|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
October 23rd 05, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
|
| Ads |
|
#13
October 23rd 05, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:01:13 -0400, The Wogster wrote: If you look at areas that are pre-car, density is higher, lots of 3 story townhomes, and 3-4 storey apartment buildings, roads are narrow, and areas are fairly small, often it's designed like an independant village, in that it's common to have a everything mixed together, and there are people in some of these areas, that live, work, shop, attend church all within a 10 block area. Of course walking or cycling within such a neighbourhood is quite easy. A neighbourhood could have a subway station in it's core, to connect neighbourhoods together. So if you need to live in one, and work in another, it's easy to do. But that's like living in a city, and everyone knows cities are full of problems, especially crime. People living so close together just doesn't work. Neighbors don't get along when you squeeze them all together like that. And where do you expect kids to play -- in the street? With all the cars and strangers coming by? Kids need yards. Besides, why would anyone ride a subway when they could afford a car? Crime happens, often is a result, when you combine very high density, with very low incomes, the density level I have mentioned is common in older sections of North American cities, and is common in cities in Europe. Often areas where there is little crime. Actually often a block designed with say 3 story town-homes ends up with a central courtyard, which gives children a place to play together, and socialize, without needing to be in the street, this is even better when the only access to the court yard is to go through one of the houses. Who needs a car when it's a 10 minute walk to the market, 7 minutes to church, and a 10 minute subway ride to work. A subway offered free of charge, with less then 3 minutes between trains would mean that it would be faster and more economical to take the subway then to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car. I would make the assumption, that to convert an existing city to car free, it would be done in sections, and that those sections would draw people to car free areas, who don't really want a car, even if they can afford it. As for being a liberal, yeah to some degree I guess, would make me an oxymoron in the US though, a liberal Christian.... W
|
|
#14
October 23rd 05, 09:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
The Wogster wrote:
: As for being a liberal, yeah to some degree I guess, would make me an : oxymoron in the US though, a liberal Christian.... Not really. There are plenty of liberal Christians....you just have to pick the right topics.
|
|
#15
October 23rd 05, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... A subway offered free of charge, with less then 3 minutes between trains would mean that it would be faster and more economical to take the subway then to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car. Great image, and one many of us would love to embrace. The problem is reality. Making a subway "fee of charge" doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything, it just means someone other than the user pays for it. Most public transportation is heaviliy subsidized already, I assume you see a 100% subsidy as preferable. Granted auto transportation is subsidized as well, but much if the subsidy comes from gas taxes themselves. We all pay for roads, but drivers bear the brunt of the cost. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I do recall reading extensively in a few economics courses about the auto based economy vs one that moves people on public transportation. The bottom line was that the "best" system depends on what the community valued most. In a non-centrally controlled economy, individuals make their own choices. Seems to me that most have opted for the independence and freedom of the car. I personally am trying to minimize use of my car and maximize time on the bike, both commuting, shopping, or whatever. But that's a personal choice, not a financial one. Tom
|
|
#16
October 24th 05, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
tcmedara wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... A subway offered free of charge, with less then 3 minutes between trains would mean that it would be faster and more economical to take the subway then to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car. Great image, and one many of us would love to embrace. The problem is reality. Making a subway "fee of charge" doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything, it just means someone other than the user pays for it. Most public transportation is heaviliy subsidized already, I assume you see a 100% subsidy as preferable. Granted auto transportation is subsidized as well, but much if the subsidy comes from gas taxes themselves. We all pay for roads, but drivers bear the brunt of the cost. No, it means that the city pays for it out of taxes, just as they pay most road expansion and maintenance, as well. Here, the Feds and Province collect the gasoline taxes, the cities pay most road maintenance. The cities gets some money through transfer payments, but road maintenance including plowing is still a significant cost. The Province here is putting some gas tax money into transit, and Toronto's share allows the city to replace some old noisy polluting buses, with new, quieter and less polluting models. There are other costs associated with large car based cities, for example medical costs from pollution and sedentary life styles some of which is paid for by drivers, but most through government or employer insurance. There is the time cost of lost productivity while people who drive for work, sit in traffic on the clock. Then there is lost land productivity when farm land is used up with urban sprawl, and for large roads and highways. A subway is often a good way to do it, because rail is more efficient, and less polluting, and takes up less land, in that you can build right over it. W
|
|
#17
October 24th 05, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... tcmedara wrote: "The Wogster" wrote in message ... A subway offered free of charge, with less then 3 minutes between trains would mean that it would be faster and more economical to take the subway then to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car. Great image, and one many of us would love to embrace. The problem is reality. Making a subway "fee of charge" doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything, it just means someone other than the user pays for it. Most public transportation is heaviliy subsidized already, I assume you see a 100% subsidy as preferable. Granted auto transportation is subsidized as well, but much if the subsidy comes from gas taxes themselves. We all pay for roads, but drivers bear the brunt of the cost. No, it means that the city pays for it out of taxes, just as they pay most road expansion and maintenance, as well. Here, the Feds and Province collect the gasoline taxes, the cities pay most road maintenance. The cities gets some money through transfer payments, but road maintenance including plowing is still a significant cost. The Province here is putting some gas tax money into transit, and Toronto's share allows the city to replace some old noisy polluting buses, with new, quieter and less polluting models. There are other costs associated with large car based cities, for example medical costs from pollution and sedentary life styles some of which is paid for by drivers, but most through government or employer insurance. There is the time cost of lost productivity while people who drive for work, sit in traffic on the clock. Then there is lost land productivity when farm land is used up with urban sprawl, and for large roads and highways. A subway is often a good way to do it, because rail is more efficient, and less polluting, and takes up less land, in that you can build right over it. W Again, what's economical is based on what is valued, and everything has costs. The current relative wealth of both the US and Canada compared to the rest of the world is an large part do to the mobility and infrastructure surrounding the privately owned automobile. You rightly point out that there are many other indirect and non-financial costs associated with this system. However, you cannot rule out the tremendous economic activity that is enable by the privately owned automobile. Perhaps someone can provide some statistics or studies, but I would hypothosize that the automobile has generated more economic wealth in both the US and Canada then it has cost in medical costs and lost productivity due to traffic jams or alternate land use. It strikes me that robust metro systems tend to supplement auto based transportation networks in high-density urban areas. People make an economic decision that the expense and inconvience of public tranportation outweigh the expense and stress of driving. That normally doesn't happen unless the traffic system is maxed out. Outside of a major urban area, that's gonna be hard to come by. Cities, provinces, and governments don't pay for anything. It is taxpayers that pay for things. Government is the collection agent and executor of the funds, but that's all topic for another day. My original point, which I'm sure you'll agree with, is that "free" metro fare doesn't mean "no cost." It just means that someone else picks up the direct cost. How or if that happens is a political decision. Many people can rightly maintain many different views on what's valuable and what should be subsidized. Personally I'm of the opinion that, to the maximum extent possible, those those who benefit from something should bear the brunt of the direct costs. I bike because I like it and it saves on gas money. I don't pretend it's good for everyone, though I'll recommend it to all. Tom
|
|
#18
October 24th 05, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:57:59 -0400, The Wogster wrote:
Matt O'Toole wrote: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:01:13 -0400, The Wogster wrote: If you look at areas that are pre-car, density is higher, lots of 3 story townhomes, and 3-4 storey apartment buildings, roads are narrow, and areas are fairly small, often it's designed like an independant village, in that it's common to have a everything mixed together, and there are people in some of these areas, that live, work, shop, attend church all within a 10 block area. Of course walking or cycling within such a neighbourhood is quite easy. A neighbourhood could have a subway station in it's core, to connect neighbourhoods together. So if you need to live in one, and work in another, it's easy to do. But that's like living in a city, and everyone knows cities are full of problems, especially crime. People living so close together just doesn't work. Neighbors don't get along when you squeeze them all together like that. And where do you expect kids to play -- in the street? With all the cars and strangers coming by? Kids need yards. Besides, why would anyone ride a subway when they could afford a car? Crime happens, often is a result, when you combine very high density, with very low incomes, the density level I have mentioned is common in older sections of North American cities, and is common in cities in Europe. Often areas where there is little crime. Actually, smaller towns generally have more crime per capita than large cities. Rural areas can be pretty bad too. It's hard to run a meth lab with neighbors around! Actually often a block designed with say 3 story town-homes ends up with a central courtyard, which gives children a place to play together, and socialize, without needing to be in the street, this is even better when the only access to the court yard is to go through one of the houses. Who needs a car when it's a 10 minute walk to the market, 7 minutes to church, and a 10 minute subway ride to work. A subway offered free of charge, with less then 3 minutes between trains would mean that it would be faster and more economical to take the subway then to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car. I would make the assumption, that to convert an existing city to car free, it would be done in sections, and that those sections would draw people to car free areas, who don't really want a car, even if they can afford it. Like Santa Monica, arguably the nicest part of Los Angeles? (Which vies for the absolute lowest crime rate in the US, despite being as urban as it gets.) I hope you didn't think my post was serious! Anyone who reads my stuff here or listens to me anywhere else would have gotten a clue! BTW, I have not owned a car for almost 4 years. As for being a liberal, yeah to some degree I guess, would make me an oxymoron in the US though, a liberal Christian.... According to my Catholic school upbringing, Christ was the ultimate liberal. Matt O.
|
|
#19
October 24th 05, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
tcmedara wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... tcmedara wrote: "The Wogster" wrote in message ... A subway offered free of charge, with less then 3 minutes between trains would mean that it would be faster and more economical to take the subway then to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car. Great image, and one many of us would love to embrace. The problem is reality. Making a subway "fee of charge" doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything, it just means someone other than the user pays for it. Most public transportation is heaviliy subsidized already, I assume you see a 100% subsidy as preferable. Granted auto transportation is subsidized as well, but much if the subsidy comes from gas taxes themselves. We all pay for roads, but drivers bear the brunt of the cost. No, it means that the city pays for it out of taxes, just as they pay most road expansion and maintenance, as well. Here, the Feds and Province collect the gasoline taxes, the cities pay most road maintenance. The cities gets some money through transfer payments, but road maintenance including plowing is still a significant cost. The Province here is putting some gas tax money into transit, and Toronto's share allows the city to replace some old noisy polluting buses, with new, quieter and less polluting models. There are other costs associated with large car based cities, for example medical costs from pollution and sedentary life styles some of which is paid for by drivers, but most through government or employer insurance. There is the time cost of lost productivity while people who drive for work, sit in traffic on the clock. Then there is lost land productivity when farm land is used up with urban sprawl, and for large roads and highways. A subway is often a good way to do it, because rail is more efficient, and less polluting, and takes up less land, in that you can build right over it. W Again, what's economical is based on what is valued, and everything has costs. The current relative wealth of both the US and Canada compared to the rest of the world is an large part do to the mobility and infrastructure surrounding the privately owned automobile. You rightly point out that there are many other indirect and non-financial costs associated with this system. However, you cannot rule out the tremendous economic activity that is enable by the privately owned automobile. Perhaps someone can provide some statistics or studies, but I would hypothosize that the automobile has generated more economic wealth in both the US and Canada then it has cost in medical costs and lost productivity due to traffic jams or alternate land use. It strikes me that robust metro systems tend to supplement auto based transportation networks in high-density urban areas. People make an economic decision that the expense and inconvience of public tranportation outweigh the expense and stress of driving. That normally doesn't happen unless the traffic system is maxed out. Outside of a major urban area, that's gonna be hard to come by. Canada and the US benefitted, in the 20th century by having relatively cheap labour, high protectionist tariffs and expensive international shipping costs. Two major wars, which required high manufacturing capacity, at little domestic cost, also helped to build capacity. Shipping costs dropped, high tariffs were challenged, and labour costs skyrocketed. However people wanted to consume more and more, which is why Americans have the highest debt to GDP in the civilized world. They also consume the most resources, and create the most pollution and waste of any nation on earth. Cities, provinces, and governments don't pay for anything. It is taxpayers that pay for things. Government is the collection agent and executor of the funds, but that's all topic for another day. My original point, which I'm sure you'll agree with, is that "free" metro fare doesn't mean "no cost." It just means that someone else picks up the direct cost. How or if that happens is a political decision. Many people can rightly maintain many different views on what's valuable and what should be subsidized. You need to remember something, government is a company that is contracted to run the city, province, state or nation, citizens are the shareholders, and they are charged taxes in order to pay for the services that the government is contracted to provide. The metro has a cost no dispute there, however if everyone uses it, then it can be cheaper if you don't need to print and sell tickets, sort tokens and change, and print and distribute and account for transfers. You can also save the costs of having fare collectors and automated fare machines..... The cost of the metro becomes a line item on the cities expense sheet, if it costs $900 million a year to provide it, for a city of 2.5 million, that's $360 a person. Figuring the total cost of the car, is considerably harder to calculate, because it's cut into so many different pieces. Some borne by drivers, some borne by employers, some by store and mall owners, some by the city, some by the province or state and some by the Feds, although that is very little in Canada. Personally I'm of the opinion that, to the maximum extent possible, those those who benefit from something should bear the brunt of the direct costs. I bike because I like it and it saves on gas money. I don't pretend it's good for everyone, though I'll recommend it to all. There is a point, where the majority of the population benefits, and then it becomes cheaper to provide a service on a group level, then it does to provide the same service on an individual basis. I bike for exersize, and because I want to get into better shape, as I get older. It also saves money on gas, and car repairs. Personally I would rather live car free, and either walk, bike or take transit everywhere, but the city isn't designed to work that way..... W
|
|
#20
October 24th 05, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bike paths in the news.
Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:57:59 -0400, The Wogster wrote: Matt O'Toole wrote: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:01:13 -0400, The Wogster wrote: If you look at areas that are pre-car, density is higher, lots of 3 story townhomes, and 3-4 storey apartment buildings, roads are narrow, and areas are fairly small, often it's designed like an independant village, in that it's common to have a everything mixed together, and there are people in some of these areas, that live, work, shop, attend church all within a 10 block area. Of course walking or cycling within such a neighbourhood is quite easy. A neighbourhood could have a subway station in it's core, to connect neighbourhoods together. So if you need to live in one, and work in another, it's easy to do. But that's like living in a city, and everyone knows cities are full of problems, especially crime. People living so close together just doesn't work. Neighbors don't get along when you squeeze them all together like that. And where do you expect kids to play -- in the street? With all the cars and strangers coming by? Kids need yards. Besides, why would anyone ride a subway when they could afford a car? Crime happens, often is a result, when you combine very high density, with very low incomes, the density level I have mentioned is common in older sections of North American cities, and is common in cities in Europe. Often areas where there is little crime. Actually, smaller towns generally have more crime per capita than large cities. Rural areas can be pretty bad too. It's hard to run a meth lab with neighbors around! What happens often, with crime stats is that say you have a village of 30 people, and a trailer gets stolen, your crime rate is now 3.3%. If a trailer gets stolen in a city of 3 million it doesn't even register. However in that same village, everyone knows everyone else, and what they are doing at any given moment. If farmer John ran a meth lab in his barn, old Mrs McFart at the other end of the village would probably know about it...... Actually often a block designed with say 3 story town-homes ends up with a central courtyard, which gives children a place to play together, and socialize, without needing to be in the street, this is even better when the only access to the court yard is to go through one of the houses. Who needs a car when it's a 10 minute walk to the market, 7 minutes to church, and a 10 minute subway ride to work. A subway offered free of charge, with less then 3 minutes between trains would mean that it would be faster and more economical to take the subway then to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car. I would make the assumption, that to convert an existing city to car free, it would be done in sections, and that those sections would draw people to car free areas, who don't really want a car, even if they can afford it. Like Santa Monica, arguably the nicest part of Los Angeles? (Which vies for the absolute lowest crime rate in the US, despite being as urban as it gets.) I hope you didn't think my post was serious! Anyone who reads my stuff here or listens to me anywhere else would have gotten a clue! BTW, I have not owned a car for almost 4 years. My car is an old piece of junk, and I will likely be car free by the end of the winter, it's actually getting cheaper to switch to transit then to fix the car..... As for being a liberal, yeah to some degree I guess, would make me an oxymoron in the US though, a liberal Christian.... According to my Catholic school upbringing, Christ was the ultimate liberal. I would agree with you there...... W
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| May 6 NYC NBG Day to Honor Fallen Bike Activist | Cycle America | General | 0 | April 11th 05 04:15 PM |
| May 6 NYC NBG Day to Honor Fallen Bike Activist | Cycle America | Recumbent Biking | 0 | April 11th 05 04:13 PM |
| 19 Days to go: NBG Mayors' Ride Excitement #5 | Cycle America | General | 0 | March 30th 05 07:34 PM |
| Some questions etc.. | Douglas Harrington | General | 10 | August 17th 04 02:42 AM |
| aus.bicycle FAQ (Monthly(ish) Posting) | kingsley | Australia | 3 | February 24th 04 08:44 PM |
Linear Mode
