|
Panzeh posted:Those ones are way too expensive for actual working class people to live in, much like everything else in the cities. Kalman posted:That's because we have like five of them total so they're just as in demand. If most suburbs were built that way they wouldn't be so expensive to live in.
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:Those ones are way too expensive for actual working class people to live in, much like everything else in the cities.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I'm pretty sure that's not the case even in NYC, plenty of inexpensive NJ suburbs have good transit to the city. Definitely not the case in Chicago. Right. Cities with a good number of walkable suburbs that have good transit to the city core (NY, Chicago) have affordable suburbs. Cities with an inadequate number have extremely expensive suburbs. (Sf, DC). Oddly enough, those cities also tend to have extreme price pressures in the city brought on by an unwillingness or incapability to develop more densely, which pushes prices up and desire outward.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right. Cities with a good number of walkable suburbs that have good transit to the city core (NY, Chicago) have affordable suburbs. Define "Affordable" Most standard suburbs have fairly decent sized detached houses that can be had for a hundred grand. My experience looking at "transit" suburbs is that you easily triple the price or more for that level of housing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Replace intersections with roundabouts problem solved This thread does inspire me to play skylines every time I read it
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Define "Affordable" Have you compared transit to non-transit suburbs in the same area, controlling for things like school district quality? There's a transit premium for sure, but it isn't 300% (or even close to it.)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Direct comparisons are hard. Walkable burbs will be denser than sprawly ones, so lots will be smaller and there will be fewer detached homes, more duplexes/triplexes/townhomes/etc. Plus, a suburb being transit-oriented by definition means it's part of a large metro, so it's less likely to be economically depressed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Something that always gets lost in discussions of how much cheaper suburban living is: many of the costs of suburban housing are hidden. For example, because owning a car is necessary to survive in most (American) suburbs, any realistic look at suburban living costs needs to incorporate that. According to the AAA, the median cost of owning a car in the United States is $8,700 (and that's down from 2014 thanks to declining gas prices). This is not chump change. A look at the costs of living in suburbia should include, not just the $250,000ish* total cost of a 30-year mortgage for an "affordable" house, but also the $250,000 or so you'll spend owning a car over that same period. In addition, maintenance costs are substantially higher than in an apartment. If you're buying an apartment, then you pay an HOA that defrays the costs of maintaining the building between all the residents (which are lower, per resident, than single-family houses). For a single-family detached home, you bear all the costs of maintenance. And don't forget the money spent on landscaping—many suburbs, either via HOA or actual law, have minimum standards for lawn care and household appearance. That's effectively another bill you're paying. And if you're renting an apartment, your rent usually includes some or all utilities, while SFH-owners/renters bear all those costs on top of the rent or mortgage payment. I'm going to give an actual, personal example, because I'm close to different people who live on these extremes of "affordability" and "expensive". My brother and his wife lived in Seattle until recently (they moved to Toronto last year). Their 2-bed, 2-bath apartment cost $1500/mo, and that included all utilities. They did not own a car. They used Car2go and Uber about once a week each, which adds another $100, and they had two monthly ORCA passes costing about $100 each. That's $1,800/mo for the city. My parents, meanwhile, live in the suburbs. Their mortgage is $700/mo, and utilities are another $270ish/mo, on average. The total cost of their cars are... variable. About $220 for insuring two cars, and an extra $20ish once you average out yearly maintenance and repair costs. Their cars' values are each depreciating at about $1,000 a year (judging from equivalent make and models, in good condition, currently on the used car market), which combined is about $170 per month.** That's $1,380/mo combined housing and transportation costs even before adding gas and car loans—which is the crux, really. When they were paying their car loans ($500ish/mo), that put them at $1,880 even before paying for gas, and they where paying more than if they'd lived in an expensive city. They use, by my estimation (I've seen their household budget spreadsheets and estimated based on what I know their cars' mpg are) about 160 gallons of gas a month. While both cars have been paid off for many years now, if gas costs anything more than about $2.63/gal, the savings from living in suburbia still completely disappear. Even with current gas prices (about $2.15 to 2.20 where I am), there's only a delta of $76. Now, I'm not going to mock this amount—your income is what it is, and if you can't afford an extra $76 a month, you can't afford it. This does make a difference. That being said, it's not a significantly big difference, and it wouldn't explain why the housing market orients itself almost entirely around single-family houses like it does now. *My parents bought a 4-bed/2-bath, newly-built house on the farthest edge of a suburban bedroom community in 2002. It was worth $125,000. Their mortgage payments are $700/mo, so that's $252,000 over the life of the 30-year mortgage. Also, I'm not kidding about the "farthest edge". It's a 20-minute drive to reach the nearest market, a 40-minute drive to reach anyplace of interest, and a 90-minute drive for my dad to get to work. My parents chose this trade-off; they went as cheap as they could go, short of moving into hicksville. They wanted to maximize the savings (stay in the cheap area, but take the high-paying job!), and ironically they're totally negating any savings thanks to his punishing commute. **A 15-year-old car is not worth the $20,000 you paid for it when it was new. It's worth maybe a third of that, at best. Both economics and business accounting care about this, because it represents an expense—an outflow of wealth—whether you acknowledge it or not. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 02:14 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
so are you just going to ignore that you implied i was racist because you didn't understand the historical context of my post Kalman posted:Right. Cities with a good number of walkable suburbs that have good transit to the city core (NY, Chicago) have affordable suburbs. there's really no way to generalize the comparative cost of suburbs across america given the massive amounts of suburban land surrounding each major metro and cost disparity within each metro let alone across metros
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so are you just going to ignore that you implied i was racist because you didn't understand the historical context of my post That was a bad post, and a wrongful accusation made in very poor faith. I'm sorry. I figured you'd already set me to ignore and there was no point in apologizing. As you said, you actually are an expert on this subject. Meanwhile, I know just enough to have really stupid opinions (praised be my lord and savior Dunning-Kruger). But this is the internet, and I paid  to post my bad opinions about things I don't understand...Popular Thug Drink posted:there's really no way to generalize the comparative cost of suburbs across america given the massive amounts of suburban land surrounding each major metro and cost disparity within each metro let alone across metros 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
ok thanks really the biggest reason american cities are seeing spiking prices is hedonic. young people with money are increasingly clustered in cities and rejecting suburban living - not as an iron rule, but as a general trend. this is a good problem to have even if it leads to political fights between nimbyists and hipster gentrifiers. im more worried about all of the urban poor who are getting pushed out to the least desirable suburbs
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Something that always gets lost in discussions of how much cheaper suburban living is: many of the costs of suburban housing are hidden. Good analysis, although there are two factors that do decrease the cost of owning a home. 1. When you pay rent, all the money is gone. When you pay your mortgage, a substantial portion of that goes into the equity in the home, which is your asset to keep. 2. The huge tax subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class known as the mortgage interest tax deduction substantially reduces the effective interest on a mortgage, further changing the calculation. There are a lot of good arguments for eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction, but short of a breakup of the United States into smaller pieces (and assuming some of the pieces end up significantly more left-wing), it's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, are there any studies about optimum distance between train (or bus) stops, or density to support a stop? On the lines I ride in Chicago a few stops keep being discussed to remove from the light rail, and one's being added to the heavy rail which I think is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Out of curiosity, are there any studies about optimum distance between train (or bus) stops, or density to support a stop? On the lines I ride in Chicago a few stops keep being discussed to remove from the light rail, and one's being added to the heavy rail which I think is a bad idea. 1km for rapid transit and about 400m for buses. http://humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-to-transit.html
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Personally speaking, I'd rather walk an extra 600m to get to a bus stop and not have to stop every 20 seconds thereafter, rather than having bus stops every 400m instead of every kilometre. Regardless of actual efficiency, I simply loathe feeling like I'm not making any forward progress at a given time. It sounds pretty stupid when I type it out, though.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Out of curiosity, are there any studies about optimum distance between train (or bus) stops, or density to support a stop? On the lines I ride in Chicago a few stops keep being discussed to remove from the light rail, and one's being added to the heavy rail which I think is a bad idea. Absolutely loads of them. Just from a quick search, this paper argues that bus stops in particular are best spaced roughly 4 to 5 stops every mile (in busy urban corridors), but there are many different models that are designed to give answers appropriate to the unique situation in which they are deployed (taking into account congestion, network frequency, dwell time, rider demand, etc.). When it comes to the density argument, it's difficult to tackle because you can just as easily argue for a spot popping up in a place where there's no demand (time to get development going and create more network-connected housing!) as there is extant demand (meet residents' transit needs!) etc. Regardless, here's a good paper discussing these so-called infill stations and how their need is calculated, which are often great ways to squeeze relatively cheap stations out of existing systems. Which new station in Chicago are you interested in? EDIT: The humantransit.org link talks about station distances way simpler. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Absolutely loads of them. On those busy urban corridors, is it best to have 4-5 stops per mile on separate routes (which may overlap significantly), or 4-5 stops per mile on the same route? If it's all on the same route, that would drive me bonkers, but if there are 5 different bus routes that all use the same street for a significant distance (not at all uncommon in many urban areas), then having each bus route with 2 stops every mile or something would make a lot of sense to me. For example, in Calgary, most of the bus routes will use either 7th Avenue (2-way, with LRT), or 6th/9th Ave (each one-way) in downtown, and then go wherever else. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to have a bus stop on every block, but that doesn't mean that every bus route will have a stop every block.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
sincx posted:Good analysis, although there are two factors that do decrease the cost of owning a home. For point 1, this is because of point 2. Government policy has been to strongly subsidize home ownership (both tax exemptions for purchasers and risk abatement for lenders). This has tilted the property developer market strongly towards 'for purchase' homes, and construction of new rental properties has been effectively below replacement for decades. As a result, new rental properties are very scarce, and the rates for existing properties have gone up. Also, the money paid in rent should go to upkeep of the property, etc. In a more balanced market, rent would also be cheaper than ownership, allowing the difference to be saved, and renting would be much lower risk, as you wouldn't need to worry about imputed rent (the cost of ownership, eg: property taxes, repairs and upkeep, insurance, etc). This is obviously not the case, but again, policy from multiple levels of government have chosen this course, it's not a natural function of the market. We are also living in a time where you are effectively earning the same dollar wage somebody would have earned in 1975, yet everything else has gone up in price by 40 years of compound inflation. Wage stagnation is the biggest single problem in our economy, and the only people talking about it are routinely mocked on the evening news. So, yeah, don't expect a fix there anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:On those busy urban corridors, is it best to have 4-5 stops per mile on separate routes (which may overlap significantly), or 4-5 stops per mile on the same route? I'd say that depends on how radically different the routes end up being and the needs of the people who ride each of them, although the Furth and Rahbee paper I linked seemed to indicate that they were assuming 4-5 stops per mile on the same route. Having even more than 4-5 stops per mile total spread across separate routes could potentially increase efficiency, obviously. quote:If it's all on the same route, that would drive me bonkers Ahahahaha. The American standard is 7-10 stops per mile on the same bus route. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Ahahahaha. The American standard is 7-10 stops per mile on the same bus route. Good lord, the bus must spend more time stopped than moving. All to save 200m walking? EDIT: Obviously they wouldn't stop at every stop all the time, but during a high-demand period like rush hour that just seems so completely inefficient.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Good lord, the bus must spend more time stopped than moving. All to save 200m walking? I believe optimal locations are simply prioritized over optimal spacing in many cases. Some American systems have adopted express buses with about 2 stops every mile and longer spacing, though, don't think us completely screwy nincompoops  
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:I believe optimal locations are simply prioritized over optimal spacing in many cases. That makes sense, I suppose. I'm not entirely clear about why there'd be that quantity of optimal locations, mind you. What I'd really like to see are bus systems that announce every stop so I don't need to obsessively follow my progress on Google Maps if I'm going to an area I'm unfamiliar with. We're halfway there, because now the buses will automatically announce some stops, but having stops announced at random isn't particularly helpful.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That makes sense, I suppose. I'm not entirely clear about why there'd be that quantity of optimal locations, mind you. I often get the impression that these "optimal locations" are based off of someone calculating/chooses what they consider to be optimal locations a couple decades ago. Then these just get stuck in place forever because making buses faster isn't made a top priority, especially if it comes at the short-term expense of local riders who kick up a fuss whenever they try to remove a stop. No wonder US "BRT" systems are treated like they're the second coming, just the act of having bus stops spaced out that far is considered a revolution, let alone making the bus stops actually look nice and have canopies and whatnot. (  if this means they're going to try to reduce dwell times or put in bus lanes though, let's not go crazy with the moolah here)Each and every stop location being announced is standard in my local bus system, it's definitely essential!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What I'd really like to see are bus systems that announce every stop so I don't need to obsessively follow my progress on Google Maps if I'm going to an area I'm unfamiliar with. We're halfway there, because now the buses will automatically announce some stops, but having stops announced at random isn't particularly helpful. Those systems exist! You just need to leave your little bubble in Calgary.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What I'd really like to see are bus systems that announce every stop so I don't need to obsessively follow my progress on Google Maps if I'm going to an area I'm unfamiliar with. We're halfway there, because now the buses will automatically announce some stops, but having stops announced at random isn't particularly helpful. Every american system I've ever ridden on has the bus yell out every stop. Hell I lived above a bus stop in Chicago for a few years and the corner I lived on got seared into my brain with busses stopping at all hours loudly proclaiming the intersection.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Bus stop spacing can also vary within the same route. My hometown's bus Route 2 is spaced with nearly a mile between stops in the farthest east and farthest southeast parts of town, because those are far-flung suburbs that barely generate any riders. The same route has stops every fifth of a mile around the mall. That's two stops literally around the corner from each other. And this isn't a misleading weird loop or anything, it really does drive straight from one to the other. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 08:56 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Every american system I've ever ridden on has the bus yell out every stop. Hell I lived above a bus stop in Chicago for a few years and the corner I lived on got seared into my brain with busses stopping at all hours loudly proclaiming the intersection. Nearby Corvallis, being a swanky-rear end college town, has buses with digital displays showing the upcoming stop, plus an automated voice announcing them. Albany, however, because I am cursed to a hell of my own choice, has only the driver yelling out the stops, and they only announce the major ones, and only if they feel like it. Our buses did have digital signs, but they were on the outside of the bus, and were meant to show the route number. Both buses had their signs break within a year of getting them (they now only display a solid field of pixels). It's been several years and they still aren't repaired. Drivers make do with a laminated "2" or "3" sign taped to a side window, that they swap out as necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Bus stop spacing can also vary within the same route. My hometown's bus Route 2 is spaced with nearly a mile between stops in the farthest north and farthest east parts of town, because those are far-flung suburbs that barely generate any riders. The same route has stops every fifth of a mile around the mall. The transit agency didnt get permission to go through the parking lot? I used to ride a bus in Miami that would go through, and have stops in, a mall's parking lot. Later today I'll get a map of the route and stops, if it still uses them since it was several years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:The transit agency didnt get permission to go through the parking lot? I used to ride a bus in Miami that would go through, and have stops in, a mall's parking lot. Later today I'll get a map of the route and stops, if it still uses them since it was several years ago. ...it literally never occurred to me that a bus could route through a parking lot. (Wooh small-town bus systems!)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
There isn't much of a reason to remove stops since buses run on a schedule. Unless the rider lucks out where they don't need to transfer they'll be stuck at a terminal waiting for the next bus by an extra couple of minutes by removing some stops. For most people they'll have a much less convenient transit system where their actual time savings is showing up back home a couple minutes early... If they still live near a stop.Communist Zombie posted:The transit agency didnt get permission to go through the parking lot? I used to ride a bus in Miami that would go through, and have stops in, a mall's parking lot. Later today I'll get a map of the route and stops, if it still uses them since it was several years ago. The bus eventually makes a left to go South. If it went through the parking lot it would have to turn left at a T intersection. Edit: Also slowly driving amongst pedestrians. Edit: The #2 route meanders all over the place now I've looked at it. Also only one route for the morning rush. 
Sovy Kurosei fucked around with this message at 12:30 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Absolutely loads of them. The new station is on the Union Pacific North line , going in around Peterson between the Ravenswood (2 stops from the terminus) and Rogers park (3). That line covers the wealthiest suburbs if that's important , but the new stop is going into a more average area. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150422/edgewater/new-edgewater-metra-station-opening-delayed-2017 And yea the bus stop every block (so 8 a mile) makes them very difficult to use, especially in rush hour. It's often faster to just walk at 3 mph.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
less than three posted:Those systems exist! You just need to leave your little bubble in Calgary. I know, I've used them in other cities and countries. I should've said: I would like to see all bus systems work that way, because there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Good lord, the bus must spend more time stopped than moving. All to save 200m walking? I ride bus routes like this quite frequently and a significant fraction of the bus users are older people with obvious mobility issues trying to manage three grocery bags, grandchildren, or both. I find it hard to get worked up over frequent stops. The solution of having an express line serving the same basic route works pretty well. Paratransit in my area is so bad that without the constant bus stopping, people too poor or disabled to drive would be basically housebound.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
sincx posted:Good analysis, although there are two factors that do decrease the cost of owning a home. This is why if you are thinking about staying in a location for thirty years, it often makes sense to build that equity and then take the tax write off. However, if you are constantly moving every 3-5 years, as many Americans do, it becomes more dicey especially since there are transaction costs to selling/buying houses and if you get caught in a bad market...there isn't much do it about it. More or less, it often makes more sense to rent until you are in a position in your life you are going to want to stay in a place at least a decade or more and you have everything lined up to make that happen. Also, while your rent goes up in smoke, the other money you save not having a house can be saved and reinvested which may balance how much you are "losing in rent." Moreover, in his analysis he forgets to calculate property taxes and local bonds which often add up depending on where you settle down. It really comes down to labor flexibility/life style versus modest equity savings. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:It depends on how badly white flight blew up a city. Detroit/St. Louis tier cities actually have extremely cheap urban real estate with the wealth being concentrated in the formerly whites only suburbs. It's far more expensive to rent an apartment in the automobile suburbs here (the white ones at least) than it would be to rent one in the city. That's changing pretty fast, though. Also, the Regional Transit Authority for SE Michigan/Detroit just set up a bomb rear end BRT proposal:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u3gKj3G23M Hopefully it'll pass. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 23:09 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:This is why if you are thinking about staying in a location for thirty years, it often makes sense to build that equity and then take the tax write off. However, if you are constantly moving every 3-5 years, as many Americans do, it becomes more dicey especially since there are transaction costs to selling/buying houses and if you get caught in a bad market...there isn't much do it about it. My parents rented for a 20-year period because they were moving every couple years, thanks to the typical shuffling-around you get in a military career. After Dad retired into a succession of lovely jobs, they spent another six years angling for a way to finally buy a house of their own. (Dad started a very solid career as a state employee during that period, which is really what enabled them to do so.) I really do understand the idea of the American Dream being specifically a single-family detached home. My parents spent their adult lives scraping the bottom of middle-class life, and they built up owning a brand-new car and owning a brand-new house as a big, big deal in their minds—the culmination of years of hard work. And it is. I don't belittle that. I just don't have nearly the emotional attachment to it as they do, and I see how painfully isolated and bored they are living in their own town, versus how happy my brother is in the big city. My other brother and I also grew up gay and Jewish in a small-town suburb. My disability leaves me unable to safely drive a car. Suburbia is totally awesome if you fit into a specific ideal—or if you're determined to distort yourself to meet it—but it can be very unpleasant if you don't meet that ideal, or if you have any sort of special needs. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 23:02 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:...it literally never occurred to me that a bus could route through a parking lot. (Wooh small-town bus systems!) Looking at the route its actually a side road flanked by parking, and I think that road might be owned by the mall since its between parking and the metrorail tracks. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Happy 100th birthday, Jane Jacobs!   So cute  EDIT: Even more articles about Jacobs and her legacy can be found here. Combed Thunderclap fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Fun poo poo continues to go down regarding the Washington DC Metro system: Yesterday the new General Manager finally released The Big Plan To Unfuck Metro, which involves ending Friday and Saturday late-night service, initiating maintenance at 8 PM instead of midnight, and a bunch of localized system overhauls that will involve parts of the system either being shut down altogether or experiencing major reductions in service for up to a month at a time. People are pissed, but are generally willing to put up with it since this is going to compress three years' worth of repair work into a single year and make the system less likely to randomly catch on fire. Which is what happened this Thursday. https://twitter.com/IsMetroOnFire/status/728349308509003776 Oops. As it turns out, Metro's response was to send someone out to take a look at the part of the track that exploded, called it OK, and kept running trains as though everything was fine. The same section of track caught on fire again later in the day, and they finally closed the station. Everyone discovered these events this morning, when the Federal Transit Administration reported all this and completely lost its poo poo, issuing a bunch of emergency directives that include retraining all staff in basic safety procedures by May 16th and threatening to shut down the entire system if Metro doesn't cooperate. (Or, worse, with withholding funding!) For more on why the Metro system is so unbelievably hosed up, see this link (or just ask and a thread Goon will be on hand to assist you shortly). To sum it all up very simply: the system has been operating from the start to be severely over reliant on automation to keep the system safe, and rushed construction (out of a fear of the funding vanishing up Congress's DC-hating rear end) resulted in a number of structural flaws that have yet to be resolved and basically make parts of the system leak all the time. EDIT: Also the entire governance structure of the system is basically a complete fragmented nightmare between a bunch of different entities, all of which want to contribute as little money as humanly possible to keeping the system running. Combed Thunderclap fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Operating between three state-level entities and six (soon to be seven) localities definitely doesn't help Metro, since each of them wants to pay as little as possible, and any funding equation is extraordinarily fudgeable given how many factors contribute to "how much benefit does X County get from Metro." I mean, I still love the metro because it's still the best public transit system within two hours drive, but it's very much an exasperated, why is the toddler painting the walls with his poop kind of love.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
