The Antiplanner’s faithful ally and American Dream Coalition director Ed Braddy argues that transit — at least as we know it — is an unsustainable form of transportation.
Which reminds me that the American Dream Coalition’s next annual conference is Some of the things that can be heard from the recordings are all-natural remedy that can soothe back pains, relaxation methods to eliminate spasms, truth about the effectiveness of pain-killers and viagra price online many more. If left untreated, erectile dysfunction can give rise to physical as well as psychological complications. online viagra sales Though psychological viagra 100 mg factors are concerned in the causation of migraines. Both of them are sildenafil citrate medications, which are easily available from various online stores across the world. purchase levitra is one such drug that has already helped many smokers quit smoking for life. scheduled for June 10-12 in Orlando. The conference will feature lots of exciting speakers plus a tour to see, among other things, the Selmon Expressway, which consists of three lanes built in a six-foot-wide median strip of an existing highway.
Oh darn. I forgot to send in a proposal for a conf in FL in June. Nonetheless, it is reassuring to see yet another tired rehash of the same tendentious talking points, using rhetoric, at that.
DS
ROT:“the Selmon Expressway, which consists of three lanes built in a six-foot-wide median strip of an existing highway.”
ws:That’s interesting looking and a good use of space, but that would probably not work on any west coast city due to earthquake concerns.
The extent to which auto apologists go to ignore “gummit” regulations that mandate “free parking” (see Donald Shoup’s book) or to the extent that auto insurance doesn’t cover medical bills from auto accidents, is remarkable. If everything was on a “market” basis, transit would be well into the black, including most rail lines.
Actually, Mr. Gummit, the regulations do not mandate free parking. The regulations only mandate available parking for expected demand. The land owner is always free to charge for the parking.
But for some reason, completely unknown to planners, businesses always want their customers to park for free.
But for some reason, completely unknown to planners, businesses always want their customers to park for free.
Ignorant proclamations notwithstanding, the reason usu is ‘free rider’, unless they pay for their parking land/decks then they can validate and mark up their prices. I wonder if the % of planners that have more econ than poor Andy is less than 100%…I might go with 99%, not much less tho.
DS
Dan, please either rewrite your last post or explain it a little more.
Andy said that land owners are free to charge for parking but choose not to do so. Are you refuting his statement about land owners?
What did you mean by “unless they pay for their parking land/decks”? Am I missing something? When do businesses not pay for their parking land – either through direct ownership or through rent and common use fees? Are you referring to some New Urban design or to city owned lots in center cities built 60 years ago?
Andy:“Actually, Mr. Gummit, the regulations do not mandate free parking. The regulations only mandate available parking for expected demand. The land owner is always free to charge for the parking.”
ws: I don’t agree with making the land owner charge for their parking, but in reality they do actually charge for parking in other ways, for those who are not aware of the situation.
I think the best way to deal with more market based approaches to land development and parking is:
a) do not mandate parking numbers, let the developers choose
b) have developers pay for traffic impact fees if their business will generate a lot of car vehicle trips (addresses externalized cost of auto-dependent businesses on to neighbors and gov’t)
c) change property taxes to land value tax. Tax the land only, not the buildings. That is an arbitrary method of taxation (appraisals). It makes for efficient use of land and gives property owners a more fair tax of their property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Here’s an example of a Toronto condo that will build a very limited # of parking stalls:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/newsfeatures/article/696394
Quote:
“Parking spots typically add $20,000 or more to the cost of a downtown condo.”
Hey! ROT and the Libertarians are right, this time. Gov’t does increase housing costs artificially. Except they’ll never address the other aspects of this beyond growth boundaries only or other elements not associated with the promotion of the automobile.
To once again add to the topic, how much does one think adds to the cost of apartment units for poor people when you factor in 1.50 parking spaces required per unit by most municipal gov’ts?
Imagine the affect of introducing no specific parking requirements in addition to more fair property tax methods (LVT) considering many developments in suburbia devote more land to the automobile in the form of parking than they do for businesses and homes? I’ll imagine for you: You’d see naturally higher densities, more walking, better transit access and less auto-dependency.
People would still use cars but would rely on on-street parking, possibly own fewer automobiles, and more than likely pay money to park it at their residence due to a natural limited supply in parking because developers don’t want to waste money they don’t have to.
Reduced rental costs from developers not having to pay to pave over everything for the auto will let the individual choose if they want to own a car or give them options for other modes. But that would be crazy to let people choose.
But, the Car-bertarians would *never* address a market based strategy like this, to beat a dead horse from my last post.
ws: “have developers pay for traffic impact fees if their business will generate a lot of car vehicle trips”
Suburban towns often compete in offerring incentives for a Wal-Mart Supercenter. They do the same in attracting power centers and shopping malls. Their goal, of course, is to win the sales tax revenues these high volume businesses will generate. Do you think those towns are going to risk losing that sales tax revenue by imposing traffic impact fees on high traffic businesses?
Perhaps I do not understand what you guys are talking about.
Surface parking has a cost, which the developer bears. Often this is monetized in lease or purchase agreements. The binesses must recoup that cost if it is privately funded. You either pay directly or mark up your product/service. Not hard at all. If businesses are next to a private pay lot, sometimes they can arrange to validate (not often). If binesses are nest to city property, the city must maintain the ground. User fees and all that, just like driving.
Too bad if you want to use property for free. Nonetheless, Shoup’s writings tease out why free parking is good for free-riders, but bad for communities, as mentioned above. Surely property owners want to monetize their property, why would anyone want to be a free rider, hm?
DS
ws,
About a tax scheme you can imagine which would discourage suburbanites from owning single family detached homes in auto-dependent communities: it will never get enacted as long as those suburbanites who desire single family detached homes in auto-dependent communities represent the majority of voters. Elected officials are not stupid.
John Dewey:
I don’t wish for tax schemes to discourage anything. I only wish they were fair. I also don’t wish that single-family home owners be “taxed” out of their home because their homes consume more land. In fact, an LVT would let people actually make improvements to their homes w/o fear of being taxed more for increasing their market value.
Add a room to your house? Your taxes go up in! Not so under an LVT. The land is the only taxable entity.
John Dewey:“Suburban towns often compete in offerring incentives for a Wal-Mart Supercenter. They do the same in attracting power centers and shopping malls. Their goal, of course, is to win the sales tax revenues these high volume businesses will generate. Do you think those towns are going to risk losing that sales tax revenue by imposing traffic impact fees on high traffic businesses?”
ws: It’s unfortunate the cities have to increase sales taxes by planning for more commercial areas (something prop 13 did was decrease property taxes so California cities banked on increasing sales through more commercial zoning).
I don’t know what to say other than a business that unnaturally increase traffic so much should at least have to pay an impact fee. Many cities already do this, but as you pointed, they also give subsidies to these places in order to entice their business.
I don’t care if it’s a Wal-Mart or the most sustainable business in the world, neither should be getting subsidies or grants. Taxes should be fair and conducive to promoting growth — not punitive or special interested.
WS wrote:
> That’s interesting looking and a good use of space, but that
> would probably not work on any west coast city due to
> earthquake concerns.
WS, apparently Caltrans and the L.A. County MTA disagree with you, since they built the (somewhat similar) Harbor Transitway, which is partly on a massive structure in the median of the Harbor Freeway (I-110) in Los Angeles in the 1990’s.
msetty wrote:
> The extent to which auto apologists go to ignore “gummitâ€
> regulations that mandate “free parking†(see Donald Shoup’s book)
> or to the extent that auto insurance doesn’t cover medical bills
> from auto accidents, is remarkable. If everything was on
> a “market†basis, transit would be well into the black,
> including most rail lines.
Mr. Setty, from 1962 to 1972, all mass transit in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area was provided by profitable and private bus companies who held franchises to provide transit service. Fares and service was tightly regulated, but the four companies did not need the subsidies that were required after WMATA took the bus companies over.
What happened in 1972?
Thank you, Mr. Dan (or is it Lt. Dan?), for proving my point about how planners are divorced from the real world.
I am sure you lose sleep every night about how businesses consider parking to be a favorable cost of doing business, and thus don’t directly charge the customer (or is it a “binesses” that you referenced in #10).
I would humbly suggest you take your brilliant insight, invest your own money, and open up a business that charges a huge amount for customer parking. Under your planner model of the world, you would make a fortune and put Wal-Mart out of business. Go for it! Maybe all your planner friends will invest.
But if your real world business fails, it is because the customer prefers to drive, even more than you and all your planner friends seem to calculate. Gee, I wonder why?
If you disagree with me, then invest your own money and make more than Wal-Mart’s $13.6 billion profit. If you don’t, then you are hypocrite, an idiot, and a planner who has his head up where the sun doesn’t shine.
How about I own a business and charge for parking the amount required to break even on the maintenance / property tax / capital cost / security associated for the parking? Then I take the money I no longer have to shell out to pay for parking upkeep and lower my prices to an amount less than Walmart charges. You really don’t think I’m going to rake in the customers with my lower prices?
Absolutely you will, if planners are right(re #16). Go for it. Obviously all the people who are happy with transit, or even indifferent between transit and all the huge costs of automobiles, will do business at your store and not Wal Mart. Now that you have that insight and market advantage, you and “Dan” should invest your money and become the next Sam Walton. I am sure that Dan will pore all his life savings into such a business that reflects his life goals and intellect.
I won’t invest in you, but that is just me being stupid.
CPZ:“WS, apparently Caltrans and the L.A. County MTA disagree with you, since they built the (somewhat similar) Harbor Transitway, which is partly on a massive structure in the median of the Harbor Freeway (I-110) in Los Angeles in the 1990’s.”
ws:Boy, I guess so. I meant to say you can’t build them w/o expensive earthquake design considerations. I didn’t think I would see one so new, however. But a big one is expected to hit LA. Do you think that would withstand an 8.0?
Ed Braddy’s a convicted drunk driver, so why the hell is he whining about transit being “unsustainable”?
Andy said: Absolutely you will, if planners are right(re #16). Go for it. Obviously all the people who are happy with transit, or even indifferent between transit and all the huge costs of automobiles, will do business at your store and not Wal Mart. Now that you have that insight and market advantage, you and “Dan†should invest your money and become the next Sam Walton. I am sure that Dan will pore all his life savings into such a business that reflects his life goals and intellect.
I won’t invest in you, but that is just me being stupid.
THWM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:09-02-06-OriginalWaltons.jpg
Parking is an aspect, though if you want to reduce the negative impacts from such a large foot print of parking spaces, they could be built under your big box store.
ws said: Hey! ROT and the Libertarians are right, this time. Gov’t does increase housing costs artificially. Except they’ll never address the other aspects of this beyond growth boundaries only or other elements not associated with the promotion of the automobile.
THWM: Indeed, O’Toole a.k.a “The Autoplanner” along with his Auto-tarian psychophants.
transitboy: “Then I take the money I no longer have to shell out to pay for parking upkeep and lower my prices to an amount less than Walmart charges. You really don’t think I’m going to rake in the customers with my lower prices?”
So why haven’t Target and KMart tried that scheme? Or why hasn’t Walmart? Do you really believe these giant corporations are just waiting around for genius schemes to arise from the general public? Do you really believe that the competitive pressures of a trillion dollar retail marketplace haven’t already forced the most efficient business model to arise?
Though that’s the best business model within the given business environment.
Andy your example and argument is gibberish. There are maybe ~.00612% of planners extant who would consider this as a starter on the ground.
But thanks evah so much for trying! *heart!*
DS
Wow, what an intelligent argument Dan makes. He even knows how to spell “gibberish” (probably from reading the grades on his school papers).
And thanks for pointing out the biggest problem for planners — something called “reality”. Real planners put their own money at risk for their ideas and must deal with reality. Government planners play with other people’s money to avoid reality.
Man, I’m never going to get that time back that I wasted on Andy. Live and learn.
——————
Writeup found here.
That is your argument, Dan? We were talking about parking at retail businesses, and you pull out some study on foreclosure rate of neighborhoods? You need to stop smoking so much of that stuff.
And before you try to use your new favorite study as an irrelevant comment on a future discussion on the Antiplanner’s website, you should realize that (1) it is done by activists at a special interest group; (2) they found a weak statistical correlation; and finally, (3) it will shock Dan to learn that correlation does not prove causation.
Sigh…
last time wasting my time on you, Andy. #26 below the line is a return to topic, hence the delineation. It is not my fault you don’t understand 10 and 24 as showing you don’t know what you are talking about, thus my [killfile].
DS
Mission accomplished!
To reiterate, if the argument that Randal parrots that transit is unsustainable, and the latest empirical evidence shows (refuting Randal’s parroted argument) that autocentricity makes communities less resilient, then this leads to the following:
o A. The assertion that transit is unsustainable is false.
o B. The assertion that transit is unsustainable is true.
o C. The implication that autocentricity is unsustainable is false.
o D. The implication that autocentricity is unsustainable is true.
Now we can go thru the 16 (4) if/thens. Surely the dependence of some small-minority ideologies on the maintenance of certain fictions to validate their identities is emitting steam in the sunlight. Again. For the 774th time. This week.
DS
Dear Dan. Please look up “logical fallacy” argument in Wikipedia.
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Andy said: That is your argument, Dan? We were talking about parking at retail businesses, and you pull out some study on foreclosure rate of neighborhoods? You need to stop smoking so much of that stuff.
And before you try to use your new favorite study as an irrelevant comment on a future discussion on the Antiplanner’s website, you should realize that (1) it is done by activists at a special interest group; (2) they found a weak statistical correlation; and finally, (3) it will shock Dan to learn that correlation does not prove causation.
THWM: Though Andy, you’re pushing a political agenda your self.
Dan said: Now we can go thru the 16 (4) if/thens. Surely the dependence of some small-minority ideologies on the maintenance of certain fictions to validate their identities is emitting steam in the sunlight. Again. For the 774th time. This week.
THWM: Dan if you really want to under stand the mentality behind Randal, Andy, Mike, Scott, etc. Watch the following video by their brothers in arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKc2lAYrPSo
highwayman,
The free market zealots are my opponents too, but that link is backhanded and I don’t support taking the conversation there. Your better than that. Step your game up.
Though it’s the exact same scuzzy logic.
They hate competition, they don’t want railroads & transit to even exist.
Nope. Not appropriate. Step up your game son. No need for that kind of puerile cr*p. There is a difference between low wattage, ideology, and evil.
No need for that and STFU with that sh–.
DS
This is one of the few times I’m in complete agreement with Dan.
By the way, I read comments to gain insight and different perspectives on the main post; all I seem to find ’round here is monkeys at the zoo flinging poo.
The attacks are so juvenile.
Please stop.
Dan said: There is a difference between low wattage, ideology, and evil.
THWM: They’re crooked, not stupid. Dan, that’s what makes them evil!
highman,
Re: your youtube link. The KKK has no relevance here & neither does race. You show your shallowness when you try to…whatever…it’s unclear how why you use slander.
BTW, the KKK was started by & staffed by Democrats & is anti-free market & pro-gov.
You’re the bigot, you want rail to exist on profit and loss basis, while roads are not subjected to existing on a profit or loss basis!
@the highwayman ,
I’m curious. What do you expect to accomplish with your blatant misrepresentations and lies?
Why do O’Toole, Cox, Rubin, etc. make blatant misrepresentations and lies?