Young and Carless

[probowler]

There's also government programs that give free cell-phones to poor people.

 

Yeah they're probably crappy flip phones, but free is free. You can call, you can text.

 

That's all you really need.

[LincolnV]

I go there and spend money there all the time. I love downtown Detroit, Its just a shame there's not more shopping or stuff to do beyond concerts and sporting events yet.

 

We used to go to Detroit all the time when I was a kid. Crossing the border was just a formality back in the day. As my father worked for Ford as an engineer, he at one point went to Flatrock every day as part of his job back when it was a casting plant. He also periodically had to travel to Cleveland.

 

I've always had good memories of Detroit. There was always so much to do when we went over. I even remember when there was a time difference between Windsor and Detroit for part of the year.

 

As I always tell people, particularly after the bankruptcy was announced....Detroit has many wonderful things about it - The news is just going to sensationalize the bad parts.

Edited January 28, 2015 by LincolnV

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

T-Mobile?

Nope, AT&T

[fuzzymoomoo]

There's also government programs that give free cell-phones to poor people.

 

Yeah they're probably crappy flip phones, but free is free. You can call, you can text.

 

That's all you really need.

Edited January 28, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo

[papilgee4evaeva]

Yeah, I know that, but that's $75/line. If you can't afford your car payment or can't find steady work, then you cut non-necessities. Cell phones are not necessities. And you can find a cheap pay-as-you-go phone for $7/month. That happens to be what we use for our home phone.

 

Regardless of how much you pay, if it isn't required and you don't have money, then you cut it. Pretty simple. All those little things add up...

 

They may add up, but if you still don't come out ahead after cutting them out.....? Sure, your slush fund looks a little nicer, but that bill in question ain't getting paid either way.

 

Nope, AT&T

 

Ah. I'm with Verizon and they hurt sometimes.

[fordmantpw]

 

They may add up, but if you still don't come out ahead after cutting them out.....? Sure, your slush fund looks a little nicer, but that bill in question ain't getting paid either way.

 

So, since you already have a deficit, may as well keep spending away instead of reducing the deficit? Sounds like the government.

[Biker16]

 

 

Tearing down abandoned buildings is the City's problem, not the state. Rebuilding I-94 is the State AND Federal government's problem. Let's not forget that maintenance on the interstate highway system is supposed to be subsidized by the federal government.

 

No, I do not live in Detroit, I live about 10 miles away.

 

I go there and spend money there all the time. I love downtown Detroit, Its just a shame there's not more shopping or stuff to do beyond concerts and sporting events yet.

 

No, Building 94 won't get me to move into Detroit. I plan on starting a family in the next couple of years and I would be very stupid to trust DPS to educate my child

 

However, being that I live 2 miles away from 94, I would certainly look for more reasons to go into the city, beyond just using it to get to 75 to go to my Dad's house.

 

 

 

Toll roads won't fly in Michigan. Its been vehemently opposed by both the voters and legislators. Besides, if any freeway in MI were to become a toll road, it would be I-75. There's more mileage of it that travels through the state than 94. Besides, toll roads work best in a state like Ohio or Pennsylvania where it begins and ends on a state border like I-80 does.

 

Ok.

 

you summarized the problem.

 

the highways is supposed to paid for by gas taxes, I.E. user fees on people who use that road. the gas tax only covers 50% of all costs for all roads. it would have to double To meet the existing burden and Triple to bring the Existing infrastructure that has been neglected up to Snuff.

 

TOLLS

 

Solve 2 problems with funding Transportation:

 

1) They put cost of the road directly on the Person using the Road, and are more efficient at raising revenue, and directly addresses the inequity of the Gas, I.E. most gas tax revenue is raised in metropolitan Areas, and those payers often get back as little as 50 cents for every dollar they put into the system, and often pay more in property and income taxes to pay for the roads they drive on. Another Reason taxes are higher in urban areas

 

2) it reduces demand for the road, which in turn reduces the wear and tear and allows for less road to be built in the First place. Our entire road system operates out of balance because the basic rules of supply and demand are ignored in favor an Myopic Public good concept that has never been proven to create the economic activity its supposes to create.

this Non Price based rationing is called Queuing or Congestion, Tolls are price based ratioing of a finite good, Road space. Just like the FREE MARKET.

 

Tolls can work better at reducing congestion because you can charge more during peak periods and less or even nothing off peak and on weekends. which incentives drivers to leave earlier or later if they have the option to do so. First rule of taxation is to avoid the tax

 

Again I apologize, to talking too much, but understand the urban form determines the amount of driving people do, Young people are moving to cities to save money by not having to drive as much as they would have to in the suburbs, as the commenter said $650 is alot of money for young people, that also can be used to pay higher rent in a urban loft or mortgage in a condo.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

 

TOLLS

 

it reduces demand

 

Citation needed.

[Biker16]

 

Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

 

 

On 23 October 2003 TfL published a report reviewing the first six months of the charge. The report's main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, 15–25% switching to car share, and the remainder to reduced number of journeys, more travelling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and bicycles. Journey times were found to have been reduced by 14%. Variation in journey time for a particular route repeated on many occasions also decreased. The report also claimed that although the charge was responsible for about 4,000 fewer people visiting the zone daily, that the charge was responsible for only a small fraction of the 7% drop in retail sales reported.^[73][74] The report also stated that around 100,000 penalty fines were issued each month, of which about 2,000 were contested.^[73] By comparison, the initial seven-month trial in 2006 of the Stockholm congestion tax in the Swedish capital saw an average 25% reduction in traffic numbers.^[75]

In November 2003 Scientific American magazine listed Ken Livingstone as one of the top 50 visionaries building a better world and who were considered to have contributed most to science and technology during the year.^[76] They praised the mayor for his "guts and leadership" in introducing the charge which had reduced traffic and his "courage" in combating a classic case of externality, i.e. "the exploitation of common resources by some people at the expense of others". They noted that other cities were now considering similar projects.^[77]

[akirby]

We just eliminated a long standing 50 cent toll on a major state highway that feeds into downtown Atlanta from the northern suburbs where most of the growth has occurred the last 20 years. Traffic hasn't changed. There are Interstates on either side of GA 400 - I-75 to the West and I-85 to the East. They're just as bad as 400 and it isn't feasible to switch from one to the other unless you truly live halfway between and even then you're not getting an advantage by going to one or the other - they all suck.

 

People drive the road that is the most convenient. If that happens to be a toll road they pay it.

 

You sure have a lot of theories that don't match reality.

[akirby]

London is not America and it's not 2003.

[papilgee4evaeva]

So, since you already have a deficit, may as well keep spending away instead of reducing the deficit? Sounds like the government.

 

That's just mean. :sad:

 

Here's what I'm after though. If you're looking to eliminate a cost solely so that you can afford something else, but the cost you're eliminating isn't enough to offset what you're trying to pay for (case in point: a hypothetical $150/mo cellphone bill for the sole purpose of paying a $650 total car/insurance bill), then you still need to find that extra $500 somewhere.

 

On the other hand, if you're taking your entire financial situation into account and are just trying to cut back and the extra $150/mo will get you back into the black over the long term (assuming everything gets paid), then by all means.

[papilgee4evaeva]

RE: tolls reducing demand - those bridges between New York and New Jersey are all tolled and are always busy. Same for the New Jersey Turnpike, even though for a while there's I-295 as a free alternative in the Philly suburbs of NJ and surface arterials up toward NYC.

[fordmantpw]

 

That's just mean. :sad:

 

Here's what I'm after though. If you're looking to eliminate a cost solely so that you can afford something else, but the cost you're eliminating isn't enough to offset what you're trying to pay for (case in point: a hypothetical $150/mo cellphone bill for the sole purpose of paying a $650 total car/insurance bill), then you still need to find that extra $500 somewhere.

 

On the other hand, if you're taking your entire financial situation into account and are just trying to cut back and the extra $150/mo will get you back into the black over the long term (assuming everything gets paid), then by all means.

 

I didn't intend to be mean.

 

If you eliminate that $150, then that's $150 less you have to cut from elsewhere. Or $150 less you have to borrow from mom and dad. Or $150 less you have to make and don't have to work that 3rd job. No, it may not put you in the black, but it puts you closer.

 

If I needed a car to get to work, and I couldn't afford that $650/month, then cutting out $150 is going to get me there a lot quicker than not cutting it. Now, if you don't need the car, then sell it, but if you need to make the payment, you have to start somewhere!

 

BTW, I see your point, but continuing deficit spending isn't going to get you out of debt.

[fuzzymoomoo]

The 2 busiest freeways running through detroit are I-75 and I-94. I'm not including 96 because it starts in Detroit and doesn't connect to another state. If you make either one of them a toll road and eliminate traffic from them, there is literally nowhere for that traffic to go. Surrounding surface streets (even Woodward Ave) can't handle all of that extra traffic, and a lot of them go through absolutely horrible areas, particularly along 94.

 

You could theoritically do it on 75 from the downtown interchange with 375 and on south from there, and route traffic the doesn't want to pay tolls down fort street, but there again is the problem of the drawbridges crossing the rouge river that are open for sometimes an hour or more for the ore freighters to pass, and nobody wants to be sitting still in Detroit for that long. It's literally taking your life into your own hands at that point. Maybe someday if/when they can properly police the city and get it cleaned up, but not any time soon.

 

Oh, half of those bridges are closed to traffic anyway. One is stuck in the open position on Jefferson ave after the drunk operator closed it on a ship, the one on Dix ave is closed due to it being a piece of crap in desperate need of replacement, and the main one on Fort St is currently being rebuilt. Not a viable option

Edited January 29, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo

[Biker16]

We just eliminated a long standing 50 cent toll on a major state highway that feeds into downtown Atlanta from the northern suburbs where most of the growth has occurred the last 20 years. Traffic hasn't changed. There are Interstates on either side of GA 400 - I-75 to the West and I-85 to the East. They're just as bad as 400 and it isn't feasible to switch from one to the other unless you truly live halfway between and even then you're not getting an advantage by going to one or the other - they all suck.

 

People drive the road that is the most convenient. If that happens to be a toll road they pay it.

 

You sure have a lot of theories that don't match reality.

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=effect+of+tolling+on+congestion&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=

 

Google Scholar search of " effect of tolling on congestion" Yields

 

2,400 results.

 

there is a ton data on the Topic.

[RichardJensen]

How much of it supports your thesis?

Because the abstract for the very first article does not sound promising: "Optimal congestion tolling then has no effect on urban spatial structure."

 

 

 

 

 

 

And posting a link to "Google Scholar" results? The only way you could be less intellectually lazy would be to ignore the request for supporting data entirely.

Edited January 29, 2015 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

The 2 busiest freeways running through detroit are I-75 and I-94. I'm not including 96 because it starts in Detroit and doesn't connect to another state. If you make either one of them a toll road and eliminate traffic from them, there is literally nowhere for that traffic to go. Surrounding surface streets (even Woodward Ave) can't handle all of that extra traffic, and a lot of them go through absolutely horrible areas, particularly along 94.

 

You could theoritically do it on 75 from the downtown interchange with 375 and on south from there, and route traffic the doesn't want to pay tolls down fort street, but there again is the problem of the drawbridges crossing the rouge river that are open for sometimes an hour or more for the ore freighters to pass, and nobody wants to be sitting still in Detroit for that long. It's literally taking your life into your own hands at that point. Maybe someday if/when they can properly police the city and get it cleaned up, but not any time soon.

 

Oh, half of those bridges are closed to traffic anyway. One is stuck in the open position on Jefferson ave after the drunk operator closed it on a ship, the one on Dix ave is closed due to it being a piece of crap in desperate need of replacement, and the main one on Fort St is currently being rebuilt. Not a viable option

 

Alternatives matter.

 

London has alternatives.

 

 

 

Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, 15–25% switching to car share, and the remainder to reduced number of journeys, more travelling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and bicycles.

 

AMERICA doesn't have alternatives. but you can't make alternatives viable until we reduce the subsidy on roads.

 

Right now we are doing stupid things like building a transit line AND expanding capacity on a parallel Arterial of freeway,

 

Congestion is an issue of marginal cost, X amount cars on a road and traffic moves at 65 MPH , but X+1 additional Car causes travel speed to Drop by 1 MPH to 64MPH, X+100 cars Causes Traffic speed to Drop to 58MPH, and X+1500 cars causes Traffic speed to drop to 35MPH. the effect of each Additional vehicle over the Optimum capacity of the road or lane has an outsized impact on the entire roadway.

 

This is why you see metering of on-ramps, to space out the impact of each additional vehicle. but in more holistic Ideal world you would simply not have that marginal car on that road way at that time.

 

Alternatives, the Trip not taken, the trip diverted to Transit, bike, Carpool, the trip delayed, has an outsized impact on the efficiency of the road network.

 

so while no one wants to pay for Fancy transit systems, if we were smart ( we aren't) we would do a comprehensive study on the entire I-94 corridor and compare a rapid transit line vs adding 1 additional lane in each direction for 1.3 billion 4 billion dollars , and See which would be more effective at accomplishing the goal of a more Efficient transportation on the corridor. It may be that you fidn that enough trips are moved to transit to make widening the road unnecessary.

 

I'm was Wrong it will cost $4,000,000,000 to go from 6 to 8 lanes on a 8 mile stretch of I-94, or $500,000,000 per mile, in a region that isn't growing.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Biker16

[Biker16]

How much of it supports your thesis?

Because the abstract for the very first article does not sound promising: "Optimal congestion tolling then has no effect on urban spatial structure."

 

 

 

 

 

 

And posting a link to "Google Scholar" results? The only way you could be less intellectually lazy would be to ignore the request for supporting data entirely.

 

Intellectually lazy?

 

Someone else should do some Research other than to tell me there is a road somewhere in atlanta that does something different.

 

 

[RichardJensen]

Hey, Biker.

 

How come you don't live in Europe, seeing how-----apparently----they've solved all of the big problems facing the human species today?

 

I mean, clearly, London's approach to traffic management would work anywhere in the US, and would not have any unintended/unexpected consequences at all.

 

Great big sweeping changes to how people live *never* have unexpected consequences. Ever!

Edited January 29, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

Intellectually lazy?

 

Someone else should do some Research other than to tell me there is a road somewhere in atlanta that does something different.

 

 

 

Insisting that other people provide the data to support your arguments is, if not the very definition of intellectual laziness, then an outstanding example of it.

[papilgee4evaeva]

If I applied that research approach to my studies, I'd have a terminal Master's right now.

[RichardJensen]

If I applied that research approach to my studies, I'd have a terminal Master's right now.

 

And, probably, a bachelor's degree that would be worth less than the frame it was hanging in.

[Biker16]

Hey, Biker.

 

How come you don't live in Europe, seeing how-----apparently----they've solved all of the big problems facing the human species today?

 

I mean, clearly, London's approach to traffic management would work anywhere in the US, and would not have any unintended/unexpected consequences at all.

 

Great big sweeping changes to how people live *never* have unexpected consequences. Ever!

 

I don't think any place has the market cornered on great ideas, "Merica" is great but not perfect.

 

NYC has congestion pricing it's just not as extensive as london's the issue isn't practical its political.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

 

NYC has congestion pricing it's just not as extensive as london's the issue isn't practical its political.

 

Right. Because, again, sweeping changes that will affect the four out of five Americans living in urban areas, will have *no* deleterious practical consequences.

 

At least in the words of someone who can't even be bothered to marshal data in support of his arguments.