patrick.net

Lydia, why did you move to a car-oriented town instead of a big city when you came to the US?

I bike to work just as your husband does; weather is another example of car-centrism. If the roads are too dangerous for cars, work itself will be cancelled, but in a rainstorm -- no problem for a weather-proof car, but a special kind of hell for anyone on a bike -- you're expected to come to work even if you get soaked to the bone on the way. Give us lockers where we can storea spare set of dry clothes, at least! (A locker is many fewer cubic feet than a parking space, so, employers, don't claim that you don't have the money.)

I visited your site, and must give you credit for letting potential clients display search results by Walk Score (few real estate agents offer that!), but if you'll forgive the impertinence, I don't think I would want to buy a house through someone who "can't imagine" what life is like for me every day and what life was once like for your 20-year-younger self. If you're hoping to pull in customers with this first post of yours, perhaps you could try being less insensitive.

Michinaga, we moved to our area because the city life isn't really for us, and we actually had a family friend who invited us to stay at her house for a bit until we saved enough to find a place of our own. We've been here ever since, and it's basically become our home.

I also did not mean to offend, as I was just looking back at our first years here.

Fireballsocal says

I for one couldn’t imagine life without my transportation. I own both a truck and motorcycle as well as several offroad only ATV’s. I had also not thought about this situation from the OP’s perspective. Electric vehicles will be good and cheap enough in the next 10 years that transportation will be available when oil gets to be cost prohibitive. Gasoline at $4.50 a gallon jump started that several years ago. I don’t think that neighborhoods will be ghost towns because gasoline got too expensive. Transportation will just evolve from the combustion engine to electric/fuel cell/Mr. Fusion. Taxes pay for most public parking and even if parking wasn’t paid for via the goods sold, those goods would still have to pay for a bust stop or train depot right?

This is a long thread and I lost interest in most of the replies - but the point I see as important from the OP is this: we have built an infrastructure that more or less requires we accommodate cars for EVERYTHING. Zoning laws require specific minimum parking or you can't have a business. Often, housing tracts require minimum lot size with the intention of creating "green" and "space" or a certain bucolic lifestyle resulting in the un-bucolic forced car use, wider roads, and also fewer businesses close enough to walk to, and no PUBLIC green space, just useless (or near useless) front lawns. Not to mention, this minimum lot sizes that are I suppose meant to "save the land" actually do the opposite - they serve to eat up more land, faster! Same number of homes on bigger lots equals more land wiped out.

There's a quote I heard that I love on this subject. Afraid I don't have the attribution. "We should take all the zoning laws to the town squares of this country and burn them - if only we could find some town squares".

This is not "SF liberal" talk. This is just acknowledging that people are given no other choice but to drive everywhere, and it is the built environment that we have created that is the cause of that lack of choice. Why is it built this way? Mistaken planning ideas, development profit pressures (easy and cheap to carve up open land and build cookie cutter), and yes, even the car-gas-tire lobby (look it up).

I for one would like better built environments. Some of our best cities are the oldest. Wonder why? They were built "pre-zoning".

Tenouncetrout says

That’s only a “REAL” problem in NYC.

Every where else, its really a matter of people willingness to be Screwed by the businesses they patronize or the places they choose to live.
I don’t pay to park period, That’s what I pay taxes for.

I damn sure ain’t paying to park where I work.
And I’m sorry you lost your license, your car got repoed or you can’t afford gas anymore.
But every job requires a car. Do you really expect people with means of transportation to take the Bus?

Just to add to that a bit since I do agree with TT. I do not believe that just because one is destitute and can't afford a car means everyone else should be forced to pay extra to park theirs. That's what we already pay taxes for, and prices in the mall/store, etc...

If cars were owned by only 1% of the society I could see the OP, but when almost everyone has one.... this is a non issue.

Would this be different if were were still driving horse and buggy's?

I didn't think so.

I mean, did people used to have to pay to park their horse, etc?

I didn't think so.

Nomograph says

He spends twice that amount every year on weed.

Probably!

ChrisLA says

Tenouncetrout says

That’s only a “REAL” problem in NYC.
Every where else, its really a matter of people willingness to be Screwed by the businesses they patronize or the places they choose to live.

I don’t pay to park period, That’s what I pay taxes for.
I damn sure ain’t paying to park where I work.

And I’m sorry you lost your license, your car got repoed or you can’t afford gas anymore.

But every job requires a car. Do you really expect people with means of transportation to take the Bus?

Just to add to that a bit since I do agree with TT. I do not believe that just because one is destitute and can’t afford a car means everyone else should be forced to pay extra to park theirs. That’s what we already pay taxes for, and prices in the mall/store, etc…
If cars were owned by only 1% of the society I could see the OP, but when almost everyone has one…. this is a non issue.

To me it's not about paying for parking. That's not an issue nor is it a solution. It's the issue of massive amounts of tax dollars being diverted toward one specific type of development - CAR oriented, strip mall and suburban hell - rather than other more beneficial development models.

I would like to see more mixed use, variable densities, more public transit (not buses but light rail, trains, subways), and less green field big box and strip malls, with suburban residential tracts that are nothing but rows of houses with nothing else. Our local governments have rubber stamped and even encouraged this scourge for 60 years or more. Same goes for massive commercial tracts and office parks. It's not a good model, it creates more problems than it solves, and frankly, it is aesthetically awful.

The problem is most people don't even have the OPTION of not driving everywhere. So many of you like your cars, fine! I love my muscle car and enjoy driving with the top down. But there are days I would like to leave it in the garage and go to work, go shopping, go out and about. In most of the U.S., that is not even a possibility without extreme measures (rent a limo).

The good news is there has been proven success with something called new urbanism. I think the proof is in the fact that these new urbanist developments immediately become some of the most expensive RE in the areas they are built. This is because it is DESIRABLE.

Tenouncetrout says

I don’t pay to park period, That’s what I pay taxes for.

I didn't know you were a socialist. Maybe we get the gubbermint to give us free gasoline too!!

Yes, that is an excellent book. And it's widely read among policy makers here in San Francisco.

Also worth checking out: Howard Kunstler has written and done a lot of presentations on this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ

Damn.

I drove past a filling station near my home with a sign showing 4.00.9 per gallon of 87 octane, on my way to Arco station with $3.89.9 per gallon. My running fuel expense is up to $349 for the past thirty days. That's for three drivers, includes a Prius and a natural gas Honda ($2.37 per gallon on this morning's fillup), no commuting outside of our city, and one commuter who commutes on public transit instead of driving... and it added up to $349 just for fuel for the past 30 days.

Damn.

sybrib says

Damn.

It's going to get worse. A lot worse.

MarkinSF: You say "worse, a lot worse", I say "better, a lot better". People are adaptive. We saw this in the last price spike. Bus ridership went up dramatically, efficient car sales went up, guzzler sales went down. As the price of oil soars adaption and innovation will occur. There will be transient pain but long term things will be fine. People will move closer in to the city centers, bicycling and public transportation will grow etc. So, at least for my values, things will get better with high gas prices, not worse :)

What is more likely though is that prices will come back down again. My hunch (or conspiracy theory) is that the swings in oil prices are intentional. Raise prices for a period to take massive profits but lower them before too many people adapt and change behaviors or buy gas sippers.

A large portion of the population doesn't think very critically, deeply or long term and will bitterly complain about gas prices while filling up their SUV or F150 for the 20 mile daily commute never even seeing the irony. I think for people like this you can safely keep the prices inflated for several months sucking cash out of their pockets like crazy then bring prices down so they don't trade in the beast for a sipper or move closer to where the work is. Repeat over and over ...

BTW, I believe that the solution to high oil prices is to tax the oil and pay the collected tax back to the taxpayers as a dividend. Yes, it sounds crazy but I think it makes economic sense. I wrote that up a while ago here: http://kiatoa.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-taxing-resources-makes-them-cheaper.html

kiatoa, I don't think taxing oil sounds crazy - I've been rooting for that to happen for years. Driving is way too heavily subsidized in the US.

" Are we to believe that the costs associated with maintaining and cleaning rest rooms are heartlessly unfair to people that don’t need to pee?"

In Prague we did need to pay for that too! Even at McDonalds there was an extra cost of using the restroom. (I think some of them were taking in close to $1000/day).

I think a lot of people out here miss out on the fact that even if you reduce costs for someone it will not necessarily reduce prices.

The only thing that really would force prices down is competition, and I really do not see that simply making people pay more for parking would do anything than be another added tax. This to me seems like a non issue, or something too trivial to matter considering the other bigger items government needs to solve.

sybrib says

Damn.
I drove past a filling station near my home with a sign showing 4.00.9 per gallon of 87 octane, on my way to Arco station with $3.89.9 per gallon. My running fuel expense is up to $349 for the past thirty days. That’s for three drivers, includes a Prius and a natural gas Honda ($2.37 per gallon on this morning’s fillup), no commuting outside of our city, and one commuter who commutes on public transit instead of driving… and it added up to $349 just for fuel for the past 30 days.
Damn.

Today a week later the price was up to $4.05.9 at the same Chevron. A regressive tax on people who must drive to work for their jobs, at a time when wages are stagnant. Sure is what it feels like.

Sounds like a lower standard of living.

Sounds like for those who have a job to drive to, less money for other expenses.

Like childcare.

Or tuition.

Or housing.

Hey sybrib,

Gas prices are going higher so home prices will follow the suit, just like someone here says "listing price is going up so actual price will also go up".

There is a partial solution to the problem: carpooling. Nothing wrong with it. Done it before, may wind up doing it again.
I know lotsa folks who do it, and even more who could, and maybe would, if they thought they had to.

It's more than just saving gas. It's reducing the stress of daily driving, reducing wear and tear (and ownership cost) on one's own vehicle, grounding us in the reality that we live in society and not in a bubble.

Ever hear the story of the Bay Bridge Casual Carpooler who met their spouse that way?

The United States wants access to Osama bin Laden's three widows and any intelligence material its commandos left behind at the al-Qaida leader's compound, a top American official said in comments broadcast Sunday that could add a fresh sticking point in already frayed ties with Pakistan.
Information from the women, who remained in the house after the commandos killed bin Laden, might answer questions about whether Pakistan harbored the al-Qaida chief as many American officials are speculating. It could also reveal details about the day-to-day life of bin Laden, his actions since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the inner workings of al-Qaida.

source: news.yahoo.com

sybrib says

I have a cool-and-hip-tech-job in Silicon Valley and live in suburban sprawl. My partner and I own free and clear four vehicles, but I take public transit to work because it is faster than sitting in traffic, and more flexible than having a carpool partner. Besides I don’t need a carpool partner to get access to the carpool lane anyway as two of my vehicles have the carpool lane stickers, and one of them is NOT a hybrid so its sticker is not set to expire soon.

That's an exception to the rule, not the rule. Out here in LA transportation is horrible. Most people do need cars to work. And if you go out into more rural areas it's even more of a must.

Zlxr says

The idea behind the Smart Meters is that eventually we are supposed to pay according to the time of day we use electricity with basically 8 a.m. - 6p.m. or so being the most expensive time of day.

Expect "time creep", with the utilities changing the time period for cheaper electricity to later and later into the evening.

YesYNot says

kiatoa, I don’t think taxing oil sounds crazy - I’ve been rooting for that to happen for years. Driving is way too heavily subsidized in the US.

I am in favor of taxing imported oil and eliminating domestic oil subsidies.

I'm in favor of declaring California as America's France.

MarkInSF says

Almost all of it. Most post-WWII cities were designed with an automobile as the assumed mode of travel. It’s why I personally can’t stand most of America, and choose to live in San Francisco. I really don’t understand the appeal of sitting in traffic for an hour a day, and at both ends of the commute being a cultural desert.

Um, only the people living outside large cities like San Francisco are sitting in traffic for a long time. People who don't live or work in huge cities have no traffic problems, and don't pay to live in one of the most overpriced cities in America. But hey, San Fran is the greatest city ever, right? You just keep drinking that Kool-Aid!

StoutFiles says

People who don’t live or work in huge cities have no traffic problems, and don’t pay to live in one of the most overpriced cities in America.

You need to consider the fact of finding jobs. Yes, one doesn't need to spend in traffic where jobs hardly exist. Chicago metro, Sf bay area, LA/OC, San diego, NY metro, Boston, etc--all these job centers have traffic problems.

John, us cityfolk like our cars when cars do better, and like our public transit when it does better. We like to have it both ways. And, even though we like our cars, we don't depend on them. They are a luxury, a discretionary expense, a toy. But we don't depend on them nor on the friggen enemies of the US who sell petrol to us.

thunderlips11 says

Sounds weird but there is a great spiritual/emotional/mental aspect to living in pedestrian-based cities.

yup. It's nice having streetscapes exist for people and not cars.

Feels like Disneyland for a while.

My first full day in Japan was spent in this locale:

http://goo.gl/maps/G8YN

Busy suburban city, ~100M from the train station. Nary a car on the road. It was awesome & I'd love to go back there again.

sybrib says

John, us cityfolk like our cars when cars do better, and like our public transit when it does better. We like to have it both ways. And, even though we like our cars, we don’t depend on them. They are a luxury, a discretionary expense, a toy. But we don’t depend on them nor on the friggen enemies of the US who sell petrol to us.

We buy their oil because they stupidly sell it to us. Once they're out, they're out...and we have huge natural reserves as well as plenty of untapped oil. Plus, what the government won't tell you is that they want gas prices to stay just high enough to not break the economy because they want people out there buying new, full-efficient cars. Buying foreign oil is a win-win.

no free parking? Why do we pay so much for gas tax, car registration, sales tax on your car, etc. Thats what should be paying to maintain roads and parking lots. There are plenty of FEE parking sites, especially in cities. But I shouldn't have to pay to park at a grocery store or post office....

its scary when people really start thinking about this garbage

ih8alameda says

Our gas costs have gone from $100 to $400 a month in about a yr.

How is that possible? Let's assume a year ago that gas prices in the Bay Area were $2.50 and now they are $4.50 (actually lower than that now). If you drive, let's say, 25K miles a year between the two cars, and average 28 mpg, then that's 893 gallons. At $2.50, that comes to $2232. At $4.50, it's $4018. The difference is $149/month, which is half what you quoted.

StoutFiles says

We buy their oil because they stupidly sell it to us. Once they’re out, they’re out…and we have huge natural reserves as well as plenty of untapped oil.

Stupidly sell it to us? Is it stupid to sell a commodity if you pay $100/barrel for it when it costs $20-30 to produce? Maybe we're the stupid ones for not taking advantage if we have such huge natural reserves, which doesn't seem to fit with the facts.

StoutFiles says

Buying foreign oil is a win-win.

I don't think any economist agrees with that. Right now, it produces massive trade imbalances.

corntrollio says

Stupidly sell it to us? Is it stupid to sell a commodity if you pay $100/barrel for it when it costs $20-30 to produce? Maybe we’re the stupid ones for not taking advantage if we have such huge natural reserves, which doesn’t seem to fit with the facts.

Guess how much our oil will be worth when there's hardly any left? Plus, you always want a lot of oil in case something were to happen that would halt trading, like a world war. We pay a premium now for both security and for a future monopoly.

StoutFiles says

Guess how much our oil will be worth when there’s hardly any left?

Please. If it made economic sense for Exxon to sell more domestic oil, they would be doing it. The fact is that we can't produce that much more under current conditions, and it has very little to do with security. Nice trolling, sir.

StoutFiles says

Guess how much our oil will be worth when there’s hardly any left? Plus, you always want a lot of oil in case something were to happen that would halt trading, like a world war. We pay a premium now for both security and for a future monopoly.

No one could be that clueless about oil production, could they?

"The fact is that we can’t produce that much more under current conditions, and it has very little to do with security."

That is complete nonsense.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Damn.
I drove past a filling station near my home with a sign showing 4.00.9 per gallon of 87 octane, on my way to Arco station with $3.89.9 per gallon. My running fuel expense is up to $349 for the past thirty days. That’s for three drivers, includes a Prius and a natural gas Honda ($2.37 per gallon on this morning’s fillup), no commuting outside of our city, and one commuter who commutes on public transit instead of driving… and it added up to $349 just for fuel for the past 30 days.
Damn.

Today a week later the price was up to $4.05.9 at the same Chevron. A regressive tax on people who must drive to work for their jobs, at a time when wages are stagnant. Sure is what it feels like.

I don't see the big deal. When I started driving I got about 15 highway MPG, spent $1.10 a gallon in nominal dollars or $2.04 in 2012 dollars, and was spending $0.136 per mile in current dollars. My current car gets 29 highway MPG, gas is $4, and I'm spending $0.138 per mile.

That's business as usual.

We chose a small home centrally located for work, bike a lot, and in the last 30 days spent $52 on gas for my wife and I.

B.A.C.A.H. says

The third one cannot use public transit, but that commute is only about 15 miles roundtrip (bicycling is not really practical as the commute includes driving over some very substantial hills- in the MidWest they'd probably call it a mountain.)

One week I rode 418 miles from Grand Junction, CO to Golden, CO with 30,000 feet of climbing over real mountains between them. It felt great.

5 x 15 miles = 75 total in a week is not a big deal even with some real mountains in the middle.

drew_eckhardt says

B.A.C.A.H. says

The third one cannot use public transit, but that commute is only about 15 miles roundtrip (bicycling is not really practical as the commute includes driving over some very substantial hills- in the MidWest they'd probably call it a mountain.)

One week I rode 418 miles from Grand Junction, CO to Golden, CO with 30,000 feet of climbing over real mountains between them. It felt great.

5 x 15 miles = 75 total in a week is not a big deal even with some real mountains in the middle.

+1.

My roundtrip bike commute is about 17 miles (short way), and 23 the long way. I do this minimum 3 days a week. Hills/mountains and all.

Even if you don't ride every day, start with 1-2 days a week, and gradually build up. It's hard, but once you get in the habit, you'll never want to be back in your car again.