maybe you could have a top and bottom train with opposite directions taking up only the width of a single car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro
Second:
The government is not "subsidizing" anything automobile related. They never have, nor do they currently. Not once has the government paid a portion of anyone's car note so they could stay on the road. Most of our road infrastructure is paid only by the very thing that keeps the majority of vehicles propelled, gasoline tax. The cost of actually commuting is imposed on the driver.
And what do you tell the poor man when his less reliable used car breaks down and saddles him with an unexpected thousand dollar maintenance bill?
"Sorry, we can't offer you a bus route. That money is being spent so I don't have to pay $20 for parking or any tolls on the highway. If you can't afford a car you are SOL."
Those are pretty neat, but are they any different than something like Chicago's Loop, where the trains simply ride on top of the same structure? Ooh! Maybe you could have a top and bottom train with opposite directions taking up only the width of a single car.
Smaller footprint allowing more light to reach ground level. That's exactly the reason NYC and Boston tore down their elevated lines, but unfortunately never replaced majority of them with subways.
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.
