Nor is it an assignment of blame for sprawl as I've made it abundantly clear who I believe is responsible, city planners.
The government with it's city planners didn't make people buy houses far away from where they worked.
It was everyone. IN short, what I've been saying... THE CULTURE.
Gov't, unions, auto and oil companies, pop culture, real estate, they all contributed to our car culture. And the price of gasoline is eventually going to change this. It will change our culture until we no longer have such a strong car based culture. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Nor*Cal, uhh, yes, yes you can. You can compare the downtown areas to each other.
I'm not saying to compare the entire area. There are areas that are similar, just like there are areas of any major city that are similar.
That being said, I'd say if you took the SFBay and LA and looked at them, you would see that the SFBay has an excellent system in comparison. And the SFBay is FAR more complex than LA, because of bridges that connect the physically separated areas.
Anyhow, my real point was that if you took the Market street/Embarcadero streetcar line, and used many of the same tactics/strategies to keep traffic moving, you could apply them to say, I dunno, Wilshire/SM Blvd in LA and have a viable solution. The infrastructure was in place for this before the GM purchase mothballed the system. _________________
eeven73, or, they, in cooperation with others interested in selling products, purchased a competitor and dismantled them.
The truth is not in the middle in this case. They saw an opportunity, and they took it. What they did was very legal, but the ethics of the situation leave much to be desired.
Can you imagine GM or Chevron coming in today and buying out the Portland light rail system, then dismantling it? We already know that the system perpetually loses money and requires taxpayers to fill in the gap. I'm just thinking crazy thoughts here - that despite operating in the red, the idea would go over as well as a lead balloon if presented to the citizens of the area. _________________
eeven73, I'm not comparing Portland to LA in the 50's. AT ALL. Just throwing it out there - that this type of public transit takeover would not stand today - in fact it would cause major public outrage.
You can not agree all you want. Your idea that they were somehow "helping" is laughable at best. Q: Why does a public corporation exist? A: Maximizing shareholder value. Some do it ethically, some don't. Some even make it seem like they are helping, when it's only their bottom line they give a crap about. So long as it's all legal, right?
They pulled the wool over LA's eyes then, and apparently it's still working on you 60 years later. _________________
I said that the truth was in the middle. You assert GM was an evil puppet master duping the public out of cherished public transportation assets. It is monday morning quarterbacking at it's worst.
The electric rail was an inefficent money pit. Bottom line.
Quit trying to push the romaticized fiction of public transportation coupled with laying the blame at a conspiracy of corporate boogey men.
Does public transportation have a role in a comprehensive system? Certainly. _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Nor is it an assignment of blame for sprawl as I've made it abundantly clear who I believe is responsible, city planners.
The government with it's city planners didn't make people buy houses far away from where they worked.
So the city planners didn't zone, subdivide, site, and permit those developments? I'm shocked. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
o the city planners didn't zone, subdivide, site, and permit those developments? I'm shocked.
Yes, then they came to white people's apartments and told them that they would kill their families unless they purchased the new homes they were building.
When the culture turned from an urban-agricultural culture to a suburban car culture, there was no way that any local gov't is going to keep people from pursuing what became the "American dream."
It's about the culture, and change will also be based in the culture again when it happens. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
eeven73, There was 1 and only 1 reason for the purchase: to dismantle the system. There isn't even some wiggle room for discussion. There was no fantasy philanthropic effort here. It was purely profit driven - there is no middle ground. GM, Chevron, et al were doing this to further their interests, they didn't give a crap about LA (or any other city they did this to).
PS: all electric rail systems in the US have been money pits. They exist for the public good which is why we subsidize them. That isn't my point here.
Nor*Cal, some areas of LA are very dense, and those are the areas where I think a streetcar system would work well. Metrorail is more akin to the Cap Corridor or maybe Caltrain (Maybe BART but not really), and isn't really what I'm getting at. CalTrain and CapCorridor work because they directly link with Muni and BART. Metrorail links with? There are no downtown lines comparable with a system like Muni. There are a few stations, but nothing that just runs up and down a major corridor like we have in SF. _________________
chavez, there is a subway and a light rail in addition to the heavier trains that go to the outlying cities. Downtown LA has a system of rail, subway and bus but probably one of the worst administrations of such a system in the country. The investment and options are there.
cameraboy, homes would not have been built without approval from the planners. It was local governments and their desire to raise property tax revenues through development that lead to rezoning agricultural land that allowed the shift to what you're calling culture. The solution is easy, stop rezoning ag lands to residential. This will force urban infill and brownfield development. This is what California is shifting towards through a state law requiring locals to reduce vehicle miles traveled. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Nobody is debating that local governments had to zone the land.
But they didn't force people to want homes there.
That was because we shifted to a "car culture."
And this happened because of a combination of things.
To place blame on the government is as silly as placing blame on any other entity. It became our CULTURE.
I think that refusing to rezone agricultural land will, I imagine push up the value of existing residential property and make it more desirable and expensive to own. I don't know how local govt is going to make up the tax revenue that will not develop from new residential taxes. Sounds like it will also raise the cost of living in the city, as people will not be buying property in the 'burbs, and will look to the city.
I don't know what the population growth looks like though. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 2124 City: Some Airport
Posted: Feb 23, 2012 10:44 am Post subject:
cameraboy, while I agree that "car culture" is certainly a component of why we have urban sprawl, I am certainly not convinced that that is the largest reason behind this. Building vertically is much more expensive than building out. Hence another reason for suburbanization. I am not sure what the tipping point will be, but I suspect that unless we see a rapid increase in land prices I doubt that we will see a significant move to high density living.
I do expect the call for more effective public transportation will greatly increase after gas prices hit a certain point. I am constantly appalled by the usability or absence of public transportation systems in US cities compared with what has been built out in other developed areas of the world.
Sounds like it will also raise the cost of living in the city, as people will not be buying property in the 'burbs, and will look to the city.
Not a bad thing in this market...
chavez wrote:
Nor*Cal, tell CB the story of Natomas.
Seriously... A town built on rice fields, below the levies surrounded by three rivers because of a deal the local government struck with the Army Corps of Engineers. Post Katrina Army Corps reviews the levies and what would you know the the levies are unsafe. Not only that but it has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the region. Horrible planning IMO. Should be purchased parcel by parcel and returned to ag or wetlands.
_________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
I am not debating GM's motives. I am debating the assignment of "blame" on GM for a supposed negative. _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back on topic... Here's a good discussion from yesterday morning that was posted. http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201202220900 _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
My own house and all the rice I can grow in the backyard... what's not to like? _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
My own house and all the rice I can grow in the backyard... what's not to like?
Ehh in 30 years you will want to replace the floors, walls, electrical, landscaping and so forth anyways... _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
This is what California is shifting towards through a state law requiring locals to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
And that is exactly what is wrong with this state.
To an earlier point - Cap Corridor is expensive from Sac to SF (You can go to downtown on one ticket) and it is still subsidized. CC is the 2nd most profitable line in the US (Profitable being a misnomer) and it still only gets 75% of it's costs through ridership. It is also very slow compared to most times driving to SF. The problem with MetroRail and most rail systems is that when you get to your destination you still need to drive to get where you need to go.
Sacramento is one of those cities that has an inferiority complex and seems to think rail is the way to go. I believe this is due to some grand vision to become a metropolis. But the problem is every study shows buses are better both financially and due to scalability. Yet they continue to piss money away on stupid light rail lines no one will use. _________________ Steal My Book
J-Ro, I've been told in the 70's Sacramento's Assembly member abandoned these plans, http://www.indyroads.com/unbuilt.htm in favor of light rail. Think of the congestion relief if our freeways were better connected and didn't have choke points going over the rivers. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Nor*Cal, yeah that plan was definitely something that should have been followed - specifically the 65 extension.
J-Ro, that's my point with regard to LA. The city itself - the downtown area - could have been a lot like other major cities. Instead it is completely car centric (which was what the companies behind the destruction of the streetcars wanted) and turned into the traffic hellhole it is today. It's not that the traffic wouldn't be there today, but at least there'd be options.
Sacto's ARTY system is completely retarded. Had the line gone to Roseville and Folsom to begin with it might have made some sense, but who knows. IMO the lines should have been Douglas Blvd -> Downtown and Bidwell or AubFolsom -> Downtown. What the hell is the point of just running light rail around the ghetto anyway? Seriously what ridership are they trying to attract? If you want commuters the lines need to begin in the commuter towns.
Just look at BART in Dublin for example. That line once it went in became unbelievably used. If you live in the Tri-Valley and work in SF you'd be nuts to not ride Bart. But in reality, the line should have began there in the first place - they missed on 20 years of massive ridership.
Anyhow, they went half-assed with light rail, and not surprisingly, it's more or less a failure. Those same resources, put in to building the eastern corridor (65) would have brought way more in the way of economic benefits than that stupid light rail ever has. _________________
Well oil is headed below 80. We very well could see mid $2 gas.
Great for the consumer. Oil and Gas producers, no so much.
I know there are some Oil and Gas guys on here. Give me your read.
Really scary if it starts impacting the sections of the country that have gotten the best of the shale boom. _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian?
eeven73, we've seen low $80/high $70s a few times since the '08/'09 dip which bottomed out in the mid $30s. This could be just another run down to the high $70s or it could break down lower. Domestic production may hit 9 million barrels/day soon which is pretty extraordinary. Inventories at Cushing aren't too high relative to the previous 2 years, but inventories on the gulf coast are very high. High inventory plus increased production is hard on price. Those factors combined with a possible economic slowdown are driving the price down. Russia is increasing production and will continue to do so to support their economy. Without '07-'08 type economic problems I doubt we'll get below $70, but if Europe or China release some really bad news, I can see it going back into the $30s for a short time.
Almost all of the new domestic production is from onshore shale, resource plays which have a pretty large decline. If we get down to $70, exploration (development is probably a more appropriate word) will slow down substantially and production decline will follow soon after which should push the price higher. Losing 2 million barrels/day of domestic production in a year would not be surprising if we get into the $40s.
Incompetency and service prices have gotten out of hand in the oil business. We need a dip to clean out the incompetents IMO.
I forgot to add that the stronger U.S. dollar is also pushing price down.
jt09, if you're still at the company you were at, I think you should be okay. We use a different, but similar service and that will be one of the last cuts we would make. Land departments at every company have become dependent on those services. You'll see a slow down in new clients, but you'll probably only lose the companies who go bankrupt.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum