5 ms·
> I can totally see 1 out of every 4 streets being used in major cities as dedicated bus thoroughfares as a viable alternative to building super-expensive and r
by zaroth 7y ago
> I can totally see 1 out of every 4 streets being used in major cities as dedicated bus thoroughfares as a viable alternative to building super-expensive and relatively unreliable transit alternatives.
Of course that would itself be incredibly expensive. Roughly 1/4 the cost of all the roads in a city is a tremendously large amount of asphalt to maintain exclusively for buses.
The local businesses will also really enjoy being derelicted.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThen how is it that businesses always seem to do better after city streets around them are pedestrianised? For me 1/4 and 3/4 is the wrong balance, as it's too car friendly and makes no mention of trams and light rail.
- esoterica 7y agoHow many people do you think are driving to a Manhattan restaurant or bar? Only 22% of Manhattan households own a car.
- zaroth 7y agoBecause taxis and Uber’s aren’t a thing? I’ll grant you that if there’s anywhere in the US the harm to local business would be minimized, it would be Manhattan. But the policy was being suggested for a lot more than just Manhattan.
- otterley 7y agoI’m operating under the assumption that the roads in question are already built and that the ongoing cost to maintain them is identical or less than the ongoing cost to maintain them if they were open to all traffic. In other words, no worse than the status quo.
- zaroth 7y agoThat doesn’t actually change the cost of the policy. Repurposing an asset you spent $X to build is the same as spending $X on a new asset for that purpose, minus any depreciation you took up till that point. To your point, if road costs continue to be the status quo, then 1/4 of what you spent on roads should now be covered by bus fares. That would make the buses impossibly expensive. I’m sure that people who like riding public transit buses would love this policy, because your taking an already highly subsidized (loss leading) form of transportation and making it an order of magnitude more subsidized by giving them free private roads to ride on.
- otterley 7y agoPerhaps you have a different understanding of what “expensive” means than the generally accepted definition. Expensive generally refers to the outlay (the expense), not the income, or the net income, or any other financial metric. > repurposing an asset you spent $X to build is the same as spending $X on a new asset for that purpose Does GAAP agree with your claim?
- zaroth 7y agoYes, GAAP accounting considers the payment for building the road as purchasing an asset. Cash account goes down, road assets go up. The depreciation expense for using the road accrues to whoever/whatever it is being used for. If you allocate roads exclusively for buses, buses need to cover the cost of maintaining the road. Today buses can’t even cover the cost of running the buses.
- otterley 7y ago> Yes, GAAP accounting considers the payment for building the road as purchasing an asset. Cash account goes down, road assets go up. True. > The depreciation expense for using the road accrues to whoever/whatever it is being used for. False. Depreciation happens no matter what. The accountants don't care how it's used. The taxing entity may care if you want to obtain a deduction for the depreciating asset as a cost basis, but that's not an accounting question. > If you allocate roads exclusively for buses, buses need to cover the cost of maintaining the road. No they don't. Ideally, maybe; but that's a political question, not an accounting question.