5 ms·

The numbers in the survey are linked are where people want to live, not where people currently live. More urban residents want to move to the suburbs/rural area

The numbers in the survey are linked are where people want to live, not where people currently live. More urban residents want to move to the suburbs/rural areas than vice-versa. 60% of Americans prefer living a a community with larger houses and having to drive miles to get to school, stores, and restaurants versus having smaller houses and businesses within walking distance. Urban residents are divided almost evenly and 49% of them would prefer to drive miles to get to businesses if it meant that they could live in a large house. [1] I suspect the discrepancy with the previous survey is because both scenarios had the participants living in houses and if they were asked to pick a walkable apartment community or the car-dependent house community the number of people who would pick the denser community would be lower. The data is clear, more people prefer the suburban and rural car dependent lifestyles than the walkable urban lifestyle. Making arguments that people just don't know what they want is incredibly condescending and controlling. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/26/more-americans-now-say-they-prefer-a-community-with-big-houses-even-if-local-amenities-are-farther-away/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/26/more-americ...

mperham 5y ago
No one is arguing against suburbs. We are arguing that car infrastructure (roads 100% devoted to car traffic, free curbside parking and parking lots everywhere) should not be subsidized. You want to use a car? Pay for it. Otherwise free car infrastructure destroys the vitality and livability of wherever it spreads. Suburbs existed before the car. See "Streetcar suburbs" on youtube.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  The point is that it isn't a bad thing if a local government listens to their constituents and builds what they want instead of building what a online vocal minority of people who don't live in their area want. Your argument about subsidies is only logical if you also advocate for no non-use-based taxes and the privatization of all services like healthcare, schools, and transit, since if one shouldn't have to pay for some things they don't use or want to use, then they shouldn't have to pay for anything they don't want to. Transit is also far more subsidized on a per user level than roads are, and I would be perfectly willing to pay the unsubsidized cost of car infrastructure (and so would most drivers), but I suspect that you wouldn't like having to pay the unsubsidized cost of transit. Car infrastructure also doesn't destroy the livability of an area, as shown by the survey results above; no one wants to live in an unlivable area by definition and most people want to live in areas you would deem "unlivable".
  - 8note 5y ago
    Im not so confident that car drivers are not sensitive to cost changes. Eg. The gillet jaune protests in France over gas price changes
    - quantumwannabe 5y ago
      You missed the point of the comment. The relative price increase for car drivers to pay for 100% of their infrastructure cost is far lower than for transit riders. In my area, which is one of the most pro-density and transit-oriented cities in America, it would take a small increase in gas tax, and we've already had a large gas price increase from the market, so returning to normal prices with a small tax increase wouldn't hurt too much. Meanwhile, a bus ride costs the taxpayer ~$7 and the rider pays ~$3. That number does not include the cost of the roads the buses drive on, as government owned vehicles are exempt from gas tax and the transit system does not contribute anything towards road maintenance. A train ticket costs ~$3 but costs the taxpayer ~$30, not including capital costs. Most of the fare revenue also comes from unlimited use passes that all businesses are forced to buy for their employees if they are over a certain size, even if the employees never use them. Meanwhile, drivers in my state pay a ~-70 cents per mile subsidy (that's a negative in front) for the highways. Local roads are more complex, as nearly every arterial has a bus or bike lane these days and every building needs a road to run up to for a variety of reasons. These numbers are taken directly from my state government and my local transit agency's reports, not from some YouTube editorial or blog post. I find those personalities just speculate on what the "true" cost of infrastructure is instead of actually looking it up. Going from $3 train tickets to over $30 tickets hurts a lot more than going from a 50 cents a gallon gas tax to a 60 cent one. In my particular case, moving to a user-pays system would mean that I would save $500 a year in car registration taxes that are used exclusively to fund the transit system, which would more than cover a fair increase in the gas tax.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        Most of transit costs are fixed, so more users lower per cost. Both roads and transit have these factors
bluGill 5y ago
But where people want to live is influenced by what they know. So they want the suburbs to get out of bad schools, not thinking they can reform their schools. They want suburbs for a nice house without asking why their neighborhood can't be made great.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  What if they think that every family having a nice house makes their neighborhood great? Why is being able to walk to a dozen restaurants the only thing that makes a neighborhood good? Is it possible that people do in fact know what they want, and you are being condescending by assuming that they are too stupid to not know their own wants and desires? Stop with the conspiracy theory that people disagree with you because they are brainwashed or uncultured.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Every family having a nice house is one of the things that make a neighborhood great. Walking to a dozen restaurants is another such thing. We can continue making this list until it has several thousand items (maybe even millions?). In the end you cannot have everything on the list, so you compromise. I did not say people are stupid. More like people are creatures of habit and often fail to realize how a change they could make would cascade into making things better. That is they are more likely to be pessimistic and see the downsides. People know what they want when given the existing choices. Frankly the existing choices for dense city living suck for most people (bad schools and they can't afford as much space are big ones), so it is no surprise that people choose suburbs: it is the best choice. The real question is can we reform the dense urban areas so that people will decide they want it over suburbs?
    - quantumwannabe 5y ago
      You are still assuming that people who want to live in suburbs are heathens who just need to be shown the light. You aren't even considering that they just don't like density.

mperham 5y ago

No one is arguing against suburbs. We are arguing that car infrastructure (roads 100% devoted to car traffic, free curbside parking and parking lots everywhere) should not be subsidized. You want to use a car? Pay for it. Otherwise free car infrastructure destroys the vitality and livability of wherever it spreads. Suburbs existed before the car. See "Streetcar suburbs" on youtube.

quantumwannabe 5y ago
The point is that it isn't a bad thing if a local government listens to their constituents and builds what they want instead of building what a online vocal minority of people who don't live in their area want. Your argument about subsidies is only logical if you also advocate for no non-use-based taxes and the privatization of all services like healthcare, schools, and transit, since if one shouldn't have to pay for some things they don't use or want to use, then they shouldn't have to pay for anything they don't want to. Transit is also far more subsidized on a per user level than roads are, and I would be perfectly willing to pay the unsubsidized cost of car infrastructure (and so would most drivers), but I suspect that you wouldn't like having to pay the unsubsidized cost of transit. Car infrastructure also doesn't destroy the livability of an area, as shown by the survey results above; no one wants to live in an unlivable area by definition and most people want to live in areas you would deem "unlivable".
- 8note 5y ago
  Im not so confident that car drivers are not sensitive to cost changes. Eg. The gillet jaune protests in France over gas price changes
  - quantumwannabe 5y ago
    You missed the point of the comment. The relative price increase for car drivers to pay for 100% of their infrastructure cost is far lower than for transit riders. In my area, which is one of the most pro-density and transit-oriented cities in America, it would take a small increase in gas tax, and we've already had a large gas price increase from the market, so returning to normal prices with a small tax increase wouldn't hurt too much. Meanwhile, a bus ride costs the taxpayer ~$7 and the rider pays ~$3. That number does not include the cost of the roads the buses drive on, as government owned vehicles are exempt from gas tax and the transit system does not contribute anything towards road maintenance. A train ticket costs ~$3 but costs the taxpayer ~$30, not including capital costs. Most of the fare revenue also comes from unlimited use passes that all businesses are forced to buy for their employees if they are over a certain size, even if the employees never use them. Meanwhile, drivers in my state pay a ~-70 cents per mile subsidy (that's a negative in front) for the highways. Local roads are more complex, as nearly every arterial has a bus or bike lane these days and every building needs a road to run up to for a variety of reasons. These numbers are taken directly from my state government and my local transit agency's reports, not from some YouTube editorial or blog post. I find those personalities just speculate on what the "true" cost of infrastructure is instead of actually looking it up. Going from $3 train tickets to over $30 tickets hurts a lot more than going from a 50 cents a gallon gas tax to a 60 cent one. In my particular case, moving to a user-pays system would mean that I would save $500 a year in car registration taxes that are used exclusively to fund the transit system, which would more than cover a fair increase in the gas tax.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Most of transit costs are fixed, so more users lower per cost. Both roads and transit have these factors

bluGill 5y ago

But where people want to live is influenced by what they know. So they want the suburbs to get out of bad schools, not thinking they can reform their schools. They want suburbs for a nice house without asking why their neighborhood can't be made great.

quantumwannabe 5y ago
What if they think that every family having a nice house makes their neighborhood great? Why is being able to walk to a dozen restaurants the only thing that makes a neighborhood good? Is it possible that people do in fact know what they want, and you are being condescending by assuming that they are too stupid to not know their own wants and desires? Stop with the conspiracy theory that people disagree with you because they are brainwashed or uncultured.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Every family having a nice house is one of the things that make a neighborhood great. Walking to a dozen restaurants is another such thing. We can continue making this list until it has several thousand items (maybe even millions?). In the end you cannot have everything on the list, so you compromise. I did not say people are stupid. More like people are creatures of habit and often fail to realize how a change they could make would cascade into making things better. That is they are more likely to be pessimistic and see the downsides. People know what they want when given the existing choices. Frankly the existing choices for dense city living suck for most people (bad schools and they can't afford as much space are big ones), so it is no surprise that people choose suburbs: it is the best choice. The real question is can we reform the dense urban areas so that people will decide they want it over suburbs?
  - quantumwannabe 5y ago
    You are still assuming that people who want to live in suburbs are heathens who just need to be shown the light. You aren't even considering that they just don't like density.