23 ms·

That's not true to my experience at all. We usually budgeted for a car first and a house second. Mass transit in most forms isn't cost efficient below a certain

by kodah 5y ago

That's not true to my experience at all. We usually budgeted for a car first and a house second. Mass transit in most forms isn't cost efficient below a certain density, so at most you'll have a light bus system or rail system available to you. In regards to your "often live without" statement, I met very few people in the South who didn't have cars. For the reasons I stated above, they're practically a necessity. Data also doesn't indicate that people are often going without cars except in major, wealthy cities: https://www.governing.com/archive/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html https://www.governing.com/archive/car-ownership-numbers-of-v...

Retric 5y ago
From your 2015 data: Miami, Florida has 19.9% of households without cars, New Orleans, Louisiana at 18.8%. Even Birmingham, Alabama is at 15.8% and Atlanta, Georgia has 15.2% of households without cars. That’s much higher than say Arlington, Virginia at 13.4% which is connected to one of the best public transportation networks in the US. A handful of places on that list sat at 2% without cars, but most of the south was over 5% without cars largely due to poverty. PS: Not that I think the data is very accurate Murrieta, California seemingly went from 3.5% (2015) down to 0.7% (2016) which seems extremely unlikely for a single year. The poor are often missed in official statistics like census unless significant effort is used to track them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kodah 5y ago
  20% of a city not having a car sounds pretty typical, and from that data looks average. The wealthiest cities seem to correlate to not having cars, with San Francisco leading. The smaller towns on that list, and especially the ones in the Midwest and South are anywhere from single digit to 20%, with Cleveland having the highest number. So what's your point? Edit: the whole point of my reply was to say that mass transit is effective in dense, wealthy cities. In the Midwest and South those same sentiments will not work because our highest density is in the middle of the city. The farther you go out is quickly drops off. Given that, it makes sense to make cars cheaper and easier to maintain for people there, while focusing on mass transit in areas where it will work. Unfortunately, in areas like SF (where I currently live) it's NIMBYs who get in the way and waste everyone's time while acting like they support mass transit expansion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 5y ago
    New Orleans, Louisiana where 18.8% of households live without cars has a 23.7% poverty rate and a median income of $41,604, that’s well below the national average. Dallas Texas where 10.2% of households live without cars has a 18.9% poverty rate, median income of $52,580, so it’s larger, wealthier, and denser yet has significantly more cars. Also, 20% is unusually high. Nationwide it’s about 8.7% and that’s heavily influenced by NYC. Excluding just NYC and that number falls closer to 7%. PS: It’s really region specific but in general the wealthy are more likely to own a car in their area but different areas don’t have anything close to the same breakdown. https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income-population-density-green-new-deal.html https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income.... Just look at El Paso vs San Jose on the bottom graph.
    - geoduck14 5y ago
      >New Orleans, Louisiana where 18.8% of households live without cars has a 23.7% poverty rate and a median income of $41,604, that’s well below the national average. Dallas Texas where 10.2% of households live without cars has a 18.9% poverty rate, median income of $52,580, so it’s larger, wealthier, and denser yet has significantly more cars. Are you suggesting that when poor people get cars, they are better able to drive to work, then make more money? Because that is my take-away from this
      - Retric 5y ago
        No, for one thing many of these people are retired. Anyway, a few poor people making marginally more money isn’t going to move median income, it’s going to show up at the 5th and 10th percentile but largely disappear past the 25th. So, I am suggesting a car is considered a luxury or unaffordable by large segments of the poor population outside of the largest and richest cities.
        5y ago

by kodah 5y ago

Retric 5y ago

From your 2015 data: Miami, Florida has 19.9% of households without cars, New Orleans, Louisiana at 18.8%. Even Birmingham, Alabama is at 15.8% and Atlanta, Georgia has 15.2% of households without cars. That’s much higher than say Arlington, Virginia at 13.4% which is connected to one of the best public transportation networks in the US. A handful of places on that list sat at 2% without cars, but most of the south was over 5% without cars largely due to poverty. PS: Not that I think the data is very accurate Murrieta, California seemingly went from 3.5% (2015) down to 0.7% (2016) which seems extremely unlikely for a single year. The poor are often missed in official statistics like census unless significant effort is used to track them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kodah 5y ago
20% of a city not having a car sounds pretty typical, and from that data looks average. The wealthiest cities seem to correlate to not having cars, with San Francisco leading. The smaller towns on that list, and especially the ones in the Midwest and South are anywhere from single digit to 20%, with Cleveland having the highest number. So what's your point? Edit: the whole point of my reply was to say that mass transit is effective in dense, wealthy cities. In the Midwest and South those same sentiments will not work because our highest density is in the middle of the city. The farther you go out is quickly drops off. Given that, it makes sense to make cars cheaper and easier to maintain for people there, while focusing on mass transit in areas where it will work. Unfortunately, in areas like SF (where I currently live) it's NIMBYs who get in the way and waste everyone's time while acting like they support mass transit expansion.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 5y ago
  New Orleans, Louisiana where 18.8% of households live without cars has a 23.7% poverty rate and a median income of $41,604, that’s well below the national average. Dallas Texas where 10.2% of households live without cars has a 18.9% poverty rate, median income of $52,580, so it’s larger, wealthier, and denser yet has significantly more cars. Also, 20% is unusually high. Nationwide it’s about 8.7% and that’s heavily influenced by NYC. Excluding just NYC and that number falls closer to 7%. PS: It’s really region specific but in general the wealthy are more likely to own a car in their area but different areas don’t have anything close to the same breakdown. https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income-population-density-green-new-deal.html https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income.... Just look at El Paso vs San Jose on the bottom graph.
  - geoduck14 5y ago
    >New Orleans, Louisiana where 18.8% of households live without cars has a 23.7% poverty rate and a median income of $41,604, that’s well below the national average. Dallas Texas where 10.2% of households live without cars has a 18.9% poverty rate, median income of $52,580, so it’s larger, wealthier, and denser yet has significantly more cars. Are you suggesting that when poor people get cars, they are better able to drive to work, then make more money? Because that is my take-away from this
    - Retric 5y ago
      No, for one thing many of these people are retired. Anyway, a few poor people making marginally more money isn’t going to move median income, it’s going to show up at the 5th and 10th percentile but largely disappear past the 25th. So, I am suggesting a car is considered a luxury or unaffordable by large segments of the poor population outside of the largest and richest cities.
      - 5y ago