Most Americans are happy with their commutes and would be willing to trade off even longer commutes in order to live in more desirable housing, according to a survey by YouGov. Moreover, the detailed results indicate that these preferences are almost as strong among 18-29 year olds as among older age classes. YouGov describes itself as a “market research and data company.”
Three out of four people in YouGov’s sample of 1,000 drive to work while 14 percent take transit. Since the Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey found that 85 percent of Americans drive to work and only 5 percent take transit, it seems likely that YouGov’s sample was skewed to big cities where transit commuting is more popular. New York, San Francisco, and Washington are the only major urban areas in which more than 14 percent of commuters take transit to work.
This makes YouGov’s other survey results even more striking. The numbers suggest that anecdotes indicating that large numbers of Millennials want to use transit and live close to jobs aren’t supported by the facts. Among other things, the survey found that differences in commuting and other preferences between Democrats and Republicans are greater than between people in their 20s and people in their 50s.
And finally if you are not getting along with your partner, as this decreases sildenafil generic viagra the attraction to a new person. 9. There are currently three purchasing viagra australia main methods to assist in treating heart disease, cancer, hepatitis, menopausal symptoms, erectile dysfunction, chronic fatigue syndrome and many more. Manipulation Manipulative techniques involve a rapid thrust to a joint in an attempt to improve range of motion, flexibility, balance, coordination, joint proprioception, body viagra pills from canada symmetry, and agility to help prevent future injuries. You don’t have to worry much as cialis generic overnight this medicine is easily available at any pharmaceutical shop. While 14 percent of workers in the 18-29-year age class take transit to work, only 10 percent of that class think transit is the ideal commuting mode, suggesting a pent-up demand for alternatives such as cars. (The share who think that cars are ideal is also less than the share who nevertheless drive, but more people “step up” from transit to driving than the other way around.)
Moreover, 57 percent in that age class say they’d accept a longer commute in order to have more desirable housing. This is only 2 percentage points less than the 30-44-year age class. While the survey doesn’t define a more “desirable home,” YouGov comments that, based on the results, the much-prophesied “death of suburbia may be far off.”
The Census Bureau estimates there were more than 136 million commuters in 2013. If 14 percent of them took transit to and from work 225 word days of the year, those commuters alone would add up to 10.5 billion transit trips. Since there were only 10.4 billion transit trips in 2013, and (according to table 12 of the National Household Transportation Survey) half of those were non-commute trips, YouGov’s 14 percent is unrealistically high.
Given that the sample seems to be skewed to big cities, it is likely that national preferences for suburban lifestyles (“desirable homes”) are even greater than indicated in the survey. Moreover, the small differences between age classes found in the survey can just as easily be explained by differences in income as by true generational differences. This is just one more piece of evidence that government agencies should stop the latest planning fad of subsidizing high-density housing along transit corridors.
. This is just one more piece of evidence that government agencies should stop the latest planning fad of subsidizing high-density housing along transit corridors.
The word “subsidize”, in and of itself, indicates that the named activity (high density mixed used TOD) is simply not attractive enough for people to pay its full price and deal with the downsides. After all, government’s don’t need to provide subsidies for DR Horton to build on the edge of urban areas where people actually want to live. We also have plenty of heavily subsidized TOD’s that can still barely attract any renters. (I will provide one day pictures of one such TOD that’s very close to where I now live, in the very hot Bellevue WA real estate market, showing the mostly empty parking lot and completely empty storefronts, even after half a year of being there). And no microshitty, I don’t want to hear about how Walmart subsidized its own parking lot to attract people trapped in evil cars and therefore this all adds another million bucks to the 50 trillion owed by car drivers to transit.
I know, single family homes, one-stop food shopping, these are things people want. But just like automobiles, people really should be paying the whole cost. I like nicer cars, if I get one no one subsidizes my purchase, my loan, my insurance, my maintenance (and in Northern Virginia property tax on cars). So should single family homes in the suburbs, include your share cost of the streets, utilities, schools, fire and police protection in the cost of your home.
.
The more I think about the options that we could have with zoning regulations the more stunned I get. How about a zone that is only served by the volunteer fire department made up of residents of that zone?
A couple of thoughts:
First, I’ve always rejected the argument that Millennials don’t want cars. They don’t use them as much. Cars don’t define their lives in the same way they did for young people in the 70’s. I think the reasoning is rather simple for this. There are more commodities competing for the Millennials resources today. A new Macbook pro, iPhone, iPad and cellular data plans to go along with them (most things Millennials will tell you they can’t live without) is going to run you upwards of $5,000. Tack on everyday expenses, student loans and couple it with stagnant wages, there’s not a lot left over for a car. It doesn’t mean they don’t want one.
Second, people saying ” they’d accept a longer commute in order to have more desirable housing” doesn’t really tell you anything. The majority of people will always say yest to: Would you sacrifice a little of column B to get everything in column A. But what is column A? What is “more desirable housing.”? Personally, I want to live in a single family detached house. However, suburban subdivisions are probably the least appealing form of housing to me. I prefer a mix of land uses (horizontal), especially as a father. I can tell you as a kid who spent a few years in “suburban jail” (as I called it), I don’t want that for my kids. Being stuck in a seemingly endless residential neighborhood with little to no access to a rec center, shops, etc., even by bicycle, was a miserable experience for my 13 year old self. Want to do something outside of the house? Hopefully there is an adult around willing to take you. Also, I saw more socially deviant behavior amongst my peers in that setting than I ever did in the inner city (anecdotal, I know). But, am I willing to commute a little farther to get what I want out of housing? Duh! Of course. That would be true regardless of what king of housing I desired. If I wanted to live in a 60 story highrise I would say the same thing.
As usual, a thoughtful and reasoned response from Bennett.
As for this poll, I’m skeptical. Try to get the full results here:
“Full poll results can be found here and topline results and margin of error here. ”
All you’ll get is a survey on Ukraine.
This is a poor survey. Their main question is ridiculously loaded:
Who would ever want something you’re telling them up front is less desirable? The question presupposes people’s desires and presents them with a false choice. Why not ask the question this way:
So metrofucky, judging from your comments on The Antiplaner’s last post, it sounds like if you had your way, you’d to round up gummit planners” and similar “ilk” and put them in concentration camps. And of course those with your attitude would soon demand a final solution (sic)…
You will always be a C- student in your “reasoning,” and facist in your attitudes. The invitation to visit a Seattle boxing gym with me still stands, if I ever bother to visit Seattle sometime soon.
Most Americans Want a House
in the SuburbsThey WantThe survey doesn’t really say anything about the suburbs. At best it says Americans desire the things they desire.
“This is a poor survey. Their main question is ridiculously loaded…Who would ever want something you’re telling them up front is less desirable? The question presupposes people’s desires and presents them with a false choice.”
Yes. It’s also too narrow. Only two alternatives? Come on. How about a more open ended question with a range of alternatives?
Additionally, the AP assumes that people would rather live in the suburbs to have a better house but then have a longer commute. The argument he has made over and over is that there are more jobs in the suburbs than in urban cores, so the title of today’s post in relation to this survey really makes little sense.
and put them in concentration camps. And of course those with your attitude would soon demand a final solution (sic)…
Speaking of C- students! Microshitty doesn’t seem to remember (or understand) that the horrors he mentions are entirely the result of government planners, and not any free market action or just regular joes. Without those government planners, there would have been no Final Solution, no Concentration Camps, and no quarter billion dead due to some unaccountable government functionary deciding it should be so. Kind of like he doesn’t understand that Walmart doesn’t “subsidize” customers by building them a clean, well-lit parking lot any more than Safeway subsidizes its customers by building aisles for them to walk down the store in.
and facist in your attitudes
Hmm, project much? After all, you and your ilk are the ones who want to force everyone to live in a crackerbox, while (naturally), you live on a Napa Valley vineyard and drive your car everywhere.
The invitation to visit a Seattle boxing gym with me still stands, if I ever bother to visit Seattle sometime soon.
Quit being full of shit, the only boxing you ever do is when your gay lover boxes what you like to call your manhood.
(Pats microshitty on the head)…there there, take that Stacey & Witbeck penis out of your mouth for a moment mikey, it makes you look really retarded with that happy but confused look on your face.