Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
If it is what everyone "wants" why do we have to subsidize it so much? People would be a lot more strategic in how they got around and how far out they lived if they had to pay a $10 toll each way to cover that nice multi-billion dollar highway they are cruising down and building owners were not required to build a giant surplus of parking spaces for every where they want to go. Stop making those of us who don't even own a car pay those massive costs if we don't want to.
Transit is still profitable elsewhere in the world where they don't have as massive of automotive subsidies. Hong Kong's subway system has seen a nice surge in it's stock price recently: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/66:HK
Again, all I am saying is we need to level the playing field and let people make their own choices. Scale back the massive subsides for both. If I want to build a home or business without any parking, I should have that right.
And autonomous cars will be game changing for transit as most will operate like transit. I could even see companies like Uber building or buying transit lines in order to integrate it in with their network of autonomous taxis. Of course if you still want to own a car no one will stop you, it just won't make much financial sense when you can get an autonomous taxi into work for $2.
You do realize most cities in the world were originally built without cars, correct? Cars have only been around about a 100 years. And car usage is falling in many places and lots of cities are exploring banning cars from the city center. I don't think we need to go that far yet, but no city of Atlanta's size can thrive on cars alone. Cars simply do not have the capacity of rail transit. Even our massive 12+ laned highways only have the same capacity of one transit line.
|
If it's what everyone wants but why do we have to subsidize it? I'm not even sure how to respond to that. What are you trying to imply by that? That since everyone wants it it needs to be free? It's infrastructure. Should I argue that companies that make rail cars are only subsidized by the government because they don't pay for the infrastructure their rail cars on? Or should I shift that argument to that people that use it?
As for the most cities were built without cars thing. . . well, yeah, the first automobiles didn't come about until the late 1800s and even at that they were only for the ultra rich until about 1900s and weren't mass produced for awhile after that. The cities that are considering banning car from city centers are those hay suffer from horrible congestion because people want to use cars.
I've seen the proposal details from Paris. It will be rather interesting if it does in fact come to fruition and how long it will last. I view that as a rather cheap method of going about things and one of the only reasons the New Urbanist methods have taken shape. It's rather cheap for cities to restripe roads and add painted bike lanes. You see a lot of them doing it. Road diets and such. Building expensive transit lines, not so much. Though I will note there is a sizeable boom in rail construction. I do like seeing infrastructure investment nonetheless.
Car driving is actually going up in Canada, Mexico, U.S., and Asia. I am not sure about the rest of the world. I am not suggesting any city thrive on cars alone. Hell I'm hoping my hometown(OKC) announces a light rail line soon because it has no options for that.
Now about the autonomous car comment- I disagree with the way you foresee the market for these types of cars. Americans especially are a private ownership culture. Not many people are going to want to share a car. This might fly in Europe, but carsharing did not work out too well in the U.S. or at least to the extent I remember seeing articles claiming it would.
It will be great for you college students, tourists, lower class, etc that will likely use it the most, but I do not foresee the people who can afford their own car not buying one out of choice in the near future(I use the term near very loosely being 50 years or more).
I will completely agree with you on the parking requirements. There should be no minimumparking requirements at all in certain parts of the city. The parts don't have it should have parking maximums, imo.
At this point with the recent boom in construction around city cores, people now have a choice more than ever to live comfortably in a an urban environment without a car and they just aren't choosing to do so. As I said, around 80% of new housing growth was suburban. I'm not just pulling these numbers out of my ass. If you want, I will provide links.
As for transit systems in cities like Hong Kong, you're talking cities that if measured in the way CMSA are measured here in the states, they would have populations of 100 million people. They can't be compared to US cities. The largest is NE mega corridor which has like 50 million. Amtrak only profitable line is there. Does Europe even have any systems that turn out a profit?
Here is a great article from New Geography that also can add to this topic:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/...tation-we-have
Disclaimer: I don't actually agree with ending all transit subsidies, but I do prefer to see automobile oriented infrastructure prioritized over transit based. I'm also the odd millennial according to statistics on this issue even though it was recently revealed more and more millenails are beginning to opt for suburbia. I for one just moved out DTLA into the hills and pretty soon once I get a car I'm aiming for the suburbs in Orange County. I certainly see the benefits of urban living as it was super nice to have the stores all nearby, but the benifits of the freedoms of cars and wide roads outweigh those with narrow streets, transit, and stores/restaurants withincose walking distance. That is just personally.