3 ms·

> I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a ci

by mmooss 7mo ago

> I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a city"). > This can be easily seen if you look at the _personal_ income tax stats. I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Also, what you say disagrees with economics, which generally agrees that cities are the economic engines of modern economies. Is there any question what generates more income, Manhattan or North Hempstead? And part of the reason for that level of high economic activity is density. > We can also sponsor every car owner to the tune of $500 a month, and they would also have 3$ trips, before any discounts. See? Money comes out of somewhere, and by allocating funds towards unproductive transit, we move them away from better projects. We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat. To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. Again, afaik economists strongly agree that mass transit is far more efficient, which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. > what is forcing people to cram into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions just a few hours away? The answer is simple: jobs. No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Lots of people I know do. You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. But demand is much higher for much smaller space to live in the city, where there are people (humans love being around other humans), restaurants and food, arts, culture, social events, activity in the city that never sleeps (something people love), endless resources. Manhattan, the most expensive place in the country, is not filled with working class people. > I'm using exactly the same language as urbanists. I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them.

cyberax 7mo ago
> I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Again, buildings don't generate wealth. People do. And personal Federal income taxes serve as a good proxy to see who's contributing more to the US economy. > We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. The car subsidies are NOWHERE close to transit subsidies. In my state, car users pay for everything directly. Yet there are no cities in the US where transit pays even for its running costs without subsidies. > In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat. I agree. We should force all the transit agencies to start paying back what they got as subsidies. Let them raise ticket prices, sell space for ads, whatever. GM got a $12B bailout in 2008. Sound Transit in Seattle will get more than $100B to build about 50 miles of rail. > To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. I actually have other evidence. Like accessibility of jobs. A person with a car in 1980-s US had access to about 2-3x businesses than an average European living in a large city with transit. > Again, afaik economists strongly agree Who? > which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)? This is not a good use of human potential. It's like having a separate person coming in every day just to turn on your lights! > Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC. > No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Nope. We can check that by looking at total fertility rates. It's a J-shaped curve in the modern societies. > You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. No, you can't. You have only a 30-minute commute budget before it becomes uncomfortable, and so you _have_ to live close enough. > I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them. I'm the only one in this thread citing anything but feelings or easily debunked "intuitive" ideas.
- AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
  I am not here to take a position on the larger discussion you're having, but a couple of your points here are deeply flawed. > Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)? They don't. They serve as a dedicated driver for 18 people x however many trips they make in a day. That's a significantly higher number. > > Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. > Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC. Same problem here. The bus makes several trips; one bus handles 18 people in an average trip but far more people in a day. Those "far more people" take far more than 18 parking spots if they all drive.
  - cyberax 7mo ago
    > They don't. They serve as a dedicated driver for 18 people x however many trips they make in a day. > That's a significantly higher number. That's just 1 trip, because 18 people per bus is already an average. It already takes into account people who do multiple trips. > Same problem here. The bus makes several trips; one bus handles 18 people in an average trip but far more people in a day. Those "far more people" take far more than 18 parking spots if they all drive. I see that you're already trying to justify the horribleness of transit by denying it: "Maybe it's not THAT bad". Sorry. It is. Transit is horrible.
    - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
      Given how bad you are at trying to guess my motives, you should probably stop. I didn't say transit was not horrible; I said your reasoning is faulty. You didn't address the issue at all. Perhaps you attempted to, by mentioning that people do multiple trips. OK, how many do they do? 2? 3? What's the average? But how many does a driver do? 8 a day? 12? 20? So your argument " why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)?" is completely flawed. One driver is driving 18 people per load, times the average number of trips per day that the driver makes, divided by the average number of trips per day that a passenger makes. That is still far higher than 18, and your logic on this point is still broken.

by mmooss 7mo ago

cyberax 7mo ago

> I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Again, buildings don't generate wealth. People do. And personal Federal income taxes serve as a good proxy to see who's contributing more to the US economy. > We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. The car subsidies are NOWHERE close to transit subsidies. In my state, car users pay for everything directly. Yet there are no cities in the US where transit pays even for its running costs without subsidies. > In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat. I agree. We should force all the transit agencies to start paying back what they got as subsidies. Let them raise ticket prices, sell space for ads, whatever. GM got a $12B bailout in 2008. Sound Transit in Seattle will get more than $100B to build about 50 miles of rail. > To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. I actually have other evidence. Like accessibility of jobs. A person with a car in 1980-s US had access to about 2-3x businesses than an average European living in a large city with transit. > Again, afaik economists strongly agree Who? > which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)? This is not a good use of human potential. It's like having a separate person coming in every day just to turn on your lights! > Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC. > No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Nope. We can check that by looking at total fertility rates. It's a J-shaped curve in the modern societies. > You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. No, you can't. You have only a 30-minute commute budget before it becomes uncomfortable, and so you _have_ to live close enough. > I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them. I'm the only one in this thread citing anything but feelings or easily debunked "intuitive" ideas.

AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
I am not here to take a position on the larger discussion you're having, but a couple of your points here are deeply flawed. > Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)? They don't. They serve as a dedicated driver for 18 people x however many trips they make in a day. That's a significantly higher number. > > Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. > Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC. Same problem here. The bus makes several trips; one bus handles 18 people in an average trip but far more people in a day. Those "far more people" take far more than 18 parking spots if they all drive.
- cyberax 7mo ago
  > They don't. They serve as a dedicated driver for 18 people x however many trips they make in a day. > That's a significantly higher number. That's just 1 trip, because 18 people per bus is already an average. It already takes into account people who do multiple trips. > Same problem here. The bus makes several trips; one bus handles 18 people in an average trip but far more people in a day. Those "far more people" take far more than 18 parking spots if they all drive. I see that you're already trying to justify the horribleness of transit by denying it: "Maybe it's not THAT bad". Sorry. It is. Transit is horrible.
  - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
    Given how bad you are at trying to guess my motives, you should probably stop. I didn't say transit was not horrible; I said your reasoning is faulty. You didn't address the issue at all. Perhaps you attempted to, by mentioning that people do multiple trips. OK, how many do they do? 2? 3? What's the average? But how many does a driver do? 8 a day? 12? 20? So your argument " why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)?" is completely flawed. One driver is driving 18 people per load, times the average number of trips per day that the driver makes, divided by the average number of trips per day that a passenger makes. That is still far higher than 18, and your logic on this point is still broken.