Driverless cars solve this problem pretty soon The end result is going to be about ~80% fewer cars in existence.
Why? Drivers or not, cars still need roads to reach locations.
Presumably, fewer cars means less road repair necessary.
Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
101–110 of 172 posts
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#102I don't quite see his argument that this is a ponzi scheme. Wouldn't that mean, if a city stops growing, the whole thing collapses and the streets fall apart?
It seems more like parasitism, where the urban core is burdened with supporting more and more suburbs, and stopping growth is a step toward stability.
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#103First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zonin…
It's interesting that some of the most charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York, DuPont in D.C.) were built before all that crap. You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.
I live in a neighborhood Denver where many of the houses were built in the 1880s and 90s and it's utterly charming. Houses of various sizes and shapes, some single-family, some multi-tennant. It's even more interesting than the Chicago neighborhood where I lived in the nineties (and which also dated from the late 1800s).
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#104First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zonin…
Houston.
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some places are building this. Assembly Row in Somerville is a prime example. Usually it's called transit oriented planning.
I have walked around assembly row and it isn't terrible but it certainly doesn't feel like downtown Boston. Check out what standing at the intersection of Grand Union Blvd and Artisan Way feels like: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3948862,-71.081131,3a,75y,11...
That feels like it could be anywhere. I was in Boston last weekend in the Copley Square area, which I liked very much but my impression is it's very expensive.
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to share one of my favorite anecdotes. CA colleges are, for a number of reasons (prop 13, etc), in perpetual budget crises. A mother with a daughter in a UC was interviewed on tv whining about the impact of budget cuts on her daughter's education. After about a minute of this moron whinging, the reporter asked if she would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars per year more in tax if it were dedicated to…
This might be unpopular, but California is a great example of a place where taxes are high, but it is not spent well. I remember looking at this a few years back, and although the state claims that 2/3 of state tax dollars goes towards education, a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable, it essentially takes money away from today's generati…
"...a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable..."
It's contract law. No admirable necessary.
Pensions etc are negotiated as part of the compensation package. Those former employees earned that money. It's not an entitlement, or charity.
Legitimate complaints would be gaming the pension system and chronic underfunding (kicking the can down the road).
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#107It seems like the yearly cost calculation (19,146.11 /30 years = $638.20) ignores the time value of money. $19,146.11 30 years from now is only worth $5,778.22 today at 4%. The future value of 30 $378.49 yearly payments at 4%/yr is $21,227.59 ..
The cost of resurfacing will probably rise proportional to inflation, so it will cost more to resurface in the future as well .. but couldn't the city invest the funds to get 3-4% over inflation? Also, the yearly tax payments will rise proportionally over time.
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Drivers or not, cars still need roads to reach locations.
Presumably, fewer cars means less road repair necessary.
I'd assume it was miles, not cars, that would govern. 1 car driven 20 miles causes as much wear as 2 cars driven 10 miles each.
Driverless cars may increase total miles driven, by making driving more convenient and shared cars (which many driverless cars would become) increase miles by adding "deadhead" miles to reposition between dropoff X-1 and pickup X.
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make that the world. At least in Stockholm all the most desirable locations would be illegal to build today for dozens of reasons. Meanwhile, newly built areas range from awful to tolerable.
> Make that the world. Please don't!!! I stay far far far away from the dense cities. I can't stand those places. I'm quite happy with the way in the US you can pick where you want to live - anything from superdense, to urban, to suburban, to rural. Whatever you like, there's a city that will match you. Even better is how in some cities there is a mix, all within 50 miles of each other you have all the types. You get…
That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle.
Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay for your roads.
Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make that the world. At least in Stockholm all the most desirable locations would be illegal to build today for dozens of reasons. Meanwhile, newly built areas range from awful to tolerable.
> Make that the world. Please don't!!! I stay far far far away from the dense cities. I can't stand those places. I'm quite happy with the way in the US you can pick where you want to live - anything from superdense, to urban, to suburban, to rural. Whatever you like, there's a city that will match you. Even better is how in some cities there is a mix, all within 50 miles of each other you have all the types. You get…
Except you can't. Your choices in the US are almost always suburban to rural, especially if a) you don't have a lot of money to afford the desirable urban areas and b) you don't want to deal with the crime in the undesirable ones.